# Stream Rights- It's game time!



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

There is no released content yet, but here is the number of the bill we have been waiting for. (HB0187)

http://www.le.state.ut.us/asp/billsintr ... x3=FERRYBC

Apparently, the content will be put in subsequently. You can subscribe to have the text emailed to you when it becomes available. See the bottom of the link.


----------



## Nueces (Jul 22, 2008)

I just subscribed. Thanks for posting the link.


----------



## rstrouts (Jan 29, 2009)

-->http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2009/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0187.htm -->(Web Watch) Subscribe to each of the 3 subscription process separately to be notified of changes in each update.

Notice that Bill 187 is called "Recreational USE of Public Waters". Each word is important to understand so that, when you comment to your legislator or other advocates for your rights' interests, you are talking about the matter at issue. For examples, "Recreational" rather than "Consumptive (e.g., drinking)", "USE" rather than "Access", "Public" rather than "Private", and "Waters" rather than "Land" or "River" or "Stream".

The matter at issue is "Recreational USE of Public Waters", "RECREATIONAL Use of Public Waters", "Recreational Use of PUBLIC Waters", "Recreational Use of Public WATERS", nothing else.

Here is the Conclusion of the July 18, 2008 ConaTSer Utah Supreme Court ruling:

"29 The district court incorrectly interpreted the scope of the public's easement in state waters so as to limit the conaTSers' rights to being upon the water and to touching the privately owned bed of the Weber River only in ways incidental to the right of floatation.

30 We hold that the scope of the easement provides the public the right to float, hunt, fish and participate in all lawful activities that utilize the water. We further hold that the public has the right to touch privately owned beds of state waters in ways incidental to all recreational rights provided for in the easement, so long as they do so reasonably and cause no unnecessary injury to the landowner."

There is no use of the term "access" to or from waters in the Utah Supreme Court ruling's Conclusion nor in the Subject line of House Bill 187. Concern your efforts with the term "USE" of waters.

This bill and the ruling is about "Recreational USE of Public Waters".


----------



## Dead Drifter (Nov 22, 2008)

PUBLIC WATERS, PUBLIC WATERS, PUBLIC WATERS.
Does this infer that there are PRIVATE WATERS?
They're sneaky little politicians! Watch 'em close.


----------



## rstrouts (Jan 29, 2009)

Dead Drifter said:


> PUBLIC WATERS, PUBLIC WATERS, PUBLIC WATERS.
> Does this infer that there are PRIVATE WATERS?
> They're sneaky little politicians! Watch 'em close.


Read, understand and bookmark for future reference when you communicate with and/or send to your legislator and/or fellow right to Recreational Use of Public Waters advocate:

http://nationalrivers.org/us-law-who-owns.htm


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

rstrouts said:


> Read, understand and bookmark for future reference when you communicate with and/or send to your legislator and/or fellow right to Recreational Use of Public Waters advocate: http://nationalrivers.org/us-law-who-owns.htm


Thanks for that link. I've registered on the bill site and have bookmarked your link and will read it later today. I'll be writing my representatives later when the bill contents have been released.


----------



## Pez Gallo (Dec 27, 2007)

Dead Drifter said:


> PUBLIC WATERS, PUBLIC WATERS, PUBLIC WATERS.
> Does this infer that there are PRIVATE WATERS?
> They're sneaky little politicians! Watch 'em close.


Actually I'm sure that there is such a thing as private waters. If you have land completely surrounding a lake, pretty much de facto private waters, no?


----------



## Pez Gallo (Dec 27, 2007)

as far as you guys want to narrowly define terms like access and use, remember that the decision does mention access (even if it is only once). Also, laws need not narrowly define themselves. There is often wiggle room to more broadly interpret and define laws.

Remember why the conatser case came about. The land owners were denying access to part of the river for recreational use. The two terms go hand in hand.


----------



## F/V Gulf Ventur (Oct 8, 2007)

Pez Gallo said:


> as far as you guys want to narrowly define terms like access and use, remember that the decision does mention access (even if it is only once). Also, laws need not narrowly define themselves. There is often wiggle room to more broadly interpret and define laws.
> 
> Remember why the conatser case came about. The land owners were denying access to part of the river for recreational use. The two terms go hand in hand.


Hey Pez,

I think what everyone is saying is that words dictate the course of action. Words are very important in understanding the underlying meanings. Yes its a word game.

"Access" vs "use, right and utilize" are very different. Regardless of what you or I are "referring" to, the powers that be are talking about the exact wording(s).... follow any of that?

