# Wrongful denial of river rights on Grand Canyon during the government shutdown



## NationalRivers (Oct 3, 2013)

Not being allowed to raft down the Grand Canyon during the government shutdown is a wrongful denial of river rights. Do you know paddlers that have been affected by this? Check out the block and give us your feedback.
The government shutdown: River rights being wrongfully denied - National Organization for Rivers


----------



## Canada (Oct 24, 2006)

*I've thought about this alot the last few days.*

The NPS has previously charged people for the excavation of their equipement when they were found to be in an area illegally. In the canyon, that would mean a helicopter evac. The legal fees would be steep. I don't think anyone would want to incure the potential expense of being the test case. When you take the government to court, they have a never ending supply of money to back their case and cause.

I wish the Dems would just take the funding on the opening of the national parks and memorials the Repubs offered. I understand the politics, but if I waited years to get onthe grand, and was blocked by this, I would be so upset.


----------



## NationalRivers (Oct 3, 2013)

A few things to consider here. One, it's not illegal to be on the river during the shutdown, it's just you aren't allowed to be on the _land_, which means they are blocking access to it. Even though the government shutdown on Monday, rangers were letting people depart on the river through Tuesday morning, because they knew once the people were launched the would be okay. The government isn't evacuating all the people that are currently on the river, that would be even more ridiculous! Once people are on the river, the park rangers don't need to worry about them. It's just a matter of letting people access the put-in. And blocking the only access point to the Grand Canyon is illegal under pre-established river law from Congress and the US Supreme Court.


----------



## catwoman (Jun 22, 2009)

National Rivers,
Your website says that you will be taking on this issue, but fails to mention your tactics. Your organization appears to be largely about spreading information. Is you organization filing suit? Has your organization been involved in any successful change in river law or access? How are the donations and membership fees allocated? 
I am all for the cause, and your website seems to have good information, but I am unfamiliar with what you actually do. I am much familiar with American Whitewater and I know they have a proven track record of preserving river access.


----------



## craven_morhead (Feb 20, 2007)

NationalRivers said:


> And blocking the only access point to the Grand Canyon is illegal under pre-established river law from Congress and the US Supreme Court.


Citation please.


----------



## Canada (Oct 24, 2006)

*I understand your theoretical point.*

It's cool to talk about the theoretical law. In fact, once on the river you are at the mercy of the NPS. I know they will not hold those already on the river responsible. But if I access, and fully believe I have a legal right to access, and they arrest me and fly my stuff out and bill me, my legal arguments don't pay for my defense. I think the rangers on site shudder at what they are being asked to do. The boss in Washington is very aware of political trends. 

I don't have a permit. If I did, I would have a very difficult choice right now.

The philosophical question of whether a politician should be able to prevent a taxpayer from access to public lands is interesting. I think "Health Safety and Welfare" arguments would win the day in court
but I don't think they should.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

I read the handout on the page but it dealt with nothing regarding federal stewardship or the nuances of access? Could you clarify for us what "rights" are being impeded at the Grand Canyon. The little bit I understand isn't consistent with the sweeping argument made in the original post.

Phillip


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi,

I believe that if it were as simple in law as the National Rivers poster asserts, one of the major river organizations would have been in front of a Federal judge on the morning of October 1st, getting an injunction and/or restraining order. Why wasn't National Rivers doing that if it was so clear-cut?

I know that GCPBA (although I am not posting this particular message representing its views) has been networking and following this situation even before the river ban went into effect -- looking for alternatives. No-one in its universe of contacts has intimated that there might be a viable legal route to stop what they are doing. 

And yes, I read the brief historical citations on their web site. Although I'm not a lawyer I know there are several here on the Buzz. I'm sure they would be interested in knowing about specific contemporarily applicable legal decisions that would back up the claim of outright unlawful action by the Park.

I would say that if National Rivers has such a long arrow in their quiver, let it fly and tell us how we can support its actual concrete effort going forward. Until then, I'm reluctant to accept this proposition as giving any immediate hope for restoring access to the Grand. 

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## catwoman (Jun 22, 2009)

I think this is largely a solicitation. I would rather give money to American Whitewater.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Sounds like its got a mission that many of us could rally behind but there are some major red flags. The least of which isn't the bait linking post here. I understand the desire to drive traffic to a website but I would expect more nuance from an organization that claims 30 years of experience. 

Not likely to help them out unless I am provided some unexpected evidence.

Phillip


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

I agree that its a travesty that the unneccesay govt shutdown has resulted in many folks losing out on the trip of a lifetime down the grand. 

Its also clear that policies for rivers on national lands are being implemented in an inconsistent manner. Some rivers like westwater on blm land allow folks to still launch, which the NPS and the grand canyon does not.

With that said, I think that the claim that the govt is doing something illegal or wrongfully denying river rights during the shutdown seems very suspect to me. I took a quick read over the site, and the arguement seems weak to laughable to me. 

The NPS regulates access to the grand, and if the NPS is shut down, they surely can shut down access, whether we like it or not. Its obvious that allowing folks who have permits to float would be the right thing to do, but arguing that the NPS is denying rights and somehow illegal is off the mark in my opinion.

The "gates" to parks are closed for many reasons... emergency, fire, govt closing... Lee's ferry is one of the gates, and they closed it. 

Instead of wasting our time trying to argue legal issues with no basis, we would be better off figuring out how to avoid this the next time. Perhaps future work that folks like the GCPBA could do would be to work with the NPS to figure out a launch policy during a short govt shutdown so folks won't get hosed like these when our morons in charge pull this kind of bullshit again.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Deepsouthpaddler,

I'll put my GCPBA hat on for this one.

This is not the first time a Park "shutdown" has been in the wind. In advance of these events, GCPBA has indeed met with and discussed the issue with the Park. We have batted around a number of options, including mustering a cadre of experienced volunteers to handle check-ins and do other necessary launch ramp-related tasks. 

In each such instance, the Park has pretty much said that they are not in a position to exercise those kinds of options. They have essentially listened politely, but said nothing can be done outside the parameters that Washinton will set for them if a "shutdown" occurs.

I don't hold GC park officials as being responsible for this situation. I hold leaders in Washington responsible -- folks who seem to me very clearly to have issued orders to make the "shutdown" as painful as possible in ways the media will play up. 

As my letter to the DOI Secretary shows, there are no logical operational reasons to deny GC launches during this period. Other Interior components continue to allow access to the rivers they manage. It's within the Secretary's discretion to fix this at the agency level, but she stubbornly refuses to do so.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips
Secretary, GCPBA


----------



## NationalRivers (Oct 3, 2013)

*Take a second look and become informed*

We have seen lots of comments saying something like "if this were true, other organizations would have already picked up on it." However, no other organization has, which is why we are here!
Here's the deal. We have an entire book that has hundreds of citations.
We don't litigate or go to court because it's a waste of money, since federal law is already settled. 
We are NOT telling people to violate the closure. We are telling the park service that the closure is unlawful and should be stopped. Yes, don't get arrested, don't get cited. 
So if you want to be convinced on this matter, check out the book. We have done our homework and we have hundreds of facts to back it up. There is no other book that discusses these issues. 
So what are we going to do about this problem specifically? We are going to have a handout and poster that explain public rights on rivers through federal lands, and tell people how to work with their congressmen's local office to obtain their lawful rights to navigate rivers. We are NOT litigating because that's a waste. It's a public education problem, not a litigation problem. 
For those who want more information about the book that explains the public rights to recreate on rivers, here it is Why you should get "Public Rights on Rivers" - National Organization for Rivers


----------



## NationalRivers (Oct 3, 2013)

*Let the facts and law speak for themselves*

Let the facts and law speak for themselves. Read the book. Educate yourself on how the US Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed public rights to navigate rivers, including rivers flowing through federal land. That's what our materials explain and document.


----------



## craven_morhead (Feb 20, 2007)

National Rivers, I'm an attorney with full access to Westlaw. I'd love to take a look at the cases and statutes you feel conclusively demonstrate your points. Please provide the relevant citations in this thread. I don't need the "hundreds" that are apparently in your book; just the most pertinent cites will do.

Thanks.


----------



## NationalRivers (Oct 3, 2013)

*A letter NOR sent to the NPS today*

(For those who have requested this. Included are several citations)

National Organization for Rivers
719.579.8759
Home - National Organization for Rivers
[email protected]

October 3, 2013

An open letter to the directors of the National Park Service in Washington, D.C., and Grand Canyon, Arizona.

Dear National Park Service Directors:

We understand that the National Park Service has erected a barricade, manned by an armed ranger, to prevent the public from navigating the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon.

We also understand that a party of sixteen people, after having paid for and obtained a permit from the National Park Service to navigate the river, and driven from New Hampshire with their rafts and equipment, is waiting in the area for the National Park Service to re-open the river, and that other parties are likewise being denied their legal rights to navigate the Colorado River, the principle river in the southwestern United States.

