# River Access Laws



## jgrebe (Jan 16, 2010)

This Sand Is Your Sand


A four-year battle over a tiny patch of river beach in Northern California—between two middle-aged guys with way too much time on their hands—illustrates the deep divide in how we perceive access rights to public lands




getpocket.com




I've never tried to link internet content on the buzz but thought this a good article on the subject - hope the link works. Colorado has been in a no-mans land of conflicting legal precedent concerning river access for a long time. With increasing population and participation in river sports, I think it has to come to a head sooner than later.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Thanks for posting that, Jeff. Good article. Unfortunately Colorado's river access laws don't allow the kind of access to the high water line as other states. My understanding (which may be incorrect) is that this is because very few, if any, of the rivers were used for commerce at the time of statehood, which precludes them from the "navigable waters" category.


----------



## k2andcannoli (Feb 28, 2012)

Ignorance is bliss when it comes to third degree trespass...just tell the cop you're from a place with normal law on navigable waterways and had no idea Colorado allowed ownership below high water mark. 

*What does “knowingly” mean under Colorado law?*
A person commits an offense *knowingly* if he or she:


conducts him or herself in a way or under a circumstance prohibited by a Colorado trespass law; or
is aware that the conduct is practically certain to cause a result prohibited by the law.3
A person must commit each element of the offense *knowingly *in order to be guilty of the crime. If he or she does not, that person must be found not guilty.

*Example: *_Chloe arrives at an address she believes to be the destination of a birthday party she is invited to. In fact, her GPS stopped her early and her true destination is down one more block. Chloe walks into the yard and goes around back for the party. She is confronted by Frank, a grumpy kind of person who orders her off his property. She immediately leaves.

Frank calls the police and wants Chloe charged with trespass. While she meets the other elements of the offense, she did not commit the offense knowingly. In fact, she mistakenly believed she was at an address at which she had permission to be. Chloe cannot be charged with third-degree trespass._


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

Good article, thanks for sharing. In Colorado, the property owner can indeed own the riverbed, here on the Ark we've had a number of "run in's" between property owners and boaters / fishermen over the years, the latest one out in Golden Acres (appx Hwy 50 MM 260) involved the property owner and a walk and wade fisherman in the river behind his house. It also involved a shotgun, a lawsuit, and the resultant penalties against the fhsherman for trespass. Used to be that the owner of the property river left at the BV dam would call the Sheriff when folks tried to portage the dam on her property. There are no trespassing signs along a lot of the private property along the river, but as well there are many walk and wade fishing leases these days thanks to AHRA's community involvement. They eventaully negotiated with the lady that owns the BV dam property and you can now (IIRC) portage there, but they spent a lot of time and effort rebuilding the dam and diversion structure, so that dam is a lot safer to run these days than it was back when. 

Here's an interesting article on Andy's point of navigability and who owns what, back to the time of the colonies


https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=anrlaw


----------



## craven_morhead (Feb 20, 2007)

The "knowingly" analysis doesn't save you from trespass charges. You don't have to know that you're breaking the law to be criminally culpable, though it's a mental state required for some violations.

"In Colorado, the property owner can indeed own the riverbed..."

Are you talking about the underwater riverbed, not the space between the water level and the high water mark? Because I don't believe that's settled law.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

craven_morhead said:


> "In Colorado, the property owner can indeed own the riverbed..."
> 
> Are you talking about the underwater riverbed, not the space between the water level and the high water mark? Because I don't believe that's settled law.


It's firmly settled law from the Emmert case. Basically we can float over the landowner's (submerged) property but as soon as we touch the bottom, we could be charged with trespassing. The Emmert case, to my understanding, is an example of how a half-baked legal strategy cooked up for fishermen in belly boats resulted in something that is pretty crappy, instead of enshrining riparian access.

I may be wrong about this, and would love it if someone with a better handle on the legal aspect weighed in.

The whole riverbed ownership thing is from the fact that so many of the streams in CO flow only seasonally, and the other 10 months of the year, they're grazing land rather than a nautical highway.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

Andy H. said:


> It's firmly settled law from the Emmert case. Basically we can float over the landowner's (submerged) property but as soon as we touch the bottom, we could be charged with trespassing. The Emmert case, to my understanding, is an example of how a half-baked legal strategy cooked up for fishermen in belly boats resulted in something that is pretty crappy, instead of enshrining riparian access.
> 
> I may be wrong about this, and would love it if someone with a better handle on the legal aspect weighed in.
> 
> The whole riverbed ownership thing is from the fact that so many of the streams in CO flow only seasonally, and the other 10 months of the year, they're grazing land rather than a nautical highway.


