# The Chutes section south Platte is closed to all



## Frogger (Oct 13, 2003)

The Chutes section of the south fork of the south Platte is closed to all. I am referring to a 1/3 of a mile of river where the actual chutes are. I have been teaching people to kayak through this section for years and have never been told to portage. I have spoken to rangers and police before and at that time I was told the signs were to keep kids from cliff jumping. Well all that changed yesterday when a Jefferson County Sheriff signaled that I should get out of my boat and come to the road. I was teaching a class of four and had them wait in the eddy at the halfway point through the chutes. The sheriff informed me that he could fine each of us $750 for paddling this section. After speaking to him for quite a while he let me take my group down the chute, but informed me if he sees me again he will fine me. He informed me that the chutes can be deadly at higher flows and that because it is dam controlled the level could change without a moments notice. I know there are a few sieves in the entry (always a good teaching tool) and a cave on the right that I have heard of people going through. All rivers have potential deadly sections. A lake for that matter can be deadly. I dont know what to think, this is a great section of water for teaching and I would hate to lose it, but I do not need to go to jail because some officer tries to give me a ticket and I tell him my position. I am curious if anybody else has been fined or warned to stay off of this section. 

A side note Dave the landowner, just up stream of the confluence, moved a little while back and died shortly after. Can some one say KARMA? 

Lyle


----------



## dvc (Dec 12, 2003)

I am a little confused by your report. 

Do you mean the top drop near the diversion structure is closed only. Or is that part closed and the five or six drops downstream of the structure are also closed? I thought this whole deal was designed as a play park.

Thanks.


----------



## KSC (Oct 22, 2003)

This sheriff sounds confused. If he thinks the Chutes are too dangerous to boat I wonder how he feels about Bailey. Perhaps someone knows a number to call to resolve this?


----------



## cstork (Oct 13, 2003)

This is crazy and it needs to be bumped to CWWA. 

It sounds like a misguided sherrif. One person won't convince the sherrif but a professional organization can. 

More than likely, even if the nut landowner is gone, others are probably pressuring the sherrif to close the river. Or, perhaps the deputy just was given bad instructions. 

This is a great stretch of river that people have run for years. Got to protect it.


----------



## Marco (Oct 16, 2003)

Thanks for the heads up, Lyle. I will contact the access gurus in the CWWA and see if we can contact the Jefco Sherrifs office and straighten this out. Sounds strange to me...

If you have any more particular information (ie the sherrif's name / badge, time & date, etc.), or if anyone else has had this experience, please send an e-mail to:

[email protected]

Cheers!
Mark


----------



## Ed Hansen (Oct 12, 2003)

Frogger said:


> A side note Dave the landowner, just up stream of the confluence, moved a little while back and died shortly after. Can some one say KARMA?
> 
> Lyle


"Ding-Dong, the witch is dead....."


----------



## ec (Jun 7, 2004)

The Sheriff is right..THAT CHUTE AREA IS CRAZY!!!


----------



## Geezer (Oct 14, 2003)

That thar sheriff is crazy! Let's see... river left is Jefferson County and river right is Douglas County. That boy's on the wrong side of the river. They even got out on the Douglas County side to talk with that thar Jefferson sheriff. Smellin' like somethin' aint right here. The Foxton run is in his jurisdtion and that's way crazier and dangerous that those dard Chutes. Duh. 

We used to have woodsies up there all the time. Too many drunks were diving off the rocks and ending up severely injured and/or paralyzed so the DWB and county worked together and closed it off to partying.


----------



## Caspian (Oct 14, 2003)

Word...the Chutes are SIK. 

But as William Nealy once said of Bull Sluice, "I swear I'm gonna run it someday..."


----------



## mvhyde (Feb 3, 2004)

*the chutes are fun...*

The Chutes are really nothing more than a big waterslide. I've tubed them, kayaked them... good fun, but nothing to write home about


----------



## Full_Tilt (May 3, 2004)

*hmm*

The Cop must think he is making a judgement call. Thinking it will save lives be telling you that the chutes are closed down. Honestly there would have to be a law or ordince passed for him to enforce it. He is just trying to be the judicator which is not his job, take the ticket go to court and get it dissmissed. Remeber federal and state law is on our side not his.