The first act of the first Congress of the United States declared that the rivers of the nation must remain “forever free” to public navigation.(1) Later Congress again confirmed that rivers “shall be deemed to be and remain public highways.”(2) Early in our nation’s history the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that rivers are “held in trust for the public” and cannot be closed to navigation.(3) The Court later confirmed that the government is the “guardian” of rivers, so that “free navigation is secured,”(4) and that government authority on navigable waters is subject to the public’s “paramount right of navigation.”(5) Later the Court reconfirmed that government authority on rivers is “subject to the rights which the public have in the navigation of such waters.”(6) In recent times the Court has reconfirmed public rights to navigate rivers in the western United States without permission or approval from the federal agency managing the surrounding lands.(7)

We are well aware that courts have upheld National Park Service authority to close waters within national parks to certain public uses when there are legitimate environmental reasons for doing so, consistent with the agencey’s mission to preserve national parks for future generations. This blanket closure of the Colorado River, however, does not fall within that category. There is no provision in federal law for agencies to close rivers to public navigation merely because they do not currently have the funding that they previously received.

Likewise, the fact that funding may be forthcoming within the next few days does not make this closure lawful today. The public has firm legal rights to navigate the Colorado River today, not just at some undetermined future time.

In other words, it is unlawful to hold public rights to navigate the Colorado River hostage to the political process now unfolding in Washington, D.C. The public has firm legal rights to navigate the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon regardless of when, or if, Congress renews funding for the National Park Service. The public’s legal rights to navigate the rivers of the United States are not dependent on Congressional funding of federal agencies, or lack thereof.

By its actions, the National Park Service is claiming that it does not have sufficient funding to allow the public to navigate the river—which would cost the agency nothing—yet it somehow does have sufficient funding to post an armed ranger to unlawfully prevent the public from navigating the river. This situation is absurd and indefensible.

Consequently, we urgently call on the National Park Service to immediately remove this unlawful barricade to public navigation of the Colorado River.

Sincerely,

Eric Leaper

Executive Director |National Organization for Rivers

cc: Members of Congress.
The White House.
National media.

1 “Forever free:” Northwest Ordinance of 1787, reenacted August 7, 1789, chapter 8, 1 Stat. 50.

2 “Be and remain public highways:” Act of May 18, 1796, chapter 29, section 9, 1 Stat. 464, 468.

3 “Held as a public trust:” Martin v. Waddell, 41 U.S. 367 (1842); Illinois Central v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892).

4 “Guardians” of rivers: Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845).

5 “Paramount right of navigation:” Weber v. Board of Harbor Commissioners, 85 U.S. 57 (1873).

6 “Subject to the rights which the public have:” Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 U.S. 141 (1900).

7 Without permission or approval: Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981).


----------



## Wadeinthewater (Mar 22, 2009)

The NPS has not closed the Colorado River. They have closed access through the portion of the Park at Lees Ferry to the ramp. Good luck.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

NationalRivers said:


> We have seen lots of comments saying something like "if this were true, other organizations would have already picked up on it." However, no other organization has, which is why we are here!
> Here's the deal. We have an entire book that has hundreds of citations.
> We don't litigate or go to court because it's a waste of money, since federal law is already settled.
> We are NOT telling people to violate the closure. We are telling the park service that the closure is unlawful and should be stopped. Yes, don't get arrested, don't get cited.
> ...


Red Flag #2: Just read the book. 

You could have a legitimate argument but its current presentation seems flimsy.

You might have better luck with some of us if you donated access to the book to some key figures in the community. As of right now, I'm not dumping money into an organization that makes expansive claims that seems inconsistent to most of the experiences of those here.

Willing to be wrong here but your current effort doesn't give me much hope. That, and to be honest, for an organization who claims to want to educate the public, I would have expected a more sophisticated introduction and post for a group of potentially new stakeholders you hope to attract. The initial post was link baiting which is a major discouragement for myself and others.

Phillip


----------



## craven_morhead (Feb 20, 2007)

NR, if we accept your claim that the cases cited stand for the proposition that a boater's right to navigate a river cannot be restricted in the absence of "legitimate environmental reasons" (I don't think that's the case, but let's accept it for the sake of discussion), how does it follow that the right to navigate carries with it the right to access the river across any and all public lands? I don't think the Parks Service would try to shoot down a helicopter if these boaters wanted to airlift themselves onto the river. If that's the case, your argument requires that the right to navigate carries with it a right of access. Even if we read your citations to support the first right, I don't see how they possibly support the second. And believe me, I'd love to see both right supported by Supreme Court caselaw. I'm just not seeing it here.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

NationalRivers said:


> (For those who have requested this. Included are several citations)
> 
> In recent times the Court has reconfirmed public rights to navigate rivers in the western United States without permission or approval from the federal agency managing the surrounding lands.(7)
> 
> ...


How is a court case about a dispute between tribal authority and state authority relevant to the powers vested within the NPS? I don't see this being applied for broad, unencumbered access to rivers outside the specificity of non-tribal members entering tribal waterways.

For other laymen here is the summary:

Montana v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Any clarity from those who know recreational and water law?

I would look into the other laws but this is the only from the century. 

Phillip


----------



## NationalRivers (Oct 3, 2013)

Philip, 
Yes, this is different than what you have heard before. That's the whole reason the organization exists. If things were correct as is, there would be no debate. Yes, if you want to truly understand the matter, the book will do that for you. That is why we encourage reading it. You have decades of incorrect claims to combat, so a brief blog post would not be enough info. The link had the purpose of offering additional info and resources to points that would be controversial, and as you said "inconsistent" to most of your past experiences. Leaving a post without the resources to back up the point wouldn't be right. If you are interested in the book, send us an email and we would be happy to make arrangements. 
Take a second look. We hope you continue to look into the matter!


----------



## NationalRivers (Oct 3, 2013)

Craven, your questions about access to rivers is thoroughly address in chapter 4 of the book. Would you be interested in it? Shoot us an email and we can make arrangements.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Thanks for the reply.

I don't have the nuance to understand much of the historic law. And to be honest I wouldn't be the best investment to share that resource with at the moment. There are individuals here who deal exclusively with agency management who are more likely to share that information in a meaningful manner with the community. I would recommend you share that information with them as they carry some informal authority in these forums. 

You will have noticed I am rather skeptical of information that contrasts current ideas/understanding. That said, if several of those in this community I trust find the read worthy than I would likely invest my time in pursuing that knowledge. I just lack the background, knowledge and literacy to fully assess the information at the moment. A bit of a sheeple when it comes to legal matters like this but I have fallen for too many broad promises in my past not to be hesitant at the current moment. 

I do appreciate the follow-up. Given what I just said, if you still find it worth you while to share the resource with a non-member than shoot you email to me sideband through the messaging system here. I do my best to stay current even with my limitations.

Phillip


----------



## craven_morhead (Feb 20, 2007)

PM sent for those arrangements.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

For those doing a little digging from this thread, the one road black I have found is a case filed this year. Pursuit of information regarding the 6th citation in the NationalRivers letter led me to an issue called "navigable servitude" which cited this case/filing:

American Whitewater and American Canoe Association 8:09-2665-MGL 4th circuit (2013)

http://www.ngatu692.com/BoatingZoning-DecisionFederalCourt130415.pdf

The summary, on wiki (always worth investigating) states that "A federal agency can restrict individuals paddling on a stream, because paddling is a privileged not a right." As sad as I am, that sounds about accurate from how I understand law as a laymen. I don't know of any guaranteed right to floating a river that can't be encumbered by a federal agency that justifies it under stewardship. This filing seems to agree with that understanding and is a recent case. 

Just a quick google search that I thought I would share.

I fall into the camp that believes we can persuade the Interior and NPS to better designate this resource in the future so as to allow boatmen to access the launch during future shutdowns. I have seen justification at other locations for that optimism. And maybe the work of a the community can expedite that change. 

Phillip


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

National Rivers,

The GCPBA Board is meeting this weekend in Flagstaff, and the "shutdown" will be a topic of discussion, for sure. 

(We have had a meeting with the Park Superindent on the agenda for months, but have been advised that he has been instructed not to meet with us -- even if he is willing to do it on his own time.)

I will not be at the Board meeting. But if you provide me (off-list) with contact information for someone in your organization who would like to work with us on this issue in an immediate way, I will pass it on to our President, Wally Rist.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips
Secretary, GCPBA


----------



## tanderson (Mar 26, 2010)

I am very interested in reading this book. Do I have to be a member of National Rivers to get it? How much? I do appreciate any and all river organization getting involved with this mattter. Strenght in numbers right? 


tda
[email protected]


----------



## NationalRivers (Oct 3, 2013)

Hi Tanderson,
Yes, currently the book is available for members. There are 3 membership levels, and the basic membership is $35. Here's a link to learn more about the membership options Become A Member or Donate To NOR - National Organization for Rivers

Yes, strength in numbers is right on! Thanks for your interest, let us know if there are other questions we can answer! Cheers


----------



## craven_morhead (Feb 20, 2007)

Can we get a copy of the book without joining? Judging by the email I got, I take it the answer is no.


----------



## NationalRivers (Oct 3, 2013)

You can make a $35 donation if you prefer. The book was released just over a month ago, and this is currently the only distribution we have. We will be looking into other alternatives in the future for those who want to read the book, but not join. 

Cheers


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

It seems the link baiting assessment was correct. It can easily be viewed as malicious on the part of an organization to link to a contemporary problem to drive traffic to your own site for membership. 

You might want to take lessons from several of the organizations that participate here who interact in a symbiotic way without the principle goal of driving traffic to their own websites and organizations. Especially when people we all know are experiencing loss of access and loss to business revenue over the current dilemma. You may have intentions that are nothing but consistent with my own but your interactions here just burned a bridge for me. I can't speak for others.