Is Jim Moss on this forum? I can't recall, and haven't seen a post from him anywhere in the past 6 months or so, but he'd be the guy to ask. I'll forward this thread to his email and see if he has an opinion.


----------



## k2andcannoli (Feb 28, 2012)

craven_morhead said:


> The "knowingly" analysis doesn't save you from trespass charges. You don't have to know that you're breaking the law to be criminally culpable, though it's a mental state required for some violations.
> 
> "In Colorado, the property owner can indeed own the riverbed..."
> 
> Are you talking about the underwater riverbed, not the space between the water level and the high water mark? Because I don't believe that's settled law.


3rd degree trespassing in CO does indeed have the requirement of knowing entering or remaining on private property...hence all the no trespassing signs. There's no signs in the water, and I don't know of another state that allows such idiotic land ownership...therefore the chance of unknowingly trespassing is high in this scenario. It wont keep the cop from writing his little ticket, but telling this story to the cop will sure look good in court. I'd bet the judge would throw out the charge...especially if you get your police encounter on video and submitted as evidence.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

*2.3. Third-degree trespass*

Third-degree criminal trespass is a usually a Colorado class 1 petty offense under 18-4-502 C.R.S. Consequences of trespass as a petty offense can include:

A fine of up to $500, and/or

6 months in jail.
 
However, third-degree trespass becomes a class 3 misdemeanor if the premises have been classified by the county assessor as agricultural land. As a class 3 misdemeanor, penalties for third class trespassing can include:


Up to 6 months in jail, and/or
A fine of $50-$750.
 
And if you trespass on Colorado agricultural land with the intent to commit a felony, it is a class 5 felony. Penalties for trespassing on agricultural land with the intent to commit a felony can include:


1-3 years in prison, and/or
A fine of $1,000-$100,000.
 *3. Defenses to Colorado trespassing charges*


You had the property owner’s consent to be on the property.
You were lawfully on the property.
You didn’t know you were entering private property.
You didn’t know you were entering agricultural land.
You didn’t intend to commit a crime on the property.
The premises don’t qualify as a dwelling.
* 4.1 What is the definition of “premises” under Colorado law?*

*Under Colorado law, “premises” means:*


real property,
buildings,
other improvements thereon, and
the stream banks and beds of any non-navigable freshwater streams flowing through such real property.


Gleaned from A Guide To Colorado "Trespassing Laws" - Definition, Penalties, Defenses


----------



## Recreation_Law (Oct 29, 2013)

1. Whether a river is navigable does not change the right to access the river and how. Navigability is an Admiralty term dealing with the commercial use of a river. It has nothing to do with any state's law whether you can access the river. On top of that there are 17 different definitions in Admiralty law for navigability and several state definitions.

2. Knowingly is defined by each statute. There is also a statute that says every person in the state of Colorado knows and understands the laws. You accidentally walk across someone's un-fenced, unmarked land knowingly might work. You boat a creek, post on FB, Twitter, Mountainbuzz, etc., knowingly won't work.

3. Emmert. The water is not owned by the landowner. The bottom of the river is owned by the landowner. There are several issues with two landowners who own both sides of the river that have not been decided yet. Either way, you can float on the water, you cannot touch the bottom or the sides. Once you touch the bottom or the sides, it is a trespass.

4. About twenty years ago a group of attorneys including myself and a couple of attorneys from water organizations talked to most of the mountain DA's about charging boaters for trespass. We convinced the DA's it was not a good idea. Private hunting and fishing landowner groups were fighting the issue. They were the ones calling the cops if they say you boat through. They also put up a lot of dams so you had to touch the bottom to float through.

With term limits those DA's are long gone. It would take a group of attorneys sitting down with the DA's every 4 years to iron things out and with the increasingly right wing west forcing DA's to get more conservative I don't think it would work outside of Gunnison.

