Quantcast
Utah

Gov. Herbert signs bill restricting access to streams on private property

Comments

Return To Article
  • thanks!
    March 31, 2010 1:15 p.m.

    Now we know whose side he is on (rich and powerful), no point arguing about it, we now just all know who we need to vote for in the next election.

  • He signed the bill...
    March 31, 2010 1:28 p.m.

    and lost my vote.

  • I agree with Gov
    March 31, 2010 1:45 p.m.

    What's the point of private property if you can't keep it private. I agree with the governor and the legislature %100 on this one.

  • catchnrelease
    March 31, 2010 1:50 p.m.

    Nepotism is thicker than stream water. Too bad.

  • Alex
    March 31, 2010 1:51 p.m.

    The rich have our big game blocked from us for the most part. Now they want our fish and rafting. Wonder how much they will want to charge us, to fish, and raft in our public waters.
    When I was a kid, hunting with my family. It was the way of the land, going through fences, to get after our game. Now you get a ticket, or go to jail.
    I was born in Provo, a native, this is my birthplace. It's sad to leave, because of the greedy few, that deprive the many.
    One thing is for sure. When the greedy leave this world, the land won't go with them, but their actions will, good luck with that.

  • Jim
    March 31, 2010 1:56 p.m.

    If fishermen can't access streams on private land then why should ranchers be allowed to graze cattle on public land, poluting the streams there with cattle feces and detroying the native vegetation?

  • Good 'ol Gov
    March 31, 2010 1:58 p.m.

    Waits until the last minute to "decide" on something so then there is less publicity about it. This can't guy decide anything on his own! He has also lost my vote! Go Caroon!

  • Really?
    March 31, 2010 2:06 p.m.

    What a stupid piece of legislation. You can't leave the water? Is allowing fisherman and boaters the ability to use the first few feet of riverbank really such a huge imposition? This is an intimidating tactic intended to stop access to these waters AT ALL, and the governor should be ashamed of himself for signing such a piece of nonsense.

  • Anonymous
    March 31, 2010 2:10 p.m.

    Howzabout I come and light a campfire on your front lawns and roast weenies? Oh, you just think it's okay to go on someone elses propoerty, not yours? That's what I thought.

  • Chris
    March 31, 2010 2:14 p.m.

    Finally, someone that cares about private property owner's rights. I am not rich or powerful, but I do own property. What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours. Stay off mine!!!!

  • fly guy
    March 31, 2010 2:43 p.m.

    Anon @ 2:10, if my front lawn was maintained, stocked, and improved by your tax dollars, then you'd be welcome to roast weenies on my doorstep.

  • re: chris
    March 31, 2010 3:00 p.m.

    Hey, no problem chris, just promise to keep your cattle off of my public land so they quit destroying the public stream where I fish, and have the DWR put stream barriers where our rivers enter and exit your land so our public paid for fish stay in the public section of our state's streams and rivers.

  • Landowner
    March 31, 2010 3:02 p.m.

    Thanks Governor. My land that borders the Weber River deserves to be just as private as someone's land that borders State Street or any street. Just because I have a river on my property, should anyone, at any time, be allowed to trespass? No, private property rights are the same.

  • A Man's Perspective
    March 31, 2010 3:26 p.m.

    So, is the Supreme Court a non-issue in Utah now? Its rulings no longer mean a thing?

    This ruling hurts relationships between land owners and river users.

    When are you Weber River owners near Rockport/Echo going to finally clean up the rusted cars on the river? Actually, who cares. Since we probably won't be able to access that river anymore.

    See what I mean?

  • To Chris
    March 31, 2010 3:29 p.m.

    But the water is public. Now we can't use it. Also, the easement defined is no longer accessible.

    What is ours can't be used.

    Unanimous Supreme Court overruled.

    Unbelievable.

  • Life Long Republican
    March 31, 2010 3:29 p.m.

    Just became a Democrat.

  • re: Landowner
    March 31, 2010 3:35 p.m.

    Try putting up no trespassing signs and barricades on the sidewalk public easement on your private property and see how long that lasts.

    That is the same thing this law does to the rivers.

  • Vote against Herbert!
    March 31, 2010 3:55 p.m.

    He just lost my vote! Money and power rule our country and state! Why do my Tax dollars go to stock and reclimate these streams/ rivers that I dont have access to. It's a shame! Only thing we can do is vote them out! HB 141 is a slap in the face to the tax payer and The Utah Supreme Court

  • Herbert's out!!
    March 31, 2010 3:58 p.m.

    Utah is not getting more new rivers and streams every year...but the ones we do have are being sold to developers and land owners at record pace. There will be no where to go fishing in 10 years. There is nothing wrong with Idaho's approach to public water that crosses private land....stay in the river to high water mark and no problem. It should be the same in Utah!! Period!!

  • Flint
    March 31, 2010 4:12 p.m.

    Last time I vote for a republican in this State.

  • Randy Ludlow
    March 31, 2010 4:13 p.m.

    Anglers for Peter Corroon!!

  • All in the family
    March 31, 2010 4:31 p.m.

