# DWR ALLOWS STREAM ALTERATION WITHOUT NOTICE



## fishinwithdad (Jan 30, 2011)

The State of Utah issued a stream alteration permit to a property owner on the Duchesne River, just outside the town of Hanna, without requiring notice to the adjacent property owners. The river has been narrowed to a least 1/2 the width and the rocks placed in the river washed downstream. The fishing holes are gone. Guess what? The State says its too late because the property owners didn't object within the correct amount of time--never mind the property owners weren't notified. You can check this out yourself at
http://www.waterrights.utah.gov and look for permit number 09430004. This covers area subject to a fishing easement purchased by the United States. Just for full disclosure, this matter is the subject of two lawsuits in the Eighth District Court. But we could sure use some help from anyone who has ever fished in that area and all property owners with riverfront property should be aware of exactly what the State says they can do to your property.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

It might be sour apples on my part,but landowners just used the state to bend every public fisherman in the state over and now landowners want our help? They should have thought about that before they pushed for 141. Now they know how alot of us felt when 141 was pushed through. What goes around comes around.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Sorry fishinwithdad, but I could not find permit number 09430004... :?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

A couple of questions.

1. Your headline says that the "DWR" allowed stream alteration without notice. Then the body of the post said the State. I believe other entities besides the DWR issue such permits. What the heck does the DWR have to do with any of this? 

2. Assuming no stream pollution or other environmental laws have been violated, why should I care about a dispute between two private landowners? It is none of my business. 

3. As luv2fsh&hnt said, with the events of HB141 fresh in some of our minds, you probably aren't talking to a particularly sympathetic audience about this matter.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

I believe that any navigable water and the alteration of such would fall under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. The State of Utah would not be the one that issued such permits.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Catherder said:


> 1. Your headline says that the "DWR" allowed stream alteration without notice. Then the body of the post said the State. I believe other entities besides the DWR issue such permits. What the heck does the DWR have to do with any of this?


My thoughts too, until I went to the link. It's DWRi. Division of Water Rights.

Fishrmn


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

Depending on the criteria, either the State Of Utah Division of Water Rights or the Federal Army Corp of Engineers may issue the permit.
Often both parties may be involves in a stream alteration permit.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

luv2fsh&hnt said:


> It might be sour apples on my part,but landowners just used the state to bend every public fisherman in the state over and now landowners want our help? They should have thought about that before they pushed for 141. Now they know how alot of us felt when 141 was pushed through. What goes around comes around.





Catherder said:


> A couple of questions.
> 
> 1. Your headline says that the "DWR" allowed stream alteration without notice. Then the body of the post said the State. I believe other entities besides the DWR issue such permits. What the heck does the DWR have to do with any of this?
> 
> ...


You guy's should care, the man said _This covers area subject to a fishing easement purchased by the United States_, he's talking public access. Something we don't have a lot of and especially along the Duchesne River for crying out loud !!


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Loke said:


> I believe that any navigable water and the alteration of such would fall under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers.


The Duchesne is currently classified as "non navigable"



Fishrmn said:


> Catherder said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Your headline says that the "DWR" allowed stream alteration without notice. Then the body of the post said the State. I believe other entities besides the DWR issue such permits. What the heck does the DWR have to do with any of this?
> ...


Good pickup. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

.45 said:


> Sorry fishinwithdad, but I could not find permit number 09430004... :?


Here buddy:

http://www.waterrights.utah.gov/cgi-bin ... r=09430004


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

.45 said:


> Sorry fishinwithdad, but I could not find permit number 09430004... :?


Here buddy:

http://www.waterrights.utah.gov/cgi-bin ... r=09430004


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

.45 said:


> You guy's should care, the man said _This covers area subject to a fishing easement purchased by the United States_, he's talking public access. Something we don't have a lot of and especially along the Duchesne River for crying out loud !!


