Bump and update: From The Durango Herald (Joe Hanel):

In a 40-25 vote, the House approved a bill that allows licensed river outfitters to briefly touch the riverbanks and portage around obstacles when streams flow through private land. Republicans Ellen Roberts of Durango and Scott Tipton of Cortez voted no because of concerns the bill could violate private property rights…

Two Durango-based rafting companies applauded the decision Tuesday. “I have had problems with landowners and various things they do like stringing fences across the river,” said Stephen Saltsman, who with Robin Fritch owns Flexible Flyers Rafting Co. Saltsman, who is also a landowner along the Animas River, said he understands the property-rights arguments, but he doesn’t have a problem if someone needs to portage around an obstacle in the river…

Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, spoke for many bill opponents. “We can’t have it both ways. Either we understand the value of property rights, or we don’t,” Sonnenberg said.

Agricultural groups oppose HB 1188, and some predicted grave harm to Colorado ranchers. But all other Western states have greater rights for public use of rivers than Curry’s bill would establish, and agriculture is alive and well in those states, Curry said. “In fact, in Montana you can get out of the boat and wade-fish on private land,” Curry said.

From the Aspen Daily News (Brent Gardner-Smith):

“Today’s vote shows that 1188 is a bipartisan solution,” said Ben Davis, spokesman for the Colorado River Outfitters Association, who noted that the House Minority Leader, Republican Mike May, voted for the bill. “Everyone wants to see Colorado’s rivers stay open for business.”

But certainly not everyone thinks HB 10-1188 is a good idea. The bill has attracted the attention and opposition of private-property advocates, including the Colorado Farm Bureau and the Colorado Cattleman’s Association because it gives commercial rafting companies the right to portage across private land to avoid hazards in the river, such as a low bridge or a tree across the river. “It’s not about floating the river, it is about trespassing outside of the river,” Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, a Republican and a rancher, said on the House floor while urging a “no” vote on the bill.

The bill also gives commercial rafting companies the right to continue to run stretches of river that have been run the last two years on a commercial basis, and it prevents private landowners from blocking their passage down the river, as a landowner along the Taylor River near Gunnison has threatened to do this summer to two rafting companies. The bill requires that commercial rafting companies clearly number their boats so that property owners can identify individual boats if they feel there has been a problem. And it limits liability to landowners from boaters portaging over their land.

The bill is silent on the rights, or lack thereof, of private boaters passing private land…

But Rep. Christine Scanlan, a Democrat representing Eagle, Lake and Summit counties, said on the House floor Tuesday that “you do actually have a right to float in Colorado,” citing language in the state Constitution that “the water of every natural stream, not heretofore appropriated, within the state of Colorado, is hereby declared to be the property of the public …”

But Rep. Gardner said it was important to read the entire constitutional clause that Rep. Scanlan referred to, which is in a section on mining and irrigation rights. He said the Constitution deals with water rights and did not provide a right to float…

[State Representative Kathleen Curry] remarked on the House floor that she has heard from a lot of landowners “who’ve had bad experiences with commercial outfitters” and that she hoped “we can all be honorable and respectful of others.” She also said that there are broader rights to float, and wade, in other Western states such as Montana, Wyoming and Utah and that the agricultural industry in those states has not suffered because it gives boaters those rights. And Curry pointed out that the Supreme Court in People v. Emmert stated that “if the increasing demand for recreational space on the waters of this state is to be accommodated, the legislative process is the proper method to achieve this end.”

More coverage from The Crested Butte News (Seth Manning):

The bill, H.B.10-1188, passed through the subcommittee after three readings on a 7-3 vote and made it out of the House with 40 votes in favor and 25 votes against. Now it is up to the Senate, which hasn’t yet assigned the bill to a subcommittee, to turn Gunnison Rep. Kathleen Curry’s so called “Commercial Rafting Viability Act” into law…

The only stretches of river locally that have been used by outfitters historically and would be affected by the bill would be the Lake Fork from Lake City to Curecanti, the Taylor River from Lotus Creek to Almont and the Gunnison River from Gunnison to Blue Mesa Reservoir.

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Patrick Malone):

Sponsored by state Rep. Kathleen Curry, unaffiliated-Gunnison, HB1188 sparked debate over commercial rafters’ rights to travel public waterways and the rights of property owners. In the end, rafters won out, as the bill passed 40-25…

Opponents of the bill said it strips property owners to their right of exclusion. State Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, said allowing rafters portage is akin to setting aside circumstances that allow trespassing through one’s house, yard or car. “Once you allow government to start saying who can and cannot come on your property, that’s a very dangerous door,” Sonnenberg said…

The bill makes no provision for private rafters or others to float down the state’s rivers, and they are still subject to prosecution for trespassing.

More 2010 Colorado legislation coverage here.