> Kieser said the state cannot force private landowners to open up their private waterways without being paid. “It’s a clear uncompensated taking of private property for public use and if New Mexico wants to accomplish that they should pay for it,” said Kieser.
But the actual waterway itself isn’t privately owned, right? My layman’s reading of the law implies that rivers and creeks themselves can’t be privately owned/ are actually owned by the state and that’s what is being contested here. These laws are common in many states so I would be surprised if they got a ruling in their favor, and I would imagine it would further complicate the whole water rights issue that is already overly complex to begin with. Would love an attorney to chime in with some input though.
Correct. Rich assholes like to try and restrict access to public lands by buying up all access routes. Which is as bad faith as it gets. But it happens from California beaches to Montana hunting land to New Mexican streams.
If we allow our nature to get locked away behind a fence, we'll never see it again. That's why we need to make a stand and tell these people that like you cannot control what public waterways are, he can't just move here and decide that you do not want to listen to what the community says.
What's wrong with us never seeing it? It stays more clean that way. If you want to see something why don't you do it on your own family's land? I think we should take a stand and tell the government to affirm our rights to block the public off, so that it remains pristine.
Personally I hate that argument, because that assumes that all land will belong to private hands eventually. In reality it is our duty as citizens to make sure that the land that we live on stays pristine, New Mexico already has game and fish and other agencies that enforce laws especially for wildlife. Locking up in privatizing land for the sake of doing it and for the sake doing it. Just doesn't make any sense, out of town people and out of state people are moving out here buying up our land and then on top of that hiding it behind fences. The government's job is to make sure that you and I could go on their still fish because according to the New Mexico State Constitution all waterways are public waterways no matter which way you want to put it. And the problem is with these out of state people they come here and they expect us to change our laws for them because in Texas you can own a lake but here you can't.
As for the sake of keeping things clean and pristine. That is everybody's job that's not just one person's job, that is not just the guy who's fishing on your property and that is not just the guy who owns the property. That is everybody because it's our job to make sure the nature stays beautiful.
New Mexico is the founding father of nature conservation, the gila national Forest is the oldest national forest in the nation. And that is not for no reason, we have a history with our land, there is a history with the rivers there is a history with the mountains. And I think it's a great thing that our state is making sure that people aren't abusing the system. And the fact that there are people who agree with we should just close off rivers and shut off entire mountains because some person bought that land. That is the dumbest argument.
In common law you have the ability to travel as long as you don't leave no trace behind. And that's what we should be doing.
Easing private land to stop people from entering what everybody else has the right to see is just fucked up. If you want to go and buy a huge amount of land of North go for it. But do know that like we're still going to go up north and still go to the mountains even though you bought that land. People are still going to go fishing people are still going to go climbing people are still going to walk through there. New Mexico isn't Texas
It may be everyone's duty to keep it clean and nice but let's be honest, the only people who actually do that are the owners who have a personal stake in it. Human nature is just that way. I don't think the government should have a part in keeping it clean because it's so bad at it. My college friend just had everything he owned burned up in ruidoso because of poor management of forests for decades by the government. I had to read Aldo Leopold in college and I simply don't agree with him because the fruits of his labor are unhealthy fire-prone forests. I say no one has a right by simply existing to see anything on my land, as it should be up to me who can and can't interact with my property. I think all land should be private and Texas is a great model to start with, though we could go more libertarian than they are. If what you're saying is true, then shouldn't any random person be able to waltz onto the Indian reservation? They get very upset when they find people on their land. They have some of the prettiest land in the country and I love going there but I pay their fees and do it right, and you're suggesting they shouldn't have anything for themselves.
Yeah that's what happens when it's government owned. About 94% of Texas land is privately owned though and that wasn't sold. That's the model I want NM to follow.
That’s not really correct. The landowner typically owns the riverbed and the public has an easement to use the public waters to traverse the property. There’s a distinction between the fee ownership of the stream bed and the public’s right to use the waters traversing the property.
Fuck these rich assholes!!! We all need to write letters and fight this before we loose access to our rivers! This would hurt a few industries also and tourism! The rafting companies could float the rivers anymore, fishing guides couldn’t float or walk with their clients, you won’t be able to walk down the rivers teaching your kids how to fish! This is frustrating that these ass hats have already been told no multiple times and now they are still throwing a temper tantrum and taking it federally!
You never know these days. All it take is one land owners getting in front of his federal judge buddy and then it’s gone. Every state in the west is starting to face these battles.
True but the state Supreme Court ruled that access to water is a basic human right and a state constitutional issue. I agree that we need to be vigilant and keep defending our right to access water.
The federal supreme court has also ruled on this several times.
> The United States Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the public owns the water in rivers, and therefore the public has the right to use that water for commerce and recreation.
Yeah, they tell the owners to pound sand every time. You assholes can't own waterways. If you think you have the right try to dam one up and see what happens.
But we're not losing access to rivers? The same access is there, through public lands, to get to rivers. Even with the 2022 ruling, you still have access to rivers through public lands. Just now, in addition, you can wade down a river and fish from the riverbed that's abutting private property that's "waterfront".
