# HB141 Here We Go Again!



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Interesting read!

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55708 ... t.html.csp

Only time will tell if this can be overturned. Maybe I will be able to fish some of my favorite spots once again?


----------



## Watcher (Dec 31, 2008)

If you are not familiar with the Utah Stream Access Coalition you should be.

http://utahstreamaccess.org/?utm_so..._campaign=USAC+-+CC+may92012&utm_medium=email

Mission:The Mission of the Utah Stream Access Coalition is to promote and assist in all aspects of securing and maintaining public access to, and use of, Utah's public waters and streambeds.

It's free to join (they do ask for any donation you care to make) and they send period e-mails if you sign up. They have a small legal team that fights for public access Utah water.

Here's what they sent today:

The 2013 legislative session starts TODAY! 
It is URGENT that we all contact our Representatives right NOW to OPPOSE HB68!!

The assault on public stream access has already begun behind closed doors! House Bill 68 [HB68] WILL lock down Utah's public waters to private interests. TODAY is the time to make a final stand. This is it folks, the battle to unshackle public water will NOT get another chance if HB68 is not passionately opposed by the masses right NOW.

Reasons to OPPOSE HB68
It is a direct attack on our 1st lawsuit in the Heber 4th District court. Rep. McIff is attempting to backdoor the public trust doctrine by claiming that the legislature, as trustee, has accomplished its duties by enacting HB141 "Public Waters Access Act", which we all know did not benefit the public. HB68 also attempts to create a private property right out of water rights to attempt to strengthen McIff and Farm Bureau "taking" claim and intertwine public trust and appropriated water with access/USE. In a nut shell, McIff is effectively making an "end-run" around the judiciary by proposing this legislation.

Reasons to SUPPORT compromise USAC language

It ends the 2 lawsuits and ends the question of ownership of stream beds, which is protecting private property rights, without attempting to define public trust doctrine in Utah which is currently undefined, making HB68 unnecessary. It is fair and balanced and limits access points to those at public right of ways and to existing or future walk in access with the DWR (aside from public land). The 6" diameter and 6' long log test proposed will eliminate the smaller waters running through rancher's fields and draws. We have pushed this type of language for 4 years and now is the time to have compromise rather than fighting.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Time to call your reps again!


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

I will contact Scott Jenkins again. 
Do you have any info on how he has voted in the past?
He tells me that he is on our side but I still wonder.


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

Jenkins voted for HB141 in 2010. Get vote tally here;
http://le.utah.gov/~2010/bills/static/HB0141.html
look all the way to the right column and click on the numbers where it shows votes for the two house votes and the senate vote.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Snoop/Chris, I was wondering if you'd answer a couple of questions for me? I'm trying to wrap my soggy brain around all the factors here and come up with good talking points to present to reps. 

This is from the USAC, earlier this week. 

"This bill, HB068, intertwines public trust with appropriated water rights and stream access and use. The water appropriators groups do not want any language regarding public trust. This has created an opportunity for the USAC to attempt to bring forth a compromise bill (Idaho law) to end the conflict. If USAC were to drop the Public Trust case on the Provo River and the Navigability case on the Weber River in lieu of Idaho law, the problem of public trust with the state being looked at as a trustee of appropriated water is alleviated, as well as the conflict of property rights"

1. "The water appropriators groups do not want any language regarding public trust."

Who are the water appropriators? Are we to assume that they would help us with this? Additionally, if the water appropriators are with us, we should be making this clear to our legislators, many of which voted for HB141. 

2. Is there a legislative sponsor for the compromise bill mentioned by the USAC?

3. Wouldn't it be likely that the Utah Supreme court would declare this legislation invalid as was done by the Arizona Supreme Court when their legislature did the same thing? If so, then that is a possible talking point to the legislators. 

4. Why would this action affect the navigability lawsuit and rulings at all? It would seem that the two issues are unrelated, especially since navigability is adjudicated Federally. 

Thanks in advance and thanks for all you do for the USAC. 8)


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

Late last night, I contacted Dana Layton, my Representative. I was surprised this morning to see a response already in my inbox.



> Hi Justin,
> 
> Thanks for contacting me about this important issue. I will do some more research on the bill to see what it's trying to do. I am an outdoor enthusiast as well and love to see fishermen out using the rivers and streams. My parents have a home on the weber river and it seems natural to see people fishing on the stream. Sometimes it seems like strangers are in our backyard, but I suppose it's like having a beach house in California. You have the great ocean and beach view, but the public has a right to use the shoreline and access the ocean.
> 
> ...


Someone's got their head on straight.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

At least until the vote.
Funny how quickly some people can change their minds.
Or should I say , how quickly some people can have their minds changed.

Thanks for contacting your Rep, LOAH.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Although HB-68 was designed to strike back at fishermen for challenging the anti-fishing bill of 2010, the seconday impacts are even more insidious. The bill would change the state constitution in ways that would render a court decision in the fishing case invalid. It also says that water allocations will become private property rights, It also says that water allocations granted by the state engineer will have fulfilled the state's public trust obligations to protect and preserve the public resources. It would be nearly impossible to go back later (after a stream was de-watered) and mount a judicial challenge to a constitutionally protected private property right to de-water a stream. HB-68 seeks to remove any possiblility to challenge faulty water allocations based on protecting the public trust. *Any time the legislature considers a bill that removes the citizen's opportunity to challenge a government ruling-- it is time to be scared.*
R


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

Loah, I credit you for contacting your representative. However, a huge word of caution. Your rep. is a freshman. She is also a tea partier. Read her website. When she says she will do "more research", in political terms that means she will listen to what the leaders in her party tell her to do. Again, I credit you for reaching out to your Rep. but as Grandpa D pointed out don't be at all shocked if once she is taken to the woodshed by party leaders that she goes against anglers and sportsmen. My suggestion is if this bill does get advanced, keep on her. I hope I am wrong, but my gut tells me she will throw anglers under the bus once she gets the talkin' to.


----------



## Watcher (Dec 31, 2008)

I'm trying to figure out what a letter to legislators should say. I took some info, much from what rjfre posted and drafted this. Please help edit to get it accurate.

Dear _____
Please do not support HB-68. HB-68 would change the state constitution in ways that render court decisions invalid. It makes water allocations private property rights. It makes water allocations granted by the state engineer fulfill the state's public trust obligations to protect and preserve the public resources. These facts would allow HB-68 to remove any possibility to challenge faulty water allocations based on protected mandates to protect the public trust - as it would be nearly impossible to go back after a stream was de-watered and challenge a protected private property right to de-water a stream.
Thank you for your consideraion

House Rules Committee Contact Info
[email protected]; 
[email protected]; 
[email protected];
[email protected]; 
[email protected]; 
[email protected]; 
[email protected]; 
[email protected]; 
[email protected]; 
[email protected]; 
[email protected]

Natural Resources Committee Contact Info
[email protected]; 
[email protected];
[email protected]; 
[email protected]; 
[email protected]; 
[email protected]; 
[email protected]; 
[email protected]; 
[email protected]; 
[email protected]; 
[email protected]; [email protected]; 
[email protected]; 
[email protected]; 
[email protected]; 
[email protected]


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

This bill is designed to invalidate the HB-141 court decision if it goes against the state. It would not invalidate court decisions in general. HB-68 seeks to remove our right to challenge a decision based on the state's duty to protect the public trust. Basically, they are trying to remove any possiblility that citizens can come back later and say "Hey, a mistake was made and it dried up our stream or our marsh, or it damaged the Great Salt Lake ecosystem, and we want to challenge the decision that allowed that to happen".
R


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

It basically says: We own the streams. Keep your sorry butts out. We're tired of having to change the rules only to have the Supreme Court of the State of Utah overturn our decisions. So we'll write a law that excludes everyone... even the Supreme Court. They don't care about dewatering anything.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

rjefre said:


> Although HB-68 was designed to strike back at fishermen for challenging the anti-fishing bill of 2010, the seconday impacts are even more insidious. The bill would change the state constitution in ways that would render a court decision in the fishing case invalid. It also says that water allocations will become private property rights, It also says that water allocations granted by the state engineer will have fulfilled the state's public trust obligations to protect and preserve the public resources. It would be nearly impossible to go back later (after a stream was de-watered) and mount a judicial challenge to a constitutionally protected private property right to de-water a stream. HB-68 seeks to remove any possiblility to challenge faulty water allocations based on protecting the public trust. *Any time the legislature considers a bill that removes the citizen's opportunity to challenge a government ruling-- it is time to be scared.*
> R


I exactly agree with your sentiment, including/especially the bolded part. I am trying to clarify an item on HB68. You said that it would change the States constitution. I have read this from a couple of people. I don't know that it does. The legislature cannot change the constitution with just a simple bill. That would violate the checks and balances present in our constitution. This excerpt is from the trib article.

