re: HR 391 (Water Access Rights) Passes 5-3 in committee

quote:

---

Yeah, it's a terrible way to manage land. It should be changed. I know land owners don't want to give a single inch of their land, but unfortunately what they purchased has changed a lot since the 1800s. Louisiana needs to have some mechanism to protect it's assets like pretty much every other state in the union.

---

How do you suggest land owners going about getting compensated for the change? Are citizens ok with tax dollars going to paying such compensation to landowners?

Also, will landowners be compensated as boats make their way onto their property during high water times and begin to tear the land up with surface drives?

Finally, due to the state putting in dams and control structures, will the state then purchase the land they impacted due to raising the low water mark along rivers on what was private land?

So many questions in this Pandora's box of a problem. That is more than just, "Derp, you can't own the what I can get to with a boat..."

There is already precedent and laws that protect the land owners, to reverse that is going to require beyond a simple committee vote.

quote:

---

How do you suggest land owners going about getting compensated for the change? Are citizens ok with tax dollars going to paying such compensation to landowners? Also, will landowners be compensated as boats make their way onto their property during high water times and begin to tear the land up with surface drives? Finally, due to the state putting in dams and control structures, will the state then purchase the land they impacted due to raising the low water mark along rivers on what was private land? So many questions in this Pandora's box of a problem. That is more than just, "Derp, you can't own the what I can get to with a boat..." There is already precedent and laws that protect the land owners, to reverse that is going to require beyond a simple committee vote.

---

They wouldn’t be compensated, Louisiana would just take it if they changed the public trust document because it wouldn’t be the land owners land anymore. There is precedent that already exists for this outside your state federally, the only thing that protects land owners in Louisiana is the public trust document for what is navigable waters. If it is changed, that’s the only thing that needs to happen for land owners to lose what they thought was their property. You can go to court and fight it if you want, that would be your option.

This is all a big what if though.

We have lots of acreage that was land before structures were put in in north Louisiana that the government impacted to create a flood control for a public duck hunting lake. As a landowner in this situation we just have to be ok with what was once private recreational property just becoming public? All I'm saying is there is way more impacted in this decision beyond the private gates in the marsh.

No What I mean is exactly what I said; "Want access to a public resource". The public resource is tidal flow water. I don't call it trespassing when a plane flies directly above my house or when my neighbor's kid flies his drone above my house. The air above my house is a public resource just like the water, well at least in all other states its considered a public resource accessible to the public.

quote:

---

The state has to be able to regulate the resource ... has nothing to do with accessing the resource. Which could help those that want to understand why that argument doesn't apply.

---

exactly.

As far as the airplane example, the trespassing law prohibits a drone from from hovering over private property.

quote:

---

Louisiana would just take it if they changed the public trust document because it wouldn’t be the land owners land anymore.

---

Care to expand more on that one?

quote:

---

Thus, along a navigable stream, even if the landowner’s deed includes the bed, and taxes are being paid on the bed, the public retains its right to use it as a navigable stream.

---

THIS IS ALREADY WHAT WE HAVE.

I've often wondered if this statute, enacted in 1985, was actually a "taking" back then of a large portion of the water bottoms which existed then, including those water bottoms created as a result of erosion or loss of actual dry land/marsh:

La. R.S. 56:3 Ownership of wild birds, quadrupeds, fish, aquatic life, water bottoms, oysters, and shellfish

A. The ownership and title to all wild birds, and wild quadrupeds, fish, other aquatic life, the beds and bottoms of rivers, streams, bayous, lagoons, lakes, bays, sounds, and inlets bordering on or connecting with the Gulf of Mexico within the territory or jurisdiction of the state, including all oysters and other shellfish and parts thereof grown thereon, either naturally or cultivated, and all oysters in the shells after they are caught or taken therefrom, are and remain the property of the state, and shall be under the exclusive control of the Wildlife and Fisheries Commission except as provided in R.S. 56:4.

B. Wild birds, quadrupeds, fish, other aquatic life, and the beds and bottoms of rivers, streams, bayous, lagoons, lakes, bays, sounds, and inlets bordering on or connecting with the Gulf of Mexico, within the territorial jurisdiction of the state, including all oysters and other shellfish and parts thereof grown thereon, either naturally or cultivated, and all oysters in the shells after they are caught or taken therefrom, shall not be taken, sold, or had in possession except as otherwise permitted in this Title; and the title of the state to all such wild birds, quadrupeds, fish, and other aquatic life, even though taken in accordance with the provisions of this Title, and the beds and bottoms of rivers, streams, bayous, lagoons, lakes, bays, sounds, and inlets always remains in the state for the purpose of regulating and controlling the use and disposition thereof.

For example, it's real easy to "connect" Hopedale Lagoon and the surrounding bayous, unnamed lagoons, and bays to the Gulf of Mexico through Spanish Bayou.

A hypothetical, and like all hypotheticals, is completely ridiculous. Anyway, say Bill owns land that has hundreds and hundreds of yards of frontage on a Louisiana bayou that was navigable in 1812 and at all other times pertinent herein. Bill plans and digs a huge pond that some would call a lake entirely on his property along the navigable bayou. What are the results, whether you call them legal, desired or otherwise, if Bill:

A: Makes a small cut with culvert from the pond to the bayou that even the smallest of kayaks cannot pass through to fill his pond and allow fish to swim both in an out;

B: Makes a small cut with culvert from his pond to the bayou that only kayaks can pass through to fill his pond and allow fish to swim both in and out;

C: Makes a larger cut with culvert that even a 24' Bay Boat can pass through to fill his pond and allow fish to swim both in and out;

D: Makes a cut with culvert equipped with screen that will allow water through to fill his pond, but no fish whatsoever?

Also, does it matter to you where in Louisiana this bayou and land is located, and if so, why?

La Supreme Court has recognized that the State's ownership interests from that RS 56:3 applies only to pre-existing "navigable waterways" ( which the State already owns)
Gulf Oil v State Mineral Board