Streamside Access vote in New Mexico

BeDawg · Mar 24, 2015

Right now is the time to act if you are in favor of streamside access in New Mexico for the public. This is public water that is restricted to the public. Please vote.

I recieved this e-mail from the Utah Stream Access Coalition.
On Friday, in the final minutes before the New Mexico legislative session adjourned, in an all-too-familiar fashion, stream access there was stripped from the public and handed over to private interests. Just like that, our concerns that another state could follow Utah's lead on stream access went from possibility to reality. We are all in this together, and that's why it's important for you, as USAC members, to step up and take action.

The bill in New Mexico, SB 226, restricts access to rivers and streams that cross over private property, like HB 141 in Utah. It passed the House on a 32-31 vote, and is now sitting on New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez's desk. She is expected to sign the bill into law by the end of the week. This is where we can help. Educate Governor Martinez on why she must VETO SB 226.

CALL THE GOVERNOR RIGHT NOW AND TELL HER TO VETO SB 226. THEY ARE TALLYING VOTES IN THE OFFICE, AND YOUR 30-SECONDS MATTERS!

505-476-2200

EMAIL: http://www.governor.state.nm.us/Contact_the_Governor.aspx

Tell Governor Martinez to VETO SB 226. Tell her that anything other than a stroke of the Veto pen is a mark against public rights. Tell her to look to their neighbor to the northwest, and the coalition of thousands that have rallied to fight for public rights. Tell her that millions of taxpayer dollars WILL be wasted on needless lawsuits to overturn the law. Tell her that complicating access laws will compromise the $607M annually that sport fishing brings to the New Mexico economy. Tell her that access and use of PUBLIC water belongs to the PUBLIC. Tell her that Vandalism, Littering, and Trespass are already against the law, and need to be enforced, without codifying additional unnecessary access restrictions. Tell her that 2 state Supreme Court decisions, Red River in New Mexico and Conatser in Utah support the constitutional rights of the public to access and use their waters. Tell her that what will follow will be bolstered by the momentum of ALL citizens, inside and outside of New Mexico's borders, that want to protect and maintain public access to public waters.

Let's not let another state fall.

Board of Directors

Utah Steam Access Coalition

[email protected]

www.utahstreamaccess.org

jamaro · Mar 24, 2015

Benton
Thank you for posting this. Yes, everyone please call and ask her to veto this... We are going to need a ton of support on this. Basically, public land angler and boaters have been getting the shaft on this. We have solid legal cases that basically say if you can access a river thru public lands you can wade or float it. The problem is that sportsman have been getting the shaft for so many years we don't know any different.

If the Gov. signs it, we are in for a long legal battle to reverse it, even though we have legal precedent...

J

JFWRC · Mar 27, 2015

I respectfully disagree with this statement-

"If the Gov. signs it, we are in for a long legal battle to reverse it, even though we have legal precedent..."

Unlike Jamaro, I sat along with Garrett in the Senate Judiciary (lawyers) Committee and heard every bit of legal issue with the legislation. My take was the committee members who are a majority of democrats voted overwhelmingly to pass it as they knew it was going to go to court and they meant the "NM Supreme Court" and possibly the US Supreme Court. The consensus in my opinion was that it was better to get into statute as it could be (not is) considered in conflict with the State Constitution. If so, it would be on the FAST TRACK to the NM Supreme Court, therefore "getting clear" for all us sooner.....not later.

If it does not get signed it will be a long battle in courts from the smallest in the state, including appeals, eventually to the NM Supreme Court.

If it does not get signed, the battles/conflicts will be messy. If it does get signed, you will no nothing of what most of you have already been practicing which is to seek permission first.

JFWRC · Mar 27, 2015

The NM Supreme Court case sited in the AG "opinion" clearly allows for walking, wading, or standing in stream beds (Game Commission vs Red River Valley)

The Red River case (1945) refereed to a situation where a mostly privately owned lake could be accessed, by boat, from a waterway located on public land. The case dealt exclusively with an individuals right to access water without touching the stream bed. The case never mentioned walking, wading, or standing and only mentioned the touching of a stream bed as it referred to "incidental contact". The case determined that because the waters of NM are owned by the public hence the public should be able to access the lake if it can be accessed without trespass. The Red River case did not define access as it relates to walking in stream beds.

In PPL v Montana (2012) the US Supreme Court ruled that navigability, and thus stream bed ownership, should be determined based on the water's commerce ability at statehood. Therefore if a water is determined as navigable the stream bed ownership remains with the state. If the water is determined as non-navigable the stream bed ownership resides with the private landowner. A NM territorial Governor stated in 1902 that none of NM's waters were navigable and therefore with the passing of this legislation private stream beds would be deemed the property of the private landowner.

Lawyers on the Judiciary Committee stated PPL v Montana, which was a 9-0 vote, would trump everything in Red River.That's why they voted do pass, "lets get it to the NM Supreme to look at."

You can google this: PPL Montana, LLC v. Montana

PPL Montana, LLC V. Montana where the US Supreme Court reverses the Montana Supreme Court

Docket No. 10-218 Supreme Court of Montana Dec 7, 2011
Tr.Aud. Feb 22, 2012 9-0 Kennedy OT 2011

Holding: The Montana Supreme Court's ruling that the state of Montana owns and may charge for use of the riverbeds at issue was based on an infirm legal understanding of the Court's rules of navigability for title un?der the equal-footing doctrine.

Judgment: Reversed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on February 22, 2012.