New Bill Could Limit Stream Access

[Kathy E.]

Everyone, you MUST join CFM right now! And those of you who are able to have GOT TO MAKE A DONATION!

Right now, they are the only fighting force that is arrayed on our side against the MO Legislature. And their new director, Brandon Butler, wants to go after the legislators with (metaphorically speaking, of course,) both barrels blazing. But he needs OUR HELP TO DO SO.

Please do what you can.

[rFisherk]

Great to see you here, Kathy. Not sure if you are old enough, but we need to approach this political situation with the same enthusiasm we did back in the 1970s to get the Conservation Tax passed. And the most unified way to do that is through CFM, just as you suggest.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Hey Chief,

Send me a pm with your current email. We've sent out emails regarding all of the previous legislation and I'm drafting something about HB 955. So, if you're not getting our emails I can easily fix that. On a related note, I'd encourage people to take a look at Harry Styron's blog as he does a great job of summarizing MO water laws. http://styronblog.com/law/harry-styrons-missouri-stream-law/

Thanks,

Matt

Got it now.

Thanks Matt!

[Smallieguy87]

Well I spoke with my district rep Ben Harris and he will be voting against this. We spoke about the Chronic wasting disease bills as well as the bills to cut funding to MDC and what maybe behind it. He also feels it started with the deer farms but I'm sure there's more private interests then just that.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Well I spoke with my district rep Ben Harris and he will be voting against this. We spoke about the Chronic wasting disease bills as well as the bills to cut funding to MDC and what maybe behind it. He also feels it started with the deer farms but I'm sure there's more private interests then just that.

Thanks for the update.

Can you share some of his thoughts on the CWD and the attacks on the MDC?

[Greasy B]

Great to see you here, Kathy. Not sure if you are old enough, but we need to approach this political situation with the same enthusiasm we did back in the 1970s to get the Conservation Tax passed. And the most unified way to do that is through CFM, just as you suggest.

Even if this bill dies in committee there's no doubt the efforts to rob the citizens of Missouri of access to their streams will continue. I appreciate the efforts of everyone trying to get the word out and rally the troops. I'll do my best to make my position known to my representative every time these thieves try to kill our way of life.

One thing is certain, if something like this comes to pass I'm doomed to a life of crime.

[Smallieguy87]

Thanks for the update.

Can you share some of his thoughts on the CWD and the attacks on the MDC?

Well he served on the committee for CWD and from what I gathered came to roughly the same conclusion that MDC did which is the first reported cases began in captive deer farms and prior to was not found in free range deer. He opposes the bill to reclassify deer from wildlife to live stock which would have removed deer from MDC's jurisdiction and placed them with the department of agriculture which he said also did not want the bill to pass. On bill 955 he said he was going to attend a hearing on it but what be voting against it. He says he does not support any bill that limits river access or reclassify the definition of the high water mark. When I ask him what was behind most of these attacks he basically mentioned that there's a group of reps that really have it out for MDC but he wouldn't elude to if he knew why(though right after that he went right back to the deer farms, maybe that was my hint?) I ask him about the Supreme Court ruling on the high water which sadly he was not familiar with but said he would look into prior to attending this hearing. Unfortunately I didn't get much more then what a lot of people already knew or have speculated. I ask him if limiting river access was just a precursor to some bigger plans for these rivers down the road but he didn't know. This is my first time ever contacting my district rep for any reason so I'm still new to the game as far as asking the right questions but I hope that did help some.

[rFisherk]

I'm without a vehicle right now, so can't possibly attend, but here's some questions I'd like asked at the hearing:

1. The bill says: "No adjoining parts of a watercourse shall be considered navigable unless they are deemed navigable by a Missouri court." As far as I know, only a few rivers and streams have been deemed navigable by a Missouri court. Would this mean that the vast majority of rivers and streams would be considered non-navigable (without further court action), and therefore private property? Wouldn’t this overload our court systems with petitions?

2. Do you know how many rivers (or river miles) are currently deemed navigable by the Courts?

3. Do you know how many rivers (or river miles) will become private property as a result of your legislation?

4. The bill appears that it will shift the boundaries of many property owners along Missouri's waters. As a self-employed surveyor, do you stand to profit directly or indirectly if this bill becomes law?

