default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Logout|My Dashboard

Who owns the Mokelumne River?

Lodi’s search for a public access point has been hard-fought, but solutions have proved elusive

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Saturday, November 19, 2011 12:00 am | Updated: 6:21 am, Sat Nov 19, 2011.

As a boat turns out of Lodi Lake, the sluggish Mokelumne River opens up to towering trees and soaring birds.

The Lodi Lake Nature Area is quiet, while one man sits on a bench overlooking the water.

As the boat comes around a bend past the nature area, the first expansive house is in view. This will be the view of the river's south bank for most of the trip through Lodi's city limits; home after home has large wooden decks and stairs that weave down to docks in the water.

The city's crowded south side of the river illustrates the story of public access being repeatedly superseded by private development.

Three times, city leaders have declined to provide access or revoked access in subdivisions — despite a state law requiring access in these developments.

Currently, the only public access the city provides is a boat launch and a kayak and canoe launch at Lodi Lake.

But with the south side of Lodi filled with the developments, the question is: Where can access be provided now? The debate resurfaced after city staff began investigating allowing the public to launch kayaks from a city-owned property at the end of Awani Drive in Mokelumne Village.

Advocates say city leaders have long promised access there, and that the site may be the last, best hope. Jay Bell, a river advocate and avid kayaker, pointed out that between Lodi Lake and Highway 99, there is no place where people can legally put their toe in the water.

"Systematically, all of the land got sold off. ... It should be considered a real valuable public resource, but so few people are aware of what a resource it is," Bell said.

But homeowners are worried the Awani site could attract more traffic, noise and troublemakers, said Joan Morrison, a Mokelumne Village resident. While she has no problem with kayakers launching from the area, once you open up the 3.7 acres, she said, it will attract a wide variety of people.

"Theoretically, it would be a great place to access the river if people followed the rules, and didn't drink and do drugs and drive loud cars and park in front of homes. It's a societal issue, not just river access," Morrison said.

How did we get here?

There have been three subdivisions built since 1975 along the Mokelumne that were supposed to include access to the river because of the Subdivision Map Act.

"No local agency shall approve either a tentative or final map of any proposed subdivision to be fronted upon a public waterway, river or stream which does not provide, or have available, reasonable public access by fee or easement from a public highway to that portion of the bank of the river or stream bordering or lying within the proposed subdivision," according to the act.

The state law suggests that cities consider providing access through a highway, foot trail, bike trail, horse trail or other means of travel.

In 1976, Rivergate was the first subdivision to be built after the act was passed. Public access was originally included through a small boat launch in the back of one of the lagoons.

But in 1980, the city gave back the easement for the access point after neighbors complained that no one was using it. Now, it is fenced off.

Bell said people probably did not know about the launch, and during the last couple of years, the kayak and canoe community has grown. He wishes the city had set aside more space in the Rivergate area for a park.

"For all the shoreline that the project encompasses, to allocate only a concrete slab is ridiculous," Bell said.

Mokelumne Village was the next development approved in 1978, but no access was specifically included in the maps, according to an analysis written in 1991 by then-City Attorney Bob McNatt. McNatt wrote the staff report for the Lodi City Council to inform them about the history of access.

The Lodi Planning Commission approved the 57-acre project with a variety of conditions, including the following: "... that public access to the Mokelumne River as required in the State Resources Code be provided to the approval of the Public Works Director."

McNatt wrote that the city's scenic overlook at the end of Awani Drive was likely viewed as adequate access because it is next to the Mokelumne Village project.

And it seems like providing access there was the plan. In 1978, the city sent a letter to the San Joaquin Local Health District, saying that it is no longer using the former dump site to dispose of debris. The letter said the plan for the site was for it to be "regraded and used as public access to the Mokelumne River."

The city also hired Symbex Corporation of Stockton to remove all the leaves at the dumpsite. But the project never moved past that stage.

Even during the discussions in the 1970s, the issue was not new, said former mayor and councilwoman Evie Olson.

When her father was on the council in the 1950s, Olson remembers him talking about the need for river access.

"Somehow we should correct what has been done, but we can't go back and undo it," she said. "I don't think anyone thought about this when the decisions were made, because there was still access to the river."

The city ended up selling the property in the early 1980s. The idea was for a developer to build homes there, but when they found contamination on the property, the developer sold it back to the city in the late '80s.

In 1994, the Lodi Planning Commission considered the River Pointe project, just west of Mokelumne River. The developer, River Pointe Partners, did not want to open any of its land along the river for public access because they were concerned the public would destroy it.

The developers pointed to the city's scenic overlook off Awani Drive as the state-required access for their project. Former mayor and councilwoman Susan Hitchcock was on the Planning Commission during the decision to build River Pointe. She remembers that neighbors opposed opening up the Awani Drive location because of pollution in the soil.

At the time, Hitchcock said she would like to see the city develop the scenic overlook, but concerns with contamination might prevent it from opening.

Despite background showing the city's property on Awani was to be a public access point, that never was made clear to the homeowners, said Morrison, who has lived in Mokelumne Village since 1986.

