# Low head dam portage or line input/advice



## jsheglund (Feb 20, 2021)

Despite the dam guy screaming trespass at me, i lined my raft over the thing. In CO understand the current law to be that i'm allowed trespass in order to get past the dam. I don't see where they can tell me i'm not allowed to line a boat over the dam, but dude was insistent I was in the wrong and had to carry it around. Overland portage wasn't happening without a full breakdown (we tried without cooler, drybox and oars but still too heavy to make the distance in a reasonable time). I've lined it over twice, both times with line at stern controlled by me, and a person below (well below boil line) to retrieve boat. 

The first time, cfs over the dam was low, so almost no recirculation at the base and raft came out fine. Second time was 250ish cfs more flow with noticeable recirc and raft got sucked back up to dam (nothing violent, just didn't drift out and to my downstream person as previous, still dont want to get in there though) I had to throw my line from above the dam pretty far to buddy downstream so he could pull it away from the dam. Brush and general hazard kept me from walking it around myself.

For my third time (assuming more water as runoff comes on) i'm thinking a bow line, thrown to person below, and let them pull the raft over the dam instead of me pushing it over. they can keep boat moving downstream where I cannot from my upstream position. I may keep a short stern line but i'm thinking it will be pretty ineffective from my position. The dam is over 10ft high so my handle on the rope is pointless, and seems potentially dangerous if I were to be entangled and dragged over.

What is the standard, if there is one, for getting around these things? And how much harassment do I have to endure from the dam guy?? Or am I actually in the wrong???


----------



## Rich (Sep 14, 2006)

Just curious what dam you are discussing? Property owners that build dams, fences and low bridges should expect people to line or portage.


----------



## gnarsify (Oct 5, 2020)

Rich said:


> Just curious what dam you are discussing? Property owners that build dams, fences and low bridges expect people not to float past their property.


FIFY, not that they are right but my experience in CO is these people just don't want people on "their" river.


----------



## kayakfreakus (Mar 3, 2006)

This is about as clear as mud legally in CO. We are a "navigable waterway can be floated" state which is the "if you can float it, you can boat it" argument. As soon as you step on river bank or river bottom you are trespassing. You would think that a dangerous obstacle made by a land owner would negate this, but I do not believe it does.

The underlying laws need clarification and to be defined in court to get a clear decision or to understand your options on that particular stretch would be my guess.









River Access Laws


https://getpocket.com/explore/item/drawing-a-line-in-the-sand-over-river-rights?utm_source=pocket-newtab I've never tried to link internet content on the buzz but thought this a good article on the subject - hope the link works. Colorado has been in a no-mans land of conflicting legal precedent...




www.mountainbuzz.com


----------



## jsheglund (Feb 20, 2021)

Rich said:


> Just curious what dam you are discussing? Property owners that build dams, fences and low bridges should expect people to line or portage.


This is on the Rio Grande just above Del Norte. It's not a new dam by any means, and i'm not the first person to portage it. There's a nice big sign right by the boat ramp in Del Norte that shows the dam on a river map and noting that it is a must portage river right obstacle. There is also zero signage warning of the danger as you approach it from the river above. 

For some reason I was under the impression that a dam such as this on a waterway this big, a boater was allowed trespass to get past it. I want to be right, but now have doubts.


----------



## craven_morhead (Feb 20, 2007)

kayakfreakus said:


> This is about as clear as mud legally in CO.


That's a good summary. There have been a lot of fights over what it means to have a "navigable waterway," - does it mean navigable in any craft, so runnable in a creekboat = navigable? Or are we talking about commercial navigation, so navigable with a barge = navigable? Or maybe historical commerce, so navigable in a voyageur canoe = navigable? Nobody has settled those questions in Colorado, much less the legality of portaging around an unrunnable structure.


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

So it's generally accepted practice to portage that low head dam on the right..but not to line it..on the right?


----------



## jsheglund (Feb 20, 2021)

MT4Runner said:


> So it's generally accepted practice to portage that low head dam on the right..but not to line it..on the right?


Its bizarre, right? I'm not sure what's generally accepted at this point. I just know that there is a sign that is at a boat ramp that says portage on the right. I think once i'm out of my boat, carrying it or lining it, i'm still standing on private land, though i'm assuming (hoping) the law permits portage in whatever form necessary to bypass the dam.


----------



## jbri51 (Oct 1, 2020)

From my understanding, either portaging or lining will result in the effect, trespassing. It shouldn't make a difference which one you do.


----------



## Rich (Sep 14, 2006)

The sign at the boat ramp implies that portaging is permitted.
Operate under that assumption.
Would make it hard to arrest for tresspassing.


----------



## SOSY (Sep 26, 2007)

I feel like that may be the property owner, and the property owner has given permission to trespass on their land in the form of portaging, but not to run the dam, which they see as lining your boat.

There have probably been a number of incidents due to no access to the portage forcing people to run the dam and killing some? Just speculation. And the property owner doesn't want blood on their hands due to their obstacle, or to deal with someone's gear having to be rescued from the recirculating keeper.

