Hunting Washington Forum
Community => Advocacy, Agencies, Access => Topic started by: fireweed on July 15, 2020, 03:12:18 PM
-
Interesting read from New Mexico on stream access battle
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rich-people-own-rivers-new-mexico_n_5ed90a4fc5b63cce95110234
-
I understand possibly owning the river or streamed under the water but in no way can you own the flowing water for the time it is within you property boundries. If floatable(navigable) without touching bottom rivers and streams should be open to all. Jmho
-
i believe there are pretty well vetted Federal rules associated revisited by Federal high courts a few years back on this (for regulation EPA purposes). The definition of navigable is the sketchy part of the whole thing that may be the states interpretations still but the ruling was toward water not being owned by private land owners. There was a laundry list of exclusions or exemptions but basically came down to what is defined as "free flowing waters"... Lawyers have troubles speaking or writing in absolutes..
having said this jibber jabber... good luck on clarity! :bash:
-
Montana has one of the most recreationist-friendly stream access policies, where the stream doesn't have to be navigable, just able to be used for recreation. Washington has weird (and unresolved) issues with beds and shores of tidelands of the Sound. The ocean tidal areas are public, or subject to public use, but sold inland tide waters are still murky whether the public can use them for things like walking along the shore, below high water and fishing.
-
If they own it shouldn't they be responsible for any spill cleanup costs from contamination?
I bet it will be the peoples stream real quickly if that happened
