re: Gating canals in houma area

I think it is pretty clear it has been decided, but folks just don't want to accept it for whatever reasons

quote:

---

don't want to accept it

---

Slowly raises hand...

I know what the law is, and kind of see both sides to an extent

If you've ever been run out of open bodies of water in the summer while fishing in areas you have for years and having to explain to a 10 year old you may understand.

If you truely look at the rules and apply them to a map of coastal Louisiana you'll see the vast areas in around all the popular marinas that are technically private but not yet enforced. It starts to sink in and you may understand.

Like I've said before there has to me a middle ground somewhere. I just know the middle ground is not where we currently are.

Yes.

And the thing is gate or no gate, sign or no sign, you are a trespasser. I have absolutely no way to determine a number, but based on what I see and have seen, my guess is 50 % of the time you fish coastal Louisiana you trespass, knowingly or unknowingly.

quote:

---

, my guess is 50 % of the time you fish coastal Louisiana you trespass, knowingly or unknowingly

---

Depends on where you fish. Delacroix would be 100% and the golden meadow public launch would be 100%.

Basically you can only fish navigational canals unless you are on a WMA or similar.

Less than 1/5 of the marsh is accessible by the people who pay to protect it. Personally I think it might be closer to 10% but whatever.

Looked at LA trespassing law again.

14:63(B). No person shall enter upon immovable property owned by another without express, legal, or implied authorization.

Immovable property isnt defined in the statute. So is open water immovable property? Is a boat on the surface of the water "upon" immovable property, if the immovable property is the bottom of the water body? I don't see how anyone can properly or constitutionally be subject to criminal action with this kind of uncertainty.

quote:

---

Not in this context. We aren't talking water rights in here. Your strawman ability is above average.

---

Look man, believe what you want. I was merely trying to help the OP with an answer. If the canal was priavtely dug through private property it can be gated. If it is a naturally occurring bayou/stream/river/ running water it probably cannot be. That's the law whether you want it to be or not. What is "running water?" I don't know, nor does the LA Supreme Court. It's never really been defined. Most scholars tend to side with the public having a right of use. We have AG Opinions stating they cannot be. Yet you claim it's 100% no. It's not as clear cut as you would like it to be. But there are countless cases from LA State courts that make no mention or relevance of 1812 when determining whether a body of water is navigable. That's for sure. I'm not going to do your research for you. (Eta: State v. 2 o'clock bayou)

Good read on the 2 o'clock bayou case. I caught my first fish there back in the day.

quote:

---

If it is a naturally occurring bayou/stream/river/ running water it probably cannot be. That's the law whether you want it to be or not. What is "running water?" I don't know, nor does the LA Supreme Court. It's never really been defined. Most scholars tend to side with the public having a right of use. We have AG Opinions stating they cannot be. Yet you claim it's 100% no. It's not as clear cut as you would like it to be. But there are countless cases from LA State courts that make no mention or relevance of 1812 when determining whether a body of water is navigable. That's for sure. I'm not going to do your research for you.

---

This will be my last attempt with you. See RAMSEY RIVER ROAD PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. CHARLES E. REEVES et al 396 So. 2d 873

Issue:

quote:

---

By this suit plaintiff, a non-profit property owners association, seeks to enjoin the construction of a bridge which defendants propose to build across the Bogue Falaya River at a point approximately four miles north of Covington, Louisiana. They allege that the river is navigable at that location.

---

A river-not a canal.

Basically your position:

quote:

---

Plaintiff predicated its suit on the premise that the Bogue Falaya River is navigable and that defendants may not construct a bridge over a navigable stream without first complying with procedures established by the state and federal governments because the bed and water of navigable waterways is owned by the state

---

Statement of the law on this issue by The Louisiana Supreme Court,

quote:

---

Louisiana's ownership of the beds and waters of the navigable waterways within the state is by virtue of the Equal Footing Doctrine. 2 Our inquiry regarding the navigability of the Bogue Falaya River must therefore focus upon the status of the river in 1812, the year Louisiana [**7] entered the Union, and the means of navigation available at that time, because HN4Go to the description of this Headnote.navigability to fix ownership of the river bed is determined by the year of admission to statehood for states other than the original thirteen.

---

What they looked at,

quote:

---

Our inquiry into the navigability of the Bogue Falaya River is aided by a case decided by this Court many years ago. Ingram v. Police Jury of St. Tammany, 20 La.Ann. 226 (1868) also concerned efforts to halt construction of a bridge at approximately the same location as the one at issue in the instant case.

---

Conclusion,

quote:

---

The site of defendant's proposed bridge is admittedly a short distance (about three miles) upstream from the location determined to be navigable in Ingram. However, there are indications in the record before us that, as is the case at the present time, in 1812 there was no substantial difference in the nature of the river at the respective locations. For instance, there was trial testimony that in [**13] the nineteenth century lumbering operations were carried on in the vicinity of defendant's proposed bridge and that the lumber was floated down the Bogue Falaya to Covington. Testimony to the same effect is found in Ingram, the record of which was introduced into evidence in the instant case.

We conclude that the district court and the Court of Appeal were correct in determining that the Bogue Falaya River at the point where defendants propose to build a bridge was navigable in fact at the time Louisiana was admitted to the Union and thus a public waterway then and today. The injunction was properly granted.

---

My obligation to better the board despite what some undesirables here think.