Vermilion Navigability House Bill Introduced

[ErikS]

see details here

Additional discussion on the PPP board presented a good case for contacting your legislators early and often in support of HB 5296. Supporting the bill without amendment is good, as is asking your legislator to sign on as a co-sponsor of the bill, or to amend the bill.

A suggested amendment is this: Expand the scope of the bill to RESTORE navigable designation to those rivers and streams listed in the "Illinois Canoeing Guide", published in at least three editions (1975, 1977, 1980) by the IL DOC, that are not currently on the list of "Public Waters" (17 IL Admin Code 3704).

The map on p.2 of the canoeing guide has the title "Streams Considered Navigable and Public", and this map shows many more miles of navigable rivers than are contained in the current list of "public waters".

Since it was the Department of Conservation (predecessor to IL DNR) that originally made this designation, it should not be that big a deal to RESTORE that which was designated as fact some 30-35 years ago. I am also in the process of submitting a formal petition to the DNR - per the process listed in 3704.40 of the administrative rule.

ErikS

[Bandaid]

Mautino's office confirmed this morning that he has sent a letter to request the bill be released from rules committee. Reps are - chaired by Chicago Democrat Barbara Flynn Currie, with Democratic members Lou Lang, of Skokie and Arthur L. Turner, of Chicago. Republican members are William B. Black, of Danville, and Timothy L. Schmitz, of Geneva.if you don't live in a district they represent know this;

Tim Schmitz is the representative here in the 'fighting' 49th, and has been receiving calls from at least one interested constituent in the Carpentersville area where the zip is 60110. If you know anyone purporting to be from that district they should call his office at (217) 782-5457 and encourage pushing the bill into a proper committee so it gets into the house quickly to save the Vermilion River Rafting company, and let us fish, and I suppose allow those little plastic boats too. (Politically Correct point precedence)

[Bandaid]

FYI, HB5296 has been promoted to Agriculture and Conservation committee chaired by Representative Phelps. I'm personally advocating for an amendment restoring the 'Public and Navigable Streams' designation to all streams identified in the 1980 Dept of Conservation 'Illinois Canoeing Guide' which shows the V as navigable from Pontiac to the IL River. The relevant pages have been uploaded by Erik S to the CWA; http://www.chicagowhitewater.org/cwa/fi ... Gui/de.pdf

Members, phones and addresses of this committee, please communicate often!

Representative Brandon Phelps
Illinois House District 118
275-S Stratton Office Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-5131
(217) 557-0521 FAX

Representative Patrick J. Verschoore
Illinois House District 72
259-S Stratton Office Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-5970
(217) 558-1253 FAX

Representative Jim Sacia
Illinois House District 89
210-N Stratton Office Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-8186
(217) 558-7016 FAX

Representative John D. Cavaletto
Illinois House District 107
228-N Stratton Office Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-0066
(217) 782-1336 FAX

Representative Shane Cultra
Illinois House District 105
230-N Stratton Office Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 558-1039
(217) 558-3481 FAX

Representative Lisa M. Dugan
Illinois House District 79
242-W Stratton Office Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-5981
(217) 558-4553 FAX

Representative Robert F. Flider
Illinois House District 101
253-S Stratton Office Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-8398
(217) 782-2528 FAX

Representative Mary E. Flowers
Illinois House District 31
251-E Stratton Office Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-4207
(217) 782-1130 FAX

Representative Julie Hamos
Illinois House District 18
256-W Stratton Office Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-8052
(217) 557-7204 FAX

Representative Donald L. Moffitt
Illinois House District 74
223-N Stratton Office Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-8032
(217) 557-0179 FAX

Representative Richard P. Myers
Illinois House District 94
200-7N Stratton Office Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-0416
(217) 782-5257 FAX

Representative David Reis
Illinois House District 108
200-2N Stratton Office Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-2087
(217) 557-0530 FAX

Representative Dan Reitz
1Illinois House District 16
200-9S Stratton Office Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-1018
(217) 782-0945 FAX

[Bandaid]

Thanks to Everyone who reached out to the IL State House members of the Agriculture & Conservation Committee in support of House Bill 5296. This bill has been drafted to declare the Vermilion River in LaSalle County a navigable and public body of water from the mouth at the Illinois River to the Sandy Ford bridge, identified in the original text as 18th St. While this bill was advanced favorably to the floor of the House it has been ammended with a generic statement in place of the original text, a procedural step referred to as "shelling", meaning the current version of record cites an existing regulation ILCS 615 5/5 in place of the originally quoted ILCS 615 5/29b, and speaks to a correction of the jurisdiction of the IDNR.