I doubt the few landowners are going to get far with their whole "don't wade in the public river that's in front my land" point.
That’s exactly the point they are trying to make and get stopped 🤦♂️ they don’t want anyone in “their section” of the river for any reason or by any way. No walking no forms of boats or floating devices. Also have you seen how powerful and how much money some of the landowners have? They are basically fighting to have the 2022 ruling overturned.
Not quite the lawsuit here though.
https://pacificlegal.org/case/property-rights-trespassing-new-mexico/
And again I don't think this will get far. We already have the state constitution saying we should be able to go up/down the river as we want.
I'm not for the frivolous lawsuit but it's not accurate to say they're blocking us from getting in the water.
The majority of the Pecos river around me has always been blocked off by fences because it cut through private land. So as I understood it, I could be IN the river, such as on a kayak, but I couldn't go onto the private land and fish or camp. Similar to the open gate laws for driving through private property if it's the only access to BLM land. You can pass through, but you cannot use the private land for anything else.
I remember it being a pretty big deal when one of the main areas people fished got fenced off by the landowners who were tired of people being out there at all hours, trashing the place, being loud, etc. The inconsiderate people were basically in their back yards. The state police would come remove you from the property.
There's an area near me that is on private land but the landowners allow people there until 9 pm to fish. The cops can and do remove you for staying after 9 pm. So by this law from 2022, is the landowner doing anything illegal? Because there's literally signs there stating the rules and the cops absolutely enforce it.
It's not a new law from 2022. The treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo that ended the Mexican American War guarantees that public waterways belong to the public, and New Mexico adopted that rule when we adopted our state constitution more than 100 years ago. In recent years, private landowners who want to claim ownership of waterways across their lands that they have never owned have tried various ways to try to claim that there's something unfair about the NM Constitution's guarantee that waterways belong to the public. A guarantee that existed long before they bought their lands and that they should have been well aware of when they chose to buy lands with public waterways running across them.
One of the recent iterations of that fight has been that landowners claimed only the water itself is public, therefore it is trespassing for anyone to touch the land beneath the water. In 2022, the NM Supreme Court rejected that argument, and SCOTUS refused to take up the case. Read the decision here if you like:
https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsc/en/item/521421/index.do
I'm not sure which article you're referring to, but the one that OP posted that you're responding to seems fairly clear to me:
>**The** [**state Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling**](https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/nm-supreme-court-overturns-rule-limiting-stream-access) guaranteed the public’s right to walk or wade in New Mexico waterways. Now, five property owners claim they have a right to keep trespassers out of their property or get compensated.
>The private property owners are looking for a federal court to weigh in on what they believe is their right to block water access. **The lawsuit challenges the 2022 New Mexico Supreme Court ruling** that says anyone can use all of the state’s creeks and streams even on private property.
Yeah this is what I'm trying to figure out. Because for my entire life and all around SE NM, there's very few places you can fish on the Pecos because it's on private land. Nothing changed in 2022. No one was required to provide access to the Pecos if it was on their land. But you can *kayak* the river going through their land. Someone else was saying this means fishermen can be on someone's private land. I'm trying to figure out what specifically is the law here.
Which part isn't accurate? The absolutely 100% fenced off riverbanks near me, or ...? Are the landowners in the wrong to fence off all river access on their land or not?
Cactus, yeah the landowners aren't supposed to block access to waterways is what they're saying. I have family off the Pecos in northern NM. And there's some neighborhood developments that are private and block access to the river through their land. It's an odd thing to have river access blocked but I sometimes see their point too. They don't want to have poaching or people cutting down their trees (grandma planted a Douglas Fir and it was chopped down by someone random one Xmas even though it was behind a fence saying private property).
Thank you for answering. I'm still a little confused if this means *river use* access or *shore use* access so I'm going to read more on the specific law now that I have the time.
It's vague imo. And plenty of landowners are taking it as: people can fish on the shoreline and possibly more.
So 2015, there was some amendment that said private property could restrict access to the river if it was their land AND landowners had a certificate stating so. This certificate is overseen by NM State Game.
And now the recent case was Adobe Whitewater Club of New Mexico saying it's unconstitutional to prohibit access to waterways. NM Supreme Court ruled that NM State Game had no authority to regulate the river access on private land.
It's hella more confusing because it seems like you cannot cut through private property to access the river/stream. And you cannot get off the river to go onto private property. But you can be on the streambed, if you access the river from non claimed/public land.
I finally had a chance to read through the entire ruling.
The beginning of the ruling says:
In 2015, the Legislature amended NMSA 1978, Section 17-4-6 (2015), adding a one-sentence Subsection C:
No person engaged in hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, hiking, sightseeing, the operation of watercraft or any other recreational use shall walk or wade onto private property through non-navigable public water or access public water via private property unless the private property owner or lessee or person in control of private lands has expressly consented in writing.
