# Court Rules Weber River Is Navigable



## HopperLover (Jul 7, 2008)

This just in...

http://myemail.constantcontact.com/...uling.html?soid=1104773210955&aid=WOgfNd-lYOo

And for you legal folks...

http://utahstreamaccess.org/usac-wp...campaign=20150410+usac+blast&utm_medium=email


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

That is the best news I've got all morning thanks for posting!


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Awesome!


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Sweet!


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Awesome!!!!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

This is promising for the future case regarding the constitutionality of the legislatures 2010 law that revoked the right of access on ALL stream beds running through private property in Utah. I am glad that "compromise" legislation was shot down.

This has legal implications with regard to the land "swap" as well. Especially with regard to the role of precedent and public trust. 

This is very very good news!


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Hmmm, very interesting. http://myemail.constantcontact.com/...uling.html?soid=1104773210955&aid=WOgfNd-lYOo

The same "navigable" language could be applicable for the Bear River, the Black's Fork, and even the Henry's Fork all on the north slope of the Uintas where, collectively, huge volumes of logs were floated down the streams to sawmills to be made into railroad ties.

.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

wyogoob said:


> Hmmm, very interesting. http://myemail.constantcontact.com/...uling.html?soid=1104773210955&aid=WOgfNd-lYOo
> 
> The same "navigable" language could be applicable for the Bear River, the Black's Fork, and even the Henry's Fork all on the north slope of the Uintas where, collectively, huge volumes of logs were floated down the streams to sawmills to be made into railroad ties.
> 
> .


Duh, all that stuff is in the court ruling document. http://utahstreamaccess.org/usac-wp/...m_medium=email

thanks for posting the story HopperLover.

.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Huh, wonder why the "Get off my lawn!" crowd haven't chimed in. Come on guys, explain to us that your share of the water comes off the top so people should have to drive 30 miles around your single acre when they want to fish the other side.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Jedidiah said:


> Huh, wonder why the "Get off my lawn!" crowd haven't chimed in. Come on guys, explain to us that your share of the water comes off the top so people should have to drive 30 miles around your single acre when they want to fish the other side.


Slow crowd today, I'm thinking most of the Utah water rights guys are in Wyoming where you have to drive 40 miles around my single acre of private land to fish the other side....and without any complaint, by the way.

As a "Get off my lawn!" guy from Wyoming and a *Moderator* I've learned to "chime in" later on the Utah water rights issue....waiting, inevitability, until a handful of water rights guys break Forum rules and make asses out of themselves ruining it for those, on both sides, offering intelligent dialog.

.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Jedidiah said:


> Huh, wonder why the "Get off my lawn!" crowd haven't chimed in. Come on guys, explain to us that your share of the water comes off the top so people should have to drive 30 miles around your single acre when they want to fish the other side.


It's amazing to me to see the "entitlement" that so many guys have on this issue.
Even a smart guy like Lonetree should have seen how poorly written that first bill/law was, in which it eventually got overturned.
I sure do hope this one does hold up and all the "entitled" idiots will stay off and out of peoples private property when trying to gain access to these waters.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

ridgetop said:


> It's amazing to me to see the "entitlement" that so many guys have on this issue.
> Even a smart guy like Lonetree should have seen how poorly written that first bill/law was, in which it eventually got overturned.
> I sure do hope this one does hold up and all the "entitled" idiots will stay off and out of peoples private property when trying to gain access to these waters.


I am a proponent of property rights. Private property rights should absolutely be respected. As should the rights of the public to access a resource that belongs to the public. I may be misreading you, but I don't believe that anglers believing they should be allowed access to a public waterway(below high water mark) constitutes an error in a sense of entitlement.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

ridgetop said:


> It's amazing to me to see the "entitlement" that so many guys have on this issue.
> Even a smart guy like Lonetree should have seen how poorly written that first bill/law was, in which it eventually got overturned.
> I sure do hope this one does hold up and all the "entitled" idiots will stay off and out of peoples private property when trying to gain access to these waters.


I definitely agree the second and third sentences, people need to stay within the boundaries, respect privacy and absolutely never litter.

In my view, entitlement is when people buy land on a major river like the Weber, Provo, Bear or Green and think they can put a fence across the water. Even people who don't own land on those rivers are paying for you to have clean water flowing through your land. Creeks and streams are a different story entirely, I'm totally on board with those being owned solely by the land owner, but the big rivers in the state are public property.

And actually, the way this law is written, people won't even own the river from the high water mark down. End of argument, people wanted to fight over people walking on "their" land, now it's not even theirs. Looking forward to the same happening on the rest of the bigger rivers in the state.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> It's amazing to me to see the "entitlement" that so many guys have on this issue.
> Even a smart guy like Lonetree should have seen how poorly written that first bill/law was, in which it eventually got overturned.
> I sure do hope this one does hold up and all the "entitled" idiots will stay off and out of peoples private property when trying to gain access to these waters.


Let me tell ya something. Name-calling, the term "idiots" for example, is not good here. Please respect members that have different views than you or I'll shut this thing down in a second.

Good grief, lets see if we can do a water right's thread that doesn't it end up getting locked.

.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

wyogoob said:


> As a "Get off my lawn!" guy from Wyoming and a *Moderator* I've learned to "chime in" later on the Utah water rights issue....waiting, inevitability, until a handful of water rights guys break Forum rules and make asses out of themselves ruining it for those, on both sides, offering intelligent dialog.
> 
> .


Oh come on Goob, if it wasn't for rule breakers and asses we wouldn't have much of a forum now would we?

I'm all for public access within the bounds of the high water mark of the prominent waterways in an area. This is an area where I diverge from my conservative self a bit and venture into the realm of a free thinker........or maybe I'm just a selfish guy who likes to fish, hike, swim, float....etc. ------SS


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> Oh come on Goob, if it wasn't for rule breakers and asses we wouldn't have much of a forum now would we?
> 
> .......................------SS


Leave me alone. I'm honing my *Moderator *skills, practicing for the 2016 election.

This is a very important issue for Utahns and personally I find the opinions from both sides fascinating. But the threads have a history of turning sour and getting locked....and I've not been the *Mod(s)* that have locked them.

.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

You have to admit, my first post could be called baiting. Hope it works out ok for you landowners, I understand the point of view of wanting to keep the beerdrinking, signshooting, garbage-strewing masses off of your slice of the pie. One day I'll own a little plot next to a stream and I like to think I'll still feel the same way I do right now. You have to understand, I'm the kind of guy who picks up trash on both public and private land and fixes your fallen down fences so I don't feel like it's a big deal to let me wade or float through.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> Oh come on Goob, if it wasn't for rule breakers and asses we wouldn't have much of a forum now would we?
> 
> I'm all for public access within the bounds of the high water mark of the prominent waterways in an area. This is an area where I diverge from my conservative self a bit and venture into the realm of a free thinker........or maybe I'm just a selfish guy who likes to fish, hike, swim, float....etc. ------SS


This forum died a long time ago...it's only good for ruffling feathers.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

wyogoob said:


> Slow crowd today, I'm thinking most of the Utah water rights guys are in Wyoming where you have to drive 40 miles around my single acre of private land to fish the other side....and without any complaint, by the way.


Why would I be up there? Too many Utards. We were out in the West desert this weekend finding topaz and red beryls. While I was ecstatic about this news, it was too much hassle to type much with my wife's small tablet from the in-laws house.



wyogoob said:


> As a "Get off my lawn!" guy from Wyoming and a Moderator I've learned to "chime in" later on the Utah water rights issue....waiting, inevitability, until a handful of water rights guys break Forum rules and make asses out of themselves ruining it for those, on both sides, offering intelligent dialog.


Does this mean that when the (anti) water rights guy calls me again an illiterate, wanna-be eco-terrorist thug, that probably never fishes when he has nothing better to say, something will be done? I've never been so insulted. He said I never fish? :roll:;-)


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> It's amazing to me to see the "entitlement" that so many guys have on this issue.
> Even a smart guy like Lonetree should have seen how poorly written that first bill/law was, in which it eventually got overturned.
> I sure do hope this one does hold up and all the "entitled" idiots will stay off and out of peoples private property when trying to gain access to these waters.


It should be pointed out that there was no "first law" that got overturned. There were court decisions that came down defining some of the rights but leaving some questions. The anglers tried to get legislation which would define things better for all parties, (HB80) but the legislature decided to ignore the courts (and us) and passed HB141. It certainly can be argued that HB141 is poorly written on multiple levels and that is the basis for a separate lawsuit going through the courts.

As for interactions between landowners and anglers, I hope all anglers will heed what the USAC said in its news release.

*Please respect private property. 
Pick up trash where you see it. 
Stay below the ordinary high water mark, and never, ever trespass to get on or off the water.

This is a resource that belongs to all of us, and it's of utmost importance that we be impeccable stewards of that resource.
*

It probably also should be repeated that access to the waters in question is *ONLY * via a public access point. The Conatser decision never allowed a recreationalist to cut through private property at any time.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Catherder said:


> Why would I be up there? Too many Utards. We were out in the West desert this weekend finding topaz and red beryls. While I was ecstatic about this news, it was too much hassle to type much with my wife's small tablet from the in-laws house.
> 
> Does this mean that when the (anti) water rights guy calls me again an illiterate, wanna-be eco-terrorist thug, that probably never fishes when he has nothing better to say, something will be done? I've never been so insulted. He said I never fish? :roll:;-)


Red beryls huh? I don't know what a red beryl is.

"an illiterate, wanna-be eco-terrorist thug"? I'd like ta have a nickel for every time I heard that. PM me if that happens again. If I don't answer the PM come over to the Recipes section and get me.

I don't have a dog in this fight; may not follow this thing all the time.

top of da page!
.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

wyogoob said:


> Red beryls huh? I don't know what a red beryl is.


Red beryl Be3Al12Si6O18 is an extremely rare crystal found in only 3 locations on earth. (2 in Utah and 1 in New Mexico) The green and blue forms of the crystal are well known as emerald (green), and aquamarine (blue) and of course are found elsewhere. A deposit in the Wah Wah range produces occasional gem quality stones of great value. Topaz mountain produces red beryls that form hexagonal tabs and are usually not gem quality, but are still prized by collectors for their rarity. We were at Topaz mountain. I didn't find any that set the world afire Saturday, but I got 18 and a buddy got about a dozen, including the best specimen of the trip. I tried a few pics, but my cameraphone was pretty ineffective. We also found a bunch of topaz. The pile is what the kids get to play with from the trip.

A few pics.

The crystals have a red color that is not effectively caught by the pic. 



And some average to meh quality topaz for the kids.



We also found some pseudobrookite in one area but nothing to get too excited about. We got a bunch of topaz on the trip but no monsters this time either. It was a lot of fun.

OK, back to stream access. :focus:


----------



## Jrdnmoore3 (Sep 1, 2013)

The ruling was for a 1 mile stretch of the weber not the entire river the law still stands that private property is private


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Jedidiah said:


> You have to admit, my first post could be called baiting. Hope it works out ok for you landowners, I understand the point of view of wanting to keep the beerdrinking, signshooting, garbage-strewing masses off of your slice of the pie. One day I'll own a little plot next to a stream and I like to think I'll still feel the same way I do right now. You have to understand, I'm the kind of guy who picks up trash on both public and private land and fixes your fallen down fences so I don't feel like it's a big deal to let me wade or float through.


I was referring to the guy walking across a someone's lawn(which you brought up) and/or jumping a picket fence to gain a short cut to the river or leaving a gate open that was never intended to be opened be a stranger. I respect your latest comment.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Jrdnmoore3 said:


> The ruling was for a 1 mile stretch of the weber not the entire river the law still stands that private property


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> I was referring to the guy walking across a someone's lawn(which you brought up) and/or jumping a picket fence to gain a short cut to the river or leaving a gate open that was never intended to be opened be a stranger. I respect your latest comment.


You're going to have some of that from the slobs that would do it anyway. I'm sure this will require access from a public place just like the last one. And 99% will abide by it and the landowners will never know anyone was there.


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

this ruling may not affect blacks fork much... i say that because (as i understand it) there was a log flume built that diverted water from the river thru the flume which was quite a few miles long and delivered the logs to a milling site for railroad ties. portions of the flume are still visible in locations. so the part of the river that actually floated logs might be fairly small, currently on public property, etc.
on the other hand, they may have floated logs down the river prior to the construction of the flume.

goober - ya got any info on that?


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

ridgetop said:


> I was referring to the guy walking across a someone's lawn(which you brought up) and/or jumping a picket fence to gain a short cut to the river or leaving a gate open that was never intended to be opened be a stranger. I respect your latest comment.


Sorry, the lawn part was a poor joke. I'd ALMOST expect to have a gun drawn on me if I walked through someone's yard, cultivated land or any other clearly marked private area that wasn't the walkway to the front door (especially in a rural area.) OnX Hunt maps are great for finding private property lines and planning your route, failing that http://dwrapps.utah.gov/ram/start2 has private property lines and I use both before leaving the house when I'm fishing.

