# Laws on shorelines?



## muledeer#1 (Dec 2, 2008)

What's the laws about historic shorelines and trespassing? I guess what I'm askin is if I hunt a shoreline bordered by private am I good?


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Are you referring to a "high water mark"? If so it's a slippery slope and being fought over in court.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

You can find many references to this question via the Internet and all that I've found say the same thing. With regard to lakes, it is asserted that the State of Utah owns the land up to the lake's ordinary high water mark at statehood-"the level where the body of water would normally stand during high water period, when not affected by floods and draught and free from all other disturbing causes." So IF you are below that ordinary high water mark on a lake bed, you will NOT be trespassing. I was also told this by a State Employee back in the early 1980's when the Great Salt Lake flooded beyond its ordinary high water mark. If you were in a boat and floating over what would normally be private property on the water's surface and did not touch the bottom with a body part or any other device (anchor), then you could not be cited for trespassing.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

There are a few exceptions.
One would be the Antelope Causeway. The 2012/2013 waterfowl season marks the first year hunters have to stay 600 ft from either side of the causeway.

see page 15 of the waterfowl guidebook: http://wildlife.utah.gov/guidebooks/201 ... wl_low.pdf


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

dubob said:


> You can find many references to this question via the Internet and all that I've found say the same thing. With regard to lakes, it is asserted that the State of Utah owns the land up to the lake's ordinary high water mark at statehood-"the level where the body of water would normally stand during high water period, when not affected by floods and draught and free from all other disturbing causes." So IF you are below that ordinary high water mark on a lake bed, you will NOT be trespassing. I was also told this by a State Employee back in the early 1980's when the Great Salt Lake flooded beyond its ordinary high water mark. If you were in a boat and floating over what would normally be private property on the water's surface and did not touch the bottom with a body part or any other device (anchor), then you could not be cited for trespassing.


This is not true anymore. HB 141 changed this a couple of years ago, hence the lawsuit. The property owners own the lake bed as well. The Utah Steam Access Coalition filed a lawsuit last year and it's still pending. They could use the support of the waterfowl community.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

If you or your dog, boat oar, motor, boat anything touches bottom over private property, you are trespassing.


----------



## C_Wiser (Nov 5, 2011)

It all depends where you are hunting i think. Cause the water level in the Bear River goes up and down so much, that it is hard to deterime where the high water mark is. So i think that as long as you are below the historical high water mark that you are fine.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

C_Wiser said:


> It all depends where you are hunting i think. Cause the water level in the Bear River goes up and down so much, that it is hard to deterime where the high water mark is. So i think that as long as you are below the historical high water mark that you are fine.


Private is private. The high water fluxuates on all rivers. Still trespassing according to HB 141.


----------



## hotspot (Jan 12, 2009)

I believe Utah is not use high watermark laws. Riverbed laws, but not high watermark. Careful on the rivers. Some land owners are very quick to get upset!!!


----------



## muledeer#1 (Dec 2, 2008)

I guess I'm just goin to avoid the problem and not hunt there until the law is more clear! Thanks for the info guys!


----------



## C_Wiser (Nov 5, 2011)

martymcfly73 said:


> C_Wiser said:
> 
> 
> > It all depends where you are hunting i think. Cause the water level in the Bear River goes up and down so much, that it is hard to deterime where the high water mark is. So i think that as long as you are below the historical high water mark that you are fine.
> ...


Wrong! Cuz the bear river is part of the Sovereign act, R652-70-100. They use the term summer channel, wich in my opion is the high water mark.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

C_Wiser said:


> martymcfly73 said:
> 
> 
> > [quote="C_Wiser":1z2p1bre]It all depends where you are hunting i think. Cause the water level in the Bear River goes up and down so much, that it is hard to deterime where the high water mark is. So i think that as long as you are below the historical high water mark that you are fine.
> ...


Wrong! Cuz the bear river is part of the Sovereign act, R652-70-100. They use the term summer channel, wich in my opion is the high water mark.[/quote:1z2p1bre]

Good luck with your opinion. I hate the law don't get me wrong. Thats why i joined the. Utah stream access coalition. Just trying to save the guy a headache and a ticket possibly.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

martymcfly73 said:


> Good luck with your opinion. I hate the law don't get me wrong. Thats why i joined the. Utah stream access coalition. Just trying to save the guy a headache and a ticket possibly.