Essentially the "shell" with the framework and template of a bill was advanced into the House session and could be ammended back to the original text, with a correction identifying 18th Rd as the upper limit, with the implied consent of the Farm Bureau. The one thing made extremely clear by this legislative ploy was that any growth in the scope of water impacted by this bill would be reserved as cause for the Farm Bureau to re-evaluate their current status of "not opposing"

While the bill passing as a shell is a literal hollow victory, good news was shared with the committee by Rep. Mautino who assures all that negotiations toward a state-held lease for this waterway were moving forward and an expectation that the river would be re-opened was communicated. No firm commitments to timelines were forthcoming but mention was made of a constituent request to reopen the river with a modified dam and an indication that he hoped to include that request in the long-term plan.

[Danno]

Hmmm, not really good news in my opinion. Not necessarily bad news, but not too good either.

I'm worried that HB5296 may just be a ploy to use as leverage to push through the "state held lease" mentioned in the previous post.

I don't claim to understand all of the politics or strategies going on, but why would a "state held lease " be necessary if HB5296 gets passed? What would the advantages of a "state held lease" be for paddlers or the general public? I am also worried that negotiating for a ""state held lease" to solve the river closure situation will set a very bad precedent that will only lead to more river closures and demands for similar lease agreements for property owners along many of our recreational rivers and streams. Leases are usually for a limited amount of time (not forever), so what happens when the lease term is up?

I sure hope I'm worried about nothing. This could turn really bad.

I am wondering if the "state held lease" mentioned in the previous post is the information that Tom Lindblade could not share with us, or is there another factor that we still don't know about to this whole mess?

Thanks for the info, but I have more questions and reservations about the Vermilion River closure now than ever. Please continue to keep us as informed as possible. It is greatly appreciated.

P.S. I wrote my letters and mailed them about two weeks ago. I did ask for amendments per Eric's suggestion. I would love to at least see HB5296 restore the Vermilion River as public all the way back to Pontiac, as the "Illinois Canoeing Guide" listed it. I understand the issue of not wanting to raise the ire of the Farm Bureau though, and restoring then Vermilion as public up to Sandy Ford would be much better than nothing.

[Danno]

Well, it looks like I was right about HB5296 just being a ploy used as leverage to get negotiations for "state-held lease for this waterway" moving forward. According to Tom Lindblade's editorial in the latest IPC newsletter (copied below), the strategy seems to be working. That's a real disappointment for me. I'm glad to see the different parties involved negotiating for a solution that will work for everyone, but it seems like paddlers are getting short changed by the process so far. I have not heard from anyone that paddlers were represented or involved in any of the meetings so far. I hope I'm wrong about that. It would be nice to know that someone is representing the interests of the recreational public. I also feel a bit mislead about the intention of HB5296. I'm still hoping that it will eventually get passed. At the very least, it is encouraging to see that sort of bill get introduced.

I'm not convinced that a "state-held lease for this waterway" is a good solution either. I do understand that that this is the idea that the IDNR has been pushing for the last ten years or more. Clearly the passage of HB5296 would be a much better solution from the recreational public's point of view than a lease agreement, but we just have to wait and see what happens and how it all works out. I doubt that this is the last time a Vermilion River access issue arises.

It is good to see that Tom Wall of the BFA got involved again. Tom was a huge part of getting the parking ban at the Ed Hand Bridge lifted back in 2002. It's also great to read in Tom Lindblade's editorial that the IPC may be collaborating with the BFA more closely in the future. Perhaps all my rants have not fallen on deaf ears after all.

Now if we could just get the IPC leadership to "At all times and in all communications (which are undertaken with either mention or intention of representing IPC and paddlers in the State of Illinois) the IPC (and all of its officials or representatives) should assert the full and complete belief in the right of the public to legally pursue "the fullest possible enjoyment" of the public waters of the state" as suggested by Rob Smage on the PPP Yahoo group.

