HB 108 - Public Access

[whit210]

Anybody up on House Bill 108? The way I read the changes sounds like an attempt to restrict access to public water. If there is anybody that can further enlighten me, especially those of you from the Ogden area where Rep. Dixon is from, I would really appreciate your wisdom.

http://le.utah.gov/~2015/bills/static/HB0108.html
[signature]

[Tarponjim]

As I read it, it establishes more public access to private water, or at least more rights to that water. However, I'm no lawyer and there's a lot there that sounds confusing. But I think this bill promotes or increases public access. USAC has said that the legislature will not take any further action until there's a ruling on the current Weber River Navigability case, which is being heard at the Matheson Courthouse right now.

Edit: I just found this on the USAC site:

"The 2015 Utah Legislative session runs from January 26 through March 12. In the past, the Legislature said it will not take up the stream access issue until they have heard from the Courts on USAC's two lawsuits. It is our hope that we will be able to provide them with a ruling by the end of the session. Rep. Dixon Pitcher is sponsoring legislation ([url "http://le.utah.gov/%7E2015/bills/static/HB0108.html?utm_source=Legal+Updates+%26+The+2015+Legislative+Session&utm_campaign=20150124+usac+blast&utm_medium=email"]HB108[/url]) that is slightly different than last year's bill. It's simple, and it does exactly what the Utah Supreme Court left for the Legislature to do after its decision in [url "http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-supreme-court/1456040.html?utm_source=Legal+Updates+%26+The+2015+Legislative+Session&utm_campaign=20150124+usac+blast&utm_medium=email"]Conatser v. Johnson[/url]: it defines the easement."
[signature]

[whit210]

Thanks for the info Jim.
[signature]

[albinotrout]

I would like to hear what happens here with both the lawsuits and this bill. I was speaking to Jay Seegmiller who even stated that the original bill a few years ago was poor and should never have been passed.
[signature]

[Therapist]

The previous bill took away almost everything that the Court gave the sportsman in the original ruling, resulting in the current lawsuit and new legislation. What it boils down to is that big money interests, land owners, and developers are still trying to keep the public off public waters. As stated above, the current bill, which will not be heard till the Court decides the current lawsuit, will establish what the Courts initial intent was.

[downed_Phly]

HB 108 is good for anglers, but I doubt we'll see it this session. The last update I heard was that closing arguments for the navigability case will be on March 4.

To stay up to date with everything on stream access, follow the Utah Stream Access Coalition (USAC) on facebook and/or sign up to get their email updates.

Facebook:
[url]https://www.facebook.com/utahstreamaccesscoalition?fref=ts
[/url]
USAC website:
[url]http://utahstreamaccess.org/usac-wp/
[/url]
Email Signup:
http://utahstreamaccess.org/usac-wp/utah...embership/
[signature]