I think everyone should have access to tidal waters but it should be treated like refugee and closed during duck season

I understand where everyone is coming from. I don't know how other places are set up. I know some stuff off the intercostal that a friend owns is navigable by water but it's their property. I can only speak for myself. Just doesn't make sense to me in my situation for someone else to be able to come and set up on my property. Just weird. I don't know about other places though. Can only speak for my place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kinda like ditches dug with tax payer money thats "private"

He should put a gate across the intracoastal

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Like the gray canal off the vinton drain ditch. Yes they own the land on either side of the canal but they don't own the water. I mean by yalls logic if I got land on either side of the Calcasieu I can gate it off cause dat section of the river belongs to me

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Y'all are to busy looking at the trees to see the forest. It is only a matter of time before we follow the precedent set by the rest of the country concerning water rights. The reason would be the vast amount of money the government is about to spend on coastal restoration in Louisiana. If you think I'm wrong remember what happened when Louisiana would not change the drinking age and the federal government threatened to withhold federal highway funds. Also the thinking that the public should pay "BILLIONS" to protect the ecosystem yet have no right to enjoy it is insane. To compare the deer on your property to the ecosystem of the Louisiana coast shows an extreme ignorance of the subject matter. I do not own land or lease land but I do pay 32% of my income to federal income tax. Why should my tax dollars be spent to protect your land from eroding, build weirs and locks to control salinity and fund research to determine future needs?

Well because they pay to lease it by God

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Here is where it gets sticky.
*the law was written to cover river bottoms during flood stage, not tidal waters.
*Canals dredged for oilfield production were supposed to be returned to previous state when field was vacated. didnt happen.
*landowner had the option of leaving the canals in place. it changed the hydrology of the marsh and accelerated land loss.
*canals that are "created" can be owned but natural canals cant. this is where landowners are taking advantage of the laws.
*Lessees can get hunting rights but they likely do not lease fishing rights. Gating a canal for hunting is denying fishermen their right to fish.
*As land erodes the state is still considering the eroded land that is no longer there "land that can be owned" which is ridiculous.
*There is no map available that currently shows public and private lands. LADNR has the SONRIS map but the disclaimer clearly states do not trust the data on the map.

just some points surrounding the problem.

Evis, good point!

I don't think a true navigable waterway should ever be blocked. However, if I own 1000 acres of mostly grassland, with a few potholes in the middle, I should be able to dig a boat trail to it and gate it off. The boat trail is navigable, but only because I dug it on my actual LAND. It should not then become accessible to the public, just because they can drive a boat down it.

Well our canal was dug back in the late 40's early 50's.

Not sure what year dad said it was dug.
So according to the previous post we should still own the water that runs through it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So what some of you are saying is that if I buy some land ...

And the state allows saltwater intrusion leading to erosion and that land disappears ...

I no longer own the land or the bottom or the water...

But now the water and bottom are the PROPERTY OF THE STATE.

How is this not a violation of the provision of the US CONSTITUTION (5th amendment) saying,

"Private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation"?

Converting private property to public use requires just compensation.

Your private property was not taken for public use. Your private property was washed away. Are you to say that the people who had land that is now gulf of mexico own that portion of the gulf and we, the public, are not allowed to float a boat over it?

Screw that. Ducks got enough refuges If it's tidal and I can fish it, why can't I duck hunt it too?

I signed it and emailed it to everyone on my aol list. Tidal waters should not be private. Those fish and crabs and ducks and gators are not privately owned. Apache and Miami corps and hackberry rod and gun should not be able to keep me out of navigable tidal waters if I want to duck hunt

Those refuges are illegal also. No one including the federal government should be able to own tidal water

Let's do this

As a land owner you have the responsibility to maintain your property Not the state .The state doesn't "allow" salt water intrusion. It is not the states job to spend tax dollars to maintain your property.

You should have put up bulkheads and protected your land.

I think if the waterway "dead-ends" into the landowner's property, he has a right to gate the waterway. However if said waterway is a passage of sort between 2 public water bodies, He cannot gate it. As in Statute 9: title 1254:

"The owner of an enclosed estate who has no access to his estate other than by way of an existing waterway passing through neighboring property shall have a right and servitude of passage on such waterway.  The existing waterway passing through the neighboring property shall be directly accessible from a publicly navigable waterway, and shall have been and shall still be capable of use for navigation by the owner of either the dominant or servient estate at the time of acquisition by act of sale, inheritance, or otherwise, by the owner of the dominant estate."

so should we not have coastal restoration projects so save everybodys land?

Basically no, I don't want to pay to save someone's land for them. You don't think it's a bit greedy of a land owner to expect the state and federal government to use everyone's tax dollars to save their land while excluding the very people who paid for it?

So first you say your land. But when it needs saving because you as a land owner did nothing It's everybodys land???