# Utah Bill will limit river access



## Dave Frank (Oct 14, 2003)

I didn't read it too closely but it would suck if passed. It sounds like there was a recent ruling that stated (unlike CO) that it is Ok to touch the stream bed as you cross private waters. This bill, I believe seeks to undo that and extend other rights to property owners. Here is a nice quote:

"any landowner that has a residence within 500 ft. of the stream may post the stretch of water that is “located on or adjacent to” his or her property as no trespassing"


----------



## Wirednoodle (Feb 10, 2009)

*Got to be kidding....*

This whole mindset really chaps my ass. It is a physical impossibility to own a moving body of water. Are they trying to say that it is OK to own the space that said water travels through? Wow.... what's next? Own the airspace above your property? Maybe the atmosphere that is within your property line? "No one can breathe here without my permission".... so ridiculous.

Some muckety muck get caught playing with his twig and berries by the river by some folks enjoying the water?! Maybe if our elected officials dealt with actual issues instead of personal agendas... things wouldn't be as f-ed up as they are.

That's my two cents anyway!


----------



## TakemetotheRiver (Oct 4, 2007)

This is not a new issue for Colorado. Sections of the San Juan and the Animas in Durango are heavily "gaurded" by property owners or tribal authorities. A trespassing ticket can and will be issued if a boat gets stuck on a rock in the streambed. Just because it's ridiculous doesn't make it any less real.

We don't want that to happen to Utah or set precedent for further policing in Colorado and other states.

I called the other day and they said they have had a lot of calls on both sides of the issue. Also that a lot of people from out of state have been calling and at least two of the legislators who were on the fence have decided to vote against it- but more people need to call!

Governor Huntsman-1-801-538-1000


----------



## TakemetotheRiver (Oct 4, 2007)

Stream bill would protect lawmaker's land - Salt Lake Tribune

More info...


----------



## LSB (Mar 23, 2004)

davedlg said:


> will go to a floor vote this week.


is it too late to call...

... nope not too late I just talked to them


----------



## TakemetotheRiver (Oct 4, 2007)

LSB said:


> is it too late to call


No! It goes to committee tomorrow apparently.


----------



## LSB (Mar 23, 2004)

I told them to close all accesses ... i dont want any drunken naked people floating near my ranchette


----------



## peak (Apr 7, 2006)

found this on the Utah rafters forum...makes you want to fight it even more...
Stream bill would protect lawmaker's land - Salt Lake Tribune


----------



## davedlg (May 22, 2007)

Good news - HB 187 was defeated today on the floor of the Utah house! Thanks to all who called / wrote in!


----------



## TakemetotheRiver (Oct 4, 2007)

From Jeremy Christensen on UtahRafters:



> I may have spoken too soon. I apologize for spreading the word of victory before its time, but unfortunately HB 187 was brought back for reconsideration this afternoon, and remains very much alive.
> 
> Acting on a motion by Rep. Jack Draxler, R-North Logan, the Utah House recalled the bill late in the afternoon session Wednesday and put it back on the third reading calendar meaning that the proposed law remains alive. Though the exact vote was not available, Division of Wildlife Resources' legislative specialist Robin Thomas said it was close.
> 
> ...


And the number again:

Governor Huntsman 1-801-538-1000


----------



## Canada (Oct 24, 2006)

Anyone with the facts. I thought this thing was dead yesterday. The news articles about 1/3 - 1/2 of the representtives being property owners affected were damning.


----------



## Ole Rivers (Jul 7, 2005)

*Utah's Waterusers Need Your Voice NOW!*



Canada said:


> Anyone with the facts. I thought this thing was dead yesterday. The news articles about 1/3 - 1/2 of the representtives being property owners affected were damning.


Hmmm... just thought I'd check this forum as I haven't been back for a while only to find there's a thread about Utah HB 187, *"Recreational Use of Public Waters"* going on...

I have been involved heavily in the Utah HB 187 "Recreational Use of Public Waters" pretty much 24/7 since the end of January with the main wateruser/waterowner advocates that are mightily and persistently determined in opposing this bill.

Presently, it is about to be voted on again in the Utah House of Representatives on Monday, March 9, 2009, as the 3rd Substitute Bill 187, including all passed amendments made to date. 

You can find the bill at http://le.utah.gov/~2009/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0187S03.htm

To listen or watch live streaming video Monday *when the House is in session* go to http://www.le.state.ut.us/ and scroll down to the House session info. The A/V buttons will come on to click when the House is in session. You'll need RealPlayer installed to watch the live streaming video. The House is in session 9am-12pm and then 2-4pm.

To view the House Calendar, go to http://www.le.state.ut.us/jsp/jdisplay/default.html . Notice that HB 187 is at the very top of the schedule and MAY be the first bill up for consideration, but not guaranteed as it is presently "circled", which means it's "on deck" rather than automatically first up.