OK, valid point. However, I am unaware that the Federales were in the habit of securing public fishing easements. I don't get out there as much as you do, but my impression was that this stretch of river was basically 100% private property with no public access (with the current laws). If it could be confirmed that an accessible public stretch (if it exists) was harmed, then you may get a more sympathetic ear. Better yet, the stretch in question could be a fine candidate for the DWR (Division of Wildlife Resources  ) habitat restoration program.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Catherder said:


> .45 said:
> 
> 
> > OK, valid point. However, I am unaware that the Federales were in the habit of securing public fishing easements. * I don't get out there as much as you do, but my impression was that this stretch of river was basically 100% private property with no public access* (with the current laws). If it could be confirmed that an accessible public stretch (if it exists) was harmed, then you may get a more sympathetic ear. Better yet, the stretch in question could be a fine candidate for the DWR (Division of Wildlife Resources  ) habitat restoration program.


Yes, there is access....I'll show you !!! Right after we go TROUT fishing at Jordanelle this spring..


----------



## sawsman (Sep 13, 2007)

After looking at some of the documents, it seems as though Mr. Fabrizios intentions in the beginning were good. He wanted to clean the place up and even mentioned some of the neighbors who may have been affected.

It's obviously turned into an ugly mess. :| 

Looking at the after pictures, it appears I'm still able to fish that stretch just fine.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

.45 said:


> Catherder said:
> 
> 
> > [quote=".45":1e7y3apo]
> > OK, valid point. However, I am unaware that the Federales were in the habit of securing public fishing easements. * I don't get out there as much as you do, but my impression was that this stretch of river was basically 100% private property with no public access* (with the current laws). If it could be confirmed that an accessible public stretch (if it exists) was harmed, then you may get a more sympathetic ear. Better yet, the stretch in question could be a fine candidate for the DWR (Division of Wildlife Resources  ) habitat restoration program.


Yes, there is access....I'll show you !!! Right after we go TROUT fishing at Jordanelle this spring.. [/quote:1e7y3apo]

Deal!!! (You do realize that I enjoy trout chasing almost as much as bassin 8) )


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

I have filed stream alteration permits in the past and it looks like they followed protocol from what I can see looking through the notes. I have found in the business I am in, the governing jurisdiction will send out letters to owners or citizens and they ignore them, then when something is built they piss and moan. Unfortunately, if they sent out notices and no one came and protested, they don't have much ground to stand on.


----------



## fishinwithdad (Jan 30, 2011)

Thanks to all of you who showed interest. First, this "girl" has been fishing with her dad since she was old enough to walk. Unfortunately, even though the permit is now, allegedly, in compliance, the original causeway built of small rocks washed downstream and evened out the river bed and changed the path and flow rate of the river. There are no more fishing holes or fish in that stretch of the river. I have no idea what bill you are talking about, so I can't comment. However, it seems from the posts, that some of the public are only interested in access to private land, not protecting the fishing habitat they wanted to access. I know the area is covered with snow now, but, in the spring, if you're up in that neck of the woods, go take a look. But, do it before high water, as it will all be washed away and the private land you want to access for fishing, will be under water. Again, thanks everyone for showing interest.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

Streams change with spring flows.
Perhaps this spring the flows will do more to wash out the rock and make more deeper holes once again.
Nature has a way of fixing things that man screws up.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

fishinwithdad said:


> However, it seems from the posts, that some of the public are only interested in access to private land, not protecting the fishing habitat they wanted to access.


Actually, what the majority of the honorable public sportsperson wants is access to the waters of the state that the Utah Supreme Court says are there for the recreational use of all of Utah's citizens. It doesn't matter if they run through private property. If the public accesses the water through a public access point (not a private property point), then the public was a right to recreate on the water wherever it goes.

The very ignorant Utah State Legislature passed a bill last year that took away the very rights the Utah State Supreme Court says belongs to every citizen. That law is being challenged in court and will eventually end up at the Utah Supreme Court - again. That law was backed by Utah farmers and ranchers through the Utah Farm Bureau (a VERY powerful lobby in Utah). So when the farmers and ranchers now want fishermen and women to join them in protecting their private property rights regarding stream flows, it's not too hard to imagine that the fishermen and women are reluctant to do so.

