re: HR 391 (Water Access Rights) Passes 5-3 in committee

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.

---

No but I got enough sense to know that if I own 100 acres on the shores of Toledo Bend and 10 years later 30 of them have washed into the lake I can't run people off of but 70 of them or if the Mississippi River decided to divert and run through the middle of my cotton field I can't stop the tugboats from passing though what used to be my turn row. If I own property on either side of I-20 can I put a gate across it? Besides that, I've lived in Louisiana long enough to know that if we're the only state doing it then it's fricked up.

Broken shallow marsh should belong to the land owner IMO. If I have to pay property taxes on it you shouldn’t be able to come uninvited

Language in the current bill as amended
Section 1. R.S. 9:1251.1 is hereby enacted to read as follows: 9 §1251.1. Public access to certain running waters
10 A. The running waters of the state and the wild aquatic life inhabiting those
11 waters are and remain the property of the state and as such, title and ownership of
12 these natural resources remain unchanged whether the running waters flow over
13 public or private water bottoms. The running waters of the state and the wild aquatic
14 life inhabiting those waters are therefore subject to the supervision and control of the
15 state through the applicable departments, agencies, and commissions as provided, in
16 part, by R.S. 36:351 and 602 and R.S. 56:1.
17 B. No person may restrict or prohibit, pursuant to the authority of Civil Code
18 Article 3413 or otherwise, the public navigation of running waters which are
19 navigable by a motorboat required to be registered or numbered pursuant to the laws
20 of this state or the United States. However, the provisions of this Section shall not
Page 1 of 4
HLS 18RS-122 ENGROSSED HB NO. 391
1 apply to running waters passing over privately owned water bottoms where
2 navigation has been prevented or impeded by an obstacle constructed pursuant to a
3 permit granted by the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
4 C. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to running waters during
5 any open migratory waterfowl season when such running waters have been posted
6 against trespassing, hunting, or fishing.
7 D. For the purposes of this Section, "running waters" shall mean running
8 waters as provided in Civil Code Article 450 and shall include waters passing over
9 any privately owned water bottom which has a direct natural or man-made inlet or
10 outlet to a state-owned water bottom that is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide of
11 the Gulf of Mexico and the tidally influenced arms and tributaries passing through
12 the coastal areas of this state.
13 E. Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to establish a change in
14 ownership of the bottoms and banks of any privately owned waterway, and no
15 watercraft powered by a combustible engine may be used to navigate running waters
16 over privately owned water bottoms and banks of waterways in such a way as to
17 cause damage to the bottoms or banks of the waterway, or to the vegetation on or
18 above the surface of the waterway.
19 F. An owner of any privately owned water bottom or bank shall be entitled
20 to the limitations of liability as provided in R.S. 9:2791 and 2795.


so.... land owners have not one single "legitimate" leg to stand on here to oppose this at all. it clearly states they can get a permit to block access from the corp if they can meet the requirements to block access. it also clearly states if they construct a "solid" barrier they can keep their land water access private. but that solid barrier means it will block public maintained and regulated resources like fish and shrimp from being "claimed" for private access and harvest through blocking access, which is what they are really fighting over.

quote:

---

hat knife cuts both ways. You’re keeping me from accessing fish that my license fees and taxes go to protect

---

Do you think the same about deer?

I would argue the private landowners properties act as a nursery grounds for fish, shrimp and crabs that would otherwise be decimated by the masses.

quote:

---

Isn't LA the only state that doesn't already do this

---

Yes because LA’s marshes are just like Alabama’s sprawling or TX’s open bays. LA is just 60 Miles is coastline shy of TX, MS and Al combined. That’s just Gulf to land. But yes should be managed like those others. Bassholes are getting to be worse than farmers and Gary Chambers fans wanting free handouts

quote:

---

Always act an arse when this subject comes up

---

I don't get your take. Nothing I've posted justifies that. Do you not get why that amendment is dumb?

quote:

---

defining what is and isnt "navigable"

---

Isn't even n issue right now.

quote:

---

Bassholes are getting to be worse than farmers and Gary Chambers fans wanting free handouts

---

Right argument-wrong enemy.

Landowners are just tired of getting sued by flat bills in surface drives who hit something on private lands and sue them for their injuries while trespassing. Even though the landowners eventually win in court it still cost them legal fees!