If nothing else you might reconsider your public relations approach and communications on forums. 

Phillip


----------



## NationalRivers (Oct 3, 2013)

Philip,
Explain how educating the public about their river rights that are currently being wrongfully denied is malicious?? On the contrary, it's a public benefit. The organization has lots of free information you can take advantage of and hand out.
Also, this is a _not for profit_ organization here to defend YOUR river rights, to paddle and recreate on rivers everywhere in the US. It's not funded by anyone or anything else besides public support. And NO OTHER ORGANIZATION is focused on addressing river rights and river access by doing their homework and researching what the law says. That's why you haven't heard of this before. But it's your choice how to respond and if you want to support a cause that's for YOU and YOUR BENEFIT.
If the public doesn't know their rights, how can they possibly stand up for them??


----------



## Wadeinthewater (Mar 22, 2009)

Just buy my book. It will answer all of your questions.

You may be a stand up guy and National Rivers may be a great organization, but you come across a little bit like this guy.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

I didn't say educating the public was malicious. I said the specific tactic of link baiting this forum to drive traffic to website is malicious. Plenty of great organizations have the principle goal of educating the public and represent stakeholders in successful manners. I support that. What I don't support is disguising what appears the principle goal of driving membership, even if it means access to information that could be helpful. 

You stated to several of us to sideband you for access to information. One tried and was told they needed to either become a member or donate $35 to have the access.  That is malicious. Timing your contributions to coincide with the current dilemma is a major variable in how I make such a statement. It comes across as you selling a book. 

As my ending mentioned this may be simply due to how you are representing your ideas here. And trust me I understand first hand how important membership fees are to sustaining a non-profit. Been there and done that. But you couldn't have worse timing or approaches from my perspective right now.

It also the broad sweeping claims you make that throw up major red flags for. From the original title of the thread to the broad idea "of defending our rights" when you have admitted no desire to do so at a legal level (in response to litigation and representation). 

And all of my training and experience puts the burden of proof on the person making the paradigm shifting claim, not us. You make rather large claims to sweeping illegality with in our management agencies that seems unrooted in all of the experiences and information I have ever seen. And others have expressed such skepticism. And telling me I need to buy a book to understand how I am wrong just seems plain inconsistent to the goal of any non-profit and stakeholder organization I have ever participated with or worked for. 

So until I see some compelling evidence to the contrary this seems like a membership drive to me. And disguising a membership drive in the name of solidarity and altruism is malicious. Feel free to prove me wrong....but I ain't buying a membership to an organization that behaves this way. I expect more sophistication than that and maybe that standard is holding my legal rights back. I guess I may never know.

Phillip


----------



## NationalRivers (Oct 3, 2013)

restrac2000 said:


> and maybe that standard is holding my legal rights back. I guess I may never know.


We hope you will allow yourself to take a second look so that you will know.

The subject of river law isn't short if you really want to know the whole story. If you don't want to know the whole story, checkout the free handouts that explain the basics. The book will answer questions more thoroughly. Again, if this could be found other places and answered briefly, there wouldn't be a need for a book to explain it! The organization has put decades of research into the book.

Wadeinthewater, Kevin Trudeau has not been part of a non-profit organization for 35 years, and he isn't trying to help the public understand their rights. 

Again, we don't mean to come off as you have perceived, it's unfortunate for both parties. Yes, the Grand Canyon issue is a concern we want to address and help change, so we brought it up with people like you who love rivers and care about your rights to use them. 

Cheers


----------



## Ryanrugger (Jun 7, 2005)

I think this might be a great opportunity to give away a few of your books to educated people that can shed their opinions to the rest of the mountainbuzz community. If you believe in your product with as much passion you are trying to convene, then giving away 3 books to possibly gain 3-5 fold that many members would be a wise investment


----------



## upshitscreek (Oct 21, 2007)

NationalRivers said:


> We will be looking into other alternatives in the future for those who want to read the book, but not join.


yeah, cuz it's really complicated to email someone a pdf or .doc file when it's an e-book, huh?


----------



## NationalRivers (Oct 3, 2013)

Let's do some reverse engineering here. We want public rights to be recognized on thousands of miles of rivers that are currently either restricted or closed, so we can all recreate in non-destructive ways on rivers, which humans have been doing for thousands of years. There's lots of already established law that supports public rights on rivers. So, we don't need to litigate for new law, because law is already established. We need everyone to know what's been established, and have it be enforced. So, we go through dozens of court cases and lots of history that's long and sometimes hard for the average person to understand, and we compile it to tell a complete and simple story, so everyone can understand. Because it's a topic with lots of facts and explaining required, there's lots to the story, so a book is made. For those that who just want the very basics, there a free one-page handout is made. For those who want more, there's the book. Then, to have the actual law applied, people need to know, understand, and ask for it to be applied. 
So that leads us to this point, educating the public and public rights on rivers.

Ryanrugger, you make an excellent and well received point. We are all for it. Who are a few folks that would be best?


----------



## NationalRivers (Oct 3, 2013)

upshitscreek,
Where would you suggest funding to come from in order to apply what the book says so public rights on rivers can be recognized? And change can happen? Or answer questions on a topic with so much information to it? Or be a current and reachable voice for the public and river access issues? An active organization can't be sustained without funding. In order to stay away from having a conflict of interest, NOR is supported by the people it's working to help, the public.


----------



## NationalRivers (Oct 3, 2013)

Here's some more food for thought.
The NOR message about public rights is different from what other organizations typically say. Why should you trust NOR literature about kayaking, canoeing, fishing, rafting, fowling, and public rights on rivers, rather than what other organizations say?

1. Because you can verify it for yourself
The book _Public Rights on Rivers_ lays out the development of river law from ancient times to the present, and the relevant statutes and court decisions are now on the internet for anyone to see, so you can see for yourself that _Public Rights on Rivers_ is giving you the straight story.

2. Because there is no opposing book
There are other articles and arguments, but P_ublic Rights on Rivers_ is the only book-length investigation into the history of river uses and the development of river law. Other websites, articles, and arguments typically summarize second-hand information, much of it written by people working to deny public rights on rivers.

3. Because it has withstood the test of time
For over a decade, NOR has been distributing its literature to lawyers and government agencies who deny or doubt public rights on rivers. If there were a valid rebuttal, they would have made it by now. When you compare their theories side by side with _Public Rights on Rivers_, you see that their theories don’t add up.

4. Because there is no conflict of interest involved
There is no commercial interest funding NOR. It’s a nonprofit, educational organization. It has no motive for misrepresenting the truth of the matter. If something about NOR literature isn’t accurate, it gets fixed. Meanwhile, other organizations do have conflicts of interest, even if they aren’t obvious (for example, board members who have conflicts of interest.)

5. Because lawyers typically get paid to litigate, not to say that a legal issue has already been settled by the U.S. Supreme Court
When a riverfront landowner pays a lawyer to sue a rafting company or a canoe outfitter, what the lawyer says about river law must be taken in that light: As paid, false advertising.

6. Because government agencies respond to politics, not law
Government agencies depend on current politicians for their funding. They say what current politicians want to hear. They don’t conduct an independent investigation into river law, then report their conclusions to the public. Only NOR does that.

The bottom line is your rights to navigate, fish, and walk along the banks of the rivers of America are too important to be given away for political reasons involving conflicts of interest. Read, understand, and support the NOR message. Defend your legal rights to enjoy America’s rivers now and for the future.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Vanessa,

I think a couple of things are going on here.

As I mentioned in my off-list note to you, it appears your organization is involved in the river management "long game", which is fine. But the topic of these threads on the Buzz -- and the pressing issue of GC access for those who have current permits but who are being prevented from launching -- are much more immediate and imperative. True, your web site provides a copy of a contemporary letter of protest. But there is not much evidence of wider involvement -- such as pressing for a injunction/restraining order/lawsuit -- which you seem to imply would be a shoe-in to win.

Second, it does seem that you are being sort of opportunistic in raising awareness of your organization and trying to sell a product -- however worthwhile it might be -- when most folks here are interested in the above imperative.

Third, as a newly-minted poster here (having joined just yesterday) it's a bit hard to not think you're inserting yourself into this topic for reasons beyond those described in the original post. 

Finally, educating folks on the history of river law can be useful. But as we all know from real world experience, the legal process is full of nuances, and often produces unexpected outcomes. It's a bit much to expect the rather intelligent folks here to accept the plain proposition that free access to all rivers is just one more lawsuit away. I know that's not exactly what you're saying, but it's sort of what you imply.

I hope I haven't conveyed a view that your organization is not worthwhile, or that you're trying to scam anyone. I don't believe that. But I do sort of think your timing was not the best, nor were your tactics. Far better if (either long before this issue arose, or after a decent interval) you had introduced yourself and your organization's goals, and opened a dialog with appropriate educational content.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## upshitscreek (Oct 21, 2007)

NationalRivers said:


> It’s a nonprofit, educational organization..


NR, i'd like to verify your non-profit status...your DBA? Town/State? 



thanks.


----------



## NationalRivers (Oct 3, 2013)

Sure, it's National Organization for Rivers. Colorado Springs, Colorado. 

