Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Access Water Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House rejects bill to statutorily limit public recreational access on private-stream beds
Summary
After extended floor debate on competing definitions and governance, the Utah House voted 34–41 on March 3, 2009 to reject the second substitute of HB187, a measure that would have identified streams and set rules for public recreational access across private property.
The Utah House on March 3 debated and then rejected the second substitute of House Bill 187, a contentious measure that would have defined when and where the public may use streams flowing across private property.
Representative Ferry (sponsor) framed HB187 as balancing private-property rights with the public’s right to recreate on waters that are public property. The second substitute proposed a named-list approach to identify streams suitable for public recreation, removed a prior 500-foot-from-home denial-of-access provision, and changed the advisory committee composition; it also sought to clarify changes following the recodification of Section 76.
A central legal backdrop to the debate was a recent Utah Supreme Court decision repeatedly referenced on the floor (transcript: “Kanatza v. Johnson”), which several speakers said established a public easement on waterways while leaving scope questions to the legislature. Representatives offering amendments debated whether the bill should (a) allow the implementing board to add rivers by rule or (b) preserve the legislature’s exclusive authority to determine the list. Representative Draxler proposed two amendments: one to allow streams that are "anticipated" to provide recreational opportunity be added, and one to give the board rulemaking authority. Both failed on floor votes.
Delegates also argued about the enforceability and scope of the bill's definitions. Representative Brown’s amendment replaced a fixed adjacent "5-foot" allowance with a 'covered with water and up to the ordinary high-water mark' definition of the bed; that amendment passed. Supporters of the bill urged legislative action to provide certainty to landowners and law enforcement and to prevent property owners from posting or closing access in response to the court ruling. Opponents warned that the measure favored private-property interests over longstanding public uses, risked litigation, delegated too much authority to unelected bodies, and required more study.
Final disposition: the House voted on the second substitute and the measure failed, 34–41. The bill was referred to staff for filing. The transcript records numerous conflict-of-interest declarations by members who own stream-front property and several substitute amendment attempts that were debated and rejected.
What the vote means: With the second substitute defeated, the House did not adopt the sponsor’s statutory framework; next steps would depend on future committee action, management committee study requests, or new legislation in later sessions.
Authorities cited in debate: the floor repeatedly referenced the recent Supreme Court decision (transcript: "Kanatza v. Johnson") and earlier cases on public water rights; floor speakers also cited federal definitions of navigability and the state statutory history of water law.
