Only above the high water mark in almost all Texas waterways.
In North Carolina, the distinction is navigable vs non-navigable. I have a number of brooks running across my main property and two additional adjacent properties I have purchased. However, none are close to navigable. Thus, they are entirely my private property. When you reach a point where it is possible to use a canoe or kayak, than things get murky.
You better have a long talk with an atty and the FSA before you ever do anything that can affect their flow. Blue line streams, navigable or not can get you in serious trouble in a hurry.
What do the state F&WS laws say there with respect to access for fishing?
Not planning on doing anything that would effect them at all.
Under North Carolina law, I can (and have) closed them off and posted them as private property. None of them are worth fishing in anyhow, they are far too small. These are just mountain brooks rising from springs either on or above my property.
A few years back we had a guy just west of here that had bought about 2 million worth of acreage and spent another half million on improvements including building several tanks for flood control and erosion control.
He learned the hard way what a “blue line stream was” when he had to spend even more than that to tear them all out and return them to their natural state and pay the fines.
It’s asinine.
Some do gooder green weenies got little minnow declared a threatened species here a few years back which resulted in an absolute prohibition on anything that reduced the flow into the Brazos.
We had plans to build a new surface reservoir to supply water for both two communities and the rural water coop and the feds just slammed the door shut on it without the least bit of pause.
That was shortly after Obama waved his pen and phone and changed the definition of “navigable” which only made things even worse.
1 Like
So does adding large illegal “sanctuary” populations to that area help or hurt the problem?
States rights. 
States have no jurisdiction over federal projects. The reservoirs and canals are federal.
Do you approve of Trump allowing mountain top removal again in the Appalachia mountains?
Not if the river is navigable, in which case you only own the land above ordinary high water.
But in this instance, we are not talking about rivers, we are talking about Federal water projects … reservoirs and canals.
Not particularly.
In TX “navigable” doesn’t really change much.
With almost all of our waterways there’s a public easement between the high water marks on either side. Basically it’s public land/water.
There are a few exceptions that I think go back to some of the original land grants.
It’s one of the safest and most efficient ways of mining.
I have no issue as long as they are required to reclaim the land back to a natural state where possible when they are done.
Some of the most beautiful and productive lakes in OK, particularly in the SE part of the state are old coal strip mines.
They have added tremendous value for wildlife resources and recreation.
My grandparents on mom’s side came out of that area and I grew up fishing them.
Provided that there is a water supply to divert.
There’s a lot of snow showing at the high elevations in that satellite picture.
It may be a below normal year moisture wise which is what makes those reservoirs and canals so important. It’s also why they were built to begin with.
Yep. You take to long to say what I said.
That’s not what you said. Stop.
Yes, but an easement to cross the river does not convey rights to the water or the river bed.
There is no issue so obscure that it can’t be blamed on immigration.
1 Like
Classic example of how Trumpian conservatives believe the government in Washington knows what is best for the states and localities and should feel free to overrule local government. Team Trump are the BIG GOVERNMENT people now.
