New Bill Could Limit Stream Access

[Chief Grey Bear]

Yeah well, we were all working together in solidarity when we elected these people. Let's not forget that.

I didn't vote for a one of them.

And as Al has said on numerous occasions right here, if your values are more towards conservation, voting for anyone with an R following, is most likely not a good choice.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Has anyone heard anything from the MSA on all of these bills?

I know I have heard plenty from other conservation organizations.

[msamatt]

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

[Chief Grey Bear]

Will do Matt.

I just received the latest edition of the BBN the other day.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Matt

Just checked and the last emails I have from the MSA are from two on 2/6, 2/10 and 2/16.

Is there some I didn't get?

[msamatt]

Chief:

The conservation action email went out on January 19th. I just logged into constant contact and resent it to you. I'm not sure why it didn't get through the first time but that's the web for you. The CFM just sent out an alert about HB 955 BTW. I can't make it to Jeff City but I sincerely hope others do and ask Representative Ross to clarify. IMHO the language of HB 955 is a great example of how legislators can use legalese to confuse and confound ordinary citizens. The state aim of HB 955 is the repeal of section 644.026 of the RSMo and to replace it with new section of the RSMo which would, if I understand it correctly, pertain to County Surveyors and Land Surveys and Torts and actions for damages. I don't know that complicated even begins to cover this. What's Representative Ross attempting to do? Is there a water quality problem he wants to fix? How will these proposed changes serve his consituents? I don't know.

To the best of my knowledge Elder v. Delcour established that the public right to navigation extends to recreational boating in Missouri. All persons have a right to navigate any river or stream that has a sufficient flow to float a recreational boat like a canoe. I can honestly say that I personally and the Missouri Smallmouth Alliance (and most of our anglers are predominantly paddle or foot powered anglers so this is close to our heart) as an organization is 100% opposed to any proposed laws or regulation changes which would in any way change this basic right and I hope that all like-minded people will publicly and repeatedly tell that to all those who would act to diminish or eliminate this right.

Thanks,
Matt

[westbranchfly]

Being a relatively new resident to Missouri, please bear with my questions.

1. On page 3, 644.026- the commission. What commission?

2.Page 7, line 132- (26) "excercise general supervision of the department......". What department?

You guys are more in step with this than I am, but my knee jerk reaction tells me the bill is targeting water rights, and seeing to it that a government agency continues to grow.

After reading, and rereading, I have no idea what this clown is up to. There is usually a money trail somewhere with something like this.

[grizwilson]

Matt

Just checked and the last emails I have from the MSA are from two on 2/6, 2/10 and 2/16.

Is there some I didn't get?

Matt

Just got one on HB955, Thanks

g

[rFisherk]

As I read the small print in this bill, it will create a "commission" to rule over streams, and they would be able to accept donations from private companies. You can see where that would lead.

It also says that: "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 large rivers have been deemed navigable by a Missouri court, which I believe would mean all the others would be considered un-navigable, and therefore not only the gravel bars, but the bottoms of the rivers and stream to the center of the flowage from either side would be private property, according to this bill.

Of all the bills I've covered since the deer reclassification, this one is the nuttiest of all, by far, and I find it disturbing that anyone in government would be so bold, reckless and unaware of the devastating ramifications that they would seriously propose such a measure.

Personally, I don't think this one has a chance. It's just too crazy.

On the other hand, the fact anyone would propose such a measure and have it make it to committee means we better take it seriously. After all, the author of this bill also is on the committee that decides whether to bring it before the general assembly or not.

I just don't know about all this...it's getting too...well...beam me up Scotty.

[Kathy E.]

Hidden away in the bill, as well, is a part that would deny legal redress to anyone injured by polluters or those who contaminate our waters and other natural resources, or at least that is what it seems to do. I cannot help but think of the West Lake Landfill, in Bridgeton (near St. Louis), where a smoldering, sub-surface fire is creeping steadily closer to the buried radioactive waste.

Boy, I'll bet those landfill operators donate even more money to the legislators than the deer farmers do.

With all that the legislators are trying to do to MDC, our free-flowing streams, our whitetail deer, and the strings that they are attempting to pull in favor of the state's polluters I'll bet our parents and grandparents -- the ones who worked so hard for conservation in Missouri, and who helped to make our wonderful state what it is today, are turning over in their graves. (That is, if they are dead; many of us, unfortunately, are still alive to see them try to ruin the most-conservation-minded state in the country).

We have to do what we can to make these folks sit up and take notice.

Did you know that MDC received over 28,000 letters, phone calls, and postcards in FAVOR of their new deer farm regulations during the last battle with our so-called legislators?

If every person who cares enough to send a letter or postcard or make a phone call is truly equal to 1,000 who are too lazy to do so (according to marketing principles), then that tells me that close to 3 million Missourians are AGAINST the legislature on the deer farm issue alone.

How many MORE would be against something that would restrict stream access AND reward polluters??? Just think of how many people enjoy our free-flowing streams?

It boggles one's mind to think that the General Assembly can think that they can pull this one off. Oh, wait! They ALMOST -- but for one vote -- got captive deer reclassified as livestock, so no telling WHAT they can do, if push comes to shove. I shudder to think of it.