Access Issues

In the thread: Anyone else prefer stillwater over moving water flyfishing? Fly Goddess wrote:

i prefer stillwater. But a lot of that is because of our messed up law here in Utah that land owners own the river that runs through their property. No tresspassing.

First let me say I am not picking on Fly Goddess here. She just happened to post the comment that spurred my thought.

While I understand the frustration of not having access, I also understand not wanting just anyone on my property. Especially when I consider the amount of trash, etc. that can be found left by anglers at most any location frequented by “the public”. As such, I disagree that the Utah Law is “messed up”. (And no, I don’t currently own land with a trout stream running through it.)

Not long ago I was “kicked off” a piece of water that I thought was fair game. When I inquired who and where to obtain permission from to fish the area, I was directed to the owner. I then approached the owner and was told in no uncertain terms that I was not permitted to fish there. When I posted this experience on another Board, Ohiotuber replied with some sage advice on etiquette and approaching land owners for permission. I have since been quite active in “asking” property owners for permission to fish their property, without a rod in hand, and prior to ever setting foot anywhere near their “water”. I generally do not even have a rod in the car. My approach is more of: “Can I schedule an appointment, that you don’t even need to be here for?” Of the twenty or so owners I have approached in this manner, only three have declined to allow me some sort of access. Granted, I’m not in Utah right now, and most of these waters are “farm ponds”. But I’ll bet my experience here would prove to be similar in Utah, California, Montana, or anywhere else an individual can restrict access to the water on their land. The exception being if they were using the water as a money producing attraction already. Then you simply have to pay to play.

The point here is really just to consider the feelings and attitude of the land owner(s) as though it was your land. Speaking for myself… If I had a “Blue Ribbon” trout stream running through my property, I would restrict access to it as well. But if someone showed me the courtesy of asking permission, and followed up with real expressions of gratitude for allowing them access. They’d likely be welcome anytime.

—David

But here’s the catch. The water that runs thru the creeks, streams and rivers in Utah, belong to the people of Utah. A few years back there was a decision by the Utah Supreme Court that ruled the stream beds were fair game and we could wade and fish if we stayed below the high water mark. Some land owners (related to some politicians) didn’t like it and they along with real estate agents and the Farm Bureau got with the Utah Legislature to turn over the ruling. Sad thing is, they said to hell with the USC, we’re the lawmakers. Curiously enough, through searching records and laws dating back to the 1800’s the streambed never did belong to the land owners. They just assumed they owned it. The biggest loudmouth and whiner that has the Lower Provo running along side his land is the brother- in-law of our governor. No influence there.
But there is 2 lawsuits filed right now to overturn the new law. Just have to wait and see what happens.