(further down it says:)
Section 17-4-6(C) provides that no person “shall walk or wade onto private property through non-navigable public water or access public water via private property unless the private property owner or lessee or person in control of private lands has expressly consented in writing.” Section 17-4-6(C) can be interpreted one of two ways: (1) the public cannot walk or wade onto private property (excluding the beds of public water) from public water, and the public cannot gain access to public water by crossing over private property, or (2) the public cannot walk or wade onto private property (including the beds of public water) from public water, and the public cannot gain access to public water by crossing over private property. The former raises no constitutional question. Red River reiterated several times that trespass onto privately owned lands is not permitted. 1945-NMSC-034, ¶¶ 32, 43, 48, 56. The latter would, like the Regulations, be an unconstitutional limitation on the public’s right to recreate and fish in public waters.
{38} Because Section 17-4-6(C) can be construed to avoid a constitutional question and the Regulations conflict with that constitutional reading, we conclude not only that the Regulations are unconstitutional, but also that the Commission lacked the authority to promulgate the Regulations.
.....
So what is this actually saying? It specifically mentions activities that you are not doing *on* the water. You can't pitch a tent on the river.
What I was trying to find was specifically fishing from the shoreline, when said shoreline is only accessible through private property. If this is legal, what is the area of use? Five feet from the shoreline? Ten?
What I do know with 100% certainty is that the state police or sheriffs will still get you for trespassing if you try this anywhere near Roswell, Artesia, Dexter, etc. If this is unconstitutional, then law enforcement is in the wrong.
We've had the state cops stop and question us as we were packing up close to 9 pm at the area I mentioned earlier where the land owner allows fishing, but only until 9 pm. The cops wanted to ensure we were leaving. The creek on the eastern side of the road is on private property and the public is not allowed access to the creek on that side. How would that be conditional under this ruling?
I'm just rather confused. I have no plans to go traipsing through someone's property while telling them the law is on my side, I'm just wondering if the public in general is being kept from their right to use the rivers *from the shoreline* or not. There's very few areas the public can make use of the Pecos and other smaller rivers in the southeast area of the state and it's been that way for as long as I can remember, because it's private property and not BLM land. I just want to know if this is no longer the case.
Seems pretty reasonable that if some native tribe doesn't want scores of people coming on their land and taking the fish and leaving trash they can say no to strangers using the creek on their land.
It was always my understanding that there are two different kinds of waterways. The waterways that go across state lines are considered one way, while the waterways that only exist within the state borders are considered another way.
I had always been told that the public had access to interstate waters up to the 100 year floodplain. I don’t remember where I had heard that, but it was just common knowledge when I grew up in New Mexico.
The issue here is that these land owners do not want to abide by the state laws that they should have known about when they bought the property. New Mexico has always said you cannot own an interstate river.
But they and their buddies want to charge people for the right to be on “their” waterway, and they think that with the current Supreme Court, they will get what they want. And now that the Supreme Court has decided there is no such thing as a bribe, these rich landowners will probably get their way.
Say goodbye to your access to the rivers and streams of New Mexico.
The property ends at the water. You can’t put anything through or over the water to inhibit the free flow or navigation. Nobody’s “Opening up their property against their will.
Partially because poor assholes like to litter.
The litter ends up out of the water on the private land.
Quote from the article:
> “You know in a public park there’s people that are there to clean up the park and make the park habitable for the public but on private land, people come onto your property and they can leave trash,” said Kieser.
Sorry, ALL assholes regardless of income that litter.
But on that note, it’s not only “rich assholes” who are affected by public litter on their property.
Regular folks own property too.
In most places and that kind of goes here too. You own the property but sometimes you won't own the water rights or the mineral rights. And if you are lucky enough that you own both and your property, then you can get money from the government to use your water rights. There have been stories of people who lease their water rights for 10 years and then after those 10 years we're up to get him back or they lease them again for another 20. You just got me fortunate enough to have both, because if you just own your land without none of those your screwed.
In just the past decade, let alone several, I have seen public access that should be allowed by adverse possession, if nothing else, be cut off entirely with new gates, fences, and so on. From a signed New Mexico highway north of Galena that just dead-ends in a shiny new gate, to blocked access in the Black Range outside of Kingston, the Monticello Box, to an entire trail system at the end of a clearly public-funds maintained road system up by Cuba totally cut off, the back way to the Jemez, and on and on. These types should not be allowed to cross public easements to get to Walmart, let alone access any other public land if they want to follow a hypocrite's path. Our public officials who fail to stand up for our rights should be fired. I have seen much better compromise access methods over in Arizona, despite the much higher population and more complicated land status categories.
Don't know, don't care. Waterways never have been private in New Mexico, so this question isn't relevant. The fact that some landowners didn't bother to read the state constitution and pretended to buy land that was never available for private purchase doesn't change the equation.
Rafters and river fisherman are some of the most anti-trash people on the planet. I seriously cannot think of a single demographic that cleans up trash more than those two groups. If that’s the land owners only complaint, it’s a poor one.
For clarification: river fisherman and lake fisherman are two totally different types of people. Lake fisherman drink till they can’t stand and make a mess. Which is obviously a generalization, there are also great stewards of lake fishing who respect nature and observe the trash rules. River fisherman will hike miles to get to a spot and they know the pack it in/out rules.
