Muddy waters…

It’s a recurring debate in this valley, in Colorado, and in the West in general. Public benefit vs. private property rights. Rich vs. less rich. One recreational user vs. another. Once again we have a situation that pits two sides in a heated issue. This time, it’s whether rafters should be able to float through private property.
Look, we all appreciate the second homeowners and wealthy visitors who come to the area to recreate. Whether through taxes, private charitable contributions, “real world” knowledge or their smiling faces, most bring significant additions to the valley.
But every once in a while you get the one who wants to change it all and change it fast. This appears the case of a wealthy Texas company that bought a gorgeous ranch up by Jack’s Cabin cutoff and wants to develop a nice private fishing club and real estate community. It’s not the first time that would happen around here. But the company also wants to essentially close off the portion of the river that runs through the property. They want to close it off to both commercial rafters that have been boating that stretch of the Taylor River for decades and to private boaters.
Oops. Time to get the politicians involved.
The Colorado House Judiciary Committee voted Monday night in favor of Representative Kathleen Curry’s bill that seeks to clarify that commercial rafting companies in Colorado have the right to float freely through private lands, and if necessary, to portage on private land around obstacles in a river.

Basically, as it currently stands under Colorado law, you can use the water in the state’s rivers but the legal waters get muddy if you touch the river bottom or the river’s banks. In that case, the landowner could bring civil trespassing charges. It is probably not uncommon for rafters to touch the banks along the river. There are times it is necessary to portage around low bridges, fallen trees or barbed wire. The private property owners say “no go.” And in this case “no go” will stop the commercial outfits from using that stretch of river and significantly damage their businesses.
Attorneys for the new high-end fishing resort claim the rafters will damage their private fishing amenity so they want to keep rafters out. What? Are the trout going to leave that section of the river if another PBR is spilled into the Taylor before noon?
A similar situation was headed to court in 2001 when a rafting company that floated the Lake Fork butted heads with a private property owner. That situation was never resolved because the rafting company ran out of money fighting the owners of the private property. That company was put out of business. The foundation of the current situation looks similar in that that the private property owner has far deeper pockets than the local rafting companies so the rafters have no interest in pursuing a court battle. We are still in the same boat and it is time to clear up the muddy waters as most other Western states have done.
The bill in the statehouse being pushed by future write-in candidate Curry—who lives in Gunnison, by the way—exempts commercial rafters from being charged with trespassing if they incidentally touch the banks or the river bottom. It also allows rafters to portage around dangerous obstacles. It would make the rafting companies liable for any damage to the private property and it prohibits them fishing or using the banks of the property to serve their clients lunch. It makes it clear that the rafters should have a minimal impact on the area.
It may not be a perfect bill but it seems pretty conservative and pretty respectful of both sides on this issue.
A lawyer for the private property owners told the Crested Butte Town Council at its last meeting that if the legislators pass Curry’s bill, it will likely be considered “a takings” and the landowners will be entitled to significant reimbursement. That is still a maybe. Not everyone agrees with that read of the bill but that is what you should expect him to say.
To me a good compromise might be the rafting companies agreeing to avoid that section of river before 10 a.m. and after 5 p.m. when fishing is prime. But there is apparently no desire for negotiating compromise in this particular case.
    
The Crested Butte Town Council will consider a letter of support for the Curry bill at its next meeting. At the very least, they have indicated they want to write a letter in support of rafting. It is an economic factor in a tourist economy after all. More than $140 million was spent on rafting in Colorado last year. Close to a half million people floated with commercial companies, and some of those people floated the Taylor.
The members of the council should remember that it’s not them who will make the final call on this state bill so they shouldn’t get mired in the minutia of constitutional legalities. Step back, take a look and decide… Is it good for the town to have a vibrant rafting industry or is it more important to the council to keep boaters off the public waters that course through a section of private property?
Given the conservative nature of the hometown girl’s bill, hopefully the council steps up after stepping back and supports the minimal right of people to respectfully pass through private property while on public waters.
And then, hopefully, the state legislature will do the same.