My dad and I were arrested in 1964 for trespassing as we paddled our Folbot kayak down the upper Passaic River in New Jersey. A private resort used a small dammed up section as their private lake and called the police when we paddled by and refused their orders to immediately leave. My dad was ticketed by the local police when we landed to portage around the dam. My dad researched the law and learned that "navigable waterways" were open to public use in New Jersey. He appeared in court and the charge was dismissed. I don't recall if the legal definition of "navigable" was discussed, but our contention was that we could have navigated the river from Basking Ridge (where we lived) all the way to New York Bay.
I'm curious where abouts the private lake / dammed up section was? While it's before my time.. I'm very close to the Passaic and know the upper Passaic areas pretty well.
@@jgood005 Because Cops are giving tickets for something that's not illegal. (That moment that you realize that jb05 is not a Troll, but is really like this IRL.)
@@james1787 I wish I knew. I was 13 at the time. I looked at Google Earth today and tried to find it with no success. I even thought I might be mistaken and looked at the upper Raritan where we also paddled. I thinks it is likely gone and replaced by residences or re-wilded. It may have been a weir rather than a dam backing up the water, so not as noticeable. I have my late dad's papers and am inspired to dig through them looking for any papers he may have kept. I also made some "tubing" trips on streams near the Great Swamp where someone's mom or dad would drop us off somewhere and retrieve us later at another bridge or landing downstream. As I remember, the place where we were arrested was on the left bank as we went downstream. The right bank was heavily wooded. The club was on a road that i think crossed the river a ways downstream. What I call the resort may have been called a beach club or something else. I am pretty sure it was private club for dues paying members. It was not too fancy. Just a stretch of bank made into a beach some picnic tables and a simple clubhouse. It was like a summer camp that kids would go to for a couple weeks but had adults and families. Somewhere I have an old detailed map of Somerset County that i think may be marked with places where some of my adventures occurred but this one may have been in another county like Morris. Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this area more.
I find it amazing that courts routinely throw out laws for being unconstitutionally vague, but are willing to accept the distinction of a river as navigable or non-navigable without further clarification.
The problem here isn't the vague law, but the right or wrong of it to be brought before the court by this plaintiff. If the land owner had taken this to court, hoping that they would determine that his claims of ownership of the river and/or it's bed is his to allow or not allow public access.
Navigabiliy is not the issue. If this greedhead is backed up by the courts, it could devastate an entire industry. Wait until they start charging tolls to pass through their property. This needs to be handled at the federal level.
In my youth, I received multiple tickets from the USCG while skiing on the Rio Grande River - even though I repeatedly pointed out that their authority was only over "navigable waters" and when the 1st dam went up on the river it no longer met the definition - the judge didn't care...
@@jeffreyhowll1392 "The presence of rapids, waterfalls and sandbars, which may require portaging around does not preclude navigability because the fact that navigation may be difficult and at places interrupted does not render a stream un-‐navigable. The character of a river as a public highway is not determined by the frequency of its use, but by its capacity for being used." Economy Light & Power v US.
@@rationalist47 Does not apply - dams are not enumerated... The Rio Grande River has not been used in such a manner since just after the Civil War - besides, there are 15 dams now - that's a whole lot of portaging...
Navigable waterways in Texas is broadly defined as any creek/stream that allows the passage of water. A few years ago, electrical high lines were required to be raised above all NW to allow access for sail boats. So now, there are dry creek beds in the panhandle that have 70' clearance for your sail boat to pass.
Minimum height of 22 ft, unless if higher as half the width of the distance between land embankments, up to 150ft. Never heard of a 140ft wide 'creek' though. Everything's big in Texas I guess. Same in Louisiana ... clearances may be greater, as required by the National Electric Safety Code and governing laws.
Reminds me of the group of German POWs who plotted their escape from a prison camp very carefully. They found a map with a "River" and secretly built a boat. They were surprised to find that the "River" had been dry for centuries, except for a very short flash flood every few years.
In Alaska all navigable waters are owned by the state. Most waterways also have a 15 foot public access setbacks to allow people to walk along a creeks and rivers even though the property is privately owned.
@@briangarrow448 I fish a lot also many times floating rivers in a raft or canoe. I used to live by a small creek on property that was subdivided before the 15’ setback rule but would allow people fishing access along the creek. They could not cross our property to get to the creek though.
I fish too but I'm a decent human so I don't fish right up on someone's property. Obviously if they have acreage and there house isn't even in the visibility then who cares but not trespassing nonetheless
If they aren't going to allow people to use the water that people's fishing license paid for, then upkeep/cleanup needs to be 100% the responsibility of the land owner. Not tax payers.
@@pasques Actually, that is how it works. Just like if you take ownership of the street (like a gate community for example), you are responsible for its upkeep and care.
Interesting video. We bought a 5 acre property in rural Virginia four years ago. It was brand new and the last lot to sell in this rural subdivision that is about 15 years old. It has a thickly wooded, sloped and very shallow (non-navigable) streambed that runs through it. The guy next door sold a few months after we moved in and the new couple have been trespassing into our stream area. They have also been calling the county about God knows what perhaps because our woods are not trimmed like their last HOA common area in their previous suburban town home. We've had to fence that property line up to the road where the county does have an easement for a water conveyance under the road but they continue to press on. We found some of their down spout extensions daylighting into our stream, likely from the previous neighbor. We asked the new neighbors to relocate them to their side and they didnt really say anything so we had them removed back to the property line (and with their permission as they came out of their house). It is clear these people and a few others in the neighborhood think this non-navigable stream of no more than one to three inches of water is somehow public property. Oddly, the same stream takes a sharp turn and runs through the next door neighbor's lot but it is not as active and not wooded in that area. We are standing by our guns on this and not allowing them into our land. They even tried to run us off our property with their aggressive dogs by placing their invisible fence right at the property line and telling us we are lucky they put in the invisible fence. People don't get property rights and law. We asked all these questions when we bought and declined to run our down spout extensions into the stream because we wanted to make sure we were well within the law only to find the trespassing neighbor doing that very thing and acting like they had ownership rights of our fee simple land.
When we bought our little NM cabin in the shadow of Wheeler Peak (highest mountain in NM) there was a new, self built McMansion being built next door. We bought our cabin for a weekend retreat from the TX summer heat. On an early trip I noticed some 4 inch heavy duty plastic pipe protruding from the embankment built up to level a pad for the neighbor's house built on a sloping, narrow lot. It ended well within their property at that time. Looked to be runoff pipe from a French drain system. About 3 yrs later I noticed more rockscape was added under the pipe to stop erosion on their side and the pipe was extended closer to the property line. Fast forward another few yrs and the drain pipe that encircles their huge house extends to our property line, hanging up 5-6 feet in the air. He's dumped gravel so that runoff during a heavy downpour will run onto our lot which happens to be slightly steeper than his in that spot. In a couple of decades all the beautiful valley topsoil that was pushed aside from my house site will be washed down beside the river 100 ft below, leaving me a gully deep enough to hide my Jeep in. I was saving that area with the beautiful rich soil for a flower garden. I discussed lack of maintenance of the rail fence between our properties. He wanted me to furnish materials in exchange for labor. I suggested he tear out the rail fence and use huge rocks to mark our boundary line. (Zero maintenance) He owned a Bobcat, so it was well within his ability to handle. He took down the fence, but didn't bring in rocks so our property line is lost. He now uses 1/3 of my front yard as snow storage for his driveway and large parking area. For the last few yrs I don't like going up there because instead of relaxing I have to deal with disrespectful neighbors damaging my property. The neighbor built a house he couldn't afford to maintain, can no longer live in because of the high altitude's effect on his health, so he leaves his 25 y.o. son to live there. It's party central for the kids "friends" from Abq and Santa Fe. Scrapped out cars parked all around for their projects. They work all night and sleep until 2 PM. Rant over! 🙃
Set up a motion sensor that activates a radio with a very discernible speaker tuned to a station that plays whatever they would hate to have to listen to but will have to endure every time they tresspass upon your property. If they like Rock hook em up with some blaring Country & vice vers, ect. No more peace & serenity for tresspassers policy...lol Also, set up a hidden trail cam well away from the radio & speaker with a broad field of view that would then capture them on film if they were to shoot, touch, or damage your property while on your property in any way to make suing them for multiple types of civil damages a slam dunk enforceable with a lean against their property if they don't pay up.
@Andy Weaks Yes I know about storm water regs, but so does the neighbor. If-when I bring it up he'll blame the kid. I may wait until some weekend he goes out of town and saw the dam thang plumb off at 5 ft from the property line. I'm sure, as paranoid as they are they have a 24 hr video system.
In our state the titled landowner closest to the body of water has rights to any untitled land between their titled land and the body of water. However the body of water, except for a few exceptions, is not titleable and is open to the public. So you can wade along the edge of the water even if that takes you directly next to someone's yard or other developed property - but you can't step out of the water onto untitled land as that is considered private. A few landowners that had fancy homes next to a lake tried to sue some folk for trespassing that were fishing along the lake shore but in the water, those cases all got thrown out.
Unenforceable since they have no authority unless the federal government gives up its right which is rarely does to states. Otherwise, one Illinois could cut off the Mississippi River from all other states and this is true for most rivers. They are rarely contained within one state like the Columbia is. It is also the source for 2/3rds of the states electricity which is why WA is the ONLY 0 emissions state. ONLY ONE
@@thadsmith4909 Good question. I suspect it's because of our agricultural history. The owner of the titled land closest to the lake could then use that untitled land for grazing or growing crops and would have a legal recourse if someone else tried to use that land, or destroyed their crops, etc. And recreation wasn't really a thing when those laws were put in place in the 1800's.
I live in West Virginia, I used to own property on Middle Island Creek. It is a couple of Miles short of being called a river... My understanding was that I owned the ground under the water halfway across the creek. But I did not own the water that flows over it and is open to the public.. but by owning the ground underneath gave me the right to put in a dock with posts in the water
Actually, nope. You need a Public Lands Permit and maybe a Army COE permit to set a dock. The only property in the State that still owns the river bottom is over on the South Branch of the Potomac in the Smoke Hole. They are like the only family that still owns the same piece of property since the King gave it to them.
My grandmother lives on a river bank popularly used for kayaking right across fron a retail convenience store. She doesn't care what people do on the river but she's been called multiple times to provide her testimony on petty disputes - being disabled by a stroke was enough to discourage the requests for testimony in the last few years which in itself is discouraging lol
I found this especially fascinating as someone who once had a home on a public river in Texas. Good luck to anyone trying to wade through though 😂 It was very deep even when not flooded. People could go through on canoe,kayak, tubes etc. They could not step onto the bank on either side. I could fish from the bank on my property without a fishing license but if I went into the water in a boat then I needed a license. Even if I was only feet from the bank. Heidi
Addendum: I would have never thrown rocks at someone though. Allowed to be there or not. That land owner sounds very immature or poorly raised. Maybe a little of both
Where I live the river is the county line. and everyone in both county's are allowed to and do go boating on the river. and if you live near the river you have simply have to put up with it. there's also a smaller river that has a confluence with the larger river. and people can kyack canoe and tube down that river. and people that live live near that river simply have to put up with it.
I really enjoy your legal breakdowns. I live in CO. I have been a commercial guide & private river runner / rafter for 2 decades. I have been instructed, land ownership is referring to the LAND. So, as long as someone does not touch the river bottom or the shore thru an area privately owned, rights have not been violated (property owners' rights). Fishermen wading (technically walking on the land, even though water is in the middle) would seem to violate the guidelines I have been always taught to follow to respect the rights of those where everyone is expected to share resources. Frankly, there are NOT many areas along most rivers in which intersect with National Waterways in which private owners object, UNLESS, ABUSE is taking place. In other words, a KAREN (male karen - fisherman) in this case trying to ruin IT for all the rest of us, who DO follow the "respect the rights of others" guidelines. Also, Steve, The Arkansas River BEGINS in Colorado, in Lake County, where 12 of the 54 - 14K+ (elevation) peaks are located, Mt. Elbert being the highest in CO.
