Court to hear stream access case; Hearing set for April 29 on MSU campus in Bozeman

2013-03-24T01:00:00Z Court to hear stream access case; Hearing set for April 29 on MSU campus in BozemanBy Francis Davis of The Montana Standard Montana Standard

The Montana Supreme Court will hear a case next month that could have far-ranging effects on Montana’s stream access laws.

In April 2012, District Judge Loren Tucker ruled that public use of Seyler Lane didn’t guarantee the public access to the Ruby River from a bridge on that road.

The bridge is near Twin Bridges, about 50 miles southeast of Butte.

The Public Land/Water Access Association appealed Tucker’s decision in a case that will be heard in a single day by the state’s high court at the Strand Union Building on the campus of Montana State University in Bozeman on April 29.

In an aspect of that case that could have repercussions for the state’s stream access laws, James Cox Kennedy cross-appealed.

Kennedy is the chairman of the Atlanta-based media conglomerate Cox Enterprises, which owns the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and dozens of television and radio stations. Kennedy owns over 3,000 acres of real estate in Southwest Montana, including nearly 10 miles along the Ruby River.

Kennedy’s cross-appeal threatens two of Montana’s renowned access laws — not only the 2009 law that allows the public access to rivers and streams via bridges on most public roads, but also the 1985 Stream Access Law that allows people access to waters by staying within the ordinary high water mark of rivers and streams.

In his cross-appeal, Kennedy implies a challenge to both those laws as an “unconstitutional taking of his vested property rights.”

The Montana Standard’s efforts to reach Kennedy’s Missoula lawyer Colleen Dowdall were not successful, but according to court documents, Kennedy asserts that because the Ruby River is non-navigable, it is not in the public trust, and thus “its bed and control of the water above belongs to the riparian owner.”

The cross-appeal court brief goes on to state that “The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that a public easement to use waters above private streambed is an actual invasion of private property, requiring due process and just compensation. The state’s ownership of the flowing water themselves is thus irrelevant to the question of whether the public may walk on Kennedy’s streambed or boat above it.”

John Gibson, of Billings, president of the PLWA, said he suspects that Kennedy wants to take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“I don’t know if they are trying to get it into the federal court system or what,” Gibson said. “I don’t see what they expect. The Montana Supreme Court has ruled that people have a right to recreate on the water, to fish and enjoy their resources.”

Montana Trout Unlimited has filed a friend-of-the-court amicus brief supporting PLWA, while the United Property Owners of Montana and the Property and Environmental Research Center, Bozeman, have filed briefs supporting the opposition.

Deanna Robbins, of Roy, president of United Property Owners of Montana, thinks PLWA’s lawsuit undermines the rights of property owners.

“We viewed the lawsuit by PLWA as an attempt to take rights away from Montanans,” Robbins wrote in an email to The Montana Standard. “Their lawsuit would have the courts create public access across private land without permission. That’s a dangerous precedent that would have wide-ranging effects on all property owners in Montana.”

The lawsuit, originally filed in 2004, was against Madison County over access to the Ruby River, from three bridges, two of which adjoined Kennedy’s property. Kennedy had strung fencing that prevented access to the river from the bridges on Seyler Lane and Lewis Lane. Kennedy intervened in the case on behalf of the county.

The other bridge in question, not on Kennedy’s property, was on Duncan District Road.

The court ruled in favor of the PLWA in 2008 for two of the bridges, Duncan District Road and Lewis Lane, saying the public had a right to access the river from the bridges because the bridges were on established county roads. The case prompted the passage of the law by the Montana Legislature that guaranteed bridge access from established county roads.

However, Tucker ruled against the PLWA in the Seyler Lane portion of the case. Seyler Lane is a road by prescriptive easement, in other words, through historic public use, and Tucker ruled that access to the river for recreational use from the bridge on that road was not guaranteed.

This led to the appeal by the PLWA, and then the cross-appeal from Kennedy on the Lewis Lane portion of the case.

— Reporter Francis Davis can be reached at

Copyright 2015 Montana Standard. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(3) Comments

  1. Drifter
    Report Abuse
    Drifter - March 24, 2013 9:22 am
    Amazing isnt it, how these cases seem to come almost always from out-of-state, fat-cat land owners? I suppose they never heard of the old saying..When in Rome.
  2. kathleen
    Report Abuse
    kathleen - March 24, 2013 9:12 am
    If people like James Kennedy have their way, river access will only be the beginning. Kennedy has the money to fight this all the way to the US Supreme Court and will. One has to wonder where all of this will lead and how many of our rights will be lost because we don't have the money (power) to fight back.
  3. soreallysowhat
    Report Abuse
    soreallysowhat - March 24, 2013 1:15 am
    So much for friendly neighbors! Won't be long until there's barbed wire strung across the rivers and streams identifying property boundaries . Missoula lawyer, go figure.

Civil Dialogue

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome. Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum. Our comment policy explains the rules of the road for registered commenters. If you receive an error after submitting a comment, please contact us at

If your comment was removed or isn't appearing online, perhaps:

  1. You called someone an idiot, a racist, a dope, a moron, etc. Please, no name-calling or profanity (or veiled profanity -- #$%^&*).
  2. You rambled, failed to stay on topic or exhibited troll-like behavior intended to hijack the discussion at hand.
  3. YOU SHOUTED YOUR COMMENT IN ALL CAPS. This is hard to read and annoys readers.
  4. You have issues with a business. Have a bad meal? Feel you were overcharged at the store? New car is a lemon? Contact the business directly with your customer service concerns.
  5. You included an e-mail address or phone number, pretended to be someone you aren't or offered a comment that makes no sense.
  6. You accused someone of a crime or assigned guilt or punishment to someone suspected of a crime.
  7. Your comment is in really poor taste.
Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick


Follow the Montana Standard

Subscribe to emails!

Be in the know! Stay plugged in! Sign up for Montana Standard emails in your inbox!

Montana Videos

The 4:06 – trending topics and hot headlines

Missoulian reporter Martin Kidston presents the latest news you need to know about today's headlines in abo…

Clipped from the Newspaper

Great Butte Businesses

Extras from the paper