# Stream Access - Utah Supreme Court Decision



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

This is the single most important supreme court case regarding hunting/fishing access in Utah EVER!

The Utah Supreme Court settled a case today that will drastically change public access to streams for fishing, hunting, and other water related recreation. The long and short of it, the public has access to the rivers and streams of the state - regardless of land ownership adjacent to the water. Some highlights from the decision:

"State waters are owned by the public, which has an easement to use those waters, while the beds of state waters may be privately owned."

"In granting the public this easement, "State policy recognizes an interest of the public in the use of state waters for recreational purposes." This court has enumerated teh specific recreational rights that are within the easement's scope. They include the "right to float leisure craft, hunt, fish, and participate in any lawful activity when utilizing that water."

"The public's easement to use the water, however, exists "irrespective of the ownership of the bed and navigability of the water"

"The scope of the public's easement allows the public to engage in all recreational activities that utilize the water."

"Touching the beds of state waters is incidental to all recreational rights provided for in the easement." (this is huge guys! It means we can wade any river and fish it - regardless of private land ownership. This results essentially in the same laws in place in Montana.)

"We 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."

And a key caveat-
"The easement holder also enjoys "the privilege to do such acts as are necessary to make efective his or her enjoyment of the easement." That is, an easment holder has the right to make incidental uses beyond the express easement and does not exceed the easement's scope if those uses are "made in a reasonable manner and they do not cause unnedessary injury to the servient owners."

Final Conclusion Statement:
"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 inciental to all recreational rights provided for in the easement, so long as they do so reasonably and cause no unnecessary injuly to the landowner."

You can get the whole court document at:
http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopi ... 071808.pdf


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

Thistle here I come!! So is this final or will it be a while?


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

WOW! At first glance, this is great news for fishermen. But before I run right out and wade up my favorite posted stretch of river I must ask a few questions. When does this go into effect and what if any "bad news" is there? Anyone have an official interpretation from the DWR yet?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

> When does this go into effect


It was filed today - July 18, 2008. So it is efective right now.



> what if any "bad news" is there?


None that I can find.



> So is this final or will it be a while?


The only fineprint for that is the statement at the top of the first page that reads "This opinion is subject to revision before final publication in the Pacific Reporter." But the bottom line is that the meaning of it is clearly defined and repeated several times throughout the decision that it won't change. Barring major actions from the legislature or a state constitutional change, this is final.

As for any official word from DWR, this just was released a couple of hours ago. But I am sure it will be forthcoming.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Wow, that's good news, thanks for the update. 

I hope Wyoming follows suit. Opens me up to some fantastic fishing without having to drive very far!!!

Montana has legislated similar rules, but there is still some argument over the accessing waters that have fences strung across the streams or rivers.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

wyogoob said:


> Wow, that's good news, thanks for the update.
> 
> I hope Wyoming follows suit. Opens me up to some fantastic fishing without having to drive very far!!!
> 
> Montana has legislated similar rules, but there is still some argument over the accessing waters that have* fences strung across the streams or rivers*.


SOund to me that that is just for the cattle now!! I wont be a jerk about this but I will be fishing where I havent before and I will include a copy. I hope the DWR follows up soon with a public statement!


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Salt Lake Tribune Article on it.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9923629


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Nor-tah said:


> wyogoob said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, that's good news, thanks for the update.
> ...


I will wait and see and respect the landowners property, fences, livestock......and double-barrel shotguns.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Salt Lake Tribune Article on it.
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9923629


That sounds pretty clear to me but I agree with the goob, the ones with shotguns still scare me.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

That will be the tricky part until word gets out on this thing. You can fish these waters that have been locked up in the past, but a ticked off land owner with a gun still will make you dead as dead, no matter what court papers you are holding. :? 

The upside though - is that in time, as the legal issue gets more out on it, some nice fishing opportunities will come up.

As a side, the opinion also mentions hunting. Which is an odd twist that other states have not addressed. Would that mean that I could hike up Lost Creek into Deseret Land and Livestock and shoot a deer with my northern deer tag? As long as he is standing in the stream? Hmmm.


----------



## quakeycrazy (Sep 18, 2007)

Great day and one I have looked forward to for many years. I will of course respect landowner rights by not trashing their property and I hope they respect my right to use the river as God intended it, for ALL men to enjoy.


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

A big thanks to Jerry Nielsen (Stonefly Society) for starting the fire underneath this issue.



GaryFish said:


> That will be the tricky part until word gets out on this thing. You can fish these waters that have been locked up in the past, but a ticked off land owner with a gun still will make you dead as dead, no matter what court papers you are holding.


Incidentally in Utah the threat or use of force is only authorized if human life is in immediate danger. Any landowner that brandishes a weapon, threatens violence, or commits a violent act (even if you are in fact trespassing) is guilty of a felony.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

I don't buy it. Landowner's are not going to provide an easement to access just any old river. Possibly a little access, but what does it mean? Every mile or so? I really don't think much will come from this.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

I see it as an opportunity to still get in the river where you normally would but now you can't be chased off by somebody just because you decide to wade past their back fence. The whole stream bottom thing is pretty lame I think.... so its about time they gave fishermen some access. About hunting, wonder how this is going to affect jump shooting on places like the Sevier... that are notoriously private and protected by the folks whose lands butts up against the river. 8)


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

.45 said:


> I don't buy it. Landowner's are not going to provide an easement to access just any old river. Possibly a little access, but what does it mean? Every mile or so? I really don't think much will come from this.


It's the waters themselves that are considered a public easement, so this isn't something the landowner needs to buy into. This has always been the case, but the debate was whether or not the streambed itself could be used by the public. It seemed clear that the public could float a river through private land, but was less clear about wading or physically touching the ground in any way.

It's a silly thing, because the intent of the original law was to make sure that water was kept public. This being a desert state, this has always been an important concept because water is a scarce resource by definition.

This ruling is a big win, it clarifies that waterways are intended for the public's use, and that people can float or wade rivers that cut through private property. You need to access the river from a public access point (this ruling does not mean you can cut across private land for access) but once in the riverbed you can hunt, fish, or recreate.


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> About hunting, wonder how this is going to affect jump shooting on places like the Sevier... that are notoriously private and protected by the folks whose lands butts up against the river. 8)


The ruling includes hunting as a mentioned source of recreation that is allowed. If anyone wants to read:

http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopi ... 071808.pdf

The tricky part will be what happens if the game falls outside the waterway? The way I read the ruling, the law was clarified to state that the public has a right to use the riverbed (which is generally accepted as the high water mark, although that language was not used in this ruling). If a game bird fell within the waterway this ruling clearly states that you have the right to be there and to hunt. If a game bird fell outside of the waterway, it seems like it would be considered trespassing if you tried to retrieve it.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Why would you want to recreate on a river??

