If you owned property along a river and the river changed ways onto your property, can you own the river? I don't think you can, but according to some people, you can no longer fish a stretch of water after the river changes its way onto their property. Who's right? Them or me? Keep in mind that this is a major river, not just a little creek.

~ Dr Pepper

hay: the way it was explained to me was, if you can take a boat raft or inertube down it is navigatable(SP)and they cant keep you off it. this is left to interpretation.what the river does to get there I do not think is even a question.no one can own any river.they can only own the land under it and only if it is non navigatable but who wants to argue that with a pissed off land owner.

Here's a better question: What differentiates a Navigatable stream from a non-navigatable stream... Could someone please tell me?

I was told ages ago by the state that if it holds gamefish it belongs to the state. They can own land down to the high water mark, but everything below the high water mark is the state's.

you can own the river bottom but not the water that flows through it the state owns that

Lands or waters below the ordinary high water mark are held in trust for the full enjoyement of the public. However, it is indeed a trespass if you use private uplands to gain access to those lands below the OHWM. A riverside or saltwater beach owner may have property's lines that extend out into the river or saltwater, but they must realize that the citizens of washington have a right to use lands below the OHWM. All of this only apply's to shorelines of the state (saltwater shorelines, creeks with a greater mean annual flow of over 20 cfs, & lakes greater than 20 acres in size), and waterways deemed "navigable" by the Army Corps of Engineers.

This link helps explain it to:
http://www.adventuresports.com/river/nors/states/wa-law.htm

Hope this clears up things a little....

Bobber Down

"Keep your hooks sharp!"

dont forget that most of the saltwater property owner do own the shellfish rights to their property. And many would be willing to share if you were to ask them first.

D.P., Let me take a guess on the river.....
I would bet it's the Nooch below the Cross Over Bridge! I had a run in with a guy who said he owned the whole River in front of his bar all the way across the river, because it was grandfather into the property. He told me this when I was in my drift boat pulling plugs on the far side of the river. We had a little discussion about it and he really thinks he owns the river!
I think he has been smoking something other than fish!
Scott

I really do not think that property rights would be such an issue if there weren't so many arsehole anglers out there causing trouble for the rest of us. When Redneck and I went fishing awhile back there was a plainly posted sign reading that anything from the obvious markings onward was private property and that people were NOT to trespass.

Sure enough some heavy-browed, knuckle-dragging, brain donor decides that he's just going to march right onto the property and start fishing. There was plenty enough room in the public property, so other than just being an arsehole I couldn't see why he was doing it.

When the property owner (rightly) yelled from her house that he was on private property and that he needed to move immediately he yelled back some pretty nasty stuff. She threatened calling the police (who I'm sure know those landowners by name) so he moved, but many of the anglers there were just saying nasty sheit about and to her.

What is up with these pigs? Sure, the majority of us here on the boards respect the property owners rights but I have a feeling that it comes having enough intelligence to go beyond the solitaire cards in the computer and find these forums.

I'm not sure what can be done, as it is difficult to educate those who refuse to be educated.

I have thought many times about access to a river but now you have me thinking about ocean beaches. For example, if you go to Bush Point on Whidbey Island there are numerous no trespassing signs. Is it OK or not to walk down the beach and fish and if so how close do you need to be to the surf? Is the high water mark defined by high tide? Thanks. -Neil

Old Chum:

Yes, Bush Pt. has some very thick headed property owners around the public access area that believe fishermen are trespassing on their beach even if there fishing below the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). The county put in signs that say "no trespassing beyond this point, end of pulblic area", so the nearby homeowner's interpret this as meaning nobody is allowed in front of their beachhouse, even if a fisherman is wading in the water well below the OHWM. The county trespass signs are not erected in error. The signs are not descriptive explaining what is trespassing and what is not trespassing....yes it's trespassing if your fishing above the OHWM in front of the residence's but no it's not trespassing if you're fishing below the OHWM in front of their homes. So the county no trespass signs are only partially correct.

