Started By
Message

re: Catahoula Lake could become off limits to duck hunters

Posted on 1/29/20 at 10:30 pm to
Posted by choupiquesushi
yaton rouge
Member since Jun 2006
30481 posts
Posted on 1/29/20 at 10:30 pm to
quote:

cb
So the lake is now private? These peopl3 stole the lake from us duck hunters? How is this good?

the duck hunters never owned it

Looks like it was stolen from the landowners
Posted by choupiquesushi
yaton rouge
Member since Jun 2006
30481 posts
Posted on 1/29/20 at 10:32 pm to
Pineviille tiger public funds are used to control water on private land all over the place....
Posted by White Bear
Yonnygo
Member since Jul 2014
13822 posts
Posted on 1/29/20 at 10:35 pm to
The water control regime will have to remain in place. There’s been many changes to things all over the ouachita/black/tensas/little river basins. We going to fill in the Diversion Canal? No way.
Posted by PinevilleTiger
Pineville, LA
Member since Sep 2005
6206 posts
Posted on 1/29/20 at 10:50 pm to
Watch and learn. The control structure will not be used to make a bunch of private duck blind lessors rich. The water level is set by the Feds and wildlife officials to provide the public with optimal hunting conditions. Taxpayer money will not be spent to line the pockets of those leasing blinds on Catahoula for $10,000 per season.
Posted by choupiquesushi
yaton rouge
Member since Jun 2006
30481 posts
Posted on 1/29/20 at 10:54 pm to
Pineville the water is controlled to make waterfowl habitat for ducks not the hunters


Plenty federal and state water control structures create revenues for landowners
Posted by LoneStarTiger
Lone Star State
Member since Aug 2004
15940 posts
Posted on 1/30/20 at 7:29 am to
Gotta love Louisiana and it's public/private water debates
Posted by AlxTgr
Kyre Banorg
Member since Oct 2003
81608 posts
Posted on 1/30/20 at 7:29 am to
I think this is right. I don't see how this can continue. Also, the weir at Archie might have to go. Will be interesting to watch.

The court said something about prolonged flooding. If the diversion canal wasn't there, so no control structure, what caused this?
Posted by Catahoula20LSU
Louisiana
Member since Oct 2011
2102 posts
Posted on 1/30/20 at 7:35 am to
If the flooding caused damages then the logical conclusion is that you have to keep the diversion canal open or closed all the time. No more controlling water level for the duck food. I doubt they do that. Wait and see what happens.
Posted by AlxTgr
Kyre Banorg
Member since Oct 2003
81608 posts
Posted on 1/30/20 at 7:39 am to
Right. Probably closed since that puts them back where they were.
Posted by AlxTgr
Kyre Banorg
Member since Oct 2003
81608 posts
Posted on 1/30/20 at 7:41 am to
Oh, and it's no longer Catahoula Lake
Posted by choupiquesushi
yaton rouge
Member since Jun 2006
30481 posts
Posted on 1/30/20 at 7:45 am to
quote:

If the flooding caused damages then the logical conclusion is that you have to keep the diversion canal open or closed all the time. No more controlling water level for the duck food. I doubt they do that. Wait and see what happens
True, but the landowners would very likely be well compensate by water fowling interests to allow flooding and of course their damages would be offset by said water fowling interest. My guess is there is no other way that property can produce the revenue water fowling leases would - I think one of their big contentions was that they were never compensated. Heck the value of that being wetland mitigation banks is very likely also pretty high. The COE will most certainly manage water levels for mitigation banks.
Posted by choupiquesushi
yaton rouge
Member since Jun 2006
30481 posts
Posted on 1/30/20 at 7:46 am to
quote:

Oh, and it's no longer Catahoula Lake
catahoula basin.....
Posted by White Bear
Yonnygo
Member since Jul 2014
13822 posts
Posted on 1/30/20 at 8:23 am to
quote:

The court said something about prolonged flooding. If the diversion canal wasn't there, so no control structure, what caused this?
The lock on Black River south of Jonesville would've made Catahoula Lake a permanent lake w/o the Diversion Canal.
Posted by AlxTgr
Kyre Banorg
Member since Oct 2003
81608 posts
Posted on 1/30/20 at 9:26 am to
The court quoted Amy's dissent as to the prescription issue.

Amy said other things as well. I completely agree with his dissent, and some of what he said brings up lots of questions and predicts more litigation.

quote:

Chiefly, I find that the Plaintiffs’ claims for compensation
for inverse condemnation are barred by liberative prescription. Further, I believe
that the Lake Plaintiffs lost any claim to ownership of the land by virtue of thirtyyear acquisitive prescription


quote:

In sum, I conclude that the Plaintiffs’ claims for compensation for the
appropriation of their property have prescribed under La.R.S. 13:5111. Further, in
my opinion, the State has demonstrated ownership of the area known as Catahoula
Lake by virtue of thirty-year acquisitive prescription. I find that the record
warrants reversing the judgment of the trial court; sustaining the State’s exceptions
of liberative and acquisitive prescription; dismissing the Plaintiffs’ demands for
compensation and related relief, as well as dismissing the Lake Plaintiffs’ demands
for recognition of ownership; rendering judgment on the State’s reconventional
demand by recognizing the State’s ownership of the area known as Catahoula
Lake; and remanding with instructions to set the boundary between the Lake
16
Plaintiffs’ land and the State’s land at the thirty-six (36) feet mean sea level
contour. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
Posted by White Bear
Yonnygo
Member since Jul 2014
13822 posts
Posted on 1/30/20 at 10:04 am to
But if the State has 30 years on the lake, etc. why would the SC acknowledge the plaintiffs as riparian owners that are now owed royalties previously paid to the state on the same land?
Posted by AlxTgr
Kyre Banorg
Member since Oct 2003
81608 posts
Posted on 1/30/20 at 10:09 am to
Because they only granted the writ as top the liberative prescription issue. They apparently agree with the trial court and the majority of the third circuit on all other issues. Terrible decisions all the way up.
Posted by White Bear
Yonnygo
Member since Jul 2014
13822 posts
Posted on 1/30/20 at 10:23 am to
I understand. So to clarify, Judge Amy's dissent you quote above was not the majority.
Posted by dawg23
Baton Rouge, La
Member since Jul 2011
5065 posts
Posted on 1/30/20 at 10:24 am to
quote:

If I own land behind the levee along the miss river, I own the river?!??
If you live in Louisiana you would own everything landward of the "ordinary low water line." The river bed below (riverward of) that line is owned by the state of Louisiana.
Posted by AlxTgr
Kyre Banorg
Member since Oct 2003
81608 posts
Posted on 1/30/20 at 10:29 am to
quote:

So to clarify, Judge Amy's dissent you quote above was not the majority.
Right. A dissent is written by the losing judge that does not agree with the majority(winners).
Posted by dwr353
Member since Oct 2007
2130 posts
Posted on 1/30/20 at 11:19 am to
This is correct. The courts have already settled the issue as regards to hunting or fishing on flooded lands. You may not go past the state owned boundary or you are trespassing.
Jump to page
Page First 10 11 12 13 14 ... 16
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 12 of 16Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram