# HB 108 Stream Access 2015



## Lobowatcher (Nov 25, 2014)

Strange I haven't seen anything on the forum about this Stream Access bill. Curious as to your thoughts on the proposed changes to current law. Think it will pass?

Brief Breakdown of the Bill:

http://utahwaterrights.blogspot.com/2015/01/2015-legislative-preview-stream-access.html

Full Text of the bill as introduced:

http://le.utah.gov/~2015/bills/hbillint/HB0108.pdf


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I haven't heard anything about it yet, but my home internet has been down for over a week, so I may not have gotten my usual email messages from the Stream Access Coalition.

My opinion, formed especially after last years HB37 failure, is that NO stream access bill will pass the legislature until the lawsuits currently going through the courts have been adjudicated. 

In talking to my own rep and others, I feel any attempts beforehand probably represent a waste of time.


----------



## Pink Panther (Feb 8, 2014)

From the USAC:

http://myemail.constantcontact.com/...ssion.html?soid=1104773210955&aid=p6MzlEWGll8

If you don't get the emails you can sign up for them here:

http://utahstreamaccess.org/usac-wp/utah-stream-access-coalition-membership/


----------



## Jrdnmoore3 (Sep 1, 2013)

Garbage there is no valid reason a land owner should have to allow people onto his private property for any reason whatsoever regardless of if they are fishing, walking, hunting, or anything for that matter. It is the same as them passing a law that says because there are "the states" animals on your private ground anyone can hunt it but the reason they wont is they make to much money off guide services to do that.


----------



## nocturnalenemy (Jun 26, 2011)

Jrdnmoore3 said:


> Garbage there is no valid reason a land owner should have to allow people onto his private property for any reason whatsoever regardless of if they are fishing, walking, hunting, or anything for that matter. It is the same as them passing a law that says because there are "the states" animals on your private ground anyone can hunt it but the reason they wont is they make to much money off guide services to do that.


What about a sidewalk in front of my house?


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Jrdnmoore3 said:


> Garbage there is no valid reason a land owner should have to allow people onto his private property for any reason whatsoever regardless of if they are fishing, walking, hunting, or anything for that matter. It is the same as them passing a law that says because there are "the states" animals on your private ground anyone can hunt it but the reason they wont is they make to much money off guide services to do that.


The water in the streams belongs to EVERYONE. There is no valid reason for a landowner to deny me access to something that is mine.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

What makes you think water belong to everyone? 

Take from the haves and give to the have nots. Socialism to the core if not communism. Cut it out!


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> What make you think water belong to everyone.


The Utah Constitution. And the Utah Code.



> 73-1-1. Waters declared property of public.
> (1)	All waters in this state, whether above or under the ground, are hereby declared to be the property of the public, subject to all existing rights to the use thereof.
> (2)	The declaration of public ownership of water in Subsection (1) does not create or recognize an easement for public recreational use on private property.
> (3)	The Legislature shall govern the use of public water for beneficial purposes, as limited by constitutional protections for private property.
> (4)	The right of the public to use public water for recreational purposes is governed by Chapter 29, Public Waters Access Act.


⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## bigred (Mar 5, 2012)

Iron Bear said:


> What make you think water belong to everyone.


That's the law, all waters in Utah are public property. Utah code 73-1-1. Interestingly enough it is that same code that contains the language barring a recreational easement.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

The public doesn't own my 325,8000 gallons a year. 

The state does own lots of water. But you own that like you own a UDOT snowplow.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I "own" water. I literally have a physical piece of paper identifying my "share" of the total source.


-DallanC


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Iron Bear said:


> What makes you think water belong to everyone?
> 
> Take from the haves and give to the have nots. Socialism to the core if not communism. Cut it out!


This is awesome, I never thought of it this way. I'm going to go home after work and erect a 9 foot fence around my sidewalk with concertina wire. Maybe this spring we can all work on projects to build locked gates on all forest service roads that go through private property, and maybe build a giant cement channel through the middle of the state, herd all the deer and elk into it and sell 10 foot wide parcels along the whole thing from Wyoming to Arizona and let the landowners charge $1500 per deer that you shoot in their strip. Better learn some advanced ballistics, you might accidentally shoot like 5 deer and have to pay $6000.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

DallanC said:


> I "own" water. I literally have a physical piece of paper identifying my "share" of the total source.
> 
> -DallanC


Water rights are for irrigation...


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Water rights are for water use. Not just irrigation. 

So shall we put a public spigot on oil wells on public lands?

Maybe we should all be entitled to a free hamburger from cattle grazing on public grounds?


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

Catherder said:


> I haven't heard anything about it yet, but my home internet has been down for over a week, so I may not have gotten my usual email messages from the Stream Access Coalition.
> 
> My opinion, formed especially after last years HB37 failure, is that NO stream access bill will pass the legislature until the lawsuits currently going through the courts have been adjudicated.
> 
> In talking to my own rep and others, I feel any attempts beforehand probably represent a waste of time.


Very accurate assessment.

We have been told that without the courts answer (2008 Utah Supreme Court doesn't count I guess) they will not take up the issue.
We have a trial on 0206-0211 of this year (in 2 weeks) on our Weber River case and a trial in late August of this year for the Provo lawsuit to overturn HB141 all together.
Nobody is after your water rights, just constitutional rights.
Read article 17 of your Utah Constitution.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Iron Bear said:


> Water rights are for water use. Not just irrigation.
> 
> So shall we put a public spigot on oil wells on public lands?
> 
> Maybe we should all be entitled to a free hamburger from cattle grazing on public grounds?


And you personally made it snow in the Uintas to make that water flow through your land?

Not to mention that I pay fees that go toward ensuring that that water coming through your land is clean.


----------



## Jrdnmoore3 (Sep 1, 2013)

Fishrmn said:


> The water in the streams belongs to EVERYONE. There is no valid reason for a landowner to deny me access to something that is mine.
> 
> ⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


Water does not belong to everyone if it does then why do you have to pay to use it out of a tap in your house or in my case I pay for a watershare from the weber basin water district to use my well that is on my own property it isnt pumped to my home through a municipal water system. The only people who have issues with land access are people that do not have access to private property there are plenty of places with walk in access to private ground on the rivers throughout utah. There also used to be alot more but inconsiderate, irresponsible, and down right trashy people have ruined it for the people that used it properly. In reality you should be upset with those individuals not the land owners.


----------



## Mtnbeer (Jul 15, 2012)

Jrdnmoore3 said:


> Water does not belong to everyone if it does then why do you have to pay to use it out of a tap in your house or in my case I pay for a watershare from the weber basin water district to use my well that is on my own property it isnt pumped to my home through a municipal water system. The only people who have issues with land access are people that do not have access to private property there are plenty of places with walk in access to private ground on the rivers throughout utah. There also used to be alot more but inconsiderate, irresponsible, and down right trashy people have ruined it for the people that used it properly. In reality you should be upset with those individuals not the land owners.


Three words for you: Public Trust Doctrine

Your examples provided in your quote are not as directly applicable to the issue we are talking about here. A better example would be "why do you pay the state for a license to allow you the right to hunt and fish."

Here's a reference paper for you: http://training.fws.gov/courses/csp...erences/Overview_of_Public_Trust_Doctrine.pdf

If you read this reference and still don't understand the example I provided, I'll be happy to provide more information.

If, after all that and you still disagree on why it is important for stream access, well then we are at a fundamental impasse. Regardless, I'm still going to fight like hell for our rights for public access to public resources.

One thing I'll say for property owners who are upset over the whole situation, your beef isn't with anglers, it's with the State of Utah, counties, and possibly previous owners or developers who didn't fully explain what you do and do not own. Sometimes silence isn't golden...


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Jrdnmoore3 said:


> Water does not belong to everyone if it does then why do you have to pay to use it out of a tap in your house or in my case I pay for a watershare from the weber basin water district to use my well that is on my own property it isnt pumped to my home through a municipal water system. The only people who have issues with land access are people that do not have access to private property there are plenty of places with walk in access to private ground on the rivers throughout utah. There also used to be alot more but inconsiderate, irresponsible, and down right trashy people have ruined it for the people that used it properly. In reality you should be upset with those individuals not the land owners.


Everyone in this state pays for access to the public land on both sides of your property. I could easily understand and abide by laws keeping people from actually fishing on private property but expecting someone in a raft to just simply stop at your property line, carry the raft back up to the put in and then drive around your land is ridiculous. It's like keeping people from using the street in front of your house, and the only reason landowners get any momentum on this is that some of them have a good deal of money to throw at a problem that is really based on their greed.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

fishsnoop said:


> Very accurate assessment.
> 
> We have been told that without the courts answer (2008 Utah Supreme Court doesn't count I guess) they will not take up the issue.
> We have a trial on 0206-0211 of this year (in 2 weeks) on our Weber River case and a trial in late August of this year for the Provo lawsuit to overturn HB141 all together.
> ...


Chris, with the above in mind, why are we introducing another bill in this session? Particularly since the HB141 case won't complete its first legal trial until this summer? I just don't see that the legislators see any need to go after the issue again without some idea how the judiciary will go and the antis have no motivation to compromise, since they already have all they want with 141.


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

Barry,
You should email me and I will get you my number to call to discuss


----------



## Jrdnmoore3 (Sep 1, 2013)

The ground I am referring to wasn't purchased it has been in a good family friends family from before utah was a state before any politician or government employee even thought about water rights the argument of floating is invalid it's the same as saying if you fly in a helicopter and aren't touching the ground you can kill a deer on the property as long as you don't touch the ground. I'm sorry but as long as people have private property the only person who should have control of access is the landowner nobody else for any reason. Who controls who enters your home? You do same concept.


----------



## nocturnalenemy (Jun 26, 2011)

Jrdnmoore3 said:


> The ground I am referring to wasn't purchased it has been in a good family friends family from before utah was a state before any politician or government employee even thought about water rights the argument of floating is invalid it's the same as saying if you fly in a helicopter and aren't touching the ground you can kill a deer on the property as long as you don't touch the ground. I'm sorry but as long as people have private property the only person who should have control of access is the landowner nobody else for any reason. Who controls who enters your home? You do same concept.


Again, what about your sidewalk?


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

I have a question about jurisdiction. The Federal Government has jurisdiction over navigable waters. According to at least one legal dictionary "Even shallow streams that are traversable only by canoe have met the test.

I do not know if this applies only to waters that cross state or international boundaries, but if it does then consider this. I believe the Bear River crosses a state boundary, and it empties into the Great Salt Lake. I assume this means that virtually any water that connects with the Great Salt Lake would fall in this category.

Comments?


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Jrdnmoore3 said:


> The ground I am referring to wasn't purchased it has been in a good family friends family from before utah was a state before any politician or government employee even thought about water rights the argument of floating is invalid it's the same as saying if you fly in a helicopter and aren't touching the ground you can kill a deer on the property as long as you don't touch the ground. I'm sorry but as long as people have private property the only person who should have control of access is the landowner nobody else for any reason. Who controls who enters your home? You do same concept.


The king has spoken.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Years ago I was fishing the river that comes into Rockport,was on the other side of the road.Looked to be sure there were no no trespassing signs posted.None.So me and my wife and 3 kids went through the gate and proceeded to fish.Kids were not interested in fishing so I gave them a garbage bag and said I would give them a dime for every piece of trash they picked up.Well about 30 minutes in here comes this hard charging cowboy on his horse and proceeds to go right over to my wife and start harrasing her about private property,mind you his horse was almost on top of my wife.Well I freaked out splashed over to where he was smacked his horse in the flank which in turn bucked him off into the water.After several minutes of Im going to kick your butt I calmed him down and told him about there being no signs posted,well he said it was people like us who tore them down-O,-We had a couple more minutes of back and forth,bla, bla, bla.I then showed him the garbage that we had picked up just cause thats how we are.H settled down and said go ahead and fish,which I rudly turned down,picked up our gear and the sack of garbage and left.Private property is to be respected,but it needs to be posted that way.I understand the guys attitude because all of the trash there.so I respect everyone property,and always take more out than we came with.If the guy had been civil from the start there would not have been a problem,but start threating my family,there will be consequences.I understand why people post their land,and always try to do whats right.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

massmanute said:


> I have a question about jurisdiction. The Federal Government has jurisdiction over navigable waters. According to at least one legal dictionary "Even shallow streams that are traversable only by canoe have met the test.
> 
> I do not know if this applies only to waters that cross state or international boundaries, but if it does then consider this. I believe the Bear River crosses a state boundary, and it empties into the Great Salt Lake. I assume this means that virtually any water that connects with the Great Salt Lake would fall in this category.
> 
> Comments?


I don't have all the answers to your question, but I do know that a lot of these questions will be key points on the Weber River navigability lawsuit that is mentioned above. The USAC is seeking a judgement that the Weber is indeed "navigable" based on established legal precedent and thus to be regulated as such. Any rivers deemed navigable fall outside of the jurisdiction of HB141. If the Weber suit succeeds, and I think it probably will, then similar action would be taken on other major rivers in the State, assuming it is still necessary to do so. (If HB141 hasn't been overturned by the courts yet)


----------