To me the river issue is the same as forest service roads through private property. People are getting into trouble over that stuff all the time, someone buys property that a road goes through and either blocks the road off or starts harassing people that drive through, then they end up going to jail for it. The thing is that ownership when it comes to land isn't what people think it is, they buy a plot and they think they can or should be able to do anything they want, use it any way they want, keep any and everything out of it. Most people don't even own mineral rights on their land and don't realize that if gold or oil is found on their property, they could be forced to give it up or be traded for space of "equal" value. People find out that oil companies are drilling under their land all the time and freak out and then get told to pound sand.

The point is that a person can't set up shop on a spot and expect people to have to go around their one little spot to get to what is rightfully eveyone's to use. There's many places where the belief that people should have to go around means that public access will require a 50 mile trip by car and then another 10 miles of hiking, when they could just drive, wade or float a few hundred feet through your property. People pay for the water to stay nice, and they pay for the forest behind private property to stay nice, and your ability to purchase that land and use it was secured long before any of us were born. Those of us buying licenses, permits and shooting related items are paying even more for the land to be taken care of. All of that aside, there's way too many human beings on this planet to allow for the idea that someone can squat on a spot and disallow traffic from point A to point B.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Kingfisher said:


> this ruling may not affect blacks fork much... i say that because (as i understand it) there was a log flume built that diverted water from the river thru the flume which was quite a few miles long and delivered the logs to a milling site for railroad ties. portions of the flume are still visible in locations. so the part of the river that actually floated logs might be fairly small, currently on public property, etc.
> on the other hand, they may have floated logs down the river prior to the construction of the flume.
> 
> goober - ya got any info on that?


Yeah, I have history books, some pictures. Our local museum and library has tons of info and old pics. A good number of books have been written on the subject. Many are out of print but still cab be had in the book store at the Fort Bridger historical site.

Might be a moot point anyway. If you read the ruling I think it only pertains to parts of the stream or river that floated logs and/or parts of a river or stream that had a sluice built on it. I'm not sure how much of the waters on the North Slope that transported logs is private today.

The logs were cut when the timber was froze up, and then they were floated down the streams or down sluices during the Spring runoff. Most of the logs ended up at a sawmill "up river" from Evanston or Mountain View. The Mill Creek (between the Bear River and the Blacks Fork) log pond, sluice and saw mill, parts of which can still be seen today, are examples of the end of the journey for logs traveling by water. That may be the saw mill flume you're thinking of.

At the end of the 19th century the logging industry in Northeastern Utah and Southwest Wyoming was astounding; railroad ties, charcoal, fuel for heating, wood to power steam locomotives, shoring timbers for underground mining, oil well drilling rigs, fences, power poles, and building products. The huge ice storage buildings in Evanston that supplied ice to the railroad used an incredible amount of sawdust, all from logs off the North Slope floated down the stream to the saw mills that dotted the countryside south of the Union Pacific Railroad. Everybody had horses, especially the army at Fort Bridger. The horses and other livestock needed lots of bedding material and saw dust was easier to come by than straw.

Summit County Utah and Uinta County Wyoming was a busy place in the 1890s; lots of streams and rivers used for commerce.

.


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

ya, pretty cool stories there goob. met a guy while we were elk hunting there near blacks fork commissary who as a child lived there. took us on a tour of each of the buildings, what each one was, the commisary, house, storage, explosives, and on... wish i had written down what each one was. he told me that most of the north slope was doug fir in those days and that was the tree of choice to cut. been replaced by lodge pole. have a couple of pics from those days showing horses dragging huge doug fir trees to be milled. they were cutting left and right. would have loved to see much of the north slope as a doug fir forest.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

You guys are ruining what could have been a perfectly good argument here. What is this, Canada?


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

thats Canadia, like norwegia.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Kingfisher said:


> ya, pretty cool stories there goob. met a guy while we were elk hunting there near blacks fork commissary who as a child lived there. took us on a tour of each of the buildings, what each one was, the commisary, house, storage, explosives, and on... wish i had written down what each one was. he told me that most of the north slope was doug fir in those days and that was the tree of choice to cut. been replaced by lodge pole. have a couple of pics from those days showing horses dragging huge doug fir trees to be milled. they were cutting left and right. would have loved to see much of the north slope as a doug fir forest.


Yeah cool. The Black's Fork Commissary is a story in itself. You can still see the Doug Fir stumps around the old buildings. Again, a lot of info and old pics of the Commissary can be found in the museums and libraries of Uinta County WY.

.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Hey Kingfisher, stay on topic would ya. 

.


----------

