Monday, October 16, 2006
Navigational Rights
Sara Lin of the Los Angeles Times has written an interesting story about navigational rights on waterways. Titled "Is Lake for Homeowners Only, or Everyone?" Angler Mark Balanos, was trying to fish in Canyon Lake this past August and was threatened with arrest by sheriff deputies after private security guards had told him that he was trespassing onto private lands. He left and now he is suing the homeowners association and the local water district since the reservoir is a publiciy owned waterway that should be opened to the general public. His attorney has cited the recent Carbon Beach situation in Malibu where beachgoers were sent away by private security guards that patrol the private homeowner's beach front properties.
No one owns the water, but in order to arrive and play on that water, one must touchdown onto private lands. And that's where the whole ball of wax begins. In California, navigational rights have already been decided several times and usually court decisions have decided on the side of the public; ie, easement rights to the ocean and river navigational rights. If you can get to the water without trespassing, then you have a right to be there. Or so the public thinks.
In the early 80's there was a rafting outfitter who started commercial rafting on the Merced River. The US Forest Service was and is the governing agency for permits on this whitewater rafting stretch. Without the US Forest Service permission, this outfitter decided to use only private lands to launch and take-out. In other words, no trespassing ever occured onto any US Forest Service lands. So why did the US government haul this rafting company into court and sue them successfully? Some say, that the rafting company had everything stacked against them. I mean, your'e trying to fight a lawsuit against the United States government. That's a pretty deep pocket of money, attorneys and researchers. The fight also left open the entire permitting system. If the court decided against the government; think of the Pandora's Box that would have opened. Every Tom, Dick and Harry could start a rafting company without insurance, without permits, without any restrictions or government interference. Sounds good? Not really. The permit system has helped legitimize our industry. It has also helped convince the general public that government agencies overseeing the health and benefit of the public could assure them of some degree of whitewater rafting safety.
Mr. Bolanos was also quoted as referring to white water rafting,""From what I'd read, from groups that do water rafting, all waters in California are supposed to be free to float on," he said.
"I didn't understand what made this place the exception."
That early 80's decision will be reviewed in this case. Or, will the courts decide in Mr. Bolanos' favor that he indeed had the right to navigate that lake.
No one owns the water, but in order to arrive and play on that water, one must touchdown onto private lands. And that's where the whole ball of wax begins. In California, navigational rights have already been decided several times and usually court decisions have decided on the side of the public; ie, easement rights to the ocean and river navigational rights. If you can get to the water without trespassing, then you have a right to be there. Or so the public thinks.
In the early 80's there was a rafting outfitter who started commercial rafting on the Merced River. The US Forest Service was and is the governing agency for permits on this whitewater rafting stretch. Without the US Forest Service permission, this outfitter decided to use only private lands to launch and take-out. In other words, no trespassing ever occured onto any US Forest Service lands. So why did the US government haul this rafting company into court and sue them successfully? Some say, that the rafting company had everything stacked against them. I mean, your'e trying to fight a lawsuit against the United States government. That's a pretty deep pocket of money, attorneys and researchers. The fight also left open the entire permitting system. If the court decided against the government; think of the Pandora's Box that would have opened. Every Tom, Dick and Harry could start a rafting company without insurance, without permits, without any restrictions or government interference. Sounds good? Not really. The permit system has helped legitimize our industry. It has also helped convince the general public that government agencies overseeing the health and benefit of the public could assure them of some degree of whitewater rafting safety.
Mr. Bolanos was also quoted as referring to white water rafting,""From what I'd read, from groups that do water rafting, all waters in California are supposed to be free to float on," he said.
"I didn't understand what made this place the exception."
That early 80's decision will be reviewed in this case. Or, will the courts decide in Mr. Bolanos' favor that he indeed had the right to navigate that lake.
Labels: american river, rafting, trips
# posted by W.E.T. River Trips - raftWET.com @ 12:39 PM 