Last year I got into it real bad with a lady from a neighboring residence to the south of the access. It was a low tide and I was fishing in front of her place about 8 a.m. for coho at least 20' below the OHWM. She came out of her house and told me "to get off Her! beach!" I said that I have every right to fish on lands below the OHWM. She seemed confused and told me to get off her beach, I said "look I only have one bait left and I'll leave as soon as I lose it". About 10 minutes later I was packing everything out and proceded to drive away when a Island Co. Sheriff flew by me heading towards the access. Didn't take me long to figure out why he was going down there, she called the cops on me. If I was down there when the cop showed up I'm sure I would of gotten a trespass ticket. Who is the cop going to take sides with the homeowner or a fishermen. My bet is on the homeowner. Anyway if I would of gotten a ticket I would of taken the trespass issue straight to the state shorelines hearings board.

So this summer when the pinks hit the beach there are going to be some confrontations with homeowners down there. I admit there are some definate bad apples who litter up the beach that have gotten fishermen off on the wrong foot with homeowners. Sportsfishermen have rights though and the access issue I'm willing to fight for my rights to fish on a beach that god made for every free man and woman to use in the state of Washington. Just because you may be a "have" it doesn't mean that the "have-nots" aren't allowed to enjoy the beach to.



Bobber Down

"Keep your hooks sharp!"

The answer sorta depends on what State you're in and whether the river is considered "navigable" by the Army Corps of Engineers. In many states, the OHWM is the limit, as already explained by several folks. In other states (e.g., New York I think), the landowner owns the land under the river but not the water. That means you can take a boat down the river but you can't walk along the riverbank (even if in the OHWM) or set an anchor without permission.

Angler behavior doesn't change the limits of State jurisdiction but it sure does change landowner attitudes towards those anglers trying to exercise their access rights. I try to practice good public relations with landowners knowing that my actions might make life easier for the next guy/gal trying to fish that stretch of river.

THIS IS A HOT ISSUE THAT REALLY BOTHERS ME
THERE IS TO MUCH BIG MONEY THAT HAS AN IS BUYING UP WATER FRONT PROPERITY, AN LEAVEING THE PUBLIC JAMMED UP IN SMALL ACCESS SPOTS ON THE RIVER . I THINK IT IS THE DUTY OF OUR LEGISLATERS TO REDEFINE SHORE LINES . FOR STARTERS THERE SHOULD BE AT LEAST 200FT FRONTAGE ON ALL RIVERS . WITH ACCESSTO THE RIVER EVERY 100 YARDS OR SO . BIG MONEY ALWAYS IS THE DETERMAING FACTOR , AN THE LITTLE GUY HAS TO SEE ACCESS DIMINISH STEADILY.

bronc-

Couple things here

1) Turn the microphone down. Yer blowing my speakers out over here.
2) If I were a riverfront landowner I wouldn't want my property split by public access every 100 yards and have 200' of trash between me and the river I loved enough to move next to. Local government doesn't have the manhours available to clean all this property, and when the landowner owns it they tend to keep it cleaner than the general public does.

I'm sorry, but it has been shown in the past that anglers as a group cannot police their own ranks enough to keep the riverbanks clean from trash and the trash that the trash leaves behind. Nor do they <I>generally</I> leave the river cleaner than they found it. Thus begins the downward slope to environmental distruction.

Now, with the combatative attitude that many anglers possess when it comes to riverside property owners it is no wonder that these folks see us hookers as a detriment to the environment. Instead of marching through their property with the attitude "my tax dollars make me part owner of this river, to hell with the property 'owner'", we need to instead make it a habit of approaching the landowner beforehand with the promise of carrying out more trash than you brought in with you and sharing of your catch (if they want any at all). Most land owners would be more than happy to agree to such a sportsman.

