HELENA -- A Republican candidate for governor said Tuesday he was not involved in the legal case against Montana's stream access law brought by a conservative organization of which he serves on the board of directors.

Pat Davison of Billings said he was not affiliated with the Mountain States Legal Foundation in 2000 when the Colorado group challenged Montana's 1985 Stream Side Access Law in federal court.

''I'm not out here advocating challenging the law at all," Davison said in a phone interview. ''That's not an issue I'm promoting."

All other gubernatorial candidates said they were in favor of keeping the law the way it is. Only one, Republican Ken Miller of Laurel, could not be reached for this story.

The case was dismissed by a federal judge in Montana and appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which also threw out the suit. Mountain States then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which this spring declined to hear the case, Perry Pendley, president and chief legal officer of Mountain States, said. As a practical matter, he said, the case is now dead.

Pendley said the law deprives landowners of their property -- stream sides and land under a stream -- without due process.

The law, which grew out of two 1984 Montana Supreme Court decisions, stipulates that the public can have access to all rivers and streams in Montana for fishing and other recreational purposes provided they stay below the high water mark. The Montana Constitution established in 1972 that all water in Montana -- even rainwater -- belongs to the people of Montana.

The 1985 law, said Secretary of State Bob Brown and a GOP gubernatorial candidate, was a ''tough compromise" pounded out at the request of the Montana Supreme Court. The Montana Stockgrowers Association, fishermen and others were involved, said Brown who served in the 1985 Legislature and voted for the bill.

''I supported the compromise," he said. ''It's pretty much withstood the test of time."

Tom Keating, another former Republican lawmaker and gubernatorial candidate, also served in the 1985 Legislature and voted for the bill.

''I believe the people have the right to use the water, the bed and the banks," he said, adding that dry riverbeds were another story. Those are private property.

Democrat Brian Schweitzer said stream access was part of Montana's ''legacy of access to public lands."

If elected, Schweitzer said he would try to expand public access more while working with private land owners.

Bob Ream, now head of the Montana Democratic Party and the Missoula lawmaker who sponsored the 1985 bill asked this week if Davison supported the lawsuit, as well as the idea of changing the law if elected. Several hunting and fishing groups in Montana signed onto the case on behalf of the state. Some of those groups also questioned where Davison stood on the issue.

''It would be a concern for us if any candidate for governor were to use that office to overturn Montana's stream access law," said John Wilson, conservation director for Montana Trout Unlimited. ''Fishing is an important component to our robust, tourist economy."

Davison said he would not pursue changing the law as governor and would resign from the board of Mountain States if elected. He did say, however, that the stream access law has been abused in some cases and that he supports private property rights.

''What is the definition of 'high water mark?"' Davison asked. ''What if the high water mark goes up to somebody's barn? The challenge stemmed out of private property rights and defending private property rights. The law became so pervasive for interpretation that I believe private property rights were at risk."

Bob Lane, chief lawyer for the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, said the law spells out the definition of high water mark; it is the point at which a river will rise during the peak of spring run off in a typical year.

''If your feet are wet, you're OK," he said. If you're standing on a cut bank, you're trespassing.

The Mountain States Legal Foundation has pushed several cases in Montana. Most recently, the organization represented Sandra Shook, a non-Indian woman who said Indian reservations which limit big game hunting to Indians practice racial discrimination.