ALL water is federal property just like National Parks and Federal Forrest. The feds control water rights and the assignment of them. You own a farm in CA you apply with the feds not CA.
We owned 136 acres in Indiana when I was growing up. About 15 acres of bottom land that had been a corn field were flooded when the Dams were built on the Ohio river. We owned the land under the water, but we couldn't stop people from boating or fishing from boats. If someone wanted to fish from the shore on our property they had to ask my dad for permission and if it was someone local my dad would just give them permission for as long as we owned the property.
I have been all over the country and fished many places, nothing wrong with asking permission if your not sure? Same with hunting on private land. but yes each state is different
Begs the question, what if a boater drops an anchor that tethers his boat to privately owned river bottom...or what about the fisherman who still fishes with a sinker on his line laying on the bottom...just askin'.
@@toriless Not true in Ohio where I own land. I need no permit to take out up to 100,000 gallons of water per day by law. And per the Ohio DNR: "The waters of Ohio’s public waterways (streams and rivers) belong to the state of Ohio, however, the land beneath the water belongs to the landowner(s) on either side of the stream, whether owned publicly or privately. A stream is considered navigable if it is open for navigation to the end and considered navigable even if some obstacles or natural debris is present. In situations of incidental use, such as taking breaks or wading, it is important that boaters understand that they may be trespassing when they leave their boat to access the stream bank or bottom of the stream. Prior permission may be necessary. It’s best to plan ahead (contact the landowner for permission in advance of your trip), or to plan on using only public access/public land when you disembark. "
Currently in WI: Is considered a public water access state, as long as you enter the water at public spot, you are allowed to wade/float, Key point, you must access the water at a publicly accessible point, bridge, public launch area, water access easement, etc. Meaning you can't jump in a lake that doesn't have access to a public spot. But you could follow a river or stream that you joined at a public spot and if it joins a lake or pond that's otherwise private, you can still access that lake/pond, as long as you entered the water at the pubic spot and is navigable. You can leave the water to avoid hazardous water, as long as you re-enter the water as soon as possible. This is sometimes referred to the "keep your boots wet rule".
@@FHL-Devils Was not answering to the video. you stated a question but do not seem to know what a question mark is "What if it's your own riverside property that you start your adventure? It's not public access, but it is your land." I answered your statement. The statues do not say you need to start from public lands. Wisconsin statue is very easy to read. Maybe read the question you ask from one ID before you comment.
Steve, the (Klacking) creek that runs through our propery, and empties into the Rifle River, a few miles West of our place near it's point of origin, a spring, out of the ground, (I still need to go see that before I die!) used to be six feet deep, and plenty of board feet were floated down it, to the Rifle, on to the mills below us. My farmer friend (a Klacking) told me that his Grandpa told him about it, when he was a boy. That creek has big browns (trout) in it during Summer months, avoiding the tubers, canoe users, and kayakers, and the noise they make, and enjoying the colder water of the creek, vital to a trout's very survival...
In Maine all flowing waterways may be used by the public up to the high water mark. But access must originate at a non-privately owned section of the waterway unless permission is granted by a private landowner.
In Ohio, we were always taught, in school, the land owner owns the land under the water but the state government owns the water itself. So a boater could float and fish but not land on the property and use it in any way. We owned a small farm with a popular small river running at the back. We saw canoes and kayaks almost every day for 7-8 months of the year. We usually had no problems. Mostly trash left behind by very few. Some camped a night or two. We put up a sign welcoming them as long as they caused no damage and cleaned up their garbage. We used the area, too, for get-togethers and family swimming. Many times, night boaters would come by and we would invite them to land. Made many friendships we still have today. I can certainly understand why some land owners would be upset, though. We were lucky to have nice people come by. Some people are not so nice. In the end, the land owner should legally have the right to refuse use of their land.
That sounds extremely reasonable and decent. And I also note, most people were decent and respectful. That is the part of culture that needs to be cultivated and restored.
Treat people the way you would want to be treated. It's a simple concept. Unfortunately, there are a significant number of A-holes in our society. It'd be nice if we could just "vote them off the island," like in a reality TV show.
@@stevechance150 Unfortunately, that doesn't really work. I want to left the heck alone and gladly try to do the same for others, but no one else wants to mind their own damn business.
A couple of years ago, there was a question of which government agency was responsible for a path through a national forest, or rather which agency had jurisdiction over the ground _below_ the path through a national forest, the Forestry Service or the Parks Department. The actual effect, and what brought the question all the way up to the Supreme Court, was whether a pipeline could be built there. This is not quite the same, but I see a similarity between the question of who owns the river and who owns the river bed.
Water rights have long been a bone of contention in the US. Streams and creeks and ponds are one thing and a closer question. If the river is defined as navigable under federal law, I don't see how people cannot legally transit the river thru private property and I don't see how a State can say otherwise under federal law. If navigable, sue in federal court then.
Listen to the video again. The point of contention in this case is whether or not the stream in question *is* legally navigable or not. (Emphasis on legally, because some streams are navigable “by statute” even if they are not actually used for navigation.)
@@edwardwright8127 It really doesn't matter any more because when obama became president he claimed all water in the US to be the property of the federal government regardless of ownership by states or private people.
Can you forge a path through private property? If air rights have been established (or there is common law extant) can you fly your drone through private property?
@@edwardwright8127 I did listen to it and that was my whole point, though focused on federal law, which is supreme in these matters. The applicable legal definition of navigable waters would be federal, not State. And a State may define navigable however it wishes, within limits, but once the feds say it's navigable for federal purposes, that case must be in federal court to challenge either the applicability of the legal definition or when it is clearly within the definition to determine if a person has free passage. We aren't saying anything different far as I can tell.
@@MrJoeybabe25 No, you can't forge a land path thru private property; that's called trespass unless the path has been used so long that it has become an easement. I had a case like that once. A very old road traversed a guy's farm, predated his ownership and was known to the locality since before the Civil War (history showed that N.B. Forrest used the road frequently during the war because it led to a ford across the Duck River). Local fishers used it a lot to get to the river and the road, though dirt and narrow, was clear and its regular use easily discovered. The guy who bought the property gated the road. When complaints were made about that, a lawsuit about clouded title was filed by the new landowner against the old one and it went all the way to the State Supreme Court, which ruled that the use and existence of the road, plain to anybody who might inspect the land (even noted in some old deeds), was so long and continuous that the land was burdened with a constructive easement or the road fell within the statutory definition of a public way and the new land owner was required to take the gate down.
All depends on how high the water gets some time and how small the logs are if they will float down the river . Usually the logs were put in the river in the spring after snow melt when the water was at a higher level . Don't take a lot of water depth to float a small log maybe a foot deep will do . This would make most water ways fall in to this category at certain times of the year .
That makes sense when you consider the commerce and general thinking when the country was founded and the original framework was put in place. In much of the northern part of the country commerce included fur trapping and transporting the pelts by small boats. In some places commerce could have included transporting modest, but valuable, quantities of gold. One guy in a 15' canoe could do that on lots of very modest streams. As technologies changed and larger boats became common I think the perception of navigability changed the original concepts.
I personally believe the standard should be that rivers are public property, up to the high water mark, until a river reaches certain minimum threshold. Say 100 cfm, This somewhat lines up with the wild and scenic rivers system, to the best of my memory. A teacher told me a story that he tried to float most of the Columbia river during his hippy phase in the 70s. He thought it was ok under the scenic rivers act. He pulled over one night and set up camp but was woken up by guards surrounding his tent armed with long rifles. He didn't realize he had stopped at Hanford WA. The highly secure and quite radioactive site where they made the plutonium for the first nuclear test, as well as the bomb used on nagasaki. Whoopsies.
@@gavnonadoroge3092 the river and water is why they build reactors there. Reactors needs an absolute crap ton of water for cooling. If the reactor is water cooled it is going to be by water.
Did you see that a northern Ohio court is charging you $100 to plead innocent, to get a court date for a speeding ticket? Justice is blind, but is holding her hand out to thwart poor people from using it.🙄🤕
That's called policing for profit, and the courts are getting greedier and greedier every day. Our justice system is the most corrupt of any developed country.
But if the property owner dumped motor oil in the river, and someone complained, I'm betting the state would suddenly be interested. Can the owner fish on that part of the river without a license since it belongs to him? Exceed the bag limit, etc.? Can he put a huge net across his part of the river? Any kind of obstruction?
@@papimaximus95 whatever 🤦🏼♀️ they are always trying to over reach their authority when it comes to personal property owner rights. They will word it however fits the state or government best.
Even if a waterway is very clearly the private property of a landowner the state still has authority over some uses of the water(way), and polluting groundwater is a crime. A landowner may be able to legally fish without a license in a landlocked pond, but in any water that crosses property boundaries the state can (usually) exercise its authority.
😮😮My Fil has property that had a stream through his cattle farm. He cannot block the stream from people in a canoe or small boat but he can put up no trespassing signs on the land.
My understanding is in South Dakota the areas between high water marks is public. Public may not set foot in areas beyond the high water mark without permission.
Generally courts are not allowed to advise you or explain the law to you. The court's role is to judge the evidence brought before it. You present your evidence and supply the applicable law. The other side does the same. The court then decides who has applied the law more effectively.
@@papaw5405 "Generally courts are not allowed to advise you or explain the law to you." That is literally their job. The court refused to advise by saying he has no standing. It is absolutely insane that citizens in the state cannot have standing in a state law case like this. The judges involved in this ruling are absolutely insane. The judges are a joke and said the state prosecutor has to bring the case to get the answer. There is absolutely no harm by individuals bringing cases like this because the end result is a legal ruling clarifying law or affirming law. If only state officials can bring these sits, citizens lose their rights as this man did. If the state brings the case and "has standing", the court could agree people have the right to use water ways. I hope this man goes to the supreme court because this "standing" ruling is as unamerican as it gets.
I had a similar situation in CA along a federal water canal. I was cycling along what I thought was a public canal bank and an annoyed farmer actually confronted me on it. He said he owned the land to the middle of the canal. Nothing came of it, but I did research the issue with no real results. I contend that the canal banks are maintained with tax dollars so the public should have access to them. No clue if there is any legal standing there.
@@rdizzy1 Not necessarily, counselor. California waterways are often a hodgepodge of owners. The state may claim to have a say in what kind of development can take place, but it does not necessarily own the dirt over which the water flows.
That ownership of any parcel of land is easily found out online at the taxing authority's website where it's mapped and labeled. I can guarantee you he didn't own those canal banks. I live in florida and I've been fighting landowners like that farmer for 50 years over access to rivers, lakes and even beaches. Now, those same people are whining that they own the sky as well. People should have to take a test to show they know the limits of their power before they buy property. It's enough to make a communist out of a person.
@herbert92x The county tax assessors office has online maps showing who owns what. That canal was federal property. You think they don't own the banks as well? No way they didn't retain ownership of the banks, probably with a 50 foot or more margin. That farmer is FOS. Same moron who would claim you can't fly a drone 400 feet above his land cuz he owns the sky too. The old "hell deep and heaven high" ethos toward property ownership doesn't work and never did.
In the state of Florida navigable streams and rivers belong to the state. Only time it can be blocked is if there is a security issue like a military base and that is not always cut and dried.
On a somewhat related note, I'm curious about whether or not the laws in NY specifically cover access to NYC's reservoirs from the navigable streams that were dammed to create the reservoirs. Under the general NY law on navigation the reservoirs are either part of the navigable river or an obstruction that you're allowed to bypass on the banks. That means that if there's no law(s) specifically covering the reservoirs NYC doesn't have authority to prohibit paddlers from continuing past the property boundary.