Many people who live in the subdivision would not have purchased houses there if they knew it would be public, she said.

"If you live in a nice quiet community, you buy there because it is a nice quiet community. It would be very disturbing to a lot of us if it was public access," Morrison said.

But for some local residents, the city's failure to provide access has gone far enough. Kathy Grant, who works as the docent coordinator at Lodi Lake, said the lack of access to the river for Eastside residents harms kids and robs them of connecting with nature.

"It used to be that kids played in that river before the subdivisions were built that kept them out. It makes for a healthy connection to where you live," Grant said.

She took a group of Heritage School students to Lodi Lake, and many said they did not even know there is a river in town.

"It's happened over the last 40 years. There are several generations that have no contact with the river," Grant said.

Where do we go from here?

Some question whether more access is in fact needed.

Rivergate homeowner Carol Meehleis said she has watched the river get more and more populated in the 25 years she has lived in the area.

In the last year, she said there were 45 kayakers that her family saw on a regular basis, not including ones who just come out for one day. She said the biggest problem is the increase in jetskis, because they speed through the river and are damaging the natural habitat.

She questions opening up another access point when there is not money for the city of Lodi or the San Joaquin Sheriff's Office to patrol the waterway.

"We are full. I'm saying people are finding more and more ways to access the river. I've never felt it was restrictive," Meehleis said.

But Ashlie Arbuckle, who owns Headwaters Kayak with her husband, Dan, said there needs to be more access. During the summer, she said, it can be frustrating because there is only one main access point for the entire city.

Bell agreed that there needs to be more opportunities to enjoy the river on the east side of town. He said many of the residents who live in homes along the Mokelumne are misguided in thinking that they own the waterway.

"It's easy when you live on the river to get in the mindset that this is part of your space. It's like your street," he said.

Using the example of Rivergate, he said the general public did not even know that the access to the river was being taken away until it was gone.

"The fact is that they were unaware it was happening. The people who did know took advantage of it and profited from it," Bell said.

The city is still considering the property on Awani Drive. Representatives from San Joaquin County Environmental Health and state agency Cal Recycle recently visited the site and are planning the best way to test the soil for contamination, city spokesman Jeff Hood said.

Morrison said the neighbors are worried about graffiti, people doing drugs and drinking, and the noise. She said that 50 years ago the city might have been able to open up the area, but now it's a different society where people do not take care of things.

She also is worried how the city would pay to take care of the park after it was built.

"What happens with the ongoing cost? The city does not have the money to add more personnel," Morrison said.

The neighbors do not object if kayakers want to stop and get out on the beach.

Another possibility is another access point at Lodi Lake, Morrison said, because then the city would not need to add more staff to keep it safe.

She also suggested the city look further upstream for a place to provide access.

"Maybe there's a place that wouldn't be in the middle of an established community, on the other side of Highway 99," she said.

While they will keep monitoring the issue, Morrison does not expect the public access to come to fruition, solely because of cost.

"To clean up the site and put in a park would become so cost-prohibitive that it will probably not be developed," she said.

Grant said she would like to see the city property open for the public, but it could possibly take an outside environmental organization to force a change. She pointed to the opposition at community forum about the possible kayak and canoe launch in August as a hurdle to getting access.

"Those people who you saw who were the loudest at the meeting run the city. They are the business owners, bankers and lawyers. ... Most people who lost the right to the river aren't wealthy enough to fight it," she said.

Arbuckle still holds out hope for that site. By having a kayak and canoe launch only, it could ease tensions between jetskiers and paddlers, she said. The slower-moving boats could go up river as opposed to launching from the same area as the jetskis at Lodi Lake.

"It's a beautiful section of the river. It gets quiet. We can put in there and go up river where it becomes a little less developed and a little more seclusive," she said.

The city could design the access similar to launches in Sacramento on the American River, where people drive into established neighborhoods and get out on the river.

"It would be an ideal situation for that empty lot. Right now, it's just such a waste. It would clean up the neighborhood because right now, it's an overgrown field with a chain link fence where kids and people who aren't supposed to be in there go anyway," she said.

Contact reporter Maggie Creamer at maggiec@lodinews.com. Read her blog at www.lodinews.com/blogs/citybuzz.

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don't pretend you're someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don't insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.

Welcome to the discussion.


  • Robert Chapman posted at 12:33 pm on Tue, Nov 22, 2011.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    I said WE didn't have any accidents. The accident I referred to was someone not with our ski group.

  • Robert Chapman posted at 12:31 pm on Tue, Nov 22, 2011.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    During the 60's we used the stretch of river from Woodbridge to hwy 99 to water ski. Sometimes 6-7 days a week during the summer. We were always respectful of properties and never left a mess, We floated down from hwy 99 before the dam was closed cleaning fallen trees and hazards. We did not have any accidents either. It wasn't until people came out with BIG cruisers sightseeing down the middle of the river at slow speeds that I remember the first accident and it wasn't the ski boats fault. The river traffic eventually got so bad we abandoned it as a convient place to ski. The last time I was on the river (a few years ago) I was flabbergasted by the amount of trash along the banks. As usual, some jerks ruin it for all.

