| |
mike51
Member
|
Posted: Jun 6, 2010 Post Subject: Cache Creek - Rumsay bridge access
|
|
| On June 5th, the takeout point at the Rumsay bridge is
now posted as "private property" on both left and
right sides of the road on river left. The property
owner has put tree branches next to the road on the
path from the river to prevent any access. This means
that everyone will have to take out at Camp Haswell,
a few miles up river. We talked to a local land owner
who happened by and he pointed out the signs and told
us that there is no more access from the road.
|
dwnrivr
Member
|
| Posted: Jun 7, 2010 |
|
| I usually take out on river left. It is a legal takout obviously as long as you stay next to the bridge. Might be a good idea to bring a copy of the Freedom of Navigation in California. http://cacreeks.com/navigate.htm
Thanks for the heads up!
Zak
|
nnikirk
Member
|
| Posted: Jun 10, 2010 |
|
| | Agreed, there should be public access within the bridge right-of-way. But, that doesn't mean much if there is an irate landowner standing there, particularly if he/she's armed!
|
jwsmith
Member
|
| Posted: Jan 1, 2013Post Subject: Prescriptive Easement
|
|
| | "Prescriptive Easement/Adverse Possession" are terms in law that refer to an area of law which overrides statuary property rights where it can be shown (by photos, testimony, prior publications) that historic public/private use/occupation (usually 20 years)has existed in open (adverse use) defiance of "otherwise available ability of the property owner to restrict that use." (These words are a summary of law, they are not the law.) I can think of no specific "access point" in California that would have greater historic precedent as a Cache Creek prescriptively--obtained access AND portage venue, than that of the Cache Creek Low Water Bridge. If the boating community does not raise legal opposition to this "landowner reassertion of property rights"....we have only ourselves to blame. Remember, if the landowner's ability to prevent "Put-In" at the bridge holds, then "Portage" is also prevented. This would prevent NAVIGATION of Cache Creek from 1,000 cfs to ...??..2500cfs. Furthermore consider: The unimproved road, to which the Cache Creek Low Water Bridge is an essential part, is to the best of my knowledge a "county right-of-way" extending from Hwy 16 all the way over to the Knoxville Road (which runs between Lake Berryessa and Lower Lake, CA.) Before pursuing a "prescriptive easement" solution, the actual width of that right-of-way should be established. Normally public rights-of-way are surveyed routes, exactly defined by width and alignment. The property owner may, in this case, be attempting to block movement on land that is described as being within that alignment and which is not his. YOLO County has a stake (it's parks) in "unencumbered use" of Cache Creek. Their County Counsel might take active interest in this matter.
|
dwnrivr
Member
|
| Posted: Jan 1, 2013Post Subject: access has been restored
|
|
|
http://brt-insights.blogspot.com/2012/03/cooperation-restores-access-to-cache.html
|
kwaters
Member
|
| Posted: Apr 14, 2013Post Subject: Re: Prescriptive Easement
|
|
| | jwsmith wrote: | | "Prescriptive Easement/Adverse Possession" are terms in law that refer to an area of law which overrides statuary property rights where it can be shown (by photos, testimony, prior publications) that historic public/private use/occupation (usually 20 years)has existed in open (adverse use) defiance of "otherwise available ability of the property owner to restrict that use." (These words are a summary of law, they are not the law.) I can think of no specific "access point" in California that would have greater historic precedent as a Cache Creek prescriptively--obtained access AND portage venue, than that of the Cache Creek Low Water Bridge. If the boating community does not raise legal opposition to this "landowner reassertion of property rights"....we have only ourselves to blame. Remember, if the landowner's ability to prevent "Put-In" at the bridge holds, then "Portage" is also prevented. This would prevent NAVIGATION of Cache Creek from 1,000 cfs to ...??..2500cfs. Furthermore consider: The unimproved road, to which the Cache Creek Low Water Bridge is an essential part, is to the best of my knowledge a "county right-of-way" extending from Hwy 16 all the way over to the Knoxville Road (which runs between Lake Berryessa and Lower Lake, CA.) Before pursuing a "prescriptive easement" solution, the actual width of that right-of-way should be established. Normally public rights-of-way are surveyed routes, exactly defined by width and alignment. The property owner may, in this case, be attempting to block movement on land that is described as being within that alignment and which is not his. YOLO County has a stake (it's parks) in "unencumbered use" of Cache Creek. Their County Counsel might take active interest in this matter. |
While it's great that you spent all of this time writing the above post, it was all wasted on the WRONG bridge. The bridge that was in question is located in Rumsey, CA, where road 41 crosses cache creek - NOT the low water bridge where road 40 crosses cache creek. If you don't proofread your post, you have only yourself to blame.
| | | |