The problem I can see is....for example, Browns Canyon on the Weber. There is no access or anyplace to park along the river. Fence is strung from the gaurdrail to the landowner's property fence. How in the name of The Wide World of Sports are we going to get access from there to that river ?? :evil:

And... keep in mind Mr. Threshershark, it's pretty tough to float uphill !! _(O)_


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

Festus said:


> Why would you want to recreate on a river??
> 
> How in the name of The Wide World of Sports are we going to get access from there to that river ??
> 
> And... keep in mind Mr. Threshershark, it's pretty tough to float uphill !!


1) Weren't you recreating when you slapped water wings on Nor-Tah and went swimming?
2) Is that a reference to Slim Pickins in Blazing Saddles with the Wide Wide World of Sports?
3) Parachute!


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Well.....you've won this argument Mr. Threshershark.... :roll: 

I'll study this up a little more and get back to you !!


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

What the!? Hey lets keep this civil, I could already swim before we went!! haha Whats up with that Thresh? Festus?! :lol: :lol:


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Nor-tah said:


> WHat the!? Hey I could already swim before we went!! haha WHats up with that Thresh? Festus?! :lol: :lol:


He's losing it....!!!!!!!!!!!! *\-\* *\-\*

Try to hit this link he offered....http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/sup...tser071808.pdf

It say's *404 ERROR.....*I think Thresh has lost his marble's.. :mrgreen: _(O)_


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

Nor-tah said:


> What the!? Hey lets keep this civil, I could already swim before we went!! haha Whats up with that Thresh? Festus?!


It's out of love.


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

Pepe Le .45 said:


> Try to hit this link he offered....http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/sup...tser071808.pdf
> 
> It say's *404 ERROR.....*I think Thresh has lost his marble's..


You win this time, .45, the link is:
http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopi ... 071808.pdf


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

thresherMcPooP said:


> Pepe Le .45 said:
> 
> 
> > Try to hit this link he offered....http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/sup...tser071808.pdf
> ...


Well.....Lover Boy, I just read all of that hogwash !! It still does not apply to the problem I have already presented.

Therefore, it mean's nothing !! _(O)_


----------



## Pavlik (Sep 11, 2007)

Guys, this is great news! I am excited about this ruling. I have been kicked off the Ogden River before for traspassing on private land. Now, they can't do that to me anymore, or to anyone else for that matter.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

I normally just lurk a little on this forum, but when my buddy sent me the link to the Supreme Court Decision today I nearly peed myself and I came here to see what you folks had to say. I truly think this is the biggest, most important decision for fishermen in Utah...*EVER!! *As long as a there is a bridge, you can access a stream. You won't have to quit fishing a stretch because you come up against barb wire strung accross the stream anymore. I think it has zero implications for hunting, as the game would literally have to be standing in the stream. I hope folks won't abuse the new law by trespassing and littering, but those are already against the law, so I guess those type of folks will always be a rotten part of the apple.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Pavlik said:


> Guys, this is great news! I am excited about this ruling. I have been kicked off the Ogden River before for *traspassing on private land*. Now, they can't do that to me anymore, or to anyone else for that matter.


So........all those *NO TRESPASSING *signs will now turn into a *WELCOME SPORTSMAN *sign.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I don't think so... :roll:


----------



## Hellsangler69 (Sep 26, 2007)

You can still access the Weber down at Rockpost and walk up 45 . I've done this before . I miss fishing that section . Sidecutters may come in handy for hook removal and miss guided barbed wire . Parking sucks in that area .


----------



## rapalahunter (Oct 13, 2007)

I don't know how you can't be happy about this decision. *OOO*


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

rapalahunter said:


> I don't know how you can't be happy about this decision. *OOO*


Because........the area's I want to get in to, there is almost no access as it is. I don't see anywhere where it state's the landowner must provide access, only through the property along the riverbed. How do we get to the river?

And....if the landowner is supposed to provide access, say through his property, who will regulate how the access is to be provided? A gate ? An extra fence to keep his animal's in, and the sportsman out? Who would pay for these item's? Where would you park ?

I just don't find this beneficial at all. ...

In fact, I think it will cause more problems between the landowner's and sportsman.


----------



## rapalahunter (Oct 13, 2007)

Guess you can't please everyone. 

Are you saying you like the law better the other way? So there are some finer details that need some work and clarification... big deal. It's at least a step forward. Or do you disagree with that as well?


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

rapalahunter said:


> Guess you can't please everyone.
> 
> Are you saying you like the law better the other way? So there are some finer details that need some work and clarification... big deal. It's at least a step forward. Or do you disagree with that as well?


A *lot* of fine details !! And No....I don't like it the way it is, but, I'm for respecting other people's property's and their belongings. Do you think those landowner's are just gonna lie down and let us _Sportsman_ clamber all over their crops, leave the gate's open, ruin fence's, just for the sake of a few fish or ducks?

Again........I don't think so.. :roll:


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

This ruling should be a good thing for Utah "sportsman".

I hope we don't mess it up for ourselves by not respecting the landowners.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

.45 said:


> rapalahunter said:
> 
> 
> > Guess you can't please everyone.
> ...


They don't have a choice now. They don't have to provide access just the easement. As long as you enter from a public entrance there isn't a thing they can do. Now the shoe is on the other foot. this is a HUGE day for fisherman! Not too sure about the hunting aspect of it.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Can you imagine walking the Provo upstream between Jordanelle and Woodland? Some of that area has been shut-down for years. Some of it, even, before my time !! I just can't see property owner's allowing entrance into their property's they've had for year's and year's. Even if it is access _only_ along the river..

I would imagine this ruling will backfire before we have a chanch to utilize it. I'd bet the appeal has already been made by some landowner's and water user's. Some of these water property's have been 'privately owned' for years.

I'm not going to talk about it anymore....... _(O)_


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

This is great news. I don't think the landowner should be required to allow "recreators" access through their property, but that they would have to allow access to the high water mark.

If you can access a stretch of water, then you're home free, provided that the land owner reads the trib. Otherwise, you got some 'splaineen to do. Take a copy of the papers and don't be a wiseguy if confronted and any reasonable person should cooperate with you. (Angry landlords that think you're trespassing likely won't be too reasonable.)

It's a sticky one for the landowners, but there's really no reason to restrict the public from using our water.

Now, there are things that I'm wondering about:

1) Does this Supreme Court decision supersede any future local legislation on the municipal level? I would think that is the case, but I'm not super court savy, so I don't know.