Some progress does seem to have been made, but as Tom Lindblade points out, there isn't much to show for it yet. Hang in there. Kudos to all those folks who have been involved, or will be involved, in seeking a solution to the Vermilion Access issue.

Waiting for the Vermilion !

An Editorial
by Tom Lindblade

A solution to the Vermilion closure may be at hand. On March 2nd, Kevin Caufield in the News Tribune wrote: (Rep.) Mautino has a bill under consideration in Springfield that would make the river a public waterway. But it appears that bill is more of an “if all else fails” option because all sides appear to be working to find a mutually amenable solution that would cover Buzzi’s insurance concerns while opening the river."

Progress towards a solution began after Tom Wall of The Better Fishing Association made several trips to Rep Mautino's offce, and convinced him to become involved. Mautino introduced HB5286, and suddenly Buzzy came to the table.

Since then, hundreds of paddlers have supported Mautino's bill, and there has been at least one meeting, but with all of this "progress", as of this writing, we still have nothing to show for it, and we are about to lose another season. We can only wait and hope that the parties can agree on an "amenable solution" in the near future.

One positive result is that for the second time in just a few months paddlers have successfully come together and used our collective influence to help solve a serious problem in our State. Another positive has been receiving a favorable response towards possible future collaborations, from the Better Fishing Association.

The steady pressure of concerned paddlers, The BFA, and local residents who love the Vermilion, got the attention of people like Mayor Tony Torres of Oglesby, State Rep.Frank Mautino, and the IDNR's Mark Milller. We have again proven that we can get their attention, now lets hope they can bring home the bacon.

[Danno]

I'm not so sure Mr. Clark has all of his facts straight, but it is interesting to see that other states have similar problems to ours here in Illinois and to see what they are trying to do about it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An article from Coloradoan.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A river runs through it: Trespass issue addressed in HB1188 (Colorado)
JIM CLARK • JCLARK@FTCOLLINS.COM. • MARCH 15, 2010

Quick question: If you put a raft, canoe or kayak in the river and float through private property, are you breaking the law?

Answer: That depends. In 48 of the 50 states, the answer is no. In Colorado and North Dakota, the answer could be yes.

Colorado and North Dakota are the only two states that do not have "right to float" in their Constitutions or laws. House Bill 1188 would rectify that in our state.

Why does Colorado need such a law? You may not realize this, but almost every floating trip taken in Colorado passes through private land. One landowner on the Taylor River is attempting to stop rafts from floating through "his property."

If this movement grows, commercial rafting and whitewater sports in Colorado could come to a screeching halt, while neighboring states take advantage of the legal entanglements in our state to take valuable market share.

I asked Dave Costlow, owner of Rocky Mountain Adventures, why this bill is necessary and his response was telling: "We need this so outfitters don't have to go through toll booths as they go down the river."

Floatable rivers in Colorado are much like easements or sidewalks. "Imagine if someone stopped or charged you every time you walked on a sidewalk in front of their property," he said.

According to the Colorado Constitution, the water that flows down Colorado's rivers is owned by the people. Until recently, a rafter (or kayak, canoe) could float through private property if they didn't "touch the stream bottom or bank" (oh, the horror). However, touching that rock on the bottom or side of the river would constitute trespassing. House Bill 1188 would allow the "right to float" through, and would allow portage around obstacles in the river that constituted a hazard.

Any accident that occurred on private property would absolve landowners of liability.

In an interesting paradox, the same agricultural groups that lobby for "agri-tourism" with one hand potentially could remove one of Colorado's main attractions with the other.

Some landowners want to establish private fishing enclaves, claiming the ownership of the fish and water, and that the rafts disturb that activity. Well, the last time I checked, the Division of Wildlife helped make those fisheries what they are today.

The Fort Collins Convention & Visitors Bureau board of directors unanimously endorses HB 1188, sponsored by Fort Collins Rep. Randy Fischer.

Let's let common sense prevail, support the "right to float" and align with the other 48 states. I don't think there's much river rafting in North Dakota.

Jim Clark is executive director of the Fort Collins Convention & Visitors Bureau. Send e-mail to jclark@ftcollins.com.