Georgia Senate committee hears bill to clarify public 'right to float' on small rivers; sharp split over private property rights

Senate Transportation Committee members heard more than two hours of testimony on a bill described in the hearing as Senate Bill 511 that would clarify public passage rights for recreational boaters on rivers and streams now often treated as non‑navigable.

Senator Still, the bill sponsor, told the committee the measure is intended to "protect Georgia River Heritage" and to affirm that people may traverse certain non‑navigable streams "solely for passage," without landing, fishing or disturbing private banks. He said the change is aimed at reducing confusion that has led some paddlers to be confronted — and, he said, in some cases arrested — while guiding commercial trips or floating for recreation.

Proponents framed the bill as an economic and safety clarification. Rena Peck, executive director of Georgia Rivers, said the measure would secure a legal basis for outfitters and water‑trail tourism and read a statement from the Nantahala Outdoor Center, saying the outfitters' operations support jobs (the statement cited roughly 600 NOC employees). Joe Cook of Georgia Rivers and other paddling advocates said the bill would not "take" land because users would remain on the stream bed and only be entitled to passage, not to use or occupy private banks.

Legal testimony from Craig Pendergrast, an attorney practicing in real estate and water law, described historical Georgia case law dating to Young v. Harrison (1849) and subsequent decisions. Pendergrast recounted an incident on the Upper Chattahoochee where a landowner physically blocked a canoeing party and told them, "This is my river," and said sheriffs had at times treated incidents inconsistently. He argued the bill is a clarification of a long‑standing common‑law easement of passage, not a substantive change in property law.

Opponents representing farmers and landowners said the bill would broaden navigability and risk an uncompensated taking. Adam Bellflower of the Georgia Farm Bureau and a representative of the Georgia Agribusiness Council warned that landowners routinely rely on exclusive bed ownership for fencing and livestock management and that a statutory passage right could conflict with long‑standing property interests.

Committee members probed practical questions: whether a landowner who owns both banks could nevertheless be required to allow passage, whether culverts or highway crossings count as public launch points, and how stocked trout streams used for private angling would be affected. Sponsor and witnesses repeatedly emphasized the bill’s stated limitation that passage be "solely for passage" and not permit disembarkation, hunting, fishing or other interference with private use of the banks.

The committee did not vote. Chairman Dolezal asked legislative counsel to prepare a written opinion clarifying how Georgia law currently treats different categories of streams and whether the bill would change existing rights. Senator Hatchett publicly stated he is "staunchly opposed" to the bill for his district, and the hearing closed with the sponsor saying the conversation should continue.

Next steps: legislative counsel will issue the requested opinion; the committee did not take formal action at the hearing.