    Archie Bunker Herbert looks out for his own.

    Go Coroon!

  • SRD
    March 31, 2010 4:31 p.m.

    If you don't like this type of legislation then STOP electing the same people. It is that simple.

  • Shane
    March 31, 2010 4:41 p.m.

    What a joke, you have take my rights! Down with Governor Herbert!

  • Problem
    March 31, 2010 5:28 p.m.

    A problem with this bill is that private lands that have been allowed public access by agreements with the DWR can now be private and the public shut out if it has been less than 10 years for that access.

    So, how do you all feel about public money being used to fund private property?

    I think I am going to be sick.

  • What Would Brigham Do?
    March 31, 2010 6:51 p.m.

    On Sunday July 25, 1847, one day after entering the Salt Lake Valley, Brigham Young said:

    "There is to be no private ownership of streams of water... Walk faithfully in the light of these laws and you will be a prosperous people."

    Brigham Young certainly believed in private property rights, but understood that Utah's streams are the lifeblood of the community and should thereby be publicly owned, which is the way it has been since then (whether the realtor who sold you your property understood this not).

    The Utah Supreme Court will overturn this new bill at their first opportunity, probably unanimously like the last time they considered this.

    So nice job, Herbert! You've made Utah's first governor roll over in his grave.

  • Guv's a goof!
    March 31, 2010 6:55 p.m.

    "I am signing HB141 because we need to begin the process of addressing the unfortunate gulf between outdoor recreationists and private property owners."

    Good thinking, Governor Herbert. Because that's definitely what this will do, and without signing this law that would never have been possible!

    This is the logic of the guy who's supposed to be running our state?!

  • Giftid
    March 31, 2010 9:10 p.m.

    Uhh let me get this straight...the governer believes supports taking national public lands through emminent domain (OK) yet views stream access as a taking of private land (not OK)?

  • Giftid, do you really need...
    March 31, 2010 9:44 p.m.

    ...anyone to explain your statement back to you?

    Yes, the Governor believes in private property rights, and also believes that the federal government should have no rights in our state to lands, as the charter between the federal and state government was never intended to to take state lands and lock them up away from the state.

    In other words, he believes in state property rights, keeping the feds out of our property, and private property rights, keeping trespassers off of private property.

    It's the same thing, yet you can't seem to wrap your head around it.

  • @9:44 p.m. March 31, 2010
    March 31, 2010 10:30 p.m.

    "In other words, he believes in state property rights, keeping the feds out of our property"
    Sorry but "our" property belongs to the USA not the state of Utah--wrap your brain around that.
    Giftid

  • @ Giftid, do you really...
    March 31, 2010 10:31 p.m.

    As I understand Brigham Young, the Utah Constitution, and the Utah Supreme Court, it's the private property owners who are trying to trespass on OUR public property/streambeds...

  • MikeH
    April 1, 2010 5:14 a.m.

    Another trip to the courts.

    This has already been ruled on, why is our Governor wasting the courts time?

    This legislature will go down in history.

  • Gov right on this
    April 1, 2010 5:43 a.m.

    Property owners rights exceed recreational desires. If he didn't sign this bill then no body would have a right to protect their property from trespass, not even a homeowner.

    Recreation should respect the rights of property owners. These visitors do not have the right to trespass or interfere with farmers, ranchers, lively hood or other property. We already have problems with hunters who cross property and kill a ranchers cattle and herd animals, for fun.

    Recreationist who have no respect for others do not have my respect either. Rivers do not start or end on private property and there are many other places with public access for their use.

    To bring up the issue of money is a blatant and outrageous excuse to violate ones property rights. Some things just don't have a price, and individual rights and protecting their property is one of them. It teaches other visitors to respect our state as well and will have a positive affect on tourism and tourist.

    These property owners make their lively hood off their land, and having fun does not have precedence.

    Approving this bill only reinforces individuals rights and respecting others rights mean something.

  • stinks like fish
    April 1, 2010 6:04 a.m.

    this whole bill smells like dead fish....thanks gary, thanks to your family and thanks to the special interests....guess I need to just float down the provo to fish....but not stand on the bank.
    Corroon has my vote. Anglers for Corroon.

  • Again
    April 1, 2010 7:40 a.m.

    Don't forget to VOTE, send him packing, along with his other Repub's who don't care about the people of the state. VOTE HIM OUT!!!!!!!

  • Gov NOT right on this...
    April 1, 2010 7:55 a.m.

    It's already against the law to TRESPASS!!! It always has been...The Supreme Court ruling never authorized people to trespass on private property. They only allowed the public to use public water and recognized an easement that has always been there when OUR public water crosses private land. Stay on that easement in the stream and there should be no problem. If anglers are trespassing across your field or yard to access the water...have them cited!! Thats against the law and always has been!! Vote Herbert and all these clowns in the legislature OUT!!

  • To: Gov right on this
    April 1, 2010 8:30 a.m.

    This has nothing to do with the private property rights of homeowners. Unless a stream runs across their property (about 2% of landowners), and as the state supreme court has said, the UTAH CONSTITUTION provided that part of their land has always belonged to the public and could never have been sold to them in the first place!

