Since before Utah became a state, Utahns have enjoyed recreating on federal lands within the boundaries of the Utah Territory.  Perhaps the most significant recreational pursuit enjoyed by early settlers, including Wilford Woodruff, the fourth President of the LDS Church, was fishing in the rivers and streams that traverse those federal lands.  And so it has always been. 

We've made you aware of the threats posed by H.B. 386, which remains in limbo, but we regrettably need to make you aware of another bill that demands our attention: S.B. 203. In the short few weeks since the beginning of the 2025 Legislative Session, it has become crystal clear that the Legislature has its crosshairs set on limiting the ways Utah citizens can assert their will. To be sure, we've seen what happened to collective bargaining rights, amendments to mail-in ballots, adding burdensome requirements for initiatives and referenda, all of which have come under fire this Session. Consistent with these overhauls, S.B. 203 (Sen. Brady Brammer, District 21), if passed, will limit who can even file a lawsuit in Utah's courts. So what does S.B. 203 change and why is it important? A brief primer on legal "standing" is in order. But before that, USAC is once again calling on its members to contact their elected officials in the Senate and House requesting that they oppose S.B. 203 and do everything in their power to KILL THIS BILL!

4 EASY WAYS You Can Respond to H.B. 386

H.B. 386 Seeks to Foreclose on Your Right to Lawfully Recreate on Utah’s Navigable Waterways

In classic fashion, behind closed doors, without public input, and with funding from unnamed individuals (most likely Utah’s “land barons”), your elected officials have done it again – drafted a bill designed to further privatize public natural resources – YOUR resources – to help their buddies line their pockets by exploiting OUR resources for THEIR exclusive benefit.

The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources outlines the regulations for recreational access to Utah's public waters. Anglers, kayakers, tubers, and other users must adhere to laws that prohibit walking on private riverbeds without permission.

The 2023 USAC General Membership meeting will be held virtually on Thursday, December 7th, at 7:00pm via Google Meet videoconference and teleconference. We encourage all members in good standing to attend.

Mark your calendars! The 2023 USAC General Membership meeting will be held this year on Thursday, December 7, at 7:00pm (MT) via phone and video conference. Members will be able to call in via phone or video link to be provided one week prior to the meeting. We encourage all members in good standing to attend. In addition to hearing updates from the Officers and our legal team, we will be holding elections for the 2024 USAC Board of Directors.

As many of you know, the May 18 decision from the Utah Supreme Court ended USAC’s constitutional challenge of the Public Waters Access Act. While we are disappointed with the outcome in this case, we are actively working to restore public access to all of Utah’s navigable waterways. To advance that effort, USAC is seeking to identify and document landowner/river user confrontations on specific waterways in consideration of potential further actions by the Coalition. In particular, USAC would like to receive reports of any such confrontations on the following rivers:

A critical component of USAC’s strategy moving forward is information from members (and anyone else recreating on these waters) regarding confrontations with landowners. Enter USAC’s Confrontation Report. USAC is seeking information including face-to-face encounters with landowners or their representatives, signs that attempt to limit your use of the river or threaten you with prosecution for using the river, and/or information related to a person being cited for trespass on any of the above-referenced waters.

Yesterday, the Utah Supreme Court issued a decision ending a thirteen-year effort by the Utah Stream Access Coalition to overturn the Public Waters Access Act of 2010 (the “PWAA”) and restore public access to Utah’s non-navigable rivers and streams.

In case you missed our news update from earlier this year, we continue to await a decision from the Supreme Court in the Utah Stream Access Coalition v. VR (Victory Ranch) Acquisitions, LLC. We expect a decision in the next 3 months.

The 2023 Legislative Session ends on Friday, March 3rd. The Coalition has been actively opposing H.B. 208, “Criminal Trespass Amendments,” which was introduced by Representative Scott Chew, R-District 68, and sponsored in the Senate by Senator Scott Sandall, R-District 1.

Happy New Year and what a productive start to this year it will be for the Utah Stream Access Coalition. This Monday, USAC will return to the Utah Supreme Court for the third time in six years in its quest to vindicate Utahns’ rights to recreate on public waters where they flow through private lands. This time, the Court will hear oral arguments on whether the Fourth District Court got it wrong when it summarily dismissed USAC v. VR Acquisitions, LLC (Victory Ranch) in response to pre-trial motions filed by Victory Ranch and the State of Utah.

The 2022 USAC General Membership meeting will be held virtually on Wednesday, December 7th, at 7:00pm via Zoom videoconference and teleconference. We encourage all members in good standing to attend.

Mark your calendars! The 2022 USAC General Membership meeting will be held this year on Wednesday, December 7, at 7:00pm (MT) via phone and video conference. Members will be able to call in via phone or video link. Details will be provided one week prior to the meeting. We encourage all members in good standing to attend. In addition to hearing updates from the Officers and our legal team, we will be holding elections for the 2023 USAC Board of Directors.

House Bill 129 (a.k.a. H.B. 129) requires the State to determine whether a river is navigable where it flows through private lands, if requested to do so by members of the public. As everyone painfully knows, navigable rivers are the only ones we clearly have access to under the Public Waters Access Act of 2010. And right now, the only way to know whether a river is navigable is to spend many years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in court, as USAC successfully did on the Upper Weber River. H.B. 129 will make it much easier, cheaper and faster to get navigability determinations and will help break the present stalemate that is keeping the public from recreating on rivers to which we should lawfully have access.

Shop for all your loved ones in one place: Guided trips on the Henry’s Fork, Flathead, Green, and Salmon Rivers, fly fishing gear, ski gear, custom rods, camping gear, clothing, gift certificates, and so much more. As always, all the funds raised in this auction will support the Coalition’s continued efforts to open up OUR waters.

10 years, 9 months, and 6 days. This is the amount of time that the Coalition, membership, counsel, and our supporters have waited for a “final” decision in the Provo Case. Filed on November 12, 2010, the right-to-use/public waters case on the Provo River was a coordinated effort challenging the constitutionality of Utah’s ill-named Public Waters Access Act–H.B. 141. The case made its way to the Utah Supreme Court and then remanded back to the Fourth District Court to address a threshold issue: whether the scope of the easement recognized in Conatser v. Johnson was an interest in land that was “acquired” and “accepted” by the State at the time of the ratification of the Utah Constitution in 1896? Since this decision was filed on February 20, 2019, the Coalition’s sole focus has been researching all potential sources evidencing a recreational easement at statehood.

A special meeting of the USAC General Membership will be held virtually on Wednesday, December 1, 2021, at 7:00pm via Zoom videoconference and teleconference. We encourage all members in good standing to attend.

The Coalition filed a constitutional challenge to HB 141, Utah’s ill-considered Public Waters Access Act, in April 2011. This case eventually made its way to the Utah Supreme Court, which resulted in a remand to the district court to determine a threshold issue: whether there is basis in historical fact–in the understanding of public easements in the late 19th century–for the easement recognized in Conatser v. Johnson.