2) Does this grant me permission to access tributaries and outlets to Fish Hatcheries?

3) Does this grant me permission to access stretches of water within "closed" boundaries? It is _all_ public water after all, and the papers _did_ say:



> "The scope of the public's easement allows the public to engage in all recreational activities that utilize the water."


No matter what, I hope the DWR is paying close attention to this so they can work out the kinks with the legislators and the Judges.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

I just can't see property owner's allowing entrance into their property's they've had for year's.Like i said before they don't have a choice now. I'm sure some landowners will go ballistic as well as some fisherman will push it to the limits. The bottom line is, this is a great day for fisherman in Utah, and it's been a long time in the making. Kudos to the people who fought this all the way to the top. We should all send them a thank you. -()/- -()/- -()/-


----------



## Dwight Schrutester (Dec 3, 2007)

The "fence across the stream issue" creates an interesting dilemma. 

Fishermen have the right to use the stream as an easement to access private property, but fishermen cannot harm the property, or create problems to the rancher's livelihood.

The rancher constructs a fence across a stream to prohibit his cattle from leaving his property, a fence that technically is on public ground.

Fishermen cross the fence--which is their right--to make use of the stream. 

If the fishermen damage the fence to the point where the rancher's cattle escape, they have created a strain on the rancher's livelihood.

What then? 

I guess the rancher just needs to build a better fence?!?

Maybe they should put a gate on the bank where their fence enters the stream...


----------



## Pavlik (Sep 11, 2007)

.45 said:


> Can you imagine walking the Provo upstream between Jordanelle and Woodland? Some of that area has been shut-down for years. Some of it, even, before my time !!


45, sounds to me like you need to get in there and fish that property ASAP! Think about it, no one was allowed to fish it for years! There have to be some respectable fish in there. If I lived closer to the Provo, I would be the first to access it.

I think that this law is just. Our fishing lisence dollars go towards stocking and managing the lakes and streams of Utah. Why are we paying for the state to stock a body of water if we can't fish it because one single person owns it? Now, I don't think that the landowners should be forced to let us onto their dry land, but, it is our right to fish all of the public waters of this state as long as we obide with all other laws.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

HOORAY HOORAY HOORAY HOORAY -()/- -()/- -()/- -~|- -*|*- -*|*- *(())* *OOO* *OOO* -~|- *()* *()* -~|- -()/>- -()/>- -()/- -()/- -*|*- *(())* *(())* *OOO* *OOO* *OOO* *OOO* *OOO* *OOO* O<< O<<  *(())* *(())* -*|*- -*|*- -()/>- -~|- -~|- -()/- -()/-


----------



## elkbudy (Dec 24, 2007)

GREAT NEWS
I know of two rivers i am going to hit now both place the people told use it was tresspassing.cant wait. hope thet read the paper!


----------



## Leaky (Sep 11, 2007)

I hope I don't bring up some points that have already been addressed and answered. If I have, I apologize. This has become a long thread with good reason. 
!) What constitutes the "bed", hight water mark or what? Need to know if I can walk the shore line as long as it's under the high water mark, like on dry ground. 
2) I duck hunt the rivers, does this mean i can shot a duckie on the river as long as i"m in the "bed"? What happens if the duckie lands on the bank? Can I retrieve it? Probably not, right? Best not to hunt em in private property areas, right?
Leaky and the Sparkinator


----------



## Swaner (Sep 10, 2007)

I sure hope it includes the high water mark. If it does it looks like I get my favorite duck hunting spot back this fall!!! I never had a duck that has landed outside of the high water mark since when I hunt it the river goes from being about 25 feet wide to about 8 feet wide and they always decoy right in. WOOOHOOOOOOOOO 

*OOO* *OOO* *OOO*


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

I think some of you are trying to make this something its not. For starters, the private property owner DOES NOT have to give you access to a stream/river crossing his property - ever! You may not, without his permission, cross his property to gain access to the water.

Without permission to cross private land, you may only gain access to the water through a public right of way such as from a bridge or road right of way that is immediately adjacent to the water. That's fairly simple to read and understand from the USC decision linked above.

Secondly, you can float down stream from any public right of way access point in a vessel of your choosing. When you get to an area you want to use for recreation, stop the vessel, get out of the vessel and into the water, and pursue the recreation of your choice. You now have that right; so says the USC.

The USC decision has clarified what existing law means with regard to the use of state water. You are NEVER trespassing on private property when using and confined by state water.

I suspect that another court case is going to have to be used to define the actual boundaries of a stream bed. This latest decision did not address that item. It might very well be the high water mark, but that was NOT defined in this latest decision. To be absolutely safe, a person would be prudent to keep both feet surrounded by water at all times.

Do not EVER confront a land owner who is carrying a firearm. Leave the area immediately and call any law enforcement agency as soon as possible to report the incident. There is absolutely no good outcome from a confrontation when firearms are involved.

As far as hunting is concerned, you can hunt from a stream bed as has been stated. However, unless you can kill the quarry such that the retrieve is from the water, you would be trespassing if you retrieved the quarry from any private land. This would include retrieval by a dog. And if you don't retrieve the quarry, then you are wasting game and are also in violation of state law. It makes hunting very iffy at best.

I feel that this recent decision by the USC is a very good thing for ALL Utah Sportspeople. Now go catch some fish.


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

You know someone is going to be a Dumb $$$ and the word UTARD will come into play.


----------



## grousehunter (Sep 11, 2007)

Outstanding, I feel for the landowner, however there are some real nasty landowners out there that created the problem in the first place. The land owners that started this all thought that because the law was on there side they had to make sure no one but them used the water. I understand about protecting your property from dirt bags, but from a couple legally floating a river! In one of the articles I read they stopped and the landowner(s) must have devoted there lives to prevent anyone from using "THEIR" river and called the police the moment the guy dropped his foot. When the couple fought back the Prosecutor dropped the charges, most likely because he/she new they would lose and the couple wanted a fight. I for one would like to see the trespass and littering fines increased, this will stop the majority of the idiots. My interest in this began while fishing the Weber river with my friend, (his father owns a section of land along the river in South Weber), the landowner two properties down came up to us and (Trespassing herself) demanded we leave, well you should have seen the look on her face when she found out he was the son of her neighbor. I really enjoyed the fact that she had threatened to call the Sheriff and after she realized she was now trespassing I suggested that maybe we should contact the sheriff. Of course we didn't, my buddy wanted piece in the neighborhood. I hope we can find a happy medium between landowners and sportsmen.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

So has any one been yet?!!? How was it??