It's the old argument wayward judges use, that there has to be a law first. If no law, then you have no legal cause, no matter what someone might do to you, such as throw rocks or whatever. It seems that some judges forget that we have a constitution with a preamble to it, and that it is there for a reason. It's for judges as well as for everyone else. The constitution is the law of the land, and we are supposed to have judges that interpret it. Some judges apparently don't want to do that. They should be removed for dereliction of duty. So the judge should view the law about property rights next to rivers and decide if that includes preventing fishing. I believe that is something a judge should be able to be asked to do, even though to him, it might just look like a curve ball.
If it's a standing issue, how about the "private attorney general doctrine" or "ex rel" proceeding? Why couldn't the court have granted leave to amend the complaint, or allow the state attorney general to file a motion to intervene?
Private attorney general statutes vary by state but they never apply when the public attorney general disagrees with the party seeking public attorney status.
For larger rivers, they are defined as navigable by the Army Corps of Engineers and those rivers are definitely open to the public. The property lines for those rivers stop at the normal high water mark. There are still smaller rivers and creeks that are navigable and open to the public, but the land under water might be private property.
You know why? Hmm? because they are ALL FEDERAL PROPERTY !! Might is not true! You can apply for a permit but it is usually granted but ONLY under the limit of that permit. Unless you have a land deed you have NO water rights EVER. It is all federal! ALL In rare casts the feds have assigned rights to a state, eg WA, but that is the exception. People are under such illusions.. Same for Homestead States, most are NOT which is why article 9 of the WA constitution state what it is. It is the shortest article in the constitution. However, the Homestead Exemption exists in most states but that is merely a tax issue.
@@toriless Suggest you learn about riparian rights. Ohio landowner which has a creek. So by the Ohio Constitution and the property deeds, I do have a right to use the waters of the creek and do not need a permit from the Feds. nor from Ohio if I do not take more than 100,000 gallons per day from it. Nor can I be charged for the use of the water for the farmyard.
In Missouri we can get out and have free use of the gravel bar up to where the gravel bar and dirt meet. Just this last weekend I camped on one in the middle of the canoe trip.
Not really. Maybe Colorado doesn't want to be declared the owner of the river? That could mean that they would be responsible for it -- accidents, flooding, policing it, keeping it free of logs, monitoring fishing, bridges over it, etc., etc. and tens of thousands of other rivers. Maybe they only want large rivers or don't want to control the river beds? At best, the court should ask Colorado if it even wants to.
It makes sense to me. Let's say the guy hired Lionel Hutz to represent him and he screws up and the court is forced to rule against him. Then it's screwed up for all of the other 'waders'. The state could probably intevene but they would have to spend a fortune in taxpayer's money to hastily evaluate what they want and pay lawyers to argue it.
@@JackStraw1961 All no. Some, yes. They have several insurance programs, specific laws limiting their liability, they are involved in a Federal FEMA lawsuit, and Mississippi is currently suing them over dams/flood controls. Colorado might want to put some laws, insurance, inspections, programs, etc. before they accept ownership of thousands of rivers they don't even know about.
Here in PA, you can't really own surface water, you can only own the land under the water. It's legal to float over the bottom, but as soon as you touch bottom, you can be trespassed.
Reminds me of some cases in Oregon regarding public access to ocean beaches. They are public property up to 10 feet above the high tide level. You can not cross public property for access, but if you land by boat, you are OK. Navigable rivers are treated about the same way.I don't think Oregonians can own property under a river. I got kicked off a beach when I was young before the courts ruling back in the '60s. As an ocean lover, I have trouble visiting Washington and California with their private beaches. It gets boring pacing back and forth on the same 100ft. of beach. Many cases have denied property owners adding any stuctures or seawalls to public areas. Yes, there have houses lost. One benefit is that FEMA is not paying for replacing them. Oregon beaches were part of the Highway Department. They were used as the best way to travel as the landscape is very mountainas right up to the beach. There is even a tunnel through a rocky headland to connect two beaches.
It's only complicated because of nonsense 'property rights' decisions. Most of Europe (especially Scandinavia) have laws that allow any person access to any wildlife location regardless of ownership, as long as the area is respected and privacy is maintained. Amazing how nobody ever has issues that pop up when there is even a slight bit of respect from everyone involved.
Legislators are not going to act because it is a "hot button" and acting would alienate them from certain groups and could result in them losing their elected position in the next election. Most elected officials are more concerned with their own political career than addressing issues.
in australia its like 60 feet that you can walk along on the edge of the river, or further if rocks block the way. infact as long as the water is flowing you have public access up creeks too. no one owns a river not even the water suppliers or the government here.
It is different from state to state and even federal. But generally a " navigable at statehood" water way is public.. In Alabama however there have been people that bought property on the river, and dredged a canal to that property and that canal , that they made , even though navigable, is private property
In Oregon where I live (on a river and creek) all rivers are owned by the state. Which means anyone can boat or walk down the river. The property line stops at the current edge of the water. Brings up interesting question when there is a flood. I am also in the flood plain. Question as clear as the river.
In my state, you are allowed on the banks of navigable waterways if it is below the normal high water line. This includes camping on exposed river beds and banks. You are temporarily allowed on private land, above the high water line, to get around an obstruction.
I think in my state we have maps for what are designated public waterways. I think you can just look the maps for this, but I could be wrong. Some go pretty far up away from the big lakes and into private property. Just looked up some info. They have a rule that the stream/river must move a minimum amount of water annually to be considered public water ways.
Seems pretty clear to me "In navigable streams, the public has the right to navigate and use the surface. However, if the stream bed is privately owned, the public does not have the right to touch the banks or bottom, and may not even have the right to fish." - The 2023 Federal Navigable Waters Protection Rule took effect on March 20, 2023. But no need to throw stones.
So do we see the incremental take over of people's rights by the government here? It's always in incremental take over by soft tyranny that we see today.
That's a great example of why "rules/regulations" should not equate laws. Just imagine if that was a passed law! Just how many of those fools wouldn't be in office after that!
I usually stay below the natural high water mark of any declared navigable waterway. There are federal guidelines on navigable waterways. If it is federally recognised navigable waterway, then..... so it must be currently navigable.
The primary means of navigation on Colorado waterways is inflatable raft designed to negotiate rapids. I used to work for the rafting industry in Colorado, and have heard of and been party to a property owner disputing access. Recreation is a major part of the Colorado economy, and rafting it's creeks and rivers a significant component. Rafting remains a recreation activity available to people across a broad range of economic circumstance. Skiing used to be, but I witnessed the how corporate elites made that activity too expensive for the vast majority of Americans. There are many stretches of these recreational rivers in the state that run through some of the vast estates of wealthy industrial oligarchs. Given the extreme nature of today's US Supreme Court I can easily see how rafting can become a recreation available only to the very wealthy as well.
The upside is that the law about navigation is fairly clear and well-established. The downside is that we've got several justices who don't care about the law and work very hard to twist reality to create a justification for their rulings. The recent clean water act case in which they tortured the meaning of adjacent to be equivalent to adjoining is (for now) the most recent significant example.
Alaska residents have access to waterways as long as we stay below the normal big water line. There is a lake in Anchorage called Campbell lake that had a dispute a few years ago. I thought there was a court case but I can't find it now; it might not have gone to court. The homeowners around that lake weren't allowing public access to the lake. It eventually got worked out and public easements were identified.
Alaska is an interesting state in terms of navigability, because having been admitted in 1959 it was possible to fly into many bodies of water that are otherwise inaccessible at the time of statehood. That still doesn't change anything about access by way of land, though.
Steve, do not land rights include water up to the middle of the river - if that is the dividing line- if that river is not navigable? Navigable does not mean you can float an air raft or other small craft. Navigable means for “commerce”. So if it does not support navigation for purposes of commerce then it remains private.
Seems this question might depend on Colorado’s version of the Declaratory Judgment Act, statutory granting of standing and related relief/remedies for parties seeking judicial determination of disputed rights. Generally, to pursue a cause of action on behalf of the public, a private individual must have statutory authority as it isn’t permitted/authorized under common law. If the common law doesn’t recognize the action, the legislature has to provide for it via statute in order to bring the action in court.
I have heard of these cases all my life. Some wealthy person or group buys the land along side the river and shuts it off for their own use. Being in to fly fishing I have heard of coplaints from Colorado since at least the 1980s, including land owners running fences across streams and getting away with it. Even back then judges would ignor regular people's complaints so it was believed that some entity with deep pockets to fight it through the courts. In this state navigatable is defined by a canoe traveling it even if only in high water times because fur was brought in when during those periods. By the way the headwaters of the Arkansas is in Colorado, the Missouri in Montana and the Mississippi in Minnesota.
Speaking of headwaters, Isa Lake (located in Yellowstone National Park) drains into both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. (Note that it does so only during years following high snowpack.) For those who are confused by this, be aware that this lake is located on the continental divide.
According to the Indians, the waters of the Ohio River reach all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. The Mississippi was not their idea of the name of the river.
We kayak on Paw Paw river and Dowagiac river quite often in Michigan. You can only get out of the water to bypass an obstruction, and do it expeditiously.
Other than the (quite likely?) possibility that the legislators have deliberately tried to skirt the law to benefit certain constituents I don't understand why every state doesn't follow the same sensible practice of allowing incidental use of the bed or banks as a necessary part of navigation.
@@notmyname3883 The government can't take something that doesn't exist. Navigational easements exist because the right to prohibit navigation never existed.
Was a land surveyor some time ago. A lot of homes in Annapolis (metes and bounds deeds) referred to a stream or river as a boundary from 100 years ago. The water moved, disappeared or overtoook the original lines. They still owned the property but water has its own way with land. Interesting concept just like many of those properties called out “to middle of the road”. Which is a de facto easement but they’re still taxed on it.
Subdivide it as a wetland and see the taxes drop to $100 a year. I saved my uncle a ton of money with this advice. Now, his creek was still there but ...
Funny seeing that Camp Zama shirt on ya. I'm a week back from visiting my brother in Japan. He works there at Camp Zama :D Love your videos. Thanks for doing what you do!
Navigable waters that are open to the public should be treated no different than a roadway. There should be a 12 foot easement on each side of the stream, creek, river, lake, whatever.
If it's a public easement the owner needs to be indemnified and held harmless from liabilities associated with injuries or other actions that occur within the easement.
@@buckhorncortez as it should be. You own the property in front of your house out to the curb but if a kid is riding the skateboard down the sidewalk it breaks his leg you're not liable.
I've think here in Arkiesauce, the Army Corps of Engineers control "navigable" waters up to the highest flood height mark. But, that mostly concerns any modifications or improvements. Local County sheriff's and the hwy.patrol has a time with the floaters of joy here.. so, private property rules are involved when entering "Posted Private" or Not... Usually doesn't end up in Court... but, not unheard-of.. Thanks..
The fisherman broke the law, trespassed illegally on someone else's property, refused to get off the private property when the owner told him too. YOURE NOT VERY BRIGHT.
About your T-shirt, Camp Zama Jr High 1966. As for the river/creek question. I own land in Ohio. We have a creek that runs thru it. When my grandparents bought it in 1941 it had a private crossing on it to get to the farm. A crossing or fording had been there ever since the farm house was first built in 1812. The deeds to the property state very clearly that the land under the creek extends up to the top of the creek bank as property of the land owner. When the township wanted to put in a road, my grandparents deeded a ROW for the road with the then in place crossing required to be upgraded. If you step foot out of that ROW, you are trespassing if you are touching the bottom. While the State can control the use of the water above a certain amount, the first 100,000 gallons per day can be withdrawn without even needing a permit as the land owner. The interesting thing is, the top of the creek varies as to where it is. Sometimes it is 8' below the top of the bank with a flow of ~250CFS, less than a foot of water over the bottom. Other times it can be 8' above the normal top of the bank with a flow of 3000CFS.
