- 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
Spinoff: House Bill 391 re: access to water over private water bottoms
Posted on 3/14/18 at 11:20 am
Posted on 3/14/18 at 11:20 am
this is to focus on HB 391, which is here: La Reg. Session HB 391
This bill purports to change the law regarding access to water over privately owned waterbottoms.
It reads in part: "No person may restrict or prohibit, pursuant to the authority of Civil Code Article 3413 or otherwise, the public navigation of running waters which are navigable by a motorboat required to be registered or numbered pursuant to the laws of this state or the United States.. . ."
It defines "running waters" as: "running waters" shall mean running waters as provided in Civil Code Article 450 and shall include waters passing over any privately owned water bottom which has a direct natural or man-made inlet or outlet to a state-owned water bottom that is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide of the Gulf of Mexico and the tidally influenced arms and tributaries passing through the coastal areas of this state."
It also provides: "no watercraft powered by a combustible engine may be used to navigate running waters over privately owned water bottoms and banks of waterways in such a way as to cause damage to the bottoms or banks of the waterway."
It's a least a start, but poorly written and has a bunch of gaps. It'll obviously be amended and changed, but I don't think it'll make it out of committee to be voted on by the House.
This bill purports to change the law regarding access to water over privately owned waterbottoms.
It reads in part: "No person may restrict or prohibit, pursuant to the authority of Civil Code Article 3413 or otherwise, the public navigation of running waters which are navigable by a motorboat required to be registered or numbered pursuant to the laws of this state or the United States.. . ."
It defines "running waters" as: "running waters" shall mean running waters as provided in Civil Code Article 450 and shall include waters passing over any privately owned water bottom which has a direct natural or man-made inlet or outlet to a state-owned water bottom that is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide of the Gulf of Mexico and the tidally influenced arms and tributaries passing through the coastal areas of this state."
It also provides: "no watercraft powered by a combustible engine may be used to navigate running waters over privately owned water bottoms and banks of waterways in such a way as to cause damage to the bottoms or banks of the waterway."
It's a least a start, but poorly written and has a bunch of gaps. It'll obviously be amended and changed, but I don't think it'll make it out of committee to be voted on by the House.
Posted on 3/14/18 at 11:24 am to TheCurmudgeon
This will probably end up like Jindal’s fair tax idea. It’ll get amended to shite in order to try to appease everyone, and it’ll end up satisfying no one. Then it’ll get dropped.
Just my prediction.
Just my prediction.
Posted on 3/14/18 at 11:27 am to TheCurmudgeon
quote:
has a bunch of gaps.
Agree it has gaps, but like it's initial simplicity.
quote:
don't think it'll make it out of committee
I tend to disagree, with ammendmemts, I believe it will make it out.
The initial bill and the final bill will obviously have differences.
Posted on 3/14/18 at 11:41 am to TheCurmudgeon
While I don't think it's going anywhere, his part will be interesting to watch,
Seems like more definitions are needed.
quote:
subject to the ebb and flow of the tide of the Gulf of Mexico and the tidally influenced arms and tributaries passing through the coastal areas of this state.
Seems like more definitions are needed.
Posted on 3/14/18 at 12:02 pm to TheCurmudgeon
This just talks about restricting navigation. Doesn't really say anything about stopping and fishing or stopping and busting some poule d'eau.
I don't care if I can only go through it I wanna fish it
I don't care if I can only go through it I wanna fish it
Posted on 3/14/18 at 12:17 pm to TheCurmudgeon
quote:
shall include waters passing over any privately owned water bottom which has a direct natural or man-made inlet or outlet to a state-owned water bottom that is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide of the Gulf of Mexico and the tidally influenced arms and tributaries passing through the coastal areas of this state."
People like the Delacroix Association will just block off the direct natural flows. They are already doing it.
Posted on 3/14/18 at 1:18 pm to TheCurmudgeon
Horribly written and Im against it. The way i read that, a dude with an airboat will basically be able to go wherever there is enough water to not hit bottom. Certain times of year that can basically be anywhere. frick that.
Posted on 3/15/18 at 2:43 pm to TheCurmudgeon
Similar dispute in New Mexico, landowners are stringing barbed wire across rivers now. Barbed wire across rivers claimed "private"
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News