CO Public Access to Navigable Streambeds - New Court Case

[onpoint]

I believe in MT, the state owns the river bed beneath navigable rivers. If in CO, landowners own the riverbed, then a change in the ownership of the substrate would constitute a property loss to the previous owners. Thus there would be a change in the value of the property. I'm thinking this to be correct. Somebody knowledgeable otherwise , please step in to right this if I'm wrong.

 

[Carnage2011]

I believe in MT, the state owns the river bed beneath navigable rivers. If in CO, landowners own the riverbed, then a change in the ownership of the substrate would constitute a property loss to the previous owners. Thus there would be a change in the value of the property. I'm thinking this to be correct. Somebody knowledgeable otherwise , please step in to right this if I'm wrong.

I believe that private landowners in MT still pay property taxes on the river bed in Montana.

 

[marksjeep]

I believe in MT, the state owns the river bed beneath navigable rivers. If in CO, landowners own the riverbed, then a change in the ownership of the substrate would constitute a property loss to the previous owners. Thus there would be a change in the value of the property. I'm thinking this to be correct. Somebody knowledgeable otherwise , please step in to right this if I'm wrong.

In Colorado, this is exactly correct. The suit seeks to change ownership of the riverbed in the suit from private property to state owned.

 

[onpoint]

I believe that private landowners in MT still pay property taxes on the river bed in Montana.

I'll have to be pretty sure you are incorrect on this - pertaining to navigable streams - under which the state owns the substrate. Thus no private entity would pay property taxes on this substrate. Different story for non-navigable streams.

 

[Carnage2011]

I'll have to be pretty sure you are incorrect on this - pertaining to navigable streams - under which the state owns the substrate. Thus no private entity would pay property taxes on this substrate. Different story for non-navigable streams.

Hmm you may be right. I’ll look into this. The only reason I thought this was due to a conversation with a landowner regarding stream access. Hopefully someone on here has the answer to this.

 

[Straight Arrow]

The Federal Supreme Court said “that states held ownership of navigable river beds and that all new states would enter the Union under “equal footing” and would own the lands beneath the navigable streams, lakes, islands and accumulations of land formed in the beds of navigable streams up to the average water flow line.

'Not certain about the Gunnison River in Colorado, but I would bet it is classified as navigable. Even though property line extends to the middle of the river, the river bed belongs to the state already, thus no property loss. This info was found quickly and there is much more to be learned about the ownership of river beds and about the legal arguments which have time and again reinforced the legal validity of the Montana Stream Access Law.

 

[onpoint]

A good laymens' source of info
https://plwa.org/know-your-rights/stream-access-law/

 

[onpoint]

'Not certain about the Gunnison River in Colorado, but I would bet it is classified as navigable. Even though property line extends to the middle of the river, the river bed belongs to the state already, thus no property loss. This info was found quickly and there is much more to be learned about the ownership of river beds and about the legal arguments which have time and again reinforced the legal validity of the Montana Stream Access Law.

That's my understanding also, including CO, as ALL states (Federal Equal Footing Law). But as legal stuff is most often less than understood by us not well versed - wasn't @#)(# sure on this one.

 

[onpoint]

Hmm you may be right. I’ll look into this. The only reason I thought this was due to a conversation with a landowner regarding stream access. Hopefully someone on here has the answer to this.

"....conversation with a landowner regarding stream access". May not be your most reliable source......................

 

[Big Fin]

Reading the article, it seems that CO has never clarified the issue as to navigable streams and who owns certain property rights as it relates to navigable streams. If the court rules the state owns the riverbed, I doubt it will be considered a "takings" of property rights, as the decision would assert that the state has owned the riverbed since statehood. Hard to have a "takings" when it was your (the State's) property since statehood and others decided to sell that State property as though they owned it.

That sucks for people who paid value for these properties under the premise that they were buying something that the seller represented they owned and could sell; the riverbed. If the case is settled to say the riverbed is public, the seller(s) of these riverfront properties sold a right that was never his/hers to start with. That doesn't help the current owners who were the buyers, though it will solve the question of whose property right is was since statehood; the landowner's property right or the state's property right.

There were some lawsuits in Montana following clarification of the Montana Stream Access law. People who bought property claimed they were sold something that was not the seller's to sell. It was long ago and I am not sure how those cases turned out. Instances like this is why you purchase title insurance, or force the seller to provide you a title insurance policy, when you buy property; to have recourse in the event the title to your newly acquired property turns out to be defective, encumbered, or different than what was represented to you when you bought the property.

