Who Owns the River?: Colorado landowners object to rafters floating through their private property

from OnTheCommons.org:



Who Owns the River?
Colorado landowners object to rafters floating through their private property.

By David Bollier


The property rights crowd just can’t seem to comprehend that ownership rights are not absolute. Property doesn’t exist in a vacuum, but in a social, ecological context. The latest installment of this long-running drama is the controversy between private landowners in Gunnison, Colorado, and river-rafting outfitters that take people down the river.

The question at hand: Are the rafters violating the private property rights of landowners when they float down the river?

Historically, under the public trust doctrine of most state’s laws, the water in river and lakes belongs to everyone, and can be accessed through public rights of way. However, as the New York Times reported on April 16, it seems that they are some ambiguities about the scope of private landowner rights in Colorado. The water belongs to the public, but the river and lake beds and banks belong to the people who own the adjacent land.

As for rafting, one court ruling declared that rafters need permission to float through someone else’s land, or face criminal penalties. Another court ruling says it’s okay to float through someone’s land, but only if you don’t touch the banks or bottom. ........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://onthecommons.org/content.php?id=2713

seriously!

defecating, etc., used condoms, all the rest. I don't know legally what the answer is, but I can certainly see it from the property owners' point of view.

In most states, as long as they stay on the river, they are untouchable. The problem is trips where they overnight and where they are not passing through State or Federal park land.

If rafters stop and land on private property, they are breaking the law.

The issue here is the use of the river itself, which for some reason the land owners believe they own the water and bed the river flows down. They won't win this one.

but that does not include damage to the banks/land of the landowners and litering. The landowner should do a study to figure out the impact, how much trash is dumped, problems caused, etc. by them using the river and then tell the govt what they owe him, or put up a fence on either side of the river to keep people out.

That's what many people here in Missouri do for the river "floating" is you can pretty much stop and rest within 5-10 feet of the river but you can't go on any land where the trees have a purple stripe on them (or some color?) as that is private property and they can get you for trespassing. I believe the State of Missouri is responsible for the maintenance of the river and the 5-10 feet around it and for cleanup of litering. Occasionally there will even be cops out there looking for people litering to give them tickets and they make a TON of money this way.

You cannot wade in the water or walk on the shore.

A shifting river and old land deeds make it confusing on who owns what. Now the government is looking to take much of the dry land on each side of the river and declare it public.

Its a tough debate. This isn't about rafter...they already have the right to raft. The downside to making that area public might litter people's front yards (well, not really theirs) with beer cans and garbage. Better there than in the water I guess. But it allows anyone to stop anywhere basically, even in someone's virtual backyard. It could be problematic. And I guess some property owners will have to cede improvements they made up to the river.

Its not all about rich people too. Shady Cove used to be a pretty small, poor town where you could get some affordable river front property.

I used to do a fair amount of "river walking" in my youth. It was a tad amazing how many folks that owned land on/around rivers and streams didn't understand that they rarely, if ever, actually own the stream, or portions thereof. It varies greatly by state, although federal law governs the issue as well. But if you have water on/adjacent to your property, you might be surprised who has legal access to it, and how.

I had more than one farmer/landowner put fencing "over" a stream (presumably to keep animals on property) and then be surprised when I explained I went "under" the fence (ya know, in the water). Yes, it was "legal". No, I wasn't fishing. No, I wasn't going to leave the river. No, I wasn't taking anything from the river. The list of excuses on why I wasn't suppose to be IN the river was long. Conversely, I saw the evidence of ALOT of activity that I was fairly sure was of questionable legality, including bridges, diversions, drain pipes, backfill, and just general garbage. They were well advised to just let me "pass".

I lived on a small stream once. Everyone called it a "river", at least when they were trying to sell their homes. It was very nearly navigatable, at least with some effort. More than one neighbor had arguments with each other about what they were, and were not allowed to do in and around that "river". I suggested more than once they stop calling it that, because the state might decide to agree with them. And there was a public park about a quarter mile up and down stream from us, on that "river", and some folks just might decide to start using it. Call it a drainage ditch and we could have done all manner of modifications, not to mention maintained property rights to it.

Yeah, I grew up with a creek that had water rights all sold off on its decades earlier (we had rights too). In the summer it would dry up due to farmers damning it up for irrigation. It would piss me off. One day, someone bought property next to our old swimming hole, and put a chain across the river with a no tresspassing sign on it. I frequently took the sign off and threw it in the deepest part of the water as a child. It was fun. But apparently, no one cared enough to tell him to stop. Had that been considered a river (which without the damning, it could of been), its possible thatd all of been taboo.

My only issue with what is happening though in Oregon, is that unless the state is ready to get in and preserve & clean the 89 miles as well as the private owners do, its could cause a mess and an eyesore. They probably don't have the abilities to though.

there are different from laws in the eastern US.

It's sometims a curiosity and sometimes flat ridiculous. Remember the story not long ago about how capturing rainwaiter from a roof could be considered an illegal diversion.

(as opposed to a household well permit--there's a distinction in terms of how much water you can use) you can APPLY for a permit to collect roof rainwater.

the guide telling us about this controversy (been brewing for a while). How the FUCK do you "own" the river, and river bed? Ridiculous, selfish, and just more indication that our society no longer considers ANYTHING in terms of public good, public benefit--it's all ME ME ME.

Have a strong hunch boaters and rafters came first. Then along came GREED.

Once upon a time, landowners rights extended vertically into infinity.

:shrug:

What if a property owner’s deed says he owns the river? First, it’s important to examine the deed and other local documents. A landowner may believe that he owns the river, but public rights to rivers are “prior existing rights” and are frequently mentioned as such on deeds. Even if they aren’t mentioned, by law a deed can only convey things that were actually owned by the seller. In some cases early property surveyors mentioned public rights to rivers, and in other cases they neglected to do so, but either way their actions are not the deciding factor. Public rights to rivers are a matter of law, dating back to the founding of our nation and earlier. They are not decided by local deeds.

I just took this part because it deals with property owners, there is much much more at link.

http://www.nationalrivers.org/us-law-public.htm

I live out in the twigs at the end of a private road, surrounded by public land. Apparently it had been used as access by OHV riders (dirt bikes, quads, etc) even though it was private property, had signs up, etc. before I moved here. I must admit, its great riding country. However, I would come home and find trailers and campers on my property, effectively in my front yard. I put a chain up and would find it taken down or cut. Additional signs were ignored. I started having the trucks, trailers, and campers towed (quite legal) but the county sheriff asked me to stop since they I am too far out for a rapid response and they were afraid of violence (there were a few close calls). Finally I put in the mother of all gates. Quite expensive. I also found out that a couple of the local off road shops were actually sending people up to my property, which they finally stopped doing. I even made it on a couple of OHV websites as someone who shut down a public riding site. Currently about once a month or so someone gets stuck backing down the road with a trailer/RV/toy hauler. Occasionally some one will lean on the intercom and demand entrance. They get ignored.

While I have any number of war stories over this, its been interesting to see those who claim their convenience, which they try to ennoble by calling it "the public interest", outweighs my private property rights, privacy, and peace of mind. It has been vandalized several times by people coming onto my property from the public land, though that is now monitored. I allow emergency vehicles through my property for injured people, supply water to those in need, and allow rangers and LEOs unfettered access. Still the complaints come about my selfishness. It no longer bothers me.

It's nonsense.

Republicans.

While an owner can "own" to the middle of the river or both sides of the river, he, she or it cannot control the ability of the public to use the river to navigate.

Navigable water ways are usually mandatorily open to the public, except for approved dams and such.