Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Utah Water Guardians Update
#3
Just as an FYI, the "public access stamp" being proposed would not be paying for access. It would be a restricted fund to use to cover the costs associated with public access over private beds. Those costs could include building stiles over fences that cross the river that allow the public to portage (at the request of the landowner, and possibly at the request of the public), education on what the law is and what the easement allows, enforcement, etc.

One thing that I believe is problematic, is people will think they are paying for "access" and as such, think that the easement is bigger than it really is....simply because they paid for it. I'm against the stamp personally, as I don't believe it's the DWR's job to build stiles over fences that landowners string over rivers. If a landowner wants to do that, they should have the burden of providing away around it. It's a rather unsafe situation in my opinion. But that's just me.

The bill looks okay to start out with, but HB 187 was used as the starting point. That to me is a bad thing. There was nothing good about that bill....so none of it should be included. Start from scratch. In addition, I'd like to just see the easement defined, and leave the rest alone. I don't think there needs to be all this confusing fluff around the outside.
[signature]
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Utah Water Guardians Update - by TS30 - 10-17-2009, 03:36 PM
Re: [sinergy] Utah Water Guardians Update - by TS30 - 10-17-2009, 09:57 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)