You and I are in complete agreement that the provisions of HB141 suck - big time. However, the reference (R652-70-100) that C_Wiser posted is not an opinion; it is part of the Utah Administrative Code effective as of October 1, 2012. Here is a copy of that reference: "This rule provides for the management and classification of the surface of _*sovereign lands in Utah, which include but are not limited to, the beds of Bear Lake, the Great Salt Lake, Utah Lake, the Jordan River, and the summer channel of the Bear River, and portions of the beds of the Green and Colorado Rivers.*_ Should any other lakes or streams be declared navigable by the courts, the beds of such lakes or streams would fall under the authority of these rules. It also provides for the issuance of special use leases, general permits and easements on sovereign lands and the procedures and fees necessary to obtain these rights of use. This rule implements Article XX of the Utah Constitution, and Section 65A-10-1."

I don't think HB141 overrides the provisions of the Administrative Code with regard to sovereign lands. And the boundaries of these sovereign lands have been well established. Research into court cases involving disputes over these boundaries have always ended in favor of the state. HB141 did not change that with regard to the listed sovereign lands. Those bodies of water such as Ogden River, Weber River, Fish Lake, etc. are a completely different story. Their beds have not been declared sovereign lands - yet. But I still believe that if I am below the ordinary high water mark of the Great Salt Lake (sovereign land), be it on the water surface or dry ground, I am not trespassing on anybody's private property and I'd be willing to test that in court. But that's just me. Muledeer #1 will have to make up his own mind on that one.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Dubob is correct in this one. Go try and get a surveyor to stake property around the gsl you wont find anyone who will stake it to the center of the lake. 

Now on small rivers most boundaries are written to the centerline of the river. This is where mcfly will be correct.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

I stand corrected dubob thanks for the info. I'm mainly familiar with the stream access part and the fiasco of 141 and conaster being overridden. Thanks for the clarification. It's a joke for sure. Maybe I'll retain a lawyer and take them into the field with me when I hunt or fish next to a boundary.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Now property owners will fence to what ever water level is at so there livestock wont get out and they will claim its there property. If they call the dwr on you you had better know where you are and have some way of proving it because you could end up in court. My guess is the dwr will side with the land owner and let you fight it in court. You will be correct but could still end up paying to prove your innocence.


----------



## cacherinthewry (Dec 20, 2007)

Contact your legislators and ask them to verify where you are legal and where you are illegal. They made the law, they should know.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

cacherinthewry said:


> Contact your legislators and ask them to verify where you are legal and where you are illegal. They made the law, they should know.


What the heck have you been smoking Cacher? You don't actually beleive there is a legislator out there that actually knows something - do you?

:O•-: :O•-: :O•-:


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

+1 on the legislation they dont know their heads from their butts.

You want to know where the property is ask a surveyor. They are the experts in boundary law.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

If you really want to hear someting disturbing about water law, take a listen to last week's Utah Water Development Commission's minutes... It takes almost an hour to get through it, but what an eye-opener!
http://le.utah.gov/asp/interim/Commit.a ... com=SPESWD

Our legislators are forming new water right laws that will keep fishemen from rivers, take water out of the GSL (hurting ducks and duck hunters), and reduce in-stream flows to our streams (destroying habitat). Rep Noel makes a few snide remarks about how silly in-stream flows are and how they threaten property rights. 
DNR director Mike Styler says that if more water diversions lower the lake level, then "that's the way nature works". Ouch, that one really hurt.
Rep McKiff introduces his proposed legislation that would make it almost impossible to contest water rights in Utah, even if they are new and prove to be detrimental to the public trust. Heck, they all talked about their public trust obligations like it was a disgusting topic that needed to be fixed. That is why they are introducing new legislation that will give the state water engineer total power of deciding what water rights are beneficial to the public trust and we (the public) will have no right to contest it.
And to think that we voted these guys into office!
I hope some of our forum readers can take a listen and let me know if I have misunderstood any of their positions in this meeting. For our wildlife's sake, I truly hope I have missed something while listening to their meeting. 
R


----------