  • Vote 'em out!
    April 1, 2010 8:44 a.m.

    The arrogance is overwhelming. Corroon for governor!!!

  • SALLOIUS
    April 1, 2010 10:26 a.m.

    The fishermen are incensed by this, you fishermen have no clue what this bill will do. Your comments like "I'll never vote for a republican again" and "I was a republican until today" are absolute stupidity. You lost the fight now, move on a figure out a way to keep doing your sport and shut your weak mouths. I can only assume they are weak because they got NOTHING done on this. Do you realize that no one but you over-zealous fishermen and RICH retailers even cares about this. Move on. Everyone else has. Just because you have the same 15 people emailing talk shows and commenting on these boards doesn't mean that this is a big issue.

  • disgusted
    April 1, 2010 10:45 a.m.

    Here are a few tidbits of information regarding water rights. These come right from law books in Utah.
    1st- UT uses an appropration system for water rights. Under this doctrine, the right to use any water with the exception of limited domestic use, is controlled by the state rather than by the landowner adjacent to the water.
    There are two types of water rights, riparian and littoral.
    Riparian rights refers to streams and rivers. This means: an owner of land that border a non navigable waterway owns the land under the water to the exact center of the waterway. Land adjoining navigable waters is owned to the waters edge with the state holding title to the submerged land. Navigable waters are considered public highways in which the public has an easment or right to travel.
    Littoral rights refers to land that borders navigabe lakes etc. Owners with littoral rights enjoy unrestricted use of waters but own the land adjacent to the water only up th the mean high water mark. All land below this point is owned by the government.
    I wish our current government would learn our laws rather than change them for the benefit of the rich!

  • RBC
    April 1, 2010 11:02 a.m.

    I'm a Republican but Gov. Herbert's logic is not logical. He said he would sign the bill so "we could begin to address the gulf between recreationists and landowners." So he signs a bill that takes away the access that recreationists have had for a hundred years? Huh? That's like saying we should throw everyone in jail until we can decide why some folks violate the law.
    Property owners with a river on thier land are no different than landowners with any type of public easement. Are my property rights being violated because I have a sidewalk on my property? Or an irrigation ditch? Or a street or road? According to Herbert they are. Obviously this is a political decision, not a logical one. For the first time in a long time, I'm hoping a Republican (Herbert) looses the upcoming election. Amazing.

  • disgusted
    April 1, 2010 11:30 a.m.

    The point I was trying to make is that landowners DO NOT OWN THE WATER. Under any right. The water belongs to the people. I have every respect for personal property rights but any piece of land that has a body of water on it comes with an easement. Just as any piece of property comes with a utility and city easment for sidewalks etc. That means the right to access such easment. PERIOD

  • Salloious not
    April 1, 2010 11:48 a.m.

    Weak mouth? Few people?

    We'll see about that, deutsche bank.

    How do your hands smell and feel? Like you've had them in coins?

    People like you who think you can put a price on everything make me sick.

    Herbie's a puppet.

    Vote for Corroon!!

  • Salloious not
    April 1, 2010 11:48 a.m.

    Weak mouth? Few people?

    We'll see about that, deutsche bank.

    How do your hands smell and feel? Like you've had them in coins?

    People like you who think you can put a price on everything make me sick.

    Herbie's a puppet.

    Vote for Corroon!!

  • restrict the water
    April 1, 2010 12:15 p.m.

    Let just divert the water then to public property. Put up dams, and cut off any water, that leads to private property.
    When the property is bought, they can see that there is a river running through it.
    They did not buy the water, do not let them have it.
    Also stop ranchers from using public property.

  • @ 10:26 a.m. April 1, 2010
    April 1, 2010 12:43 p.m.

    Salloius - Nice attack on anglers.

    Do you really think it's just a handful?

    Weak mouth? Over-zealous? What is that?

    This is an important issue.

    People who think everything has a price are disgusting.

    You developers won this round with your money-grubbing, nepotistic, governor-wanna-be. Why rub it in?

    Go run along and guard your land from the weak-mouthed fisherman.

    VOTE CORROON

  • For the first time in my life...
    April 1, 2010 1:08 p.m.

    ... I may be voting for Democrats this election!!

  • Time to vote Democrat
    April 1, 2010 1:24 p.m.

    Time for a change to the one party monopoly of Utah politics. Utah Republicans have got to be the most arrogant and aloof politicians in the country! Time to remind them who is really in charge... THE PEOPLE!

  • Anonymous
    April 1, 2010 1:50 p.m.

    More giveaway to special interests all the while shouting freedom and taking it away. This governor needs to be sent packing along with anyone who voted for this idiotic bill.

    signed, another FORMER republican.

  • Anonymous
    April 1, 2010 2:07 p.m.

    Why is it that whenever there is something idiotic done in our legislature, mike noels name is always attached to it? Who votes for this clown? Is Kanab that devoid of brains? Is he the best you have? Little hint, next time it rains dont look up, you might drown.