Heck, when you know that you are going to fish a particular stretch of river in the wee morning hours head up there a week or so early and "scout" out the area by stopping by the home owners house and introducing yourself. Tell them your intentions then, and you may just get some inside info about if there have been any fish passing through and where they tend to sit.

You'd be surprised at how far a dose of humanity will get you.

***EDIT*** What, UBBCode won't let me italicize? *******s.

[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: Heywood Jablomie ]

but the legislaturers are some of the ones with big money.

One other thing, could you please spellcheck your messages before you send them out. I know that we're not all master typists, except for Hey y'all, but all of these typos are makin' my eyes hurt.

Bobber Down,
Thanks for the reply. Sounds like we have had similar experiences except no one has called the police on me yet. Since I tend to avoid river confrontation (typically I try to fish to get away from the masses and especially the loud ones) I will probably end up avoiding Bush Point this August. On the other hand I will probably end up going there at least once this fall so I would sure like to have a printed copy of the regs with me just for peace of mind. -Old Chum

Thanks for all the info guys. One old guy I asked this question to said that you had to the high water mark. I guess he was right . The rivers I was referring to are the Elwha and the Dungeness. There is a spot on the Elwha with a whole bunch of No Trespassing signs on it. I've heard of wardens making fishermen leave. Maybe it was just a rumor about the warden making them leave; I'm not sure. Near the mouth of the Dungeness River there is a duck hunting club that has a big sign on the river bank. It says you cannot fish passed the sign and you have to get or buy a permit from them. I don't think I have to buy a permit to fish a river?!?! I already pay when I buy a fishing license.

About allowing 200' of spacing along rivers, I think that is too much. But I do think that allowing an extra 15-20' so you can go around tough spots wouldn't be asking too much. Of course some people have their house 20' from the river.

Like people mentioned previously, just talking to the people makes things much smoother. Of course there are occasional jerks that mess things up. Dogfish, your eyes don't hurt after reading this do they? Don't proof-read it either

~ Dr Pepper

i have never owned a river but i have owned more than one pool table in the local taverns

Heywood,

<i> is HTML. [ ] for UBBCode Generally

What I've never understood is that on the coast the beaches are public and treated as a public highway as far as rules of the road go.
Once you get in Puget Sound they become private.
At the coast you can walk/drive down the public access and then walk up and down the beach as far as you want. Inside Puget Sound, you go to the park and can walk on the beach within it's boundaries.
Never have understood that one. Maybe it goes back to the days before our paved highways when the beach was used.

I know that OHWM applies to property rights after a certain point in history. I have been informed by both state and county folks that some of the older properties (the one I know if is over 100 yrs with the same family) do have property rights that not only include the ground under the water, but the water itself where it corsses the property. From what I understand, it is some kind of grandfathered property right.

I can't vouch for it's validity...but since the topic came up I figured I contribute

If you think the freshwater ownership issue is a convoluted mess, you should take a look at the saltwater ownership in Puget Sound.

From my understanding (as limited as that might be), the OHWM rule applies to ANY body of water that has been deemed "navigable". What determines that? That's where the murkiness appears. Only a court ruling can deem a waterway "navigable", so only a trip to court can ultimately tell you if you're in the right or in the wrong. There are no "grandfathered" rights of ownership of "navigable" waterways. But you might easily be arrested for trespassing on private property, and then have to go to court to find out that the waterway is indeed navigable and any deed showing ownership of said waterway would be voided by such a finding. For instance, Lake Washington has never been deemed a "navigable" waterway. Clearly it is navigable, but the state does not recognize it as such.

As for saltwaterfront, you must determine if the property has been deeded to the homeowner as oyster beds, under a mining contract, and where those tideland rights end...at the mean low tide mark, the extreme low tide mark, or what. The only way to find out is to call the State DNR Photo/Mapping Sales Office and ask them to send you a catalog of the available plot maps. Pick out the beaches you frequent, and order the maps that apply to you. It will tell you what's state land and what's been leased, deeded, and to where. You can reach their office at : 360-902-1234. The gal that answers the phone is super cool. If you need help interpreting the maps (some of them can be difficult to understand) Jim Thomas in the DNR Title/Records Office can help you out. He was very helpful with the questions I had. He can be reached at 360-902-1791.

