You can bet there will be more case law to come on this one. Most of us can see both sides and we all wonder where the line will be drawn between the good of the public and the rights of individual property owners.

On one side you have the public’s interest where the state is considered to own resources that go through private property. On the other side we all want control over the property we own and care for. Who wants to improve their property then standby and watch the public damage the property. Of course that happens all the time.

For instance utility easements, sidewalk easements and even condemnation of property are frequently implemented for the good of the general public. In the case of sidewalks and utility easements the owner is responsible for maintaining the property and allowing access whether they like it or not. In Utah it sounds like streams including the streambed will be treated like sidewalks. Ever have a dog crap on your curb or someone leave trash on your lawn or even have someone damage your shrubbery. I just had my lawn and driveway dug up by the local cable company. I argued but they have the right of access and they did a lousy repair job. In mine and another local township property were condemned for use as golf courses. It was deemed important to the local population & economy and lawfully obtained. So forcing limitations on property ownership is nothing new it just continues to evolve as resources become scarcer. What happens if property owners increase their use of streams to provide power to their homes and vehicles? Hydro power is the cheapest of all but it can warm the water and divert flows.

So my question is why should streams be treated differently then something like sidewalks where the property owner must allow limited access without obstruction and accept the fact that a certain amount of wear and tear will occur?