Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsBoatsPaddle BoatsSailingCruisingBuildingElectronics
Related Topics
CarsMotorcyclesMore Topics ...

Boat Forum / Paddle Boats / June 2009



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Navigatable river law

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Bob Noble - 15 May 2009 20:09 GMT
OK guys, you wanted something to talk about.
I live on a river that was declared not navigatable in 1957 by a local
judge.
But in the 1990's another judge declared it navigatable in a court case of
were some people that had a private dam across the river wouldn't let his
business boaters pass. This now makes it a federally controlled river.
That's part of what being a navigatable waterway means.

The business owner proved it navigatable, by showing that logs or something
were brought down the river a long time ago or something like that, but the
point is we now have a navigatable river that no one really knows what the
laws are?

Now, I've tried to find these so called laws, but I don't seem to be able to
dig them up.

They seem to be more made up of court cases that more or less set the tone.
From what I can gather if one wants to apply the law, one has to just find a
court case that agrees or disagrees with the particular situation.

Now, from my own experience, I know the laws in the US, of which this is
about, remembering that this isn't just an US list, it goes like this.

When the US was first settled, there were no roads. Water ways were used for
everything and everything from boats to people to animals were going up and
down them.

So, to me the navigation laws would have come from things that were stopping
free movement up and down the river.
Things like gates and pay me to pass and access to roads and towns. The
rights would have to be given to the boaters for this to work.
People that travel have to be able to do things along the travel route, body
functions, like poop and eat and hunt, fish and camp and just live in
general, because things moved slower then.

Now, I know boaters have the right to go to the mean high water mark on the
river. But there are private property owners that don't know that. Most
people don't know that a boater can go on their property. My own thing is if
there is a sign I'll go to were there isn't one. I don't need trouble, but I
would stand my ground if pushed.

So, I'm looking for more info on this subject and even anyone's comments.
For instance, there is a big cement bridge that crosses the river and there
is no access for boaters. Somehow the gov didn't buy the land under the
bridge and the land owner has been blocking access for years. Does the land
owner need to provide access by law?
Thanks,

Signature

Bob Noble
http://www.sonic.net/bnoble

Tom McCloud - 16 May 2009 03:06 GMT
Bob,  Wouldn't attempt to answer your questions, but can give you a
place to start your reading.    Go to the Monocacy Canoe Club site,
http://www.monocacycanoe.org, and bottom center of the page is a link
to an article that was written about navigability by law professor and
kayaker Dick Pierce.  This article was originally published in the
Syracuse Law Review a few years ago.   Tom McCloud

>OK guys, you wanted something to talk about.
>I live on a river that was declared not navigatable in 1957 by a local
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
>owner need to provide access by law?
>Thanks,
Bob Noble - 16 May 2009 07:06 GMT
Hi Tom,
I looked at the document.
It said we can only access a navigatable waterway using public access or
through private access, as far as fed stuff goes.It didn't say I can
trespass to get to the river.
That's a start.
Thanks Tom

Signature

Bob Noble
http://www.sonic.net/bnoble

>
> Bob,  Wouldn't attempt to answer your questions, but can give you a
[quoted text clipped - 65 lines]
>>owner need to provide access by law?
>>Thanks,
Larry G - 17 May 2009 00:29 GMT
> Hi Tom,
> I looked at the document.
[quoted text clipped - 74 lines]
> >>owner need to provide access by law?
> >>Thanks,

Can you discuss the river in question?
John Kuthe - 17 May 2009 00:43 GMT
> > Hi Tom,
> > I looked at the document.
[quoted text clipped - 79 lines]
>
> Can you discuss the river in question?

Where is Scott Weiser when we need him? He could tell you all about
navigable river law, particularly in CO and as it pertains to Boulder
Creek.

John Kuthe...
Bob Noble - 17 May 2009 05:49 GMT
>>Can you discuss the river in question?

