River Users Should Know Their Rights

Discussion in 'Hunters Rights Forum' started by National Rivers, Dec 8, 2014.

  1. gadwall52

    gadwall52 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,915
    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Location:
    dodge city kansas
    Congress took the states rights to river law away with the first law passed. see my sig line. Those of you that think you own river banks and beds of navigable waters do not your deeds are in error the state in which you reside owns the bed and banks of all navigable waters within it's borders as per the submerged lands act of 1953. Here in Kansas the state claims only three navigable rivers. However the Corps of Engineers has determined eighteen streams to be navigable. SCOTUS has ruled in the DANIEL BALL and MONTELLO cases that any waters that can be navigated by small craft to be legally navigable thus owned by the state and public. Do some research people and stand up for your rights.
     
  2. thatguy2

    thatguy2 Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    886
    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Location:
    Small Town USA
    I see you still spout off. Still waiting on you to put your money where you mouth is, but lets face it, you know you have a chance of loosing so you sit here acting like you know something. Again either put up or shut up.
     
  3. gadwall52

    gadwall52 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,915
    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Location:
    dodge city kansas
    not worried about losing just have my own battles to fight here over the ark. if you would do some research you would find out i'm right. or do you not believe in the constitution of the u.s. it's all about educating people.
     
  4. thatguy2

    thatguy2 Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    886
    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Location:
    Small Town USA
    Look up Montana vs PPL. It was ruled that if a river was deemed non navigable at statehood you can not go back with a retroactive rule to make it navigable. It also said nonnavigable waters title retains to the US. However they confirmed that, if a river was not navigable at statehood, then title to the river's beds and banks stayed in the United States "to be transferred or licensed if and as it chooses;" for example, by land patents or grants, leaving private riparian landholders on either side of a river owning the beds "to the center of the stream.
     
  5. gadwall52

    gadwall52 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,915
    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Location:
    dodge city kansas
    You are absolutely right, sort of. I'm very familiar with that case, followed it from the start. First off, once a river is deemed navigable it is navigable for its entire length. This was the argument presented by the state. The feds argued that those sections were never navigable and that federal courts could deem sections non-navigable. SCOTUS concurred based on the arguments presented, however, in the dissenting argument the judge criticized the states' attorneys for not arguing the fact that reasonable improvements made the sections navigable, which would have given them another precedent to consider. However, none of this applies to any Kansas river because no Kansas river has been determined by a federal court to be non-navigable. SCOTUS has long held that navigability is strictly the domain of the federal courts. In other words, if a state says a stream is non-navigable yet it is navigable in fact, the state is then in error. See the Daniel Ball. In this case, SCOTUS declared all streams navigable in fact to be navigable in law.

    The Corps of Engineers has determined that 18 streams in Kansas are navigable. Not being on the list does not mean said stream is non-navigable.
     
  6. thatguy2

    thatguy2 Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    886
    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Location:
    Small Town USA
    Only problem is it had to be declared navigable when the state was granted statehood. You can't go back retroactively and say it is navigable because the COE now says it is. Face it you will loose. I'd love to see you squirm when you get the criminal trespass citation.
     
  7. gadwall52

    gadwall52 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,915
    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Location:
    dodge city kansas
    No it doesn?t as per the Daniel Ball decision streams that are navigable in fact are navigable in law. There is no need for any court to decide until a dispute arises. Cases are seldom fought over access rights mainly over states or federal rights to minerals or money. The government does not go around declaring streams navigable or non-navigable unless there is a need. The corps makes a determination when there is a question of jurisdiction. The federal government did not declare the Ark, the Kaw and the Missouri navigable at time of statehood though they certainly are. As far as a citation that is only a piece of paper we get those all the time here on the Ark.
     

Share This Page