If you read Welborn's weekly report, there's a bit of a contradiction with regard to the Mitchell Slough Case. He first describes the bill as such: And then claims it has nothing to do with the case. I can understand being frustrated if I owned property, paid for the permit and development of an irrigation ditch to sustain my farming business and then had the public destroying the structure (at my expense) or holding me liable if they happened to drown in one of my channels. I'd be interested in knowing if either of those two issues are reality. For a rancher, this would be a very reasonable concern. For Huey Lewis, I suspect it's all about having your own private trout stream. It seems to me if a "ditch" is navigable with easy entry and exit to a main river without harm to the landowner's structure, the public should not be prohibited from floating/fishing that water.