What Has Montana's Stream Access Law Meant To You?

[Nameless Range]

Montana’s Stream Access is popular here. Allusions at its attack, or outright attempts to erode it, fire folks up like little else. It’s interesting how things that don’t exist for a long time can come to fruition and become a core value to an entire demographic of recreationists. Things like access to State Lands, Stream Access, etc.

In 1984, the Montana Supreme Court, citing our constitution, found, “In sum, we hold that, under the public trust doctrine and the 1972 Montana Constitution, any surface waters that are capable of recreational use may be so used by the public without regard to streambed ownership or navigability for nonrecreational purposes.” From there, the 1985 legislature scrambled to put side boards and clarification up in the form of law. There were bad bills and a good bill competing with one another. The good bill made it through the house, was amended to something terrible in the senate, and then “unamended” back into something good. That good bill was a product of collaboration between agricultural groups and sportsmen, nontypical bedfellows.

https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1434&context=plrlr

38 years ago, HB 265, our first stream access law, was brought forth by Representatives Bob Ream (D), and Bob Marks (R). Bob Ream passed away in 2017, and two days ago, Bob Marks followed. The latter Bob was a friend, and I soaked up all the history and perspective he would share with me. Stories and wisdom. Montana is different today than it was in 1985, as are its politicians, but I really do think it speaks to something that the configuration of Montana’s most popular access law – its strength being an envy of others who don’t have it - came from people working together outside of their political parties, and came from collaboration between groups that typically are at odds.

For me, Stream Access in between the high water marks has been:

Duck days with my dog on the river.




Jacked up 7 year olds.




Kids hollering and jumping and feeling the life that comes from snowmelt in August.




Floating from one access to another, never worrying about standing on the streambed, or having lunch on shore. In fact, just not worrying at all.



And quite a bit more.

What (vaguely of course), has stream access in Montana given you? What stories has it added to your life?

 

[406dn]

The stream access law is a CORNERSTONE to everyone wanting to enjoy the natural world in Montana.

I do not fish, like I did, before crossing paths with horses, but stream access is a core value, that has almost universal favor with Montanans.

Hopefully that core value, over a span of time, help influence access to other public lands.

Beautiful photos, by the way.

 

[mtnkid85]

Count me amongst those who've taken it for granted. Our SAL is a year older than I am and was implemented 7 years before I even lived in Montana.
But I grew up knowing that we could always blow off a hot summer afternoon by going down to the river and floating from put in to put in. As the youngest of three brothers, I spent many evenings trying to keep up with my big brothers as we rock hopped for miles up and down the stream beds, only turning around when I would inevitably fall in.

As Ive aged, Ive tended to spend less time down on rivers and streams but I can now recognize the tremendous value that easy access had on my early development with nature. It doesn't matter any from what back ground you arrive at the stream from, but when you get there, our stream access law guarantees that you will have a place on the water.

As pressure to access our public resources ratchets up, that value is only going to increase. Land that was "left behind" because it was undesirable in the late 1800- early 1900s is now exploding in importance. Recreationalist of all stripes are discovering how valuable our public assets are and being able to access them will be our next stream access law.

 

[Southern Elk]

If you ever want to know how good we have it in MT, go fish Colorado. I have a friend who lives down there and I've fished with him several times. When we float we can't touch bottom on private land, because the landowner owns the stream bed. That means no pulling over to the bank, no getting out of the boat to wade, and no dropping an anchor. Add to that landowners stringing barbwire across rivers. When you are wading you can only fish public. There's no such thing as staying within the high water mark and wading through private. We are lucky here in MT and we need to fight to keep what we have.

 

[MTelkHuntress]

I spent a summer working in Colorado and I couldn't believe the awesome stream access that we have in Montana wasn't the norm in other states. We are very very lucky and attacks on our stream access are fought tooth and nail, and rightly so.
I grew up mostly fishing creeks instead of the rivers but it was always an exciting time of year. It's a special feeling to be walking up a small creek and just being present in the moment. Observing the changing waters and just taking a break to appreciate nature. Watching little fish swim by and seeing little bugs get swallowed up.

In the summers, my friends and I would ride our bikes down to the river and enjoy the swimming holes.
This summer I took my pup to the river to get him some swim practice. I didn't know it at the time but the new landowner behind where we were had been harassing folks that were exercising their legal stream access. It's a shame to hear but I'm glad we could still enjoy the river.



The afterwork fishing spot.

 

[Bambistew]

I remember going to another state when I was about 19-20 and finding out that I couldn't access streams the same way we did in MT. I was so naïve to think it was just the way it was everywhere.

 

[Nameless Range]

There's such an interesting history there. The Supreme Court ruled as they did in 1984, but the access we see today is not necessarily guaranteed by their decision. It took a bill that utilized "the high water mark", to really codify and maybe arguably expand upon what the Court had ruled.

This link is pretty fascinating, and has some of the statements and positions in support or opposition.

https://courts.mt.gov/External/leg/1985/house/03-26-hjud.pdf

Trout Unlimited was active in supporting HB265 back then, and other groups who I don't think exist anymore seemed to be too.





Also, there were opponents. Those who viewed Stream Access as a "non-constitutional anti-landowner epistle".

 

[cedahm]

If you ever want to know how good we have it in MT, go fish Colorado. I have a friend who lives down there and I've fished with him several times. When we float we can't touch bottom on private land, because the landowner owns the stream bed. That means no pulling over to the bank, no getting out of the boat to wade, and no dropping an anchor. Add to that landowners stringing barbwire across rivers. When you are wading you can only fish public.

Technically, you are trespassing when your fly/weight/lure touches the bottom or snags on a rock down here.

I spent a summer working in Colorado and I couldn't believe the awesome stream access that we have in Montana wasn't the norm in other states. We are very very lucky and attacks on our stream access are fought tooth and nail, and rightly so.

Many MT friends have had similar stories. It's really unfortunate. While there are certainly issues of scale of use (given our vastly larger population and thus, recreation-user days), and portions of our more popular waterways where public access to the high water marks would be likely bring about substantial conflict with landowners, these scenarios could be managed individually rather than with a blanket approach.

My BIL's great-uncle (and @squirrel old neighbor) was the landmark case in CO. He was a cool dude, but F him on this particular issue (https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/1979/28235.html)

 

[Flynarrow]

Thanks for reminding us what we have and could lose without constant vigilance. It would be interesting to see how much economic benefit Montana's stream access provides Montana. Sure the traveling fisherman or floater brings in a lot of money, but perhaps even bigger is that stream access is the attraction that causes people to bring or keep their business in Montana. Or just to keep our citizenry engaged....and therefore protective...of our outdoors.

But also it must be kept in mind there will always be those who would treasure their private Montana stream or ranch without stream access. Surely the ranches along the Beaverhead or Boulder or Stillwater would increase signficantly in value if some billionaire could buy it for their exclusive stream access. Scary and due diligence is warrented.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Thanks for reminding us what we have and could lose without constant vigilance. It would be interesting to see how much economic benefit Montana's stream access provides Montana. Sure the traveling fisherman or floater brings in a lot of money, but perhaps even bigger is that stream access is the attraction that causes people to bring or keep their business in Montana. Or just to keep our citizenry engaged....and therefore protective...of our outdoors.

But also it must be kept in mind there will always be those who would treasure their private Montana stream or ranch without stream access. Surely the ranches along the Beaverhead or Boulder or Stillwater would increase signficantly in value if some billionaire could buy it for their exclusive stream access. Scary and due diligence is warrented.

Merely research the issues which ensued for many years on the Ruby River in SW Montana. A very wealthy landowner likely spent millions trying to lock up a stretch of that river for his own commercial and personal use. The strength of Montana's stream access law is clearly illustrated by this arrogant self-centered person losing time, money, reputation, and many legal battles. The solid wins at even the highest judicial level have continued to strengthen this law. Hopefully no more uber-wealthy a$$hats will attempt to challenge it.
But the greed and self-centered attitudes of many new landowners in Montana continues to astound.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Fishing in Montana is a $900 million industry.

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/aboutfwp/legislature/fisheries-division-overview.pdf

The number of NR fishing licenses sold is over that of residents. They're not coming here for the planted trout, they're coming here for the stream access and quality of the fishery.


But the stream access law is partially responsible for my inability to drink anymore. Damned stream access bills.

 

[SAJ-99]

There's such an interesting history there. The Supreme Court ruled as they did in 1984, but the access we see today is not necessarily guaranteed by their decision. It took a bill that utilized "the high water mark", to really codify and maybe arguably expand upon what the Court had ruled.

This link is pretty fascinating, and has some of the statements and positions in support or opposition.

https://courts.mt.gov/External/leg/1985/house/03-26-hjud.pdf

Trout Unlimited was active in supporting HB265 back then, and other groups who I don't think exist anymore seemed to be too.

View attachment 271658

View attachment 271659

Also, there were opponents. Those who viewed Stream Access as a "non-constitutional anti-landowner epistle".

View attachment 271660

High-water mark is used almost everywhere. East of the Mississippi it is used to define a navigable waterway. (I want to say “everywhere” but can’t say with confidence. I believe the term is used by ACOE). I’m not surprised by the use of that term. MT access is really about taking that term applied to a navigable water and extending the rules to the smaller streams. It is one thing MT has done right and led to a lot of benefits for the state. And, of course, someone tries to get rid of it every legislative session. That’s the sad part.

 

[wyoelkfan15]

As your neighbor to the south in WY I can't express how much I appreciate Montana's stream access law. We try and make at least one float trip in Montana every year.

I'm not sure the law could be implemented based on differences in how our State constitution is written, however, one can hope it could be changed.

Does anyone have any ideas on how this law could be implemented in a State like WY?

 

[DP_PublicLands]

One of the non profits involved in getting this legislation passed is the Public Land Water Access Association. They are still around, and if you aren't a member, you should be. They've done amazing work even in the last few years fighting to keep private gates off of public roads and fences from stopping people using bridges as access points to rivers and streams. www.plwa.org

As your neighbor to the south in WY I can't express how much I appreciate Montana's stream access law. We try and make at least one float trip in Montana every year.

I'm not sure the law could be implemented based on differences in how our State constitution is written, however, one can hope it could be changed.

Does anyone have any ideas on how this law could be implemented in a State like WY?