Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Water Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House passes HB141 to clarify recreational access to waters on private land
Summary
After extended debate over constitutional property rights and process, the Utah House passed substitute House Bill 141 (51–23), which defines when the public may claim recreational access to private waters based on historical use, sets a 10‑year continuity rule anchored to a 1982 decision, and adopts clear‑and‑convincing proof standard.
The Utah House on Feb. 23 passed the first substitute of House Bill 141, a statutory framework for when members of the public may use water flowing across private land for recreational purposes. The measure, advanced by Representative McKiff, passed the House 51–23 and was transmitted to the Senate for consideration.
McKiff, the bill’s sponsor, told colleagues the substitute reorganizes provisions to add definitions for "floating access" and "navigable water," sets the pivotal date for establishing recreational rights at 1982, and clarifies procedures for multiple claimants and quiet‑title actions. "In 1982, our Supreme Court, in reliance on a case out of Wyoming, Day v. Armstrong, declared a floating easement on public waters," McKiff said, explaining the bill’s reliance on historical legal developments while creating a statutory path for public recreational access.
Supporters framed the bill as restoring balance between private property protections and public use. Representative Mascaro invoked the Utah Constitution as central to his support, saying: "Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation." Backers pointed to the bill’s 10‑year historical‑use requirement as a limiter that opens access only where sustained, notorious use has already occurred.
Opponents raised concerns about process and scope. Representative Hughes argued the substitute "goes further than the original" draft and urged more deliberation, saying the substitute was adopted with limited debate. Representative Falk questioned changes to the Landowner Liability Act’s introductory language, noting the bill expands protections to cover both permissive visitors and prescriptive (adverse‑use) entrants; the sponsor said that expansion was intentional to protect landowners from liability in either circumstance.
Key provisions explained during debate include: an explicit definition of "floating access," a statutory articulation of what counts as historical public recreational use (a 10‑year, continuous period anchored to 1982 where appropriate), and use of the clear‑and‑convincing evidence standard to establish prescriptive rights consistent with recent Utah case law. McKiff told legislators there are approximately "7,000 miles of perennial streams on private property in Utah," and said the bill aims to protect historical recreational use without opening lands where people have never gone.
The bill’s passage followed a motion to end debate and a pro‑sponsor summation that emphasized statutory clarity: "Section 70‑3‑292 provides public recreation is established if these conditions are met... any suggestion that you have to go to court to establish them is not true," McKiff said, adding that court action is required only if the right is disputed.
The House sent the substitute to the Senate with the vote tally recorded and with committee and sponsor comments on record. The measure’s next steps depend on Senate consideration and potential conference if the upper chamber amends the bill further.
