- 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: Catahoula Lake could become off limits to duck hunters
Posted on 1/29/20 at 10:30 pm to ecb
Posted on 1/29/20 at 10:30 pm to ecb
quote:the duck hunters never owned it
cb
So the lake is now private? These peopl3 stole the lake from us duck hunters? How is this good?
Looks like it was stolen from the landowners
Posted on 1/29/20 at 10:32 pm to PinevilleTiger
Pineviille tiger public funds are used to control water on private land all over the place....
Posted on 1/29/20 at 10:35 pm to choupiquesushi
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 on 1/29/20 at 10:50 pm to White Bear
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 on 1/29/20 at 10:54 pm to PinevilleTiger
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
Plenty federal and state water control structures create revenues for landowners
Posted on 1/30/20 at 7:29 am to rt3
Gotta love Louisiana and it's public/private water debates
Posted on 1/30/20 at 7:29 am to PinevilleTiger
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?
The court said something about prolonged flooding. If the diversion canal wasn't there, so no control structure, what caused this?
Posted on 1/30/20 at 7:35 am to AlxTgr
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 on 1/30/20 at 7:39 am to Catahoula20LSU
Right. Probably closed since that puts them back where they were.
Posted on 1/30/20 at 7:41 am to Catahoula20LSU
Oh, and it's no longer Catahoula Lake
Posted on 1/30/20 at 7:45 am to Catahoula20LSU
quote: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.
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 on 1/30/20 at 7:46 am to AlxTgr
quote:catahoula basin.....
Oh, and it's no longer Catahoula Lake
Posted on 1/30/20 at 8:23 am to AlxTgr
quote:The lock on Black River south of Jonesville would've made Catahoula Lake a permanent lake w/o the Diversion Canal.
The court said something about prolonged flooding. If the diversion canal wasn't there, so no control structure, what caused this?
Posted on 1/30/20 at 9:26 am to White Bear
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.
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 on 1/30/20 at 10:04 am to AlxTgr
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 on 1/30/20 at 10:09 am to White Bear
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 on 1/30/20 at 10:23 am to AlxTgr
I understand. So to clarify, Judge Amy's dissent you quote above was not the majority.
Posted on 1/30/20 at 10:24 am to Jack Daniel
quote: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.
If I own land behind the levee along the miss river, I own the river?!??
Posted on 1/30/20 at 10:29 am to White Bear
quote:Right. A dissent is written by the losing judge that does not agree with the majority(winners).
So to clarify, Judge Amy's dissent you quote above was not the majority.
Posted on 1/30/20 at 11:19 am to dawg23
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.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News