# H.B. 141



## KennyC (Apr 28, 2010)

Has anyone else heard that a 4th District judge overturned H.b. 141. If this is true what does it mean and what is going to happen? I am not a legal beagle and need assistance in understanding. Thanks.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

It means that our legislature should start listening to their legal council on such issues. They go off with junk like this, against the advice of their own legal guys, and it gets overturned. The decision was based on the concept that access to the water comes to the people of Utah through provisions in the State Constitution. A first year law student could have figured that one out but not our Legislature. 

What this means is things will go back to how they were after the State Supreme Court Decision, but before HB 141. Which means you can walk/wade/float the state's water courses as long as you stay within the high water lines. You can touch the bottom of the stream, if that is incidental to your other recreational pursuits. 

The next steps legally are the legislature is going to be ticked that they got rolled. In order to get what they want on this one, they'll have to amend the State Constitution. Which, I'm sure will be attempted. This battle is done, but the war is far from over.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Since when does the legislature listen to their legal council?
R


----------



## KennyC (Apr 28, 2010)

Hmm, so in short we won the battle but not the war. Got it. For now the H.B. 141 stands until the legislature amends the bill correct? Therefore don't go walking the rivers till there is a deffinate change in the proclomation. Wonder how long that is going to take and if it will really happen. :O•-:


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I don't think HB 141 stands. It would depend on the specifics of the decision. But it would be dead now. Now we would be back to the rules after the Conaster case.

Hopefully, DWR will be forthcoming with some statements. I'm sure it will take them several weeks to get their attorney to pen something suitable for publication.


----------



## KennyC (Apr 28, 2010)

GaryFish said:


> I don't think HB 141 stands. It would depend on the specifics of the decision. But it would be dead now. Now we would be back to the rules after the Conaster case.
> 
> Hopefully, DWR will be forthcoming with some statements. I'm sure it will take them several weeks to get their attorney to pen something suitable for publication.


Sounds Great. Will be waiting. :O•-:


----------



## kochanut (Jan 10, 2010)

bump, anything new? im kind of out of the loop... im currently out of the country. i cant even access the USAC website here


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

The wheels of justice grind slowly.


----------



## kochanut (Jan 10, 2010)

anyway anyone could sopy/paste the latest from the USAC web site?


----------