Yes, it's not the question of if it is navigatable, it is.
I'd like to see more unlocked access to the river. Every time the government
gives access there is a locked gate and it closes when they want to go home.
And yes, they usually make you pay.

It's the Russian  River just above San Francisco.
I have all kinds of city type people that have moved into this area and are
slowly locking the old timers out with their expensive parks that take a lot
of money to run that they don't have. Which means they will not unlock the
gates eventually.
Anyway, I'm just trying to find out what the access laws are. It doesn't
sound particularly good.
Thanks,
Bob
riverman - 18 May 2009 14:25 GMT
> >>Can you discuss the river in question?
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Thanks,
> Bob

Hey Bob, check this out:

http://c2.com/kaweah/riverlaw.html

"No individual, partnership, or corporation, claiming or possessing
the frontage or tidal lands of a harbor, bay, inlet, estuary, or other
navigable water in this State, shall be permitted to exclude the right
of way to such water whenever it is required for any public purpose,
nor to destroy or obstruct the free navigation of such water; and the
Legislature shall enact such laws as will give the most liberal
construction to this provision, so that access to the navigable waters
of this State shall be always attainable for the people thereof."

Seems pretty clear to me. Ask a lawyer to look into it.

--riverman
Bob Noble - 19 May 2009 02:14 GMT
"riverman" <myronbuck@yahoo.com> wrote in message
On May 17, 12:49 pm, "Bob Noble" <bno...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >>Can you discuss the river in question?
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> Thanks,
> Bob

Hey Bob, check this out:

http://c2.com/kaweah/riverlaw.html

"No individual, partnership, or corporation, claiming or possessing
the frontage or tidal lands of a harbor, bay, inlet, estuary, or other
navigable water in this State, shall be permitted to exclude the right
of way to such water whenever it is required for any public purpose,
nor to destroy or obstruct the free navigation of such water; and the
Legislature shall enact such laws as will give the most liberal
construction to this provision, so that access to the navigable waters
of this State shall be always attainable for the people thereof."

Seems pretty clear to me. Ask a lawyer to look into it.

--riverman

Hi RiverMan,
Good stuff.
I came on here just now to say that what I thought of on the river today,
cause that's where I do most of my thinking. I think that is a lot of what a
waterway is about.
Anyway, I was thinking that if we can only access the water though public
access or private permission, that begs the question, that there must be
laws that state there has to be public access, or one wouldn't be able to
get in and out of a town to do one's business.
So, your stuff looks real good. I haven't been to the site yet, but I will.
The towns and cities have a lot of gates on this river and I'd like to see a
lot of them go, so I can go when I want.
Thanks for the info.
I am finding things out.
Signature

Bob Noble
http://www.sonic.net/bnoble

Bob Noble - 19 May 2009 02:25 GMT
> Hey Bob, check this out:
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> --riverman

WoWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW.
I'm blown away.
I think I know someone that can get this checked out for me.
I think I may owe you a bunch.
I'm still reading.
Thanks,

Signature

Bob Noble

Larry G - 20 May 2009 16:15 GMT
> >>Can you discuss the river in question?
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Thanks,
> Bob

so.. is the problem being able to get on the river and paddle
it ....or is the problem being able to get land access to the river's
edge?

I don't know about other states but in Va. if land is privately
owned... even if the river is "navigable" then it's no dice.

and I'll be honest here.. I've seen too many folks who think that they
have a "right" to go across property... they mouth off to the
landowner instead of asking permission and if denied.. to leave.. then
the landowner gets very serious about dealing with public access.

I always advise asking permission..even if there are not posted signs
but you know the property is private.

I've been turned down but I've also been given permission. more so..
and again to be honest ... when a place is accessed by the
public..unimpeded... more often than not... it is trashed... and then
we have to pay to have it cleaned up....   been there .... done
that.....   in the end.. if I had to choose between totally unfettered
public access and some kind of a "gatekeeper".. I'd take the
latter...  I've just seen too many places totally trashed...
Bob Noble - 20 May 2009 18:04 GMT
Hi Larry,
See below for answers.

