Lawmakers  in the state House voted today to give Colorado’s commercial rafters greater leeway in running their excursions through private land, drawing fire from critics who said the move is an assault on property rights. Proponents of the legislation say it represents an attempt to balance the competing interests of property owners and rafting operators, who over the decades have pieced together an uneasy co-existence.

Rivers that flow through private property belong to the public and cannot be privately owned, yet neighboring property owners frequently assert the right to bar rafters access to the riverbanks. Citing court precedent, some advocates for property owners even contend there is no right to float through private property at all without the permission of landowners. Problems have arisen at times when certain portions of a river become impossible to navigate, and rafters are forced to carry the raft over the neighboring private land.

“The rafting industry is an established industry. Landowners have established rights,” said the proposal’s sponsor, Rep. Kathleen Curry, of Gunnison. “We have to find a way to coexist.”

Curry said she introduced the bill on behalf of constituents who are commercial rafters and are at odds with some local landowners who want to prevent float trips through their property on the Taylor River. The waterway is a tributary of the Gunnison River and is popular with rafters and home to a number of outfitters.

Curry’s House Bill 1188 in part seeks to protect landowners from liability concerns while protecting outfitters from civil liability for trespassing when their vessels cross private property or come into contact with, or have to cross, dry land. Some lawmakers were concerned that if the rafters were granted access to private property, and something happened where the landowner was sued, the liability protection in the bill just wouldn’t be enough.

“We do happen to live in a very litigious society. I do not have at this time have enough confidence in this bill that a landowner won’t be sued by an outfitter,” said Rep. Scott Tipton, R-Cortez. Tipton noted that barbed wire often is used along rivers by ranchers to keep their cows from wandering, posing a hazard to rafters and a magnet for a lawsuit.

Fellow Republican Rep. Jerry Sonnnenberg, a rancher from Sterling, said in most cases the outfitters have already worked out agreements with the landowners without the need for a measure like HB 1188.

“All we’re saying is, ‘Get permission,’ ” Sonnenberg said. “Have that conversation with the landowner.”

However, Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, said the bill is needed to outline the rights and responsibilities of outfitters and landowners and that without such clarification, rafters could be barred from  rivers at the whim of landowners.

“(It) would effectively shut down rivers and give landowners control over the river.  Colorado recognizes the right to float down these rivers … they cannot put a tollbooth up,” said Levy.

While ruling Democrats by and large supported Curry–the legislature’s only unaffiliated member–most minority Republicans said the rafting industry has been doing well under the status quo and that the bill upended basic property rights, curtailing property owners’ ability to seek protection from the courts if needed.

“I think were getting into pretty dangerous territory with this bill when we attempt to define when, and under what circumstances, someone can trespass on private property,” said Rep. Steve King, R-Grand Junction.

The GOP’s Rep. Bob Gardner, of Colorado Springs, said the bill was opening the state up to massive liability under the law. Gardner said the state  would have to compensate landowners who sue, claiming a “takings,” after losing control of their property to rafters.

“What this bill does is appropriate property to the state,” said Gardner, a practicing attorney.

Rep. Christine Scanlon, D-Dillon, herself a river rafter, downplayed the consequences of the measure, stating that no one wants to lift a raft out of the water and cross private property with it if it isn’t absolutely necessary. Scanlon also said new developments that move in shouldn’t dictate how a river is used.

“This is about the ability of a development to shut down a river and effectively put river rafting businesses out of business,” said Scanlon.

Curry said she understands that her bill puts competing notions at stake.

“That’s why you just have to give an up or down vote depending on where your heart is,” said Curry.