What should happen is this group and the water organizations getting a law passed that says that boating a river for recreational purposes is not a crime. I think the legislature would be amenable to it. It has always been the conservative farm bureau, which is powerful, that has stopped the bill in the past. Find an organization that is willing to spearhead the issue for you. That organization must be able to bring in groups to support the issues. Send letters, then call to follow up to your legislators and tell them you support the bill. Every time the bill shows up in committee, show up in numbers and testify.

It came close to passing a couple of times, but there where always too many conservatives who stopped in it in committee each time.

Jim Moss, Attorney at Law.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

Thanks Jim ! Appreciate you putting this in perspective.


----------



## jgrebe (Jan 16, 2010)

Recreation_Law said:


> 1. Whether a river is navigable does not change the right to access the river and how. Navigability is an Admiralty term dealing with the commercial use of a river. It has nothing to do with any state's law whether you can access the river. On top of that there are 17 different definitions in Admiralty law for navigability and several state definitions.
> 
> 2. Knowingly is defined by each statute. There is also a statute that says every person in the state of Colorado knows and understands the laws. You accidentally walk across someone's un-fenced, unmarked land knowingly might work. You boat a creek, post on FB, Twitter, Mountainbuzz, etc., knowingly won't work.
> 
> ...


Thanks Jim. My understanding also. I agree that a new law is required which is why I posted the article. The current situation is only going to become more heated as time goes on. I have already had guns brandished on me on the White River (not pointed at me but obvious they were trying to intimidate). One fine point., I have read multiple time about conflicting case law about the right to float in Colorado. I could spend time looking it up but you probably know the relevant cases by heart - can you comment?


----------



## Recreation_Law (Oct 29, 2013)

jgrebe said:


> Thanks Jim. My understanding also. I agree that a new law is required which is why I posted the article. The current situation is only going to become more heated as time goes on. I have already had guns brandished on me on the White River (not pointed at me but obvious they were trying to intimidate). One fine point., I have read multiple time about conflicting case law about the right to float in Colorado. I could spend time looking it up but you probably know the relevant cases by heart - can you comment?



The Emmert case is the only case that looks at the legal issues. There is no "right to float" in Colorado. There is just don't touch the bottom or the sides and you won't get arrested.


----------



## jgrebe (Jan 16, 2010)

jgrebe said:


> Thanks Jim. My understanding also. I agree that a new law is required which is why I posted the article. The current situation is only going to become more heated as time goes on. I have already had guns brandished on me on the White River (not pointed at me but obvious they were trying to intimidate). One fine point., I have read multiple time about conflicting case law about the right to float in Colorado. I could spend time looking it up but you probably know the relevant cases by heart - can you comment?


BTW I have also been told that legal "navigability" is


Recreation_Law said:


> The Emmert case is the only case that looks at the legal issues. There is no "right to float" in Colorado. There is just don't touch the bottom or the sides and you won't get arrested.











I was referring to this case (which certainly looked at legal issues since it went to, and was successful at, a District Court level) The entire article can be found here https://www.kaplankirsch.com/portal...42/overrideFile.name=/Lori_Potter_Article.pdf


----------



## Recreation_Law (Oct 29, 2013)

1. It is a District Court Case. It cannot be relied upon for anything. There is no citation so you can't even cite it in court or in a brief.
2. It only applies to those to people on that section of river.
3. It was over ruled by Emmert. Lori's post was a historical review, not a citation of precedent you can rely on.
4. It has never been quoted, and I think Lori is the only person who has a copy of the decision.

It has zero value and cannot be relied upon. A judge would laugh you out of the courtroom.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Jim,

Thanks for sharing the legal intricacies of Colorado riparian access. While I don't like the current (crappy) state of CO access and trespass laws, I would rather know the truth about our legal standing. In the past there have been folks claiming to be authorities that don't have your awareness that have stated things we'd all like to hear (like, "if a stream can float a log once a year, it's navigable" or "we just need someone to be a test case and we'll get the law changed because the Public Trust doctrine says so!") but that are untrue, thus giving folks an unrealistic sense of what our rights are and also what's needed to improve river access in the state. 

-AH


----------



## Recreation_Law (Oct 29, 2013)

Now is the time to do something about it. Now more than any other time in the past 30 years that I have been working on this!


----------



## jgrebe (Jan 16, 2010)

Recreation_Law said:


> Now is the time to do something about it. Now more than any other time in the past 30 years that I have been working on this!


