The bed and the water are public, per the law, IF it is navigable.

quote:

---

The bed and the water are public, per the law, IF it is navigable.

---

Yeah, we needn't re-litigate that argument. Point is, the locals consider it non-navigable, as is obvious to any reasonable person. That view is shared by local pols and law enforcement. So, unless and until a lawsuit determines otherwise, THIS stream is not navigable, and unauthorized persons in it are tresspassing. But reckon you could paddle your ass up and down it and force the issue if you're feel strongly enough about it. I'd like to see you do it myself.

I am glad local interpretation of law is how rule of law is applied in Texas. Lets just close the Guadalupe b/c the landowners on each side don't like the floaters and the water level is down.

So after 12 pages we can assume that the OP probably trespassed to get to the place he was worried about trespassing on....

quote:

---

his understanding of applicable law is that while the public can be "on the water", they cannot touch the stream bed with boat or oar, not to mention body parts.

---

Yeah, pretty sure that's not right.

quote:

---

I am glad local interpretation of law is how rule of law is applied in Texas. Lets just close the Guadalupe b/c the landowners on each side don't like the floaters and the water level is down.

---

You put a lotta thought into that strawman, didn't ya? The Guadalupe is not at issue here, chief, as there is NO question as to its navigability, now is there?

But you are right about local application of the (state) law. Laws, like the one in question, are made precisely for local application. And as country allowed on about page 2 or 3, the only way to know how others (than the locals) interpret it is for someone to challenge it in a courthouse. (Guess where that fight would take place. )Thus, my suggestion to you to put your kayak where your mouth is.

quote:

---

quote:

---

his understanding of applicable law is that while the public can be "on the water", they cannot touch the stream bed with boat or oar, not to mention body parts.

---

Yeah, pretty sure that's not right.

---

That's clearly his understanding from talks with TWQC and other state "officials" he's spoken with. He sees Roach Lake as a ranch pond, not unlike the countless others that exist on drainages/"creeks" across Texas, wherein the water therein technically belongs to the State, while the land beneath belongs to the individual/entity.

I suspect if most of you who are skeptical about this were able to see the situation that exists on the ground, it would be obvious to you why "the" law does not apply here.

Ok Chief.

But he is getting bad advice.

quote:

---

Ok Chief.

But he is getting bad advice.

---

Ok? So you're gonna "do it"?

Advice? From who?

Boerne, by stream bed was he referring to the dry stream bed or the entire stream bed including what's under the water?

Either way it isn't accurate, but the former at least makes a little more logical sense.

quote:

---

Boerne, by stream bed was he referring to the dry stream bed or the entire stream bed including what's under the water?

Either way it isn't accurate, but the former at least makes a little more logical sense.

---

quote:

---

Boerne, by stream bed was he referring to the dry stream bed or the entire stream bed including what's under the water?

Either way it isn't accurate, but the former at least makes a little more logical sense.

---

No, he meant the wet portion only.

Why do you claim its innacurate? Do you suppose the TWQC folks are misinformed?

....for the OP. You are right.

quote:

---

Chapter 90 of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Code contains a new prohibition against the operation of a wheeled or tracked motor vehicle in the bed, bottom, and banks up to the gradient boundary of a stream navigable by statute.

---

Sunchaser,
So if it's navigable it's not trespassing but it is the new violation. If it's not navigable, it's trespassing.

Interesting.

Sunchaser, I thought you guys had already determined it wasn't navigable. By statute or otherwise. So are we still good as long as we stay in the Jeep?

Boerne-do me a favor and copy and paste said GE image into MS Paint and diagram this conversation so I can see what youre talking about. Sounds like we crossed another ranch to get to the dam from your conversation. I agree now, with not being able to stand on the dam. However, wouldnt be too weary about kayaking up into said lake per the law. Not that im going to do that. But to answer your question regarding size of the body of water. Johnson Fork is probably 7 feet deep behind that dam, and 6"-4' below it. So it makes for better fishing, if you really had to ask.

Dammit Deats. Beat me to it!

Nevermind, missed the part about him being the brother, as well as manager.

quote:

---

Sunchaser, I thought you guys had already determined it wasn't navigable. By statute or otherwise. So are we still good as long as we stay in the Jeep?

Boerne-do me a favor and copy and paste said GE image into MS Paint and diagram this conversation so I can see what youre talking about. Sounds like we crossed another ranch to get to the dam from your conversation. I agree now, with not being able to stand on the dam. However, wouldnt be too weary about kayaking up into said lake per the law. Not that im going to do that. But to answer your question regarding size of the body of water. Johnson Fork is probably 7 feet deep behind that dam, and 6"-4' below it. So it makes for better fishing, if you really had to ask.

---

raider, I'm not able to do what you suggest, but will attempt to describe it orally. And I don't pretend to know where the property lines are, although it appears to me the NE corner of that ranch property is just about 200 yards east of the dam, near the middle of the streambed, and very near where the road leading south from the Milton's HQs intersects the creek, and where I presume (the ranch mgr indicated) you crossed. Because when you did so, you were on "his" ranch and then you drove the 150-200 yards toward the dam. Hope that makes sense.

Hope you can appreciate your good fortune it was not the husband you encountered there that day. Might have been unpleasant.