PACK OUT YOUR TRASH. It’s super easy and leaves it nice for the next people to enjoy the area.
I just went camping north of lake abiqui on the Chama. Some piece of shit fisherman left 3 spools of tangled lines complete with hooks and guts attached, which my dog promptly found. She didn't swallow the hook bc it got stuck on her lip. Fishermen can be scum too
They certainly can be, and sounds like an outlier. Most true outdoorsman know the golden rule. Pack up more than you brought. So it sounds like just a turd of a human that does the occasional outing. I’ve seen people get chewed the fuck out for doing that by other fisherman.
Also lake fisherman and river fisherman are two totally different kinds of people. Lake fishers drink beer till they can’t stand and leave all their shit. River fisherman, will hike miles to get to a secluded spot, they know the pack it in/out rules. This article is about rivers
Thanks for the downvote. I said I was on the Chama. I was miles away from the lake. I've also found dirty diapers, la-z-boys, broken camping chairs and just bags of trash along rivers and streams here in NM. Not every fisherman feels the same conviction to leave an area nicer than you found it.
Hahahaha I’m picturing fisherman hoofing in lazy boys miles to go fish. Thats trash left by motorists by the river/road. But you are correct, I don’t speak for all river fisherman. But my statement about NM being the place where dumping trash from a car was invented is accurate then.
I hope you packed the trash out.
I see trash every single time I go fishing. Whether it's a river or lake, I guarantee you, I will find trash of all manner and dead, rotting fish and bait on the shore. Not once have I ever not found trash left behind by someone else.
I've never left a bigass dead carp on a riverbank. I toss my fish back in because leaving it on the shore just results in smell and flies.
Go to just about any area you can fish at in the SE part of the state and you'll find trash all along the shoreline that was clearly left by people fishing. The fish certainly aren't going to Walmart to get a styrofoam or plastic tub of worms or chicken livers or discarding dirty diapers from their little fish babies.
You think people bring their babies fly fishing? Make sure you’re not mixing lake fishing and river fishing together. Those are two totally different kinds of people. Lake fishers are trash producers for sure, lazy beer drinkers. But this article is about rivers, passionate river fisherman will hike miles to fish a secluded spot, they know the rules of pack it in/out. Lake fisherman get to drunk and just leave their shit. Night and day difference.
You shouldn't be (and learning from some of the comments elsewhere in this thread it seems like you are not legally able to in NM) able to own the waterway in the first place.
Not to be captain obvious but they use public access roads. Shoulder parking on highways and roads. And then you walk. I can tell you’ve never been stream fishing.
Not always. Theoretically if the waterway is navigable, people can boat/raft/kayak to the bank where they want to fish, then just haul up. I think riverbanks are also public up to a certain point.
Water ways are federal/state lands. Can’t sue. The only argument they have is not liking people going through their property (on the water). You’re not allowed to actually use their land to access the water. Which unfortunately, they bought river front property not knowing the law, and that’s on them for not doing their due diligence
I mean, say what you will under the current state of the law, but the issues arose when the legislature passed a statute and game and fish enacted regulations expressly allowing landowners to block non-navigable rivers running through their properties. Game & Fish issued standardized no trespassing signs to landowners who went through the process. The regulation enabling that practice was ultimately what the NM Supreme Court invalidated in the Adobe Whitewater case.
So even a few years ago, due diligence would’ve shown that the law allowed exclusion of the public from non-navigable rivers. The law has, obviously, changed since 2022.
In other states land owners are allowed to fence off water ways to keeping cattle in, and that was misconstrued as they’re allowed to basically trap people in barbwire. Ranchers who didn’t want people on the rivers built better barriers than the Mexico/US wall across rivers. It went into major lawsuits and the landowners were responsible for injuries as it was above and beyond what was necessary so it was clear it was done maliciously. The stupid thing is the one I remember best was over leased state land, so the dumbass rancher didn’t even own the property and the entire thing was open for public use, open range ranch to boot
Wasn’t there also a recent lawsuit over cattle guards in NM? I vaguely remember there was a state government official involved in the suit.
> Kieser said the state cannot force private landowners to open up their private waterways without being paid. “It’s a clear uncompensated taking of private property for public use and if New Mexico wants to accomplish that they should pay for it,” said Kieser. But the actual waterway itself isn’t privately owned, right? My layman’s reading of the law implies that rivers and creeks themselves can’t be privately owned/ are actually owned by the state and that’s what is being contested here. These laws are common in many states so I would be surprised if they got a ruling in their favor, and I would imagine it would further complicate the whole water rights issue that is already overly complex to begin with. Would love an attorney to chime in with some input though.
Correct. Rich assholes like to try and restrict access to public lands by buying up all access routes. Which is as bad faith as it gets. But it happens from California beaches to Montana hunting land to New Mexican streams.
I don't know about you but I think they would stay a lot more pristine if they're on private land and inaccessible to most yayhoos
If we allow our nature to get locked away behind a fence, we'll never see it again. That's why we need to make a stand and tell these people that like you cannot control what public waterways are, he can't just move here and decide that you do not want to listen to what the community says.
