MATT!!

sorry but i need your help again.

i had to edit the page to put it out there that the creek is in fact shut down for good.

sooo you were right... my name is now back.....

can you take me out again, please?
i promise i wont edit anymore unless its good news.

I have taken the liberty of summarizing these concerns as a 'ticket'.
See: [www.americanwhitewater.org]

Rob Smage
AW member since 1992, volunteer since 2000, Midwest Regional StreamTeam Leader

Rob,

thanks, i dont really know what the 'ticket' is but i agree with the concerns.

how in the world are we ever going to change the federal navigational statutes for all these creeks that are easliy accessable and desired by whitewater kayakers, does a plethora of documented decents not count as navigation?

in the not so distant future whats ganna happen to property lines when everyone's car has the ablity to fly?

A 'ticket' refers to the "Bug Tracker" (which, I believe for all StreamTearmers, should appear on AW 'Administrator' menu tab). This message board (as I understand or interpret it) mostly exists as a more 'user friendly', easily accessible means for all StreamTeamers to discuss ANY matter having to do with AW (not necessarily just river-pages related). The 'Bug Tracker' (again, as I understand and interpret it) is the 'official' way to log system errors or suggest improvements or changes, and get them prioritized and scheduled. It is perhaps a bit confusing, since there is some 'cross-over'. Often matters which start on the message board do end up as 'tickets' (entries on 'Bug Tracker').

On the other matter you mention . . . careful . . . you're opening up a HUGE can o' worms there!

The issue of the definition of 'navigability' is subject of many a lengthy and heated debate in many states and on many message boards. There's a huge one going on right now affecting Illinois. A river with whitewater (and, to the best of my knowledge, the only commercial whitewater rafting outfitter in the state, having operated for years), the Vermilion, has recently been 'closed' by a property owner (a cement company with extensive land holdings apparently on both sides of the river) largely due to the.recent death of a rafter at the site of an old low-head dam on the cement company's property. That stretch of river is not on either the Federal nor the State list of 'navigable' or 'public' waters, thus they appear to be completely within their legal right (as presently defined and interpreted) to close this section of river, and halt operations of the commercial rafting outfitter!

Simplistically put (again, as I understand it), federal law generally applies almost exclusively to rivers and lakes of such size as to be important for interstate commercial navigation. Federal law then allows each state to define additional waters as 'navigable'. The state definition cannot 'close' rivers which are on the Federal list of 'commercially navigable' waters, and usually will (but does not have to) 'open' others as 'navigable'. Beyond that, states vary widely in their definitions of what other 'rights' accompany the right to navigate (E.G., right to portage or scout is NOT assured in many states). Even 'ownership' of the water itself (on non-federally designated lakes and rivers) is subject to state definitions. States east of the Mississippi River generally stipulate that no one 'owns' the water, that it is 'held in trust' by the state, for the common use of all, while many states west of the Mississippi River (where diversion of water for irrigation has long been supported as a legitimate 'right') hold to a 'historic use' clause, which (among other things, simply stated, as I understand it) allows that water is a 'resource' which can be 'claimed', not unlike 'staking a claim' for mining. In essence, once someone 'stakes a claim' to some portion of flow in a river, no one upstream has the right to subsequently deprive them of that 'allotment' of water (assuming that 'nature' has continued to provide at least that much in the first place)!

Failure to be aware of this 'east-west' dichotomy causes many 'easterners' to have trouble comprehending anything different from their concept that 'nobody can own the water in a river'. Looking at it another way . . . my understanding is that many (nomadic) native American Indian cultures had virtually no provision or concept of private property. They held that the earth, the sky, the water, the air, . . ., all existed before any of us, and continue to exist when we are gone, thus we cannot 'own' any of it. To them, the invading hordes of European settlers with their concepts of buying, selling, and owning the land, were just, well, FOREIGN ideas! So . . . it all gets to be a continuum of philosophical definition and debate. Can you own the land? Can you own the water? Can you own the air?

Anyway . . . it's a long and complicated subject, of which I can profess only to be an amateur at research and understanding. Even the 'stewardship' section of AW (http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Wiki/stewardship:navigability ) is full of disclaimers about the ever contested, and ever changing, state laws regarding definitions and attendant 'rights' regarding recreational use of waters. While we can push ('advocate') for our philosophy (of open and unrestricted 'right' to recreational use of flowing streams) to prevail, we have to expect that others will push back, re-asserting their philosophy of 'ownership', private property, and restricted rights of 'invasion' by outsiders.

(NOTE: all opinions expressed are my own, and do not necessarily reflect reality, nor do they represent official opinions or positions of AW or any other organization or group which I may be otherwise associated with.)

Rob Smage
AW member since 1992, volunteer since 2000, Midwest Regional StreamTeam Leader

As to your (presumably mostly rhetorical) question about "in the not so distant future whats ganna happen to property lines when everyone's car has the ablity to fly?" . . .

First, that has been 'predicted' since "The Jetson's" (and before), but I would posit that we are (in truth) only the slightest bit closer to that being any reality. The technology of 'personal air craft' (Hmmm, they might be called 'PAC's, mirroring 'personal water craft' 'PWC's, commonly called 'Jet Skis') may indeed be feasible. Indeed, there are 'jet pacs' which are viable. Even creation of a 'commuter air scooter' may be technologically feasible. Technology exists which could handle the job of 'air traffic control', through onboard computer collision-avoidance systems with advanced radar. (It would have to override all manual control, and would have to have full communication with every other 'aircraft' to ensure each did not take avoidance maneuver which still had them on a collision course!) However, in spite of the technology being essentially 'there', the economics are not. The cost of owning, operating, and maintaining such a 'vehicle' would seem prohibitive until or unless we can figure out some way other than combustible fuel (liquid or solid) to propel such craft.

However, if one wishes to 'dream', to think on a time when such a thing would be so economically feasible as to have significant numbers of 'personal air craft' as the chosen method of transportation, the definition of 'property lines' and 'property rights' will be subject to definition and extension into the third dimension. If you think about it, there is already established precedent. Mineral rights have been defined which extend below the ground surface. And (with the disclaimer that I am not a pilot nor have I really specifically researched the topic), I believe current regulation of aircraft specifies how close to towers and buildings they are allowed to fly, and specifies take-off and landing patterns and controls altitudes within defined zones around airports.

Thus, in your 'future-world', with your air-scooter, you would have the right to 'hover' inches off the ground on your own property, but would be restricted to some number of feet above ground (or above/away from any structures) over any other property, until or unless prior permission is given by the property owner (I.E., you are 'cleared' for landing or for other more intrusive flight).

So, it's really not much different than we have right now! You can navigate on any privately held ('non-navigable') river you choose IF you can get prior permission from every property owner along the stretch you intend to float! Barring that, you are 'flying too low' and you are invading what their state has defined as their private property.

Rob Smage
AW member since 1992, volunteer since 2000, Midwest Regional StreamTeam Leader

You can also just change your profile to be "Mr. X" and people can't read your real name. Just change it in the account settings under contact info.