I would agree. So based on your legal sense, what would be the best approach?

initiated constitutional amendment - An amendment to a state's constitution that comes about through the initiative process.
legislatively referred state statute - Appears on a state's ballot as a ballot measure because the state legislature in that state voted to put it before the voters.
legislatively referred constitutional amendment - A constitutional amendment that appears on a state's ballot as a ballot measure because the state legislature in that state voted to put it before the voters.
initiated state statute - Earns a spot on the ballot when sponsors collect signatures according to the laws governing the initiative process in Colorado.
How do we get the ball rolling? I'm in and have time to devote. The takings issue will be problematic but will never get any easier to resolve
ed.


----------



## Recreation_Law (Oct 29, 2013)

jgrebe said:


> I would agree. So based on your legal sense, what would be the best approach?
> 
> initiated constitutional amendment - An amendment to a state's constitution that comes about through the initiative process.
> legislatively referred state statute - Appears on a state's ballot as a ballot measure because the state legislature in that state voted to put it before the voters.
> ...


Heaven's no. You amend the constitution when the courts or the constitution says something different. 

This you just need a law that says the waters of Colorado can be used for recreation such as boating and fishing and touching the shore or the bottom is not a trespass.

I would think American Whitewater Am Canoe or some other organizaiton with a presence in CO would jump on board. Several water non-profits would jump like Dolores Boating... etc. You need someone with a lobbist downtown to tell you when to show up so you can register and speak at the committee hearings. Numbers win if you don't have money.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Recreation_Law said:


> Heaven's no. You amend the constitution when the courts or the constitution says something different.
> 
> This you just need a law that says the waters of Colorado can be used for recreation such as boating and fishing and touching the shore or the bottom is not a trespass.
> 
> I would think American Whitewater Am Canoe or some other organizaiton with a presence in CO would jump on board. Several water non-profits would jump like Dolores Boating... etc. You need someone with a lobbist downtown to tell you when to show up so you can register and speak at the committee hearings. Numbers win if you don't have money.


We came really close about 10 years ago, IIRC, with the legislative approach.


----------



## craven_morhead (Feb 20, 2007)

*Read the text of third-degree criminal trespass: *
18-4-504 (1) provides:

A person commits the crime of third-degree criminal trespass if such person unlawfully enters or remains in or upon premises of another.

Not "knowingly and unlawfully enters." A lack of knowledge is a defense to first-degree trespass but not third-degree trespass.

Compare with First Degree: "A person commits the crime of first degree criminal trespass if such person *knowingly and unlawfully* enters or remains in a dwelling of another or if such person enters any motor vehicle with intent to commit a crime therein. First degree criminal trespass is a class 5 felony."


Also, Emmert involved a stipulation that the stream in question was not "navigable" in the federal sense. There was a 2018 case that picked this fight on the Ark, but it was settled out of court. A little more here. The State of Colorado Tries to Block River Access


----------



## jgrebe (Jan 16, 2010)

Recreation_Law said:


> Heaven's no. You amend the constitution when the courts or the constitution says something different.
> 
> This you just need a law that says the waters of Colorado can be used for recreation such as boating and fishing and touching the shore or the bottom is not a trespass.
> 
> I would think American Whitewater Am Canoe or some other organizaiton with a presence in CO would jump on board. Several water non-profits would jump like Dolores Boating... etc. You need someone with a lobbist downtown to tell you when to show up so you can register and speak at the committee hearings. Numbers win if you don't have money.


American Whitewater has previously had the "don't rock the boat" position on this issue. Times have changed so maybe they would be more amenable. In my opinion the problem with the legislative approach is that all the money is on the side of restricted access. If you use the voter driven process we have the numbers on our side


----------



## LSB (Mar 23, 2004)

Here in Montana we are legal to stay below the high water mark on private property... For now. However, our new governor, Gianforte (French for Giant Fart) has tried (in the past, before he was in office) to stop boaters from floating through his ranch by petitioning the local regs. He was unsuccessful. But now that "they" put him in charge, I expect that that law will quietly change in the near future in Montana. Please call him and let him know that the outdoor recreation community does not approve. MT Govenor's office 406-444-3111. When I see you on the river I'll toss you a PBR and a shot of tax free whiskey.