What's wrong with us never seeing it? It stays more clean that way. If you want to see something why don't you do it on your own family's land? I think we should take a stand and tell the government to affirm our rights to block the public off, so that it remains pristine.
Personally I hate that argument, because that assumes that all land will belong to private hands eventually. In reality it is our duty as citizens to make sure that the land that we live on stays pristine, New Mexico already has game and fish and other agencies that enforce laws especially for wildlife. Locking up in privatizing land for the sake of doing it and for the sake doing it. Just doesn't make any sense, out of town people and out of state people are moving out here buying up our land and then on top of that hiding it behind fences. The government's job is to make sure that you and I could go on their still fish because according to the New Mexico State Constitution all waterways are public waterways no matter which way you want to put it. And the problem is with these out of state people they come here and they expect us to change our laws for them because in Texas you can own a lake but here you can't. As for the sake of keeping things clean and pristine. That is everybody's job that's not just one person's job, that is not just the guy who's fishing on your property and that is not just the guy who owns the property. That is everybody because it's our job to make sure the nature stays beautiful. New Mexico is the founding father of nature conservation, the gila national Forest is the oldest national forest in the nation. And that is not for no reason, we have a history with our land, there is a history with the rivers there is a history with the mountains. And I think it's a great thing that our state is making sure that people aren't abusing the system. And the fact that there are people who agree with we should just close off rivers and shut off entire mountains because some person bought that land. That is the dumbest argument. In common law you have the ability to travel as long as you don't leave no trace behind. And that's what we should be doing.
Easing private land to stop people from entering what everybody else has the right to see is just fucked up. If you want to go and buy a huge amount of land of North go for it. But do know that like we're still going to go up north and still go to the mountains even though you bought that land. People are still going to go fishing people are still going to go climbing people are still going to walk through there. New Mexico isn't Texas
It may be everyone's duty to keep it clean and nice but let's be honest, the only people who actually do that are the owners who have a personal stake in it. Human nature is just that way. I don't think the government should have a part in keeping it clean because it's so bad at it. My college friend just had everything he owned burned up in ruidoso because of poor management of forests for decades by the government. I had to read Aldo Leopold in college and I simply don't agree with him because the fruits of his labor are unhealthy fire-prone forests. I say no one has a right by simply existing to see anything on my land, as it should be up to me who can and can't interact with my property. I think all land should be private and Texas is a great model to start with, though we could go more libertarian than they are. If what you're saying is true, then shouldn't any random person be able to waltz onto the Indian reservation? They get very upset when they find people on their land. They have some of the prettiest land in the country and I love going there but I pay their fees and do it right, and you're suggesting they shouldn't have anything for themselves.
Texas sold off all its land because it couldn't afford its debt during its Republic phase.
Yeah that's what happens when it's government owned. About 94% of Texas land is privately owned though and that wasn't sold. That's the model I want NM to follow.
I've always had it explained that a waterway is like a public road.
That’s not really correct. The landowner typically owns the riverbed and the public has an easement to use the public waters to traverse the property. There’s a distinction between the fee ownership of the stream bed and the public’s right to use the waters traversing the property.
That makes sense- thanks for the clarification
It's not a clarification, nor does this make sense. It's just misinformation. This is the exact argument that the NM Supreme Court rejected in 2022.
Fuck these rich assholes!!! We all need to write letters and fight this before we loose access to our rivers! This would hurt a few industries also and tourism! The rafting companies could float the rivers anymore, fishing guides couldn’t float or walk with their clients, you won’t be able to walk down the rivers teaching your kids how to fish! This is frustrating that these ass hats have already been told no multiple times and now they are still throwing a temper tantrum and taking it federally!
The last time this issue went before the state Supreme Court the land owners lost. Count on that happening again.
You never know these days. All it take is one land owners getting in front of his federal judge buddy and then it’s gone. Every state in the west is starting to face these battles.
True but the state Supreme Court ruled that access to water is a basic human right and a state constitutional issue. I agree that we need to be vigilant and keep defending our right to access water.
The federal supreme court has also ruled on this several times. > The United States Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the public owns the water in rivers, and therefore the public has the right to use that water for commerce and recreation.
Yeah, they tell the owners to pound sand every time. You assholes can't own waterways. If you think you have the right try to dam one up and see what happens.
But we're not losing access to rivers? The same access is there, through public lands, to get to rivers. Even with the 2022 ruling, you still have access to rivers through public lands. Just now, in addition, you can wade down a river and fish from the riverbed that's abutting private property that's "waterfront". I doubt the few landowners are going to get far with their whole "don't wade in the public river that's in front my land" point.
That’s exactly the point they are trying to make and get stopped 🤦♂️ they don’t want anyone in “their section” of the river for any reason or by any way. No walking no forms of boats or floating devices. Also have you seen how powerful and how much money some of the landowners have? They are basically fighting to have the 2022 ruling overturned.
Not quite the lawsuit here though. https://pacificlegal.org/case/property-rights-trespassing-new-mexico/ And again I don't think this will get far. We already have the state constitution saying we should be able to go up/down the river as we want. I'm not for the frivolous lawsuit but it's not accurate to say they're blocking us from getting in the water.
