re: Private vs public water in tidal navigable waterways

What Alex and Mung, who are both lawyers I believe, simply point out is what has been the law in Louisiana for over 200 years. You don't have to like it, but it is the law, and very well settled law. If you don't like it, take it to the legislature, but good luck with trying to divest individuals and corporations of their private property without the payment of compensation to the fullest extent of their loss. And since the water bottom is private property, what gives the public the right to trespass upon private property? The fact that the water is navigable in fact today and subject to the ebb and flow of the tides is of no consideration in Louisiana. The Phillips case was a US Supreme Court Case that interpreted the law of the State of Mississippi. It has no effect in Louisiana. To catch the fish that belongs to the public? Well, do you have a right to go upon your neighbors property to shoot a deer or rabbit that also belong to the public? Of course not, and the concept is the same. Again, you may not like it, but it is the law.

Well said byutgr. What you have framed is 100% accurate.

I tend to not agree with current Louisiana legislation on the matter and belive we can find a middle ground that Barf has mentioned.

quote:

---

It's not unhinged.

---

of course it is. Physical violence because of a logical well reasoned post? Dude, you are insane.

quote:

---

I'm just pointing out the only reason you get to act like that is because smacking you isn't worth the hurt feelings lawsuit you would almost certainly file.

---

No suit, but you would be committed, and hopefully receive the treatment you need.

quote:

---

of course it is. Physical violence because of a logical well reasoned post? Dude, you are insane.

---

I'm not threatening physical violence. I just think you need to be slapped around a little bit for your own good. I'm not interested in being the one to do the slapping because I don't feel like getting sued and most importantly I don't feel like driving to fricking Alexandria.

quote:

---

Because they won't allow people to trespass?

---

I know what you're trying to do, and it's just not applicable here and you know it. You can't apply this hard line logic to a situation that has as many moving parts as the La coastline. It's almost as if you think exploitation is fine as long as it's not illegal. On a fundamental level I do not disagree but in the interest of protecting one of the greatest resources in the US we need to do a better job or else we could lose the marsh.

There were no laws back when O/G were digging canals through the marsh. They didn't have the foresight to know those canals would responsible for a large part of our coastal erosion.

I'd rather it not be there than see it get raped by land owners for profit because "it's the law, get over it."

quote:

---

I know what you're trying to do, and it's just not applicable here and you know it.

---

I don't know what you're getting at.

quote:

---

You can't apply this hard line logic to a situation that has as many moving parts as the La coastline.

---

I do try to avoid the actual coastline because it's a problem, and doesn't fit squarely in any analysis i have read.

quote:

---

. It's almost as if you think exploitation is fine as long as it's not illegal.

---

No, it's not. You just don't seem to understand that it has nothing to do with this analysis.

quote:

---

There were no laws back when O/G were digging canals through the marsh. They didn't have the foresight to know those canals would responsible for a large part of our coastal erosion.

I'd rather it not be there than see it get raped by land owners for profit because "it's the law, get over it."

---

Again, coastal erosion and how remedies are paid for has nothing-not one little thing-to do with whether or not land or water is private.

quote:

---

You're not wrong but why should the state foot the bill to repair damage caused by exploitation on private land?

---

I don't have a strong opinion on this, and it's got nothing to do with this discussion, but I'll answer anyway. Because the state issued the permits. If companies violated the terms, hold them to the fire.


In the end, coastal restoration benefits all of us even if it's just replacing land lost from private holdings.

quote:

---

Because the state issued the permits. If companies violated the terms, hold them to the fire.

---

You know as well as I do that the permits issued during the height of o/g exploration were bullshite.

quote:

---

In the end, coastal restoration benefits all of us even if it's just replacing land lost from private holdings.

---

It only benefits the people who own the land. A sea wall would benefit all of us.

quote:

---

When I look at a place like the La marsh, I see a wild place that should remain wild and be protected. NO I do NOT mean protected as in privately owned.

---

That would have been great, and I wish it had been done. It wasn't.

quote:

---

Where as I feel that your view is private property rights trump all and that's just something I can never get behind.

---

It seems like you just don't understand taking.

quote:

---

It's not about us, we have had our fun. It's about setting aside places for people to enjoy after we are dead and gone.

---

Get behind organizations that buy private land and then donate it to public use.