The Conatser case was not about "access".... but "right"

*Here is the Conclusion of the July 18, 2008 Conatser Utah Supreme Court ruling:*

_29 The district court incorrectly interpreted the scope of the public's easement in state waters so as to limit the Conatsers' *rights* to being upon the water and to touching the privately owned bed of the Weber River only in ways incidental to the *right* of flotation.

30 We hold that the scope of the easement provides the public the *right* to float, hunt, fish and participate in all lawful activities that *utilize* the water. We further hold that the public has the *right* to touch privately owned beds of state waters in ways incidental to all recreational *rights* provided for in the easement, so long as they do so reasonably and cause no unnecessary injury to the landowner."
_

Keep questioning and keep researching... knowledge is power.


----------



## rstrouts (Jan 29, 2009)

Pez Gallo said:


> [quote="Dead Drifter":nz0bdzc2]PUBLIC WATERS, PUBLIC WATERS, PUBLIC WATERS.
> Does this infer that there are PRIVATE WATERS?
> They're sneaky little politicians! Watch 'em close.


Actually I'm sure that there is such a thing as private waters. If you have land completely surrounding a lake, pretty much de facto private waters, no?[/quote:nz0bdzc2]

Private waters are legally defined to be in "non-navigable" waters, derived mainly from long standing and settled Federal law.


----------



## rstrouts (Jan 29, 2009)

Pez Gallo said:


> as far as you guys want to narrowly define terms like access and use, remember that the decision does mention access (even if it is only once). Also, laws need not narrowly define themselves. There is often wiggle room to more broadly interpret and define laws.
> 
> Remember why the conatser case came about. The land owners were denying access to part of the river for recreational use. The two terms go hand in hand.


Read "Using the Word 'access' Doesn't Help Your River Rights" at: http://commonwaters.wordpress.com/2008/ ... er-rights/

In the Conatser ruling, the term "access" came up 1 or 2 times and only in the context of "access signs" rather than access to or from the water.

Although the term "access" was mentioned, it is not even remotely close to being a relevant term.

If you communicate to your legislator in order to affect his vote, speak to the issue of Use and/or the relevant points of the bill rather than anything to do with "access".

Just sayin'...


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

rstrouts said:


> Private waters are legally defined to be in "non-navigable" waters, derived mainly from long standing and settled Federal law.


That's a broad description, can you be more specific? Such as....Kennecott property's, Private resorts, Military base's, private land owners............just asking ? :?


----------



## Pez Gallo (Dec 27, 2007)

Could someone tell me who Heather mcneill is? Is she a lawyer? What credentials does she have when interpreting law? Where does she get her information?


----------



## F/V Gulf Ventur (Oct 8, 2007)

She is a former board member of http://commonwaters.wordpress.com/


----------



## Dead Drifter (Nov 22, 2008)

Pez Gallo said:


> [quote="Dead Drifter":c4wl0lk0]PUBLIC WATERS, PUBLIC WATERS, PUBLIC WATERS.
> Does this infer that there are PRIVATE WATERS?
> They're sneaky little politicians! Watch 'em close.


Actually I'm sure that there is such a thing as private waters. If you have land completely surrounding a lake, pretty much de facto private waters, no?[/quote:c4wl0lk0]
I guess we would have to decide in a court of law, who owns the airspace? I've got my eye on a couple of lakes that I think I can parachute into with a flaot tube around me, or maybe a small ultra-light with pontoons on it. Possibilities may be endless.


----------



## Dead Drifter (Nov 22, 2008)

Oakley Doakley Folks,

Quote from UTOF:
"It's is on! I have it from a very, very, very reliable source that this bill is going through! This bill completely rewrites the decision in Conatser vs Johnson! This bill will have maybe 35 waters available on the list! This bill will have ramifications way beyond Conatser vs Johnson! This bill is wrong for SPORTMEN/WOMEN!

Now is the time to make sure your representation in the house and senate know where you, the public, stands! NOW is the time to contact the Governors office in mass and with full disclosure of where we the PUBLIC stand! If you the public do not make your voice heard you will forever regret this landmark opportunity to have a say in your state's history! Get up to that capitol and let them see your face and understand where you stand without hesitation! Extend your hand and your voice!

Did I say this is a very reliable source!"

Looks like the Ed Kent compromise is ready for the bill. I wonder which 35 waters he picked for us? Did he ask any of you what waters you wanted on the list?


----------



## F/V Gulf Ventur (Oct 8, 2007)

*FREE FLIES*

*WANTED -* YOUR LETTER TO THE EDITOR PUBLISHED!
*REWARD - *KICK BUTT FLIES!

