Hot over the wires:
Court Opens Mitchell Slough in Landmark Stream Access Case: New West Missoula
With a 54-page ruling, the Supreme Court deemed the waterway a natural stream, which means access to it is protected by Montana’s stream access law, which is among the strongest in the country. The ruling has been coming for more than two years and overturns two lower-court decisions that had defined the stream the way the Bitterroot Conservation District and several high-profile landowners had advocated it be: Just a ditch.The case, which has been watched closely across the West as a crucial test of stream access law, has been a long-running extravaganza of protests, celebrity, and political maneuvering but more than that, it has been a spur for complex and often heated discussions on water rights, landownership, what’s natural and what’s not and most of all, how to square the values of the Old West with the demands of the New.
I’m on my way to a class, but you can read the whole story here.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Yeah!!! Another great win for Montana recreationists. If only Colorado could have such a sensible stream access law.
Kara(Quote)
Tom: Thanks for picking this up, I meant to send it to you at 0500 this morning when I saw it, but got caught up in other stuff and hoped you would find out soon. From what I read, it was a very favorable decision and stated strong support for stream access (when Supreme Court justices use the term “absurd” in a decision, I would think they didn’t use that word lightly). Note: When I drove by the Bell Crossing bridge over Mitchell Slough (now a legal access) both this morning and this evening, I didn’t see the hordes breaking down the fence and flotillas heading for Huey Lewis’ place. That will probably wait till the spring. Now for the plug!!! The Bitterroot River Protection Association was still owing about $49,000.00 in legal fees last I heard. Maybe forgo a few pints at the local brewery this week and send them a check to help out. Thanks for the coverage.
Taku(Quote)
Thanks for the link to this important story. As a board member on a local conservancy for the Little Stinking I have been trying to figure out exactly how the Public Trust Doctrine and the issue of navigable streams impacts recreational use, especially when dealing with a watershed almost entirely within private land.
Certainly many people feel strongly that fishing below the high water mark is fully permitted. And I assume that would carry over to hiking. How about mountain biking? And horse back riding?
Well, what about motorized use such as four-wheelers and motorcycles (let’s assume we are talking about when the channel is dry)? Why not, the Public Trust Doctrine doesn’t seem to prohibit the use: it doesn’t expressly prohibit ANY use as far as I can tell.
Of course the “lesser impact users” would often prefer to do without the disturbance of a fleet of noisy ATV’s spewing exhaust fumes. And the private landowners certainly don’t like it, especially when it involves trespass to access the creek.
A. Wannabe Travelwriter(Quote)
Tom, this is an important issue. I’ll eventually blog about the issue of hikers walking streambeds that travel through private lands.
On a related note, Gene Leach, my calculus teacher at Shasta College in the late 1970s, told me he would kayak down Cottonwood Creek in western and southern Shasta County every spring, and that a farmer had fired rock salt from a shotgun at him.
John Soares(Quote)
Wannabe and John: In case you’re interested, here is a link to the Montana Codes Annotated dealing with stream access:
http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/23/2/23-2-302.htm
I would think if you Googled other state Codes, you would find a whole spectrum of legalities. Good luck.
Tobin Kelley(Quote)
Wannabe: As we all discovered during the Great Siskiyou County Natural Resource Plan Nightmare, stream access law is convoluted, unclear, varies by state, and is subject to considerable interpretation by whomever is waving the larger caliber.
You might want to give some of the earlier Natural Resource posts a visit (especially the comments); you’ll find plenty of CA access resources there.
The Montana gig is clearly a big win for fly fishers, and I’ll try to post a followup soon.
Tom Chandler(Quote)
Any word if this ruling will impact access on the Ruby?
B(Quote)
Tom,
Thanks for the suggestion to review the Siskiyou Saga. It was a long read and unfortunately one we will likely have to relive again, somewhere/ someday, but hopefully not starting from “scratch” every time.
Meaning, there were many lessons learned on the process that someone with writing skills such as yours could develop into a primer for public response.
Given the divergent opinions as to who gets to make the rules for navigable waterways, I still am not sure how motorized vehicles get treated.
I really do not enjoy ATV’s running down the middle of the channel as Singlebarbed is more likely to throw me “under the bus†in order to save my little dog. (Win-win for him: he gets rid of me and he gets to keep the pooch.)
But if we expect the local law to protect us from irate streamside landowners flinging rocks, or worse, at us, then the people doing the enforcing need to know what is legal and what is not.
It is apparent that at least in Yolo County, they have not made up their mind yet.
A. Wannabe Travelwriter(Quote)