[mulmen]

Doesn't the California state constitution make this distinction? At least for beaches?

Rivers are more complicated than other geographic features because what you do upstream can affect me downstream so it makes sense to have some more rules around them, or even treat them as public.

[beerandt]

Also, waterways and their adjacent lands are historically open to the public as a means of transportation, not for recreation or some other community notion of sharing pretty spaces.

[thesmok]

"Historically" doesn't sound like a good argument for future proof solution of this problem. In Ukraine, it is illegal to block access to any coastal line, sea, river or lake, even if it's private property. You can put up a fence 25 to 100m inland from the lake or river (depends on the size of water body) or 2km from the sea coast, but beaches are for everyone.

[beerandt]

Historically is a legal argument based on common law precedent, not a philosophical argument.

At some point over a thousand years ago, some judge decided it was in the public's best interest that ships be allowed to beach themselves on the nearest toshore/bank without fear of consequence.

(Which is why the high tide line makes sense, as far as where to draw the line.)

They didn't want captains to hesitate if a boat was in distress.

Similarly, sailors getting off a distressed ship shouldn't fear consequences leaving a beached ship, and walking along the coast to the next port.

It's the same logic as a broken down car's driver being allowed to walk down the shoulder of the interstate highway to get to the next exit for help.

This right of passage came about due to interest of public safety; it had nothing to do with public "ownership" of the shoreline, especially for the purposes of enjoyment or recreation.

Now, you could argue it should be the public's right to enjoy all beaches recreationally, but that would require a separate political (as opposed to judicial) process, and would/should be considered a public taking (expropriation), where the land owner has a right to compensation at Fair Market Value, plus expenses.

But that's not what anyone here is arguing for.