re: La. Sportsman's Coalition - water access issue

I live in lake charles and fish off black bayou all the time. Never been run out over there. Having said that, my boat will run in wet grass and floats in under 8 inches of water so u less they have a surface drive or an airboat there isn't much chance of getting anywhere close to me. Lots of places I used to fish are now dammed off which the land owners have every right to do. I do fish the refuge a lot though. I've just found that being respectful during duck season has kept me out of this mess.

quote:

---

wish they would dam/gate off every single canal out there, wouldn't be able to do anything south of I10. Instead of Sportsman's Paradise we can re-name the state motto to "louisiana the pay to play state"

---

You mind if I come set camp in your front yard this weekend?

quote:

---

my yard doesn't have waters of the state on it

---

Seems as though these mean, wealthy marsh land owners hold the same opinion, baw.

quote:

---

my yard doesn't have waters of the state

---

My lease has deers of the state. Should you come hunt them?

The courts screwed it up, but now that it's done, it's very difficult to undo. You have vested rights and tax issues. You'll end up with a taking and probably a lack of due process.

quote:

---

The US Supreme Court will be ruling pretty soon on how they define Navigable waterways.

---

I seriously doubt anything they do will be relevant to the issues in this thread. It's a matter of La. state law. Do you have a case you can cite?

quote:

---

navigable water


Define that term for us

---

There are several factors Court's consider:
1. The width/depth (dimensions).
2. Can it sustain commerce? (there's the "real test" vs. the "objective test" here and then then an "economic test" based on it's history of commerce, which ties into factor 1)..
3. The "Equal Footing Doctrine" and what was the water characterized as in 1812 and was it "navigable" in 1812?

Navigability in LA is defined as "navigability in fact," (not navigability in "law" meaning it's a factual inquiry and not a legal determination (factual inquiry case by case).

However, LA law weighs the 1812 historical reference the most heavily. See Catahoula Lake/Little River spill off case that recently came through the courts. Battle of the experts with old documents and maps from 1812(ish) one listing it as Little river and another as Catahoula Lake with Little River running through.

TLDR: LA's riparian and water legal doctrines are a total mess (especially when alluvion and dereliction of land and water is being formed at an excessive rate due to erosion and impacts of levees).

ETA:
"The US Supreme Court will be ruling pretty soon on how they define Navigable waterways."

"I seriously doubt anything they do will be relevant to the issues in this thread. It's a matter of La. state law. Do you have a case you can cite?"

I doubt the SCOTUS gives input on the Catahoula situation (unless the Army Core of Engineers situation somehow creates an issue) or the issue in the OP, unless the waterways are directly being used for federal purposes.

However, if an artificial waterway constructed by "altering, improving or destroying a previously extant natural navigable body of water, then the water can be burdened by a 'Federal Navigational Servitude' and become subject to public use and navigation." See SCOTUS case for Vermillion Corp. v. Vaughn.

WOTUS

Will private landowners’ property fall under more regulation as part of the definition of “waters of the United States?” Will land near, but that does not front, a large body of water be subject to the wetlands regulations of the Clean Water Act (CWA), making development more costly? Over the last several decades, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) and federal regulators have considered these issues but have not drawn a lasting definition for “waters of the United States.”

In 2022, SCOTUS is poised to take the issue up once again. Simultaneously, the Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) have proposed a new definition for the “waters of the United States,” a move that will potentially impact the costs associated with the use of private property and the ability of property owners to build or expand on their lands.

-Traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and territorial seas, and their adjacent wetlands;

Could be yuge. I'd be the ol' farm the 2022 WOTUS rule will be more stringent and more of a taking than Obama's "significant nexus" rule was. However, I cannot see where a new WOTUS definition will make all WOTUS publicly-owned, but will subject more private lands to 404.