My only point here is this: there is one Hell of a lot more to this issue than what it seems to be to you. :-D


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

.45 said:


> luv2fsh&hnt":11gda9mz]It might be sour apples on my part said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.js ... ah+Project[/URL]
> ...


----------



## fishinwithdad (Jan 30, 2011)

Sorry to be so long in responding. First, the Army Corp of Engineers has delegated the responsiblity for all stream alteration permits that do not involve wetlands to the Division of Water Rights in the State of Utah. In addition, neither the State of Utah or the applicant have legal obligation to notify the adjoining landowners of applications for stream alteration permits. As was stated by Assistant Utah Attorney General, the application is between the State and the Applicant. The Utah State Engineer does not have the resources to investigate all applications. Anyway, after the application is approved, the affected landowners, including the United States Goverment if they have a fishing easement, have 20 days to object to the Division of Water Rights and another 30 days to file an objection with the court. So, if the person who obtained the permit waits to begin work until the objection period has expired, your river could look just like this section of the Duchesne River. Hard to believe, but true as we just found out in court yesterday. If you have any property in the State of Utah with a river or stream, you need to check the website regularly as that is the only place the State of Utah is required to place notice. Yes. That is the law. I have scanned in the fishing easement purchased by the United States on the Duchesne River and will provide a copy if you email me at [email protected]. I am a dinosaur and don't know how to place it where I could give you all a link.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

fishsnoop said:


> There is splotchy access on the Duchesne but what does exist* was purchased* as per the CUP (Central Utah Water Project) which required public access in the agreementto move all that water over to Strawberry and down the tunnel to Utah County. Big federal dollars were spent on this project.
> http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.js ... ah+Project
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Ut ... letion_Act
> ...


Do you really mean _purchased_?? Or just bargained for and never paid off? I believe they still owe an outstanding debt from the early '90's on that one.


----------



## sinergy (Mar 6, 2008)

My questions is, Was areas that are in question open to the public ?

In the light of HB141 the public is already paying $$$ for maintenance on these easements but restricted to access them.


----------



## fishsnoop (Apr 3, 2009)

.45 said:


> fishsnoop said:
> 
> 
> > There is splotchy access on the Duchesne but what does exist* was purchased* as per the CUP (Central Utah Water Project) which required public access in the agreementto move all that water over to Strawberry and down the tunnel to Utah County. Big federal dollars were spent on this project.
> ...


No I mean purchased internet cowboy. You would need to talk to property owners, I guess. Those I have spoken to in that area have been paid. The easement is 10 feet from the river. Who do you think still owes?? The feds? Utah? I spoke to no less than 3 landowners on the Doosh at the ISE and this issue was discussed openly, they didn't mind the access near as much as you do.
Maybe you could bring some facts to the thread rather than your uptight conjecture against the feds.
Why is/was federal funding being cut for the CUP? Why was the CUP requiring public access to these water ways?


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

fishsnoop said:


> No I mean purchased internet cowboy. You would need to talk to property owners, I guess. Those I have spoken to in that area have been paid. The easement is 10 feet from the river. Who do you think still owes?? The feds? Utah? I spoke to no less than 3 landowners on the Doosh at the ISE and this issue was discussed openly, they didn't mind the access near as much as you do.
> Maybe you could bring some facts to the thread rather than your uptight conjecture against the feds.
> Why is/was federal funding being cut for the CUP? Why was the CUP requiring public access to these water ways?


Internet cowboy? :?

fishsnoop...I do talk to the property owners, the _original_ property owners. I talk to 'em once or twice a week. But I think we're talking different issues here, I have no real quarrel with the Feds, it's the C.U.P that really bothers me, do you realize the damage this caused?

_In 1965 the federal government and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District signed an agreement with the tribe. It said the Central Utah Project would proceed, using water from the reservation; in return, the tribe would receive a project for the reservation. The CUP went forward, but the Ute Indian project was never built (HCN, 3/30/87; 7/15/91). It took the government nearly 30 years to admit it had defrauded the Ute Tribe._


----------