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

> I would imagine this ruling will backfire before we have a chanch to utilize it. I'd bet the appeal has already been made by some landowner's and water user's. Some of these water property's have been 'privately owned' for years.


A couple of things on this one.

First, it cannot be appealed. This was the appeal. It was appealed to the Utah Supreme Court, and this was their ruling. As it is an appeal regarding state law, it has been appealed and settled at the highest possible level. It is a done deal. There is no way to appeal it further.

The only way to overturn this is to completely re-write Utah water law. The ver first premise of Utah Water Law is that the water belongs to the public. That just simply won't happen.

Second - this creates a situation essentially the same as has existed in Montana. There, the land owner does not need to provide access, and they don't have do that here either. You can access the stream where it intersects with a public right of way, and then go from there.

Third - with fences across the stream - that is going to be a sticking point. I've always been against them, and I think that will become the biggest point of consternation.

The application in the decision though is the most clear of any decision in any state in spelling out stream access for recreational purposes. The hunting reference is impractical for obvious reasons and will be problematic for the reasons listed.

But this is huge. Absolutely huge. It is a good day.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> First, it cannot be appealed. This was the appeal. It was appealed to the Utah Supreme Court, and this was their ruling. As it is an appeal regarding state law, it has been appealed and settled at the highest possible level. It is a done deal. There is no way to appeal it further.


That is what I was afraid of......it's got to be a sad day for the homeowner's and property owner's that bought those property's with a promise of their own private river through their yards.

My question concerning access has really bothered me. I have a couple of river's I'd like to fish, but access points are about 15 mile's apart. That could be a long haul in an unfamiliar area...

More info to come along, I'm sure.

Thanks GaryFish....


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

Nor-tah said:


> So has any one been yet?!!? How was it??


I second this; I am interested to know how things turn out for all of us as we begin accessing these new areas. Please post if you do and let us know how it goes, even if you don't want to disclose where, let us know how awesome it was and if you ran into any opposition. This really interests me.


----------



## hamernhonkers (Sep 28, 2007)

I sure would love to see your guys opinions if you were on the other side of the fence and owned the land the water runs over. How is it that taking more land owner freedoms away is a good thing. I have to pay taxes on my land the water flows over and the water has never been stocked by the dwr. I have always let people who ask and treat me with respect on to my land to fish and I will continue to do so. I can tell you guys this though I will be watching anyone who comes onto my land with out permission and the instant they step out of the stream bead there will be a camera and a cell phone waiting. I will also continue to do the same thing I always have and ask for permission to hunt and fish some one else's land. The simple fact is it is their land and they pay the taxes and take care of it, so I will continue show them and their land the respect it and they deserve. You all might want to do the same if you want to see this last.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

First off I agree 100 percent with being respectful but I dont know why it wouldnt last. Did you read what Gary said? Come on man, dont rain on our parade!!



GaryFish said:


> > I would imagine this ruling will backfire before we have a chanch to utilize it. I'd bet the appeal has already been made by some landowner's and water user's. Some of these water property's have been 'privately owned' for years.
> 
> 
> A couple of things on this one.
> ...


----------



## Doc (Sep 11, 2007)

Talking about raining on a parade, the one down side I see to this is landowners being more reluctant to work with DWR to allow access over their property to the water.

One would hope that sportsmen treat the land with respect and clean up after themselves but I don't have much hope of that with the condition of the "public" streams in the past.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

I think that for the most part, the idiots who litter and screw around will still stay out of areas with HUGE private property signs. I dont give them enough credit to find out about this. If they do hear about it, they will be the idiots who access the land through the stream and climb up on the bank and get busted anyway.


----------



## ynotkid (Jan 21, 2008)

This is a hard one for me. I grew up in Morgan and I was always fishing the weber from Coalville down. There were allot of spots I could not get on because of private property but I still made the most out of fishing the public areas. I think if you looked at this from the land owners point of view you would think a little different about this. I know most of you on this forum are law obeying respectful people but there are allot that have the attitude that they can do what they want and go where they want. It is these kind of people that scew it up for the rest of us. You can not honestly tell me that because of this new law that all people will stay in the water the whole time they are fishing. There are some spots where the fence comes right to the edge of the high water mark to keep livestock in. If there is a deep hole to deep to wade through and the only way around it was to get out on private property and jump over the fence everyone is going to do it. Now the fence is damaged and the next person will see someone else jumped the fence so they will jump it in the same spot. Now the fence will be damaged more. I have posted this before in the old forum that it is not the landowners in Morgan that are trashing their own land it is the people from down yonder that come up and trash it. It is the people that want to tell land owners to shove it up their WAZOO that are trashing the place and do you think that the farmers do not have to pay taxes??? So to say that it is unfair for taxpayers to furnish fish for their fishing holes is a bunch of B S. Where does the fish and game plant fish? I have never sen them go onto private land and dump the fish in river. They go to the public access points and dump them. If I was a landowner I would be upset over this but as a flyfisher I am happy. So to all of you that want to tell landowers to shove it up their WAZOOS please dont screw this up for the rest of us.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

Are the clouds affecting people today? **O** **O** Again I will be respectful of land owners. The rivers I will be fishing can be waded the whole way so I wont be breaking fences. My problem is that the last few posts have land owners being little angles when the truth is that some are -()/>- -()/>- I dont ever hear about fisherman pulling guns and threatening lives but I have heard of many land owners doing this and some have done it to my friends.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

On the subject of littering and all that - 
Another thing to remember is that all other rules/laws apply. So any stretch of stream may be governed to attract certain exercises. For example, the area could be closed to fishing, or hunting, even though access to the waterway is allowed. Just because access to the water is now assured for recreational purposes, it doesn't ensure the waters will be open to those purposes. Understanding that, fishing in certain waters can be managed to minimize negative impacts - think slot limits, flies/lures only, sesaonal closures during critical times, all that. I will say this - fishing in Utah and fishing in Montana that has had this kind of access for decades - I hardly ever found any trash of any kind along the rivers in Montana where I fished. Compare that to what we all know about Utah - I've not fished any water in Utah where I could not easily fill a garbage bag on ever trip. And that makes me sad. I would guess that if garbage in these "new waters" becomes enough of an issue, a land owner could petition DWR to close the water to fishing. Just a thought. 

Another thought - to me, this gives a better tool in the box to work with land owners. Much money has been spent in the past to buy up access to privately enclosed waters. Now access to those by the public is ensured. If I were DWR, I'd be looking to work with land-owners to PAY for access points. In other words, blade out and fence an area to park 3-4 cars, build some fence crossings, and put up some signs reminding people to take care of things right. If people will access the water anyway, then make sure the access it the right way. The concept works VERY well in Montana. Money from the habitat stamps/fishing licenses goes to pay the land-owner for the access. It works all around.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Pavlik said:


> .45 said:
> 
> 
> > Can you imagine walking the Provo upstream between Jordanelle and Woodland? Some of that area has been shut-down for years. Some of it, even, before my time !!
> ...


