\n<\/p>\n
A lawsuit that sought to clarify Colorado\u2019s stream access laws and improve access for anglers there has been brought to a halt. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Monday that 81-year-old angler Roger Hill does not have the legal standing to continue his lawsuit, State of Colorado v. Hill<\/em>, in which he argued for the public\u2019s right to wade in certain rivers that flow through or adjacent to private property. <\/p>\n In their June 5 decision<\/a>, the justices wrote that Hill \u201cdoes not have standing to pursue the declaratory judgment claim.\u201d They found that because Hill\u2019s case is based on a question of State property ownership and not his own \u201clegally protected interest,\u201d he did not have a legal right to carry the lawsuit forward.<\/p>\n Read Next: <\/strong>Armed Man Charged After Cussing Out Tournament Anglers on Public Lake<\/a><\/p>\n The court\u2019s decision strikes a blow to the pro-public-access crowd and maintains the status quo allowing private landowners to exclude the public from certain streambeds in the state.<\/p>\n Hill\u2019s legal saga started in the summer of 2012, when private landowner Linda Joseph accused him of trespassing and threw rocks at him while he wade fished a stretch of the Arkansas River adjacent to Joseph\u2019s home. Then, in 2015, Joseph\u2019s husband, Mark Warsewa, fired his handgun in the direction of one of Hill\u2019s friends, who was wade fishing in the same spot on the Arkansas. (Warsewa served 30 days in jail for this stunt.)<\/p>\n Hill filed a lawsuit<\/a> against Joseph and Warsewa in 2018. He argued that the two landowners did not have a right to exclude him from a portion of the Arkansas River near their home because that portion of the streambed should belong to the public.<\/p>\n Hill later added the state of Colorado to his suit. In doing so, he launched a campaign to clarify the state\u2019s stream access laws and determine what right (if any) the public has to wade in certain rivers that flow over or adjacent to privately owned land.<\/p>\n At the root of Hill\u2019s argument is the idea of \u201cnavigability.\u201d This is a distinction that the federal government uses to determine whether a stretch of river has been used for commerce. The term became important when Western states received statehood, as the federal government considered the streambeds of \u201cnavigable waterways\u201d to be owned by these states and therefore held in the public trust.<\/p>\n Colorado, however, did not declare any of its rivers to be navigable when statehood was established in 1876. And in 1912, the Colorado Supreme Court solidified this idea when it found that all rivers in the state were \u201cnonnavigable within its territorial limits.\u201d This has allowed private landowners in the state to claim ownership over streambeds that flow adjacent to or over private land.<\/p>\n Hill, meanwhile, has argued that the Arkansas was navigable at the time of statehood and remains navigable today, according to the federal government\u2019s definition. He points to historical references of beaver trappers and railroad employees who used the Arkansas to transport pelts and railroad ties. (A Gold Medal trout stream<\/a> and a mecca for whitewater paddlers, the Arkansas remains one of the most important commercial rivers in the state today.)<\/p>\n Furthermore, Hill has told reporters<\/a> that the Arkansas is just one of many rivers in the state that should be subject to a navigability test. And he\u2019s said that by avoiding any distinctions of navigability on the Arkansas and other rivers in Colorado, the \u201cstate has avoided its responsibilities for 150 years.\u201d<\/p>\n Because Hill\u2019s lawsuit could have opened the door to additional court cases based on the question of navigability, it had huge implications for stream access across the state. This led many pro-public-access organizations, including Backcountry Hunters and Anglers<\/a> and American Whitewater<\/a>, to join Hill\u2019s side by filing amicus briefs<\/a>. These groups argued that Hill\u2019s case represented an important opportunity to address a murky and long-simmering public-access issue in Colorado.<\/p>\n Read Next:<\/strong> A Win for Anglers: U.S. Supreme Court Reaffirms New Mexico\u2019s Decision that All Streams in the State Are Public<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cMr. Hill\u2019s case in front of the state Supreme Court provides an important opportunity to public river users to have a say in clarifying their rights to use the amazing rivers of our state,\u201d American Whitewater stewardship director Hattie Johnson said in a press release<\/a> earlier this month.<\/p>\n Now, with Hill\u2019s case being tossed out by the state Supreme Court, it seems that sense of clarity will continue to elude anglers, boaters, and other stream-access advocates in Colorado.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\nHow the Stream Access Lawsuit Began<\/h2>\n
Stream Access Laws in Colorado<\/h2>\n