Originally Posted by MathGeek (Post 816128)

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.

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 816260)

Its 100% your job to maintain your land ... by installing bulkheads etc.
Everyone with camps on the water at Big Lake has bulk head for a reason so that they do not lose land to the wind , waves and water .....

You buy land its yours to maintain period .

Originally Posted by Reel Screamers (Post 816250)

We just had a long meeting on this at the Capitol. The fact is that 49 States and the Federal Government says that ebbing and flowing waters that are an arm of the sea and are open to public navigation as long as they are susceptible of supporting commerce. That is a very broad definition, by simply leasing the waterway it is conducting commerce. This argument has been going on for several years in the Atchafalaya Spillway with the crawfishermen and they have won all of their cases. One of those cases involved a previously landlocked pond that was private but the owner dug a canal that tapped the public resource and the pond became part of the public waterway.

Originally Posted by Reel Screamers (Post 816250)

The oil companies and the land owners have dug canals through our marsh that accelerated erosion, changed the flow of natural waterways and have failed to keep them up, Lets face it, its expensive. As part of the meeting it was acknowledged that the State is charged with coming in and claiming these water bottoms as a public thing but they have not been doing it because they do not have the funds to do it or to fight the legal challenges that follow, even though they end up being affirmed more often than not. But remember the Rosa Parks analogy. The legislature last year passed an oyster lease law that changed the way oyster leases were handled. Shortly afterwards in several areas of the State these "landowners" began getting very aggressive about claiming waterways as belonging to them. These two actions along with the Billions that are about to be spent in our marsh are now pushing the issue. Change is coming and after the meeting that was had yesterday, it ain't going to be pretty and compromise does not look good, so like the other 49 States it looks like it will be all or nothing.

I understand the landowners argument that it has been this way for years but every now and then the pendulum swings too far one way and it has to be reset, a few bad apples are forcing the issue and there will be collateral damage.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 816267)

What if the government is responsible for the erosion? Ship channel being installed, MS and Atchafalaya levees installed?:eek:

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 816271)

still your land and your responsibility , you can either watch your land disappear and fight it in count or protect it.


In la you can actually claim lost land but at the end of the day its your choice..


My dad has a fence next to a ditch and over the last 40 years that fence has gotten real close to that ditch now and T Post are starting to fall ..

Reason ? We sprayed round up on that fence line for 40 years and rain has eroded the dirt over the years and we lost a ton of land between our fence and the ditch because we chose to not protect it.

Originally Posted by evis102 (Post 816273)

Everything south of I-10 sounds good to me. It has to be all or nothing. If not the public will be fighting loopholes forever. I would say at present it is more like a oligarchy.
The landowners control the resource and the public pays to maintain it. The prime mover in the publics side is social media. It is allowing a vast amount of people to connect over a common issue. I do not care how good your lobbyist are a politician is not going to support something that may get him voted out of office.

Originally Posted by evis102 (Post 816277)

You still own the "land" as you are the land owner. No one can trespass on your property, your property being the land. You are asking to be compensated for something that was never yours to begin with. The current Louisiana state law uses a single case from Mississippi as its justification. I can name you 3 cases from Texas, one of witch made it to there Supreme Court, that supports the right of public use. The case law is on the side of the public, all it is going to take is someone with the money to push it through the court.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 816281)

You CAN own tidal marsh in Louisiana. But this coalition wants to make all tidal navigable waters open to the public. Your argument will then be what is navigable. Navigable by what?

The other question would be what do you consider marsh? Land or water?

Originally Posted by evis102 (Post 816282)

Navigable has nothing to do with it but I could argue that if it can float a log it could be used for commerce. It is all about the ebb and flow of the tide. Mississippi has a very good grasp of the concept of tidal waters:

PUBLIC TRUST TIDELANDS
Public Trust Tidelands and submerged lands are lands lying under waters naturally subject to tidal influence. The inland boundary is the line of mean high tide and the seaward boundary is the State boundary, three miles south of the barrier islands. Public Trust Tidelands are owned by the State in trust for all the people of Mississippi. The Secretary of State is the trustee of this great public trust.

It is the policy of the State of Mississippi to favor the preservation of the natural state of the public trust tidelands and their ecosystems and to prevent the despoliation and destruction of them, except where a specific alteration would serve a higher public interest in compliance with the public purposes of the trust. Public Trust Tidelands are managed with a view towards preservation. Revenues from the Tidelands are deposited into the Tidelands Fund and disbursed to the Department of Marine Resources for programs and projects relating to conservation, reclamation, preservation, acquisition, education and enhancement of public access to the tidelands.

Originally Posted by evis102 (Post 816316)

United States Constitution - Freedom of navigation and the public?s right to use rivers are guaranteed by the Commerce Clause. The congressional Act admitting States to the Union requires that ?all the navigable waters within said State shall be common highways and forever free.?

It could be argued that at one time or other any water deep enough to float a pirogue was used for trade and travel.

Originally Posted by wishin i was fishin (Post 816327)

Just a screenshot of one of the many cases sited in the Land Trust Doctrine.

this battle has been ongoing back into the late 1800s.

According to the LTD, tidal overflow lands are owned by the state by inherent sovereignty.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 816340)

Navigation and commerce does not mean you can hunt/fish there. Commerce means trade. Think of it as a public road going through your property. Anyone can travel down that road but you can't get out the vehicle me and shoot a deer off the side of the road

There was a case up in northeast Louisiana (Gassoway Lake) that the federjudge ruled for the landowner and he cited the public trust doctrine pertaining to commerce as well. This lake was an old oxbow of the MS River and when the river would flood, it was then "navigable" and you could get to this lake many people got arrested and took it to court. Basically the rules were written that you were allowed to be in the floodwaters but only to moor overnight and/or dry your nets but weren't allowed to hunt or fish there.

Originally Posted by evis102 (Post 816348)

That case was about mean high-water mark and river flooding. You are right I can't stop in the middle of a bayou and shoot a deer on your land. I can stop my boat, throw out some decoys and shoot ducks.