Important meetings on fishing access- Flint River

[cowhornedspike]

Did HB1397 pass during the legislative session?

Doesn't appear to have passed yet.

 

[across the river]

It doesn't have to be all or nothing. They can expand the waters that we can legally use without going to the extreme that you mention to include anything that would float a kayak as you say.

You are clearly against any expansion of public use and I am for expansion of public use. We are NOT going to agree of that so I am not gonna try. What I am gonna do is challenge you anytime I see you posting your side on here so post away.

Have you seen the list of the waters that would be considered public ie "state navigable" that has been published. It is far from all waters but does go a lot further than you beloved COE definition does. I'll post it below so you don't have to look it up.

List of Navigable Streams as outlined in HB 1397​

(1) Alabaha River downstream from confluence of Hurricane Creek and L. Hurricane Creek;
(2) Alapaha River downstream from confluence with Deep Creek upstream of Crystal Lake Road;
(3) Alcovy River downstream of Alcovy Trestle Road;
(4) Altamaha River downstream from confluence of Ocmulgee and Oconee Rivers;
(5) Apalachee River downstream of confluence with Jacks Creek above Highway 441;
(6) Armuchee Creek downstream of US Highway 27;
(7) Big Indian Creek downstream from confluence with Mossy Creek above US Highway 129;
8 Big Satilla Creek downstream from confluence with Colemans Creek above US Highway 84;
(9) Brier Creek downstream from confluence with Reedy Creek above GA Highway 88;
(10) Broad River downstream of confluence of North Fork and Middle Fork Broad River above Bond Bridge Road;
(11) Canoochee River downstream of confluence with 15 Mile Creek above Kennedy Bridge Road;
(12) Chattahoochee River downstream of GA Highway 115;
(13) Chattooga River (NE) downstream of boundary between Georgia and North Carolina;
(14) Chattooga River (NW) downstream of US Highway 27;
(15) Chestatee River downstream of confluence with Tesnatee Creek above Copper Mines Road;
(16) Conasauga River downstream of the boundary between Georgia and Tennessee;
(17) Coosa River downstream of confluence of Oostanaula River and Etowah River;
(18) Coosawattee River downstream of confluence of Cartecay River and Ellijay River;
(19) Etowah River downstream of GA Highway 9;
(20) Flint River downstream of W McIntosh Road;
(21) Hudson River downstream of GA Highway 326;
(22) Kinchafoonee Creek downstream of confluence with Choctahatchee Creek above GA Highway 45;
(23) Line Creek downstream of Line Creek Road;
(24) Little Ocmulgee River downstream of GA Highway 134;
(25) Little Ohoopee River in its entirety;
(27) Little River (Sinclair) downstream of GA Highway 16;
(28) Little River (Withlacoochee) downstream of Kinard Bridge Landing;
(30) Little River (Clarks Hill) downstream of Lumburg Road;
(31) Little Satilla River downstream of confluence of Big Satilla Creek and Little Satilla Creek;
(32) Little Tallapoosa River downstream of Bowdon Tyus Road;
(33) Middle Fork Suwannee River downstream of confluence with Bird Wing Run;
(34) Middle Oconee River downstream of Etheridge Road;
(35) Muckalee Creek downstream of confluence with Fox Creek above GA Highway 195;
(36) North Oconee River downstream of Newton Bridge Road;
(37) Nottely River upstream of Nottely Lake to boundary between Georgia and North Carolina;
(38) Ochlockonee River downstream of GA Highway 188;
(39) Ocmulgee River downstream of Lake Jackson to the Altamaha River;
(40) Oconee River downstream from confluence of North and Middle Oconee River to the Altamaha River;
(41) Ogeechee River downstream of confluence with Little Ogeechee River above Mitchell Road;
(42) Ohoopee River downstream of GA Highway 56;
(43) Okapilco Creek downstream of US Highway 84;
(44) Oostanaula River downstream of confluence of Conasauga River and Coosawattee River;
(45) Pataula Creek downstream of confluence with Hodchodkee Creek above US Highway 82;
(46) Saint Marys River downstream of confluence with North Prong and South Prong Saint Marys River;
(47) Salacoa Creek downstream of confluence with Pine Log Creek above Lovebridge Road;
(48) Satilla River downstream of GA Highway 64;
(49) Savannah River in its entirety;
(50) South River downstream of GA Highway 138;
(51) Spring Creek downstream of confluence with Long Branch above US Highway 27;
(52) Suwannee River in its entirety;
(53) Sweetwater Creek downstream of confluence with Olley Creek above Perkinson Mill Road;
(54) Tallapoosa River downstream of the boundary between Harrison County and Paulding County;
(55) Tallulah River downstream of Seed Lake to confluence with Chattooga River;
(56) Tobesofkee Creek downstream of confluence with Rocky Creek above Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge boundary;
(57) Toccoa River downstream of confluence with Cooper Creek;
(58) Towaliga River downstream of confluence with Little Towaliga River above GA Highway 42;
(59) Tugaloo River downstream of Tugaloo Lake;
(60) Turkey Creek downstream of GA Highway 19;
(61) Upatoi Creek downstream of confluence with Randall Creek above Red Arrow Road;
(62) Warrior Creek downstream of Ellenton Omega Road;
(63) Withlacoochee River downstream of GA Highway 37; and
(64) Yellow River downstream of GA Highway 124.

