Reading the article, it seems that CO has never clarified the issue as to navigable streams and who owns certain property rights as it relates to navigable streams. If the court rules the state owns the riverbed, I doubt it will be considered a "takings" of property rights, as the decision would assert that the state has owned the riverbed since statehood. Hard to have a "takings" when it was your (the State's) property since statehood and others decided to sell that State property as though they owned it.
That sucks for people who paid value for these properties under the premise that they were buying something that the seller represented they owned and could sell; the riverbed. If the case is settled to say the riverbed is public, the seller(s) of these riverfront properties sold a right that was never his/hers to start with. That doesn't help the current owners who were the buyers, though it will solve the question of whose property right is was since statehood; the landowner's property right or the state's property right.
There were some lawsuits in Montana following clarification of the Montana Stream Access law. People who bought property claimed they were sold something that was not the seller's to sell. It was long ago and I am not sure how those cases turned out. Instances like this is why you purchase title insurance, or force the seller to provide you a title insurance policy, when you buy property; to have recourse in the event the title to your newly acquired property turns out to be defective, encumbered, or different than what was represented to you when you bought the property.
However it turns out, the guy quoted in the article is correct when he says that someone is going to be upset. Will be worth watching for sure.
............
