This essay was first published in the 2010 edition of Voices and uses MLA documentation.

AS THE COLD WATER RUSHED PASSED MY LEGS, I took a moment to enjoy the beautiful scenery around me. A forest of tall pine trees lined the river banks with a mountainous backdrop cascading above the tree line.  Suddenly, a fish jumped out of the water and took my fly. I set the hook, and the fight was on. As I reeled the fish in closer, I caught a glimpse of a beautiful rainbow trout. As soon as he saw me, he took off again, pulling much of my line out with him. After a couple more rounds of this, he finally gave up and allowed me to net him. His rainbow-colored strip sparkled in the sunlight as I held him in my hands. I removed the hook from his mouth, made sure he would survive, and released him back into the river. Every summer, from the time I turned 12 years old, I have been able to make more memories such as the one described above. Future memories similar to this one are now being threatened by a new Utah Bill that restricts access to 2,000 miles of Utah’s rivers (Dougherty).

Utah citizens should be able to access public waters and create memories such as the one described above. Utah law grants ownership of all-natural waterways to the public, though there has been much disagreement as to what kind of access the public should be given to waterways that run through private property. In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled in J.J.N.P. Co. v. State that the public has “the right to float leisure craft, hunt, fish, and participate in any lawful activity when utilizing that water” (Supreme Court of Utah). While most agreed that this decision gave the public access to the river when in a raft or boat, there was still some disagreement as to whether the public could wade a river or touch any part of the riverbed. In June of 2000, a group of people floated down the Weber River in a rubber raft. In the process of floating the river, they floated through private property in which the raft, the oars of the raft, and a few of the group members all touched the streambed at some point. The owners of this land, the Johnsons, tried to order those fishing, the Conatsers, off the river. The Conatsers refused and were cited for trespassing. This led to the 2008 Utah Supreme Court decision, Conatser v. Johnson, in which the justices clarified the earlier J.J.N.P. Co. v. State ruling by stating that to “utilize” the water included floating, wading, and walking in the river bed up to the high-water mark. This ruling caused the Utah Senate and the House to write bills to modify the law, in which House Bill 141 was approved by both houses and signed by Governor Gary Herbert in early 2010. HB 141 makes it illegal for any person to touch any part of the riverbed on private property for any recreational purposes. It also disallows floating on rivers that an individual can’t prove as “navigable” (State of Utah).

For those who have not yet discovered the great sport of fly-fishing or the joys of river rafting, know that this law affects you also. While it may take away a right that you aren’t concerned with, I will discuss many ways in which bills such as this one can affect even those who aren’t directly involved. Its effects will come in indirect ways, such as threatening a struggling economy and possibly causing the beginning of many laws that give a few wealthy people more rights while taking rights away from the average Utah citizen.

It seems to me that everyone should have equal rights to enjoy every aspect of this beautiful state we live in. We have grand mountains, red rock deserts, crystal clear lakes, green forests, and many other natural wonders in our state that all belong to the public. All of these places allow people to make many great memories while enjoying the awesome landscape of Utah. What if the state were to give landowners the right to cut off access to roads that led to the arches or to Bear Lake? While I’m not implying that this is where HB 141 will lead, this comparison does illustrate that it would be unfair to deprive the citizens of Utah access to such amazing things, and it also is unfair that anglers are denied access to some of Utah’s most beautiful rivers.

According to the Supreme Court’s decision of 2008, original Utah law gave the people of Utah the right to stand in a streambed on private property and enjoy the opportunities the river gives us to be in the outdoors. HB 141 would negate this decision. State lawmakers should not be able to overrule a Utah Supreme Court decision by writing a new law. As I reflected on this thought, I started to wonder why our lawmakers would be so quick to pass such a law. Through my research, I have realized that our senators, house members, and governor probably had more personal reasons for passing such a bill. Steve Ault, an owner of private property on the banks of the Provo River, was one of the people who testified in favor of the bill (O’Donoghue). He also happens to be Governor Herbert’s brother-in-law. This familial connection has to make one wonder about the real motivation behind putting a law into place that is so unpopular with outdoor enthusiasts and others. There is a possibility, in order to please private landowners, that lawmakers are making personal rather than public decisions

