Click the link to read the article on the Summit Daily website (Robert Tann). Here’s an excerpt:
May 19, 2026
Lawmakers decided against introducing a “right to float” bill this legislative session, despite a push by river advocates
Last summer, a group of Colorado legislators hopped aboard several rafts with river guides and conservationists to float a mellow section of the Colorado River south of Kremmling. The trip was organized by a coalition of outdoor recreation advocates, who’d hoped to persuade lawmakers to once again wade into the issue of stream access and what rights the public has when recreating in rivers that run through private property. But over the course of Colorado’s 120-day legislative session, no such bill was introduced. A compromise between recreationists and landowner groups, which lawmakers had been seeking, never materialized…River rafters have been pushing for legislation that would provide immunity from trespassing for floaters who touch the privately-owned riverbeds and banks to help with navigation. They hoped the proposal could provide a tailored solution and avoid the longstanding fight over whether river beds should remain private property or be publicly owned…Landowner groups remained resistant to any legislative approach, which they say would only breed conflict. They would prefer to see river access issues continue to be resolved the way they’ve long been, with agreements made between landowners and river users…
Heading into this year’s legislative session, supporters of public river access advocates were again at odds over what kind of policy they should push for. Not long after organizing lawmakers’ river trip last summer, the stream access coalition, made up of several outfitting and conservation groups, split into two camps. One was focused on the right to wade in rivers, primarily driven by anglers, while the other was concentrated on the right to float. It was the latter group, which dubbed itself the River Recreation Alliance, that ultimately pursued legislation this year…A right to wade bill would have meant taking on private property ownership of river beds. A study published last year by the free-market think tank Common Sense Institute warned that the state, should lawmakers go that route, would be at risk of violating the takings clause of the Colorado Constitution, which prohibits the government from taking or damaging private property without compensation. Johnson believes legislation focused instead on floating would minimize those risks, since it would not strip land from property owners. Her coalition’s proposal also would have allowed rafters to touch the bed and banks of rivers only for safety reasons, such as scouting, portage and to avoid obstacles, according to a one-page memo Johnson shared. Walking, wading, anchoring or wade fishing would not be protected under the proposal, which also would have provided liability for landowners when accidents or injuries occurred in the river.