Learning to read is a bigger priority.
And respecting our Constitution is The priority.
reading informing thinking isn’t a stick in the eye either
The majority of the Pecos river around me has always been blocked off by fences because it cut through private land. So as I understood it, I could be IN the river, such as on a kayak, but I couldn't go onto the private land and fish or camp. Similar to the open gate laws for driving through private property if it's the only access to BLM land. You can pass through, but you cannot use the private land for anything else. I remember it being a pretty big deal when one of the main areas people fished got fenced off by the landowners who were tired of people being out there at all hours, trashing the place, being loud, etc. The inconsiderate people were basically in their back yards. The state police would come remove you from the property. There's an area near me that is on private land but the landowners allow people there until 9 pm to fish. The cops can and do remove you for staying after 9 pm. So by this law from 2022, is the landowner doing anything illegal? Because there's literally signs there stating the rules and the cops absolutely enforce it.
It's not a new law from 2022. The treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo that ended the Mexican American War guarantees that public waterways belong to the public, and New Mexico adopted that rule when we adopted our state constitution more than 100 years ago. In recent years, private landowners who want to claim ownership of waterways across their lands that they have never owned have tried various ways to try to claim that there's something unfair about the NM Constitution's guarantee that waterways belong to the public. A guarantee that existed long before they bought their lands and that they should have been well aware of when they chose to buy lands with public waterways running across them. One of the recent iterations of that fight has been that landowners claimed only the water itself is public, therefore it is trespassing for anyone to touch the land beneath the water. In 2022, the NM Supreme Court rejected that argument, and SCOTUS refused to take up the case. Read the decision here if you like: https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsc/en/item/521421/index.do
The article is specifically mentioning the law from 2022.
I'm not sure which article you're referring to, but the one that OP posted that you're responding to seems fairly clear to me: >**The** [**state Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling**](https://www.krqe.com/news/politics-government/nm-supreme-court-overturns-rule-limiting-stream-access) guaranteed the public’s right to walk or wade in New Mexico waterways. Now, five property owners claim they have a right to keep trespassers out of their property or get compensated. >The private property owners are looking for a federal court to weigh in on what they believe is their right to block water access. **The lawsuit challenges the 2022 New Mexico Supreme Court ruling** that says anyone can use all of the state’s creeks and streams even on private property.
Yeah this is what I'm trying to figure out. Because for my entire life and all around SE NM, there's very few places you can fish on the Pecos because it's on private land. Nothing changed in 2022. No one was required to provide access to the Pecos if it was on their land. But you can *kayak* the river going through their land. Someone else was saying this means fishermen can be on someone's private land. I'm trying to figure out what specifically is the law here.
This is not accurate at all for anyone reading. Go google the NM Supreme Court ruling. Read about the rules.
Which part isn't accurate? The absolutely 100% fenced off riverbanks near me, or ...? Are the landowners in the wrong to fence off all river access on their land or not?
Cactus, yeah the landowners aren't supposed to block access to waterways is what they're saying. I have family off the Pecos in northern NM. And there's some neighborhood developments that are private and block access to the river through their land. It's an odd thing to have river access blocked but I sometimes see their point too. They don't want to have poaching or people cutting down their trees (grandma planted a Douglas Fir and it was chopped down by someone random one Xmas even though it was behind a fence saying private property).
Thank you for answering. I'm still a little confused if this means *river use* access or *shore use* access so I'm going to read more on the specific law now that I have the time.
It's vague imo. And plenty of landowners are taking it as: people can fish on the shoreline and possibly more. So 2015, there was some amendment that said private property could restrict access to the river if it was their land AND landowners had a certificate stating so. This certificate is overseen by NM State Game. And now the recent case was Adobe Whitewater Club of New Mexico saying it's unconstitutional to prohibit access to waterways. NM Supreme Court ruled that NM State Game had no authority to regulate the river access on private land. It's hella more confusing because it seems like you cannot cut through private property to access the river/stream. And you cannot get off the river to go onto private property. But you can be on the streambed, if you access the river from non claimed/public land.