We have been around since 1978 (previously under the name National Organization for Rivers Sports, or NORS).


----------



## upshitscreek (Oct 21, 2007)

thanks. 

you don't show up on the IRS list of legit non-profit/charitable organizations and your standing in CO is "administratively dissolved" as of 2002.

care to explain or correct me?


----------



## fcaraska (Oct 5, 2013)

We have a permit for the 8th. I have been talking with my congressman and it doesn't look promising. The irony is that it has cost more to deny entrance to Lee's Ferry than it would otherwise cost just to allow the boaters to launch. I also understand that politically, this was a move by the white house to make this shutdown exceptionally painful for National Park goers. I will be at the barricades in 3 days. If you want to see some fun without paddles, come take a gander.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

* RRFW Riverwire - Lee’s Ferry Closure Update October 4, 2013

As the government shutdown of some federal agencies, including the National Park Service, drags into its 4th day, frustrated Grand Canyon river runners are camping in the parking lot at Marble Canyon Lodge, hoping for a breakthrough.

On Tuesday, October 1st, Park Service enforcement rangers erected a barricade across the road to the Lee’s Ferry access ramp where it meets Highway 89A. This is the only realistic access to the Colorado River at the start of a river trip through Grand Canyon.

Although river trips already on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon are allowed to finish their trips, none have been allowed to launch since the closure was implemented at noon, October 1, 2013. Those river trips already in the Canyon are not allowed to have people hike in and join the trip, unless that person is replacing a boat rower. Also barred from access at Lee’s Ferry are wade and float fishermen, sightseers and campers bound for the Lees Ferry Campground. 

Marble Canyon Lodge is allowing river permittees and their trip members to camp in its parking lot, in anticipation of a resolution that would allow launching of river trips into Grand Canyon. Every day these self-guided groups do not launch, their chances of completing a Canyon run diminish. For safety, river runners need a minimum of thirteen to fifteen days to complete a river trip to the only open take-out at Diamond Creek, 226 miles downriver from Lee’s Ferry. During the month of October, river runners may take up to 21 days to cover this distance.

Grand Canyon river trips are so coveted, Grand Canyon National Park lets each person on the trip make the river journey only once a year, and some river runners have waited many years for the opportunity.

There have been several behind-the-scenes efforts to get the Park reopened for river runners and other recreationists. According to Grand Canyon National Park officials, many business leaders, including Bill Parks of Northwest River Supply, working with Representative Ann Kirkpatrick (D, AZ) and Governor Jan Brewer, offered to pay to have the river access opened, but were apparently told that sufficient funding would need to be provided to open all the National Park Service units across the country.

On October 3, 2013, Grand Canyon National Park Deputy Superintendent Diana Chalfant and other NPS staffers met with three permit holders at the barricade on October 3, 2013. According to one permit holder on the verge of tears, the Deputy Superintendent spoke “a lot of empty platitudes”, gave no indication when or even if the trips would be able to launch and did not say if the river runners would be reimbursed their $100 per person fees paid to the Park Service.

Uncertain of when the Federal Government shutdown will end, river runners have no choice but to terminate their trip or proceed to the road barricade and wait, spending many tens of thousands of dollars in the process, hoping access to the river will be restored. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RIVERWIRE is a free service to the community of river lovers from River Runners for Wilderness. To join, send an e-mail address to [email protected] and we'll add it to the RRFW RIVERWIRE e-mail alerts list. 

Join RRFW's listserver to stay abreast of and participate in the latest river issues. It's as easy as sending a blank e-mail to [email protected]

Check out RRFW's Rafting Grand Canyon Wiki for free information on Do-It-Yourself Grand Canyon rafting info http://www.rrfw.org/RaftingGrandCanyon/Main_Page

Check out new items and donate at the RRFW Store! RRFW is a non-profit project of Living Rivers. https://www.rrfw.org/store

Visit us on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/RRFW.org and https://www.facebook.com/groups/raftgc/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*


----------



## BrainO (Jun 13, 2011)

*GC Closure*

I have a permit for GC launch next week- it looks bad at this point but what looks worse is the prospect that our outfitter is taking a stance that - you can take the food home with you if you want- they are talkin' refunding our shuttle costs and keeping the rest! All you other boaters that are living the Shattered Dream of a GC permit during the shit down please let us know how your outfitter is working with you to make this not just a rotten experience, but a very costly one as well. If mine burns my group for every dime they can I'll print their name in every bashing post I can find. I am hopeful that we can reschedule our launch for next year or 2015 like they allowed during the 2008 hi water event, if so I'll be taking my dollars to the outfitter that acts like a partner in crime, not a criminal. I thought all of us dirt bags watched out for each other- are these guys river runners or venture capitalists??? 

Keep the Zen- BrainO


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

Really Brian? So the outfitters should eat the cost of your trip? With this kind of attitude I wouldn't doubt they'd tell you to take a hike. These are all small businesses and making it as one is challenging. Your group could split the fod and have none go to waste, how are the outfitters supposed to cut their losses? I know you are probably very upset, and that is completely understandable. But don't take it out on those that work so hard to support people that can't or won't outfit their own trip. Everyone associated with aborted trips is suffering.


----------



## craven_morhead (Feb 20, 2007)

NR, I will throw my hat in as a good candidate for a free book. You already have my email address. After a quick read through of the citations you provided in your earlier post, I would like to double check your legal work. Like the others, I am skeptical that the precedent for your arguments is so clear cut, but I'd love to be wrong, especially if it means extending the no-hike Big South season.


----------



## BrainO (Jun 13, 2011)

I am and have been a small business for many years, I look at customers as partners in every venture. I have no problem meeting anyone half way- especially if it's nothing close to their fault (even if it was their fault, we're still partners and I'd be willing to share the pain- I know that the fault belongs far away on this one). But when you think about services rendered- I received a bunch of papers via email, sent in many thousands of dollars, wrote the menu, paid the deposits, organized the rental list, etc. So far the outfitter has organized a schedule and reserved gear, purchased the food and done the dry pack. No trucks have loaded and left, no gear used, no vans of people have been driven, no groover cleaning, no garbage service, etc. The food pack is a different discussion- it's been paid for and labor has been added to pack it- I think that deserves comp, but if it was me I'd write off the profit (35%?), offer to recycle the dry goods- there are certainly trips coming up and either charge for the balance or write it off on my taxes as a loss. If my trip loses 5 grand on this we'd live, feel like we worked it out and next float bring our business back to the same place- hell, they'd end up on the Christmas card list from now on. Do I really have that bad an attitude? I wish I could eat the whole thing- I'm the permit holder and my crew isn't exactly flush with cash. I'm upset, but I still realize that the human condition is far more important than money, ego or even the trip of a lifetime. Everything happens for a reason- it looks like another beautiful day- I hope everyone makes the most of it- BrainO


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

I agree that the gear rental is a bit different. I thought you were talking food only. Gear is tough, hopefully they work with you a bit. But I suppose contractually from their standpoint it is no different from backing out at the last minute. And there is no one else to go provide their services too. Yukko yukko, it really is multifaceted. 

I read in todays paper that the usfs is just starting to shut down logging. Wtf? Parks close immediately, recreation.gov is offline at 9 am on the first, but loggers can keep working. Clearly the recreation community does not have an effective and organized presence in the govt. Too bad we are so fractioned- wilderness, motorized, multiuse, hunters, etc. Each with a tiny voice not loud enough to matter. Here is where gcpba's work with the outfitters helps all. 

Again, very sorry if you guys can't go, I really hope you can!!!! Something has got to change in this country.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

lhowemt,

The shutdown is more about the agencies than the land managed itself. Sounds nit picky but that influences the differences in NPS and USFS/BLM decisions. All national parks have increased active management by design and mandate. That should be obvious to all of us as we enter the National Parks. They are required by law, under the threat of legal repercussions, to secure any and all structures and assets. Hence the need for the NPS to close the parks. USFS lands are mostly primitive in design, with comparatively few exceptions. Hence why access on those lands continue in the form of rafting, hunting and fishing. (the contrast would be to find out how the San Juan and Westwater are being excluded from the closure requirements)

It is interesting to note the delay in logging contract affects. Would likely require an extremely broad FOIA request to ever learn what happened. It could be a failure to plan properly (each agency has a submitted contingency plan required by law) or related to the systematic phases set out in such plans. The information on whitehouse.gov is extremely generic and we currently don't have access to each forests plans but just the USFS-wide explanation.

The articles talking about the logging closure actually hint that the logging industry and reps are largely clueless on how the process works. Their quotes highlight their lack of understanding of the explicit nature of the designations of "essential" and "non-essential" personnel (protection of property and life when it comes to the agencies we are talking about, other exceptions exist for other agencies). I wouldn't be shocked if they lobby in the future but that leads to the following:

Any major changes to the structure of federal shutdown would require lobbying Congress to alter the Antidefeciency Act of 1982 which lays out how the federal government is to spend and proceed during a spending gap. You would also need someone in the Whitehouse to appointment an Attorney General that lays out an "opinion" on that Law that is friendlier to recreational access. Neither of those easy tasks consider the nature of law and its constitutional roots. 

