Is this legal ?

[tradtiger]

Not trying to stir any pots, here. Don't have a gar in this fight, so to speak. Merely commenting that Garguy generally knows his stuff related to the river where he makes his living. Could be a gray area. Out.

[bloodtrailer28]

I'm 100 percent sure my local wardens know the law, especially Ronald Mathis and the other 4 that will quote the above references

If I understand the law correctly is has to maintain an AVERAGE of 30 ft wide from mouth up correct? What we are shown in the picture is a small portion that is NOT 30 ft wide...how are we to know the creek doesn't have an average width of 30 ft? Not trying to argue with you as I don't know if it does or not just looking at a small piece of it.

[Bruiser]

Not true. that stream is navigable in FACT. no 30ft requirement. Public water and not legal to put up a navigation obstacle..

no its not in FACT

[redfishted]

Right after this cut it opens to a very large open water area.

[redfishted]

And another thing, normally this would be under water, only visible because the water was way down

[Snowflake Killa]

What you should do is clean it up and maybe just maybe you could win the crown of the week.

[SamSowell]

Right after this cut it opens to a very large open water area.

If this is the area I'm thinking of go to the appraisal district website for that county and you'll get your answer. Don't wanna spill your spot on the internet. Pull up the interactive map from the site. I'd tell your kid to carry a printout of the cad map to show the GW if they got a visit.

[Bisch]

Question for Toughbroadhead? The act you posted says it has to average 30’. The way I’m reading it, it could be 5’ wide at one point and 40’ at another, and still be a navigable waterway if the average width is 30’.

Bisch


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[bloodtrailer28]

Question for Toughbroadhead? The act you posted says it has to average 30’. The way I’m reading it, it could be 5’ wide at one point and 40’ at another, and still be a navigable waterway if the average width is 30’.

Bisch


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

That's how I see and read it as well.

[Knox]

That photo from winter? No green anywhere

[redfishted]

That photo from winter? No green anywhere

Maybe, I was asking how the fishing had been and he said they lost two of their best spots, I inquired what lost meant? He said someone cut a tree down that fell across one of the cuts and that this was piled in the mouth of the other.

[Lungbustr]

I'm 100 percent sure my local wardens know the law, especially Ronald Mathis and the other 4 that will quote the above references

If you want a correct answer it will come from the Texas General Land Office, or Texas Attorney General. The game wardens rarely know the actual law on this.

[ShredLikeRed]

https://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/nonpwdpubs/water_issues/rivers/navigation/kennedy/kennedy_faq.phtml

[mkk]

.

[GarGuy]

You might want to actually read the act...I cant tell you from fact not assumption .. it has to have a stream bed 30ft wide to be public, the Act and navigable definitions dont come into play till it reaches that width. Matter of fact, it can be a dry stream bed that is 30ft and it still falls under the Act.


That property pictured is PRIVATE property

Navigable by Statute
Under a law dating from 1837, a stream is navigable so far as it retains an average width of 30 feet from its mouth up. The width measured is the distance between the fast (or firmly fixed) land banks. A stream satisfying the 30 foot rule is sometimes referred to as “statutorily navigable” or “navigable by statute.” Under a court decision, the public has rights along a stream navigable by statute just as if the stream were navigable in fact.

Measurement of Stream Width for Navigability by Statute
The entire bed is to be included in the width, not just the area covered by flowing water. The bed extends all the way between the fast land banks. These are the banks which separate the stream bed from the adjacent upland (whether valley or hill) and confine the waters to a definite channel. Further, stream segments having a width of less than 30 feet do not defeat the stream’s navigability by statute, so long as the stream’s width maintains an average of 30 feet or more.

And that does not even cover the 50% gradient regulation set forth by the state.

TuffBroadhead, you quoted the paragraph defining "navigable by statue." There are two types of navigable listed in the statute. The other is "navigable in fact". that means a boat can navigate it. This is clearly the case with this stream or he would have no need to block it. Under streams that can be navigated in fact, there is no stream width mentioned nor required in the statute.


read it from the start and you will see your error.