Signature

Bob Noble
http://www.sonic.net/bnoble

On May 17, 12:49 am, "Bob Noble" <bno...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >>Can you discuss the river in question?
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> home.
> And yes, they usually make you pay.

> It's the Russian River just above San Francisco.
> I have all kinds of city type people that have moved into this area and
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Thanks,
> Bob

>>so.. is the problem being able to get on the river and paddle
it ....or is the problem being able to get land access to the river's
>>edge?

It's both, I think.
They keep putting in parks with gates that are sunup till sunset. No access
at night. Is that their right?

Then they run out of money and want to just keep the gate locked.

>>I don't know about other states but in Va. if land is privately
<<owned... even if the river is "navigable" then it's no dice.

That's likely the case here also. I understand it. I look for solutions that
work for everyone and understand the private land owers thing.
But, if one needs access to a navigatable waterway, then one needs to find
out what the law really says.
If a beach says private property, I go to one that doesn't. Easy. I'm out
there to enjoy myself, not cause trouble.

>>and I'll be honest here.. I've seen too many folks who think that they
have a "right" to go across property... they mouth off to the
landowner instead of asking permission and if denied.. to leave.. then
the landowner gets very serious about dealing with public access.

That why one needs to understand the navigations laws, if possible.
I've been paddling the Russian river almost daily for the last six years and
haven't had any property owers problems.
But, there is a place that a county road crosses the river where access to
the public should be, but is not. For some reason politics somehow has
played into this, likely because the private land is owned by a sportsmen's
club. I see we need access to the public here, if for no other reason so
rescue equipment can also get into the area. When the built the new cement
bridge, the moved it upstream, right next to the old bridge. The new bridge
is on private property, but I'm still trying to find out if the county or
state owns where the old bridge was, so we can punch a road though the trees
to get access. I'm trying to skirt the private property.
If that doesn't work, then I need to apply the navigation laws to get public
access, even it we need to use eminent domain. That's what the navigation
laws are all about, I think.

>>I always advise asking permission..even if there are not posted signs
but you know the property is private.

Me too.

>>>I've been turned down but I've also been given permission. more so..
and again to be honest ... when a place is accessed by the
public..unimpeded... more often than not... it is trashed... and then
we have to pay to have it cleaned up....   been there .... done
that.....   in the end.. if I had to choose between totally unfettered
public access and some kind of a "gatekeeper".. I'd take the
latter...  I've just seen too many places totally trashed...

This opinion of yours is what is causing the trouble.
People can find all kinds of excuses to put a gate up and lock themselves
out. This has to stop.

We have lots of people here running yaks and canoes down the river as a
business. Working with them can maintain the cleanup.

Actually, what I find here is people that party, sometimes leave a big mess
after their party, because they are having such a good time.
Most of the time, within a few days, that garbage will disappear.

Now, what I find, the old timers that have lived here from the beginning,
are being governed incorrectly by other people calling meeting in our area.
The say come to the meeting and we'll force what we have for you down your
throat. So, old timers don't go to the meeting, but new timers do and they
want to control everyone. They say, if we don't go to the meetings, what
they are doing is ok. What they should realize, is the old timers are not at
the meetings because they do not approve and they do not want to participate
in this kind of government.

So, since I yak the river and talk to everyone I see that really uses the
river, I seem to be the king pin that ties this river together.
For example, they want to close the mouth of the river all summer, and they
had meetings. I didn't go of course, nor did most of the other old timers.

So, because I use the river to think and my thinker is way above normal, I
realized this is all bullshit.
So, I wrote a letter about all this and I asked them to send it to whomever
they think might be interested. But during this time, I met the biologists
on the river that no one would talk to and they did wave or smile at anyone
on the river, even me when I saw them on the high waters in the winter and I
and them were the only ones on the river.

So, since I go up and down the river, I decided to help make their job
easier by convincing people on the river, that are old timers to talk to
them in a friendly way, so the biologists can get some valuable information
about the river, especially, it's history.