----------



## Ture (Apr 12, 2004)

My wife and I got written up a few years ago at the chutes by a fat Douglas County sheriff's deputy. We were scouting from the left riverbank and he about had a stroke screaming at us to get over to the right bank where he was parked on the road.

He yelled at us and told us not to touch the riverbank and wrote us citations for trespassing. He was a rude SOB, but I could see his point because there were signs everywhere. However, I was teaching my wife to kayak and my first safety rule is don't paddle into something if you can't see it or if you don't know where your safety eddies are. He wasn't willing to listen to my position: it is ok to touch a private riverbank to scout or walk around a hazard and it is possible for logs to catch in the chutes and my wife was not good at eddying out so I wanted her to look for logs from the bank. 

I don't remember the fine, but it was almost $1000 each and he said we'd have to pay it if the owner wanted to press the matter. We never got a summons and I never heard back, so we didn't pay any fines.

When he left he said, "I've gotta go. I got a call for another trespass by kayak down at the confluence." He was a loud ******* and I thought it would have been satisfying to stab him in the throat with my river knife but that would have horrified my wife and gotten me life in prison. He was not very careful about his personal safety. Apparently, he has been made complacent by the good manners of the kayakers he writes up.


----------



## tboner (Oct 13, 2003)

many moons ago there was a KMart raft/tubber accident on that section and some kids died. i don't remember when but I'd guess about 10 years ago. same type of thing that happened on Bear Creek that prompted the "no fun" falls signage.


----------



## Chris Webster (Oct 30, 2003)

Ture said:


> He wasn't willing to listen to my position: it is ok to touch a private riverbank to scout or walk around a hazard


Your position is not correct in the state of Colorado.


----------



## Caspian (Oct 14, 2003)

That is correct - in Colorado you cannot touch the banks or bed, period, if it is private land. In a civil suit, you could assert the defense of necessity to defend your trespass, though. However, most of access issues I read about are all related to criminal trespass (People v. Emmert, the infamous AG opinion, Sportsman's Paradise, etc.). In a criminal case, if you meet the elements of the crime, you'll be found guilty.

It sounds to me like the LEO involved was outside of his authority. IIRC, the signs at the Chutes only prohibit parking and swimming, no? In the absence of a statute prohibiting boating there, you can boat there. I guess if you swam out of your boat, you could be cited, though.

Seems like this isn't the first time there have been this type of encounters (where the cops try to enforce a law that doesn't exist or doesn't apply to the situation) with the LE guys out in the South Platte valley. I believe CRC2 says that the cops near SP took a "laissez-faire" attitude toward the harrasment of boaters there, stuff like dirt being shoveled onto boaters as they passed under bridges. Boy I love the West...


----------



## Ed Hansen (Oct 12, 2003)

I almost want to go run the SP from the chutes to the confluence over and over and over. We need a good BS ticket to get a court ruling in our favor and set the sheriff straight. ps... I hate ******* law enforcers.


----------



## rivermanryan (Oct 30, 2003)

Who owns the land on the left bank of the chutes? I thought that the Denver Water Board owned almost all that land down there. The DWB doesn't seem to have a problem with people recreating on their land in other areas down there. I guess technically it is tresspassing, but it seems just like Corps of Engineer land, it is essentially public land. Any thoughts?


----------



## Marco (Oct 16, 2003)

OK, so here's the scoop. One of our club access gurus called the Jefferson County Sheriffs Office and talked to the deputy involved. Here is the e-mail that I got describing the conversation:



> I called the Jeffco Sheriff and actually got a return call from the deputy involved, Deputy Sensano. Sensano says he has worked the Chutes area for 15 years. He said he was concerned because the kayakers were sitting in the pool and not boating through the chutes. When I asked him why that was a problem, he didn't really have an answer, except to say that "the waters are closed". Sensano told me he has no problem with kayakers floating through the chutes, but was concerned the kayakers were sitting in the pool of what he says is "closed water". When I pointed out to him that it is legal to float this water and there is a statutory provision that excludes kayakers and whitewater canoes from closure orders, he said he was aware that law. He then said that they were touching the banks. When I pressed him on this it turns out that the instructor may have put his hand on a streamside rock or may have been grabbing on to a streamside bush. Sensano said that he wasn't going to use that to justify a trespass charge. Everyone stayed in their kayaks. Sensano said that he is a kayaker and understands people can float the Union Chutes. He said the incident was "no big deal" to him. I told him from a kayaker's perspective it is always a concern when someone with a badge threatens criminal prosecution. It sounds like the other thing going on was that some people who wanted to swim were asking why the kayakers were allowed to be in the "closed water."