The utahwaterguardians have put up a reward to encourage you to stand-up and voice your concerns regarding our most valuable resource; public water.

Details here -->http://utahwaterguardians.wordpress.com/free-flies/


----------



## F/V Gulf Ventur (Oct 8, 2007)

Came across some interesting information.......

_*Utah Division of Wildlife November 16, 2007 - Economic Impact
*

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

"The purpose of this project was to help resource managers and the public developer a better understanding of the economic contributions of hunting, sportfishing and wildlife watching activities in Utah in 2006. When used effectively, economic data can help increase legislative, public, business and media awareness of the importance of fish and wildlife, and as a result, help boost conservation efforts and public recreational opportunities."

Summary - "In 2006, 1.1 million residents and non-residents participated in some form of fish and wildlife -related recreation in Utah. These anglers, hunters and wildlife viewers spent $1.24 billion in retail sales creating $651.9 million in salaries and wages, and supporting more than 24,000 jobs. The total economic effect (multiplier effect) from fish and wildlife-related recreation was estimated at *$2.3 billion*."

_

Download a complete copy now -->http://utahwaterguardians.wordpress.com/facts/


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

So I'm hearing the bill is numbered and presented and the content is finalized just not available to the public or reps and senators yet.

Why haven't we heard from those who are "OUR" voice from the meetings? Why are they not telling us what the bill contains?

This back door, closed meeting stuff is not what a free society is about.


----------



## rstrouts (Jan 29, 2009)

HighNDry said:


> So I'm hearing the bill is numbered and presented and the content is finalized just not available to the public or reps and senators yet.
> 
> Why haven't we heard from those who are "OUR" voice from the meetings? Why are they not telling us what the bill contains?
> 
> This back door, closed meeting stuff is not what a free society is about.


If it's good enough for Ole Hickory Andrew Jackson, it's good enough fer us:

"Ole Hick'ry said we could take 'em by serprize 
If we din't far ar muskets til we look 'em in the eyez
We held our far 'til we seen their faces well
Then we open'd up ar squirrl gunz an' really gave 'em, welllllllll

Weeeee far'd our guns and the British kep' a comin'
There wern't as many of 'em as there was a while ago
We far'd once't more an' they commenced to runnin'
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexicooooo...
--"Battle of New Orleans, Johnny Horton


----------



## F/V Gulf Ventur (Oct 8, 2007)

Ok you guys... for those of you that have already contacted your Representative(s), please direct your attention to the Governor's office.

For those of you that have not contacted your Representative please do so, even if its only to ask questions to get informed or to let them know that this "backdoor" stuff is concerning you or that you are apprehensive about trusting anything at this point. Its easy,and it takes less than (5) minutes!

*
Person(s) of Interest*

*• The Governor's office*
---> Amanda Smith - Legislative Affairs Adviser - [email protected]
---> Michael Mower - State Planning Coordinator [email protected]

*KEY POINTS*
o Let them know that Ferry's bill, HB 187, does not speak for your (public's) interest.

o Any effort to diminish, limit, or reverse the public's right to an easement on public water is a direct assault on our rights as defined by the Utah Supreme Court.

o You believe in respecting private property, and that water is a public resource--it benefits everyone and is "owned" by us all. The legislature's obligation is to defend the public's rights to use that resource while continuing to protect the rights of private property owners.

o You do not support legislation that attempts to list specific "allowed" and "un-allowed" streams.

o Users of this resource have not had the opportunity to contribute or exchange ideas on this issue. Any proposed legislation should have the backing of an intensive planning committee, within the parameters outlined by the Utah Supreme Court's ruling, with representation of all interested parties.

o In 2006, 1.1 million residents and non-residents participated in some form of fish and wildlife -related recreation in Utah. These anglers, hunters and wildlife viewers spent $1.24 billion in retail sales creating $651.9 million in salaries and wages, and supporting more than 24,000 jobs. The total economic effect (multiplier effect) from fish and wildlife-related recreation was estimated at $2.3 billion.

[url="http://utahwaterguardians.wordpress.com/"]http://utahwaterguardians.wordpress.com/


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

F/V Gulf Ventur......your blog.......excellent stuff !! 8) 

I'm waiting for the winter shots from down south !!


----------



## F/V Gulf Ventur (Oct 8, 2007)

.45 said:


> F/V Gulf Ventur......your blog.......excellent stuff !! 8)
> 
> I'm waiting for the winter shots from down south !!


