02-02-2017, 05:32 PM
Has anybody heard any updates on the progress of the Stream Access bill ? Sure hope it doesn't get stalemated till next year again. Any good stuff ?
[signature]
[signature]
02-02-2017, 05:32 PM
02-03-2017, 03:23 AM
02-03-2017, 01:41 PM
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]Yep, just waiting to hear the final opinion of the SCOU. Since the SCOU already ruled in favor of stream access once, it is highly likely they will do so again. I certainly hope so.[/#800000][/font]
[signature]
[signature]
02-03-2017, 08:50 PM
Sounding pretty positive. Fingers crossed. There's a few stretches on the Weeb I've never hit that I'm really looking forward to fishing ! Thanks for the replies !
[signature]
[signature]
02-04-2017, 02:11 AM
I wonder if they'll wait until after the current legislative session to announce their decision. That way the dimwits in the legislature can't draft some new law that they'll have to overturn unless they call a special session.
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]
02-04-2017, 05:39 AM
The high court will have the last word. Oral arguments in both the Public Waters (Provo) and Navigability (Weber) cases will be heard back-to-back on January 9. Says the USAC, "This is the end of the road for the two lawsuits we won in 2015."
This will boil down to a few stretches of a couple of rivers. No trespass will be allowed on any streams, just like it has always been in Utah and most other states as well.
Navigability being the key to any hope of trespass.
[signature]
This will boil down to a few stretches of a couple of rivers. No trespass will be allowed on any streams, just like it has always been in Utah and most other states as well.
Navigability being the key to any hope of trespass.
[signature]
02-04-2017, 04:19 PM
[quote castnshoot]No trespass will be allowed on any streams, just like it has always been in Utah and most other states as well.[/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]I couldn't disagree more. In the Public Waters/Right-to-Use Case, the 4[size 3]th Judicial District Court ruled that the Public Waters Access Act violates article XX, section I of the Utah Constitution. Specifically, the following provisions are unconstitutional:[/size] [/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]73-1-1 [/#800000][/font][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000](2) The declaration of public ownership of water in Subsection (1) [/#800000][/font][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]does not create or recognize an easement for public recreational use on private property; and 73-1-1 [/#800000][/font][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000](3) The Legislature shall govern the use of public water for beneficial purposes, as limited by constitutional protections for private property.[/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000] [/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]73-29-103 (1) the Utah Constitution's specific private property protections, including recognition of the inalienable right to acquire, possess, and protect property and the prohibition on taking or damaging private property for public use without just compensation, protect against government's broad recognition or grant of a public recreation easement to access or use public water on private property; [/#800000][/font][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000](2) general constitutional and statutory provisions declaring public ownership of water and recognizing existing rights of use are insufficient to overcome the specific constitutional protections for private property and do not justify inviting widespread unauthorized invasion of private property for recreation purposes where public access has never existed or has not existed for a sufficient period and under the conditions required to support recognition under this chapter; [/#800000][/font][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000](3) whether, or to what extent, a public easement exists for recreational use of public waters on private property is uncertain after judicial decisions in the cases of J.J.N.P. Co. v. State, 655 P.2d 1133 (Utah 1982) and Conatser v. Johnson, 194 P.3d 897 (Utah 2008), which decisions did not address the constitutional prohibition on taking or damaging private property without just compensation; [/#800000][/font][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000](4) legislative failure to provide guidance before, coupled with legislative inaction after the 1982 decision in J.J.N.P. Co. v. State form a compelling foundation for the Legislature to affirm a limited right to float on the water without violating the constitutional protections of the underlying private property; [/#800000][/font][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000](5) the real and substantial invasion of private property rights did not occur with recognition of the right to float on water that passes over the land, but with the right, first recognized in Conatser v. Johnson, to physically occupy the land for an indeterminate time and for a wide range of activities by the public against the owner's will and without just compensation; and [/#800000][/font][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000](6) its intent to foster restoration of the accommodation existing between recreational users and private property owners before the decision in Conatser v. Johnson, affirm a floating right recognized by the court in J.J.N.P. Co. v. State, and recognize adverse use as a constitutionally sound and manageable basis for establishing a limited right of public recreational access on private property in accordance with this chapter.