Depends, most are build on county land but not all. Not even an easement, but fully owned. In some states on older properties they are easements (but it MUST be in your deed) but now most easement are typically for public or private utilities. I have a sidewalk the county owns but I am required to maintain. They still butcher my tree of I get to healthy with proper trimming so they hack at it and I have to fix every one of the tree killing cuts.
As someone who co-owns a land surveying company here in Nebraska i actually do know the answer here, based off the presentations of other professionals who have presented at confrences on the laws surrounding this. Here all adjacent land owners own under creeks, rivers, and streams. There are a few areas where the core of engineers or the local river districts have bought some of the land, but probably 90+% of rivers and streams fall under this. as long as there is permanent flow, you can float a boat, and navigate around obsticals by following the quickest route on the shoreline, but you cannot touch or effect the bed of the river/creek/stream as the water is public, but the stream bed is privatw.
I feel like he could have very easily raised this question with a different point it would have gone a bit better. I can't imagine "well it was allowed when we gained statehood so the 200 years in between don't apply to this river" was the best defense possible.
That is actually how it is supposed to be. The Supreme Court made it clear with Bruen that any law on the books has to have a 1791 analogue or it is invalid.
@@christopherkidwell9817 I must admit I have trouble remembering all aspects of the US Constitution, however I don't recall a passage that says in effect"the right to bear a rod and reel shall not be infringed".
So what I've learned from all of this is that in order to have standing to sue for river fishing access, I should actually be sitting in a lawn chair with my feet floating in the water above the river bottom.
In the small town I live in, in Illinois, there are two creeks running through. The South branch in the 1800's was used to run three mills producing flour and woolens. The North branch was not. So the South branch was considered navigable and present landowners do not own the creek bottom. The North branch was not considered navigable therefore the creek bottom is owned by the landowners it passes through. It can and is legally dammed by landowners to create private lakes.
My understanding in Wisconsin, if they gain access at a point open to the public, they can walk, fish, etc along the banks within 15 feet of the normal high water mark. I have property along a river with my house across the road. I often have people ask if they can cross my property to fish. I let them and remind them to pack up what they bring in. Meet some nice people that way.
I grew up in Cali,there you could fish on private land as long as you stayed below the high water marks, just dont tear up fences to get there, In UT the ranchers put up A frame steps to get over the barb wire fences for there cattle to give river access I haved fished in WA,OR ID,UT,CO, PA, MT, WY with never having a problem. I drove a long haul truck for 30+ years and always had my flyrod with me for a relax day when layovers happen. I have never had a problem with land owners but have always been respectful if confronted, I understand some state are different, but if respectful you will usually get access again in the future
So, to think about this, the corner hopping would fall on the same premise as being the landowner and owning the bottom of the river. Therefore, if in the river you placed a dock and it would be trespassing to touch or get on the dock, then touching or stepping on the fence would be trespassing also.
Unlawful Inclosures act - §1063. Obstruction of settlement on or transit over public lands No person, by force, threats, intimidation, or by any fencing or inclosing, or any other unlawful means, shall prevent or obstruct, or shall combine and confederate with others to prevent or obstruct, any person from peaceably entering upon or establishing a settlement or residence on any tract of public land subject to settlement or entry under the public land laws of the United States, or shall prevent or obstruct free passage or transit over or through the public lands: Provided, This section shall not be held to affect the right or title of persons, who have gone upon, improved, or occupied said lands under the land laws of the United States, claiming title thereto, in good faith. (Feb. 25, 1885, ch. 149, §3, 23 Stat. 322.) Notice TRANSIT OVER PUBLIC LANDS
I understand the Colorado's supreme court's decision a little. The founder of the church I belong to family owns a extremely large cattle ranch on both sides of the Laramie river. The main part of the ranch is in Laramie, Wyoming were as their property extends to the other side of the river in Le'port Colorado. In mid to late summer during the dry season they drive their cattle across the river to the Le'port side to graze. Most of the land is open range cattle land. It was not stated in the article whether or not the land owner the fisherman sued was a cattle rancher or not.
Riparian rights are indeed variable. I've chased goose hunters and fishers off my dock on multiple occasions in Maryland. I actually don't mind MOST fishers- but some take it for granted and leave a bait/fish innard mess. Docks in Maryland are permitted and acknowledged as private if so marked, but also a safe haven for boaters in a storm or emergency.
Here's a question. In those rivers or streams that you can navigate with a canoe or kayak that you can not touch the bottom, can you drop anchor upstream so that the anchor does not land in private property and "hover" in the water over private property to fish? Drop the anchor just on the other side of the property line and float in.
In Oregon a navigable river and bed and up to either the high water mark or 100 year flood level, don't remember, is public property. So you can boat or float and get out of the water to a point. You cannot access thru private property tho, access is only at public property.
Ontario has an official list of 140 navigable waterways, which settles the canoe/kayak issue. Some property lines go up to the waterline, some go to the middle. No way to tell, and I've never heard of anyone finding a way to sue someone else for wading in their creek. That would be news, like when someone gets bit by a muskie.
I have to assume that the rules against trespass in these river cases must also depend on proper posting of the property according to the law, correct? I wonder if this would require signs adjacent to the river in a location plainly visible to kayaks and rafts advising them to not set foot on land?
NM ended bank fishing on private river property about 15 yrs ago. The river along my boundary isn't navigable during the spring melt, it's narrow and has many big rock blockages. After the melt it's too shallow for kyiaks. Considering I paid a premium for a river lot, and my property taxes reflect that having anyone with a fishing license use my investment for No Charge seems irrational.
As you say, each state has it’s laws on this. In Ohio it’s clear as mud and will vary interpretation between each officer (dnr, sheriff, and etc). If the water is navigable you can be ON the river, but the land under the water is the property owner. Now the issue comes in on the word navigable. Under the law “A stream is considered navigable if it is open for navigation to the end…” leaves too much grey area. Many streams can be navigable if i can float my kayak, but it’s up to officers discretion. 😢
In general, I'm glad when courts duck these issues. Behind every one of these "duckings", there is some vague law that needs clarification. And that clarification should come from the legislature, not the courts. All those interests who filed all those amicus briefs should turn their attention to the legislature and get them to pass a law that settles these questions.
If you had understood what was covered you'd know that the relevant laws are already written and very clear, and the question is simply whether or not the river is navigable.
When we rafted this river it was explained to us that you could float in the river but the ground on the bottom was private property. So if you wanted to fish you would needed to floating in a tube or kyack etc.
@@jeanetteshawredden5643 Define canoe, kayak and define "on top of" the water. Have they defined it well enough so that it doesn't exclude the most unique kayaks that are still in the spirit of the law, but that does thwart any attempt to circumvent it?
Its called portage when you get out on land to go around a unsafe or concerns about staying safe in the river. At least here in Southern Michigan where im from
Depends on State and WHEN/HOW land was obtained, old subdivision people owned land all the way to the edge of the water no public access rights, new subdivisions 75 feet back from waters edge are yours but open for public access they can walk and camp within 75 feet of the waters edge some pre statehood land grants owner owned EVERYTHING including the river/lake bottom and water in the lake/river/creek
Steve, what about Army Corps of Engineers? Does this federal bureaucracy have an easement or something more like ownership of riverbeds and easement on the banks? ownership
Don't shoot the messenger would have been a good title for this video🤣. I do appreciate your break down and explanation of the legal matters that are in the headlines. It makes it easy for a blue collar fellow like myself to follow. Keep up the good work!
SCOTUS ruled a few years ago that water ways that run through private lands that up to the high water marks are public owned and accessible to the public. As for navigable portion i dont recall. I know this was put out by a river association of some for for people to keep a copy to show land owners and the local LEO'S. Steve do you or anyone else have access to this again. I can not find where i put the article. Thanks.
So... this is row v. wade?
I'll go quietly now.
Lol
This should be top comment. Well done sir. 😂
this is the answer
I see what you did there👏
You win the internet today!
Well played sir,
Well played!
My dad and I were arrested in 1964 for trespassing as we paddled our Folbot kayak down the upper Passaic River in New Jersey. A private resort used a small dammed up section as their private lake and called the police when we paddled by and refused their orders to immediately leave. My dad was ticketed by the local police when we landed to portage around the dam. My dad researched the law and learned that "navigable waterways" were open to public use in New Jersey. He appeared in court and the charge was dismissed. I don't recall if the legal definition of "navigable" was discussed, but our contention was that we could have navigated the river from Basking Ridge (where we lived) all the way to New York Bay.
I'm curious where abouts the private lake / dammed up section was? While it's before my time.. I'm very close to the Passaic and know the upper Passaic areas pretty well.
I hope they at least *TRIED* to educate the cops?
@@SmittyAZ Why? Cops don't make the law. They enforce it. Do you also lecture the super market cashier about the macroeconomic effects of inflation?
@@jgood005 Because Cops are giving tickets for something that's not illegal.
(That moment that you realize that jb05 is not a Troll, but is really like this IRL.)
@@james1787 I wish I knew. I was 13 at the time. I looked at Google Earth today and tried to find it with no success. I even thought I might be mistaken and looked at the upper Raritan where we also paddled. I thinks it is likely gone and replaced by residences or re-wilded. It may have been a weir rather than a dam backing up the water, so not as noticeable. I have my late dad's papers and am inspired to dig through them looking for any papers he may have kept. I also made some "tubing" trips on streams near the Great Swamp where someone's mom or dad would drop us off somewhere and retrieve us later at another bridge or landing downstream. As I remember, the place where we were arrested was on the left bank as we went downstream. The right bank was heavily wooded. The club was on a road that i think crossed the river a ways downstream. What I call the resort may have been called a beach club or something else. I am pretty sure it was private club for dues paying members. It was not too fancy. Just a stretch of bank made into a beach some picnic tables and a simple clubhouse. It was like a summer camp that kids would go to for a couple weeks but had adults and families. Somewhere I have an old detailed map of Somerset County that i think may be marked with places where some of my adventures occurred but this one may have been in another county like Morris. Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this area more.
I find it amazing that courts routinely throw out laws for being unconstitutionally vague, but are willing to accept the distinction of a river as navigable or non-navigable without further clarification.
The problem here isn't the vague law, but the right or wrong of it to be brought before the court by this plaintiff. If the land owner had taken this to court, hoping that they would determine that his claims of ownership of the river and/or it's bed is his to allow or not allow public access.
Navigabiliy is not the issue. If this greedhead is backed up by the courts, it could devastate an entire industry. Wait until they start charging tolls to pass through their property.
This needs to be handled at the federal level.
In my youth, I received multiple tickets from the USCG while skiing on the Rio Grande River - even though I repeatedly pointed out that their authority was only over "navigable waters" and when the 1st dam went up on the river it no longer met the definition - the judge didn't care...
@@jeffreyhowll1392 "The presence of rapids, waterfalls and sandbars, which may require portaging around does not preclude navigability because the fact that navigation may be difficult and at places interrupted does not render a stream un-‐navigable. The character of a river as a public highway is not determined by the frequency of its use, but by its capacity for being used." Economy Light & Power v US.
@@rationalist47 Does not apply - dams are not enumerated... The Rio Grande River has not been used in such a manner since just after the Civil War - besides, there are 15 dams now - that's a whole lot of portaging...
Navigable waterways in Texas is broadly defined as any creek/stream that allows the passage of water. A few years ago, electrical high lines were required to be raised above all NW to allow access for sail boats. So now, there are dry creek beds in the panhandle that have 70' clearance for your sail boat to pass.
Texas also has laws against interfering with anglers legally taking fish in navigable waterways.
@@fs_dave as long as you enter from the waterway without making landfall at any place on the private property. You can’t jump a fence to get to it.
