"Navigable waters" access through private land

[fort fireman]

Maybe I'm a bit niave but why don't you talk to the land owner. Tell him the situation and see where he stands on it. He may give permission and then it's all good. Maybe I'm just over optimistic.

 

[xziang]

State v.Superior Court (Lyon) (1981) 29 Cal.3d 210, 226-233 [625 P.2d 239, 172 Cal.Rptr. 696], cert. denied, 454 U.S. 865). The public clearly has the right touse the bed of a waterway navigable under State standards to its high mark even at times of low water. The permissible range of public uses is broaderthan navigation, commerce, and fishing from the water and includes the right to hunt, bathe or swim from the shore below the mean high water mark.The public’s rights are not confined to the waters alone. Lyon, at 229-230.

As others have said each state is different. Above is how Iowa handles the MO river in that you can hunt ANYWHERE up to the high water mark. Nebraska you can not do that for the landowner owns it and when you or your anchor touch ground technically you are trespassing.

Navigable water may also be a creek 1 foot wide; example there was a road project that was on hold for over 1 year because it crossed a creek which the DNR deemed or had deemed it a navigable water way.

Please report with your final findings though!

 

[FreeRange]

Maybe I'm a bit niave but why don't you talk to the land owner. Tell him the situation and see where he stands on it. He may give permission and then it's all good. Maybe I'm just over optimistic.

The landowner is a multi billion dollar corporation who very very ironically I have a business relationship with but no channel of communication to the ownership, asking for such info would compromise people I know who work for them and I wouldn't want to do that. If it wasn't for that situation I would probably try but I don't want to put anyone in an awkward situation They are aggressively limiting any public access on what many argue was a publicly accessible road for decades. I know asking them would lead nowhere as giving any access might be seen as a chip in the wall they're trying to construct. I was more hoping to find if such a precedent could be set because in this part of the state there is a lot of landlocked public land that would be great to be able to access.

 

[Flashmo]

They are aggressively limiting any public access on what many argue was a publicly accessible road for decades. I know asking them would lead nowhere as giving any access might be seen as a chip in the wall they're trying to construct. I was more hoping to find if such a precedent could be set because in this part of the state there is a lot of landlocked public land that would be great to be able to access

Trespass on the road to the public property. Take the ticket if issued. Go to court. Defense is that there is a prescriptive easement, or sue for the easement beforehand (class action).

A good real estate attorney who hunts or fishes would help a lot.

 

[twall13]

Trespass on the road to the public property. Take the ticket if issued. Go to court. Defense is that there is a prescriptive easement, or sue for the easement beforehand (class action).

A good real estate attorney who hunts or fishes would help a lot.

If the road has been used by the public for many years you probably have a really good case for a prescriptive use easement. It's a bit of legal work but may be worth the fight.

 

[FreeRange]

That fight is already being fought by a few access groups and they're continually losing ground, the gates keep getting put up further and further from the NF land.

 

[Ohio Darin]

California law states land below ordinary high-water mark is State land. You could walk the dry creek bed and be in compliance. This is civil law so I would contact law enforcement for questions rather than the game warden.

CIVIL CODE - CIV
DIVISION 2. PROPERTY [654 - 1422] ( Heading of Division 2 amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 160, Sec. 13. )
PART 1. PROPERTY IN GENERAL [654 - 749] ( Part 1 enacted 1872. )
TITLE 2. OWNERSHIP [669 - 742] ( Title 2 enacted 1872. )

CHAPTER 1. Owners [669 - [671.]] ( Chapter 1 enacted 1872. )

[670.]
Section Six Hundred and Seventy. The State is the owner of all land below tide water, and below ordinary high-water mark, bordering upon tide water within the State; of all land below the water of a navigable lake or stream; of all property lawfully appropriated by it to its own use; of all property dedicated to the State; and of all property of which there is no other owner.
(Amended by Code Amendments 1873-74, Ch. 612.)

 

[flyinsquirel]

FreeRange - Did you ever figure out if this water way is recognized as navigable by the State of CA?

 

[FreeRange]

It's not listed on the one list I found, which is actually a very short list. I worked out access with a neighboring land owner I think, was blown away by how kind and generous he was. Out of respect for him I don't think I'll use the strembed approach though it would save me 50% of the walking I'll still be doing, but accessing through his property saves me 75% of the hiking I'd have to do otherwise and cuts out a lot of nasty bushwacking. I vaugely hinted at using the streambed as an access and he was 100% under the impression that the streambed is his property, which I know is wrong because this streambed is the one you can float easily and this owner has floated it himself in the past. Out of respect for him I won't revert to such subversive tactics, I'm honestly pretty blown away that in this state someone is willing to grant access. My experience trying such has been very bad here in CA and but great in other states.

 

[FreeRange]

California law states land below ordinary high-water mark is State land. You could walk the dry creek bed and be in compliance. This is civil law so I would contact law enforcement for questions rather than the game warden.

CIVIL CODE - CIV
DIVISION 2. PROPERTY [654 - 1422] ( Heading of Division 2 amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 160, Sec. 13. )
PART 1. PROPERTY IN GENERAL [654 - 749] ( Part 1 enacted 1872. )
TITLE 2. OWNERSHIP [669 - 742] ( Title 2 enacted 1872. )

CHAPTER 1. Owners [669 - [671.]] ( Chapter 1 enacted 1872. )

[670.]
Section Six Hundred and Seventy. The State is the owner of all land below tide water, and below ordinary high-water mark, bordering upon tide water within the State; of all land below the water of a navigable lake or stream; of all property lawfully appropriated by it to its own use; of all property dedicated to the State; and of all property of which there is no other owner.
(Amended by Code Amendments 1873-74, Ch. 612.)

Thanks a lot Darin. The gray area that remains here is the definition of "navigable" I'd think. At least in this state it's pretty clear where our rights lie once a waterway has been deemed navigable.

As I mentioned in my above post, I won't be pursuing this approach for now thanks to the generosity of a neighboring landowner. But I think this type of information is super important to know and can only help us establish further precedents to fight restriction of public access when we're continually losing more than we gain year to year.

 

[flyinsquirel]

The term 'navigable' is really more of a designation in this instance.

Here's a link to the Army Corps website where you can find out what waterways are designated navigable.
Access Denied
This link ^^ works. Not sure why it says 'Access Denied'.

Here's a link to the CA State Lands Commission with information on ownership of the bed of the waterway. Basically, if it's not navigable, the adjacent landowners own to the middle of the waterway.
Water Boundaries

I have no idea on how, or if it's possible to get a waterway designated, that is not already designated. I would guess that it's more trouble than it's worth.