+- Fishing Forum (https://bigfishtackle.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Utah Fishing Forum (https://bigfishtackle.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=386)
+--- Forum: Utah Fly Fishing (https://bigfishtackle.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=140)
+--- Thread: Utah Water Guardians Update (/showthread.php?tid=536401)
Utah Water Guardians Update - TS30 - 10-17-2009
Fall Water Bill Draft Update--- 10/16/2009
On October 12th Representative Lorie Fowlke (of Orem) released a first draft of possible legislation regarding the easement recognized in Conatser v. Johnson, the landmark decision by the Utah Supreme Court recognizing a public easement to utilize water by the touching of privately owned stream beds. A meeting was held the following day with all stakeholders present to discuss the bill. Representative Fowlke acknowledged that this was only an attempt to put the collective thoughts on paper, and it’s only a starting point working towards what will hopefully be a quality streambed bill this legislative session.
Some of the major issues discussed were that hunting was excluded as a legal recreational activity under the easement. The language was sticky and many unexpected consequences could result. It will definitely be re-worked, but hunting is still at danger of being excluded.
Portage was also discussed at length. This draft of the bill allows for man-made obstacles to be portaged, but not natural obstacles. This raised a question for boaters who encounter a fallen tree that was not there the day before; going back upstream isn’t an option. The history of portage, being designed for natural obstacles was also raised, but Representative Fowlke raised concerns with that. She stated she liked the idea of taking the river as you find it as a compromise with portage.
There was also proposed a mandatory $5 public access stamp for anyone who purchases a fishing or combination license to help offset costs associated with portage, and public access in general (IE- enforcement, public education, etc). The DWR expressed concerns over the increase of costs for all, when only a small percentage will access these specific waters. The DWR will be doing a survey with anglers to find out the public feeling. Is it fair for a $1 increase for all anglers or should the small percentage of anglers who will utilize this easement have to foot the cost at a much larger price tag? It’s certainly something to think about.
The meeting ended with the debate about what the streambed should be. Landowners are asking for it to be wet boot. And if not wet boot, wet boot plus 5 feet from the water. Anglers and others are asking for the area within the ordinary high water mark. This definition is consistent with other western states that have tackled this easement issue. And it’s also easier to enforce than any of the other definitions. This is the best definition for all involved.
There is a tour scheduled for next week with representatives, anglers, landowners, and the DWR to see first hand the issues involved in this legislation. We’re hoping to show how cooperative easements have worked in many places already around the state. We’re hoping this hands on experience will do good things for this legislation, as many of the representatives have not seen any of the places they are being asked to discuss.
Overall it was a good start to the bill. A lot of language was taken from Ben Ferry’s bill HB 187 last year. That was problematic for many, as that bill was just plain and simply a bad bill. We are hopeful that we can get away from using that as a template, and just start new. A sub-committee was formed and future meetings will be held to continue shaping this important legislation prior to the 2010 legislative session.
Funds for the lobbyist -
We are currently raising money for a lobbyist, Jeff Hartley. Due to a few generous individuals we have raised almost half of the money needed, $16,000.00. Now it’s up to us to meet them half way. That's $14,000,00.00 to go.
Jeff has already worked extremely hard at gaining us access to Representatives. Because of his hard work we have already met with those who are leading efforts to pass legislation. Angler’s input is helpful and allows Jeff to address topics with a strong understanding of our rights.
Jeff has been involved with us since February of 2009 and has proven to be of great value. We are able to communicate and hold meetings with the legislature in ways we were not afforded last year. For anglers to get a fair shake Jeff Hartley is necessary.
If anyone is interested in donating I could surely use the help.
Make checks payable to:
Hartley & Associates
Mail to:
Chris Barkey
14361 Lapis Dr
Draper, UT 84020
or contact Chris Barkey directly at --> fishsnoop [at] gmail [dot] com
Draft PDF download on the website
--> http://utahwaterguardians.wordpress.com/
Check us out on Facebook
--> http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?...1508144&ref=ts
Keep up the good fight!
[signature]
Re: [TS30] Utah Water Guardians Update - sinergy - 10-17-2009
For the most part I'm liking what I'm hearing its sounds fair to anglers & land owners but sounds like hunters are getting the short end of the stick. I don't hunt anymore but maybe some hunters can chime in. Also the part about paying for an access stamp is a bit difficult to swallow I don't mind paying a little more for a fishing license ONLY if its going to upgrade fisheries but I WILL NOT PAD LAND OWNERS POCKETS !!!
But to take things into consideration I guess paying a little more to gain access is same as upgrading fisheries. So I guess ive had a change of heart on the access stamp I just want a positive outcome and all this nonsense and have it finally come to an end.
