- 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
Spinoff: House Bill 391 re: access to water over private water bottoms
Posted on 3/14/18 at 11:20 am
Posted on 3/14/18 at 11:20 am
this is to focus on HB 391, which is here: La Reg. Session HB 391
This bill purports to change the law regarding access to water over privately owned waterbottoms.
It reads in part: "No person may restrict or prohibit, pursuant to the authority of Civil Code Article 3413 or otherwise, the public navigation of running waters which are navigable by a motorboat required to be registered or numbered pursuant to the laws of this state or the United States.. . ."
It defines "running waters" as: "running waters" shall mean running waters as provided in Civil Code Article 450 and shall include waters passing over any privately owned water bottom which has a direct natural or man-made inlet or outlet to a state-owned water bottom that is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide of the Gulf of Mexico and the tidally influenced arms and tributaries passing through the coastal areas of this state."
It also provides: "no watercraft powered by a combustible engine may be used to navigate running waters over privately owned water bottoms and banks of waterways in such a way as to cause damage to the bottoms or banks of the waterway."
It's a least a start, but poorly written and has a bunch of gaps. It'll obviously be amended and changed, but I don't think it'll make it out of committee to be voted on by the House.
This bill purports to change the law regarding access to water over privately owned waterbottoms.
It reads in part: "No person may restrict or prohibit, pursuant to the authority of Civil Code Article 3413 or otherwise, the public navigation of running waters which are navigable by a motorboat required to be registered or numbered pursuant to the laws of this state or the United States.. . ."
It defines "running waters" as: "running waters" shall mean running waters as provided in Civil Code Article 450 and shall include waters passing over any privately owned water bottom which has a direct natural or man-made inlet or outlet to a state-owned water bottom that is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide of the Gulf of Mexico and the tidally influenced arms and tributaries passing through the coastal areas of this state."
It also provides: "no watercraft powered by a combustible engine may be used to navigate running waters over privately owned water bottoms and banks of waterways in such a way as to cause damage to the bottoms or banks of the waterway."
It's a least a start, but poorly written and has a bunch of gaps. It'll obviously be amended and changed, but I don't think it'll make it out of committee to be voted on by the House.
7
Posted on 3/14/18 at 11:24 am to TheCurmudgeon
This will probably end up like Jindal’s fair tax idea. It’ll get amended to shite in order to try to appease everyone, and it’ll end up satisfying no one. Then it’ll get dropped.
Just my prediction.
Just my prediction.
Posted on 3/14/18 at 11:27 am to TheCurmudgeon
quote:
has a bunch of gaps.
Agree it has gaps, but like it's initial simplicity.
quote:
don't think it'll make it out of committee
I tend to disagree, with ammendmemts, I believe it will make it out.
The initial bill and the final bill will obviously have differences.
Posted on 3/14/18 at 11:41 am to TheCurmudgeon
While I don't think it's going anywhere, his part will be interesting to watch,
Seems like more definitions are needed.
quote:
subject to the ebb and flow of the tide of the Gulf of Mexico and the tidally influenced arms and tributaries passing through the coastal areas of this state.
Seems like more definitions are needed.
Posted on 3/14/18 at 11:55 am to AlxTgr
quote:
Seems like more definitions are needed.
Agreed.
Also, I think it's important to note that the bill also states
quote:
the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to running waters passing over privately owned water bottoms where navigation has been prevented or impeded by an obstacle constructed by a private landowner prior to March 2, 2018.
So this only applies to any waters not already blocked off.
Still, would be a win for the pro-access side if they get any of the currently-private-but-not-blocked-off waters open to access.
This post was edited on 3/14/18 at 11:55 am
Posted on 3/14/18 at 12:02 pm to TheCurmudgeon
This just talks about restricting navigation. Doesn't really say anything about stopping and fishing or stopping and busting some poule d'eau.
I don't care if I can only go through it I wanna fish it
I don't care if I can only go through it I wanna fish it
Posted on 3/14/18 at 12:10 pm to Cowboyfan89
quote:
So this only applies to any waters not already blocked off.
I'm not a lawyer, but this seems like it will be the part that kills the bill if not amended out. Seems like both sides would be pissed about the arbitrary nature of the way that's written for multiple reasons. The only real winner is the guy who's already gated all canals leading to his property regardless of features. I would think most people just want a more reasonable definition of navigable and for it to apply across the board regardless of whether there was a cable stretched across it in February.
Posted on 3/14/18 at 12:17 pm to TheCurmudgeon
quote:
shall include waters passing over any privately owned water bottom which has a direct natural or man-made inlet or outlet to a state-owned water bottom that is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide of the Gulf of Mexico and the tidally influenced arms and tributaries passing through the coastal areas of this state."
People like the Delacroix Association will just block off the direct natural flows. They are already doing it.
Posted on 3/14/18 at 12:24 pm to Me Bite
quote:
People like the Delacroix Association will just block off the direct natural flows. They are already doing it.
Where?
Posted on 3/14/18 at 12:36 pm to Me Bite
quote:
Delacroix Association
Who are they? I want to join.
Posted on 3/14/18 at 12:39 pm to Me Bite
quote:
Delacroix Association
I assume you mean Delacroix Corp?
If so, they are the poster child of how the 2 sides can get along. Not sure I've seen or heard of them blocking canals or chasing off people. I've seen them do some work to help with water levels, but that was more for other reasons, not specifically to exclude fishermen or hunters.
Apache on the other hand....
Posted on 3/14/18 at 12:40 pm to Me Bite
quote:
People like the Delacroix Association will just block off the direct natural flows. They are already doing it.
If it wasn't blocked before March 2, 2018, I don't think they could legally block it...if this became law of course.
That is another part that is fuzzy--does this actually prevent someone from blocking off a canal after that date? I assume it does, but don't recall reading anything that explicitly says such.
Posted on 3/14/18 at 1:18 pm to TheCurmudgeon
Horribly written and Im against it. The way i read that, a dude with an airboat will basically be able to go wherever there is enough water to not hit bottom. Certain times of year that can basically be anywhere. frick that.
Posted on 3/14/18 at 1:20 pm to Cowboyfan89
quote:
the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to running waters passing over privately owned water bottoms where navigation has been prevented or impeded by an obstacle constructed by a private landowner prior to March 2, 2018.
quote:
So this only applies to any waters not already blocked off.
i think that was most likely thought as a requirement to get the support for it to be passed.
so while not ideal, i can see where it needed "some" form of compromise to the gaters and access to public water rights blockers.
what i dont like about that wording is i wish it was worded as a solid none movable barrier so gates and floating barriers were not included, but then over time, the cost of maintaining a barrier will mean we slowly see then go away.
Posted on 3/14/18 at 2:40 pm to Ron Cheramie
quote:
This just talks about restricting navigation. Doesn't really say anything about stopping and fishing or stopping and busting some poule d'eau.
I don't care if I can only go through it I wanna fish it
This is something that most people are missing. A landowner or a sheriff who is beholden to campaign money can easily interpret this proposed law as still not allowing fishing, just passing through.
Posted on 3/14/18 at 2:46 pm to TheCurmudgeon
When that is pointed out, it will be changed.
Posted on 3/15/18 at 2:43 pm to TheCurmudgeon
Similar dispute in New Mexico, landowners are stringing barbed wire across rivers now. Barbed wire across rivers claimed "private"
Posted on 3/15/18 at 3:20 pm to TheCurmudgeon
That's way worse than La.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News