The key to understanding the laws pertaining to public access to rivers is to know that U.S. Supreme Court rulings say if a river is navigable, then it is owned by the state and held in trust for the public.
What is a navigable river? Simply one that can be traveled by canoe, kayak, raft or boat at some time during the year when the river is in its natural condition. By floating down the Weber River in a rubber raft, Kevin and Jodi Conatser (those charged with trespass and the subject of a Utah court case - "Utah high court weighs river rights," Tribune, April 4) were not only having a good time but also proving that the Weber is a navigable river.
When this country was founded, the 13 colonies gained ownership of the shores of navigable waters including the ground surrounding them (for rivers, considered the high water mark) from the king of England. As each new state joined the union, the same stipulation of ownership of such waters was granted under the "equal footing" doctrine.
States do not actually own such lands (which would allow for their sale to private interests) but hold them in trust for public use.
Although a landowner may own land on both banks of a navigable river, that title does not include ownership of the river bed, nor does it let the landowner block people from floating downstream or hiking/wading below the high water mark.
If a deed states that the landowner does "own" the bed of a navigable river, that deed is in error because that land and access were never available for sale or transfer in the first place.
But just because the public has the right to utilize a navigable river does not mean they have the right to cross over private land to get to it. If a citizen crosses private land to access a river, then they are guilty of trespass and should be charged accordingly.
However, by entering a river corridor at a public access point (for example, a state bridge crossing) a citizen can travel along that river corridor as long as they stay below the high water mark.
The public also has a limited use of the river. The Public Trust doctrine allows for activities such as floating, fishing and picnicking, but does not allow for fires, removal of vegetation in the river corridor and other destructive practices.
If the Utah Supreme Court finds in favor of the Conatsers and, in doing so, accepts previous U.S. Supreme Court decisions, then what does that mean for the residents of Utah? It means that any river in the state that can be navigated should be opened for public recreational access.
While landowners have the necessary right to restrict the movement of livestock, fencing off public access bridges or stretching barbed wire across the river is both illegal and inflammatory. Recreationists, in turn, must respect the private land surrounding the river and leave as little trace of passing as possible. If both landowners and recreationists respect the rights of the other group, then allowing public use of navigable waters in Utah should have negligible impact upon the lands themselves, but open many, many miles of rivers for public enjoyment.
---
* JOHN H. WEIS is an avid angler and conservationist.