The section on National River Law discusses river ownership, use, and conservation law throughout the United States. Following is a review of what individual states can and cannot lawfully do with the rivers within their borders.[ol]
[li]The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that rivers that are navigable, for title purposes, are owned by the states, “held in trust” for the public. This applies in all fifty states, under the “Equal Footing Doctrine.”[/li][li]Rivers that do meet the federal test are automatically navigable, and therefore owned by the state. No court or government agency has to designate them as such.[/li][li]The federal test of navigability is not a technical test. There are no measurements of river width, depth, flow, or steepness involved. The test is simply whether the river is usable as a route by the public, even in small craft such as canoes, kayaks, and rafts. Such a river is legally navigable even if it contains big rapids, waterfalls, and other obstructions at which boaters get out, walk around, then re-enter the water.[/li][li]The states own these rivers up to the “ordinary high water mark.” This is the mark that people can actually see on the ground, where the high water has left debris, sand, and gravel during its ordinary annual cycle. (Not during unusual flooding.) It is not a theoretical line requiring engineering calculations. Where the river banks are fairly flat, this mark can be quite a distance from the edge of the water during medium water flows. There is often plenty of room for standing, fishing, camping, and other visits.[/li][li]States cannot sell or give away these rivers and lands up to the ordinary high water mark. Under the “Public Trust Doctrine,” they must hold them in perpetuity for public use.[/li][li]The three public uses that the courts have traditionally mentioned are navigation, fishing, and commerce. But the courts have ruled that any and all non-destructive activities on these land are legally protected, including picnics, camping, walking, and other activities. The public can fish, from the river or from the shore below the “ordinary high water mark.” (Note that the fish and wildlife are owned by the state in any case.) The public can walk, roll a baby carriage, and other activities, according to court decisions.[/li][li]States do have authority and latitude in the way they manage rivers, but their management must protect the public uses mentioned above. They can (and must) prohibit or restrict activities that conflict with the Public Trust Doctrine. “Responsible recreation” must be allowed, but activities that could be harmful, such as building fires, leaving trash, and making noise, can legally be limited, or prohibited, in various areas. Motorized trips and commercial trips can legally be limited or prohibited by state governments.[/li][li]State and local restrictions on use of navigable rivers have to be legitimately related to enhancing public trust value, not reducing it. Rivers cannot be closed or partially closed to appease adjacent landowners, or to appease people who want to dedicate the river to fishing only, or to make life easier for local law enforcement agencies.[/li][li]State governments (through state courts and legislatures) cannot reduce public rights to navigate and visit navigable rivers within their borders, but they can expand those rights, and some states have done so. They can create a floatage easement, a public right to navigate even on rivers that might not qualify for state ownership for some reason, even if it is assumed that the bed and banks of the river are private land. Note that this floatage easement is a matter of state law that varies from state to state, but the question of whether a river is navigable, for title purposes, and therefore owned by the state, is a matter of federal law, and does not vary from state to state. Note that a state floatage easement is something that comes and goes with the water: When the water is there, people have a right to be there on it, and when it dries up, people have no right to be there. But rivers that are navigable for title purposes are public land up to the ordinary high water mark, so that even when the river runs dry, people still have the right to walk along the bed of the river.[/li][li]Only federal courts can modify the test of standards that make a river navigable for title purposes. States cannot create their own standards, either narrower or wider in scope. They can?t make definitive rulings about which rivers are navigable for title purposes, only a federal court can.[/li][li]The situation gets confusing when a state agency or commission holds hearings about navigability and public use of rivers. Landowners, sheriffs, and other people tend to think that such an agency or commission can create state standards that determine which rivers are public and which are private. But these are matters of federal law which state agencies cannot change.[/li][li]State agencies should make provisional determinations that various rivers meet the federal test of navigability for title purposes. These provisional determinations should be based simply on the rivers’ usability by canoes, kayaks, and rafts. They should then proceed to the question of how to manage navigation and other public uses of the river. In these days of government cut-backs, the agency should look for solutions that use existing enforcement agencies rather than setting up new ones. Littering, illegal fires, offensive behavior, trespassing on private land, and numerous other offenses are all covered by existing laws, and offenders can be cited by the local police, sheriff’s office or state police.[/li][/ol]

Kerry, we can still fish those waters if we float them, but as soon as you get out and wade, the sheriff can bust you.

Check out http://utahstreamaccess.org/

If the fish and water resources are managed with funds that are acquired through the State by taxation or fee collection from the public, then the public should have access to those resources. The fish themselves are “owned” by the State, not the adjacent landowner. Why should the adjacent landowner derive additional benefit of that resource by either restricting the enjoyment of others or profiting by charging folks to gain access to a resource that they already own? If discarding trash is the issue, then fine the individual for littering. Different issue in my opinion, why penalize everyone for the obnoxious behaviors of a few. I am a landowner that has a trout stream running through it. Never had a trash issue, but I did get pissed when I witnessed a father-son team that brought a 5 gallon bucket to take wild brookies home in so they could stock their private pond with State owned fish. Most trout angler’s I know are respectful and responsible stewards.

For those not aware of the issue on the Jackson River in Virginia there are a few property owners that have “Crown Grants” dating back to King Georges time and the VA Supreme Court upheld that issue starting back about 1990 if I remember correctly. The latest case concerns trepassing issues overturned in a lower court but now refiled in a civil court. You can access many writings on the subject if you do a search using wording such as: Crown Grants on the Jackson River in Virginia or any variation thereof. There’s been a defense fund set up for the remaining two defendants of the original three that were charged. As I understand the various articles on this current subject, the landowners/developers claim to have a King’s Grant to the river bottom etc.; but, so far nobody seems to be able to find any for this particular piece of property and the landowner refuses to show anyone the proof. This is a very contentious case that hasn’t been yet set for a court hearing and could set a precedent for this type of action. The below listed site is one of many referring to the case.[

Murky waters on the Jackson River - Roanoke.com](http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/294660)

www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/294660Cached
You +1’d this publicly. Undo
Jul 31, 2011 ? The Jackson River is again the center of an access fight between lead to the privatization of vast sections of the Jackson and other Virginia rivers? pay taxes on the river bottom, and whether they have crown grants or not,

The North Platte river bottom in Wy is one that i’m told is owned by the land owner.
I wonder if that is really true?