[/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000] [/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]73-29-201 (2) A person may access and use a public water on private property for any lawful purpose with the private property owner's permission and [/#800000][/font][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000](3) A person may not access or use a public water on private property for recreational purposes if the private property is property to which access is restricted, unless public recreational access is established under Section 73-29-203[/#800000][/font][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000].[/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000] [/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]Utah Code 73-29-202 (1) [There is a public right to float on public water that has sufficient width, depth, and flow to allow free passage of the chosen vessel at the time of floating.] to the extent that the right to float recognized therein is limited to rivers and streams that have "sufficient width, depth, and flow to allow free passage of the chosen vessel at the time of floating" such that touching the privately owned bed is prohibited;[/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000] [/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]Utah Code 73-29-202 (3) A person exercising the right that this section recognizes: [/#800000][/font][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000](b) may not stop on private property.[/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000] [/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]Moving on to the Weber River navigability case, the 3rd Judicial District Court ruled that: 1. the Weber River is navigable in fact and navigable in law under federal law where it passes through the Properties; 2. the State of Utah holds sovereign land title to the bed of the Weber River below the ordinary high water mark at the location of the Properties; 3. the Coalition’s members and the general public are entitled to use the streambed of the Weber River at the above locations for lawful recreational purposes; and 4. because the flows of the Weber River at statehood were more favorable (greater) but not materially different than current flows, the current ordinary high water mark of the Weber River shall be used for determining the river bed title held by the State of Utah at statehood in 1896.[/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000] [/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]And since all of the above agrees with the findings of the Utah Supreme Court opinion in the Conatser v. Johnson case of 2008 wherein the Utah Supreme Court held that the public has a right to use the beds of all waters in the state, it is likely that the Utah Supreme Court will rule in favor of both the 3[size 3]rd & 4th district courts decisions as to the unconstitutionality of the Public Waters Access Act of 2010.[/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000] [/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]The jackholes in our 2010 legislature got it wrong and now, 7 years later, we may just set that right again. At least, that is MY hope.[/#800000][/font]
[font "Times New Roman"] [/font]
[signature]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]73-1-1 [/#800000][/font][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000](2) The declaration of public ownership of water in Subsection (1) [/#800000][/font][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]does not create or recognize an easement for public recreational use on private property; and 73-1-1 [/#800000][/font][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000](3) The Legislature shall govern the use of public water for beneficial purposes, as limited by constitutional protections for private property.[/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000] [/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]73-29-103 (1) the Utah Constitution's specific private property protections, including recognition of the inalienable right to acquire, possess, and protect property and the prohibition on taking or damaging private property for public use without just compensation, protect against government's broad recognition or grant of a public recreation easement to access or use public water on private property; [/#800000][/font][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000](2) general constitutional and statutory provisions declaring public ownership of water and recognizing existing rights of use are insufficient to overcome the specific constitutional protections for private property and do not justify inviting widespread unauthorized invasion of private property for recreation purposes where public access has never existed or has not existed for a sufficient period and under the conditions required to support recognition under this chapter; [/#800000][/font][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000](3) whether, or to what extent, a public easement exists for recreational use of public waters on private property is uncertain after judicial decisions in the cases of J.J.N.P. Co. v. State, 655 P.2d 1133 (Utah 1982) and Conatser v. Johnson, 194 P.3d 897 (Utah 2008), which decisions did not address the constitutional prohibition on taking or damaging private property without just compensation; [/#800000][/font][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000](4) legislative failure to provide guidance before, coupled with legislative inaction after the 1982 decision in J.J.N.P. Co. v. State form a compelling foundation for the Legislature to affirm a limited right to float on the water without violating the constitutional protections of the underlying private property; [/#800000][/font][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000](5) the real and substantial invasion of private property rights did not occur with recognition of the right to float on water that passes over the land, but with the right, first recognized in Conatser v. Johnson, to physically occupy the land for an indeterminate time and for a wide range of activities by the public against the owner's will and without just compensation; and [/#800000][/font][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000](6) its intent to foster restoration of the accommodation existing between recreational users and private property owners before the decision in Conatser v. Johnson, affirm a floating right recognized by the court in J.J.N.P. Co. v. State, and recognize adverse use as a constitutionally sound and manageable basis for establishing a limited right of public recreational access on private property in accordance with this chapter.