  • roy bitz posted at 11:22 pm on Sun, Nov 20, 2011.

    roy bitz Posts: 489


    The idea of opening the old dump site should be considered then abandoned.

  • roy bitz posted at 11:16 pm on Sun, Nov 20, 2011.

    roy bitz Posts: 489

    Thank you LNS/ Maggie Creamer for documenting how these developments were able to work around State law regarding access to the river. Interesting.

    Two comments:

    I urge the city to consider establishing a "safe" speed limit on this stretch of water. There have been collisions and deaths caused by power boats colliding with small boats.

  • Marcia Pothast posted at 7:40 pm on Sat, Nov 19, 2011.

    Marcia Pothast Posts: 11

    The river traffic is scary. I can't imagine wanting to take a kayak out there to compete with the jet skis. Fact is this is not a very big river as it runs through Lodi.

  • carlene serra posted at 5:52 pm on Sat, Nov 19, 2011.

    caryls Posts: 3

    A final comment to those of you who responded.....No, I didn't imply that private home owners feel they own the river, but as a home owner, we have certain rights. We have a right not to have boaters speeding in a 5 mile zone. I have nothing against kayakers. They are there to enjoy the water, but when you start letting people have access in multiple areas of the river, - that invades homeowners' right to privacy. And, my final comment is that when there are a lot of boats, jet skis, and kayakers in the water without proper control of the area, there will be accidents.

  • John Kindseth posted at 1:08 pm on Sat, Nov 19, 2011.

    John Kindseth Posts: 228


    "...from one to 4 OF their...."

  • John Kindseth posted at 1:07 pm on Sat, Nov 19, 2011.

    John Kindseth Posts: 228

    Public parks have visual and police access anywhere from one to 4 or their sides.

    The river has ZERO.

    Kayakers are welcome 24 hours a day. They are a more civilized group.

  • Alex Kennedy posted at 11:17 am on Sat, Nov 19, 2011.

    Alex Posts: 215

    Public land and waterways are by definition PUBLIC. Just because it feels like it's yours or some real estate agent neglected to tell you it wasn't, does not make it yours. You can't keep the poor kids out forever and it's wrong to even try.

    Ron: Well said.

  • Ron Werner posted at 10:50 am on Sat, Nov 19, 2011.

    Ron Werner Posts: 73

    I find it paradoxical and frankly very selfish, that homeowners are perfectly fine with having their private docks on the public river but so against having the public use the public river. People who live next to public property should have an expectation that the public will use it and they have no control over the people who do. Ask anyone who lives next to a park. It's great not having a house close by but the trade off is you might have to put up with barking dogs, screaming kids or trash that blows into your yard. Yes, Ms Serra, people who use public property frequently break the law. Not every driver obeys the speed limits on our public roads. When someone passes you going 70 in a 65 mile zone it probably doesn't get a reaction from you. The same should apply to boaters. The problem stems from the fact you chose to purchase a house next to public land you act as if it's your own.

  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:58 am on Sat, Nov 19, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Ms Serra stated...who is going to patrol the river? - who is going to develop that area? - the owner of the kayak business that seems to be in cahoots with City Hall????!!!!!

    Ms Serra makes a good point. I would think the details would be in writing by those who are making the proposal.

    I have walked the nature trail that begins at Lodi Lake and noticed jet ski's and boats going fast and with much noise following the river.. The thought crossed my mind that I would not enjoy living in the river front homes that had to deal with that disturbance to their wonderful location.

    If I were a home owner there, I would attempt to negotiate an overall control of the area and a guarantee from the city to control the noise pollution as well as safety. This problem already exists... why not take advantage of the proposed development and solve everything all at once?

    I must be missing something as this whole thing seems odd.

  • John Sheckles posted at 8:45 am on Sat, Nov 19, 2011.

    TheBossJohn Posts: 5

    Clearly it is all about the money. The few people within city government who lined their pockets to allow a few developers to get rich. The people who bought river front property are not to blame.

    The river front people do however need to understand, under state and federal law, the do not own the river. That said, once a person is in the river (from where ever they are allowed to enter), they can seek land on either side of the river at any point they wish. The water and waters edge is public not private.

  • carlene serra posted at 6:16 am on Sat, Nov 19, 2011.

    caryls Posts: 3

    Our home is one of those pictured on the front page. We built the dock & paid well for that location. Every year we are bombarded with power boats & other water craft speeding into a 5 mile an hour area. My question is, if you open up the area (that used to be a shooting range & needs cleaned up!), who is going to patrol the river? - who is going to develop that area? - the owner of the kayak business that seems to be in cahoots with City Hall????!!!!!



Popular Stories


Should graduations return to the Grape Bowl?

Lodi Unified leaders are moving Lodi and Tokay high school graduations from the Grape Bowl to the Spanos Center at UOP in Stockton. They cite limited seating, costs and unpredictable weather at the Grape Bowl. But others say graduations at the Grape Bowl are an important Lodi tradition, and one reason many supported renovating the stadium. What do you think?

Total Votes: 204


Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists