I enjoyed your article in the News-Sentinel about river access. One problem, though: Most of the access I remember people (kids) having in the past was due to trespassing on agricultural or railroad property.
As part of the family which owned property now known as Rivergate, I remember constant trespass and vandalism problems as well as liability issues from trespassers accessing the river. People who were considerate enough to ask for permission to fish were usually allowed onto the property until liability became a major concern.
It is too bad that Rivergate subdivision was allowed to develop as it did. The original bottomland was very similar to the Lodi Lake Nature Area, except with a bigger pond. I understand that changing the riparian bottomland as it did would not be allowed under today’s regulations. Hopefully such development with community access to river and better long-term planning will happen in the future.
That is easy for me to say since I won’t be negatively affected by the public access. However, if a complete enough plan can be developed in possible cooperation between all the parties concerned, and possibly a non-governmental agency as was done for the Cosumnes River Preserve, everyone’s major concerns could be mollified.