I am not sure many of the boating organizations are equipped to take on that broad and large of an project. It seems like we would need another, more inclusive recreational organization to take on that herculean effort. And we are talking years of work to build the relationships necessary to move on it. Until then we have to work with local managers who know the loopholes and nuances well enough to provide stopgap measures like we see at Westwater and the San Juan (and even then those are limited to previously permitted parties). Until we have a law in place our access is threatened by the reliable turnover of managers and the oscillating parties of the executive branch. The fed is inherently schizophrenic by voting law.

That is my limited understanding from a day of research. And its still vague as much of this information was not available to the public until the Obama administration required all agencies to publish their reports and contingency plans. So the job of researching the decisions and management efforts regarding government shutdowns is immensely difficult to access before 2008. Its hard to compare and contrast the various closure protocols from place to place which is needed to come up with the best protocol for boaters in the future.

Phillip


----------



## NationalRivers (Oct 3, 2013)

upshitscreek,
Until mid-2013, NOR was involved in the research and writing of the book _Public Rights on Rivers_, not generating reportable income. Income and expenditures for 2013 will be reported during 2014. Through the website nationalrivers.org, NOR now provides a free public educational service regarding public rights on rivers, including the free downloadable handouts. There are two handouts available so far, one regarding rivers in the United States generally, and the other specifically for Colorado. In the near future, additional handouts (and posters) will cover rivers in other specific states, as well as rivers flowing through federal lands, including the Grand Canyon. Many members of the public view the website and the handouts for free. Some people realize the importance of this public education process and support it with their memberships and donations. Thank you for your interest in NOR and public rights on rivers.


----------



## upshitscreek (Oct 21, 2007)

uh huh. so.... the current membership/donation "driven" NOR is really less than 3 months old? 


please be sure to email CravenM a copy of the e-book. i look forward hearing his take on it.


----------



## BilloutWest (Jan 25, 2013)

*Occupy National Parks*



restrac2000 said:


> It is interesting to note the delay in logging contract affects. Would likely require an extremely broad FOIA request to ever learn what happened. It could be a failure to plan properly (each agency has a submitted contingency plan required by law) or related to the systematic phases set out in such plans. The information on whitehouse.gov is extremely generic and we currently don't have access to each forests plans but just the USFS-wide explanation.
> 
> The articles talking about the logging closure actually hint that the logging industry and reps are largely clueless on how the process works. Their quotes highlight their lack of understanding of the explicit nature of the designations of "essential" and "non-essential" personnel (protection of property and life when it comes to the agencies we are talking about, other exceptions exist for other agencies). I wouldn't be shocked if they lobby in the future but that leads to the following:





> The U.S. Forest Service in a Contingency Plan written September 20 expected of their 32,015 employees that 41 percent would continue to work. This includes 9,800 who are engaged in:
> 
> fire suppression activities,
> securing and protecting property at field locations including research facilities,
> ...


Then we went to:



> GRANTS PASS, Ore. — The U.S. Forest Service confirmed Friday it is shutting down logging operations on national forests across the country due to the partial shutdown of the federal government.
> 
> The agency plans to notify 450 timber purchasers across the country early next week that timber sales and stewardship contracts will be suspended, Forest Service spokesman Leo Kay said in an email.
> 
> ...


Notes on the logging closures.

There sure seems to be an effort to close as much as possible nationwide.
In the above we see an expansion of the logging closures from Oct 1st to 4th.

Logging sales require visits on-site by contract administrators, of course. Making sure the right trees are being cut etc. 
Loggers are a Republican oriented group and I doubt they have much hope in being classified as essential. Loggers don't translate in the public eye like WWII Veterans.
This could throw a huge curve into many of these sales as winter is coming. The Loggers will need to hope for global warming.


----------



## BilloutWest (Jan 25, 2013)

The reason for the above post is to illustrate that the administration is digging in and along with their not wanting to sign on to piecemeal legislation and with Republican unwillingness to budge it looks like no relief is coming anytime soon.


----------



## NationalRivers (Oct 3, 2013)

*An new letter and replies*

To read the open letter to President Barack Obama and Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewelland, and for more replies to comments about the Grand Canyon closure, follow the link below. 

It leads to the mountainbuzz discussion under "general boating" titled "Grand Canyon closure unlawful"

http://www.mountainbuzz.com/forums/f41/grand-canyon-closure-unlawful-50601-2.html


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi,

At that same link you can find a couple of questions. 

1. Eric didn't want to file a lawsuit because he thought the shutdown was going to be short, but it's now well into a second week with no resolution in sight. When will it be long enough for him to take the steps he seems so confident could end it?

2. Many people are waiting at Lees Ferry (or trying to decide whether to head there for an upcoming trip) at considerable personal expense and frustration. How does he explain to them why he had it in his power (as he asserts) to stop the river shutdown -- and didn't?

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## swiftwater15 (Feb 23, 2009)

NOR, I support your aims. I was a member of NORS 30 years ago. But where do cases say that a federal agency's ability to restrict river use on federal land is limited to environmental concerns? Congress granted the NPS broad and specific authority to regulate parks and monuments in the public interest. To the extent that grant of authority is inconsistent with earlier statutes, the later -adopted statute would control, right? I am not saying I like it, but we have to deal with legal reality.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

swiftwater15 said:


> NOR, I support your aims. I was a member of NORS 30 years ago. But where do cases say that a federal agency's ability to restrict river use on federal land is limited to environmental concerns? Congress granted the NPS broad and specific authority to regulate parks and monuments in the public interest. To the extent that grant of authority is inconsistent with earlier statutes, the later -adopted statute would control, right? I am not saying I like it, but we have to deal with legal reality.


Inconsistent with NOR statements is the following statement of lawful actions by the NPS as found on the Cornell Law site:

36 CFR 1.5 - Closures and public use limits. | Title 36 - Parks, Forests, and Public Property | Code of Federal Regulations | LII / Legal Information Institute



> 36 CFR 1.5 - Closures and public use limits.
> § 1.5
> Closures and public use limits.
> (a) Consistent with applicable legislation and Federal administrative policies, and based upon a determination that such action is necessary for the maintenance of public health and safety, protection of environmental or scenic values, protection of natural or cultural resources, aid to scientific research, implementation of management responsibilities, equitable allocation and use of facilities, or the avoidance of conflict among visitor use activities, the superintendent may:
> ...


As so many other organizations have experienced, the NPS has specific mandates and lawful power to make a variety of policies that affect access to their lands and waterways. The above deal CFR deals heavily with waterways. 

Everything I know academically and intellectually requires me to be skeptical of what NOR is saying and places the burden of proof for such a paradigm shifting claim in their court. And the years of research, granted avocational on my part, do not support their ideas at any level. And I have done my best to find support for their claims but the only thing I have found are quotes and claims that if were so true would have been supported in a modern court case considering the # of rivers regulated in a way they consider illegal.

We can talk about the injustice of this all day, to which I would agree. But legality is provable and we have a court system to help us in these cases. Time and again we have been shown the Feds have immense legal support for their actions, even when we disagree with them. I don't like all of their actions but that does not make my ideas the reality of the day.

Phillip


----------



## Preston H. (Jun 25, 2008)

If I were a small organization with a great but untested legal theory on river access, I would jump at the chance to give it a shot in court on a high-profile issue that guarantees media coverage of my lawsuit. Instead of squandering the opportunity on selling a few copies of the book I wrote about my great but untested legal theory, I would demonstrate that it is legit by taking the fight to an NPS that is violating the right of the public to access navigable rivers across public lands. If my great but untested legal theory had legs but I was underfunded, I could surely find help from a land use clinic at a reputable law school. I would use the media coverage to raise the profile of my organization and bring in the donations I need to expand the fight to other rivers across the country.

Another approach would be to solicit potential book buyers on internet discussion boards.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Preston,

I've pondered that myself. 

Actually, Eric's association with River Runners For Wilderness suggests a natural alliance to that end. RRFW was able to muster extensive legal resources to (unsucessfully as it turns out) challenge the Colorado River Management Plan in both U.S. District and Appeals courts. Other river/wilderness organizations supported that legal effort, and have engaged in others like it in the past.

So if this is such a slam-dunk case, getting involved would seem to be irresistable for RRFW or some other group. If it has such a high possibility of success, a consequent huge publicity quotient, and of course great future fund-raising potential -- what reason could there be to not do it? 

Just asking...

Rich Phillips


----------



## eric.leaper (Oct 7, 2013)

*NOR reply:*

Now that the government shutdown is over, we are glad that we did not use limited resources to seek an injunction that would have been irrelevant a few days later, although we extend our condolences to those who were wrongfully denied access during those days. Regarding the usual Grand Canyon situation, we are saying that restricting noncommercial navigation in the Grand Canyon to some unchanging allocation for years on end, thereby denying access to most applicants by lottery, while maintaining a large unchanging commercial allocation that allows easy phone reservations for all interested customers, is arbitrary and unlawful.

We are not saying that litigation along these lines would be "slam-dunk." Courts generally respect agency decisions, and plaintiffs disagreeing with agency restrictions have to show the judge why the restriction is arbitrary and unlawful. It takes a lot of work.

We will be detailing public rights to navigate through the Grand Canyon in upcoming handouts and posters for public distribution. At this point, we have new general handouts and posters about public rights on rivers in the United States, and in Colorado, available as free downloads at Home - National Organization for Rivers. – Eric Leaper.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

You have had this hypothesis for 28 years ... where are the results?

