Gated canal fight

[Bmn520]

I havnt done a ton of research nor do I really understand everything about these laws’s, and I do support the landowners right to their property. But I DO NOT support the fact that ppl, companies, or even the state for that matter can do something that affects other land, waterways, drainage, marsh etc. and this is exactly what has happened to our marshlands. Public land, waterways, lakes and ponds have been forever altered due to canals. It has changed PUBLIC access to PUBLIC waterways by diverting water and silting in or destroying what was in many cases either public or other ppls property. This is not terribly unlike a subdivision building up and pushing water on ppl next door. Or if I cut a diversion through a turn the amite river and then when the river changes flow through my canal and silts up the old river I gate my canal. Public water and fish are not the same as deer. Similar yes but in south louisiana it’s just not a good analogy.

[PMantle]

I havnt done a ton of research nor do I really understand everything about these laws’s, and I do support the landowners right to their property. But I DO NOT support the fact that ppl, companies, or even the state for that matter can do something that affects other land, waterways, drainage, marsh etc. and this is exactly what has happened to our marshlands. Public land, waterways, lakes and ponds have been forever altered due to canals. It has changed PUBLIC access to PUBLIC waterways by diverting water and silting in or destroying what was in many cases either public or other ppls property. This is not terribly unlike a subdivision building up and pushing water on ppl next door. Or if I cut a diversion through a turn the amite river and then when the river changes flow through my canal and silts up the old river I gate my canal. Public water and fish are not the same as deer. Similar yes but in south louisiana it’s just not a good analogy.

When this happens, the "private" waterway becomes public.

[jcdogfish]

When this happens, the "private" waterway becomes public.

No it doesn't...perfect example is lake theriot.

[Bmn520]

I respectfully disagree that this actually happens. It’s just not that simple in our marshes. Was it coastal erosion, hurricanes, floods, or my canal that caused the change? Likely all the above. Who says when you can no longer run me out of marsh because now it eroded into public. When has your canal officially cut off flow and “silted the natural bayou. These are issues that are unique to south of i-10. If you havnt been on the water for the last 20 years or studying Arial maps in this area you simply don’t understand how the current law system is flawed.

[Bmn520]

And yes theriot is a perfect example I mean SPOT ON.

[PMantle]

No it doesn't...perfect example is lake theriot.

I'm just telling you what the courts say, and they do say that.

[jcdogfish]

I'm just telling you what the courts say, and they do say that.

Yep, that is the issue here, the Louisiana court rulings. They do differ than other states rulings,,for whatever reason ($$$), so here we are with this problem. I really think the Sportsman's Coalition and other organizations that promote public access to public water needs to start addressing the fair tax for sportsmen. First fair property tax assessments for the private areas and improvements and second the fuel tax. A lot of the same companies that block off these areas also use the public waterways. Most (probably 99%) of the sportsman and recreational use of the public waters pay the highway tax for fuel. Commercial fishermen can apply for a rebate or refund of the tax I think. I wonder how much commercial fuel is consumed by other commercial enterprises? Truly, any fuel used outside of production should probably be taxed. Talk about a hornets nest.

[PMantle]

Yep, that is the issue here, the Louisiana court rulings. They do differ than other states rulings,,for whatever reason .

Of course they do. They are based on totally different statutes. This isn't the only issue where that occurs. And again, the meaning of any statute is what the courts say it is.

[jcdogfish]

Of course they do. They are based on totally different statutes. This isn't the only issue where that occurs. And again, the meaning of any statute is what the courts say it is.

And what is the states statute used here? Its not clearly defined so you are correct,,,the side with the best lawyers come out on top.

Kaiser Aetna was not a slam dunk unanimous decision. They actually stated had they been required to get a permit for dredging (which the Corp said they did not need) or if there was a presumption of the pond becoming public after the improvements the decision may differ. They spend millions on developing a private marina and had a reasonable expectation of a return on investment.

This is what the 3 judges that voted against stated in their dissenting brief....interesting.

TheCourt[haspreviously]recognizedthatwhatisat
issueisamatterofpower,notofproperty.Theservitude,in
ordertosafeguardtheFederalGovernment'sparamount
controloverwatersusedininterstatecommerce,limitsthe
poweroftheStatestocreateconflictinginterestsbasedon
locallaw.Thatcontroldoesnotdependontheformofthe
waterbodyorthemannerinwhichitwascreated,buton
thefactofnavigabilityandthecorrespondingcommercial
significancethewaterwayattains.Whereverthatcommerce
canoccur,beitKuapaPondorHonoluluHarbor,thenaviga-
tionalservitudemustextend.

[lakebouef5]

It is merely a matter of time before this Banana Republic is just like the other 49 states. As a State Senator told me, who is representing a person for criminal trespassing on tidal waters....State Article 415, states the moving, (tidal), waters of the State is a public thing, no matter what they flow over. The water cannot be public... flowing over state waterbottoms, and then become private waters because they suddenly flow over private waterbottom.

[PMantle]

without invoking its eminent domain power and paying just compensation

Have you seen the numbers in the Crooks vs. Dept. of Natural Resources case?

[jcdogfish]

Have you seen the numbers in the Crooks vs. Dept. of Natural Resources case?

Might be a good place to start for assessing all this "private property" for tax purposes

[PMantle]

Might be a good place to start for assessing all this "private property" for tax purposes

Yeah, I hope those oil/gas royalties make up for it.