Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenter cites state law and court decisions to contest public access claims on Lower Weber River
Summary
At the Sept. 11 public comment period, Jeff Glum urged the commission to respect private property rights along the Lower Weber River, citing Utah legislation and U.S. and Utah Supreme Court decisions on navigability and title; he urged policy questions be taken to the legislature rather than used to alter property titles.
During public comment at the Morgan County Planning Commission meeting Sept. 11, Jeff Glum urged the commission to recognize recent state legislation and court precedent in disputes over public access to the Lower Weber River, saying county officials should not assume a public easement along privately owned stream beds.
Glum referenced a Utah legislative response to a 2010 trespass case and identified the enactment as the "Public Waters Access Act," saying it narrowly defines public use as incidental touching of private stream beds and that Utah Code (as cited in the meeting) supports private title certainty. He cited the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in PPL Montana v. Montana (2012), noting the court requires navigability determinations to be made on a segment‑by‑segment basis, and he cited the Utah Supreme Court's 2023 decision in USAC v. Victory Ranch as rejecting pioneer‑era use as automatically conferring a present‑day easement. He also quoted the Utah Constitution's Article I, Section 22 on private property protections and referenced state criminal trespass statutes as they relate to non‑navigable streams.
Glum said those legal standards mean the Lower Weber River "is not and never has been navigable for title" and warned county officials against treating riverbeds as public easements; he urged that further policy decisions be made by the legislature rather than local action. He provided a copy of his written remarks to the record.
These remarks were made during public comment; the planning commission took no formal action on river access at the meeting. The remarks were presented as legal and policy observations by a member of the public, not as staff advice or a county determination.
