Originally Posted by KSC
The logic is lost on me why people should have rights on historically run commercial sections but not others. I guess it still a law about preserving the viability of commercial companies and granting them rights that they built their business assuming they had and not about granting people rights to use the rivers.
It seems that by limiting the bill to historically commercially run rivers, it assuaged the concerns of those who were opposed to the idea that the right to float comes from language of English Common Law dictating what constitutes a "navigable waterway."
They are saying, you can have the right to float, but it's on our terms, not those old terms- which is still better than nothing.