Utah House rejects third substitute to bill on recreational access to streams on private land

SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah House of Representatives on March 9 rejected the third substitute of House Bill 187, a contentious measure that sought to define when recreational users can access streams running across private property and to create a policy board to set standards.

The final vote was 31 in favor and 43 opposed. The bill’s sponsor and supporters said the measure was intended to provide clarity and a process for adding or removing streams from a statutory list that determines where the public may recreate; opponents warned it would invite litigation and politicize river inclusion.

Representative Perry, in summation, said the third substitute grew out of a state Supreme Court ruling and expanded the statutory list of qualifying streams while creating a parallel policy board to evaluate disputed cases. "This is a balancing act of right of access for recreational purposes and public property rights," Perry said during floor remarks.

Representative Falk, one of the bill’s most vocal critics, told colleagues the measure was flawed and likely to prompt lawsuits. He noted "we have 3 substitutes and now 20 amendments on a bill" and argued the list can be politicized: "The list of rivers is exclusive, not inclusive," Falk said, arguing the selection should rely on objective criteria such as flow or HUC values rather than political pressure.

Representative Webb, who spoke in support of the bill, framed it as a response to the high court's expansion of public rights over waterways. "First, the Conestor decision, in effect, created a right away or an easement everywhere across private property anywhere that there's a stream," Webb said, calling HB187 a corrective to restore clearer property‑rights and process.

Debate touched on several recurring themes: how to measure and define qualifying streams (flow, depth, historical public use), whether the statutory list would be subject to political influence, and the need to protect private property owners from undue intrusion. Representative McKith defended the bill’s fact‑finding procedures and noted the measure would allow the board to both add and remove streams; he said the bill applies a historical standard and contemplates review of whether a stream had been closed within the last 20 years.

Supporters said the policy board would set quantifiable criteria and promulgate rules to separate fact finding from politics. Opponents said the proposal was premature and urged further interim study and stakeholder engagement.

After the vote, the clerk recorded the result and sent the matter to staff for filing. The House then adopted a short recess 'to saunter' until 10:30 a.m.

The bill’s failure leaves unresolved how Utah will reconcile the Supreme Court ruling referenced in debate with competing claims of public access and private property rights; both sides urged continued work on the underlying issues.