Stream access politics

[Flysmallie]

Oh and he's a douche. 

Read what it says. He's trying to take your rights away. 

[chillin the most]

Thank you Flysmallie for the links to the verbage. 

[Gavin]

Ross is Farm Bureau D bag, the same as Jason Smith. Will be an interesting legislative season.

 

[Al Agnew]

The bill has several significant and troubling provisions.

The biggest one is that it says that none of the provisions shall take away (or add to) the public's right of recreation or "floatage" on navigable watercourses, BUT (and this is VERY important), it says that a watercourse shall not be deamed "navigable" unless a Missouri court has specifically said it is.  There have actually been very few court cases that have addressed specific stream sections.  The governing case, Elder v Delcour, was about a stretch of the upper Meramec, well above Maramec Spring, so it has generally been accepted that any similar size stream (easily floatable at higher water levels, but does get too low for easy floating in dry weather) is covered by that court case.  But the bill would make any stream that has not been specifically ruled navigable by a Missouri court a non-navigable stream, unless and until there is a court case deciding its navigability.  What this would mean, apparently, is that a landowner could sue a floater for trespass on any stream not specifically ruled to be navigable in the past, and the floater would have to take it to court to decide whether or not the stream was navigable.

The bill also changes a number of provisions that have been followed for pretty much the history of the state.  The terms of "navigable", "navigable watercourse of the state", and "public navigable watercourse", have not previously been legally used in relation to Missouri streams.  "Navigable" was used to delineate the very few streams large enough to handle large watercraft carrying commercial materials; basically the rivers that would be called "public navigable watercourses" under this bill.  It was NEVER used to legally describe the floatable streams.  "Navigable watercourse of the state" is the term used in the bill to describe the floatable streams.  Keep in mind, again, that the bill specifically states that a "navigable watercourse of the state" is a watercourse that has been ruled navigable by a Missouri court.  And a "non-navigable watercourse of the state" is a watercourse that has not been ruled navigable by a Missouri court--NOT a watercourse that has been ruled NON-NAVIGABLE.  So again, any stream section that has not already been specifically ruled upon by a court is automatically non-navigable, unless and until somebody brings a suit to rule on its navigability.

The bill makes another change that REALLY makes me suspicious, in a kinda back-handed sort of way.  It says that on "navigable watercourses of the state" (the float streams), the landowner would own the land to the low-water mark.  This is a huge change from present law.  Present law in Missouri says that the landowner owns the land to the center of the stream.  If a landowner owns both sides of the stream, he owns the entire stream bottom as well.  At first glance, this would seem to be a good thing for river users; now the state would own the river bottom, and not the landowner.  BUT...it seems to me that this provision is actually designed to sway those "Missouri courts" to rule in the landowners' favor whenever a suit to determine the navigability of a stream section occurs.  A court would most likely be very uneasy about ruling that the landowner actually loses title to the stream bottom, since every landowner's deed specifically states that he does own the stream bottom to the mid-point of the stream.

And...by making the "low-water mark" (defined in the bill as the line on the bank below which the bank is ALWAYS underwater) the property boundary, it would be easy for a court to rule that the floater must stay within the low-water marks of the stream, and could not get out onto gravel bars.  In other words, the state owns the water and the bottom, but the landowner owns the gravel bars, and could keep floaters off them.  Again, this is a huge change from present law, and there has to be an ulterior motive for making a change like this that, at first glance, looks like taking something away from landowners.  Especially given that this guy is a Farm Bureau darling. 

[joeD]

(12) Prohibits the Department of Natural Resources from implementing any portion of the federal rule to revise or provide guidance on the definition of "waters of the United States" or "navigable waters" under the Clean Water Act and specifies that no federal agency may make a determination or designate any watercourse within the state as navigable.

This is about states rights and divorcing certain federal laws from the sovereignty of Missouri. All the other stuff is moot if (12) doesn't happen.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

 

[ramman123]

oh now you guys are complaining about cops not doing there jobs, but its all boils down to when the city or county ask for a tax increase to fund things like this People always vote it down. 

[dan hufferd]

I know many land owner that have a water way through their property, trash, partying, and safety, is the thing that drives all this. I know a man who owns land where a creek runs through his place, it has many large bluffs. Some partier got drunk and decided to try his hand at rock climbing, well it didn't go well, he fell and was severally injured.

The injured man was awarded over a million dollars, and about all creek access in that area are as closed as the land owners could make them.

     

[fishinwrench]

3 hours ago, dan hufferd said:

I know many land owner that have a water way through their property, trash, partying, and safety, is the thing that drives all this. I know a man who owns land where a creek runs through his place, it has many large bluffs. Some partier got drunk and decided to try his hand at rock climbing, well it didn't go well, he fell and was severally injured.

The injured man was awarded over a million dollars, and about all creek access in that area are as closed as the land owners could make them.

     

They aren't going to award over a million dollars to someone who was trespassing and got hurt.   So there's obviously more to that story.....Or it's just a crock.

[dan hufferd]

5 hours ago, fishinwrench said:

They aren't going to award over a million dollars to someone who was trespassing and got hurt.   So there's obviously more to that story.....Or it's just a crock.

I sure hope so, that is an old story in my area, but what I do know is many of the creek accesses in the area got fenced in what seemed like the same day. 

I drove over spring river today near Carthage, I guess people were living/ camping north of the bridge, it looks like a trash dump ! I feel bad for the land owner there and all who are down stream.

I love having access to the creeks and rivers, and I agree that they should leave access open to all of us, but somehow people need to clean up after themselves !

I have to ask myself what would I do if I owned creek access that was covered in trash every summer day?

I might add my kids and I spent much of our lives fishing many creek in my area, and I owned a fencing company for 10 yrs. This problem came up a lot.

I wish there was a good answer. It would be tough to police all the party spots, low water bridges and creek access.

I leave nothing behind when I come off the water.

[fishinwrench]

While I totally agree that everyone should pick up their trash, I have noticed that landowners tend to be enormous exaggerators much of the time. 

One might say "those basturds left trash everywhere", making you think of giant heaps that would take 3 men and a truck to clean it up, when in reality it was 2 beer cans and an empty cigarette pack.

Still not good....but c'mon now. ?