Not specific to any state, but.........
I think of a few situations in which I believe a "stream" could be private and I think most would agree. Examples are Depuy's and Armstrong's Creeks. But, when you have large, long-flowing streams/rivers which traverse significant distances, I think the public should be given some consideration in the use of such waters. The legal field of riparian rights is quite complicated and came about when there was really no thought as to recreation. Rivers and the water flowing through them were considered assets of the adjacent property owners (mostly farmers or ranchers) to use to irrigate and or provide water to livestock. In some areas, today, the economic impact of recreational uses of such rivers rivals or surpasses that of the original/continuing use of the land; i.e., farming or ranching. In addition, some have purchased such land in order to make personal recreational use of the resource; i.e., mini-ranch developments offering private access to some of the best fishing rivers in the country. These factors will have natural tensions with the public's interest in having access to the same resource for recreation. Non-profit conservation districts and other groups work to lease or purchase such land in order to make it available to the public. I think, in some situations, the state(s) should consider doing that more than they currently do. They could even consider using the power of eminent domain (coupled with fair and just payment) to acquire more of these resources for the public. After all, the states benefit financially from all the tourism money spent by recreational users being attracted to such areas. Anyway, I wish more could be kept public for future generations.
Reply With Quote