New list of Public owned streambeds

Jeff, in PA, there is no question regarding the rights of fishermen on navigable waterways. If it is navigable, the state owns the streambed, and you can wade and fish below the high water mark. If it is not navigable, then the landowner owns the streambed, and the state owns the water itself. You can still float it if you want, provided you don't touch bottom. But you cannot fish.

The uncertainty boils down to what is navigable and what isn't, period.

Chaz, that's true, but it's the same standard as we're concerned with as fishermen. If the state asserts that right, that means they're asserting it is navigable. If they are right, then we have the right to fish.
 
This quote is from the map on the DCNR website:

"NOTE: The waterways identified herein as having publicly-owned streambeds have been compiled by the Commonwealth over time from various sources. Identification is based upon information believed to be reliable and persuasive evidence of such ownership. The identification of a waterway as having a publicly-owned streambed herein is not intended to be a final determination that the waterway is navigable under state or federal law. Moreover, other waterways not identified herein may be navigable under state or federal law, in which case their streambeds would also be publicly-owned."
 
Yeah, standard disclaimer. Translation:

Here is a list of streams of which we believe we have accumulated enough evidence to win a navigability case in court. Unfortunately, our belief is not law. It is ultimately up to a judge. There are a lot of judges.
 
This is a double edged sword.Land owners should have the right to protect their property.If people are around so is their trash.Go to any public area and look for your self.And if it is posted ask permission the most you can to told is no and you will find if they say no its because some jerk made a mess.
 
Land owners should have the right to protect their property.
Click to expand...

Nobody denies this. But what if it's not their property? That's what is at issue here. It's a property dispute, not a dispute over trespass laws.

If navigable, then it is publicly owned. No different than a state forest. If you were on state forest and found posted signs that some random person illegally put up, what would you do?
 
Pcray..........i thought it was very good to point out the fact that this makes these properties "fair game" for the Marcellus folks.....GOOD ONE
 
Not to be to much of a smart A but NAV.I.ga.ble Sufficently deep or wide to provide passage for vessels that can be steered. To me this is floatable only.I live very near the tunkhannock creek and the meshoppen and float them when ever possible.you can float the tunk almost year round the meshoppen is a different story high water only.Get a yak and i would be more than happy to take you out. JUST TRYING TO SURVIVE ANOTHER DAY IN PARADISE..

 
melvin - For the purposes of this discussion on whether the streambed is to be considered public, "navigable" refers to whether the stream in question historically had been used as a commerce route (and thus the need to protect that commerce route). To the courts, this is what they must consider in the event of a dispute, not necessarily the Webster's definition. If the courts declare a stream navigable, then the streambed (to the ordinary high water mark) becomes public land, and fair game to standing/sitting/fishing/swimming/whatever, not just floating through. Landowners can still restrict access by posting their land on the banks, and you would be trespassing if you stepped beyond the high water mark, but as long as you stay in the streambed, you could legally pass through the otherwise posted land.

Disclaimer - The courts still have not approved many of the streams on the list referenced in this thread. Wading through posted land on these streams right now would still fall into a gray area within the law and you would risk a trespass violation from the landowner that you would likely have to fight in the courts.
 
The state is asserting that any stream crossed on this list thestate has juristiction over whether they can cross, it doesn't make marcellus drilling fair game.
 
I guess this would be about the 4th list of this type. PA put together this for the Little Juniata case:

Commonwealth Findings of Fact for Little J case

Scroll to paragraph 35 for discussion of the various lists used by DEP in conducting their business which includes issuing permits for dams and other obstructions.

Note the Oberdorfer list, paragraph 40, was the result of extensive historical research.


By the way, if you are into PA economic history, the use of arks and such, etc., a number of pdf documents from this case are good reads. This one is fairly well organized:

Plaintif's Proposed Finding of Fact

You never know the day may come when those routes come in very handy.
 
Wow didnt this start about the gassers,Great info DGC.I hate to say it but if the gas needs to go under a creek it will go and as walking down the creek most people dont really care but are sick of cleen up other peoples trash.I know that most of the tunkhannock and meshoppen are in the middle of private land and they are not stocked in thoses locations.I Just want winter to end and spring to get here soon.
 
Lets see if this works. Here are the 3 actual lists. 1st, all streams with a declaration of public highway (actual scan of the original law). 2nd. Oberdorfer's list. 3rd is the Coast Guard list.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CEkQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iccdpa.org%2Fnavstream.pdf&ei=3U7_UIbALYXU0gHS-IDoCQ&usg=AFQjCNHFXdreExKJ5CYPfD3MXQ72zN_gEw
 
Looks like the creek bed fight has been going on for a very long time.200 years and counting.
 
Yeah.

The law itself is settled. If it's navigable, the streambed is public property up to the low water mark. Landowners own only above the high water mark. Between the low and high water marks, nobody owns it, but an easement exists in favor of the public (just like the X number of feet adjacent to a public road).

If it's not navigable, then the entire streambed may be owned privately. The water itself is still public. So the public can't wade through, but they can float through, provided they never touch the bottom.

The arguments are all about what is navigable and what isn't.
 
It actually goes back much longer then 200 years. It goes back to England. But it's interesting because the courts have never allowed a state or Commonwealth to give up ownership of surface waters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages
Wayward Trading”/> </center> </div> </div> </div> <div class=


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top