CROWDED RIVERS STIRRING DISPUTE ON U.S. POLICY - NYTimes.com

Phillip


----------



## eric.leaper (Oct 7, 2013)

*Regarding results:*

Actually, it has been LONGER than 28 years. Today, you won't find signs along various river stretches saying that they are open because of NOR. You have to dig into the relevant history. On the Arkansas River in Colorado (about 100 miles of popular whitewater,) the original plan of the Bureau of Land Management (Department of the Interior) and the Colorado State Parks Division was to close various sections of the river to navigation, to reduce user conflicts. NOR was the only organization, of about 16 organizations involved, saying that the river was navigable under federal law, and that the law required the government to keep all sections open to navigation. The NOR view prevailed. Today, you can navigate and fish on any portion of the river.

At this point, you can get posters, handouts, and a lengthy book about public rights on rivers nationwide, at nationalrivers.org. In the near future, you will be able to get similar materials specifically about the Grand Canyon. So far, the NOR view about public rights has not prevailed in the Grand Canyon. Powerful interests oppose public rights on rivers, and NOR works to maintain and advance them. Those who want to help public rights prevail can do so, at nationalrivers.org. Meanwhile, other people will continue their efforts to block the NOR view from prevailing, but such is life. -- Eric Leaper.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

specific view that matters is your concepts of how private boaters are affected by commercial interests (permits/allocations). You cleverly disguised that in your first posts. If the laws and court ruling were so decided then why hasn't your perspective been supported in that 30 years? If the Supreme Court cases you cite are so powerful and all encompassing then the "powerful interests" you also mention should need a few boaters with pamphlets to help.

And maybe your game is more long run than your initial posts stated, as they had a very specific immediacy to them.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

that was not the most articulate post on my end, a little domestically distracted:

There seem to be multiple discrepancies in your interactions here. And I fall back on my observation that this ultimately seems to be more about a fundraising membership drive than an true interest in the specific issues you capitalized on. Your statements imply a certainty and short-term solution that many of us are skeptical about, considering the decades of work by regional organizations that prove how complex the subject is legally. I see no short-term benefit to my boating and increasing my chances of floating the Grand Canyon with products like books and pamphlets. I also have increased skepticism for you claims considering the targets you have and the decades long history of your organization fighting the same battles with what appears to be no major successes (with the GC issue and commercial allocations you were fighting). Maybe that has been different at the state level.

And as a long game strategy....less critique there. I can see it taking decades to change mindsets, especially regarding policy and law. But I will say I am still skeptical of such paradigm shifting claims that seem to lack peer support. I have spent some time researching this issue (not a career like yourself) and haven't found much other than your own quotes. I haven't seen anyone else broadly interpret your ideas of Montana v United States anywhere in my limited, avocational efforts. It just seems to be me, that after decades of citing these same legal interpretations that someone else would have used them to win a case or somewhere out there someone would have tried to define the precedent in the manner you claim.

Still a skeptic, even as someone who dislikes the current private/commercial allocations on many rivers. And you internet strategy has made that skepticism more intense. A larger coalition of trusted organizations, vetting professionals in the field to review the book, etc could help folks like myself change our minds. 

Phillip


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

eric.leaper said:


> You have to dig into the relevant history. On the Arkansas River in Colorado (about 100 miles of popular whitewater,) the original plan of the Bureau of Land Management (Department of the Interior) and the Colorado State Parks Division was to close various sections of the river to navigation, to reduce user conflicts. NOR was the only organization, of about 16 organizations involved, saying that the river was navigable under federal law, and that the law required the government to keep all sections open to navigation. The NOR view prevailed.


Can you support that claim? Because it seems awfully sketchy without sources other than your own. Rarely have I seen it that just one organization has had such influence without there being a significant paper trail to support that claim. I am personally not familiar with the long policy battle on the Arkansas so I would love to see the evidence on how that played out.

Phillip


----------



## eric.leaper (Oct 7, 2013)

*Yes, yes, and yes.*

Referring to your earlier posts, yes, what is needed is boaters with written materials, but the boaters have to know what they are talking about, and they have to go to the people who can change the unlawful situation. That is the process that NOR is now sponsoring and supporting. The NOR materials about river law are less than two months old. In past decades, NOR was reporting on these issues, but was not publishing substantial materials about relevant law. Yes, there are powerful opponents. Yes, they have successfully curtailed public rights in the Grand Canyon for 40 years now--1973 to 2013. Yes, we know that they claim that the present situation is lawful. Yes, there is still work to do to restore public rights in the Grand Canyon, and on other rivers in the rest of the nation. Yes, we ask people to contribute something toward that work, at nationalrivers.org. (Our total budget, to publish materials about river rights nationwide, is less than that of one major Grand Canyon concessionaire.) Whether people contribute is certainly their choice. We can't make people defend their rights to navigate the rivers of this nation. Some have, and some will, and those are the people we work with and work for. -- Eric Leaper.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

*Thank you Eric!*

Hi Eric, just a note of thanks for all the work you have done and are doing to help river runners sort out access rights. Grand Canyon is a textbook example of access gone horribly wrong. I was stunned when doing research on the issue to find that this happened in 1955, not the 1971 time frame the NPS wanted us to believe. All the best, tom


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Tom and Eric,

As you know, I was involved in the GCPBA side of the litigation (initiated by RRFW and others) against the Colorado River Management Plan. This included reviewing just about all the legal paperwork your side filed in the case.

I don't recall you citing this material as a core piece of your attack on the Park Service's management of the GC river corridor. In fact, I just pulled up the Table of Authorities for your en banc appeal to the Circuit Court (whieh was denied) and the Montana case was not even cited.

Was there some reason you decided such a persuasive argument wasn't applicable in a lawsuit that challenged the heart of the GC river access issue?

Just asking...

Rich Phillips


----------



## eric.leaper (Oct 7, 2013)

*Reply to Tom Martin:*

Hi Tom, thank you for the acknowledgement, and please post more about what went on in 1955, and from 1955 through 1971. What I remember is Bob Yearout, head Park Service ranger at the time, explaining how he came up with the moratorium on Grand Canyon river access on Thanksgiving weekend in 1972, and applied it starting with the 1973 season. What went on before that? Thanks again. -- Eric Leaper.


----------



## eric.leaper (Oct 7, 2013)

*Reply to Rich Phillips.*

Hi Rich, as lawyers often say, hindsight is 20-20. Past setbacks prompt further research and analysis. Yes, if you compare the new National Organization for Rivers posters and handouts, and the book _Public Rights on Rivers, _side by side with the cases cited several years ago in the River Runners for Wilderness lawsuit about Grand Canyon access, you will see that there is much law cited in the NOR materials that is not cited in the RRFW materials. The matter is not over yet. We are still working to re-establish public rights to navigate the river through the Grand Canyon free of the arbitrary and unlawful aspects of the present Park Service system. Best regards. -- Eric Leaper.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

*Yes, this is a journey in learning the best legal tools*

Hi Rich and Eric, in the last Colorado River Management Plan, and all prior plans, the NPS never admitted to implementing a permit system beginning in 1955, one that basically required the permit applicant to have prior Grand Canyon river running experience. Only when writing Big Water Little Boats, after the litigation had ended, did i discover this. And, it was clear that at least one river runners was upset about the permit requirement in 1955 to complain in writing to the superintendent about the new permit requirement. Do it yourself folks were basically denied access and commercial companies got all the permits they asked for. That went on for 15 years before Yearout showed up. We will be sure this info is in the next river management plan scoping comments. All the best, tom


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Tom and Eric,

I'm missing something here. Couple of things, actually.

1. If the Montana case was so persuasive and obviously applicable, what kept you from citing it in the CRMP litigation? Didn't you think it important enough to bring it to the attention of the RRFW lawyers, once you saw they hadn't relied on it in any of their early pleadings?

2. In terms of the legality of boater access to the GC during the shutdown, what difference does it make when the Park first tinkered with a permitting system?

Just asking...

Rich Phillips


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

To bad you guys don't get in a stink over Yellowstone...it's constantly closed to boaters


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Mike,

You make my point another way.

If this legal theory of Eric and Tom's is so invulnerable, why hasn't it been applied to any number of restricted river situations throughout the country? The RRFW CRMP lawsuit failed -- we apparently are now to believe -- only because Eric's unique legal theories weren't known to Tom's lawyers (and also perhaps because Tom didn't know about some obscure bureaucratic change almost 60 years ago). But if Eric's claims are truly valid, then they just as easily could be applied to Yellowstone, this time with success.

Or at least that's what we're being asked to believe... 

Look, I'm not against responsible efforts to reasonably expand public access to public waters. But I've said many times that the way to do that is legislatively, not through litigation. If Eric's posters and limited distribution book are avenues to increasing public awareness, and consequently stimulate useful legislation, that's fine. It's just that the approach he's taking here -- and the representations that have been made -- seem unsupportable to anyone with even a tiny bit of discernment.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

American Whitewater


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Rich, In order to understand allocations, we need to understand how we got where we are today. You clearly didn't know the GC history, or were silent if you did. Legislation is only one tool in our society. Please go on out there and get working on some legislation that allows equitable access to wilderness rivers, unless you think what is going down in GC is just peachy. Meanwhile, others will continue to attempt to use the legal tool, with, or as in the past, without your organizations assistance. All the best, tom


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi,

Of course anyone can claim that an isolated local management decision from the 1950's somehow would have swung the 2007 RRFW case against the CRMP in a new direction. However, the court proceedings that RRFW pursued clearly hinged on contemporary policy and law, and attacked commercial operations and the use of motors. 