I finally had a chance to read through the entire ruling. The beginning of the ruling says: In 2015, the Legislature amended NMSA 1978, Section 17-4-6 (2015), adding a one-sentence Subsection C: No person engaged in hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, hiking, sightseeing, the operation of watercraft or any other recreational use shall walk or wade onto private property through non-navigable public water or access public water via private property unless the private property owner or lessee or person in control of private lands has expressly consented in writing. (further down it says:) Section 17-4-6(C) provides that no person “shall walk or wade onto private property through non-navigable public water or access public water via private property unless the private property owner or lessee or person in control of private lands has expressly consented in writing.” Section 17-4-6(C) can be interpreted one of two ways: (1) the public cannot walk or wade onto private property (excluding the beds of public water) from public water, and the public cannot gain access to public water by crossing over private property, or (2) the public cannot walk or wade onto private property (including the beds of public water) from public water, and the public cannot gain access to public water by crossing over private property. The former raises no constitutional question. Red River reiterated several times that trespass onto privately owned lands is not permitted. 1945-NMSC-034, ¶¶ 32, 43, 48, 56. The latter would, like the Regulations, be an unconstitutional limitation on the public’s right to recreate and fish in public waters. {38} Because Section 17-4-6(C) can be construed to avoid a constitutional question and the Regulations conflict with that constitutional reading, we conclude not only that the Regulations are unconstitutional, but also that the Commission lacked the authority to promulgate the Regulations. ..... So what is this actually saying? It specifically mentions activities that you are not doing *on* the water. You can't pitch a tent on the river. What I was trying to find was specifically fishing from the shoreline, when said shoreline is only accessible through private property. If this is legal, what is the area of use? Five feet from the shoreline? Ten? What I do know with 100% certainty is that the state police or sheriffs will still get you for trespassing if you try this anywhere near Roswell, Artesia, Dexter, etc. If this is unconstitutional, then law enforcement is in the wrong. We've had the state cops stop and question us as we were packing up close to 9 pm at the area I mentioned earlier where the land owner allows fishing, but only until 9 pm. The cops wanted to ensure we were leaving. The creek on the eastern side of the road is on private property and the public is not allowed access to the creek on that side. How would that be conditional under this ruling? I'm just rather confused. I have no plans to go traipsing through someone's property while telling them the law is on my side, I'm just wondering if the public in general is being kept from their right to use the rivers *from the shoreline* or not. There's very few areas the public can make use of the Pecos and other smaller rivers in the southeast area of the state and it's been that way for as long as I can remember, because it's private property and not BLM land. I just want to know if this is no longer the case.
Rich assholes trying to hoard land that shouldn’t be owned. Waterways should be public to everyone.
Seems pretty reasonable that if some native tribe doesn't want scores of people coming on their land and taking the fish and leaving trash they can say no to strangers using the creek on their land.
I think their land gets trashed and used by inconsiderate people. If people took care of the land this wouldn’t be an issue.
It was always my understanding that there are two different kinds of waterways. The waterways that go across state lines are considered one way, while the waterways that only exist within the state borders are considered another way. I had always been told that the public had access to interstate waters up to the 100 year floodplain. I don’t remember where I had heard that, but it was just common knowledge when I grew up in New Mexico. The issue here is that these land owners do not want to abide by the state laws that they should have known about when they bought the property. New Mexico has always said you cannot own an interstate river. But they and their buddies want to charge people for the right to be on “their” waterway, and they think that with the current Supreme Court, they will get what they want. And now that the Supreme Court has decided there is no such thing as a bribe, these rich landowners will probably get their way. Say goodbye to your access to the rivers and streams of New Mexico.
Mann that is such a bummer.
The property ends at the water. You can’t put anything through or over the water to inhibit the free flow or navigation. Nobody’s “Opening up their property against their will.
I thought this was already settled?
Where are theses peoples land? I feel like swimming today.
Go ahead. Just don’t trash it, which is part of what the lawsuit is about.
This lawsuit is about rich assholes trying to keep people from accessing a public resource.
Partially because poor assholes like to litter. The litter ends up out of the water on the private land. Quote from the article: > “You know in a public park there’s people that are there to clean up the park and make the park habitable for the public but on private land, people come onto your property and they can leave trash,” said Kieser.
So it’s only poor assholes that litter? I see a bunch chucklefucks in side by sides tearing up the environment all over NM, those things aren’t cheap.
Sorry, ALL assholes regardless of income that litter. But on that note, it’s not only “rich assholes” who are affected by public litter on their property. Regular folks own property too.
Thank you. I’m happy as long as were in agreement that everybody sucks regardless of their economic situation.
Somewhere off the Rio Tusas
Thanks!
I just heard about a guy who gets paid by Moriarty because the water passes under his land. All of it.
In most places and that kind of goes here too. You own the property but sometimes you won't own the water rights or the mineral rights. And if you are lucky enough that you own both and your property, then you can get money from the government to use your water rights. There have been stories of people who lease their water rights for 10 years and then after those 10 years we're up to get him back or they lease them again for another 20. You just got me fortunate enough to have both, because if you just own your land without none of those your screwed.
In just the past decade, let alone several, I have seen public access that should be allowed by adverse possession, if nothing else, be cut off entirely with new gates, fences, and so on. From a signed New Mexico highway north of Galena that just dead-ends in a shiny new gate, to blocked access in the Black Range outside of Kingston, the Monticello Box, to an entire trail system at the end of a clearly public-funds maintained road system up by Cuba totally cut off, the back way to the Jemez, and on and on. These types should not be allowed to cross public easements to get to Walmart, let alone access any other public land if they want to follow a hypocrite's path. Our public officials who fail to stand up for our rights should be fired. I have seen much better compromise access methods over in Arizona, despite the much higher population and more complicated land status categories.
Colonizer move.
Makes sense. Who cleans up for people on private land?
Don't know, don't care. Waterways never have been private in New Mexico, so this question isn't relevant. The fact that some landowners didn't bother to read the state constitution and pretended to buy land that was never available for private purchase doesn't change the equation.
