re: BASS Makes Louisiana "Off Limits"

quote:

---

I have no idea. I'm not even sure what you're asking.

---

Let's say that in some instances, they would consider a water to be a TNW. How many TNWs do you know that are privately owned?

quote:

---

There's not going to be one catch all that solves the issue presented by all the various waterways.

---

My point exactly. How does it not apply to the Ship Channel, but it does to other waters that are privately held because they were land 200 years ago? Did the feds and/or state buy all of that land prior to constructing the ship channel? If not, have those landowners just chosen not to prohibit access, given the amount of trouble (and potential lawsuits) it would bring?

I'm not really sure which side of this debate I stand on. Do I think all of the open water in the Cameron-Creole should be free game for anyone that wants to fish or hunt it? I'm not really sure. I know the land managers for both Miami Corporation and Sweet Lake Land and Oil, two of the largest land holders in SWLA. Neither has a problem with federal and/or state money going into marsh restoration on their properties, but if all of that land became public because it was open water, I'm not sure either would have much of a job. Do I think publicly generated money should be spent on private lands? Well, a major part of my job involves tax dollars being spent on private lands, so I would he a hypocrite if I said no.

The whole issue is messy. I think they could use something more current, but should they use maps from 10 years ago? No. Personally, I think if that land goes up for sale and is sold, anything that is open water should automatically go to the state and be open to the public. But if land has been in someone's family for 100 years, he should own whatever was considered "land" when the property was purchased, regardless of whether it became water over time.

Anything that is a natural bayou or connected to a TNW should be accessible by the public. The land adjacent should be private, just like any non-tidal stream, bayou, or river.

Traditional Navigable Water. Any water subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or is presently used, was traditionally used, or is capable of being used for foreign or domestic commerce.

The Mississippi Valley Division of the ACE has a list of these TNWs, and specifically states that it does not include the 2,800 miles of navigable waterways in South Louisiana, "as there are numerous waters in this area that fit the definition of navigable." Basically, they only named the major waterways (Amite, Calcasieu, Mermentau, Mississippi Rivers, etc.), and did not include all of the minor ones on the list. But they are TNWs.

Now, what is included on that list, I do not know. Regardless, the Supreme Court ruled that any water determined to be "navigable-in-fact" is considered public.

Many trenasses or oil field canals would thus be a TNW, because they were historically utilized for commerce. Heck, if it could be used for commercial fishing, that is technically a TNW.

I'm amazed this card doesn't get played more.

quote:

---

Not really important.

---

You didn't even know what TNW was an hour ago, and now it's not important?

"The Daniel Ball" and "The Montello" are the cases that you will want to look up. Both are Supreme Court cases from the late 1800s. Technically, these dealt only with rivers, but all it would take is someone with the balls to challenge a private landowner on a) whether a waterway is a TNW, and b) the legality of private ownership of a TNW, and the private landowner is boned. The Clean Water Act clearly (or not so clearly if you prefer) defines a TNW as a water on which commerce can, has, or does take place. You might think that isn't important, but if a commercial fisherman can access it, or a fur trader used it, or an oil company dug it for access to a site, it could be considered a TNW.

quote:

---

I understand you want a change in the law.

---

You clearly don't understand what I want at all. I said as much earlier.

How many laws are on the books that "aren't used by the courts" because they haven't been put to the test yet?

The whole concept of "Significant Nexus" came out of a court case, and, as a general rule, applies to whether wetlands have a significant nexus to navigable waters.

I don't who you think you've been over this "over and over" with, but it sure wasn't me.

Why am I not surprised that you have no interest in having a real conversation on this? I mean, it's blatantly obvious to me that you think yours is the only opinion that matters.

I don't know what you are talking about. It's not my opinion. The law is fairly well settled. I am not going to discuss concepts not used by our courts in this area. I have no dog in the fight. I own no land subject to this. I will gladly have a real discussion on this when you actually start discussing this

quote:

---

I don't who you think you've been over this "over and over" with, but it sure wasn't me.

---

Some other threads from this board:

Private vs Public water

Gating canals

Straw men? Lmao! You're arguing that federal law has no application in this discussion because it hasn't been applied in a court of law in Louisiana, when in reality, the law is applied everyday on waters that are claimed by the state and private individuals.

As far as I can see, the only way this ever gets resolved is if someone with the money that wants to fight it challenges it with the federal law. So, how the federal law is irrelevant to this conversation, well, you'll have to explain that with more than a "it hasn't been used by the courts" argument.

Are you ever going to answer where you fish? Just trying to understand why you have such a fricked up attitude in regards to water access