CO River Access

dirty dog

Steelhead
River/stream access is an issue I have here in Oregon.
Miles and miles of river and lake shorelines are on private land.
I believe as I get older I should be able to walk/wade these shorelines as long as I don't damage those people's property.
The reason I say older is because many of the places that are public access are really hard for an older guy to climb down and back up.
The two-edge sword is many of the public leave messes/litter wherever they go and I don't want their litter on my property/public land.
Anyway, I'm also lazy and don't want to take the time to go ask for permission for access to the river.
 

Salmo_g

Legend
Forum Supporter
If rivers and lakes and ponds are public resources as a matter of law, it has always irked me that states like Colorado and Wyoming bend the laws of private property rights to effectively privatize public water resources. In CO and WY you can float through private property, but you cannot drop anchor or get out and wade because that constitutes trespass, and that is seen as a "taking" of private property. So how is it not a "taking" of public property to purchase land along both banks of a stream, thereby privatizing that section of public water? Seems to me like the movers and shakers have exercised the law to make this aspect of property rights a one-way street. I hope Mr. Hill wins his case in CO. And I hope the corner crossers win in WY.
 

krusty

We're on the Road to Nowhere...
Forum Supporter
I'm very much in favor of 70+ year olds being able to walk anywhere we damn well please (but stay the hell off my lawn). And there should be plenty of flyfishing 'destination' waters only accessible to old farts such as myself. 🤣
 

Brian Miller

Be vewy vewy quiet, I'm hunting Cutthwoat Twout
Forum Supporter
There is a 5 mile reach of a stream I've loved to fish since at least 2008. Gaia maps and the Assessor's GIS show the actual stream and a strip of at least one or both banks is owned by the county with the private property abutting it, so technically I can access at any road bridge because maps look to show there is also a public buffer for the road. But as Mr Hill and @krusty have mentioned the steep banks and water depth at most bridges make ingress - egress a bit tough for a duffer.

There *have been* long established trails along the bank to easy stream access that crossed small corners of private property. About 8 years ago a man and woman came out to the streambank at their property while I was in the stream fishing. They didn't say a word but started throwing rocks into the water around 50' from me but not at me. I suppose they thought they were scaring the fish. I happened to hook/land one as they watched but moved on downstream after release as that's not how I want to spend my time, so they actually got what they wanted.

I've picked up and packed out trash there over the years and especially in 2020 and 2021 (COVID years). The last time I fished there in 2021 I picked up 2-30 gallon trash bags of rotting food, car parts, and other garbage, probably left by homeless or other dirtbags at one entry. On the way there another parcel across the river from where I entered at another spot literally looked like the local transfer station. *Last year* when I went there to fish I found the "transfer station" parcel had been cleaned up but all the entry trail locations along the entire 5 mile reach had been posted with the same signs. I can't say that I blame the property owners but I wanted to cry.

I am not confident that contacting landowners to ask permission to corner-cross their land would help because my car parked at the stream next to their posted property would defeat the effectiveness of their signs. But I have a couple different, albeit less convenient, and costly alternatives I am looking into.

In Aug 2021 while on another stream in a county park I've fished since 2010, I walked by 3 homeless camps. I GPS marked them. In Oct I went back and the homeless were gone but tarps, torn up cheap tents, a sleeping bag, shopping carts, tire carcasses, a cooler, bags of trash, and I'm sure needles under the fallen leaves... were still there. Then I saw a tree with one side of the naturally concave trunk had been used as a fireplace. The bark was scorched a good 15 ft high. This in an area surrounded by residential homes during a period of high fire danger, when a wildfire in a nearby community destroyed a number of homes! I GPS marked and photographed it along with the other trash heaps I found. I emailed the Parks Dept (and the "Friends of..." civic organization) with the GPS coordinates and photos. I received a nice email back from the county saying that a Sheriff had been there the day I reported it but had not been as far into the park as I was. It also said that (homeless) camping was not (or rather homeless would no longer be) allowed and they had hired a contractor to clean it all up. Also I'm periodically getting emails from the "Friends of" organization.

It's a sad time we're living in.
 
Last edited:

FinLuver

Native Oregonian…1846
It's a sad time we're living in.
^^^…THIS…^^^

Our forefathers and some politicians wouldn’t have stood for the “Societal BS” of today.

Teach your children and grandchildren well…or…lose your recreational accesses for good.

PS: my favorite little blue line now has a gate…man-made divets at pullouts…with many spots posted “no trespassing”…all because assh**** are rat-filthy… 🤬🤬🤬
 

jact55

Life of the Party
Forum Supporter
It's tough. People are pcs of crap anymore. I'm only 35, but learned and live by the pack it in and out, leave a place better than you found it, and so on. Not alot of respect nowadays. Parents have been doing a bad job. I wouldn't want folks on my property based on this alone.

But Frankly, I think any lake or river shouldn't have housing on it. I don't give a damn, f&$% your lake or river house. I don't want to look at houses while I'm on a lake or river, and I don't want to find a route around while I'm wading (God bless montana).

I vote we knock down all water area dwellings. Then start chopping off fingers amd toes for littering, playing music too loud in the wood, or otherwise being a nuisance.

Signed,
The second cousin to the shaw of Iran and best friends with the premier of North Korea.
 

krusty

We're on the Road to Nowhere...
Forum Supporter
I've picked up plenty of trash the locals (50 miles or more from any homeless campers) regularly leave after enjoying their fishing trips...huge tangles of mono, food wrappers, discarded air mattresses, aluminum cans, and broken bottles.

Sorry to say that if I owned waterfront land I'd work hard to keep humanity away from it. A large proportion of the human population are simply pigs.

There are several nice campgrounds the feds or state have closed down because of vandalism and a never ending problem with trash dumping.

A great many one-time camp hosts have given up such volunteerism because they frequently deal with belligerent and dangerous behavior from visitors.

It's a trite but truthful saying that 'this is why we can't have nice things'.
 
Last edited:

jact55

Life of the Party
Forum Supporter
I live an 1/8th of a mile from a lake (note, not on a lake haha). Used to be a decent spot just outside of town. The white trash (of which my roots came from, ill admit) have discovered the lake en mass and take over the shore Any given weekend there are 3 or 4 groups who are competing for the loudest rap music, profane for all children to hear, weed smoke wafting, dogs fighting, and whatever else.
I despise launching there and am terrified to leave anything around to get stolen. Tweakers park there at night as well.

That's all why folks get overly protective.

What ever happened to enjoy nature? Listen to the birds and the wind.
It's just rude
 

krusty

We're on the Road to Nowhere...
Forum Supporter
I live an 1/8th of a mile from a lake (note, not on a lake haha). Used to be a decent spot just outside of town. The white trash (of which my roots came from, ill admit) have discovered the lake en mass and take over the shore Any given weekend there are 3 or 4 groups who are competing for the loudest rap music, profane for all children to hear, weed smoke wafting, dogs fighting, and whatever else.
I despise launching there and am terrified to leave anything around to get stolen. Tweakers park there at night as well.

That's all why folks get overly protective.

What ever happened to enjoy nature? Listen to the birds and the wind.
It's just rude
They're definitely not there to enjoy nature. What they're enjoying is a venue to conduct themselves in a manner that wouldn't be tolerated in a more suburban/urban setting. They know that any response to such behavior is unlikely due to logistical problems for enforcement...and that even those unlikely events would have little consequence.
 

jact55

Life of the Party
Forum Supporter
They're definitely not there to enjoy nature. What they're enjoying is a venue to conduct themselves in a manner that wouldn't be tolerated in a more suburban/urban setting. They know that any response to such behavior is unlikely due to logistical problems for enforcement...and that even those unlikely events would have little consequence.

Consequences?

1297395273860_ORIGINAL_Gallery.jpg
You want some bro?!?!

Then you get jumped and ruin your fishing trip lol
And you look like just as much of an ass
No winning
 

Brian Miller

Be vewy vewy quiet, I'm hunting Cutthwoat Twout
Forum Supporter
I derailed the OP about the difficulty of public access to public waters by selfishly focusing too much on pigs whose actions have gotten long established access to one of my nearby streams closed off (to me).

The core of the legal case in the OP was about... "the issue of “navigability” — a federal government distinction that typically dictates the rules of public access by establishing whether a stream or river has been used “for purposes of interstate or foreign commerce.”

That discussion is important to me.

Is floating on the water itself usually not legally restricted?