Seems like respecting the property owner's wish for boaters to portage, rather than line, would help keep the portage access open to others, since they are giving the access.

It would be nice to know why the property owner thinks there is a difference between the methods. Do they think that lining will damage the dam? Do they think it is dangerous to the boaters? Is it just a hired ranch hand that was told to not let boats go over the dam?


----------



## jsheglund (Feb 20, 2021)

SOSY said:


> I feel like that may be the property owner, and the property owner has given permission to trespass on their land in the form of portaging, but not to run the dam, which they see as lining your boat.
> 
> There have probably been a number of incidents due to no access to the portage forcing people to run the dam and killing some? Just speculation. And the property owner doesn't want blood on their hands due to their obstacle, or to deal with someone's gear having to be rescued from the recirculating keeper.
> 
> ...


I don't know man, Rio Grande Water Users Association is the owner. Prob not one guy. Guy hollering at me wasn't the boss, for sure.

I think this might be a dam experiencing the Covid bump as well a town trying to promote tourism and the dam people not used to any action at all. Its pretty off the radar, and I'm totally breaking my own rules just by mentioning it by name on the fucking internet. 

Interesting arguments I found with google. 

The right to float in Colorado - Obstructions
http://www.fryingpananglers.com/arc...ting-Colorado-rivers/The-Right-to-portage.htm
The right to float in Colorado - The right to portage

Headed out to invent the portagecopter 2000, or maybe just a bigger wheel barrow, as i cant get the dam ollie down yet.


----------



## craven_morhead (Feb 20, 2007)

Unless Frying Pan Anglers is operated by a land use attorney, I'd be wary about taking their advice as gospel.


----------



## Rightoarleft (Feb 5, 2021)

Rich said:


> The sign at the boat ramp implies that portaging is permitted.
> Operate under that assumption.
> Would make it hard to arrest for tresspassing.


I wish that were true. There need not be evidence or even working knowledge of a statute for which you are being arrested. Officers are not lawyers nor are they expected to be. If they think you are wrong, or if somebody with clout thinks you are wrong, then you will be arrested and appear in court where you will pay for the privilege of standing before a judge... after you pay for a lawyer. Guilty? You pay. Innocent? You pay. Case tossed out? You still pay. Pro tip --rural land owners always have clout.

We have similar land issues in Oregon. Law states navigable waterways must allow boaters terrestrial passage below the seasonal high-water mark. This doesn't work on dam-controlled rivers that have no seasonal fluctuation, or in canyons where the river is entrenched. As such, one portage shuts down a whole run. It also doesn't work where affluent land owners say it shouldn't. If that sounds impossible, read the first paragraph again.

If this chafes your hide, go to americanwhitewater.org and become a member. Your dues support their efforts to protect river access nationwide.


----------



## jberg421 (Jul 19, 2020)

I dont have much to add but it adds to my thought about why the upper CO, above Kremmling doesn't get floated?


----------



## 2milehighspike (Jul 10, 2019)

jberg421 said:


> I dont have much to add but it adds to my thought about why the upper CO, above Kremmling doesn't get floated?


The run from parshall down to kremmling is were the right to float litigation started decades ago. That was before float boating became so popular and the land owners stated it wasn’t navigable, mainly because there was fencing and barbed wire that crosses at various places. The judges ruled in favor of the landowners mainly because of there was minimal opposition.


----------



## co_biscuit (Feb 13, 2016)

Sorry to bear bad news... CO law is no trespassing on the banks unless it’s public land or you are explicitly given owner permission. Doesn’t matter if there is an obstacle. Get in touch with Hattie Johnson at American Whitewater...she can help.


----------



## Ole Rivers (Jul 7, 2005)

craven_morhead said:


> Unless Frying Pan Anglers is operated by a land use attorney, I'd be wary about taking their advice as gospel.


In a former life, Warwick Mowbray, Frying Pan Anglers owner, was an attorney. He knows what he's writing about.


----------



## Ole Rivers (Jul 7, 2005)

2milehighspike said:


> The run from parshall down to kremmling is were the right to float litigation started decades ago. That was before float boating became so popular and the land owners stated it wasn’t navigable, mainly because there was fencing and barbed wire that crosses at various places. The judges ruled in favor of the landowners mainly because of there was minimal opposition.


The litigation to which you refer is the Emmert case that went before the Colorado Supreme Court in the late 70's and was ruled on based on defendant's stipulation (they were there own lawyers) that the Colorado River, the mighty Colorado River, was non-navigable. The Colorado is a navigable river. "Navigable in fact is navigable in law." -- SCOTUS "The Daniel Ball" The waters in question went through a ranch that used to be called The Ritschard Ranch. The issue/public rights of navigability and fisheries is still a gray area. If any of you read the the full text of Emmert, you may just find it erred in several ways. As of the last time I was fishing there, upstream of the ranch, there is still a sign saying not to float through.

Also, the applicable criminal trespass law deals only with, and states clearly, "non-navigable" waters.


----------



## Ole Rivers (Jul 7, 2005)

co_biscuit said:


> Sorry to bear bad news... CO law is no trespassing on the banks unless it’s public land or you are explicitly given owner permission. Doesn’t matter if there is an obstacle. Get in touch with Hattie Johnson at American Whitewater...she can help.