.45 I am not certain what the issue is here; you have always been able to float any public water crossing any private property; I am fairly familiar with this stretch of the river where it parallels the hwy in one place, there is really no change affecting this area except that now you could wade this or anchor off your boat on the bottom of the river; you still have to access it from the same place as ever, but now you can touch the bottom of the river, correct?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

> you still have to access it from the same place as ever, but now you can touch the bottom of the river, correct?


That is correct.


----------



## orvis1 (Sep 7, 2007)

WOW! I can't believe it this is wonderfull! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: I don't know why you don't feel the same .45 being a river fisherman and all. Seems like a pretty straighforward rule, stay in the water on private property and you are fine. This opens up a whole bunch of new water I am just sorry it won't be til Sept until I can but the new law to good use. It sucks for the landowner because he/she has always had thier "own" stretch of river other than the rafters. Now they will have fisherman wading the river as well. Let's just be good sportsman about it and clean up after ourselves. Cary a cell phone and call the police if anyone threatens you with a firearm it's not worth it and they could be the ones getting in trouble for threatening you if handled correctly. I also would be curious to see how people who fished the new water did...


----------



## ynotkid (Jan 21, 2008)

If I was a land owner I would dig 15' deep holes in the river next to my property line so the waders could not get past with signs that say "WARNING STEEL JAW TRAPS UNDER WATER!" That is one way to keep em off your property.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

orvis1 said:


> WOW! I don't know why you don't feel the same .45 being a river fisherman and all. Seems like a pretty straighforward rule, stay in the water on private property and you are fine.


I don't like this because I think it's a *Massive Intrusion on property owner's !!*

According to Statute 8....(quote) _All waters in this State, whether above or under the ground are hereby declared to be property of the public_ (quote)

For one thing, it should read 'State owned water's' , as all water in this State do *not* belong to the State !!

According to this ruling, anyplace that may have a stream to or from to their property give's the public a legal access......that would include, I guess...

Kennecott property's
Jeremy Ranch.....and a lot of golf course's
Private Fish Farms....
Homestead Resort......
East Canyon Resort.....
L.C. Ranch and 5 or 6 more private fishing resorts
Private Ponds along the Mirror Lake Highway...
All canal's and ditches thoughout the State, as long as they hold water, which mean's you can legally trample through anybody's yard that may have an irrigation ditch and it has water in it. So....it's not just a river or two through a landowner's property, but any crevasse, depression or tributary that holds water is now open to the public.

These are just a few example's.......

I think this thing is a total disaster.....nowhere have I read an *agreement between*...an agreement between the State and landowner's, Landowner's and the DWR, Landowner's and Sportsmans Groups......nothing.

But.......since we, the public have forced this on the owner's of private property, I would like to at least see a collection can of sorts...a buck or two here and there, just to thank these owner's for letting us enter their property..

I said I wasn't gonna talk about it anymore, so quit prodding me....


----------



## ynotkid (Jan 21, 2008)

I agree with ya .45. It really does screw land owners big time. Pretty soon we are going to have to draw to decide what rivers we can fish. Land owners are going to put the Rivers on CFMU (Cooperative Fish Managment Units) It is not fair and there is going to be allot of confrontations that will not end pretty.


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

.45 said:


> I said I wasn't gonna talk about it anymore, so quit prodding me....


Prod-Prod -()/>-

I've seen a lot of comments on both sides of this decision and I like .45's comments and the inherent respect he is showing for landowners.

Personally I think it's important to note that nothing has changed here. This is not a new law, or something that cropped up without landowner input in a malestrom of legislation. This has always been the law in Utah. This decision by the Supreme Court simply clarifies the public's easement on state-owned waters. In addition, it sets right the poorly interpreted rights of the public to public waters which had been incorrectly ruled upon (based on a WYOMING law).

In my mind nothing has changed. It's the equivalent of an instant replay in sports. A district court made an incorrect call using case law that was not applicable to Utah. Upon further review, the correct interpretation was made based on Utah's law. Use of State-owned waters by the public in a desert state is a no-brainer.

On the landowner side of things, I have seen firsthand how the ignorant can blight private property. One thing that I have always done is to make it a point to clean up after the disrespectful and hopefully the community of sportsmen will do likewise and help to offset the inconsiderate.

I do think that anyone who purchased land through which State waters flow under the assumption they would have a private stretch of water did not know the law in Utah. There was never a reason to believe State waters were anything but public.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Hey .45. I share some of the same concerns you do. I think the thing that creates the protection to private land owners is that all other laws must be followed. So if there is a terminal pond that is wholly contained on private land, there would be no access. With private fish ponds/farms/whatever, these waters are for agricultural purposes - and the court settlement addresses recreational uses only. Additionally, other land protections/trespass would apply. Plus, these waters are not open to fishing and therefore would not be accessible.

Your reference to Statute 8 is correct - all water does belong to the state. The water, or more accurately, the use of the water is governed and managed by the Division of Water Resources. So even water that you might consider being "private" does belong to the State, and always has. This was the only way to avoid massive "water wars" back in the day.

The examples you give for places where the public might have a legal right to access - 
These areas may all be closed to recreation purposes if they so desire. At least some of them. With Jeremy Ranch, access to the stream I would guess would be allowed. Same with the stream at East Canyon Resort and Homestead Resort. The ponds though would be closed, as you cannot access them except across dry land. 

As for an agreement - there is nothing. There is a supreme court decision. It supercedes any agreement that might be in place for access. 

I totally respect your point of view on this. You are bringing up several points of contention that WILL come up as this decision is applied. In Montana where similar rule has been in place for decades, land owners continue to fight it. And I am sure that will happen in Utah. In Montana too - the application has not taken the extreme that you alude to - using irrigation ditches to trample through people's yards. That may happen here -Utahans never cease to surprise me in their utter disregard for other people - I certainly hope not. When I think of how bad public waters are trashed in Utah compared to our neighbors in every direction, I think this could cause some serious problems. It worries me as well.


----------



## tap (Jun 27, 2008)

An awesome day for Utah fishermen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

People shouldn't feel bad for the land owners. The easement to fish and otherwise recreate on the streams has been there all along and was very explicitly stated in a case in 1982. The Utah Supreme Court just clarified the scope of the easement to include touching the stream bed. The water has always been ours. It's just that now we can stand in it instead of just floating down it. The landowners just need to deal with the fact that the water is not theirs and hasn't been theirs for a very long time. 

