- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 4/10/18 at 3:22 pm to Drunken Crawfish
Posted on 4/10/18 at 3:22 pm to Drunken Crawfish
Trick question. I'd rather have the choice of what to do with MY property.
I would certainly rather have a tax exemption and liability waiver, than not. But if it comes with the loss of other rights, it's basically eminent domain or a force placed easement without adequate acquisition compensation. Seems unfair to me.
I just bought my property last year. Now you tell me that the state is going to allow people to run amok on it. I feel like I've been robbed (or will be if it passes). What does this do to resale value?
I would certainly rather have a tax exemption and liability waiver, than not. But if it comes with the loss of other rights, it's basically eminent domain or a force placed easement without adequate acquisition compensation. Seems unfair to me.
I just bought my property last year. Now you tell me that the state is going to allow people to run amok on it. I feel like I've been robbed (or will be if it passes). What does this do to resale value?
3
Posted on 4/10/18 at 3:22 pm to HotKoolaid
Posted on 4/10/18 at 3:26 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
Not really.
I get that you like to play the annoying lawyer on here and continue to state the law as it is written, but it looks like that is moving toward a change so compromise is going to be necessary.
What other state allow coastal/tidal waters to be blocked?
(I know the landowners call it land and the water to them the water is inconsequential)
They collect lease money from duck hunters and fishermen that use that state water flowing through.
Posted on 4/10/18 at 3:33 pm to HotKoolaid
quote:
Even you can't seem to control yourself but I certainly don't hope you die
Of course I hope you don't die.
quote:
You're stooping to their level
to your level? what in the frick gives us fishermen the right to fish waters that are private under the law?
Posted on 4/10/18 at 3:34 pm to pointdog33
quote:I cannot do anything about your perception. I am just
I get that you like to play the annoying lawyer on here
quote:
continue(ing) to state the law as it is written
quote:Maybe, maybe not. Just be careful what you ask for.
but it looks like that is moving toward a change so compromise is going to be necessary.
quote:Which is totally supported by our law.
They collect lease money from duck hunters and fishermen that use that state water flowing through.
Posted on 4/10/18 at 3:51 pm to tenfoe
quote:You’ll never be an FBI profiler.
think I've found our #surfacedrive #duckdynasty #flatbill #yellowlabnameddrake #prostaff #shootemintheface instagram internet hero for the day.
Posted on 4/10/18 at 3:53 pm to xenon16
quote:water access
use MY land
Posted on 4/10/18 at 3:56 pm to xenon16
quote:
I would certainly rather have a tax exemption and liability waiver, than not. But if it comes with the loss of other rights, it's basically eminent domain or a force placed easement without adequate acquisition compensation. Seems unfair to me.
Depends on how they rule navigability. This has happened in other states. All they could do is call it navigable and then it isn't eminent domain. It's always been the public's water, not the owner of the surrounding land.
Navigability sounds a bit different in Louisiana.
Look at the water laws just to the north of you in Arkansas, it doesn't take much for you guys to lose what you thought was your land. There is a pretty substantial commercial interest to the fish in that water and a canoe/kayak easily has access to that water for more than what some streams have in Arkansas. Would be public waters in no time in Arkansas.
This post was edited on 4/10/18 at 4:10 pm
Posted on 4/10/18 at 4:12 pm to Dam Guide
Navigable is indeed defined differently in LA, it has also been intentionally distinguished from the SCOTUS rulings.
Posted on 4/10/18 at 4:13 pm to dpd901
Let me catch you in my canal baw!
Posted on 4/10/18 at 4:21 pm to demtigers73
Canal? Dey gonna be in your batt-tub, cher!
Posted on 4/10/18 at 4:42 pm to xenon16
quote:People like free stuff. They dont really care who suffers, it is just the way things are now.
I just bought my property last year. Now you tell me that the state is going to allow people to run amok on it. I feel like I've been robbed (or will be if it passes). What does this do to resale value?
Posted on 4/10/18 at 4:50 pm to 007mag
quote:You sound like a baw that believes he should be able to hunt WRP, CRP, and/or private farm land b/c the wealthy private landowners get government payments.
I love how people equate water to land. Water isn’t land and if my fricking tax dollars and conservation dollars are going to be used for coastal restoration then I expect to be able to utilize that coast whether it’s to catch fish, shoot ducks or just pass through.
Posted on 4/10/18 at 4:54 pm to AlxTgr
Passed with this amendment.
quote:
C. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to running waters
6 during any open migratory waterfowl season when such running waters have
7 been posted against trespassing, hunting, or fishing."
Posted on 4/10/18 at 4:55 pm to HotKoolaid
That makes zero sense.
Posted on 4/10/18 at 4:58 pm to AlxTgr
quote:Still can't legally hunt the backwater on Giles, etc. Reckon it's for you salt water baws, but I do know some public lakes that flood out on occasion.
That makes zero sense.
This post was edited on 4/10/18 at 4:59 pm
Posted on 4/10/18 at 4:58 pm to xenon16
quote:
Navigable is indeed defined differently in LA, it has also been intentionally distinguished from the SCOTUS rulings.
Got the case? Would like to see. Like to learn about this stuff.
This post was edited on 4/10/18 at 4:59 pm
Posted on 4/10/18 at 5:12 pm to Dam Guide
SCOTUS - Phillips v Petroleum
LINK
LA RS 9:1115.1 OWNERSHIP OF BEDS OF NON-NAVIGABLE WATERS
ETA Bonus Law Review article because I want to come back and read it later.
LINK
I'm no atty, but I enjoy reading up on it too. I just recently had salt in the game.
LINK
LA RS 9:1115.1 OWNERSHIP OF BEDS OF NON-NAVIGABLE WATERS
ETA Bonus Law Review article because I want to come back and read it later.
LINK
I'm no atty, but I enjoy reading up on it too. I just recently had salt in the game.
This post was edited on 4/10/18 at 5:20 pm
Posted on 4/10/18 at 5:15 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
AlxTgr
Always act an arse when this subject comes up
Posted on 4/10/18 at 6:03 pm to HotKoolaid
Page 3 of 32
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News