[signature]
Re: [sinergy] Utah Water Guardians Update - TS30 - 10-17-2009
Just as an FYI, the "public access stamp" being proposed would not be paying for access. It would be a restricted fund to use to cover the costs associated with public access over private beds. Those costs could include building stiles over fences that cross the river that allow the public to portage (at the request of the landowner, and possibly at the request of the public), education on what the law is and what the easement allows, enforcement, etc.
One thing that I believe is problematic, is people will think they are paying for "access" and as such, think that the easement is bigger than it really is....simply because they paid for it. I'm against the stamp personally, as I don't believe it's the DWR's job to build stiles over fences that landowners string over rivers. If a landowner wants to do that, they should have the burden of providing away around it. It's a rather unsafe situation in my opinion. But that's just me.
The bill looks okay to start out with, but HB 187 was used as the starting point. That to me is a bad thing. There was nothing good about that bill....so none of it should be included. Start from scratch. In addition, I'd like to just see the easement defined, and leave the rest alone. I don't think there needs to be all this confusing fluff around the outside.
[signature]
Re: [TS30] Utah Water Guardians Update - kochanut - 10-17-2009
thanks for the info/update!
[signature]
Re: [TS30] Utah Water Guardians Update - sinergy - 10-17-2009
I have to agree with on the issue with the easement I'll admit at times it was a bit confusing on were the hight watermark was I always played it safe and stayed in the water but clearly defining easement would be very nice.
Also I guess I'm not completely educated on the Access Stamp I was under the impression by purchasing a stamp it would go into a fund then later to be distributed to land owners to help relieve the cost of stiles, recoup the cost of upkeep, and to build improvements ???
Originally I was very against a stamp but I figured if the land owners were getting compensation for doing there part they would stop harassing anglers from wading & fishing through so called parts of the stream.
[signature]
Re: [TS30] Utah Water Guardians Update - albinotrout - 10-18-2009
I do not like the idea of the fee and it sounds like the DWR insn't either. If this does come to fruition then the language needs to be very clear. Also scrap the old bill and its ideas. It was not good.
[signature]
Re: [TS30] Utah Water Guardians Update - flygoddess - 10-18-2009
Got this on my Facebook
On October 12th Representative Lorie Fowlke (of Orem) released a first draft of possible legislation regarding the easement recognized in Conatser v. Johnson, the landmark decision by the Utah Supreme Court recognizing a public easement to utilize water by the touching of privately owned stream beds. A meeting was held the following day with all stakeholders present to discuss the bill. Representative Fowlke acknowledged that this was only an attempt to put the collective thoughts on paper, and it’s only a starting point working towards what will hopefully be a quality streambed bill this legislative session.
Some of the major issues discussed were that hunting was excluded as a legal recreational activity under the easement. The language was sticky and many unexpected consequences could result. It will definitely be re-worked, but hunting is still at danger of being excluded.
Portage was also discussed at length. This draft of the bill allows for man-made obstacles to be portaged, but not natural obstacles. This raised a question for boaters who encounter a fallen tree that was not there the day before; going back upstream isn’t an option. The history of portage, being designed for natural obstacles was also raised, but Representative Fowlke raised concerns with that. She stated she liked the idea of taking the river as you find it as a compromise with portage.
There was also proposed a mandatory $5 public access stamp for anyone who purchases a fishing or combination license to help offset costs associated with portage, and public access in general (IE- enforcement, public education, etc). The DWR expressed concerns over the increase of costs for all, when only a small percentage will access these specific waters. The DWR will be doing a survey with anglers to find out the public feeling. Is it fair for a $1 increase for all anglers or should the small percentage of anglers who will utilize this easement have to foot the cost at a much larger price tag? It’s certainly something to think about.
The meeting ended with the debate about what the streambed should be. Landowners are asking for it to be wet boot. And if not wet boot, wet boot plus 5 feet from the water. Anglers and others are asking for the area within the ordinary high water mark. This definition is consistent with other western states that have tackled this easement issue. And it’s also easier to enforce than any of the other definitions. This is the best definition for all involved.
There is a tour scheduled for next week with representatives, anglers, landowners, and the DWR to see first hand the issues involved in this legislation. We’re hoping to show how cooperative easements have worked in many places already around the state. We’re hoping this hands on experience will do good things for this legislation, as many of the representatives have not seen any of the places they are being asked to discuss.
Overall it was a good start to the bill. A lot of language was taken from Ben Ferry’s bill HB 187 last year. That was problematic for many, as that bill was just plain and simply a bad bill. We are hopeful that we can get away from using that as a template, and just start new. A sub-committee was formed and future meetings will be held to continue shaping this important legislation prior to the 2010 legislative session.
Keep up the Good fight!
Utah Water Guardians
[signature]