[/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000] [/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]73-29-201 (2) A person may access and use a public water on private property for any lawful purpose with the private property owner's permission and [/#800000][/font][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000](3) A person may not access or use a public water on private property for recreational purposes if the private property is property to which access is restricted, unless public recreational access is established under Section 73-29-203[/#800000][/font][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000].[/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000] [/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]Utah Code 73-29-202 (1) [There is a public right to float on public water that has sufficient width, depth, and flow to allow free passage of the chosen vessel at the time of floating.] to the extent that the right to float recognized therein is limited to rivers and streams that have "sufficient width, depth, and flow to allow free passage of the chosen vessel at the time of floating" such that touching the privately owned bed is prohibited;[/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000] [/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]Utah Code 73-29-202 (3) A person exercising the right that this section recognizes: [/#800000][/font][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000](b) may not stop on private property.[/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000] [/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]Moving on to the Weber River navigability case, the 3rd Judicial District Court ruled that: 1. the Weber River is navigable in fact and navigable in law under federal law where it passes through the Properties; 2. the State of Utah holds sovereign land title to the bed of the Weber River below the ordinary high water mark at the location of the Properties; 3. the Coalition’s members and the general public are entitled to use the streambed of the Weber River at the above locations for lawful recreational purposes; and 4. because the flows of the Weber River at statehood were more favorable (greater) but not materially different than current flows, the current ordinary high water mark of the Weber River shall be used for determining the river bed title held by the State of Utah at statehood in 1896.[/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000] [/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]And since all of the above agrees with the findings of the Utah Supreme Court opinion in the Conatser v. Johnson case of 2008 wherein the Utah Supreme Court held that the public has a right to use the beds of all waters in the state, it is likely that the Utah Supreme Court will rule in favor of both the 3[size 3]rd & 4th district courts decisions as to the unconstitutionality of the Public Waters Access Act of 2010.[/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000] [/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]The jackholes in our 2010 legislature got it wrong and now, 7 years later, we may just set that right again. At least, that is MY hope.[/#800000][/font]
[font "Times New Roman"] [/font]
[signature]
02-04-2017, 10:06 PM
[quote dubob]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]The jackholes in our 2010 legislature got it wrong and now, 7 years later, we may just set that right again. At least, that is MY hope.[/#800000][/font]
[font "Times New Roman"] [/font][/quote]
Until the jackholes in the current legislature get a hold of it.
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]The jackholes in our 2010 legislature got it wrong and now, 7 years later, we may just set that right again. At least, that is MY hope.[/#800000][/font]
[font "Times New Roman"] [/font][/quote]
Until the jackholes in the current legislature get a hold of it.
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]
02-04-2017, 10:22 PM
[quote Fishrmn][quote dubob]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]The jackholes in our 2010 legislature got it wrong and now, 7 years later, we may just set that right again. At least, that is MY hope.[/#800000][/font]
[font "Times New Roman"] [/font][/quote]
Until the jackholes in the current legislature get a hold of it.
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF][/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]True that![/#][/font][
]
[signature]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]The jackholes in our 2010 legislature got it wrong and now, 7 years later, we may just set that right again. At least, that is MY hope.[/#800000][/font]
[font "Times New Roman"] [/font][/quote]
Until the jackholes in the current legislature get a hold of it.
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF][/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]True that![/#][/font][
][signature]