"His new bill, HB68, would limit the state's public trust obligations to those spelled out only in statute and in the Utah Constitution.

According to law professor Craig, the states' approaches to the public trust are extremely varied. Some states have an expansive view, like Hawaii, California and New Jersey which require easements across private land for the public to reach beaches. On the other end of the spectrum is Arizona, where the Legislature has enacted laws eliminating public trust, only to see them invalidated by that state's supreme court."

It would seem that if HB68 does indeed "rewrite" the constitution, that the USC would quickly invalidate it as the Arizona supreme court did. If so, this would be a good talking point to take in talking with a *conservative* rep or senator. Arguing that the bill wastes money and time during a tight budget period is just how to get to them.

Does anyone know for sure?


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

HB68 does not change the constitution, it rewrites code and invents out of thin air a property right that can not exist by our own constitution. HB68 is a direct response to the USAC lawsuits that would hamper our past efforts and create further litigation of HB68 before we could get back to fighting 141.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

fishsnoop said:


> HB68 does not change the constitution, it rewrites code and invents out of thin air a property right that can not exist by our own constitution. HB68 is a direct response to the USAC lawsuits that would hamper our past efforts and create further litigation of HB68 before we could get back to fighting 141.


Thanks. Looks like I might be seeing you up at the Capitol again. Do you want me to touch base with you beforehand?

FWIW, I think our side needs to press the constitutionality and litigation cost of HB 68 vs the benefits of a compromise to the reps. Hopefully, it'll get through and they will listen.


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

Catherder, I will be meeting one other gentleman there tomorrow and then be there 2-3 days next week if you want to try and schedule a day I would have no problem meeting you there.


----------



## Meesh (Jan 26, 2010)

I sent the following email to the House Rules and Natural Resource committees and below was the response I got back from Brian S. King, Representative, House District 28.

I would like to urge you to oppose HB68 and support the compromise offered by the USAC. I believe this compromise protects the assets of livestock owners and the property of landowners while granting reasonable (and safe) access to the public. A copy of the compromise language can be found here: http://goo.gl/uQcTr

Rep. Kings response:

Thank you for writing about HB 68. I've spoken to Representative McIff about this bill. I agree with you that issues concerning the public trust doctrine, control of water in Utah, and access to rivers and streams for recreational use are very important. In past legislative sessions I supported the position the recreational users of our rivers and streams urged the legislature to take. I am concerned that HB 68 goes too far in favoring private over public interests in connection with our water resources.

I'll continue to follow HB 68 closely and gather information as we move forward with this bill in the session. But right now, count me as skeptical about whether this bill is a good idea. Thanks again for your input and for the information you provided.

Brian

Brian S. King
Representative, House District 28
1855 Michigan Ave.
Salt Lake City, UT 84108
801-560-0769 (cell)
801-532-1739 (work)
[email protected]


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

At a time when we keep losing more and more of our freedoms its seems what some people think are little things end up being very big indeed. I used to say, "don't sweat the small stuff." Then a wise man told me, "everything is the small stuff." Keep fighting for what you feel is right, no matter how small.


----------



## Meesh (Jan 26, 2010)

Another email response, this time from Val Peterson:

Thank you for your e-mail about HB 68. As an avid sportsman myself I will look carefully at the compromise solution being offered by the Utah Stream Access Coalition. I believe this is a very complex issue which needs to balance the rights of the public with the rights of property owners. I will consider your opinion as we work to find a consensus solution.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Modifications are being made to this bill as we speak. Monday we may have a new version to look at. Different lawyers all have differing opinions on whether HB-68 is changing our constitution or just tweeking things within the constitution to do what a few powerful groups would like it to do. * Either way, when legislators change our laws to prevent citizen participation---it is a bad thing*. It may only affect fishermen, duck hunters, kayakers, and bird watchers this time, but next time they may want to take an even bigger bite out of our constitution.
R


----------

