re: Gating canals in houma area

quote:

---

Tax payers are footing the bill for restorative efforts, caused in part by oil/gas exploration canals.

---

True, and efforts to make the O&G companies pay for the damage were thwarted by the former governor and the legislature. Guess who gets lots of contributions from O&G companies?

I don't get the water flow and fish argument. Ducks fly over miles of public and private property to land in private ponds, and deer jump many fences. No one argues that their take on private property is somehow wrong. Why are fish different?

quote:

---

Just remember, navigable is meaningless without adding "...in 1812"

---

wrong

quote:

---

Just like a pasture

---

water is not pasture

quote:

---

don't get the water flow and fish argument.

---

Agree, that's a played out argument that never made much sense.
The water flow argument comes from riparian rights, but that's a bit of a different subject.

quote:

---

Actually to be accurate navigable in Louisiana in 1812.

---

Oh good grief. Are you totally incapable of conceding a point? You've argued this shite under a different user name haven't you.

quote:

---

Why do you find that significant

---

Because it change the hydrology, shallow winding historic bayous replaced with straight 15' deep canals,

And Delacroix has some of the worst erosion rates in state. Hmm...

It's all relative of the big picture that causes the issue to begin with.

I think you could also relate that in recent court cases of navigable waterways. In which I believe delt mostly with the Mississippi River. The court stated that the public did not have acess up to the high water mark. Now that did set a precedent of where the public could acess.

Now I think you could apply that same ruling to tidal waters also. If the the said "land" is navigable at low tide it should be accessible.

It's all relative to the topic at hand. We need a common sense solution to this problem. The fact we base what is navigable in 2016 on a map from 1812 makes no sense at all !

quote:

---

The bottom line is in LA money talks.

---

This is exactly why all people concerned about public water rights should oppose using any public funds for coastal restoration on private property. If they want to keep people from accessing waterways that should be concidered navigable. Then let it sink into the sea.

Funding the restoration of the marsh isn't about fishing and hunting. It's about storm protection. Joe blow who's never been in a boat benefits from restoring the marsh even if he never sees the marsh itself. So the argument that we shouldn't pay for it if it can't be used is invalid.

I also think everyone's gotten very spoiled that it has been land management companies that own all this property. I think that's why it's easily been accessible since they only care about the mineral rights. If it weren't for O&G, many of these areas would be owned by private citizens who would likely be more strict about trespassing and gates would have gone up years ago. So although it sucks, I think this is similar to when you get a new dear lease and you find the old guy hunting it who's pissed because the owner told him he could hunt there and he's been doing it for 50 years. When people do something for so long, they feel they have the right to it. Doesn't make it true. Bays, lakes, etc. are open to you, marsh is a benefit that you have to realize can be taken away. I realize that every time I see a land management sign.