Nowhere in the CRS (Colorado Revised Statutes) applicable law does it use any of those terms.


----------



## Ole Rivers (Jul 7, 2005)

Rightoarleft said:


> I wish that were true. There need not be evidence or even working knowledge of a statute for which you are being arrested. Officers are not lawyers nor are they expected to be. If they think you are wrong, or if somebody with clout thinks you are wrong, then you will be arrested and appear in court where you will pay for the privilege of standing before a judge... after you pay for a lawyer. Guilty? You pay. Innocent? You pay. Case tossed out? You still pay. Pro tip --rural land owners always have clout.
> 
> We have similar land issues in Oregon. Law states navigable waterways must allow boaters terrestrial passage below the seasonal high-water mark. This doesn't work on dam-controlled rivers that have no seasonal fluctuation, or in canyons where the river is entrenched. As such, one portage shuts down a whole run. It also doesn't work where affluent land owners say it shouldn't. If that sounds impossible, read the first paragraph again.
> 
> If this chafes your hide, go to americanwhitewater.org and become a member. Your dues support their efforts to protect river access nationwide.


There are 4 ways to express your rights:
1. Litigate
2 Legislate
3. Initiate
4. Educate (raise awareness)

In my early days of advocacy of public river use and access rights, I went the first 3 ways. I now advocate to raise awareness by using existing laws, rulings, etc., to come to common ground with private, public and government stakeholders. Still a tough road, in my opinion, but the most realistic, is #4.


----------



## jrzoffroad (Oct 11, 2018)

jsheglund said:


> This is on the Rio Grande just above Del Norte. It's not a new dam by any means, and i'm not the first person to portage it. There's a nice big sign right by the boat ramp in Del Norte that shows the dam on a river map and noting that it is a must portage river right obstacle. There is also zero signage warning of the danger as you approach it from the river above.
> 
> For some reason I was under the impression that a dam such as this on a waterway this big, a boater was allowed trespass to get past it. I want to be right, but now have doubts.


I'm guessing that guy was on river left above the dam. Real piece of work.... He was doing the same stuff 25+ years ago.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

We had an issue here on the Ark years ago, same thing. Landowner wouldn't allow trespass for a portage, and it is trespass. Eventually AHRA finagled a deal with her and the problem went away. With all the work Colorado Springs Utilities has done in the area, I'm not sure it's even an issue anymore, but they were issuing citations to offending parties.


----------



## Ole Rivers (Jul 7, 2005)

2milehighspike said:


> The run from parshall down to kremmling is were the right to float litigation started decades ago. That was before float boating became so popular and the land owners stated it wasn’t navigable, mainly because there was fencing and barbed wire that crosses at various places. The judges ruled in favor of the landowners mainly because of there was minimal opposition.


The litigation to which you refer is the Emmert case that went before the Colorado Supreme Court in the late 70's and was ruled on based on defendant's stipulation (they were there own lawyers) that the Colorado River, the mighty Colorado River, was non-navigable. The Colorado is a navigable river. "Navigable in fact is navigable in law." -- SCOTUS "The Daniel Ball" The waters in question went through a ranch that used to be called The Ritschard Ranch. The issue/public rights of navigability and fisheries is still a gray area. If any of you read the the full text of Emmert, you may just find it erred in several ways. As of the last time I was fishing there, upstream of the ranch, there is still a sign saying not to float through.


----------



## Rich (Sep 14, 2006)

MNichols said:


> We had an issue here on the Ark years ago, same thing. Landowner wouldn't allow trespass for a portage, and it is trespass. Eventually AHRA finagled a deal with her and the problem went away. With all the work Colorado Springs Utilities has done in the area, I'm not sure it's even an issue anymore, but they were issuing citations to offending parties.


Where was this?


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

Rich said:


> Where was this?


In between Buena Vista and Johnson village


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

MNichols said:


> In between Buena Vista and Johnson village


Marshall's talking about the irrigation diversion known as "Silver Bullet" rapid below BV. In the past it was a manky dam made of concrete rubble and anything else they could find. It had a really lousy "boat chute" on the right and a drop over the dam on the left. This was recently reworked with grant money from the Colorado Water Conservation Board and other parties, and turned into a decent drop with a real kick at the bottom. The landowner there had tons of "NO TRESPASSING" signs IIRC, and was a real piece of work from what I understand.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

She was.. and yes, although I cringe with all the adolpf coors advertising feces on the river.. ya know what coors beer has in common with making love in a canoe? They are both fucking close to water!


----------



## Rich (Sep 14, 2006)

MNichols said:


> In between Buena Vista and Johnson village


Ah, Silver Bullet. Used to run it left because of signs, fence and nasty stories.
Had forgotten about that. Left only worked at fairly high flows as I recall.


----------



## MNichols (Nov 20, 2015)

Rich said:


> Ah, Silver Bullet. Used to run it left because of signs, fence and nasty stories.
> Had forgotten about that. Left only worked at fairly high flows as I recall.


Yessir.. that would be correct.


----------