I grew up in a time where I fished a lot of “nonnavigable” water and no one cared. I also understand times are different and there are far more people in the state. I also believe the DNR and politicians can’t just willy nilly
change things. They thought they could just say “this is now considered navigable” and quickly figured out they couldn’t. HB 1397 is trash and won’t go anywhere for that reason. I don’t know why people give it any credit for doing anything or get even remotely excited about it. The link below outlines the multitude of issues with the bill from the differing definition of “navigable” verses the USACE, to the fact it has no basis of determination of why he deemed one stream navigable verses another that he did not add to the list. They know that is a lawsuit waiting to happen, which is why there is no intent to push it forward. It even says that in the link if you read between the lines. It is all a dog and pony show. As far is your comment about not having to go that “extreme” like I said above, that is my point. I am not against opening more water. I would be “fine” with the list you posted, but once you try to move the line of what you can float verses not float, you find yourself opening a can of worms you can’t close. Every river or steam you add opens you up to having to add another section of river or stream or creek you didn’t add that is similar flow, width, etc…. Where do you draw the line? What is the criteria? You end up at the “extreme” end, because you have to set a standard criteria and not just pick and choose the water you want to pick and choose. That is why the law won’t change. You have a “line” now and even if you don’t like it, it is a line that can’t be easily moved.

https://wwals.net/2024/02/28/navigability-in-hb-1397-in-ga-house-natural-resources-environment-quality-subcommittee-2024-02-26/

 

[across the river]

Doesn't appear to have passed yet.

It is not even out of committee, and it is doubtful it ever makes it out. I don’t know that the Natural Resources and Environment committee has even discussed it at this point. Like I have said before, I’m just being realistic.

 

[bird35]

People who own houses on the water have much more political influence than the rest of us.

 

[Scorpio]

I haven’t contradicted myself once.

Dude....in one sentence you claimed the State Legislature doesn't have the authority to change the law, and in the next sentence you claimed the State Legislature would have to change the law.

Sheesh

 

[across the river]

Dude....in one sentence you claimed the State Legislature doesn't have the authority to change the law, and in the next sentence you claimed the State Legislature would have to change the law.

Sheesh

Dude, quote a sentence where I said that. You can’t, dude, because I didn’t.

Again, since this seems to be a difficult concept for you all to understand, the legislature has the “ability” to change the law to potentially whatever it wants to, but there is a process to it that has to be followed. They can’t just “change” definitions in the current law. The DNR, Brian Kemp, or any single member of the legislature can’t redefine the current law ( based on USACE defined navigable streams) anymore than I can go stick a new sticker on a speed limit sign and change the speed limit on the road I live on. There is a process that has to occur to change the law. They could write a bill saying that the public has the right to float or fish a creek or body off of a swimming pool float if they wanted to, but it has to get past all three chambers to become a new law. However, since you don’t seem to understand the process, in short the way it works is typically someone in the house proposes a bill, like the one in question here was proposed. It goes to committee and they hash it out it and can forward as is, revise, or squash the bill. That is where this bill is currently. If it makes it out of committee, which it most likely won’t, it still has to get through the senate and eventually be signed by the governor. The current bill in committee could be passed along as is, modified and passed along, or squashed. There is technically no limit to what a new law could state. However, there is a big limit that currently exist under the current law, and that is only navigable waters, as defined by the USACE, can be legally fished. The legislature, DNR, or Brian Kemp CANNOT, let me repeat that again, CANNOT CHANGE what waters are accessible under the CURRENT law. They CAN CHANGE the law, but it would have to go through the entire process of being approved by the House, Senate, and Governor. That ain’t happening IMO.

 

[FloridaFF]

House Bill 1397 died on the floor and is not moving forward. I checked the Georgia General Assembly website today, and 1397 is dead.

 

[doehunter]

Dude, quote a sentence where I said that. You can’t, dude, because I didn’t.

Again, since this seems to be a difficult concept for you all to understand, the legislature has the “ability” to change the law to potentially whatever it wants to, but there is a process to it that has to be followed. They can’t just “change” definitions in the current law. The DNR, Brian Kemp, or any single member of the legislature can’t redefine the current law ( based on USACE defined navigable streams) anymore than I can go stick a new sticker on a speed limit sign and change the speed limit on the road I live on. There is a process that has to occur to change the law. They could write a bill saying that the public has the right to float or fish a creek or body off of a swimming pool float if they wanted to, but it has to get past all three chambers to become a new law. However, since you don’t seem to understand the process, in short the way it works is typically someone in the house proposes a bill, like the one in question here was proposed. It goes to committee and they hash it out it and can forward as is, revise, or squash the bill. That is where this bill is currently. If it makes it out of committee, which it most likely won’t, it still has to get through the senate and eventually be signed by the governor. The current bill in committee could be passed along as is, modified and passed along, or squashed. There is technically no limit to what a new law could state. However, there is a big limit that currently exist under the current law, and that is only navigable waters, as defined by the USACE, can be legally fished. The legislature, DNR, or Brian Kemp CANNOT, let me repeat that again, CANNOT CHANGE what waters are accessible under the CURRENT law. They CAN CHANGE the law, but it would have to go through the entire process of being approved by the House, Senate, and Governor. That ain’t happening IMO.

Man that is so hard for some people to understand!! Lol

 

[longrangedog]

Don't overlook the fact that some (non-navigable) river bottoms are deeded (privately owned) and the owners pay taxes on the river bottoms every year. To change private property to public property is no small thing. Unless the state bought the river bottom, changing it to allow public access would constitute unlawful seizure.