However it turns out, the guy quoted in the article is correct when he says that someone is going to be upset. Will be worth watching for sure.

 

[onpoint]

Barring somebody capitulating, I can foresee this easily making it to the CO Supreme Court. Might see a lot of Coloradan's showing up for something......
Cushman's for Stream Access..........

 

[marksjeep]

Glad you folks up north have it straightened out. I agree with Waygoner, this case has the potential to be a CF here.

The same principles of riverbed ownership currently apply in Wyoming, I believe. Drop anchor or touch bottom on the North Platte in the wrong place, get a ticket. Was it also navigable at the time of statehood?

 

[BuzzH]

This is one of those times that I hope the various public land and conservation groups step up to hire the best attorney money can buy to argue the case for stream access.

The things I heard from the landowners at the time it passed in Montana was really something. I own the streambed, my property values will decrease, I have to pick up garbage left by fishermen...all just a bunch of B.S. lies.

I also would expect this to go to the State Supreme court, and I would also guess if the lawyers are worth their salt, they will find in favor of stream access.

I don't feel sorry for anyone that bought property on a river thinking they would always have the right to keep people from wading and fishing the river bed and ordinary high water mark. The way rivers move across their floodplains there is no way you can draw an imaginary line and say you own half way across the channel. What if the channel migrates 10-15-50-100 feet? What if the channel completely changes and the river no longer touches your property at all?

Its ridiculous to claim you own something that changes continually over time.

I would bet good money that this issue will come out in favor of public access.

Hopefully the same thing happens in Wyoming.

 

[onpoint]

Hopefully the same thing happens in Wyoming.

Some old fart(s) will have to step up.......

 

[grizzly_]

If I buy a house next to a park and don't like that parents watching their kids play soccer can see me eat breakfast on my deck... I should build a fence, not expect people to leave the park.

 

[BuzzH]

Hopefully the same thing happens in Wyoming.

Some old fart(s) will have to step up.......

I have about 10 years to go...

 

[onpoint]

I have about 10 years to go...

Just a little over 2 here, looking forward to being a real pain in some certain asses. Or I could just never mind............

I like Roger Hill's style - “No one wants to press this. Well, I’m 76 now — and if not me, then who?”

 

[Hannibal]

This hits close to home and I have a problem with it. My wife and I built our dream home on the Gunnison river in 2001. We have about an acre and about 90ft of river frontage in our backyard. We put our life savings into this place and I built much of it myself. We built a patio next to the river with a fire pit and enjoy many evenings by the fire. If this passes, someone can wade right through our property while we're trying to enjoy some peace and solitude. Imagine if you were having a BBQ and some stranger walked through YOUR backyard? That's what this amounts to in our case.

I'm fine with the current legal opinion that allows floating access of navigable water, but touching the river bottom should remain off limits. If you want to fish, hop in a boat and float through.

Let's refer back to your initial post in this thread. The guise of property devaluation is in fact a pretext in your 'justification' for excluding Americans from river access.
And those Americans would certainly include veterans without whose sacrifice you would not have been able to enjoy your riverfront home's "peace and solitude". The river bed has little if any value for growing crops, grazing or other economic use. But to outdoor enthusiasts such as fishermen, kayakers, canoests and others it represents priceless value. Your viewpoint on this subject matter is clearly not that of mainstream America. As my lawyer once said, "the law is nothing more than prevailing attitude." Hopefully, that 'prevailing attitude' will prevail in the courts.

 

[tarheel]

This hits close to home and I have a problem with it. My wife and I built our dream home on the Gunnison river in 2001. We have about an acre and about 90ft of river frontage in our backyard. We put our life savings into this place and I built much of it myself. We built a patio next to the river with a fire pit and enjoy many evenings by the fire. If this passes, someone can wade right through our property while we're trying to enjoy some peace and solitude. Imagine if you were having a BBQ and some stranger walked through YOUR backyard? That's what this amounts to in our case.

I'm fine with the current legal opinion that allows floating access of navigable water, but touching the river bottom should remain off limits. If you want to fish, hop in a boat and float through.

Offer them a beer.

 

[waygoner]

I believe in MT, the state owns the river bed beneath navigable rivers. If in CO, landowners own the riverbed, then a change in the ownership of the substrate would constitute a property loss to the previous owners. Thus there would be a change in the value of the property. I'm thinking this to be correct. Somebody knowledgeable otherwise , please step in to right this if I'm wrong.

My realtor friend agrees with you.