To spare casual readers, following my signature is a set of extracted quotes from the appeals court decision (Ninth Circuit, Case #08-15112, 02/01/2010), which illustrate the fundamental thrust of the RRFW lawsuit. The one that catches your eye in particular is, "This case concerns the National Park Service’s decision to permit the continued use of motorized rafts and support equipment in Grand Canyon National Park."

Yes, access is mentioned in the varous pleadings. But none of the decisional language suggests that a local policy decision at the Park many decades ago would have changed the course of this litigation one iota. But if what RRFW has discovered -- along with Eric's new/old ruling -- is so persuasive and clearly dispositive of the issue, why not go back to Judge Campbell and make the case? Or at least flesh it out for the folks here who are following this thread -- particularly the real lawyers.

BTW, while not speaking officially for GCPBA in this post, I can tell say that GCPBA is committed to ongoing representation of private boaters in GC river access issues. We have litigated when we believed it would be effective. We have contacted Members of Congress when we believed it would be effective. We have worked diligently with the Park when we believed it would be effective, and will continue to do so. But at this point in time, we believe we can accomplish our organization's objectives without trying to create a new legislative structure. What I've said about legislative avenues for other organizations flows from a layman's reading of the applicable court decisions, and an observation that litigation hasn't worked very well for them so far. 

FWIW. 

Rich Phillips

***

"This case concerns the National Park Service’s decision to permit the continued use of motorized rafts and support equipment in Grand Canyon National Park. Plaintiffs contend that such motorized activities impair the wilderness character of the Canyon and that the Park Service’s decision violates its management policies and various federal statutes. Plaintiffs asked the District Court to set aside the decision under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). For reasons explained in this opinion, Plaintiffs have not satisfied the high threshold required to set aside federal agency actions under the APA." 

" Plaintiffs instead focus on the 2001 Policies... In sum, the 2001 Policies are not enforceable against the Park Service in this action. The Policies do not prescribe substantive rules, nor were they promulgated in conformance with the procedures of the APA. [cite omitted] The Court therefore may not set aside the 2006 Management Plan because it fails to comply with portions of the 2001 Policies requiring the Park Service to treat the Colorado River Corridor as wilderness or potential wilderness."

"Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the 2006 Management Plan is arbitrary and capricious because it contradicts earlier Park Service decisions to phase out motorized boating in the Colorado River Corridor. As noted above, the 1979 Management Plan called for motorized watercraft between Lees Ferry and Separation Canyon to be phased out over a five-year period. [cite omitted]. The Court cannot conclude, however, that the 2006 Management Plan is arbitrary and capricious solely
because it differs from earlier Park Service decisions."

"Plaintiffs first contend that the Park Service failed entirely to determine that the types and levels of commercial services authorized by the 2006 Management Plan are necessary and appropriate. We disagree."

"Plaintiffs argue that although the Park Service may have found commercial outfitters to be necessary and appropriate generally, it never made such a finding for motorized commercial services. Again we disagree."

"More generally, Plaintiffs tend to characterize the dispute as one between commercial companies and private citizens. This is not the true nature of the issue..."

"Plaintiffs next contend that the Park Service failed to consider the cumulative effects of noise from river traffic. This also is incorrect."

"Plaintiffs contend that this cumulative analysis should have caused the Park Service to eliminate sounds from motorized river traffic. But if a cumulative analysis were to result in the elimination of all sounds that can be eliminated by the Park Service — in this case, all sounds other than aircraft overflights, which are not within the jurisdiction of the Park Service — then all human activity in the Park would be
eliminated."

"Plaintiffs argue that the Park Service failed to consider 28 previous studies, but they identify no specific studies for the court to consider. Nor do Plaintiffs cite any recent studies that call into question the findings of the 1993 and 2003 studies."

***


----------



## eric.leaper (Oct 7, 2013)

*Replies to the above:*

As the passages quoted by Rich Phillips from the River Runners for Wilderness decision indicate, that lawsuit claimed the Park Service had violated the Administrative Procedure Act by allowing the continued use of motorized rafts. There is almost no overlap between the facts, citations, and legal principles discussed in that lawsuit (decided several years ago) and the facts, citations, and legal principles discussed in _Public Rights on Rivers_ (which is only two months old.)

Regarding the litigation choices made by the RRFW lawyers, if they would have worked with me as an expert witness in their case, I would have urged them to take it in quite a different direction. (The various cases I have worked on since the 1980s have been successful. They have not yet dealt with the Grand Canyon situation, although it is interesting to note that they have helped public access on _tributaries _of the Grand Canyon.)

Regarding why the facts, citations, and legal principles discussed in _Public Rights on Rivers_ “haven’t been applied to restricted river situations throughout the country,” the book is only two months old. We can’t control what people around the country choose to do with it, although we anticipate that it will greatly improve public access to public waters.

Regarding American Whitewater, we urge river users to compare the explanations of river law found on the American Whitewater website side by side with _Public Rights on Rivers, _so as to better understand the complete picture.

Regarding legislation rather than litigation, both of those things could reconfirm existing public rights, but neither one is actually necessary, because public rights have already been well confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court and other higher courts and Acts of Congress. _Public Rights on Rivers_ explains how to settle river disputes without further legislation or litigation. Future editions of the book will include chapters specifically regarding the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone situations. – Eric Leaper.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Eric,

Thanks for that lengthy explanation of your views. So I guess we are to conclude some combination of the following:

a. You weren't closely following river issues prior to 2006, and somehow missed the fact that new policies regarding private boater access to the Grand Canyon were being developed, or;

b. In the years the RRFW litigation was pending, you were not aware of one of the most significant river-related legal cases in recent years, where your unique knowledge could have been usefully applied or;

c. You and Tom Martin never communicated at all on these issues during the entire time the CRMP was being developed or litigated, and so you had no opportunity to shape the goals of the lawsuit, or the way it was argued, or; 

d. That you never presented your highly persuasive information to Tom and/or his lawyers, so they could focus on what you assert were clearly winnable issues, rather than motors and commercial boating, or;

e. You were aware of the case, but were too timid, or otherwise more productively occupied, to offer your advice and/or services to RRFW as it clearly was struggling with their legal foundation -- particularly after a highly adverse district court decision was handed down, or;

f. Your non-involvement (for some unexplained reason) meant the RRFW lawsuit failed because no-one else in the river community can offer expert witness services at the high level you represent, or;

g. Your highly persuasive legal theories must have only been developed in the time since the CRMP was litigated -- surely if they existed (or if anyone else thought they had any legal force) prior to you compiling them in your book, someone would have relied on them during the RRFW case, or;

h. The legal team helping Tom decided to follow a different strategic course because they didn't find sufficient merit in your legal theories.

Still trying to figure this out...

Rich Phillips


----------



## klickitat (Sep 29, 2012)

*Expert witness?*

Eric:

"if they had used me as an expert witness . . . "

Courts never allow "expert witnesses" to testify as to how the law should be applied to the case before them. Judges believe that they, and (to a lesser extent) the lawyers before them are the experts on how to apply the law. The rare exceptions are when they allow attorneys to testify in legal malpractice cases, i.e. to say "any competent estate planning attorney knows X."

Have you ever actually testified as a legal expert witness in a case?


----------



## eric.leaper (Oct 7, 2013)

*Replies to Rich Phillips and klickitat:*

Regarding the alternatives outlined by Rich Phillips, the last two are somewhat close to what actually happened: _Public Rights on Rivers_ is more recent than the River Runners for Wilderness lawsuit, so it was not available to the RRFW lawyers, and therefore they couldn’t decide if it had merit or not. In addition, their goals were rather different from NOR views (a key part of the RRFW goal involved motors.) Regarding the soundness of their judgments about early versions of NOR legal views (to the very limited extent that they were available at that time,) it should be kept in mind that the court disagreed with their views, not with NOR views. 

Regarding the observation by klickitat, I’m not saying that I would have testified about river law, but rather that I would have urged the lawyers to present a substantially different set of facts to the court (with my testimony regarding some of those facts,) and to therefore make a substantially different set of legal arguments. – Eric Leaper.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Eric,

Once again you demonstrate how little intellectual ability you must think Buzz readers have.

First, the materials you rely on pre-date formulation of the CRMP and the subsequent litigation. They all were available for you to provide to the RRFW lawyers, if you had chosen to do so. 

Second, you expect us to believe that you alone in the legal community -- wait, are you a lawyer? 

Setting that aside.

You want us to believe that no (other?) attorney involved in the CRMP case was able to discern such a clear-cut set of precedents leading to unfettered river access. 

You want us to believe that no-one else did any in-depth legal research on river access issues before engaging in one of the most important cases of that type in recent history -- that the extensive research that surely was done failed to uncover the cases you rely on? 

You want us to believe you alone can identify these key cases -- cases that will transform river access (if only applied using Eric Leaper as an expert witness, of course).

You want us to believe that -- in the face of your guaranteed winning strategy -- RRFW's legal team would have chosen instead to pursue a huge loser.