Minimum height of 22 ft, unless if higher as half the width of the distance between land embankments, up to 150ft. Never heard of a 140ft wide 'creek' though. Everything's big in Texas I guess. Same in Louisiana ... clearances may be greater, as required by the National Electric Safety Code and governing laws.
@@culturedape279 Correct. That's why I included the term "legally taking fish".
Reminds me of the group of German POWs who plotted their escape from a prison camp very carefully. They found a map with a "River" and secretly built a boat. They were surprised to find that the "River" had been dry for centuries, except for a very short flash flood every few years.
In Alaska all navigable waters are owned by the state. Most waterways also have a 15 foot public access setbacks to allow people to walk along a creeks and rivers even though the property is privately owned.
I would support this as a national standard for all states if I were in charge. But I’m biased because I’m a fisherman.
@@briangarrow448 I fish a lot also many times floating rivers in a raft or canoe. I used to live by a small creek on property that was subdivided before the 15’ setback rule but would allow people fishing access along the creek. They could not cross our property to get to the creek though.
I fish too but I'm a decent human so I don't fish right up on someone's property. Obviously if they have acreage and there house isn't even in the visibility then who cares but not trespassing nonetheless
MN is like that too.
I'd agree with this too, but only for walking along the bank and no fishing, camping or boat embarking.
If they aren't going to allow people to use the water that people's fishing license paid for, then upkeep/cleanup needs to be 100% the responsibility of the land owner. Not tax payers.
No, That's not how it works.
dumb take
@@pasques Actually, that is how it works. Just like if you take ownership of the street (like a gate community for example), you are responsible for its upkeep and care.
@@pasques why do you say that
Don't think fishing licenses pay for rivers or water bodies in any way. Your driver's license doesn't pay for road signs or upkeep.
Interesting video. We bought a 5 acre property in rural Virginia four years ago. It was brand new and the last lot to sell in this rural subdivision that is about 15 years old. It has a thickly wooded, sloped and very shallow (non-navigable) streambed that runs through it. The guy next door sold a few months after we moved in and the new couple have been trespassing into our stream area. They have also been calling the county about God knows what perhaps because our woods are not trimmed like their last HOA common area in their previous suburban town home. We've had to fence that property line up to the road where the county does have an easement for a water conveyance under the road but they continue to press on. We found some of their down spout extensions daylighting into our stream, likely from the previous neighbor. We asked the new neighbors to relocate them to their side and they didnt really say anything so we had them removed back to the property line (and with their permission as they came out of their house). It is clear these people and a few others in the neighborhood think this non-navigable stream of no more than one to three inches of water is somehow public property. Oddly, the same stream takes a sharp turn and runs through the next door neighbor's lot but it is not as active and not wooded in that area. We are standing by our guns on this and not allowing them into our land. They even tried to run us off our property with their aggressive dogs by placing their invisible fence right at the property line and telling us we are lucky they put in the invisible fence. People don't get property rights and law. We asked all these questions when we bought and declined to run our down spout extensions into the stream because we wanted to make sure we were well within the law only to find the trespassing neighbor doing that very thing and acting like they had ownership rights of our fee simple land.
Better be careful watering the lawn, they might consider the garden hose's output to be a stream.
When we bought our little NM cabin in the shadow of Wheeler Peak (highest mountain in NM) there was a new, self built McMansion being built next door. We bought our cabin for a weekend retreat from the TX summer heat. On an early trip I noticed some 4 inch heavy duty plastic pipe protruding from the embankment built up to level a pad for the neighbor's house built on a sloping, narrow lot. It ended well within their property at that time. Looked to be runoff pipe from a French drain system. About 3 yrs later I noticed more rockscape was added under the pipe to stop erosion on their side and the pipe was extended closer to the property line. Fast forward another few yrs and the drain pipe that encircles their huge house extends to our property line, hanging up 5-6 feet in the air. He's dumped gravel so that runoff during a heavy downpour will run onto our lot which happens to be slightly steeper than his in that spot. In a couple of decades all the beautiful valley topsoil that was pushed aside from my house site will be washed down beside the river 100 ft below, leaving me a gully deep enough to hide my Jeep in. I was saving that area with the beautiful rich soil for a flower garden.
I discussed lack of maintenance of the rail fence between our properties. He wanted me to furnish materials in exchange for labor. I suggested he tear out the rail fence and use huge rocks to mark our boundary line. (Zero maintenance) He owned a Bobcat, so it was well within his ability to handle. He took down the fence, but didn't bring in rocks so our property line is lost. He now uses 1/3 of my front yard as snow storage for his driveway and large parking area. For the last few yrs I don't like going up there because instead of relaxing I have to deal with disrespectful neighbors damaging my property. The neighbor built a house he couldn't afford to maintain, can no longer live in because of the high altitude's effect on his health, so he leaves his 25 y.o. son to live there. It's party central for the kids "friends" from Abq and Santa Fe. Scrapped out cars parked all around for their projects. They work all night and sleep until 2 PM. Rant over! 🙃
@@rt3box6tx74 "catching and casting" of storm water onto another's property is illegal in a lot of places.
The asshole kids, I got nothing.
Set up a motion sensor that activates a radio with a very discernible speaker tuned to a station that plays whatever they would hate to have to listen to but will have to endure every time they tresspass upon your property. If they like Rock hook em up with some blaring Country & vice vers, ect. No more peace & serenity for tresspassers policy...lol
Also, set up a hidden trail cam well away from the radio & speaker with a broad field of view that would then capture them on film if they were to shoot, touch, or damage your property while on your property in any way to make suing them for multiple types of civil damages a slam dunk enforceable with a lean against their property if they don't pay up.
@Andy Weaks Yes I know about storm water regs, but so does the neighbor. If-when I bring it up he'll blame the kid. I may wait until some weekend he goes out of town and saw the dam thang plumb off at 5 ft from the property line. I'm sure, as paranoid as they are they have a 24 hr video system.
In our state the titled landowner closest to the body of water has rights to any untitled land between their titled land and the body of water. However the body of water, except for a few exceptions, is not titleable and is open to the public. So you can wade along the edge of the water even if that takes you directly next to someone's yard or other developed property - but you can't step out of the water onto untitled land as that is considered private. A few landowners that had fancy homes next to a lake tried to sue some folk for trespassing that were fishing along the lake shore but in the water, those cases all got thrown out.
Which state?
Unenforceable since they have no authority unless the federal government gives up its right which is rarely does to states. Otherwise, one Illinois could cut off the Mississippi River from all other states and this is true for most rivers. They are rarely contained within one state like the Columbia is. It is also the source for 2/3rds of the states electricity which is why WA is the ONLY 0 emissions state. ONLY ONE
@Xierb Why is untitled land considered private?
@@thadsmith4909 Good question. I suspect it's because of our agricultural history. The owner of the titled land closest to the lake could then use that untitled land for grazing or growing crops and would have a legal recourse if someone else tried to use that land, or destroyed their crops, etc. And recreation wasn't really a thing when those laws were put in place in the 1800's.
@@dmw13 U don't usually say much more than "upper midwest". I'm in one of the northern tier states, that'll narrow it down to a very few ;)
I live in West Virginia, I used to own property on Middle Island Creek. It is a couple of Miles short of being called a river... My understanding was that I owned the ground under the water halfway across the creek. But I did not own the water that flows over it and is open to the public.. but by owning the ground underneath gave me the right to put in a dock with posts in the water
Actually, nope. You need a Public Lands Permit and maybe a Army COE permit to set a dock. The only property in the State that still owns the river bottom is over on the South Branch of the Potomac in the Smoke Hole. They are like the only family that still owns the same piece of property since the King gave it to them.
That's his great, great, great, great grandpappy and the land he posted about.
@@awboat It's good to be the king!
Wrong! Unless you have federal document granting you right you have NONE, NONE. You are WRONG !! ALL ALL ALL AND ALL water rights are FEDERAL!!!!!!
@@toriless Please edit or delete that post. I've got your back on this one.
My grandmother lives on a river bank popularly used for kayaking right across fron a retail convenience store. She doesn't care what people do on the river but she's been called multiple times to provide her testimony on petty disputes - being disabled by a stroke was enough to discourage the requests for testimony in the last few years which in itself is discouraging lol
I found this especially fascinating as someone who once had a home on a public river in Texas. Good luck to anyone trying to wade through though 😂 It was very deep even when not flooded. People could go through on canoe,kayak, tubes etc. They could not step onto the bank on either side. I could fish from the bank on my property without a fishing license but if I went into the water in a boat then I needed a license. Even if I was only feet from the bank. Heidi
Addendum: I would have never thrown rocks at someone though. Allowed to be there or not. That land owner sounds very immature or poorly raised. Maybe a little of both
but the water itself is federal property NOT the states. Look it up.
Perhaps, and most likely, he was only throwing rocks to scare away the fish the fisherman was trying to catch.
@@BlackCat_2I'll bet the person was not listening to the owner. Ignorance needs longer applies once your informed.
Where I live the river is the county line. and everyone in both county's are allowed to and do go boating on the river. and if you live near the river you have simply have to put up with it.
there's also a smaller river that has a confluence with the larger river. and people can kyack canoe and tube down that river. and people that live live near that river simply have to put up with it.
I really enjoy your legal breakdowns. I live in CO. I have been a commercial guide & private river runner / rafter for 2 decades. I have been instructed, land ownership is referring to the LAND. So, as long as someone does not touch the river bottom or the shore thru an area privately owned, rights have not been violated (property owners' rights).
Fishermen wading (technically walking on the land, even though water is in the middle) would seem to violate the guidelines I have been always taught to follow to respect the rights of those where everyone is expected to share resources. Frankly, there are NOT many areas along most rivers in which intersect with National Waterways in which private owners object, UNLESS, ABUSE is taking place. In other words, a KAREN (male karen - fisherman) in this case trying to ruin IT for all the rest of us, who DO follow the "respect the rights of others" guidelines.
Also, Steve, The Arkansas River BEGINS in Colorado, in Lake County, where 12 of the 54 - 14K+ (elevation) peaks are located, Mt. Elbert being the highest in CO.
Reapectful is the key word :)
ALL water is federal property just like National Parks and Federal Forrest. The feds control water rights and the assignment of them. You own a farm in CA you apply with the feds not CA.
We owned 136 acres in Indiana when I was growing up. About 15 acres of bottom land that had been a corn field were flooded when the Dams were built on the Ohio river. We owned the land under the water, but we couldn't stop people from boating or fishing from boats. If someone wanted to fish from the shore on our property they had to ask my dad for permission and if it was someone local my dad would just give them permission for as long as we owned the property.
I have been all over the country and fished many places, nothing wrong with asking permission if your not sure? Same with hunting on private land. but yes each state is different
That water is federal property, you must apply with the federal government to use any. Farms is CA need a federal permit not a state one !!
Begs the question, what if a boater drops an anchor that tethers his boat to privately owned river bottom...or what about the fisherman who still fishes with a sinker on his line laying on the bottom...just askin'.
@@toriless Not true in Ohio where I own land. I need no permit to take out up to 100,000 gallons of water per day by law. And per the Ohio DNR: "The waters of Ohio’s public waterways (streams and rivers) belong to the state of Ohio, however, the land beneath the water belongs to the landowner(s) on either side of the stream, whether owned publicly or privately.
A stream is considered navigable if it is open for navigation to the end and considered navigable even if some obstacles or natural debris is present.
In situations of incidental use, such as taking breaks or wading, it is important that boaters understand that they may be trespassing when they leave their boat to access the stream bank or bottom of the stream. Prior permission may be necessary. It’s best to plan ahead (contact the landowner for permission in advance of your trip), or to plan on using only public access/public land when you disembark. "
Currently in WI: Is considered a public water access state, as long as you enter the water at public spot, you are allowed to wade/float,
Key point, you must access the water at a publicly accessible point, bridge, public launch area, water access easement, etc. Meaning you can't jump in a lake that doesn't have access to a public spot. But you could follow a river or stream that you joined at a public spot and if it joins a lake or pond that's otherwise private, you can still access that lake/pond, as long as you entered the water at the pubic spot and is navigable.
You can leave the water to avoid hazardous water, as long as you re-enter the water as soon as possible. This is sometimes referred to the "keep your boots wet rule".
What if it's your own riverside property that you start your adventure? It's not public access, but it is your land.
This is a good common sense solution for everyone. I wish I still lived in Wisconsin, but at my age I don't think I can take those winters anymore.
@@FHL-Devils It does not say public easement access only you can access from your property.
@@badgerpa9 ... you didn't watch the entire video. Do that before correcting someone.
@@FHL-Devils Was not answering to the video. you stated a question but do not seem to know what a question mark is "What if it's your own riverside property that you start your adventure? It's not public access, but it is your land." I answered your statement. The statues do not say you need to start from public lands. Wisconsin statue is very easy to read. Maybe read the question you ask from one ID before you comment.
Thanks for simplifying legalese for average folks to understand.
Steve, the (Klacking) creek that runs through our propery, and empties into the Rifle River, a few miles West of our place near it's point of origin, a spring, out of the ground, (I still need to go see that before I die!) used to be six feet deep, and plenty of board feet were floated down it, to the Rifle, on to the mills below us. My farmer friend (a Klacking) told me that his Grandpa told him about it, when he was a boy. That creek has big browns (trout) in it during Summer months, avoiding the tubers, canoe users, and kayakers, and the noise they make, and enjoying the colder water of the creek, vital to a trout's very survival...
Very happy for the trout, thanks for the history!
In Maine all flowing waterways may be used by the public up to the high water mark. But access must originate at a non-privately owned section of the waterway unless permission is granted by a private landowner.
In Ohio, we were always taught, in school, the land owner owns the land under the water but the state government owns the water itself.
So a boater could float and fish but not land on the property and use it in any way.
We owned a small farm with a popular small river running at the back.
We saw canoes and kayaks almost every day for 7-8 months of the year.
We usually had no problems.
Mostly trash left behind by very few.
Some camped a night or two.
We put up a sign welcoming them as long as they caused no damage and cleaned up their garbage.
We used the area, too, for get-togethers and family swimming.
Many times, night boaters would come by and we would invite them to land.
Made many friendships we still have today.
I can certainly understand why some land owners would be upset, though.
We were lucky to have nice people come by.
Some people are not so nice.
In the end, the land owner should legally have the right to refuse use of their land.
until the state wants to gift your land to a business then eminent domain takes all property rights away.
That sounds extremely reasonable and decent. And I also note, most people were decent and respectful. That is the part of culture that needs to be cultivated and restored.
Did you live on or near "the river of many fish?"
Treat people the way you would want to be treated. It's a simple concept. Unfortunately, there are a significant number of A-holes in our society. It'd be nice if we could just "vote them off the island," like in a reality TV show.
@@stevechance150 Unfortunately, that doesn't really work. I want to left the heck alone and gladly try to do the same for others, but no one else wants to mind their own damn business.
A couple of years ago, there was a question of which government agency was responsible for a path through a national forest, or rather which agency had jurisdiction over the ground _below_ the path through a national forest, the Forestry Service or the Parks Department. The actual effect, and what brought the question all the way up to the Supreme Court, was whether a pipeline could be built there. This is not quite the same, but I see a similarity between the question of who owns the river and who owns the river bed.
Water rights have long been a bone of contention in the US. Streams and creeks and ponds are one thing and a closer question. If the river is defined as navigable under federal law, I don't see how people cannot legally transit the river thru private property and I don't see how a State can say otherwise under federal law. If navigable, sue in federal court then.
Listen to the video again. The point of contention in this case is whether or not the stream in question *is* legally navigable or not. (Emphasis on legally, because some streams are navigable “by statute” even if they are not actually used for navigation.)
@@edwardwright8127 It really doesn't matter any more because when obama became president he claimed all water in the US to be the property of the federal government regardless of ownership by states or private people.
Can you forge a path through private property?
If air rights have been established (or there is common law extant) can you fly your drone through private property?
@@edwardwright8127 I did listen to it and that was my whole point, though focused on federal law, which is supreme in these matters. The applicable legal definition of navigable waters would be federal, not State. And a State may define navigable however it wishes, within limits, but once the feds say it's navigable for federal purposes, that case must be in federal court to challenge either the applicability of the legal definition or when it is clearly within the definition to determine if a person has free passage. We aren't saying anything different far as I can tell.
@@MrJoeybabe25 No, you can't forge a land path thru private property; that's called trespass unless the path has been used so long that it has become an easement. I had a case like that once. A very old road traversed a guy's farm, predated his ownership and was known to the locality since before the Civil War (history showed that N.B. Forrest used the road frequently during the war because it led to a ford across the Duck River). Local fishers used it a lot to get to the river and the road, though dirt and narrow, was clear and its regular use easily discovered. The guy who bought the property gated the road. When complaints were made about that, a lawsuit about clouded title was filed by the new landowner against the old one and it went all the way to the State Supreme Court, which ruled that the use and existence of the road, plain to anybody who might inspect the land (even noted in some old deeds), was so long and continuous that the land was burdened with a constructive easement or the road fell within the statutory definition of a public way and the new land owner was required to take the gate down.
In Oregon it’s high water line (not clear if flood level or “normal”) but we can pull up on the beach and have a picnic or even camp.
All depends on how high the water gets some time and how small the logs are if they will float down the river .
Usually the logs were put in the river in the spring after snow melt when the water was at a higher level .
Don't take a lot of water depth to float a small log maybe a foot deep will do .
This would make most water ways fall in to this category at certain times of the year .
That makes sense when you consider the commerce and general thinking when the country was founded and the original framework was put in place. In much of the northern part of the country commerce included fur trapping and transporting the pelts by small boats. In some places commerce could have included transporting modest, but valuable, quantities of gold. One guy in a 15' canoe could do that on lots of very modest streams. As technologies changed and larger boats became common I think the perception of navigability changed the original concepts.
wrong !!
@@toriless I'd argue the point, but I'm no match for your brilliant eloquence and convincing persuasive abilities.
@@toriless Wrong is what you are.
I personally believe the standard should be that rivers are public property, up to the high water mark, until a river reaches certain minimum threshold. Say 100 cfm, This somewhat lines up with the wild and scenic rivers system, to the best of my memory.
A teacher told me a story that he tried to float most of the Columbia river during his hippy phase in the 70s. He thought it was ok under the scenic rivers act. He pulled over one night and set up camp but was woken up by guards surrounding his tent armed with long rifles. He didn't realize he had stopped at Hanford WA. The highly secure and quite radioactive site where they made the plutonium for the first nuclear test, as well as the bomb used on nagasaki. Whoopsies.
Well , he shouldn't have needed any extra light since that place probably still glows in the dark .
the idea to build a radioctive site near a big river, is almost as brilliant as building nuclear reactors at fukushima
@@gavnonadoroge3092 the river and water is why they build reactors there. Reactors needs an absolute crap ton of water for cooling. If the reactor is water cooled it is going to be by water.
I'm guessing he was glad to move on?
@@gavnonadoroge3092 - Wow, way to tell the world you have no bloody clue what you're talking about.
Did you see that a northern Ohio court is charging you $100 to plead innocent, to get a court date for a speeding ticket? Justice is blind, but is holding her hand out to thwart poor people from using it.🙄🤕
That's called policing for profit, and the courts are getting greedier and greedier every day. Our justice system is the most corrupt of any developed country.
This might be unconstitutional. Someone should contest that
But if the property owner dumped motor oil in the river, and someone complained, I'm betting the state would suddenly be interested.
Can the owner fish on that part of the river without a license since it belongs to him? Exceed the bag limit, etc.? Can he put a huge net across his part of the river? Any kind of obstruction?
Now that’s an interesting thought
They will say the fish belongs to the state
@@papimaximus95 whatever 🤦🏼♀️ they are always trying to over reach their authority when it comes to personal property owner rights. They will word it however fits the state or government best.
Even if a waterway is very clearly the private property of a landowner the state still has authority over some uses of the water(way), and polluting groundwater is a crime. A landowner may be able to legally fish without a license in a landlocked pond, but in any water that crosses property boundaries the state can (usually) exercise its authority.
@@papimaximus95 The prevailing thought is generally that the state has sovereign ownership of all wildlife, which it holds in trust for the people.
😮😮My Fil has property that had a stream through his cattle farm. He cannot block the stream from people in a canoe or small boat but he can put up no trespassing signs on the land.
Exactly
My understanding is in South Dakota the areas between high water marks is public. Public may not set foot in areas beyond the high water mark without permission.
Courts: "Ignorance of the law is NO excuse!"
Citizen: "Understood. So, what's the law on..."
Courts: "YOU don't get to ask that question."
Generally courts are not allowed to advise you or explain the law to you. The court's role is to judge the evidence brought before it. You present your evidence and supply the applicable law. The other side does the same. The court then decides who has applied the law more effectively.
Or "Idk check the last 5 volumes of the regional and federal reporter" -_- Granted I love reading case law but not like this lol
Unless you are a member of law enforcement... you don't need to know the law there either.
@@papaw5405 "Generally courts are not allowed to advise you or explain the law to you." That is literally their job. The court refused to advise by saying he has no standing. It is absolutely insane that citizens in the state cannot have standing in a state law case like this. The judges involved in this ruling are absolutely insane. The judges are a joke and said the state prosecutor has to bring the case to get the answer.
There is absolutely no harm by individuals bringing cases like this because the end result is a legal ruling clarifying law or affirming law. If only state officials can bring these sits, citizens lose their rights as this man did. If the state brings the case and "has standing", the court could agree people have the right to use water ways.
I hope this man goes to the supreme court because this "standing" ruling is as unamerican as it gets.
@@papaw5405 We understand that's how the law currently opperates, what you're failing to understand is why that's absurd.
Was camping and fishing near Creed Colorado and some lodge had the Rio Grand river closed off by stringing a barb wire fence across it.
I had a similar situation in CA along a federal water canal. I was cycling along what I thought was a public canal bank and an annoyed farmer actually confronted me on it. He said he owned the land to the middle of the canal. Nothing came of it, but I did research the issue with no real results. I contend that the canal banks are maintained with tax dollars so the public should have access to them. No clue if there is any legal standing there.
CA owns all navigable waters as well. He doesn't own into the water, not at all.
@@rdizzy1 Not necessarily, counselor. California waterways are often a hodgepodge of owners. The state may claim to have a say in what kind of development can take place, but it does not necessarily own the dirt over which the water flows.
That ownership of any parcel of land is easily found out online at the taxing authority's website where it's mapped and labeled. I can guarantee you he didn't own those canal banks.
I live in florida and I've been fighting landowners like that farmer for 50 years over access to rivers, lakes and even beaches. Now, those same people are whining that they own the sky as well.
People should have to take a test to show they know the limits of their power before they buy property.
It's enough to make a communist out of a person.
He might have, might not. It's tough to say without running a title search.
@herbert92x The county tax assessors office has online maps showing who owns what. That canal was federal property. You think they don't own the banks as well? No way they didn't retain ownership of the banks, probably with a 50 foot or more margin. That farmer is FOS. Same moron who would claim you can't fly a drone 400 feet above his land cuz he owns the sky too.
The old "hell deep and heaven high" ethos toward property ownership doesn't work and never did.
In the state of Florida navigable streams and rivers belong to the state. Only time it can be blocked is if there is a security issue like a military base and that is not always cut and dried.
On a somewhat related note, I'm curious about whether or not the laws in NY specifically cover access to NYC's reservoirs from the navigable streams that were dammed to create the reservoirs. Under the general NY law on navigation the reservoirs are either part of the navigable river or an obstruction that you're allowed to bypass on the banks. That means that if there's no law(s) specifically covering the reservoirs NYC doesn't have authority to prohibit paddlers from continuing past the property boundary.
