Wa State River Access Laws

[ducks4days]

Very interesting as my brother, a west side fowl hunter has been looking into this, this is what the gamie or sherif told him.. high water mark, is public. Now on long flat sections that could be 100 yards of bank, or 10 feet if its steep. He said if the river changes through someone's land, they own the land locked property but high water mark rules still apply and he can duck/geese hunt on the corresponding banks.. Leo said they get tons of call every year from angry homeowners when guns start blazing. Leo was very confident in this, but this trend seems to have opened a can of worms

This is only true to a degree. With this, you could make an argument that the entire Snoqualmie valley floor is below the high water mark.

No that is flood water, and clearly private property, high water mark, from what I understand without googling, is essentially the high river water line, under normal conditions, not flood. And in that particular drainage it's clear where the top of the bank is, and what would be considered flooding.. but I understand your point

So if the valley floods and your canoe floats 5 feet over the normal edge of the river bank that is trespassing?

[furbearer365]

I know a guy that has Toutle River frontage. When he bought the land, the river was on the other side, but over time, has changed and the main channel runs on his side. Since he bought the land when it was in the other side, he said he technically owns the land on the bank, under the river, and the bank on the other side. So anyone who floats the river, by law, they would be trespassing on his land if they got off on the bank that he owns. And all of this possible due to the fact that tide lines and such played no role when the land was purchased

[blackdog]

I don’t believe he is correct.

[Buckjunkie]

I am an appraiser and have appraised many properties in Grays Harbor and Pierce County alongside rivers. I also own property on the Cowlitz near Packwood.

I have not researched whether the river was navigable, but legal descriptions vary from place to place. In some cases the parcel boundary stops at the ordinary high water mark (or where it once was).  In some cases the parcel description extends to the centerline of the river, so as the river shifts course you lose or gain property. In other cases, as in my property in Packwood, it is a fixed point.

onX shows the parcel boundaries. Not sure if this helps as I only fish larger rivers and and always from a boat.

[furbearer365]

I don’t believe he is correct.

Why, because it's just easier not to believe it or do you know something he doesnt??  I'm not saying OnX is legally bound or is the end all be all, but his property boundary lines seem to support his belief. The lines cross the river and extend well past the "tidelline" bank on the other side

[blackdog]

His property is his property, assuming the river is navigable under the “public trust doctrine “ the river remains navigable.

[blackdog]

https://www.perc.org/2019/06/19/the-limits-of-the-public-trust-doctrine/

[fireweed]

I know a guy that has Toutle River frontage. When he bought the land, the river was on the other side, but over time, has changed and the main channel runs on his side. Since he bought the land when it was in the other side, he said he technically owns the land on the bank, under the river, and the bank on the other side. So anyone who floats the river, by law, they would be trespassing on his land if they got off on the bank that he owns. And all of this possible due to the fact that tide lines and such played no role when the land was purchased

First, the Toutle has to be found to be navigable by a court of law.  Given that at statehood logs and bolts were floated its entire length (from Spirit Lake to the Cowlitz) a court will probably rule it navigable.  That means the beds and shores at statehood were/are owned by the state as they lay in 1889.  If the river moved, then, it must be decided if it moved fast or slow.  Given the Toutle's erratic nature it is more likely that it moved fast in this case.  That means that it is quite likely that the public land is now high and dry and the water is flowing over private land now. BUT that makes no difference as far as navigation and fisheries are concerned, and "probably" recreation including touching the bottom.  ("probably" comes from the court ruling).  The Washington supreme court found that the public trust doctrine applies and acts "like an easement" that goes with the water, even if the river moves, the private landowner can technically own the bottom, but the public trust easement follows along with the water.  This was decided on Lake Chelan, as the water was raised and lowered over private land.

From the Dept of Ecology shoreline management handbook:

The waters of the state are a public resource owned by and available to all citizens
equally for the purposes of navigation, conducting commerce, fishing, recreation and
similar uses.
• Private ownership of the underlying land that the doctrine applies to does not invalidate
this trust

(Search online for the Washington State Supreme
Court cases Caminiti v. Boyle, 107 Wn. 2d 662, 732 P.2d 989; and Wilbour v. Gallagher, 77
Wn.2d 306, 462 P.2d 232 (1969)

[jackelope]

Ya. Just because you own both sides doesn’t mean you own the river.  River being the bottom or the water.