For background as to the July 18, 2008 Conatser v Johnson Utah SCt ruling, go to http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Conatser071808.pdf

There has been *tremendous drama* on the House floor when the bill has been brought to the floor and Monday will be no different. * Gazillions of emails* have been sent and face to face meetings between waterusers and legislators have taken place multiple times daily.

187 lost (we won) last week 34 yes and 41 no and wild jubilation took place by the waterusers afterwards, yours truly included. The next day, Ben Ferry, the House Sponsor, made the opportunity to "reconsider" the bill after House Rep Draxler made a motion to amend, which was defeated. Yesterday, Friday, the bill was brought back to the floor and an amendment, based on a single word change, from "and" to "or" on line 387 was moved and subsequently defeated. Some other changes were made to the bill, such as making the proposed Access Board a "rulemaking" rather than an "advisory" board and the addition of 11 more rivers (there's thousands in Utah plus the *USCt ruled recreational use on "all waters of the state"*) to a list of "allowable" public waters on private streambeds to use with all sorts of restrictions. This is one toad of a bill.

Essentially, the bill is poorly formatted and poorly written, substance wise, and is riddled with amendments.

The bill came about as a result of the Conatser USCt ruling which clarified the waterowner/wateruser **USE of** public waters incidental to recreational activities. The bill should have been written to further clarify the clarifying ruling. The bill, however, was written and is controlled by the landowner property rights interests and defines the issue as one of landuser/landowner **ACCESS to/from** public waters incidental to land use.

Should it pass the House, it will go on to the Utah Senate. The Utah Legislative session is over and done next Friday, March 13, 2009. If you want to have a say, NOW, NOW, NOW is the time to express yourself by way of any type of contact with the legislators and also, for that matter, American Whitewater, Colorado Whitewater, Utah boaters forums and groups and etc. 

There's been a whole bunch of posting over on utahonthefly.com if you want to ramp up quickly. I am "rstrouts" over there.

You can also go to http://utahwaterguardians.wordpress.com/ for info, especially, for legislator contact info.

This is a classic private property owner vs public waterowner/wateruser Battle of the Titans. It's in Utah now, but it can easily make its way to Colorado and elsewhere. That's why I'm on it, from the wading flyfisher pov, and will continue fighting against this bill's passage from the Utah House to the Senate and to the Governor's office if necessary!

I would like to see a balanced legislation and/or court ruling here in Colorado so that we can clarify our river rights to everyone's benefit from the confusing mess there is presently between the enforcement of the Federal laws and Colorado state laws. 

Clarification is the key word.

Any other questions or comments, fire away and I'll do my best to answer them!

My view is to: *Kill it, Chill it and New bill it!*

Now get those legislator email contacts and start a tappin'!!!


----------



## TY_USU (Mar 5, 2009)

Now if we could only make a bill that got rid of barbed wire running accross the rivers..


----------



## Ole Rivers (Jul 7, 2005)

*Water Users/Water Owners Win... Again!*

Legislative floor procedures being what they are, the bill was "reconsidered" last week and then brought up for a vote again today. 

Once again, HB 187, *"Recreational Use of Public Waters" Failed, 31 yes-43 NO! Water Users Win Again!* This time, there will be no more reconsiderations because the Legislative session ends Thursday and there just isn't time to move it back for a House vote, get it over to the Senate and maybe back to the House.

Utah waterowners/water users, as per the unanimous Conatser Utah Supremes ruling have the dominant, yet coexisting, right to *USE* the servient private streambed landowner's right to own on *"all waters of the state"!!!* 

There will likely be another bill next year in Utah that will clarify what needs to be clarified in the ruling, like "high watermark", "streambed", etc and I plan on involving my time to help craft it with the friends I have made during this battle as I'd like to see the Colorado situation clarify as well.

*Water users win and clarify our rights to the USE of (as opposed to ACCESS to/from) public waters incidental to recreational activities (touch the streambed)!!!*


----------



## TakemetotheRiver (Oct 4, 2007)

Whoohoo!!!! Hopefully this will set precedent for Colorado.


----------



## rivermanryan (Oct 30, 2003)

I'm not sure if I know Utah Bill, but he should stay away from this site!


----------



## TakemetotheRiver (Oct 4, 2007)

It just keeps getting better. Those guys are going crazy over there:

Durango Herald News, Utah bars to open to public


----------



## Canada (Oct 24, 2006)

*Crazy*

Yes, the access bill that came out last year is huge and from a boaters, or water user perspective, it is a huge win. I do not think you could get in done in Colorado. Too many private waters providing too much of a revenue stream.

The liquor thing is pretty good too. The down side is anytime you go into a bar, they will scan your ID and have it on file for 48 hours (pulling that from memory). Now watch a paper trail made very easy for DUI arrest being traced to Bar owners where the drinking took place. The unintended consequences make me nervous. Still, better than the silly club garbage. Come ski our Powder and drink our beer. Mid thigh yesterday and really light!!


----------