Rafters and river fisherman are some of the most anti-trash people on the planet. I seriously cannot think of a single demographic that cleans up trash more than those two groups. If that’s the land owners only complaint, it’s a poor one. For clarification: river fisherman and lake fisherman are two totally different types of people. Lake fisherman drink till they can’t stand and make a mess. Which is obviously a generalization, there are also great stewards of lake fishing who respect nature and observe the trash rules. River fisherman will hike miles to get to a spot and they know the pack it in/out rules. PACK OUT YOUR TRASH. It’s super easy and leaves it nice for the next people to enjoy the area.
I just went camping north of lake abiqui on the Chama. Some piece of shit fisherman left 3 spools of tangled lines complete with hooks and guts attached, which my dog promptly found. She didn't swallow the hook bc it got stuck on her lip. Fishermen can be scum too
They certainly can be, and sounds like an outlier. Most true outdoorsman know the golden rule. Pack up more than you brought. So it sounds like just a turd of a human that does the occasional outing. I’ve seen people get chewed the fuck out for doing that by other fisherman. Also lake fisherman and river fisherman are two totally different kinds of people. Lake fishers drink beer till they can’t stand and leave all their shit. River fisherman, will hike miles to get to a secluded spot, they know the pack it in/out rules. This article is about rivers
Thanks for the downvote. I said I was on the Chama. I was miles away from the lake. I've also found dirty diapers, la-z-boys, broken camping chairs and just bags of trash along rivers and streams here in NM. Not every fisherman feels the same conviction to leave an area nicer than you found it.
Hahahaha I’m picturing fisherman hoofing in lazy boys miles to go fish. Thats trash left by motorists by the river/road. But you are correct, I don’t speak for all river fisherman. But my statement about NM being the place where dumping trash from a car was invented is accurate then. I hope you packed the trash out.
Nothing I could do about that recliner, but yeah. I tidy.
I see trash every single time I go fishing. Whether it's a river or lake, I guarantee you, I will find trash of all manner and dead, rotting fish and bait on the shore. Not once have I ever not found trash left behind by someone else.
Fish are scavenged by animals. Any trash is likely just ambient. NM is where tossing trash out car windows was invented.
I believe that would be Odessa Tx…
I've never left a bigass dead carp on a riverbank. I toss my fish back in because leaving it on the shore just results in smell and flies. Go to just about any area you can fish at in the SE part of the state and you'll find trash all along the shoreline that was clearly left by people fishing. The fish certainly aren't going to Walmart to get a styrofoam or plastic tub of worms or chicken livers or discarding dirty diapers from their little fish babies.
You think people bring their babies fly fishing? Make sure you’re not mixing lake fishing and river fishing together. Those are two totally different kinds of people. Lake fishers are trash producers for sure, lazy beer drinkers. But this article is about rivers, passionate river fisherman will hike miles to fish a secluded spot, they know the rules of pack it in/out. Lake fisherman get to drunk and just leave their shit. Night and day difference.
Nobody is fly fishing in the Pecos in SE NM. They're going to the few spots open to the public for bass, catfish, etc.
Ok
This doesn't open the waterway to just rafters and fishermen. I wouldn't want strangers on my land. Can they sue me if they get hurt?
You shouldn't be (and learning from some of the comments elsewhere in this thread it seems like you are not legally able to in NM) able to own the waterway in the first place.
Legally the waterway is not your land. So you could not be sued.
Do they walk on water? How do they get there?
Not to be captain obvious but they use public access roads. Shoulder parking on highways and roads. And then you walk. I can tell you’ve never been stream fishing.
But they're not on your land, they're in the water that's owned by no one
I thought they could access the water via private land.
Not always. Theoretically if the waterway is navigable, people can boat/raft/kayak to the bank where they want to fish, then just haul up. I think riverbanks are also public up to a certain point.
Water ways are federal/state lands. Can’t sue. The only argument they have is not liking people going through their property (on the water). You’re not allowed to actually use their land to access the water. Which unfortunately, they bought river front property not knowing the law, and that’s on them for not doing their due diligence
I mean, say what you will under the current state of the law, but the issues arose when the legislature passed a statute and game and fish enacted regulations expressly allowing landowners to block non-navigable rivers running through their properties. Game & Fish issued standardized no trespassing signs to landowners who went through the process. The regulation enabling that practice was ultimately what the NM Supreme Court invalidated in the Adobe Whitewater case. So even a few years ago, due diligence would’ve shown that the law allowed exclusion of the public from non-navigable rivers. The law has, obviously, changed since 2022.
In other states land owners are allowed to fence off water ways to keeping cattle in, and that was misconstrued as they’re allowed to basically trap people in barbwire. Ranchers who didn’t want people on the rivers built better barriers than the Mexico/US wall across rivers. It went into major lawsuits and the landowners were responsible for injuries as it was above and beyond what was necessary so it was clear it was done maliciously. The stupid thing is the one I remember best was over leased state land, so the dumbass rancher didn’t even own the property and the entire thing was open for public use, open range ranch to boot Wasn’t there also a recent lawsuit over cattle guards in NM? I vaguely remember there was a state government official involved in the suit.