Remember what the court said in its central holding:

"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." 

You still can't cause "unnecessary injury to the landowner." Sadly for the landowners, I believe that cutting down fences across the water will be held to be necessary and incidental to the recreational rights provided for in the easement. So long to the selfish ways of many landowners. I understand their desire to not have people littering their land and breaking down their fences that don't cross the stream. But, this decision doesn't allow any of that. 

Also, whoever suggested that landowners might install underwater traps....it is very well established in American common law that setting potentially lethal traps for trespassers is not legal.

Finally, as others have stated......THIS IS FINAL! It's a decision of the Utah Supreme Court. They are the highest possible court for this state law issue.


----------



## ram2h2o (Sep 11, 2007)

IF the buck is standing in the stream and falls in the stream and you drag him in the stream to a public access point it should be legal according to the supreme court ruling. It should hold for duck hunting these streams in the winter also as long as the duck falls into the stream. I am sure that someone at the DWR will make these rulings clear for the public or a "Pissed Off" land owner will get a ruling on this or appeal it!


----------



## tap (Jun 27, 2008)

By "Statute 8" I think you guys are referring to Section 73-1-1 (quoted below).

Did .45 get the "8" from the paragraph number in the decision that refers to Section 73-1-1?


"73-1-1. Waters declared property of public.

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."


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

> IF the buck is standing in the stream and falls in the stream and you drag him in the stream to a public access point it should be legal according to the supreme court ruling.


That would be correct. However, there are several other things that would come into play.
Is the area even open to hunting?
What is the proximity of an occupied dwelling?
Do you hold a tag for the area - remember - if it is private, it may be a CWMU?
Are you shooting across private lands? 
Is the season open?

All other laws still apply so this isn't a free access for all.


----------



## tcb (Sep 26, 2007)

When I was a young boy growing up in Minnesota, my grandfather told me that our ancestors left Germany because they were not wealthy and the right to hunt and fish belonged to the King and the King's people, not regular working people. He told me that before I died, I would see the same thing here in America. I thought he was crazy. Over the past fifty years, I have seen more and more so called public lands restricted and pay hunting and fishing on private land become the norm, rather than the exception. This ruling helps reverse that trend, although probably temporarily, regardless what anyone tells us.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Hey .45. I share some of the same concerns you do. I think the thing that creates the protection to private land owners is that all other laws must be followed. So if there is a terminal pond that is wholly contained on private land, there would be no access. With private fish ponds/farms/whatever, these waters are for agricultural purposes - and the court settlement addresses recreational uses only. Additionally, other land protections/trespass would apply. Plus, these waters *are not open to fishing* and therefore would not be accessible.
> 
> *Just fishing is not the issue here...the ruling state's fishing, hunting, swimming and boating...so...I would like Kennecott to open the gate where Butterfield Creek originate's, so I can float the stream. I'm just saying, this ruling has given the public access to all water's owned by the State of Utah..sooooo they should now become accessible.
> 
> ...


*Edit....GaryFish, I keep saying access, but I do mean an easement. The easement is given to us by this ruling. Also....the 'ruling' does not define water usage, such as recreational or agriculture or for private use....again, it states all water's in Utah..*


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

threshershark said:


> .45 said:
> 
> 
> > I said I wasn't gonna talk about it anymore, so quit prodding me....
> ...


Oh !!! How immature !!!! :evil:

*(u)*

*OOO*


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

I can see it all now, I am wading the stream trying to fish while the landowner and his family are walking the stream chucking rocks into the water above and below me. :mrgreen: The fishing will be great I can tell already :wink:


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

hamernhonkers said:


> I sure would love to see your guys opinions if you were on the other side of the fence and owned the land the water runs over. How is it that taking more land owner freedoms away is a good thing. I have to pay taxes on my land the water flows over and the water has never been stocked by the dwr. I have always let people who ask and treat me with respect on to my land to fish and I will continue to do so. I can tell you guys this though I will be watching anyone who comes onto my land with out permission and the instant they step out of the stream bead there will be a camera and a cell phone waiting. I will also continue to do the same thing I always have and ask for permission to hunt and fish some one else's land. The simple fact is it is their land and they pay the taxes and take care of it, so I will continue show them and their land the respect it and they deserve. You all might want to do the same if you want to see this last.


We talked about the public who seem disrespectful; we might have witnessed the landowner equivalent. You're going to be somewhat tired on 24 hour watch there friend  :wink: . I believe the landowners deserve an apology from whomever made them believe they owned the rivers, they are now experiencing anger and bitterness that could have easily been avoided if the law have been observed correctly.


----------



## hamernhonkers (Sep 28, 2007)

Guns and Flies said:


> hamernhonkers said:
> 
> 
> > I sure would love to see your guys opinions if you were on the other side of the fence and owned the land the water runs over. How is it that taking more land owner freedoms away is a good thing. I have to pay taxes on my land the water flows over and the water has never been stocked by the dwr. I have always let people who ask and treat me with respect on to my land to fish and I will continue to do so. I can tell you guys this though I will be watching anyone who comes onto my land with out permission and the instant they step out of the stream bead there will be a camera and a cell phone waiting. I will also continue to do the same thing I always have and ask for permission to hunt and fish some one else's land. The simple fact is it is their land and they pay the taxes and take care of it, so I will continue show them and their land the respect it and they deserve. You all might want to do the same if you want to see this last.
> ...


Never claimed to own the river just the land and most of the water rights for the river.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

fatbass said:


> Amen, Bro!


We're talk'in mostly _trout_ here....bassboy !!! :mrgreen:

Get back to the warm water !!! _(O)_


----------



## orvis1 (Sep 7, 2007)

Sorry to poke at you .45 but I wasn't clear on why you were opposed to the law no I understand. There will be some A-holes that really try and rub it into the land owner and some littering problems. I think as garyfish said the private ponds are safe as long as they do not have a river running in or out of them that crosses public land. I do feel bad for the landowners who invested tons of money to get there own private strech of stream that they assumed would stay private.


----------



## GSPS ROCK (Sep 14, 2007)

All I can say is it's about time!


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

.45 - you bring up some really good points. But I think they are in the extreme end of things. While technically possible, not practically applicable.



> Also....the 'ruling' does not define water usage, such as recreational or agriculture or for private use....again, it states all water's in Utah..


The reason I differentiated this was relative to aquacultural ponds/raceways being open now to the public. That would not be the case, as to get to them would involve trespass. Plus, even if you could get to them, what would be the point? They are still closed to the public for fishing. Private ponds are just that - private. That is why a fishing lisence issued by the State of Utah is not necessary to fish them. The water may be a public easement, but the pond is still closed to fishing.