----------



## jgrebe (Jan 16, 2010)

LSB said:


> Here in Montana we are legal to stay below the high water mark on private property... For now. However, our new governor, Gianforte (French for Giant Fart) has tried (in the past, before he was in office) to stop boaters from floating through his ranch by petitioning the local regs. He was unsuccessful. But now that "they" put him in charge, I expect that that law will quietly change in the near future in Montana. Please call him and let him know that the outdoor recreation community does not approve. MT Govenor's office 406-444-3111. When I see you on the river I'll toss you a PBR and a shot of tax free whiskey.


I have read some about Montana's fight some years ago. What does it take to overturn? Was this originally a legislative action that just needs a majority vote of some kind of Amendment to the Constitution that might take a vote of the people or a super majority?


----------



## Canyon Country (Apr 23, 2012)

Support the existing organizations that advocate for river access. In MT, the Public Land/Water Access Association has had some successes. Home - PLWA . In UT, the Utah Stream Access Coalition does the same. Utah Stream Access . Your monetary support goes to hire lawyers and both groups have had some successes. 

Now may be the right time to address the need for reasonable access laws in Colorado. Maybe American Whitewater could take the temperature of the state legislature to see whether it would be possible. Boaters would need to team up with anglers on this one. 

The existing legal decisions that boaters are constrained by are dangerous. Not being able to portage around low bridges, strainers, dams and other obstructions is a death sentence.


----------



## nmcanoe (Apr 11, 2019)

Years ago I was with a group of New Mexico paddlers forced off the Taylor River at gunpoint. We were touching nothing but water. My friend, a Vietnam vet, argued with the gun wielding landowner's son. The gunman called the Sheriff, who took the gunman away in handcuffs. My friend pressed charges, won at trial in Gunnison, and the gunman served some jail time.

Paddlers are now litigating river closures in New Mexico as against our constitutional rights. We await the decision of the NM Supreme Court. Read the story and access the important legal pleadings and media coverage here: New Mexico Stream Access Legal Action — Adobe Whitewater Club 

Check out the picture of the deadly river barricade that a rich non-resident Texas oilman has erected across a segment of the Pecos River. The barricade is in a whitewater stretch of the river promoted for public use in a 1983 State Parks whitewater guide.

New Mexico paddlers are getting great support from American Whitewater. They are effective and deserve the support of all paddlers. The Adobe Whitewater Club of New Mexico would also appreciate your support.


----------



## jgrebe (Jan 16, 2010)

nmcanoe said:


> Years ago I was with a group of New Mexico paddlers forced off the Taylor River at gunpoint. We were touching nothing but water. My friend, a Vietnam vet, argued with the gun wielding landowner's son. The gunman called the Sheriff, who took the gunman away in handcuffs. My friend pressed charges, won at trial in Gunnison, and the gunman served some jail time.
> 
> Paddlers are now litigating river closures in New Mexico as against our constitutional rights. We await the decision of the NM Supreme Court. Read the story and access the important legal pleadings and media coverage here: New Mexico Stream Access Legal Action — Adobe Whitewater Club
> 
> ...


Thanks for your input. This is exactly the type of incident that I fear will becoming more frequent in Colorado. Another variation of this is when the landowners erect rock weirs to hold fish that prevent you from floating or from floating without coming in contact with the artificially placed rocks. My first question when I encounter an entitled landowner is let me see your 404 permit for placing the rocks. EPA requires a 404 permit for any significant disturbance of the riverbed . Any trespass as a result of illegal modification to the river bed would also be invalid (in my opinion), My experience is very few of these folks are getting the necessary permits.


----------



## Canyon Country (Apr 23, 2012)

jgrebe said:


> Thanks for your input. This is exactly the type of incident that I fear will becoming more frequent in Colorado. Another variation of this is when the landowners erect rock weirs to hold fish that prevent you from floating or from floating without coming in contact with the artificially placed rocks. My first question when I encounter an entitled landowner is let me see your 404 permit for placing the rocks. EPA requires a 404 permit for any significant disturbance of the riverbed . Any trespass as a result of illegal modification to the river bed would also be invalid (in my opinion), My experience is very few of these folks are getting the necessary permits.


