What is the current status on the litigation regarding Catahoula Lake?

quote:

---

Have not heard anything in awhile.

---

Have not heard anything at all, what type of lawsuit?

only in LA can tidal waters be claimed as private.... and nobody knows who actually owns or people claim as private public bottoms.....

I think the case is on appeal - trying to determine where the state's / jurisdiction ends and public begins

From what I've been told, which is very little, the land plats actually show land owners property lines up to the river channel

who wrote that decision? what was the ultimate decision on the depth of CL? what's the caption so that i can find it?

LINK

Summary of the decision.

So does this mean landowners own parts of the current lake bed? If so, looks like a huge cluster could follow regarding the guys that hunt out there.

My personal opinion is that this is a crock of shite.

quote:

---

means they did own it at one time and the state expropriated it, by building the dam, without justly compensating them. So now, the state owes them $1,260 per acre.

---

This sums it up pretty well, the state must pay the landowners the value of the land. The landowners don't own it anymore.

There are also royalty payments the state received for the land that must be paid out to the landowners but the bulk of that prescribed, luckily for the state.

I could see it both ways. The value is what I think is off course. When the land was expropriated by building the dam, it wasn't worth $1,260 per acre.

I don't have any hunting interest since I have never hunted there or no anyone who hunts there. As a civil engineer/surveyor, it is an interesting case in riparian rights and LA history.

According to my reading and understanding, the court found an unlawful expropriation. Therefore, the land belongs to the private owners. The monetary award was for their loss of enjoyment of the property, not the loss of ownership. If it stands, this could start WWIII between the "owners" and the hunters!!

quote:

---

The court concluded that the constant interference with the plaintiffs’ natural servitude of drain caused by the dam structure established a continuing tort, preventing the running of prescription.

---

State argued prescription and that was the court's response.

Not a lawyer, but as I read it, nobody is getting their land back. State must cough up a bunch of money to close the de facto expropriation.