> Just fishing is not the issue here...the ruling state's fishing, hunting, swimming and boating...so...I would like Kennecott to open the gate where Butterfield Creek originate's, so I can float the stream.


I think this is problematic as well. But in the case of floating - this ruling changed nothing. This was already allowed. It has always been allowed, that anyone could float on any stream or river or whatever - because the water belongs to the State. The issue that was challenged in this case was whether or not touching the bottom of the stream constituted trespassing. The water has always been accessible. In the case you mention - and I know it is just an example - but Kennecott would not need to open a gate for you to traverse their land, to access the water. This ruling does not change anything in that regard.



> I may have figured this one wrong....but I assumed all Indian and Tribal Lands were a sovereign nation and the State had no control over their water or water usage.


This is a more complicated issue. But again - this ruling changes nothing in that regard. Tribes are sovereign, and they are also inclusive. It is still the State of Utah- I don't see sections cut out of the state maps here. This ruling would change nothing with the tribes though. Waters that cross from tribal lands to non-tribal lands would be subject to Utah law. I really don't know how Utah water law applies to tribal lands. But again - this ruling does not change or even interpret Statute 8 that defines that all water belongs to the state. It only outlines that where there is a water easement, that easement also includes the bottom of the lake/stream/river.


----------



## tap (Jun 27, 2008)

tap said:


> By "Statute 8" I think you guys are referring to Section 73-1-1 (quoted below).
> 
> Did .45 get the "8" from the paragraph number in the decision that refers to Section 73-1-1?
> 
> ...


I'm just asking out of curiosity, but where are you guys getting this "Statute 8" nomenclature?


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

tap said:


> I'm just asking out of curiosity, but where are you guys getting this "Statute 8" nomenclature?


tap....it came out of GaryFish's first post....

http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopi ... 071808.pdf

Thanks again GaryFish, I'll quit bugging you about this for a day or two...


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

> Thanks again GaryFish, I'll quit bugging you about this for a day or two...


Its all good. I like the discussion. You are bringing out some excellent points in how this thing will be applied. There will be problems with it. But I also think it will generally improve things for fishermen, and has the potential to improve things with landowners as well - as this ruling clarified the law where it needed clarification.


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

All this "feeling bad for the landowners" is crazy talk! Yeah, I would be bummed about it too, but there is nothing you can do to change it. So take them lemons you've been given, and make some dang lemonade! If it were me, I and there were some public access points throughout my property, I would put up signs directing people where to access, so that I could control where they went in. If I had fences, I would build some of those wood ladders so that my fences wouldn't get destroyed. The landowners can look at this thing and react to it in two ways: 1)Keep being upset about it and harass people so they go away, and then get more upset because people won't go away OR
2)Do things to ensure that people take care of their land. If landowners are cool about this, and talk to the fisherman/recreationalists, letting them know what they expect, or what their wishes are, they might just make a friend or two that would help them keep an eye out for the bad apples.

Now I know the naysayers will poo poo my opinion by saying "its not the landowners responsibility to have to do all that", but hey, the law is the law, it ain't gonna change, and if we are to all coexist, there needs to be some compromise from both parties.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

> 2)Do things to ensure that people take care of their land. If landowners are cool about this, and talk to the fisherman/recreationalists, letting them know what they expect, or what their wishes are, they might just make a friend or two that would help them keep an eye out for the bad apples.


That is exactly what happens in Montana. Landowners can even get money to making such access points, and local TU chapters, or others often provide the labor to make it work. It isn't perfect. But what it does is defines how the water will be accessed - and that usually is better than having no structure at all.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

This is very exciting. I also have respect for .45 and the great points he makes. Certainly some holes in this. That seems to be the nature of high court rulings. It was only a few weeks back that some of the personal firarms rights were clarified to reflect what we assumed they were. 

I can't wait to give some dream streams a whirl and expect this weekend to be a big one. There's the thing - let's all be the decent ones this weekend. I assume a lot of these places will be visited, and it's in everyone's best interests to be civil and respective of the interests of the other. If you can't get to it from a public access point then don't.


----------



## stimmie78 (Dec 8, 2007)

The tribal lands issue could be answered by stating that those waters are closed unless you have a tribal permit correct?

Also, Yellowstone river in Crystal Ranch, here I come!  Or the Duchesne .... hmm.. choices to make, fish to catch.


One more thing. This would open up stretches of river to trapping correct? I'm not a trapper, just a thought on the hunting aspect somewhat.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

I've fished a different stream each day since I got the news Friday afternnon. Yesterday I encountered some landowners sitting in their backyard by the river. They were nice and so was I. I had to fish right by their No Tresspassing sign. I tried to move through the immediate area quickly so they could have some privacy and I hope they were left with a good impression. The other day I fished up on a spot where I could hear gunfire. As I got closer, I saw the landowners (or their guests) throwing pop cans in the river and shooting them with 22's as they floated by. They were nice too..for litterbugs. Both encounters were pleasant. I love this ruling!
P.S. It sucks walking all the way back downstream when the fishing is over, but I'll gladly deal with it.


----------



## Jitterbug (Sep 10, 2007)

Just curious how this will effect waters that cross state lines and come back in... namely, The Green River? I don't know if the Colorado side is all public but if it isn't how does this ruling apply there?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

> Just curious how this will effect waters that cross state lines and come back in... namely, The Green River? I don't know if the Colorado side is all public but if it isn't how does this ruling apply there?


This ruling applies only to waters in Utah. It has no bearing on Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada, or Arizona. Only Utah. It was Utah's State Supreme Court that made the ruling on an interpretation of Utah Law.


----------



## Digi-Troller (Jan 12, 2008)

All this talk about this got me a little itchy to fling the old fly rod... so, we went up and fished a few stretches of the Provo today. We didn't run into any landowners... but, we had a great time fishing some water thats been out of reach for too long! This ruling is great for the average sportsman. It definately needs some clarification in order to work... but, its a great start.


----------



## Jitterbug (Sep 10, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> > Just curious how this will effect waters that cross state lines and come back in... namely, The Green River? I don't know if the Colorado side is all public but if it isn't how does this ruling apply there?
> 
> 
> This ruling applies only to waters in Utah. It has no bearing on Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada, or Arizona. Only Utah. It was Utah's State Supreme Court that made the ruling on an interpretation of Utah Law.


Sorry, it was late when I posted that and I realize now how unclear I was in my thought. Let me try again. 

