HB37

[pepem7]

Ill start by saying that I don't follow the politics of all this very closely so if this seems a little off that is why. That being said im a builder, realtor, land owner, and outdoor lover. I think I see and understand this argument both ways. It is amazing to see how much crap is dumped on my land because someone thinks "its just a field, no body will care." I do because it cost me time and money to remove it. I can see land owners don't want complete strangers wondering through their property, in a river or not. However I don't understand the basis of whether the stream bed is private or not, We all know the water is public and without water rights, it is illegal for the land owner to remove that water from the stream for any purpose. My family has a cabin at bear lake on the beach. our property stops at the high water mark which for many years is well above the actuall water level. People cannot access the lake or beach through our property but if they want to come park there boat and bring 50 of their best friends with them and set up shop for the day in front of our cabin, we have know legal rights to tell them to leave. They are on as I was told federal lands. So what or whom determines whether riverbed/lakebed is federal, state, or private. take pinveiw, is it state or owned by the irrigation company. that's what I think makes this whole thing confusing. Lost creek is another, who owns that because they are able to close access to it based on the time of day. Just some thoughts I had, not trying to start arguments or even looking for answers. Food for thought.
[signature]