4 or 5 years ago we boated the N Fork of the Gunnison through a section with pvt land on both sides. We ran into a low bridge and were met with a homeowners rep who said that we needed to move quickly because if the homeowner saw us, he'd call the sheriff. We couldn't get under the bridge. A little further downstream, the entire flow ran under an overhanging/submerged tree. No way to go around it without touching ground. I won't describe what happened there. Fortunately it all happened without a property owner present. A nearby segment of the N Fork is notorious for a landowner who has chased boaters off the river with a rifle.

I saw recently where a private landowner installed "improvements" on the Chama and was allowed by the state to shut out boaters because of the improvements. I believe they were fishing related, so probably low weirs or other rock-constructed obstructions. The guy thought he was some kind of environmentalist and wanted praise for it. Maybe nmcanoe knows more about that.


----------



## nmcanoe (Apr 11, 2019)

Canyon Country said:


> I saw recently where a private landowner installed "improvements" on the Chama and was allowed by the state to shut out boaters because of the improvements. I believe they were fishing related, so probably low weirs or other rock-constructed obstructions. The guy thought he was some kind of environmentalist and wanted praise for it. Maybe nmcanoe knows more about that.


The Chama dude is a Texas oil and gas lawyer who bought a big spread on the Rio Chama. He then secured a non-navigable stream privatization certificate from the New Mexico Game Commission, one of the first batch of five approved in the last days of 2018 at the end of the prior (Republican) administration. He charges big bucks to stay at his resort and fish the privatized river, which is posted with a cable across it at water level.

An adjacent landowner is claiming a public fishing easement--purchased by the Game Commission in the 1960s for a long stretch of the Rio Chama both upstream and downstream of the privatized reach--is invalid because it was not surveyed.

The New Mexico State Parks Division also included this stretch of the Rio Chama in its 1983 New Mexico whitewater guide.

Lots of Texas oil and gas money is being spent on New Mexico campaign contributions, local contributions, philanthropy, and influence, and lobbyists, lawyers, and agents claiming superiority of private habitat and private lands conservation.


----------



## LSB (Mar 23, 2004)

jgrebe said:


> I have read some about Montana's fight some years ago. What does it take to overturn? Was this originally a legislative action that just needs a majority vote of some kind of Amendment to the Constitution that might take a vote of the people or a super majority?


I just read the new legislation this week. It looks to me like we're ok for this session. The navigable stream still includes the river bottom up to the high water mark. Giniforte (French for GiantFart) is setting up some other shady shit as you might expect from a trumplover. Pay for government employees and union laws to name a couple but river access seems to be ok for now


----------



## LSB (Mar 23, 2004)

But check this one out. Yall are going to have to take a basic course with all the pasty white rec boaters.Boater ed course mandate


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

MT4runner called it...

And I quote:
Paul Delaney, a board member of the Northwest Whitewater Association, doesn’t think the bill would accomplish much.

“I’m just kind of looking at it and going, ‘Why?’ ” he said. “Other than revenue.”


----------



## Sonder (Feb 26, 2021)

Just some food for though folks....

O yes the good ole debate the message is always the same. I am not a lawyer but a land surveyor. Now there is case law and there is riparian law and its very confusing to a layman like myself.

Every state is different and being in Ohio the land owner owns to the middle of the water course unless they own the land on both sides. Their are situations when the land owner will own all the way across the river like to a cliff face or a high bank because the water is not accessible to the other land owner.

This is a debate about access and rights I get it, but in Ohio the waters are held in a trust of the state. You can float it and you have the right here in Ohio for safe passage “like going around a log jams or some type of obstruction”, but this does not give us the right to fish, camp, party, or play UNO on the river bank. When the land is private so is the river bed, stream bed, and other forms of bodies of moving water. Now the high water mark, flood way, and other descriptors are talked about for several reasons.

When a river is deemed navigable everything changes. At one time even the Ohio River was not deemed navigable and so you can see this is complete mess because of all the players involved. I don't think a federal navigability survey has been done since 1855 ish. You have to look from every angle from navigability, commerce, farming, and recreation. The federal government has not and will not make a sweeping decision on what is or is not navigable. The Army Corps of Engineers has been clear on what they deemed navigable. So its up to each lower court and each higher court in every state to set the rules for each situation that comes up. This means months and most likely years in court. Ohio has some great court cases concerning this and each case is so widely different.


----------

