Who Owns the Riverbed, Who Has Access To the River?

Who owns the riverbed, who has access to the river?  I know this debate has been raging as long as I have been fishing the rivers here in Texas--I have argued a few to many times with landowners about this myself.  I don't argue any more, I have mellowed over the past 10 years or so.  I am sure it raged well before I had the fight.

Does the private landowner control the river bank, the riverbed, the sandbars, or the water?  Is it property of the state, with certain access granted to the citizens of the state?  The answer seems to differ from body of water to body of water, and from land owner to river fisherman.

But it is not only in Texas that this debate it taking place.  I recently read an article in the Washington Post (Troubled waters: Landowners, anglers wrangle over access to a Va. river) about a similar fight occurring in Virginia.  In this case, the landowners claim they own the river bottom based on grants dating back to King George II in the 18th century.  The landowners have filed a civil suit, seeking $10,000 in damages, even though the criminal trespassing charges against the angler, who was wade-fishing in the Jackson River, where dismissed.  A Judge has already agreed with the landowner, who is a land developer, claiming that they own a prima facie title to the land and forcing the "trespasser" to prove that he is actually in the right.  In Virginia, just as in Texas, the state owns the bottom of the river, so this case could case could have far reaching, profound effects around the country.  It could lead to more landowners claiming they own the river bottom and preventing access to stretches of water.

In this Virginia case, I have was given little bit of behind the scenes access.  It turns out that there are two landowners who are bringing about the lawsuit, and they can't sell the land the are developing if the new owners won't own the river bottom.  Greedy much?  The people who might buy the land wont buy it if they wont have complete control of the river, and the ones developing it cant sell it if they don't.  But where does that leave the middle class and poor anglers out there?  Those who don't own land on a river.  Eventually without any water to fish?

Also, the article mentions three anglers who were on the river fishing that day, but as it turns out, the developers have targeted just one of these men to file the lawsuit against.  The one least likely to fight it.  The other two who aren't being sued are...a lawyer and a preacher.  Well, the lawyer has the money and could probably effectively fight the lawsuit, and who wants to look like a d-bag suing a preacher for fishing on the river.  And $10,000, come on!!!! That may be a crazy amount of money to you and me, but to a Real Estate developer, with millions of dollars on riding on the outcome, it it merely his weekend bar tab.

That's because this case is not about the money, it is about reverting back to the feudal system with all the money and land in the hands of the few wealthy people, who will control everything.  Those who will "grant you permission," to fish "their" river.

I find it funny, and upsetting, when someone buys a large chunk of land on a river, and then tries to prevent people from accessing that water.  It happens in more cases than just this one.  Many landowners use the excuse that they do not want people on the river because they bought the land to preserve the "wilderness," and they want to live away from the rest of the world.  But at the same time, they build roads to their manicured, fertilized yards with non-native plants and runoff that is polluting the river, that runs through their subdivision (even if you have multi-acre tracts, it is still a subdivision.)  How is that living in nature?

I also find it funny when more often than not, these same landowners are the ones who oppose any type of governmental intervention and support a "libertarian" cause, yet are using documents passed down from an18th century king to claim rights to the riverbed.  Look, I am not here to argue politics.  If someone wants to be a libertarian and support free markets and limited government, that is perfectly fine.  They can make good arguments for that.  But don't just use it to benefit you and turn against it if it interferes with your life.  Our government is a rule of the majority, for the protection of the minority.

I personally don't think that any flowing water should be owned, and neither should the riverbed.  As long as you are not damaging the river, you should have access to something that you, as a citizen of the state, own.  If you want to make sure that we anglers, and especially river anglers, continue to have access to the water we love, we need to fight for what is right.  Fight for your river!

But nothing will shut a river down quicker than that river being destroyed with trash, poachers, or someone who has no respect for the water.  With great access comes great responsibility.  You need to care for the water that you fish.  Pick up trash, take care not to disturb the habitat and surroundings.  And yes, respect the rights of the landowners!  But, fight for your river!

If you would like to help the defendant in this case, here is the link: Virginia Rivers Defense Fund
If you want to read a little more about this case, here is a good link:
http://www.beaubeasley.com/jacksonriver.html 
If you want to learn more about river access, and protecting our rivers here in Texas: Texas Rivers Protection Association