Navigatable river law
|
|
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
|
|
|