5. What is the definition of "substantial compliance" as written in 537.298? Who decides this?

Why would you take away an individual's ability to seek justice in the Court system if their quality of life is being compromised by the owner of a nuisance?

6. It would reset the private land boundary for navigable streams from the current high water mark to the low water mark. Would this mean that gravel bars would be off limits on all rivers?

7. On non-navigable streams, it would make the bottom of the stream private property, to the middle of the stream from either side. Would this mean an angler couldn't wade it without trespassing?

8. Would making these rivers and stream private property restrict the Missouri Department of Conservation’s authority to manage fisheries?

9. It essentially would make rivers and streams the property of those who own the banks and give them rights to manage these waterways as they see fit, as long as they complied with federal guidelines. Would this bill give adjoining landowners rights to alter the streams, divert water and a host of other things?

10. Would this bill create a "commission" to rule over streams, and would they would be able to accept donations from private companies who might profit from such rulings?

11. The bill says: The commission shall: 2 (1) Exercise general supervision of the administration and enforcement of sections 3 644.006 to 644.141 and all rules and regulations and orders promulgated thereunder; HB 955. What are sections 3 644.006 to 644.141?

12. The bill says: Issue, modify or revoke orders prohibiting or abating discharges of water contaminants into the waters of the state or adopting other remedial measures to prevent, control or abate pollution. Does this mean this commission could modify or revoke current state water pollution standards?

13. Require the prior submission of plans and specifications, or other data including the quantity and types of water contaminants, and inspect the construction of treatment facilities and sewer systems or any part thereof in connection with the issuance of such permits or approval as are required by sections 644.006 to 644.141, except that manholes and polyvinyl chloride 48 (PVC) pipe used for gravity sewers and with a diameter no greater than twenty-seven inches shall not be required to be tested for leakage. Would this exception exclude PVC pipes of the specified size coming from industrial sites?

14. Section 13 ends by stating: ...however, no permit shall be required of any person for any emission into publicly owned treatment facilities or into publicly owned sewer systems tributary to publicly owned treatment works. Does this remove protection of the watershed into the facilities?

15. Would this bill create another giant government bureaucracy governing sewage treatment facilities of the state?

[Smalliebigs]

Even if this bill dies in committee there's no doubt the efforts to rob the citizens of Missouri of access to their streams will continue. I appreciate the efforts of everyone trying to get the word out and rally the troops. I'll do my best to make my position known to my representative every time these thieves try to kill our way of life.

One thing is certain, if something like this comes to pass I'm doomed to a life of crime.

same here Greasy.....I will be a big time law breaker

[tanvat]

To sum it up, if this passes (unlikely, but whoever votes for it should be voted out) then adjacent landowners hold legal title to all gravel bars on most of the lower North Fork, the Meramec, the Big, the Elk the "Gap" on the Jacks Fork and the first few miles below the Prongs, the Niangua, a good part of the Gasconade, Huzzah, Courtois, Bryant, and Black, and a few spots on the Current - technically, I suppose one would be trespassing on the Pioneer Forest around between Akers and Pulltite by pulling off at a gravel bar.

As far as the Mo. Sup. Ct. Delcour case that established a public right to utilize navigable waterways, it would seem that case would have no bearing on this proposed statute b/c Delcour was not based on any public constitutional right to access or constitutional limitation on private property rights of adjacent landowners. Thus, this new statute would effectively re-define private property rights as the legislature is free to do, subject to constitutional limitations - in the absence of a constitutional limitation on this proposed bill, its all fair game for the legislature. All the more reason to get involved and stay that way. This is the same sort of narrow, anti-public interest legislation that is constantly in play out West - seems its made its way East to our detriment.

If not convinced, try floating in Wyoming sometime; there are almost militant landowners on the upper Green near Pinedale who will get downright physically threatening if, while floating through on a 60 yd. wide stretch running at 1500cfs, you dare anchor temporarily in the middle of the river (out of sight from and over a mile away from from their house) to untangle a line. Would suck big time for the canoe industry and fishermen if that kind of situation came to Missouri. The proposed Mo. statute doesn't go that far, but try telling that to some irritated landowner as you wade fish - would be a lot of emboldened crumudgeons.