From The Durango Herald (Joe Hanel):
Only a last-second decision by Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Westminster, kept the bill alive. “I was undecided until the very last second. I’m not kidding you,” Hudak told reporters moments after the vote on House Bill 1188. The bill has pitted rafting companies against private property owners in a legal entanglement that is more than three decades old. The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 4-3 for HB 1188. It now goes to the full Senate…
Hudak said she remains very concerned that the bill could hurt private property rights. She voted yes only because she thinks the public believes people have a right to float. “This bill is a bad bill, but to kill it is probably bad as well,” Hudak said.
Testimony stretched for more than seven hours, much of it from ranchers and other landowners who argued the bill took away their property rights. Opposition also came from lawyers for a Gunnison developer who is blocking rafting companies from floating a river through his property. Mike Feeley, who represented the developer, said there is no such thing as a “right to float.”[…]
Colorado’s boating law is clear as mud. The constitution specifies that the waters of the state belong to the people. A state Supreme Court case in 1979 found a man guilty of trespassing for treading on the riverbed. In the same decision, the court encouraged the Legislature to clarify the law – something it has not done. The House already has passed HB 1188 in a much different form. Originally, it extended rights only to commercial rafting companies.
Major changes to the bill Monday night were:
– Removing references to English Common Law on the right to navigate rivers.
– Removing the right to portage around obstacles.
– Expanding the scope of the bill to any river that has been floated by a commercial company at any time since 2000.
– Including private boaters among the people with a right to float.
A University of Colorado law professor and several of his students spoke for the rights of private boaters. But the professor, Mark Squillace, wasn’t satisfied with Monday’s changes because the bill does not fully recognize a constitutional right to use the rivers. Colorado has one of the country’s most restrictive floating laws, Squillace said. “Private property rights are alive and well in many other states that recognize broad rights of access – Utah, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico,” he said.
More coverage from The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Charles Ashby):
The measure cleared the Colorado House last month almost entirely on a 40-25 party-line vote, with Democrats arguing that rafters have a right to float, while Republicans said it violated the property rights of local landowners. On a similar party-line vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee sided 4-3 with the floaters’ argument, saying the bill struck a good balance between the two. As a result, some long-establish rafting companies along the Taylor River in Gunnison County said the bill could help keep them from being forced out of business…
Lori Potter, an attorney for the Colorado River Outfitters’ Association, said 42 other states have right-to-float laws, all broader than this bill. “Many (other states) allow fishing, many allow stream access for fishing, some allow hunting,” Potter said. “(HB) 1188 is much more limited … and still ensures that these two rights, the rights of the boater and the rights of the landowner, could still exist.”
More coverage from The Pulse- of Colorado Farm Bureau (Garin Vorthmann):
Amendment language was added to the bill that broadened the bill to include all boaters, not just commercial outfitters. The amendment also expanded the bill to affect more waterways – those that have been commercially ran at least once between the years 2000-2009. Controversial language regarding portaging was removed from the bill but boaters will now be able to get away with incidental touch in order to continue to have forward progress on the river. The right-to-float was also codified in the bill with the new amendment language. The bill was passed 4-3 with Senators Renfroe, King and Lundberg voting in opposition. Colorado Farm Bureau continues to OPPOSE HB 1188 as amended…
Testimony that was given by CFB members was extremely helpful in highlighting the problems with the proposal. Without your help, the bill would have likely passed by a much greater margin.
More coverage from The Denver Post (Jessica Fender):
Kayakers, anglers and all variety of private and commercial boaters could gain the right to float through private land after a state Senate committee on Monday overhauled a bill that has pitted property owners against outdoor enthusiasts. The last-minute amendment addressed a concern of Front Range Democrats, whose constituents’ biggest complaints have been that the original version of House Bill 1188 unfairly applied to commercial outfitters only. But the sweeping changes may have lost the legislation some Republican support in the House. In the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, the revised proposal passed on a 4-3 party-line vote after more than seven hours of debate.
Landowners argued it will be too easy for a stretch of river to be open to public traffic and predicted a deluge of new boaters damaging their property, their river improvements and the businesses they run along Colorado’s waterways. Rafters and other users said that without the legislation, property owners could close off a stretch of river by buying both banks. That could jeopardize the industry and enjoyment of boaters elsewhere, said Jack Bombardier, a landowner and river guide. “This says you can’t be sued and eliminated,” Bombardier said. “That’s all that we’re hoping. The bill will stop the lawsuits, stop the controversy.”
Under the amended HB 1188, river users would not be able to touch the bottom or banks, except to free themselves from snags or to bypass bridges and other obstacles spanning the water. And as amended, any stretch of river that was commercially rafted at least once between 2000 and 2009 would be affected. Bill backers were unclear on whether a state agency or courts through civil lawsuits would ultimately decide which sections qualify…
At one point, Democratic Sen. Linda Newell of Littleton seemed to agree that the complex legal matter deserved a more in-depth look. “What’s working now is fine. It’s my understanding we’re here because of one landowner,” she said during committee. “Why are we creating a law (because of) one landowner?”
More HB 10-1188 coverage here. More 2010 Colorado legislation coverage here.