Is Washington law in line with Federal statutes and most other states?
...the state's waters belong to the public and thus cannot be owned by any specific person or group. Instead, the state ― via the Department of Ecology, which manages Washington's water supply ― parcels out access to water in the form of water rights.
Navigating water and property rights in the state of Washington

The real core of the OP about the right to step (or drop anchor) onto a streambed.
What qualifies as navigable waters?

33 CFR Part 329 -- Definition of Navigable Waters of the United States
Navigable waters of the United States are those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.

Does that include streams that were used to/by:
Settlers, Trappers, and Native Americans in canoes, log rafts, and other small shallow draft river "vessels" to travel to-from villages, rendezvous, and towns to trade pelts and other items for goods produced elsewhere?
Float timber to a sawmill?
(What might be other commercial uses?)
And if the originator of the goods only travelled within a single state, if the goods were purchased by another entity and transported to destinations in another state or country, does that constitute interstate or foreign commerce?

About Waters of the United States | US EPA
The 1972 amendments to the Clean Water Act established federal jurisdiction over “navigable waters,” defined in the Act as the “waters of the United States” (CWA Section 502(7)).

I'm interested in this case, especially if it goes beyond the CO jurisdiction and becomes precedent.

Some other published articles of I've bookmarked
 

BDD

Steelhead
Apologies in advance for not staying on the exact subject but two things slightly related that have been bothering me recently are railroads and irrigation development. Both prevent public access to the river, generally a public resource. They disrupt access to a public resource that is put in place for their private gain. They should be mitigating these effects. For example, an irrigation district on the Yakima has blocked the entire river but doesn't allow passage for boaters. Along Old Highway 10, many of the river access points have been blocked off, presumably by the railroad (as safety measure for not crossing the tracks) which I get. But cutting off miles of access to a public river? I say remove the law prohibiting crossing the tracks and if someone gets hit by train, don't blame the railroad.
 

Old406Kid

Life of the Party
Forum Supporter
I say remove the law prohibiting crossing the tracks and if someone gets hit by train, don't blame the railroad.
It's unfortunate but a necessity due to the world of liability that we now live in.
 

Gary Knowels

Hack of all trades
Forum Supporter
Apologies in advance for not staying on the exact subject but two things slightly related that have been bothering me recently are railroads and irrigation development. Both prevent public access to the river, generally a public resource. They disrupt access to a public resource that is put in place for their private gain. They should be mitigating these effects. For example, an irrigation district on the Yakima has blocked the entire river but doesn't allow passage for boaters. Along Old Highway 10, many of the river access points have been blocked off, presumably by the railroad (as safety measure for not crossing the tracks) which I get. But cutting off miles of access to a public river? I say remove the law prohibiting crossing the tracks and if someone gets hit by train, don't blame the railroad.
Or legally require the RR corporations to spend 0.00000001% of their profits to build tunnels/bridges for pedestrian access across the tracks.
 

BDD

Steelhead
Or legally require the RR corporations to spend 0.00000001% of their profits to build tunnels/bridges for pedestrian access across the tracks.
Yeah, that is what I was going to suggest to OldKid. If the railroads are mostly except from liability insurance because they forbid any crossing of the tracks to reach public water so they can transport their wares for a profit, at least they could/should use some of that saved liability insurance money to provide pedestrian access to our public waterways. Yeah, I get it that the country was largely developed by railroads and they provide a service to all of us (not nearly as much as public roadways) but they should be paying their true costs for their impacts and not getting a bunch of subsidies. But then there are a lot of groups that are in the same situation.
 

jact55

Life of the Party
Forum Supporter
Yeah, that is what I was going to suggest to OldKid. If the railroads are mostly except from liability insurance because they forbid any crossing of the tracks to reach public water so they can transport their wares for a profit, at least they could/should use some of that saved liability insurance money to provide pedestrian access to our public waterways. Yeah, I get it that the country was largely developed by railroads and they provide a service to all of us (not nearly as much as public roadways) but they should be paying their true costs for their impacts and not getting a bunch of subsidies. But then there are a lot of groups that are in the same situation.

They pay our politicians good money for their benefits. It wouldn't be fair for them not to get special treatment.
:/
 

Brian Miller

Be vewy vewy quiet, I'm hunting Cutthwoat Twout
Forum Supporter
Or legally require the RR corporations to spend 0.00000001% of their profits to build tunnels/bridges for pedestrian access across the tracks.
Sounds good and I'd love to see it, but what would determine the min-max distance between or another criteria for siting of the pedestrian crossings?
 
Top