And here is the section of the Colorado Revised Statues which makes it clear that kayaks and whitewater canoes are exempt from this particular closure:



> 33-13-111. Authority to close waters.
> 
> Statute text
> 
> ...


So you cannot be fined for just floating in the eddy even though it is closed to swimming. However, if the deputy is standing right there, it might be prudent not to hang out in the eddy unless you have to for safety reasons. I haven't boated this section but from what I have read and heard the land on river left is private and has been a sore point in the past.


----------



## cstork (Oct 13, 2003)

Thanks much to the CWWA, President Mark Robbins, and the access gurus for the prompt action and getting to the bottom of this! 

This is a good example of a reason to support the organization.


----------



## JW (Jun 17, 2004)

*access?*

Just curious... If we can't touch the banks, how do we put in and take out? I was considering taking my fiance there to learn the ropes, but I don't want to get us fined! It would seem that the banks along the bicycle trail would be ok to take out at. I always see people hanging out along the banks there on the sand bars. Is this the river left bank we are talking about? Thanks for any info.


----------



## cstork (Oct 13, 2003)

JW, 

It's only the area around the chutes that are closed--perhaps 100 yards of river. It's closed to avoid cliff jumpers from killing themselves. 

And the Sheriff was just being a tweep. It looks like the CWWA nipped this in the bud.


----------



## Marco (Oct 16, 2003)

A point of clarification: In the quote above the Chutes are referred to as "Union Chutes", which is in error. We are not talking about the waves at Union street in Denver, but the rapid known as "The Chutes" on the S. fork S. Platte above the confluence and the Waterton run.

With regards to touching the banks: As stated above, in the state of Colorado private property includes the stream bed and banks. I am not familiar with the area myself, but I have been told that the Denver Water Board owns most of the property in that area. So if you put in, take out, scout, or even touch the banks you are trespassing on DWB property. There may also be other adjacent private property, as referred to by Lyle in his original post. Obviously, folks have been boating this section of the S. Platte, scouting, portaging, putting in, taking out, bashing rocks with their paddles, etc. for many years. It is also evident that the DWB and local enforcement agencies have chosen not to prosecute trespassing violations by boaters (above citation notwithstanding). No doubt all of the signs saying "Closed Waters" went up because DWB was concerned about the liability of swimmers killing themselves on DWB property. That seems like a reasonable concern to me. So here would be my advice (again, I haven't been there myself):

1) If possible, scout this rapid from the road before you do the run, or if you scout on the way down, perhaps there is a public property access point above DWB property that you can take out at and walk down the road to scout the rapid. If DWB property is the only choice, then take the time that you need to to scout and be safe, but no more. Realize that you could be cited for trespassing, but that has not historically been the case.

2) If you need to stop in the eddy that is marked as "Closed Waters" as a safety precaution or to pick up swimming kayakers, by all means do so. I am going to go out on a limb here and assume that any enforcement official who sees a swimming kayaker in the eddy would realize or be persuaded that said kayaker is not swimming there intentionally. It is not illegal to float in that eddy. However, it would be prudent to spend as little time in that eddy as possible.

3) Don't go jumping or seal launching off of the rocks!

4) If you have discussions with law enforcement officers, be courteous and explain to them that the Colorado Revised Statutes exempt kayaks and whitewater canoes from river closures (exceptions noted in CRS 33-13-111 notwithstanding).

5) If you are cited for trespassing while touching a rock in the stream bed or on the bank below the high water mark, shoot me an e-mail describing the situation. It is unlikely that we could do anything about it, but if by chance the case looks favorable and goes to court, we might be able to set legal precedent with regard to the trespassing statute. The CWWA does have a fund set aside (not large), in the event that such a case comes along.


----------