This issue is anything but black and white. Black and white is where EVERYONE knows the answer and there's no need to get arrested and go to court to see where the chips fall. It's not easy getting an answer, either. After getting NO help from the Attorney General's Office, the WSP, or the WDFW I was lucky enough to get referred to Mr. Thomas by the Mason Co. Assessor's Office. Do your research to protect both yourself and the private property owners. Yelling "[Bleeeeep!] off!" to somebody who tells you to get off "their" property isn't the right way to handle it. Talk to them about it and see if both sides can be happy. Remeber, this issue became a hotbed partly due to slobby scumbag anglers (and I use that term loosely) dumping every kind of crap imaginable on the people's property, and those people are getting fed up.

Also remember that every piece of trash you pack out helps ensure our access to the water, every pice of trash you leave could result in another property owner getting fed up and denying you access to your favorite hole.

Question, How many miserable, hoop wearin, dip chewin, hair dyein, 4wheel drive havin, mud throwin, riverbar tearin up, camp fire buildin, tubin, diaper changin, used condom flickin, schmitty pop, animal beer, berry cooler drinkin, no garbage packin, insinc or brittney spears lookin, MIS-GUIDED, CLUMSEY, F****S does it take to inhibit my legal access to my local holes on my local river?

Answer----------UNFORTUNATLY-----JUST ONE


CAN YOU TELL I JUST GOT HOME FROM THE RIVER?

Hey guys,

Does anyone know where I could find the Washington State law (in writing, on the web) that has the wording for the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) and ownership of property?

I'd like to have a little paperwork in my back pocket to show the warden in case someone sicks him on me.

-N.

stormin, check this website out, it ought to help, if not go to your local city hall, or county engineers office, they also can supply you with a copy of this info.http://www.adventuresports.com/river/nors/states/wa-law.htm, hope this helps.

Try using this link to search through state law. It may take some time though to find the correct RCW. RCW 90 is water rights, but I am not sure if what your looking for is in there.
http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsearch/default.asp

Ya know this is a hot topic:
First I'll start by saying when I was a kid I just went there and fished and if people didn't like it the cops would show and I'd leave.
More recently in my calmer days, there have been a couple of situations that occured on the NF lewis and EF lewis. On the northfork there's a gentlemen that owns the rock on the northside of the meathole. During the spring it's usually closed to boats so the best spot to fish is off his rock. So we used to just go there and fish and he'd yell at us to get off the rock and we'd yell back about the high water mark and then one day he called the cops. Well the cop showed up asked us over and told us we couldn't fish there anymore. I asked the cop why and explained about the high water mark. He said he didn't know the law and said that we just had to leave.
On another note we were fishing the EF of the lewis and there's a hole above daybreak bridge that rocks for winter runs. We'd always anchor there during the weekdays and on the weekends the guy would come out and yell about anchoring in that hole, claiming he owned the river. That guy I told to pound sand and he's now moved and the issue is over.
But overall, the best way to go is to ask before you even enter the property. You'd be surprised how many people let you fish there land if you give them fish to eat, and keep things clean. Some people I've even offered to help with hay for the summer to gain access during primetimes.
It's sort of like hunting ask and thou shall be granted access!
Keith

Hey Dr. Pepper,

I talked to the guy that runs the duck club at the mouth of the Dungeness. According to him, the Dunge is one of three rivers in Washington State in which the state deeded the property UNDER the river to the property owners. In other words, the property owners own all the property, to the middle of the river (not to the observed high water mark like other rivers) but the State owns the water itself (since it is navigable).