Ready for the proverbial icing on the cake? A lot of these land owners have recieved state money to improve the raparian habitat and to have fish (from state hatcheries) planted in the waters crossing through their property.

… and thanks for making it.

A lot of landowners are not so much opposed to having people cross their land for stream access, they mostly want to know who is there and what they are up to.

John

To chime in I have never denied access but do like to know who is on the property and when…
Only once did I have to chase a few people off, they were on ATV and crossing a sensitive drainage area
after explaining to them they were on private property it was understood, our grounds are posted but sometimes
people don’t pay attention…

It is messed up Dave. TRASH? Not buying that, the wind blows trash too. Sure there might be 1 out of 10 that do trash, but out of that 10 I bet there is also 1 that picks up trash. Property owners don’t own that land under the river. They have No right claiming they do other than $. It is going to take time but I do think it will be set constitutionally right.
I go fishing to get away from work and other life where I do have to ask permission, I don’t want to ask permission to walk on river bottom that is my legal right.
We got our rights briefly for one year and things didn’t go crazt except trumped up photos and made up stories by land owners. So, then the law is set in faor of the land owners with a barrier attached?! If that doesn’t show how messed up this is, I don’t know what else there is. We actually LOST more than we didn’t have before that wonderful year.

Boy, did I stir a hornets nest or what?

I think John Scott got the point I was making, but I’m not sure who else did. So before I go into my long dialogue, let me reiterate it here in its simplest form:

Common courtesy and showing respect for others (and their property) will go a very long way in gaining you access to locations you would otherwise not be able to fish.

I wasn’t advocating or suggesting that a property owner (as such) has any more (or less) right to “public land under the river” than the public does. Nor should they have the right to keep the public from using it. But a property owner does (and I believe should) have the right to keep you from crossing their property to get to that “public land”.

Think of it this way. If someone decided that they wanted to use your yard as a thoroughfare to get to a public park that your backyard sits adjacent to, (or National Park in the case of Steve?) as the property owner do you have the right to decide if they can or can’t do so? Just because there is public land “back there” doesn’t make your yard an “entitlement easement” as an access point for it.

Similarly, if the “public” enters your yard from the public park side, and decide to “set-up camp”, BBQ, play frisbee, just walk around, or whatever, as the property owner you should have every right to kick them out and/or charge them with trespassing.

As to trash… First of all, Fly Goddess if there wasn’t any trash to blow, the wind wouldn’t be blowing it. But that’s beside the point. Trash was merely an example of a lack of consideration many have for other’s property. Ask any landlord, rental car company… heck, go visit your local park and tell me that a certain percentage of the population doesn’t lack respect for other’s property. Which in the case of a park it’s really THEIR own property. Yes, these individuals may very well be the minority. But again, if MY personal property got thoroughly “trashed” a time or two by the public, it wouldn’t take long for me to say, “No more.”

It may not be fair that responsible individuals have to pay the price for the irresponsible ones. But it’s the world we live in. It happens all the time, in all kinds of ways, and I don’t see it going away anytime soon. Insurance rates, health care costs, even the price you pay for fly fishing gear has a mark-up built into it to cover “loss” from irresponsible individuals. Be it theft or fraudulent acts.

Now before I get accused of complacency and having a “that’s the way it is so get use to it attitude”, I’ll just say:
I applaud those that are fighting to protect access to “public land”, and public lands themselves. Further, I don’t for a minute believe that just because, “that’s the way it is”, means “that’s the way it should be”.

But I also think that we need to be careful that we don’t infringe upon the rights of property owners to “control” what occurs on their property. Even if we don’t happen to like it, or it makes what we want to do less accessible.

—David

David, I was referring to legal access by a public access point. Never mentioned trespassing on anyones land to get to the water. Most of us here are aware of that can land you a ticket or jailtime.
The trash Flygoddess mentioned is prevelant along the lower Provo river, which runs along the highway. I’ll be the first to admit that residents here aren’t the cleanest when it comes to litter. I’ve never seen a flyfisher leave a dirty disposable diaper by a riverbank or a shoe or flipflop or a McDonalds bag.

Mojo,

My concern upon reading the responses to this thread was that it appeared to be heading off on a tangent that wasn’t my intent. Which probably came from my erroneous perception of what Fly Goddess was referring to. I was thinking one thing, and she was obviously thinking another. Those of you “close” to the situation immediately went to where Fly Goddess was referring, and rightfully so. While I was still looking at it strictly from an “access” issue. Hence I disagreed. In the context of what was so eloquently portrayed by many, I will gladly retract my statement that I don’t agree that the current Utah law is messed up. It may very well be, and I don’t really know one way or another in this regard. But I stand squarely behind my statements referring to public access and property owner rights. Not to mention what a little courtesy and respect can accomplish.

