HOUSE BILL 1188 PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER'S RIGHTS AT STAKE!

House bill 1188 affects all private property owners. Here is some general info regarding this bill.

For 31 years river runners have been allowed to float through but not touch private property. Rafting has grown to a $142 million industry during that time, under those rules.

1188 exists because of unfortunate incidents on upper Taylor in Gunn. Co. Rafters didn't respect landowner's request they stay off his costly fishing improvements, he built a low bridge requiring portage, and refused to allow that. Neither side appears innocent; the fight escalated to this bill, which has to be applicable statewide. There's the giant problem.

Rep. Curry (Gunn.) and a rafter organization drafted a narrow bill, to allow commercial rafters only to have "incidental contact" with land, "minimal use" of land when portaging, and claim a "right of navigation." Those terms are not defined, no one knows who means what when using the word "navigation." OPPO includes us, Cattlemen's, Farm Bureau, Dairy Council, Club 20 and about 10 more groups. LAST TUESDAY 1188 PASSED HOUSE, has gone to Senate for same process, committee (not yet assigned) hearing, if passed there has 3 readings, if passed then, goes to Gov. for either signing into law, veto, or letting it become law without Gov. signature. For the record, our Rep. Vigil voted against 1188, deserves our thanks.

SO WHAT'S SO WRONG HERE? LOTS…
1. Permitting use of private property, at the Discretion of Rafters, not Landowner, amounts to an illegal "taking" of the owners' rights to control access, enjoy peaceful use as guaranteed in law, attending loss of value, for no compensation—all so comm. rafters can make money.
2. If passed, it creates 2 classes of landowners. That is, those with river property will have fewer rights than all others, like urban dwellers, regarding trespass. That is blatantly unfair.
3. And therefore certainly unconstitutional.
4. Special-interest bills that benefit a tiny group, but which have statewide effects, have nearly always been rejected by the legislature. But this frontal assault on private property has many supporters who do not care; they want what they want. In spite of having hundreds of miles to run, they jealously eye privately-owned stretches.

There is NO way to amend 1188 into acceptability, because it diminishes fundamental property rights. Fixing sloppy or no definitions will not affect the basics. Rafters cite Old English common law as giving them their "rights," which is false, a "legal fiction" acc. to one attorney. REALTORS and others are also very concerned what precedents would be set-- already private boaters and fishermen are lining up for inclusion. Imagine those results in SLV.

Rafters claim if 1188 dies, their industry will suffer great harm, which is untrue. In that event they would simply continue to make money under present rules. They are pitching dire consequences that will not occur, resorting to wild exaggeration. They are not victims. This is not poor vs. rich as claimed; that's merely a distraction away from 1188's being a taking of property rights.

They have enlisted at least Creede and Canon City Chambers of Commerce for support, via willful distortions, claiming tourism will decline. This is promoted by Amer. Whitewater, others.
Forever, CAR has defended private property rights, bedrock, and will continue.

(Information courtesy of Margy Robertson, Chair for the water subcommitte, LPC.)