Thanks! I had planned on getting that finished last week or so... until this Bill came about. So my time is directed elsewhere for now ; )


----------



## F/V Gulf Ventur (Oct 8, 2007)

_Along with the Governor's office, the next wave of emails/phone calls need to be directed here. Keep it you guys, we are getting feedback that your voice is being heard loud and clear - Representatives, Tourism board and the Governor's Office.
_

*
Person(s) of Interest - Committee*

Take a look at the list below. These are committee members that we have not heard a response from.

We need to hear back from these Representatives. If you live in one of these areas please email your Representative now, or if you already have and have not been acknowledged, pick up the phone and call. (I will get the number if you so choose)
It's going to take a tremendous joint effort from everyone to defeat Bill HB187. Now is the time to take a few minutes and give back to the waters we cherish.

• *Helpful guidelines and key points are posted here for your convenience* -http://utahwaterguardians.wordpress.com/action/

Please Remember -
o Be Respectful and Polite
o Please let us know if you receive a response
email us at [email protected]

Rep. John G. Mathis, Vice Chair - [email protected] Vernal
Rep. Kerry W. Gibson- [email protected] Ogden
Rep. James R. Gowans - [email protected] Tooele
Rep. Neal B. Hendrickson - [email protected] West Valley City
Rep. Michael E. Noel - [email protected] Kanab
Rep. Patrick Painter - [email protected] Nephi
Rep. Phil Riesen - [email protected] SLC
Rep. Christine F. Watkins - [email protected] Price
Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox - [email protected] Ogden
Rep. Bradley A. Winn - [email protected] Ephraim


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

This is what I sent

Dear Representative Biskupski,

As a voting resident of your district living at ---------Ave. I would like to make you aware on my feelings concerning HB 187 introduced by Representative Ferry. http://le.utah.gov/~2009/bills/hbillint/hb0187.htm

HB 187 attempts to reverse the Supreme Court decision in Conatser v. Johnson last summer. A unanimous Supreme Court recognized that the public owns the water and has the right to use the water for legal recreation. This bill will greatly restrict the public's ability to utilize the water which we own. Our state has a great legacy of outdoor recreation and that should not be limited. 
A report by the Utah Division of Wildlife dated November 16, 2007 stated "In 2006, 1.1 million residents and non-residents participated in some form of fish and wildlife -related recreation in Utah. These anglers, hunters and wildlife viewers spent $1.24 billion in retail sales creating $651.9 million in salaries and wages, and supporting more than 24,000 jobs. The total economic effect (multiplier effect) from fish and wildlife-related recreation was estimated at $2.3 billion."
These jobs and this money is greatly needed in these economic times.
As a member of the Business and Labor Committee the economic impact of this bill should be of great concern to you. Your position on the Rules committee gives you the opportunity to oppose this biill from the very beginning.

Thank you for your time. I would appreciate it if you could respond to me concerning your stance on this matter.

Roger J. Jette


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Here's the response I got from the governors office:

February 12, 2009



Dear Jack:

Thank you for sending your comments and concerns about the proposed H.B. 187. - Recreational Use of Public Waters. Due to the large numbers of e-mails we have been receiving on both sides of this important issue, we are not able to respond to each e-mail individually. Your comments are being noted and are being shared with Governor Huntsman and members of his senior staff. At this point our office continues to work towards a compromise that balances the rights of private property owners and the rights of fishermen and other river/stream bed recreation enthusiasts.

Thanks again for your valued input.

Regards,

Amanda Smith Mike Mower
Legislative Affairs Director State Planning Coordinator
Office of Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr. Office of Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

It is a small thing, but my "Letter to the Editor" was put into the Provo Daily Herald this morning.

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/299957/56/

Hopefully, I will see some of you on Tuesday(?) at the committee hearing.


----------



## troutscout (Feb 12, 2009)

I'll be at both that and the rally! - ^^ike


----------



## Troll (Oct 21, 2008)

See you there.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

Thanks to everyone for working to hard to stop this non sense. STOP HOUSE BILL 187!!!


----------



## F/V Gulf Ventur (Oct 8, 2007)

*UPDATE: RALLY TOMORROW!! *
Where: South Steps @ 10:30am - Thursday Feb. 19

Many of us are arriving early and organizing on the east steps @10am. *The rally will be held at 10:30 sharp on the SOUTH STEPS!!* After, we will all enter the capitol together. We will be sending in a request ("note") to speak with our representatives. There will be volunteers standing by to help with the process&#8230;&#8230;We all need to participate!!

_We also need volunteers to assist with the "note" process. For those interested please arrive early and we'll go over the details._


----------

