- 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: Spinoff: House Bill 391 re: access to water over private water bottoms
Posted on 3/14/18 at 11:55 am to AlxTgr
Posted on 3/14/18 at 11:55 am to AlxTgr
quote:
Seems like more definitions are needed.
Agreed.
Also, I think it's important to note that the bill also states
quote:
the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to running waters passing over privately owned water bottoms where navigation has been prevented or impeded by an obstacle constructed by a private landowner prior to March 2, 2018.
So this only applies to any waters not already blocked off.
Still, would be a win for the pro-access side if they get any of the currently-private-but-not-blocked-off waters open to access.
This post was edited on 3/14/18 at 11:55 am
2
Posted on 3/14/18 at 12:10 pm to Cowboyfan89
quote:
So this only applies to any waters not already blocked off.
I'm not a lawyer, but this seems like it will be the part that kills the bill if not amended out. Seems like both sides would be pissed about the arbitrary nature of the way that's written for multiple reasons. The only real winner is the guy who's already gated all canals leading to his property regardless of features. I would think most people just want a more reasonable definition of navigable and for it to apply across the board regardless of whether there was a cable stretched across it in February.
Posted on 3/14/18 at 1:20 pm to Cowboyfan89
quote:
the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to running waters passing over privately owned water bottoms where navigation has been prevented or impeded by an obstacle constructed by a private landowner prior to March 2, 2018.
quote:
So this only applies to any waters not already blocked off.
i think that was most likely thought as a requirement to get the support for it to be passed.
so while not ideal, i can see where it needed "some" form of compromise to the gaters and access to public water rights blockers.
what i dont like about that wording is i wish it was worded as a solid none movable barrier so gates and floating barriers were not included, but then over time, the cost of maintaining a barrier will mean we slowly see then go away.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News