News Desk

[Back to News Desk Main]

Battle on the Waterfront

Before buying waterfront property of any type, whether it be on a lake, river or oceanfront, you’re smart to study the laws in your state. The U.S. Supreme Court considers floatable water public domain. Waterfront property doesn’t include the water! The question many landowners are asking: Does public water guarantee public access through private property?

Wyoming residents close to Jackson Hole just spent a long hot summer clashing with recreationists over this issue. Fish Creek and Flat Creek are popular with rafters and tubers. But according to one landowner whose property borders Fish Creek, “It’s a constant stream of drinking, screaming, partying people. It’s not acceptable.” Inconsiderate floaters drive too fast, use private driveways and yards to access the water and leave behind inner tubes and beer cans. Some frustrated residents have put up “No Trespassing” signs – but they may be illegal. A Teton County attorney said the public has a right to use – and access – public waters.

In 1961 the Wyoming Supreme Court ruled on Day vs. Armstrong, a 1958 court case in which landowners along the North Platte River were trying to bar fishermen from floating. The judgment stated that the water is the property of the state and “for the equal use and benefit of the public.” Also, if no other access is available, walking across private land is permissible. Under the law, where one public route crosses another, the public has the right to access both. So, if the county has not provided a path going from bridge to stream, landowners need to be aware of potential trespass issues.

Environmentalists worry that heavy foot traffic is destroying the streambeds in Fish Creek and other popular tubing rivers. The stonefly hatch that feeds resident trout is already in sharp decline. Before hatch, the stonefly nymphs live under the rocks, but continual use of the river is disturbing the substrate. Some landowners fear that if no restrictions are enforced, the creeks in Teton County will be overused and that a great public resource will be exploited until it is destroyed. Still, local authorities have been unwilling to infringe on the Day vs. Armstrong decision.