Two major factors support this idea. First, if our lawmakers were worried about the good of Utah then they would have realized the effect that a bill such as HB 141 will have on Utah’s economy. Outdoor businesses in Utah currently provide more than 65,000 local jobs and account for $7 billion in annual revenue (Hargrave). Also, the fishing industry alone is worth $700 million (Hugelmeyer). Frank Hugelmeyer explains, “The governor’s action is a disservice to an outdoor business community still struggling to recover from the recession and will discourage new businesses from locating in the state, thus hurting Utah’s overall economy and tax base” (Hugelmeyer). There is little doubt that this new bill will adversely affect the sales for Utah’s outdoor businesses. Again, this shows the possibility that lawmakers are making personal rather than public decisions in order to please private landowners.

The other factor to consider is the speed and secretiveness involved in the passage of this bill. A bill that should have taken months or even years to study, write, and pass was moved quickly from step to step with little thought given to the adverse effects the bill might have.  According to Ray Grass, HB 141 was drafted in secrecy, then was reviewed and passed in a short three hours. He said, “Such bills are circulated through the water community, then go through an interim study for a year or two, and then legislation is carefully written to include compromises,” suggesting that HB 141 did not follow standard procedure (Grass). At the time HB 141 was being written, another bill, HB 80, was also being written. HB 80 was a bill that contained many compromises and could have satisfied both private property owners and recreationists. However, the Utah Farm Bureau refused to accept HB 80 due to minor disagreements and the bill was stalled just long enough to pass HB 141, making HB 80 obsolete. Again, had our lawmakers been interested in the good of Utah, they would have accepted a bill that was a good compromise between no access rights and full access rights to rivers on private land.

The main supporters of HB 141 are private landowners. Therefore, they are the main oppositional group to my argument that all public waterways should be accessible to the public. Governor Gary Herbert said of the bill, “I am signing HB 141 because we need to begin the process of addressing the unfortunate gulf between outdoor recreationists and private property owners. I recognize the potential conflict between private property rights and the right of public access to Utah’s waterways” (qtd. in O’Donoghue).  The main and strongest argument from private landowners is the private property rights guaranteed them by the Utah constitution. Any Utah citizen has the right to own land and choose whom to allow on the land. While I agree that a landowner should not be told who can and cannot be on their land, the river does not belong to the landowner. As quoted above, Utah waterways belong to the public. They are maintained and fixed with taxpayers’ money. If there is a poison or disease in the river that is killing plant and animal life, the taxpayers pay for the damages. Because I am a taxpayer and my money is going towards the conservation of Utah’s waterways, I should be able to access those waterways for any legal recreation. Nobody would stand for having to pay for a timeshare without being allowed to use it, and we shouldn’t have to pay taxes to maintain rivers that we are not allowed access to.

Next, landowners argue that allowing the public to access rivers that run through their land causes problems with litter. In this situation, I am on the landowner’s side. If I owned land on one of the beautiful rivers in this state, it would really upset me to see careless people littering. However, a law is already in place that prohibits littering. Utah code 76-10-2701 states, “[A] person may not throw, deposit, or discard, or permit to be dropped,  thrown, deposited or discarded on any park, recreation area, or other public  or private land, or waterway, any glass bottle, glass, nails, tacks, wire, cans, barbed wire, boards, trash or garbage, paper or paper products, or any other  substance which would or could mar or impair the scenic aspect or beauty of  the land in the state” (Utah State Legislature). This law is punishable by a fine or even jail time. Therefore, it is not necessary to have a second law in place that disallows the public to access state waterways to prevent littering. If landowners catch someone littering their land, then they can call the police and have them arrested or fined for littering.