So, I also noted that what they call Waddles are polluting the river and
ocean. Waddles are the little hay filled rolls they use to stop erosion. I'm
at the bottom of the river and I realize they have loaded the whole pipe
line with them and not just in this state.

So, when the state came down on me for fixing my neighbors fire roads for
access and fire protection, I told the state guy about them and said to keep
my name out of it. Haven't heard anything about that yet, but you sure will.

So, I put the letter on hold and decided to practice another method, which
is working with the biologists at the source and not at the meeting where
all the new timers go that just argue about every thing and just cost
millions of dollars in the planning and then there is no money to do the
project that they've screwed up by now anyway.

So, I caught up with them on the river yesterday. I had to paddle four miles
to do that and back after. They had access at the spot I'm talking about and
I didn't. I let them know that I wanted medical rescue equipment to get in
here and the hardest part about doing anything about getting this access,
was staying out of the political mess. As I left they had a truck stuck in
the gravel pulling their boat out. Stuff happens when you boat. So, I used
this to talk to them about access there. I left them with ,I'm trying to get
access without getting into the political mess and now had to paddle all the
way back up the river.
They wished me a happy paddle.
So, it's a start and people should realize they are getting locked out
everywhere by people that believe this is the way to go.
So, let's stop all the excuses and get on with it. I'm sick of finding
locked gates all over the west where I use to go freely.
An old timer,

Signature

Bob Noble
http://www.sonic.net/bnobleo

Larry G - 21 May 2009 21:30 GMT
> Hi Larry,
> See below for answers.
[quoted text clipped - 153 lines]
> --
> Bob Noblehttp://www.sonic.net/bnobleo

I do sympathize and yes it does seem like as time goes by that more
and more places are placed off limits.
Bob Noble - 27 May 2009 08:26 GMT
I do sympathize and yes it does seem like as time goes by that more
and more places are placed off limits.

Yes, and now it looks like the whole California state park system may close.
Interesting predicament.
Oci-One Kanubi - 28 May 2009 19:23 GMT
> [snip]
>
> For instance, there is a big cement bridge that crosses the river and there
> is no access for boaters. Somehow the gov didn't buy the land under the
> bridge and the land owner has been blocking access for years. Does the land
> owner need to provide access by law?

Who tells you the gubmint (state?  county?) doesn't own (rights to)
the land beneath the bridge?  Is it a public road?  Is it a publicly
financed bridge?  Then there is almost certainly a public easment
extending 10 feet of so to each side of the road.  Problem is, you'd
prolly need to hire an attorney and bring suit to establish yer right
of access, and even then you'd have the problem of how many vehicles
you could park at roadside near the bridge.  And if the landowner has
political clout he could get the state or county to put up "No
Parking" signs.

-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--
Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
Bob Noble - 28 May 2009 21:41 GMT
On May 15, 3:09 pm, "Bob Noble" <bno...@sonic.net> wrote:

> [snip]
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> land
> owner need to provide access by law?

Who tells you the gubmint (state?  county?) doesn't own (rights to)
the land beneath the bridge?  Is it a public road?  Is it a publicly
financed bridge?  Then there is almost certainly a public easment
extending 10 feet of so to each side of the road.  Problem is, you'd
prolly need to hire an attorney and bring suit to establish yer right
of access, and even then you'd have the problem of how many vehicles
you could park at roadside near the bridge.  And if the landowner has
political clout he could get the state or county to put up "No
Parking" signs.

-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty

Well, it's sorta funny how it all happened, or at least as I heard it so
far.

The state moved the road to the other side of the river a long time ago. The
county got the old state road, but didn't want to deal with the old bridge,
so appearently the state built the bridge and moved it over a bit and didn't
purchase the new land, as they should have.
Now, what I'm in the process of doing is finding out if the old bridge had
government ownership or not. And yes, I did fine out the there is usually a
ten foot access area on both sides of a bridge for maintenance.  Lots of no
parking signs already on the old access road. If the government owns the
right of way where the old bridge was, it's just a matter of removing some
willow trees to get to the beach. I'm poposing emergency rescue access to
try and get around all the political bull.