The one thing I would believe is that if you had presented your views to them -- and for all I know you actually did -- they would have decided they weren't sufficiently meritorious. Because if they felt they had the slightest legal weight, they surely would have thrown them into the case as well, as a collateral attack on the CRMP. 

Oh, and by the way, have you provided any of the lawyers here on the Buzz with a copy of your book, so they can offer their view?

Just asking...

Rich Phillips


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

richp said:


> Hi Eric,
> 
> You want us to believe that no-one else did any in-depth legal research on river access issues before engaging in one of the most important cases of that type in recent history -- that the extensive research that surely was done failed to uncover the cases you rely on?
> 
> ...


I think that hits the nail on the head for me. He wants us to think for ourselves as long it means we trust his authority on the subject. This is in tandem with an expectation to distrust or throw out other authorities on the subject. There is a dissonance there that can't be overlooked. 

The other intellectually issue is his claim that these laws don't involve interpretation and that Supreme Court rulings as so clear as to be self-evident. If that was the case then a 28 year old ruling that he claims to be the end-all-be-all would have been applied by now in the fashion he proclaims. Lawyers and organizations have been working to find a better outcome for access for decades now, Eric is not alone on that. 

The ironic twist to this is I do think for myself. In this particular case I have spent hours looking into an issue to verify information. And what it boils down to is I have not found any support for the broad interpretation Eric has posited. And that is why the legal "interpretation" issue is so important to the subject but he denies it is even a variable. Supreme Court ruling, treaties and the Constitution have been debated for years because language inherently requires interpretation. Consider the fact that Supreme Court rulings have an entire section devoted to the legal "opinions" of the majority and minority. I mean the fact that most SCOTUS cases are split exposes that very issue at hand. And then we throw in the issue of nuances and context for SCOTUS cases and it gets even wilder. Montana vs US had specific context: tribal sovereignty over waterways and access. Eric wants us to expand that to the broader level of federal agencies in general. That is fine but you can't expect intelligent people who value critical analysis to accept such a paradigm shifting approach to resource management when the only source you have means appealing to your assumed authority. That is a problem. 

I get the sentiment NOR is advocating and wish it was true. I wouldn't immerse myself in the issue and research if I didn't want some change. But for now its hard not to see blaring problems with NORs expressed opinions. They may cite history and law but that doesn't make it accurate. That is why some of us ask for outside validation of the source and ideas. Peer review from authoritative, third parties is extremely important for validating accuracy of information. I would actually posit that ignoring that tradition is dangerous to the very outcomes NOR claims to have. Putting unvetted information in the hands of the lay public can backfire and misinformation takes ages to correct. 

Maybe this is just an issue of poor social media strategy. I don't know. But from the comments expressed here by multiple employees of NOR and the website it would seem they may have a larger problem that is systemic to the rigor and style of argument they are founded upon. 

Time will tell. Hoping a copy of the book has been mailed to lawyers of this forum and others outside this site so we can have a better understanding of the content. Until then....my academic skepticism remains.

Phillip


----------



## eric.leaper (Oct 7, 2013)

*Reply to both of the above:*

Regarding intellectual ability, we trust that Mountain Buzz readers have the ability to read about river law themselves, rather than just relying on what any one organization, or lawyer, or Park Service official, tells them about it. You’ll notice that at the bottom of the NOR handouts and posters (and in the book _Public Rights on Rivers_) it says, “Send comments or corrections to: [email protected].” This is an invitation to lawyers, expert witnesses, long-time river runners, river historians, and other people with relevant experience and knowledge, to refine anything in NOR literature. We’re not saying that we are the only ones with expertise on the subject. We are working to elevate and expand the national level of knowledge about public rights on rivers, and we welcome further participation by anyone with relevant experience. _Public Rights on Rivers_ is very much a work in progress. There will be new editions every few months.

Regarding _Montana v. United States,_ it is only one of many cases discussed in _Public Rights on Rivers. _It should be viewed in combination with those other cases.

Regarding the research done by lawyers in the River Runners for Wilderness litigation, those who worked for Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association (and the Park Service and the other organizations who opposed the River Runners for Wilderness views) were researching how to _oppose_ public rights, not how to support them. They were “not able to discern such a clear-cut set of precedents” regarding public rights because they were trying their best to _bury_ such precedents.

Regarding the lawyers who worked on behalf of River Runners for Wilderness, they worked diligently on both the motors issue and the public access issue, and we are very grateful to them for their work. However, to answer your question, yes, they chose a losing set of facts and legal arguments. – Eric Leaper.


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

Wow, you guys can get after it. 

I think its great for folks to look for ways to try different tactics to try and break through river access issues. My personal read of NOR's materials is that they use very general cases in out of context snippets and attempt to say that river access is 100% gauranteed and locked down. 

Of course reality is quite different. Yellowstone is closed. Public access to rivers is a challenge in many places in the US. Permitted rivers and closures are a glaring example that current regulatory environments don't conform to the ideal access that NOR claims.

Until the NOR claims reverse closures etc or do something concrete to open up access and set a precendent, they remain untested legal theories. If you paddle yellowstone and get caught by the cops and give then NOR pamphlet, you are still going to get arrested.

I've spoken with several lawyers who are paddlers and active in the river community for access issues etc. Most of the folks I have spoken to think that either major legislative changes or a legal challenge will be the things that break the status quo over river access. The lawyers I have spoken too DO NOT think that legal challenges are a slam dunk and they think that there is a lot of downside risk if river access legal challenges went wrong. 

As an interested and educated observer its impossible for me to know if NOR is the real deal and holds a nugget of wisdom that can push access forward, or is simply trying to sell books for self promotional purposes. 

Carry on with your Mountainbuzz Legal Eagle debate though... its going to be a long winter. I hope you guys get something done by spring. That would be great. Keep us posted.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Eric,

I've about concluded that I've said all I need to say on this, but for a couple of final comments.

GCPBA sued the Park to re-start the CRMP process, so we could gain additional private boater access to the Grand Canyon. Then we turned around and worked collaboratively with the Park and other like-minded river organizations to craft a compromise plan that did just that. The CRMP didn't meet everyone's needs, and we didn't agree with every part of it. (For instance, we never requested, nor did we agree with, the one-trip-a-year rule.) But the CRMP went a long way toward advancing private boater interests. Most notably, we attained a doubling of the number of private boater launches, accompanied by related reductions in commercial boating activity -- including significantly shortening the motor season. And GCPBA worked to defend that plan because, not only was it a good compromise plan with room to change in the future, but also (as the Court noted in a quote I've already provided) the logical outcome of the RRFW lawsuit would have been to ban all human activity in the Canyon. 

If you didn't enter that fray because your ideas were not fully formed at the time (after decades of claimed experience), or the RRFW lawyers didn't subscribe to your theories, well, that's a clue to how effective you and your efforts might be in some future battle over Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon. And in all sincerity, I wish it were otherwise, because as time passes, folks who pursue these issues will need all the effective, articulate help they can get.

Bottom line. Unless and until you provide much more specific information about the notable river access gains you've personally engineered, and the caselaw that you so firmly assert will open the doors for all of us to rivers throughout the country, you're going to continue to have a hard sell here.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## eric.leaper (Oct 7, 2013)

*Reply to deep south paddler and Rich Phillips:*

1. For right now I will leave it for readers to decide for themselves whether the current Grand Canyon situation qualifies as a “good compromise plan,” especially readers who have applied repeatedly to the annual lotteries, while confirmed reservations are always readily available by telephone, for various dates at various times in the future, if you pay a park concessionaire. I suppose it should be kept in mind that the large allocations to concessionaires remain unchanged year after year, even though one of the alternatives that the Park Service itself suggested in the plan was to make annual shifts in allocation.

2. The federal cases are not “out of context” or “untested legal theories.” Cases that are on point regarding public rights to raft, kayak, canoe, fish, and walk along the beds and banks of rivers with rapids include _Atlanta School of Kayaking,_ _Goodman v. Crystal River, Loving v. Alexander, Alaska v. Ahtna, Montana v. United States, Economy Light, The Montello,_ and _Martin v. Waddell._ There are other federal cases, about river law generally, that further support the principles in the cases just listed.

3. The notion that today’s river access disputes can only be decided by a court is widespread among river users, but mistaken. Given the large amount of existing case law, most access disputes can be and should be settled out of court. I have done so myself and encourage other river users to do the same. _Public Rights on Rivers_ gives river users a key tool for doing so, and explains how to do so. Having a lawyer for the process can certainly be helpful, but is not always necessary. When certain lawyers claim that litigation or legislation are necessary to resolve current access disputes, it should be kept in mind that they get well paid to do those sorts of things, but not to tell people that river disputes can and should be settled out of court (sometimes without a lawyer.)

4. As the Supreme Court has confirmed, which rivers are navigable (and were navigable for past uses) can be verified by fact witnesses and expert witnesses, working closely with lawyers, but not by lawyers themselves.

5. Despite the above, it is still understandable that some people would want a book about public rights on rivers written by lawyers, rather than by expert witnesses working closely with lawyers, but at present no such book is available, so this book will have to do.

6. We will announce, here and elsewhere, as “peer review” of some sort becomes available. Meanwhile, _Public Rights on Rivers_ is available in its present form. It makes sense to read it before talking about it. – Eric Leaper.


----------