What this means is, the only way you can legally fish in the river without the property owner's permission, is from a floating device (boat, etc.) but the boat can't be in contact with the land, or logs or such that go into the river, even if the only thing touching land is an anchor. In their case, they have even been deeded the land in the salt water to the -4.0 tide mark, which in Dungeness Bay is WAAAY the heck out there... so you (legally) couldn't even anchor up out there without their permission... not that I'd want to this time of year anyhow, as you'd want to be wearing a flak jacket... I was down at the Oyster House on Saturday, and you could see & hear the duck hunters firing many rounds.

He said they are going to crack down even harder this year on trespassers on the duck club land near the mouth, and won't hesitate to call the GW's. I guess they've had an increase in problems in the past 4 years.

Anyway, just figured I'd give you a head's up and try and avoid a ticket. There are fish already upriver of that property anyways, and with a little rain, we'll all be fishing further upriver anyhow.

-N.

Hey I saw your post and wanted to fill you in on the legalities of the situation. I'm a commercial real estate agent in Tacoma and wanted to inform you on how it works. The post that talked about the river being navigable by boat is correct!! If the river is navigable by boat, the property owner owns to the high water mark, aka the flood plain. If it's not navigable by boat, the adjoining property owners own the "the said" middle of the river. I got into an argument with a property owner telling me I was trespassing on his property. When I explained that I wasn't and if he didn't believe me he could call the sheriff and he would explain it to him, he backed away and let me go about my business. This situation seems to come up a lot these days and it's important to be informed on the law. Let me know if there are any questions.

Hey Dom,

This guy I talked to said that the way you explained is how it normally works on most rivers, but that the Dungeness and two other rivers in the state were not this way.

He said these rivers were originally deeded by the state as strictly for irrigation, that the state didn't view them as having any fish-holding value. Because of this, the state deeded all the land, even the land UNDER the river, to the property owners.

This guy sure seemed like he knew his stuff, had done his research, etc. Perhaps as a real estate dealer, you could do a little poking around and find out if this is true. I'd also like to know about the Elwha, if it falls under the normal OHWM rules or not.

-N.

Dom,

You are correct. The state never had the authority to deed land below the OHWM on a navigable river. They may have deeded the property that way, butg they had no authority to do it in the first place.

Of course, if the sheriff doesn't see it that way, and you get thrown in the pokey, then it's going to cost you to defend yourself. It may or may not be worth it to you to test the waters, so to speak.

Stormin' I was just curious if the duck hunters could own the river. I probably wouldn't fish there though because there's a chance of getting shot. Sorry this is brief, but I gotta get to bed.

~ Dr Pepper

I'll do some checking on the Dungeness and talk to the state real estate authority to get the facts. This is an interesting topic and I'd like to do some research on it so we can get this straight. As far as whether a river is navigable by boat, the government decides that. How you find that out is out of my hands, but the government decides or decided what rivers are navigable. Anything else? When I get an answer from the real estate authority I’ll be sure to post it. Also, an enter tube or rubber raft doesn’t constitute a boat, a boat constitutes a boat. Does this make sense? You can email me for other questions and I’ll be sure to try and get them. Happy fishing!

This seems to be confusing to some people. The bottom line is this. If you can float it
it is public property belpw the normal highwater mark. Therefore you can go anywhere you want to below that mark and noone can say anything about it.

Review of the relationship of federal and state law regarding rivers:

The section on National River Law discusses river ownership, use, and conservation law throughout the United States. Following is a review of what individual states can and cannot lawfully do with the rivers within their borders.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that rivers that are navigable, for title purposes, are owned by the states, "held in trust" for the public. This applies in all fifty states, under the "Equal Footing Doctrine."
Rivers that do meet the federal test are automatically navigable, and therefore owned by the state. No court or government agency has to designate them as such.
The federal test of navigability is not a technical test. There are no measurements of river width, depth, flow, or steepness involved. The test is simply whether the river is usable as a route by the public, even in small craft such as canoes, kayaks, and rafts. Such a river is legally navigable even if it contains big rapids, waterfalls, and other obstructions at which boaters get out, walk around, then re-enter the water.
The states own these rivers up to the "ordinary high water mark." This is the mark that people can actually see on the ground, where the high water has left debris, sand, and gravel during its ordinary annual cycle. (Not during unusual flooding.) It is not a theoretical line requiring engineering calculations. Where the river banks are fairly flat, this mark can be quite a distance from the edge of the water during medium water flows. There is often plenty of room for standing, fishing, camping, and other visits.
States cannot sell or give away these rivers and lands up to the ordinary high water mark. Under the "Public Trust Doctrine," they must hold them in perpetuity for public use.
The three public uses that the courts have traditionally mentioned are navigation, fishing, and commerce. But the courts have ruled that any and all non-destructive activities on these land are legally protected, including picnics, camping, walking, and other activities. The public can fish, from the river or from the shore below the "ordinary high water mark." (Note that the fish and wildlife are owned by the state in any case.) The public can walk, roll a baby carriage, and other activities, according to court decisions.
States do have authority and latitude in the way they manage rivers, but their management must protect the public uses mentioned above. They can (and must) prohibit or restrict activities that conflict with the Public Trust Doctrine. "Responsible recreation" must be allowed, but activities that could be harmful, such as building fires, leaving trash, and making noise, can legally be limited, or prohibited, in various areas. Motorized trips and commercial trips can legally be limited or prohibited by state governments.
State and local restrictions on use of navigable rivers have to be legitimately related to enhancing public trust value, not reducing it. Rivers cannot be closed or partially closed to appease adjacent landowners, or to appease people who want to dedicate the river to fishing only, or to make life easier for local law enforcement agencies.
State governments (through state courts and legislatures) cannot reduce public rights to navigate and visit navigable rivers within their borders, but they can expand those rights, and some states have done so. They can create a floatage easement, a public right to navigate even on rivers that might not qualify for state ownership for some reason, even if it is assumed that the bed and banks of the river are private land. Note that this floatage easement is a matter of state law that varies from state to state, but the question of whether a river is navigable, for title purposes, and therefore owned by the state, is a matter of federal law, and does not vary from state to state. Note that a state floatage easement is something that comes and goes with the water: When the water is there, people have a right to be there on it, and when it dries up, people have no right to be there. But rivers that are navigable for title purposes are public land up to the ordinary high water mark, so that even when the river runs dry, people still have the right to walk along the bed of the river.
Only federal courts can modify the test of standards that make a river navigable for title purposes. States cannot create their own standards, either narrower or wider in scope. They can’t make definitive rulings about which rivers are navigable for title purposes, only a federal court can.
The situation gets confusing when a state agency or commission holds hearings about navigability and public use of rivers. Landowners, sheriffs, and other people tend to think that such an agency or commission can create state standards that determine which rivers are public and which are private. But these are matters of federal law which state agencies cannot change.
State agencies should make provisional determinations that various rivers meet the federal test of navigability for title purposes. These provisional determinations should be based simply on the rivers' usability by canoes, kayaks, and rafts. They should then proceed to the question of how to manage navigation and other public uses of the river. In these days of government cut-backs, the agency should look for solutions that use existing enforcement agencies rather than setting up new ones. Littering, illegal fires, offensive behavior, trespassing on private land, and numerous other offenses are all covered by existing laws, and offenders can be cited by the local police, sheriff's office or state police.

Yeah, yeah, I followed that link earlier and read that text... what this guy on the Dungeness is saying is that three rivers in Washington state are EXCEPTIONS to this federal law, the Dungeness being one of them. They are excepted, he said, because they originally were defined as irrigation sources, not navigable rivers. The Dungeness, however, in the definition above, is clearly navigable.

So like I said before, I'd like to know if anyone knows where to look to find the definitive answers for the Dungeness and the Elwha.

Thanks!!

-N.