High water mark access WAC
- Thread starter headduck
- Start date
It’s not simple.
Still the best discussion I’ve seen:
The WAC you seek is Ch. 332-30-106 WAC.
Still the best discussion I’ve seen:
The Right to Float on By: Why the Washington Legislature Should Expand Recreational Access to Washington's Rivers and Streams
This article surveys the contemporary status of Washington's navigability doctrine and public trust laws and proposes a solution to the increased conflicts between riparian property owners and recreational river users. Part II addresses the federal navigability jurisprudence that establishes the...
digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu
The WAC you seek is Ch. 332-30-106 WAC.
Turns out WA is super tricky. Up until the 70s, wa Constitution did not allow leasing of shores and tidelands, and hence were sold to private parties and companies.
Today, only 29% of the state’s tidelands and 74% of the state’s shorelands remain in public ownership.
This makes access super tricky and unique per parcel.
Turns out the parcel I was curious about was sold in 1903 for $332... including mudflats, intertidal zone, etc out well below low tide. Amazing acreage. Right on the mouth of the river too...
Can float over by boat, but catch you walking by, even waist deep... Ticket.
Today, only 29% of the state’s tidelands and 74% of the state’s shorelands remain in public ownership.
This makes access super tricky and unique per parcel.
Turns out the parcel I was curious about was sold in 1903 for $332... including mudflats, intertidal zone, etc out well below low tide. Amazing acreage. Right on the mouth of the river too...
Can float over by boat, but catch you walking by, even waist deep... Ticket.
Depends on the parcel. Like said, Onx is probably the best source. I remember a few confrontations over the years. One on the Elochoman back in the 80's. An old guy below the old sawmill, owned a bunch of farm grazing land that went across the river and up a bluff. He posted it all, including the bottom of the river and allowed no one. We floated a drift boat down the lower river and dropped anchor in a beautiful hole to cast, not knowing. He came down and thew rocks at us yelling he owns the bottom. We said sorry, he called us white trash. I was told after he passed and the property changed hands, that the original deed wording changed to follow current law. The high water mark became the new line. It is now a bunch of houses and the high water mark is the line. Another many confrontations on the Carbon R. at Bridge St in Orting. Also back in the 80's. A guy bought and tried to post his riverfront property to the center of the flowing river just below the bridge abutements. Lots of fishermen would want to travel through to get down river from there causing many issues. Not sure how that played out. Parcel descriptions are the key and Onx follows most that I know of.
Rivers are different that tidelands.
One of the worst decisions ever was the state selling off tidelands. I’m glad they stopped doing it in the 70’s but unfortunately the damage had already been done. Imagine how great it would be if all of the Puget Sound tidelands were public.
SF
SF
You do have a federal right for navigable rivers known as : The Public Trust Doctrine is a broader legal principle stating that navigable waters and certain resources are held in trust by the government for the benefit of the public.
However, some states have attempted to circumvent doctrine and have their own laws in regards to who owns what. In Oregon, the State normally follows the Public Trust Doctrine but there were deeds still written in error so the land owner believes they own the river top to bottom. There have been countless court cases and the land owner has always lost --- except for one that had to do with tide influence which is a different ball of wax.
So, if you have a lot of time and a lot of money to spend on lawyers, you can always fight the land owner and probably win but not very many fly anglers have a lot time and money for court cases.
Usually it is best to avoid the conflict and fish elsewhere.
However, some states have attempted to circumvent doctrine and have their own laws in regards to who owns what. In Oregon, the State normally follows the Public Trust Doctrine but there were deeds still written in error so the land owner believes they own the river top to bottom. There have been countless court cases and the land owner has always lost --- except for one that had to do with tide influence which is a different ball of wax.
So, if you have a lot of time and a lot of money to spend on lawyers, you can always fight the land owner and probably win but not very many fly anglers have a lot time and money for court cases.
Usually it is best to avoid the conflict and fish elsewhere.
That is true. I'm not sure what the track record for fighting the land owner is in Washington but in Oregon you'd have a good chance of winning. I was involved in The Great Oregon River Rights War way back when and as members of a simple web site (Westfly), we did have some success. So if you get a lot of folks involved, your chances do go up.