A river rafting bill that has been hotly debated in the state legislature got a little better this week.
An amendment to House Bill 1188 would broaden the measure to give recreational rafters, as well as commercial rafters, the right to float, and that’s an important distinction.
The bill is an effort to address a decades-long rift between whitewater rafters and property owners over whether those who float on the state’s rivers have the right to pass through private property. The law is far from settled, and HB 1188 attempts to offer protection to rafters and kayakers who might otherwise face trespass actions.
Along with broadening the measure to include recreational rafters, another change says only rivers commercially rafted at least once between 2000 and 2009 would be affected by the bill. We were initially concerned about this revision, but have come to the conclusion that it is a fair way to limit the waterways that fall under the bill.
For practical purposes, it would mean that only those rivers where rafting has been commonplace would be covered. In short, it seeks to calm the fears of those — perhaps Eastern Plains farmers or mountain property owners — who might be worried that creeks on their land that are full of water for only a few weeks a year would be open to others.
The idea of the bill is to give some legal footing to rafters who enjoy floating on Colorado waterways, not to expand their range.
Another part of the bill that has been refined deals with portage and touching river banks. The bill, as amended, more clearly defines the “incidental contact” that rafters are allowed to have with river bottoms and banks as they float downstream.
It affords more protection to property owners who are concerned about rafters infringing on their rights.
Lori Potter, a Denver lawyer who has worked on the bill, said rafters would be allowed portage only when there is a danger on the river. But she said that rafters who know in advance about a danger on the river — say, water is low at a certain time of year — put themselves in a perilous legal position.
She argues — persuasively, we think — that rafters who know in advance about low water aren’t going to want to float down the river anyway. It’s not much fun to pick up and carry a heavy raft, and running aground in river boats and kayaks could damage expensive equipment.
“It’s like taking your new skis out on the rocks,” Potter said.
This is a contentious bill, and we also are reasonably sure that if it passes — far from certain at this point — it will end up in the state’s courts.
Still, the time has come for lawmakers to offer clarity and some legal backing for the rights of rafters.