Over the course of 16 years (and currently) I lived/owned property in Orem, American Fork, Elk Ridge, Woodland Hills, Parowan, Cedar City, and Brian Head. I still have two sons living in Utah. One in West Jordan, and the other in Cedar City. My occupation during that time required me to work closely with small municipalities across the state. (I was employed by the Lt. Governor’s Office and DCED.) So I’ve pretty much been to every incorporated town that existed there during that time, and most of them on multiple (if not numerous) occasions. As such I’ve also fished most of the major trout fisheries in the State, and a lot more of the minor or unknown ones. Here in Indiana, I typically seek out similar “unknown” water, and in both States it never ceases to amaze me how much “junk” there is in these environments. I agree that as a demographic, fly fishermen are not generally the guilty parties. But fly fishermen also do not constitute the general public. In fact, we are a very small minority of just the angling public. So what legislation does for us as a group, will also go for the rest of the public. Including those with diapers, flip-flops, and McDonald’s bags.

—David

p.s. By the way everybody. Happy New Year.

That is correct. In Wyoming, the landowner “owns” the stream bottom and banks. Can’t anchor, can’t wade, can’t touch it. More BS.

There different colored markers along the shoreline, one color means you can anchor or wade fish the other color means no touching, no anchor, no wading, can’t even grab the brush along the side of the river. I would only fish that river from a boat if I had a guide, otherwise you run a serious risk if violating a law and getting run into the local jail. Great fishing by they way, the trout were shaped like footballs and all either made great runs or danced across the top of the water. I really had fun floating the North Platte. The wind can be a serious problem, it blew us off the river the second day we were there, 50+ MPH winds.

Larry —sagefisher—

I grew up in Texas, and there, it is illegal to block access to any water that is navigable, and navigable means not a stock pond. It doesn’t matter if you wade it, or whatever. If it goes through property, then it is public as far as the stream bed goes.

It should be that way everywhere. If it is not exclusively on your property, where you are responsible for maintaining it, then it should be accessible.

I’d like to see what happens when the dirt that is under the water(landowner’s property) moves and causes damage somewhere else, if the landowner is now going to be so willing to now say “that is my land”…

I wanted to post this:
The Coalition brought this case to overturn Utah’s ill-named Public Waters Access Act (HB 141) on constitutional grounds. In 2008, in the case of Conatser v. Johnson, the Utah Supreme Court unanimously held that the public’s right to lawfully access and use its public waters in place for any lawful activity, including recreation, allowed the public to reasonably touch the privately-owned beds of public waters in ways incident and necessary to such use. In 2010, with passage of HB 141, the Utah legislature purported to overrule the Conatser decision and to abolish the public’s right to touch privately-owned streambeds when using public waters in place. The Coalition contends that the public’s right to use public waters in place was recognized and confirmed in the Utah Constitution at statehood and that HB 141 violates this right. It further contends that HB 141 violates constitutional and other public trust and separation of powers principles. A favorable ruling in this case will restore the public’s right to use public waters in place as confirmed in Conatser.
Ever since the pioneers first entered the Salt Lake Valley, the waters in Utah’s rivers and streams have been owned by the people and managed by the territorial and state governments in trust for the benefit of the people. Brigham Young confirmed this principle his second day in the Valley when he proclaimed that there would be no private ownership of water.
The Coalition filed suit because the Act, contrary to its title, abandons this fundamental principle of Utah law and prohibits public access to hundreds of miles of rivers and streams in Utah, many of which have benefited from publicly-funded habitat restoration, stream bank restoration and other projects, and effectively gives riparian landowners exclusive rights to access and use these valuable public resources and to sell that exclusive access to the highest bidder. From a legal perspective, the Act violates the State’s obligation to hold and manage Utah’s public waters in trust for the benefit of the people.
An essential function of the courts is to correct governmental breaches of the public trust and the Coalition looks to Utah’s courts to do that here.

Anyone interested in the rest of it, and keep in mind, that while this is Utah, it can also effect other states with whatever the out come is

http://utahstreamaccess.org/usac-wp/public-waters-case/

Same holds true in New York State, for example the Douglaston Salmon Run area of the Salmon River in Pulaski NY

Dick