BOARD01066 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 4 inherent in the ownership of property, These landowners therefore believe that the Woodard Opinion creates a misleading impression and needs to be supplemented to declare that there is no "right to float" in Colorado, . . (c) Criminal obstruction. Certain landowners assert that the right to exclude floaters as civil trespassers is inherent in their ownership of property, and carries with it the right to physically block floaters' access by means of fences, dams, boulder placement, and the like in and across streams flowing across the landowners' property. In connection with this argument, Wyatt Angelo, the District ,;\ttorney of the Seventh Judicial District, has asked for an opinion from the Attorney General: , . ,whether the provisions of[the criminal obstruction statute] Section 18-9-107 C.R.S, prohibit a landowner from erecting obstacles. . .across those waterways which are now floated by boaters without criminal [trespass] liability, , . .[I]s a landowner legally "privileged" to construct such an obstacle based upon his ownership of the riverbed or adjacent banks? In other words, District Attorney Angelo seeks an interpretation from this office as to whether he should prosecute any landowner who deliberately places a barrier across a floatable stream in order to block floaters. The criminal obstruction statute, CRS S 18-9-107, provides in relevant part as follows: . (I) An individual or corporation commits an offense if without legal privilege such individual or corporation intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly: (a) Obstructs a. , . waterway, , . to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access, , , , (2) For purposes of this section, "obstruct" means to render impassable or to render passage unreasonably inconvenient or hazardous. Certain landowners' representatives assert that as a right inherent in their ownership of property, landowners do indeed have a "legal privilege" to exclude floaters by obstructing the river, and that floaters do not constitute "the public" for purposes of the criminal obstruction statute since they do not have legal access to water flowing across private lands. Apparently, no Colorado court has interpreted S 18-9-1075 to determine whether a landowner has such a "legal privilege" to obstruct passage of a floatable river across the landowner's 5 Surprisingly, the Woodard Opinion did not address the applicability of S 18-9-107 to the question of obstructing floatable streams flowing across private property despite considering .