My question was about the fairly deep body of water directly in front of the Milton's home. Were they to construct their own dam, it appears they'd have 7' water there as well. Pretty sure the water just below the dam is also on the neighbors property. I didn't learn the name of that ranch, but intend to.

That water is about 3-4' deep there Boerne.

Can't recall for certain, but the 421 Ranch is what I'm thinking.

Raider....This is the statement I was addressing and I agree with what you told your Buddy.

quote:

---

I told my buddy that I didn't believe it was legal for us to be driving through the stream bed.

---

Deats.....It's late and I'm tired....I can't follow what you guys are saying. I don't agree with the touching of a paddle etc in the steam or walking on the bottom as illegal. The state says that is OK.

Raider.....I don't have a clue as to a proper desigination of the stream. If it isn't navigable then we wasted a lot of time. I have assumed it is for discussion and IMO you can not go higher than the gradient boundry without trespassing....either side of the steam and the dam.

I know sunchaser. I was just being a smartass because the chapter 90 references navigable streams.

We are agreeing. But I was pointing out a caveat. It's only illegal to drive in a stream bed if it navigable. So if the Johnson Fork is navigable, you can't drive in it, but they weren't trespassing. If it's not navigable, then you can drive in it, but they were trespassing.

quote:

---

We are agreeing. But I was pointing out a caveat. It's only illegal to drive in a stream bed if it navigable. So if the Johnson Fork is navigable, you can't drive in it, but they weren't trespassing. If it's not navigable, then you can drive in it, but they were trespassing.

---

You are conflating two separate issues. They trespassed when they crossed over the stream onto neighboring property. I'm fairly certain the dam is constructed well inside the property line, and not on it, which may lead to some confusion, both here and by the OP.

Driving in the creek bed is a completely separate matter of law, and given the number of low water crossings on the Johnson Fork, I'd say is rather problematic, but I acknowledge the conundrum it presents.

BG,
No one understands what you saying without a map or picture.

Here's the boundary of the Comanche Point Ranch and the 141 Ranch for reference purposes:

....now where did the jeep travel and where were the OP, buddy etc?

raider--this is off topic somewhat and I don't want it to come across as slinging mud, but are you saying that the natural hole of water in front of the main house is only 3' to 4' deep now? That surprises me and shows how low the Johnson Fork has gotten in recent years. When I was a kid, that hole of water was 15' to 20' deep. There are a lot of land owners up and down the Johnson Fork that claim the construction of Interstate has caused the creek to fill with much more gravel over the years and cause previously deep holes to be no more than a trickle. I know on the ranch I grew up on we have seen the water bed fill with gravel over the years. The claim is that the drainage of the interstate has forced large volumes of water into the drainage areas and eroded much more land on its way to the stream bed. Whatever the cause, the erosion, in conjunction with drought and more water wells has lowered the flow of the creek.

Understood. Just got off the phone with the ranch manager who confirmed my suspicions about the property line. Hopefully we can meet and he can show me the corners on the map and I'll try to provide those.

quote:

---

Here's the boundary of the Comanche Point Ranch and the 141 Ranch for reference purposes:


Comanche Point is owned by the Melton Family. Charles Melton is the owner.

141 Ranch is owned by the Cochoran Family. The ranch foreman is Daryl who is probably the person you visited with, Gator.

I'll reiterate that both Daryl and Charles are very good people and I would suspect the two of them seperate from any other party could come to an understanding together over a cup of coffee. I suspect the two of them do not have issue with one another over this matter.

---

Thanks for the map, country. I concur.
In the upper right hand third of the photo, notice a road/path leading directly to the creek bed. It should be self explanatory from there, but I'll let the OP fill in any blanks.

So the road leads to creek. Where did he drive out of the creek bed and trespass? If he stayed in the bed and its navigable, then he violated the new TPWD law. If, its not navigable, then he trespassed past the yellow, line.

And maybe leave the owners out of theoretical discussion as to not create an issue between two landowners, where there is not one already?

quote:

---

So the road leads to creek. Where did he drive out of the creek bed and trespass? If he stayed in the bed and its navigable, then he violated the new TPWD law. If, its not navigable, then he trespassed past the yellow, line.

And maybe leave the owners out of theoretical discussion as to not create an issue between two landowners, where there is not one already?

---

Again, wherever he crossed the line, he trespassed. Raider can elaborate as to that, but it should now be clear that anywhere he stood on the dam was trespassing, his original question.

Unless its navigable.

quote:

---

Unless its navigable.

---

Let's stipulate, for the purposes of argument, that the public can "be" on that body of water, and at least some portion of the dam that created it. Will you then concede one must trespass in order to access either one, unless they parachute or helicopter in?

No. Go read the navigable statute. If it's navigable, there is no trespass halfway between the low and high water lines on each bank, regardless of dam or anything else.

I wanted to add a little humor this morning to show the mindset that I grew up with on this particular creek. A friend and I were swimming in the creek within my grandfather's boundaries once when we were little. We decided the water looked better upriver, so we started wading. We kept going for a good ways before we started to hear gun fire. About 50 yards from us we could see bullets hitting the water. An old man started yelling that we better get our aces off his property or those bullets would get closer. We hauled ace like you can't imagine. I told my dad and his simple answer was "don't cross fences and that won't happen." Turns out the man was actually a rancher that I did quite a bit of work with. He told me a few days later that he just wanted to teach us boys a lesson. He damn sure did