- 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: HR 391 (Water Access Rights) Passes 5-3 in committee
Posted on 4/12/18 at 11:18 am to AlxTgr
Posted on 4/12/18 at 11:18 am to AlxTgr
Natural river path is still there and high tide it still flows through it. Is it not fair to say that placing the original weir back in place(be it a huge engineering undertaking today) would allow the Calcasieu to regain its natural path of flow? YES it would, and with that clarification would it now be safe to assume he DOES have the right to gate his property off? Such good conversations and sticky situations this current precedence is setting state wide. SO much undefined legislation over the years that got us here.
1
Posted on 4/12/18 at 11:47 am to Boat Motor Bandit
Maybe this has been addressed already, but I only read about the first three pages on the thread. How does this effect places like the Big Burns Marsh, which is owned by Miami Corporation? They sell annual permits to fish the area. If this bill goes through, will anyone and everyone have access to fish there? What about motor restrictions?
I'm gonna be pissed if every swinging dick will be able to launch and fish there. I liked having a place where larger boats are not allowed.
I'm gonna be pissed if every swinging dick will be able to launch and fish there. I liked having a place where larger boats are not allowed.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 11:49 am to byutgr
Again try to understand this bill does not take anything or confiscate as you say. This bill's intent is to reclaim access what was taken. When a landowner failed to maintain their property in such a way as to prevent public water from flowing on it or better yet they changed that property in such a way as in digging canals then at that point the landowner took control of a public resource and the public should have access to it. If the landowner wishes they should backfill the canals they dug and restore the levees around their property to prevent public water from flowing onto their land. Many here continue to try and steer this conversation in such a way as saying that its no different than a landowner building a road on their property then that road ties into a state highway and the public should have access to their property, that is a completely different situation entirely because when a landowner builds a road that road does not capture a public resource.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 12:31 pm to BoudinJoe
quote:The Mississippi River constructed our coastal lands. Levees allowed us to expand and inhabit it where we previously couldn't. Levees then did not deposit silt in a wide expanse along the coast which is the main (only IMO) contributor to Coastal Erosion
The Mississippi River wasn’t permitted and constructed in private land.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 12:36 pm to rsoudelier1
quote:If I bought/own land with the intent of using it for duck hunting, fishing, etc. then you have dramatically decreased the value of my property.
Again try to understand this bill does not take anything or confiscate as you say.
Imagine buying 50 acres of mature timber. The government comes in and says anyone is allowed to cut down any tree. Do you still think the 50 acres of timber is worth as much to you as you paid?
Posted on 4/12/18 at 12:43 pm to mylsuhat
quote:true
Main
quote:false
(only IMO)
quote:
contributor to Coastal Erosion
This post was edited on 4/12/18 at 12:45 pm
Posted on 4/12/18 at 12:47 pm to byutgr
quote:
One of the first things that totalitarian/socialistic/communist regimes do is confiscate private property. Are you ok with that? Just so that you can fish wherever you please? Next will be open range hunting.
The water is not private property. No one is ‘confiscating’ anything. And the statement about free range hunting is ridiculous. Dry land is not and never has been in question.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 12:50 pm to gorillacoco
I hunt on land covered by water.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 12:53 pm to mylsuhat
quote:
If I bought/own land with the intent of using it for duck hunting, fishing, etc. then you have dramatically decreased the value of my property.
To be fair, you can still do all of these things under the bill.
quote:
Imagine buying 50 acres of mature timber. The government comes in and says anyone is allowed to cut down any tree.
I don't think you can consider timber the same kind of resource as fish or ducks. They are a fixed resource on your land, fish and ducks move freely. Landowners own the trees, state owns the wildlife.
This post was edited on 4/12/18 at 12:58 pm
Posted on 4/12/18 at 12:55 pm to rsoudelier1
quote:This is absolutely untrue.
This bill's intent is to reclaim access what was taken.
quote:You can say should, but the law is in the favor of the owner of the beds right now. Has been since 1812.
they changed that property in such a way as in digging canals then at that point the landowner took control of a public resource and the public should have access to it
quote:This isn't an arguing point.
because when a landowner builds a road that road does not capture a public resource.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 1:00 pm to rsoudelier1
quote:
If the landowner wishes they should backfill the canals they dug and restore the levees around their property to prevent public water from flowing onto their land.
Every year the landowners in our area bring in a dredge to restore and maintain the shorelines. Every year within a few weeks of it being gone some bassholes jump the banks and create ditch to access property. So how does this open borders type law protect the landowners from crap like this?
Posted on 4/12/18 at 1:11 pm to mylsuhat
land is not the same as tidal flow water, the land can be purchased, the tidal flow water cannot be purchased. This bill is only trying to grant public access to a public resource that is now flowing over what was land at one time. Your analogy is way off base.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 1:13 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
True but since that water belongs to the public then the public should have that same right to float on that water.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 1:13 pm to rsoudelier1
So, acreage that land owners currently own will no longer be owned by them?
Posted on 4/12/18 at 1:20 pm to AlxTgr
quote:That does seem to be the case here in that either the law is written that way or possibly has be interpreted that way. But my contention is just because it may be the law doesn't make it correct or ethical. We have laws on the books today that need to be rescinded or changed, it wasn't that long ago that we had laws in our country and state that women and blacks couldn't vote, I would assume that you would agree were bad laws and needed to be rescinded for the greater good of the public?
You can say should, but the law is in the favor of the owner of the beds right now. Has been since 1812.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 1:20 pm to rsoudelier1
Must. Not. Bite. Hook.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 1:21 pm to rsoudelier1
I was with you until you pulled this crap:
You guys are really hurting your cause with a lot of this.
quote:
it wasn't that long ago that we had laws in our country and state that women and blacks couldn't vote, I would assume that you would agree were bad laws and needed to be rescinded for the greater good of the public?
You guys are really hurting your cause with a lot of this.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 1:22 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
No they would still own the water bottoms as deeded but the access to the public resource should not be infringed. If they want to control access to their land than maintain it and backfill it to prevent public water from flowing over it.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 1:23 pm to rsoudelier1
Excerpt from State of Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit (Buckskin Hunting Club v Buddy Bayard Et Al) ...page 11 " ... the fact that the canal is navigable in fact does not thereby render it public. .... the court held that a privately owned canal, though navigable in fact, may not be subject to public use for the same reasons that a private road, though used by commercial traffic, may not be subject to public use." "The obligations arising from water being a public thing requires the owner through whose estate running waters pass to allow water to leave his estate through its natural channel and not to unduly diminish its flow; however, this does not mandate that landowner allow public access to waterway...." "No public rights to use of a canal located on private property arises from the fact that running water flows through channel.."
Take it for what it's worth but courts have been ruling on this for quite some while. HB 391 will lose as written bc it is a taking bill.
Take it for what it's worth but courts have been ruling on this for quite some while. HB 391 will lose as written bc it is a taking bill.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 1:24 pm to AlxTgr
I'm sorry to see that upset you, the point I am trying to make is that simply because its the law doesn't make it right. Humans write the laws they are not infallible.
Page 11 of 32
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News