re: Spinoff: House Bill 391 re: access to water over private water bottoms

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.