The last complaint from landowners is that when people walk over their land, it can damage the beauty of the land, leaving trails and killing plants. Along with this, the peace that a landowner gets from being alone on their land can be disrupted when the public is walking across it. Once again, I completely understand why a landowner would feel this way. If I owned land, I would put much of my time and resources into keeping it beautiful so that I could have a place where I could be detached from the world without being bothered by others. Yet again, another law protects landowners in these instances. Before HB 141, sportsmen could access the river either by floating or wading. This right to access the river did not include crossing any part of private land unless one was in the river. As a fisherman, I would not need to set foot anywhere on private land other than in the river bed itself. If I had crossed the high-water mark by just one inch, I could have been cited for trespassing. Wading or floating a river does not create trails, kill plants, or otherwise disfigure the terrestrial environment. Also, the invasion of privacy is minimal with regards to the river because the river is usually loud enough to block out any noise that a fisherman might make, and fisherman aim to be as quiet as possible for fishing purposes.

As a teenager, fishing provided me with many hours of entertainment. I could have been doing many other things with my time. Amongst these activities are things that could have gotten me in trouble. By occupying my time with fishing, I had less time to be doing illegal things. Like other teenagers, I had very little money. Without money, there is very little I could do to keep myself entertained. Fishing cost me a total of $24 for a full year, which was the cost of a fishing license. This is one of the cheapest wholesome activities I could have been involved in. One newsletter tells of a study done at the University of North Carolina, which found that “teens who take part in a wide range of physical activities, particularly with their parents or at community recreation centers, are at less risk for engaging in sex, substance use, violence and delinquency than their sedentary peers who spend more time watching television or videos” (“Physical Activity and Risky Behavior”). It also goes on to say that involved teens usually don’t have as many problems with low self-esteem and that they tend to get better grades. Fly-fishing is one such activity that might help teens to stay active. With less access to the river, I would have had a lot more time on my hands to be doing other things, some of which may not have been considered good activities.

Waterways are maintained by taxpayers, they are a good source of entertainment that keep us out of trouble, and by original Utah law are owned by the public. Also, the outdoor industry is a big part of Utah’s economy and will certainly be negatively impacted by HB 141. It is a bill that affects all of Utah, not just anglers and rafters. Access to rivers should not be restricted because of a few wealthy landowners who would deny the public from enjoying a day fishing on the river. It is important that we let our senators and governor know through letters and petitions that we are do not support this law and that we want access to our beautiful waterways returned to us.

Works Cited

Dougherty, Joseph. “Task Force Mulls Stream Access for Anglers, How to Fund.” Deseret News, Deseret News Publishing Co, 25 June 2010. Accessed 05 Oct. 2010.

Grass, Ray. “Landowners Get a Victory in Fight Over Water Access.” Deseret News, Deseret News Publishing Co, 15 Apr. 2010. Accessed 05 Oct. 2010.

Hargrave, Jared. “River Access Limited after Governor Herbert Sins HB 141 into Law.” Salt Lake City Outdoor Recreation Examiner, Clarity Media Group, 31 March 2010. Accessed 05 Oct. 2010.

Hugelmeyer, Frank. “Utah Set to Halve River Access.” The Fly Fishing Forum, Fish and Fly Ltd, 26 March 2010. Accessed 05 Oct. 2010.

O’Donoghue, Amy Joi. “Gov. Herbert Signs Bill Restricting Access to Streams on Private Property.” Deseret News, Deseret News Publishing Co, 1 Apr. 2010. Accessed 05 Oct. 2010.

Parker, Randy. “Balance Property Rights, Recreation.” Deseret News, Deseret News Publishing Co, 10 Mar. 2010. Accessed 05 Oct. 2010.

“Physical Activity and Risky Behavior in Teens.” The Brown University Child and Adolescent Behavior Letter, Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., June 2006. Accessed 05 Oct. 2010.

State of Utah. “H.B. 141. Recreational Use of Public Water on Private Property.” 2010 General Session. Accessed 05 Oct. 2010.

Supreme Court of Utah. Conatser v. Johnson, 18 July 2008. Accessed 05 Oct. 2010.

Utah State Legislature. “Utah Code 76-10-2701.” 2008. Accessed 03 Nov. 2010.