- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Gating canals in houma area
Posted on 2/8/16 at 1:50 pm to Scrowe
Posted on 2/8/16 at 1:50 pm to Scrowe
I really need to get some pics of our gates, they're pretty damn impressive. We've had multiple people interested in having us make them one being they're pretty much tamper proof.
Could turn out to be a money maker.
Could turn out to be a money maker.
1
Posted on 2/8/16 at 1:52 pm to TheOcean
LA is the only state that works like this. It's sad
Posted on 2/8/16 at 1:54 pm to Wacker
Like I said, the dock owners here in FL would love similar laws. Thankfully we're not as corrupt as LA 
Posted on 2/8/16 at 1:54 pm to CP3
quote:
I really need to get some pics of our gates, they're pretty damn impressive. We've had multiple people interested in having us make them one being they're pretty much tamper proof.
Could turn out to be a money maker.
Has your privately dug canal caused any erosion issues? I'm not trying to pick a fight, it's a legitimate question. I've always wondered how land owners handled that problem.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 1:55 pm to Wacker
I think that the water belongs to everyone as do the fish. If the fish can swim in and out with the tide so should we!
Posted on 2/8/16 at 1:56 pm to TheOcean
quote:
Like I said, the dock owners here in FL would love similar laws. Thankfully we're not as corrupt as LA
This is not how the law works, building a dock on a navigable waterway makes the dock public to fish.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 1:57 pm to TheOcean
I hear you... It's amazing how people here don't believe the fact that it's totally different in other states.. It's just understood you can't own a waterway... Maybe other states will become more like Louisiana... I hope threads and discussions like this will change things for the better down.. Good luck to you on the water
Posted on 2/8/16 at 2:01 pm to cajunboatman
Here is an interesting perspective. The water in a public canal belongs to the public. We pay to maintain the waterways etcetera. If someone digs a canal on private land, and connects it to a public waterway that fits the criteria of navigable, all that public water that they diverted into their canal become their own private property? Do the tax payers no longer own that water now that they have diverted it to flow into their private canal?
I'm fairly certain this was the argument used in North Carolina. The courts ruled that if you change the direction or flow of public water, the public does not lose ownership.
I'm fairly certain this was the argument used in North Carolina. The courts ruled that if you change the direction or flow of public water, the public does not lose ownership.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 2:02 pm to cajunboatman
quote:
I think that the water belongs to everyone as do the fish. If the fish can swim in and out with the tide so should we!
So if deer or ducks can go onto property, you should be able to go there too? I have my own beliefs on this subject, but this is just dumb.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 2:04 pm to Barf
quote:
Like the boat launch, the canal is owned by Cenac. It is a private thing subject to dedication to public use, as are roads and streets. Yiannopoulos § 79. Although the canal is navigable, this fact alone does not render it public. Id.; ?Brown v. Rougon, 552 So.2d 1052 (La.App. 1 Cir.1989), writ denied, 559 So.2d 121 (La.1990); ?National Audubon Soc'y v. White, 302 So.2d 660 (La.App. 3 Cir.1974), writ denied, 305 So.2d 542 (La.1975). In this case, the uncontroverted evidence reveals that when the canal was built, it did not divert any natural stream or water body.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 2:09 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
In this case, the uncontroverted evidence reveals that when the canal was built, it did not divert any natural stream or water body.
I'm confused on this statement. I am not sure what canal they are referring to. Did they dig this canal between other private canals or does it connect to a public canal? If it connects to a public canal, I'd like someone smarter than me to explain how it did not divert any natural stream or water body. (What does divert exactly mean in this context)
Posted on 2/8/16 at 2:11 pm to AlxTgr
That case is about a drainage canal. Not the same thing.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 2:11 pm to deaconjones35
The private nature of a canal can be changed if it disrupts the original flow of navigable(in 1812) waterways in such a way as to prevent the public use of those navigable(in 1812) waterways.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 2:11 pm to Barf
quote:
The water in a public canal belongs to the public.
You and most others look at this wrong, the water only marks the line at which the boundary is a state water bottom. There is a set line that is described either by a tide or a set water mark on a navigable waterway. Navigable waterways are land owned by the state. The water is just sitting on it, nothing more.
This post was edited on 2/8/16 at 2:13 pm
Posted on 2/8/16 at 2:12 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
The private nature of a canal can be changed if it disrupts the original flow of navigable(in 1812) waterways in such a way as to prevent the public use of those navigable(in 1812) waterways
Duh. That's been posted a dozen times already.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 2:14 pm to deaconjones35
quote:
(What does divert exactly mean in this context)
It was a drainage canal built by the parish to help with drainage issues on False river.
It quite literally has frickall to with gated canals in tidal marsh.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 2:19 pm to Barf
Maybe our new Wildlife and Fisheries Secretary needs to be approached with this subject. He's an original "down the bayou" resident. I'd be curious as to what he'd say. For that matter I'm sure he's aware of the issue by now.....
Posted on 2/8/16 at 2:21 pm to cajunboatman
quote:
I think that the water belongs to everyone as do the fish. If the fish can swim in and out with the tide so should we!
I'm really trying to understand this whole discussion. This is something I've never encountered. Let's say, for argument's sake, that a landowner built an earthen dam across the mouth of the canal, BUT the landowner installed a culvert to allow the water to pass freely back and forth from the canal to the public waterway. Is the canal waterway still private? Is it public? All this is very confusing.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 2:23 pm to cajunboatman
quote:
Maybe our new Wildlife and Fisheries Secretary needs to be approached with this subject
His opinion matters about as much as yours and mine.
If you really want to see someone befuddled, explain to them that our multi hundred million dollar a year coastal restoration budget is spent mostly on restoring private property. Or try to explain to someone that places like Delacroix and Hopedale only exist because of the good graces of the land owners.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 2:24 pm to Barf
quote:You really don't seem capable of understanding any of this.
That case is about a drainage canal. Not the same thing.
Page 18 of 33
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News