The main land owner is a Sportsmen's club. You'd think they'd be more
cooperative. :O)
I'm trying to figure out how to do this without messing with their land,
which now has private gated access under the new bridge.
Right next to it is where the old bridge used to be and hopefully there is
government access. Originally, the road was a train road, before cars, so
who knows what's going on. I have a friend in county taxes that is now
getting me the who owns what.

And there is plenty of parking area on the high beach on the river already.
So, I'm just trying to gather information to be well armed when I try to
push this.
The political process stinks around here. All people do is argue, especially
the new timers and nothing gets done, because they spend all the money on
poor planning.
The legal stuff stops most of us without the loot, but I'd rather kayak then
have the loot.
I just want open access to the beach, no gates, no fees. Just access. :O)
Thanks,
bob
Larry G - 29 May 2009 00:30 GMT
> On May 15, 3:09 pm, "Bob Noble" <bno...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 54 lines]
> Thanks,
> bob
Each one of these situations has some degree of uniqueness to them...
and then a practical aspect along the lines of.. you win the battle
and lose the war...

but if there is a precedent involved then the national groups may have
more of an interest.
Bob Noble - 13 Jun 2009 02:45 GMT
http://www.nationalrivers.org/welcome.htm

Lots of good nav info here.

Signature

Bob Noble
http://www.sonic.net/bnoble

rickman - 15 Jun 2009 14:17 GMT
> http://www.nationalrivers.org/welcome.htm
>
> Lots of good nav info here.
>
> --
> Bob Noblehttp://www.sonic.net/bnoble

Not trying to make any statement of any sort, but just to toss in a
data point...

There are situations where the river itself (or the river bottom to be
precise) can be owned in contrast to this statement on one of the
pages your page links to.

Fact: Public ownership of physically navigable rivers, including the
land up to the ordinary high water mark, pre-dates property deeds.
What the property deed says or doesn't say about the river is
irrelevant.

I live in Maryland where the original land grant predates any laws of
this country.  The land grant specifically grants the Potomac river
along with the rest of Maryland.  Again, before laws were made in this
country, the land along the Potomac river was deeded to others and is
the basis for all land ownership along the Potomac river.  These deeds
convey the river along with the adjacent land.  The result is that
anyone who still owns land along the Potomac river on the Maryland
side owns the river bottom including the area up to the "mean high
water mark" on both the Maryland and Virginia sides of the river.

I came to know this by some friends who actually owned some land along
the Potomac river near Brunswick, MD.  They don't own it anymore
because the Federal government took it to add to the C&O canal park
along with every other privately owned land North of Washington, DC up
the river I'm not sure how far, at least to Harper's Ferry.

I expect this sort of exception to the rule stated on the web site
does not happen in the West because the land ownership does not
predate the US government.

Just some food for thought...  on the water or otherwise.  :^)

Rick
Oci-One Kanubi - 15 Jun 2009 22:35 GMT
> >http://www.nationalrivers.org/welcome.htm
>
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>
> Rick

When you say "predates", do you mean "supersedes"?  IOW, the fact that
that's the way the law USED TO BE  doesn't mean squat if more recent
case law has replaced earlier judgments.  Primacy of date is
irrelevant; primacy of precedent is everything.  In Virginia, unless
the Johns Creek case currently under litigation decides otherwise, the
King's Grants indeed supersede all subsequent public navigability
law.  In Maryland, it doesn't matter a bit what a King's Grant or any
other deed of title says; access is governed by the navigability
test.  With luck, in the next couple of years the Johns Creek case
will be decided and the precedent will be established that the
navigability test supersedes King's Grants in Virginia.

The C&O National Hisporical Park runs from Georgetown, DC to
Cumberland, MD; 168 miles IIRC.

-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--
Richard Hopley, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2010 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.