Stream access may partly evaporate

[riverdog]

I saw that too. Unfortunately the article lacked any details about what is being considered. I'm not a legal expert in this area but if they make the law too restrictive it may not hold up in courts. You have to remember the basis of these rights goes back to prior to the U.S. becoming a country and have been continously in effect. The stream access has always been your legal right. The Utah Supreme Court upheld this right last year as well as in the 1970's. What some landowners were doing to restrict access was and always has been illegal. Unfortunarely if a restrictive law is passed it will restrict access unless someone pushes it back to the courts (and go through the bozos at the county level first who will side with the landowners rather than follow the actual legal basis for this. And then have to appeal to the State Court) and they throw out all or part of the law. I actually own land that has a huge high water mark and I have never tried to restrict access even before the Utah Supreme reaffirmed this. I'm just not going to commit the crime even if no one is prosecuted for it. I'm pretty sure I've read things about Federal Courts weighing in on this issue many times in the past and upholding stream access as well. If there are any legal experts out there who want to correct my interpretation of this issue please do so.
[signature]