Utah owns the water itself, right? But the land it flows over is now under an easement. So, I was thinking the same water that flows out of our state could still be argued that it is owned by Utah, correct? This argument could have been made before this new legislation but now with the new law in place I don't see a difference in saying that landowners now have to abide by this easement and the state of Colorado would have to do the same... right?!

I'm sure there are all kinds of loop holes that can be made with this but I just thought I'd share one that was bouncing around in my head. I for one, think this is a great thing but it definitely needs more clarity.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

> the same water that flows out of our state could still be argued that it is owned by Utah, correct?


No. Once the water leaves the boundaries of Utah, it no longer belongs to Utah. Ownership changes at the state line. Then it belongs to Colorado, and is accessed/distributed/allocated according to Colorado State law. When it comes back across the state line, it again becomes property of the State of Utah.

This decision didn't change ownership of the water in anyway. That is all well established. It only determined that where there is public water, the public may walk on the bottom of the stream and not be trespassing. Before this decision, that was unclear.


----------



## Jitterbug (Sep 10, 2007)

Got it! Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## rukus (Apr 11, 2008)

I'm no expert on water laws, but I think you are incorrect in saying once the water crosses a state line it changes ownership. Take the Bear River for instance. This river originates in the Uintah Mtns and eventually makes its way to the GSL, but through its course of travel it goes through 3 states. Farmers in Cache Valley and Tremonton areas have very old water rights to this river, which essentially means they get their water before anybody else does (and they are at the end of the river) reguardless of the state that person lives in. For example, farmers in Cokeville, WY and other places in Idaho cannot use or store water from the Bear River unless the farmers in Cache Valley already have the water they need. Water rights are a very very complicated thing. WOW!!! sorry to stray from the subject.


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

So what about the Bear River Canal in Evanston? They can't divert that water until Cache Valley fills their ditches?


----------



## rukus (Apr 11, 2008)

I'm not saying that Cache Valley gets theirs before absolutely everybody there is most likely others who will take precedents of Cache Valley. From my experience with it all, it is based off of water rights and which water rights are older and take precedence over others. This is never really a problem except during bad drought years like we had just recently. Otherwise there seems to be plenty of water for all. I'm telling you, water rights are very very confusing when you start really disecting the issues.


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

When it comes to recreational rights- it ends and begins again at a state line period.
Irrigation water rights are another story.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

> I'm no expert on water laws, but I think you are incorrect in saying once the water crosses a state line it changes ownership.


This is actually a pretty interesting thing. Aside from individual state laws governing waters, several states have inter-state compacts or agreements on waters that are shared. These compacts address allocation of waters along the path or course of the river. Each compact is different and the rules would apply only to that river.

In reference to this ruling though - it only clarifies that in Utah, you can now stand on the bottom of the stream when you are hunting, fishing, or doing other recreational activities that require the water.

It is not about eminent domain. It is not about water allocation for recreation. It is not about junior or senior water rights. It is only about where there is water, the public can use it for recreation, including hunting, fishing and boating, and when you do those things, you can touch the streambed and you will not be trespassing.

As an aside, the most compelling case on interstate water rights is on the North Fork of the Platte River. It flows out of Wyoming, into Nebraska. As Nebraska agriculture developed first, farmers there have senior water rights. But Wyoming figures that they get the water first, and if there is any left over for Nebraska, then they can have it. But not until Wyoming is done with it. This thing has been in court now for nearly 80 years. Its a very interesting case.


----------



## cat_man (Sep 19, 2007)

bowgy said:


> I can see it all now, I am wading the stream trying to fish while the landowner and his family are walking the stream chucking rocks into the water above and below me. :mrgreen: The fishing will be great I can tell already :wink:


I believe there is a law against harassing or preventing someone from lawfully engaging in fishing and hunting. It might only be for hunting though, not sure. Throwing rocks to prevent you from catching fish would definitely fall under that category.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

cat_man said:


> bowgy said:
> 
> 
> > I can see it all now, I am wading the stream trying to fish while the landowner and his family are walking the stream chucking rocks into the water above and below me. :mrgreen: The fishing will be great I can tell already :wink:
> ...


Not trying to start something, but if I had a landowner do that now, I would ask for as many volunteers an I could get to go as often as possible and fish that area.
We would see who tries out first. :wink:

There sure are more questions about this ruling than answers so far.
I hope that there will be some good answers comming soon.
I can't falt land owners for being upset at the present.
They don't even know what their rights are now.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

I talked with a DWR friend of mine last night and he says the DWR has not put out any official word on this court decision. He thought it would be soon but did not have a firm date. Still waiting.


----------



## Digi-Troller (Jan 12, 2008)

Definately need some clarification! But, we fished the Provo again (in an area that passes through a lot of previously untouchable land... the fishing was great! Still haven't talked with any landowners, or law enforcement. Just enjoying some time on some stretches that are new to me!


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

There is one landowner on the Provo who says the ruling doesn't apply to his utopia. He yells at everyone who fishes that section and gives you a hard time. It's getting to be a joke. He thinks the ruling is only good on the Weber. He's been told numerous times but it doesnt do any good. He's a real piece of work. At one point this year he was trying to charge 50.00 a day for access.


----------



## Digi-Troller (Jan 12, 2008)

haha I haven't run into that character yet. Perhaps I need to expand and fish some more new areas!


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

cat_man said:


> bowgy said:
> 
> 
> > I can see it all now, I am wading the stream trying to fish while the landowner and his family are walking the stream chucking rocks into the water above and below me. :mrgreen: The fishing will be great I can tell already :wink:
> ...


Being a Christian myself I would find it my obligation to retrieve their personal property that they had just recently lost and return it to them as quickly/fast as possible really close to the eyes so they could identify their own rock j/k, I sure hope to not find myself in any such a situation. Hopefully calm heads prevail.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

FWIW - Update -
The Conaster's appealed the State Supreme Court decision. Essentially claiming that the ruling resulted in a "take" and that recreational purposes cannot serve as the basis for a take under rules of eminant domain. The general gist of the appeal is that the Court did not do its homework, and the ruling is illegal. The problem with the appeal, is that it is an appeal to the court that made the decision. So to accept and approve the appeal, the court will have to overturn themselves and say "Whooops. We screwed up. You're right. We're wrong. Sorry." And the chances of that happening? Vegas won't even put a line on that one! But stay tuned on this one folks. I have the appeal as a pdf if you want it - pm me with your email addy and I can shoot it to you.


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

THE CONASTERS DIDN'T APPEAL DID THEY- WASN'T IT JOHNSON ?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

My bad. You are correct. It was Johnsons.


----------



## Nueces (Jul 22, 2008)

Fish while the fishing is good! :lol:


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Here is KSL's summary of the appeal http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3940378


----------

