If you ask most Coloradans what the rules for river access are, they’ll tell you something like this: you can float the river, but you shouldn’t touch private land.

​

And they’re mostly right.

​

 “Float, don’t touch.” Is the custom most anglers, paddlers, and landowners recognize, and it has helped avoid conflict across much of the state.

​

What most people don’t realize, however, is that while this is the custom, it is not the law.

That distinction matters — especially now. 

​

As lawmakers consider whether to intervene with river access legislation this session, there is one critical point that deserves more attention than it is getting:

 

Any legislation on river access — even legislation meant to help — could backfire and actually reduce access statewide.

​

Here’s why.

​

For years, Colorado has operated under a practical status quo - Float Don't Touch - that allows floating while respecting private property. Importantly, this balance was never written into law — on purpose.

 

More than a decade ago, after disputes on the Taylor River, Governor Bill Ritter helped broker a compromise that avoided legislation and avoided litigation. Everyone involved understood the legal reality: if the state tried to codify river access, landowners would sue — and the courts would decide the issue once and for all.

​

Based on long-standing Colorado Supreme Court precedent, including People v. Emmert (1979), there is a substantial risk those landowners would win. In that case, the Court held that there is no general public right to float or recreate through rivers where they cross private land without the landowner’s consent.

​

That outcome would not protect river access. It would do the opposite. A court ruling could explicitly reaffirm, statewide, that no legal right to float exists, wiping out the informal “float, don’t touch” understanding that many Coloradans rely on today.

​

This concern is not hypothetical. In a 2012 Colorado Supreme Court case involving a proposed public trust doctrine, former Justice Greg Hobbs warned that imposing such a change would “drop what amounts to a nuclear bomb on Colorado water rights and land rights.” Once courts are forced to rule, the consequences can be sweeping and irreversible.

​

CWCA supports the long-standing status quo that has served Colorado well.

We oppose a so-called “right to wade” legislation because it would disrupt that balance. At the same time, we believe that any effort to legislate and codify the right to float  risks unintended consequences on the other side — including breaking the current status quo to the detriment of the right to float itself.

​

If you agree that sometimes no law is often the best law,  please click the button below to contact your state legislators and tell them if it isn’t broken… don’t break it.

​