It's the old argument wayward judges use, that there has to be a law first. If no law, then you have no legal cause, no matter what someone might do to you, such as throw rocks or whatever. It seems that some judges forget that we have a constitution with a preamble to it, and that it is there for a reason. It's for judges as well as for everyone else. The constitution is the law of the land, and we are supposed to have judges that interpret it. Some judges apparently don't want to do that. They should be removed for dereliction of duty.
So the judge should view the law about property rights next to rivers and decide if that includes preventing fishing. I believe that is something a judge should be able to be asked to do, even though to him, it might just look like a curve ball.
If it's a standing issue, how about the "private attorney general doctrine" or "ex rel" proceeding? Why couldn't the court have granted leave to amend the complaint, or allow the state attorney general to file a motion to intervene?
There's no sweet pile of campaign cash for judges to get involved.
Private attorney general statutes vary by state but they never apply when the public attorney general disagrees with the party seeking public attorney status.
For larger rivers, they are defined as navigable by the Army Corps of Engineers and those rivers are definitely open to the public. The property lines for those rivers stop at the normal high water mark. There are still smaller rivers and creeks that are navigable and open to the public, but the land under water might be private property.
You know why? Hmm? because they are ALL FEDERAL PROPERTY !! Might is not true! You can apply for a permit but it is usually granted but ONLY under the limit of that permit. Unless you have a land deed you have NO water rights EVER. It is all federal! ALL In rare casts the feds have assigned rights to a state, eg WA, but that is the exception. People are under such illusions.. Same for Homestead States, most are NOT which is why article 9 of the WA constitution state what it is. It is the shortest article in the constitution. However, the Homestead Exemption exists in most states but that is merely a tax issue.
@@toriless Suggest you learn about riparian rights. Ohio landowner which has a creek. So by the Ohio Constitution and the property deeds, I do have a right to use the waters of the creek and do not need a permit from the Feds. nor from Ohio if I do not take more than 100,000 gallons per day from it. Nor can I be charged for the use of the water for the farmyard.
In Missouri we can get out and have free use of the gravel bar up to where the gravel bar and dirt meet. Just this last weekend I camped on one in the middle of the canoe trip.
What a cowardly move by the court.
Not really. Maybe Colorado doesn't want to be declared the owner of the river? That could mean that they would be responsible for it -- accidents, flooding, policing it, keeping it free of logs, monitoring fishing, bridges over it, etc., etc. and tens of thousands of other rivers. Maybe they only want large rivers or don't want to control the river beds? At best, the court should ask Colorado if it even wants to.
@@BW022 Was LA responsable for all damages when the Mississippi flooded New Orleans?
The court found the most expedient remedy for the situation. It didn't really help everyone but they did their job (just barely)
It makes sense to me. Let's say the guy hired Lionel Hutz to represent him and he screws up and the court is forced to rule against him. Then it's screwed up for all of the other 'waders'. The state could probably intevene but they would have to spend a fortune in taxpayer's money to hastily evaluate what they want and pay lawyers to argue it.
@@JackStraw1961 All no. Some, yes. They have several insurance programs, specific laws limiting their liability, they are involved in a Federal FEMA lawsuit, and Mississippi is currently suing them over dams/flood controls. Colorado might want to put some laws, insurance, inspections, programs, etc. before they accept ownership of thousands of rivers they don't even know about.
If it’s a public river then yes they can go down or up the river as long as In the water. 1:37
Justice goes to the highest bidder.
Here in PA, you can't really own surface water, you can only own the land under the water. It's legal to float over the bottom, but as soon as you touch bottom, you can be trespassed.
Reminds me of some cases in Oregon regarding public access to ocean beaches. They are public property up to 10 feet above the high tide level. You can not cross public property for access, but if you land by boat, you are OK. Navigable rivers are treated about the same way.I don't think Oregonians can own property under a river.
I got kicked off a beach when I was young before the courts ruling back in the '60s. As an ocean lover, I have trouble visiting Washington and California with their private beaches. It gets boring pacing back and forth on the same 100ft. of beach. Many cases have denied property owners adding any stuctures or seawalls to public areas. Yes, there have houses lost. One benefit is that FEMA is not paying for replacing them.
Oregon beaches were part of the Highway Department. They were used as the best way to travel as the landscape is very mountainas right up to the beach. There is even a tunnel through a rocky headland to connect two beaches.
Yeah, land under navigable waterways is public. It's very different here
Interesting situation. Thanks for sharing. I had no idea how complicated these things can get.
It's only complicated because of nonsense 'property rights' decisions. Most of Europe (especially Scandinavia) have laws that allow any person access to any wildlife location regardless of ownership, as long as the area is respected and privacy is maintained.
Amazing how nobody ever has issues that pop up when there is even a slight bit of respect from everyone involved.
Legislators are not going to act because it is a "hot button" and acting would alienate them from certain groups and could result in them losing their elected position in the next election. Most elected officials are more concerned with their own political career than addressing issues.
in australia its like 60 feet that you can walk along on the edge of the river, or further if rocks block the way. infact as long as the water is flowing you have public access up creeks too. no one owns a river not even the water suppliers or the government here.
I always though water ways were exempt.
It is different from state to state and even federal.
But generally a " navigable at statehood" water way is public..
In Alabama however there have been people that bought property on the river, and dredged a canal to that property and that canal , that they made , even though navigable, is private property
@@TheRealSwampOperator WRONG! All water rights are FEDERAL regardless of location !! The feds assign ALL rights!!
In Oregon where I live (on a river and creek) all rivers are owned by the state. Which means anyone can boat or walk down the river. The property line stops at the current edge of the water. Brings up interesting question when there is a flood. I am also in the flood plain. Question as clear as the river.
In my state, you are allowed on the banks of navigable waterways if it is below the normal high water line. This includes camping on exposed river beds and banks. You are temporarily allowed on private land, above the high water line, to get around an obstruction.
What rights did the feds grant and when.
I think in my state we have maps for what are designated public waterways. I think you can just look the maps for this, but I could be wrong. Some go pretty far up away from the big lakes and into private property.
Just looked up some info. They have a rule that the stream/river must move a minimum amount of water annually to be considered public water ways.
Yes, but the water itself is federal property.
@@toriless not sure about those laws at the federal level, I just looked up my states laws.
Seems pretty clear to me "In navigable streams, the public has the right to navigate and use the surface. However, if the stream bed is privately owned, the public does not have the right to touch the banks or bottom, and may not even have the right to fish." - The 2023 Federal Navigable Waters Protection Rule took effect on March 20, 2023. But no need to throw stones.
So do we see the incremental take over of people's rights by the government here? It's always in incremental take over by soft tyranny that we see today.
Well thanks for that half-baked opinion.
We need fishing Drone LOL
Are the stones from the riverbed or did you bring them
That's a great example of why "rules/regulations" should not equate laws. Just imagine if that was a passed law! Just how many of those fools wouldn't be in office after that!
I usually stay below the natural high water mark of any declared navigable waterway. There are federal guidelines on navigable waterways. If it is federally recognised navigable waterway, then..... so it must be currently navigable.
"He had no 'standing' in a 'right-to-wade' argument" Haha! No pun intended, right? Thanks Steve and team for all you do!
It is just Steve. He is independent. As far as the complainant he was in a big cattle state which could explain the ruling.
@@VickyGeagan I think you missed the point!
Hey, if it flows fast enough it is hard to stand.
The primary means of navigation on Colorado waterways is inflatable raft designed to negotiate rapids. I used to work for the rafting industry in Colorado, and have heard of and been party to a property owner disputing access.
Recreation is a major part of the Colorado economy, and rafting it's creeks and rivers a significant component.
Rafting remains a recreation activity available to people across a broad range of economic circumstance. Skiing used to be, but I witnessed the how corporate elites made that activity too expensive for the vast majority of Americans.
There are many stretches of these recreational rivers in the state that run through some of the vast estates of wealthy industrial oligarchs. Given the extreme nature of today's US Supreme Court I can easily see how rafting can become a recreation available only to the very wealthy as well.
The upside is that the law about navigation is fairly clear and well-established. The downside is that we've got several justices who don't care about the law and work very hard to twist reality to create a justification for their rulings. The recent clean water act case in which they tortured the meaning of adjacent to be equivalent to adjoining is (for now) the most recent significant example.
Ben behind the lower left Michigan plate.
Alaska residents have access to waterways as long as we stay below the normal big water line. There is a lake in Anchorage called Campbell lake that had a dispute a few years ago. I thought there was a court case but I can't find it now; it might not have gone to court. The homeowners around that lake weren't allowing public access to the lake. It eventually got worked out and public easements were identified.
Alaska is an interesting state in terms of navigability, because having been admitted in 1959 it was possible to fly into many bodies of water that are otherwise inaccessible at the time of statehood. That still doesn't change anything about access by way of land, though.
“Any case or controversy” Courts don’t like to do their jobs.
Steve, do not land rights include water up to the middle of the river - if that is the dividing line- if that river is not navigable? Navigable does not mean you can float an air raft or other small craft. Navigable means for “commerce”. So if it does not support navigation for purposes of commerce then it remains private.
"commerce" doesn't really specify size of the craft
No harm no foul, the guy being assaulted by stones is the only one harmed.
_Allegedly_
Seems this question might depend on Colorado’s version of the Declaratory Judgment Act, statutory granting of standing and related relief/remedies for parties seeking judicial determination of disputed rights. Generally, to pursue a cause of action on behalf of the public, a private individual must have statutory authority as it isn’t permitted/authorized under common law. If the common law doesn’t recognize the action, the legislature has to provide for it via statute in order to bring the action in court.
I have heard of these cases all my life. Some wealthy person or group buys the land along side the river and shuts it off for their own use. Being in to fly fishing I have heard of coplaints from Colorado since at least the 1980s, including land owners running fences across streams and getting away with it. Even back then judges would ignor regular people's complaints so it was believed that some entity with deep pockets to fight it through the courts. In this state navigatable is defined by a canoe traveling it even if only in high water times because fur was brought in when during those periods. By the way the headwaters of the Arkansas is in Colorado, the Missouri in Montana and the Mississippi in Minnesota.
That's smart. If I had money I'd do that
The headwaters of the Columbia river is in British Columbia Canada.
Speaking of headwaters, Isa Lake (located in Yellowstone National Park) drains into both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. (Note that it does so only during years following high snowpack.) For those who are confused by this, be aware that this lake is located on the continental divide.
Illegal, they have stolen federal property.
According to the Indians, the waters of the Ohio River reach all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. The Mississippi was not their idea of the name of the river.
We kayak on Paw Paw river and Dowagiac river quite often in Michigan. You can only get out of the water to bypass an obstruction, and do it expeditiously.
Other than the (quite likely?) possibility that the legislators have deliberately tried to skirt the law to benefit certain constituents I don't understand why every state doesn't follow the same sensible practice of allowing incidental use of the bed or banks as a necessary part of navigation.
To any lawyers who are ready to challenge that practice: IT IS A TAKING under Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, ___ U.S. ___ (2021).
Exactly.
@@notmyname3883 The government can't take something that doesn't exist. Navigational easements exist because the right to prohibit navigation never existed.
@Steve Lehto. When going into a courtroom, do all US lawyers have to wear lawsuits? haha
So in Colorado rain water is a public resource that you cannot harvest. However, you can own it once it hits the river.
Was a land surveyor some time ago. A lot of homes in Annapolis (metes and bounds deeds) referred to a stream or river as a boundary from 100 years ago. The water moved, disappeared or overtoook the original lines. They still owned the property but water has its own way with land. Interesting concept just like many of those properties called out “to middle of the road”. Which is a de facto easement but they’re still taxed on it.
Subdivide it as a wetland and see the taxes drop to $100 a year. I saved my uncle a ton of money with this advice. Now, his creek was still there but ...
Funny seeing that Camp Zama shirt on ya. I'm a week back from visiting my brother in Japan. He works there at Camp Zama :D
Love your videos. Thanks for doing what you do!
Navigable waters that are open to the public should be treated no different than a roadway. There should be a 12 foot easement on each side of the stream, creek, river, lake, whatever.
If it's a public easement the owner needs to be indemnified and held harmless from liabilities associated with injuries or other actions that occur within the easement.
@@buckhorncortez as it should be. You own the property in front of your house out to the curb but if a kid is riding the skateboard down the sidewalk it breaks his leg you're not liable.
@@buckhorncortez agree
Uh no! Navigate the river yes but to come onto private property NO. It's a huge liability to the landowners.
@@Headcase650 yes, you are liable. All that needs to be claimed is the sidewalk was not in proper repair and voila, you’re liable.
I've think here in Arkiesauce, the Army Corps of Engineers control "navigable" waters up to the highest flood height mark.
But, that mostly concerns any modifications or improvements.
Local County sheriff's and the hwy.patrol has a time with the floaters of joy here.. so, private property rules are involved when entering "Posted Private" or Not... Usually doesn't end up in Court... but, not unheard-of..
Thanks..
Dude throwing rocks would quickly find out I bring a gun to a rock fight.
Easy enough to claim you had reason to believe it was an attempted act of piracy .
@anita miller says the rock guy
The fisherman broke the law, trespassed illegally on someone else's property, refused to get off the private property when the owner told him too. YOURE NOT VERY BRIGHT.
@@jeanetteshawredden5643 what exactly does that have to do with throwing rocks at someone? Please explain I'm all ears.
@@garysgarage.2841reasonable use of force to protect your property. You waited to long
About your T-shirt, Camp Zama Jr High 1966.
As for the river/creek question. I own land in Ohio. We have a creek that runs thru it. When my grandparents bought it in 1941 it had a private crossing on it to get to the farm. A crossing or fording had been there ever since the farm house was first built in 1812. The deeds to the property state very clearly that the land under the creek extends up to the top of the creek bank as property of the land owner. When the township wanted to put in a road, my grandparents deeded a ROW for the road with the then in place crossing required to be upgraded. If you step foot out of that ROW, you are trespassing if you are touching the bottom. While the State can control the use of the water above a certain amount, the first 100,000 gallons per day can be withdrawn without even needing a permit as the land owner. The interesting thing is, the top of the creek varies as to where it is. Sometimes it is 8' below the top of the bank with a flow of ~250CFS, less than a foot of water over the bottom. Other times it can be 8' above the normal top of the bank with a flow of 3000CFS.
this is like being told you can’t walk on a public sidewalk because it’s on your neighbors property.. happened to me
Depends, most are build on county land but not all. Not even an easement, but fully owned. In some states on older properties they are easements (but it MUST be in your deed) but now most easement are typically for public or private utilities. I have a sidewalk the county owns but I am required to maintain. They still butcher my tree of I get to healthy with proper trimming so they hack at it and I have to fix every one of the tree killing cuts.
You don't have very good critical thinking skills, do you?
As someone who co-owns a land surveying company here in Nebraska i actually do know the answer here, based off the presentations of other professionals who have presented at confrences on the laws surrounding this.
Here all adjacent land owners own under creeks, rivers, and streams. There are a few areas where the core of engineers or the local river districts have bought some of the land, but probably 90+% of rivers and streams fall under this. as long as there is permanent flow, you can float a boat, and navigate around obsticals by following the quickest route on the shoreline, but you cannot touch or effect the bed of the river/creek/stream as the water is public, but the stream bed is privatw.
I feel like he could have very easily raised this question with a different point it would have gone a bit better. I can't imagine "well it was allowed when we gained statehood so the 200 years in between don't apply to this river" was the best defense possible.
That is actually how it is supposed to be. The Supreme Court made it clear with Bruen that any law on the books has to have a 1791 analogue or it is invalid.
@@christopherkidwell9817 I must admit I have trouble remembering all aspects of the US Constitution, however I don't recall a passage that says in effect"the right to bear a rod and reel shall not be infringed".
Steve your on "Out of Spec Motoring" in EV towing at 1:05, Nice, fyi my mother is from Garden, near Fayette and our next son is going to MI Tech :)
So what I've learned from all of this is that in order to have standing to sue for river fishing access, I should actually be sitting in a lawn chair with my feet floating in the water above the river bottom.
But then you're doing more than just "navigating" no?
whats your lawn chair touching.....if its the river bottom or stream bottom.......then you're trespassing!!
@@garywascovich8436 It's a floating lawn chair. You know, the kind they give to new mothers at the hospital to take home.
In the small town I live in, in Illinois, there are two creeks running through. The South branch in the 1800's was used to run three mills producing flour and woolens. The North branch was not. So the South branch was considered navigable and present landowners do not own the creek bottom. The North branch was not considered navigable therefore the creek bottom is owned by the landowners it passes through. It can and is legally dammed by landowners to create private lakes.
Good to see private property rights upheld.
My understanding in Wisconsin, if they gain access at a point open to the public, they can walk, fish, etc along the banks within 15 feet of the normal high water mark. I have property along a river with my house across the road. I often have people ask if they can cross my property to fish. I let them and remind them to pack up what they bring in. Meet some nice people that way.
So someone can own a section of a river if it passes through their property? FFS, that is dumb and will cause very undesirable second order effects.
I grew up in Cali,there you could fish on private land as long as you stayed below the high water marks, just dont tear up fences to get there, In UT the ranchers put up A frame steps to get over the barb wire fences for there cattle to give river access I haved fished in WA,OR ID,UT,CO, PA, MT, WY with never having a problem. I drove a long haul truck for 30+ years and always had my flyrod with me for a relax day when layovers happen. I have never had a problem with land owners but have always been respectful if confronted, I understand some state are different, but if respectful you will usually get access again in the future
Ben is being the meat in a two Michigan number plate sandwich.
So, to think about this, the corner hopping would fall on the same premise as being the landowner and owning the bottom of the river. Therefore, if in the river you placed a dock and it would be trespassing to touch or get on the dock, then touching or stepping on the fence would be trespassing also.
Unlawful Inclosures act -
§1063. Obstruction of settlement on or transit over public lands
No person, by force, threats, intimidation, or by any fencing or inclosing, or any other unlawful means, shall prevent or obstruct, or shall combine and confederate with others to prevent or obstruct, any person from peaceably entering upon or establishing a settlement or residence on any tract of public land subject to settlement or entry under the public land laws of the United States, or shall prevent or obstruct free passage or transit over or through the public lands: Provided, This section shall not be held to affect the right or title of persons, who have gone upon, improved, or occupied said lands under the land laws of the United States, claiming title thereto, in good faith.
(Feb. 25, 1885, ch. 149, §3, 23 Stat. 322.)
Notice TRANSIT OVER PUBLIC LANDS
First
Hahaha, I think we were both first! It both says "2 mins ago"
Click newest then look at order. Maybe next time.... Lol
I understand the Colorado's supreme court's decision a little. The founder of the church I belong to family owns a extremely large cattle ranch on both sides of the Laramie river. The main part of the ranch is in Laramie, Wyoming were as their property extends to the other side of the river in Le'port Colorado. In mid to late summer during the dry season they drive their cattle across the river to the Le'port side to graze. Most of the land is open range cattle land. It was not stated in the article whether or not the land owner the fisherman sued was a cattle rancher or not.
Riparian rights are indeed variable. I've chased goose hunters and fishers off my dock on multiple occasions in Maryland. I actually don't mind MOST fishers- but some take it for granted and leave a bait/fish innard mess. Docks in Maryland are permitted and acknowledged as private if so marked, but also a safe haven for boaters in a storm or emergency.
Here's a question. In those rivers or streams that you can navigate with a canoe or kayak that you can not touch the bottom, can you drop anchor upstream so that the anchor does not land in private property and "hover" in the water over private property to fish? Drop the anchor just on the other side of the property line and float in.
In Oregon if You can paddle up it ,It is considered Public ...and there is a bank access setback for land Owners ...
In Oregon a navigable river and bed and up to either the high water mark or 100 year flood level, don't remember, is public property. So you can boat or float and get out of the water to a point. You cannot access thru private property tho, access is only at public property.
Ontario has an official list of 140 navigable waterways, which settles the canoe/kayak issue. Some property lines go up to the waterline, some go to the middle. No way to tell, and I've never heard of anyone finding a way to sue someone else for wading in their creek. That would be news, like when someone gets bit by a muskie.
I have to assume that the rules against trespass in these river cases must also depend on proper posting of the property according to the law, correct? I wonder if this would require signs adjacent to the river in a location plainly visible to kayaks and rafts advising them to not set foot on land?
This is a very interesting video. Myself I love to canoe in northern Michigan. And its something I've never thought about before.
NM ended bank fishing on private river property about 15 yrs ago. The river along my boundary isn't navigable during the spring melt, it's narrow and has many big rock blockages. After the melt it's too shallow for kyiaks.
Considering I paid a premium for a river lot, and my property taxes reflect that having anyone with a fishing license use my investment for No Charge seems irrational.
Why didn't the standing issue stop the lawsuit before getting to the Colorado Supreme Court?
As you say, each state has it’s laws on this. In Ohio it’s clear as mud and will vary interpretation between each officer (dnr, sheriff, and etc).
If the water is navigable you can be ON the river, but the land under the water is the property owner.
Now the issue comes in on the word navigable. Under the law “A stream is considered navigable if it is open for navigation to the end…” leaves too much grey area. Many streams can be navigable if i can float my kayak, but it’s up to officers discretion. 😢
In general, I'm glad when courts duck these issues. Behind every one of these "duckings", there is some vague law that needs clarification. And that clarification should come from the legislature, not the courts.
All those interests who filed all those amicus briefs should turn their attention to the legislature and get them to pass a law that settles these questions.
J.D. I do appreciate how we write laws to go either way... some sort of protection against the extremes.
If you had understood what was covered you'd know that the relevant laws are already written and very clear, and the question is simply whether or not the river is navigable.
When we rafted this river it was explained to us that you could float in the river but the ground on the bottom was private property. So if you wanted to fish you would needed to floating in a tube or kyack etc.
So... if they were to swim, rather than wade through the water, would they then be allowed, since they wouldn't touch the riverbed or shore?
No. In CO - you can only kayak or canoe on top of the water.
@@jeanetteshawredden5643 Define canoe, kayak and define "on top of" the water. Have they defined it well enough so that it doesn't exclude the most unique kayaks that are still in the spirit of the law, but that does thwart any attempt to circumvent it?
Its called portage when you get out on land to go around a unsafe or concerns about staying safe in the river. At least here in Southern Michigan where im from
The supreme court has wade in on this issue.
Depends on State and WHEN/HOW land was obtained, old subdivision people owned land all the way to the edge of the water no public access rights, new subdivisions 75 feet back from waters edge are yours but open for public access they can walk and camp within 75 feet of the waters edge some pre statehood land grants owner owned EVERYTHING including the river/lake bottom and water in the lake/river/creek
Steve, what about Army Corps of Engineers? Does this federal bureaucracy have an easement or something more like ownership of riverbeds and easement on the banks? ownership
Don't shoot the messenger would have been a good title for this video🤣. I do appreciate your break down and explanation of the legal matters that are in the headlines. It makes it easy for a blue collar fellow like myself to follow. Keep up the good work!
SCOTUS ruled a few years ago that water ways that run through private lands that up to the high water marks are public owned and accessible to the public. As for navigable portion i dont recall. I know this was put out by a river association of some for for people to keep a copy to show land owners and the local LEO'S.
Steve do you or anyone else have access to this again. I can not find where i put the article. Thanks.