Who can float on Georgia's small streams? The matter may still be up for debate

ATLANTA — From the winding blackwaters of the Suwannee River to the ice-cold streams that flow through the Appalachian foothills, Georgia is home to more than 70,000 miles of waterways. Some stretches are beloved by anglers and rafters, while others simply offer regular Georgians a chance to convene with nature.

Outdoor enthusiasts and landowners largely agree that most who float on Georgia’s streams and rivers are respectful of the private property that sometimes abuts them, and vice versa. But that’s not always the case.

In recent years, Georgia’s waterways have been the backdrop for some heated confrontations, spawning lawsuits and in at least one case, an exchange of gunfire. Those conflicts have led to a vigorous debate over how to balance public access to waterways and private property rights.

A Georgia House of Representatives study committee convened this fall to explore legislative solutions to the topic. Over three meetings, the seven-member committee — which included five Republicans, one Democrat and former Georgia Environmental Protection Division director Jud Turner — heard hours of testimony from paddle sport advocates, rafting outfitters, private property owners and state officials.

At the heart of the issue is what constitutes a “navigable” waterway.

Georgia’s definition — which still looms over the debate today — is largely based on an 1863 state law that says “navigable” streams are public, but identifies navigable waterways as those capable of transporting a boat loaded with freight for all or part of the year. Access to other waterways, meanwhile, has been dictated by tradition rather than any official determination.

Outdoor recreation proponents have long said the definition was outdated, but the need to clarify access became more urgent last year.

In March 2023, Georgia DNR agreed to settle a lawsuit by acknowledging a landowner’s exclusive right to fish on part of the Flint River. Days later in response, the Georgia General Assembly passed and Gov. Brian Kemp signed Senate Bill 115 into law, affirming the public’s right to “use and enjoy” navigable streams for fishing, hunting and travel, even where the stream or river bed is privately owned.

The law caused a stir, leading state legislators to try to more precisely delineate access for outdoor recreation.

Last session, one piece of legislation passed to slightly narrow public use when ownership of a navigable stream’s bed is tied to a so-called “crown” grant from the King of England or Georgia’s early governors.

But a separate, more ambitious bill floated by Rep. James Burchett, R-Waycross, aimed to list each of Georgia’s “navigable” streams. Critics said those that didn’t make the cut — including popular streams like the Cartecay River near Ellijay — could have been closed off to the public if landowners along the river decided to restrict access. The proposal failed to advance, but did yield a study committee to dig into the issue.

In early December, the committee released its final report, which recommended the legislature abort the mission of delineating navigable and non-navigable streams. It did urge the General Assembly to “protect Georgia’s fishing, hunting, trapping, and outdoor recreation traditions,” plus farmers and loggers, by carefully evaluating the potential impact of any legislation.

Many outdoor recreation advocates say allowing private property owners to limit access to waterways that flow through their land will threaten their enjoyment and the state’s recreational boating and fishing industry, which generates an estimated $1.1 billion of economic activity annually, according to the nonprofit Georgia Rivers.

Julie Phy, co-owner of Kayak Ringgold in northwest Georgia, offers visitors a chance to float down a 2.8-mile stretch of South Chickamauga Creek that passes through private properties. Phy said she’s never had issues with landowners along their current route, but has discussed expanding to other nearby waterways with her business partner. That might be off the table if the current uncertainty remains or, worse yet, the stretch of creek they operate on is deemed off limits to the public, she said.

“If we were to end up with a legal battle on our hands, sadly, we would probably just close,” Phy said.

Some landowners, meanwhile, told the committee they pay taxes on their properties, including on the underlying stream bed, plus take steps to improve the waterways they live on by maintaining the shoreline and in some cases, even stocking the streams with fish. Some argued they should be allowed to keep rafters and kayakers from floating through their property.

Arch Farrar, an attorney who owns property on the Chattooga River in northwest Georgia, told the committee they should simply keep the status quo.

“If you do nothing ... people will work it out,” he said.

Others argued the legislature should create a new class of “passable” streams — waterways too small to meet the historic definition of navigability, but big enough to support rafts. Such a move, proponents said, would not allow paddlers to trespass on surrounding stream banks, but would allow them to pass down waterways that cross through private property.

It’s unclear what — if anything — the legislature will do on this issue during the upcoming session, which starts in a few weeks.

Study committee Chair Lynn Smith, R-Newnan, and Burchett, who also served on the committee and was behind earlier waterway access legislation, did not respond to requests for comment.

_____