First Prev
of 2
Next Last
zachary

Oklahoma City, OK

#1 Mar 11, 2013
I would like everyone to go to this site and read it all and then see how federal law by the supreme court differs from local law in West Feliciana. I would think the officials in this Parish should adhere to federal law and not the whim of the rich so all could enjoy the rivers,creeks,streams, and beaches of this parish that is owned by the state for the exclusive use by the "Public trust" under federal law. Again, Please read this entirely, especially the part about who owns the running water and what decides when it is navigational. Federal law states no one can own or keep people from using and enjoying the national trust of the running waterways.
zachary

Oklahoma City, OK

#2 Mar 11, 2013
You need to copy the address and put it in your browser to go to it, Sorry I did not explain that.
The Dude

Saint Francisville, LA

#3 Mar 11, 2013
It might if you post the link in the thread itself. I canít go to it to read. Thought Zachary I got to tell you that based on your post in the other thread you are misinterpreting the law.
The Dude

Saint Francisville, LA

#4 Mar 11, 2013
The Dude

Saint Francisville, LA

#5 Mar 11, 2013
Yeah, Zachary this is the thing. You can use the Mississippi river all day long. The banks of the river will be owned by the state, and you can use the banks in a manner that is consistent with traditional maritime travel. However, you do not have the right to cross the property of another to access a waterway. How do you feel you rights as a citizen is being limited wrongfully by the parish?
Legal Beagle

Saint Francisville, LA

#6 Mar 11, 2013
That site was obviously written by a layman not an attorney and should be treated as such. They are making vast assumptions on how the laws work and are flat out wrong in a couple of their interpretations.
This is a much better site to answer a lot questions you may have in regards to our waterways and your rights to them.

http://www.doa.louisiana.gov/slo/default.htm

Since: Feb 13

Saint Francisville, LA

#7 Mar 11, 2013
Zachary, this may be of some help to you

La. Civ. Code art. 450 - All natural navigable bodies of water are owned by the state as public things and their is is free to all.

A body of water is "navigable" if it is capable of being used as a highway for commercial traffic. If it is navigable in fact, it is navigable in law. The body of water need not be currently navigated; it must only be capable of being used.

In Dardar v. Lafourche Realty , the Fith Circuit held that nonnavigable tidelands and swamplands subject to indirect freshwater tidal overflow-but not direct coastal edd and flow are not seashore and may be privately owned. Hence why areas like the bank at Thompson creek are subject to private ownership.

La. Civ. Code art. 450 - Bottoms of nonnavigable water bodies are Privately owned. The state owns the beds of navigable rivers and streams to the ordinary low water mark.

La. Civ. Code art. 456 - The bank is the land between the ordinary high and low water marks. Nevertheless, when there is a levee established according to lay it establishes the bank. The banks of navigable rivers ans streams are private things subject to limited public use. Public use must be incidental to navigation on the stream, Mooring would be allowed but not camping on the banks.

So in other words you can use the bank to anchor and tend to your boat, but you can't set out lawn chairs and drink some beers next to a camp fire.

State v. Placid Oil Co. lays out the factors to distinguish between rivers and other water bodies. The factors are 1) Size and Shape 2) Depth in relation to other waters flowing into it 3)Historical designation 4) Current relation to other waters flowing into it.
zachary

Oklahoma City, OK

#8 Mar 12, 2013
I would just like for everbody to read this piece and the parts about the federal law and court cases so that everyone will truly know their rights. I don't plan on going on the water or beaches myself as I went when I was younger and enjoyed it very much, it just seems that now the richer and more affluent people have taken away the rights of the people in this parish more than others. Back when Mr. Leon Picou was the District Attorney the people seemed to have alot more rights about enjoying Public Property and not being arrested and charged. Mr. Picou was a very fine Lawyer and a Great man, Have the laws changed that much or are the powers that control that parish now being abused for the more affluent? I am not accusing as much as asking a question out of curosity.
Thanks

Since: Feb 13

Saint Francisville, LA

#9 Mar 12, 2013
Zachary, all I can tell you is that the laws that I have posted are the ones that apply to state owned water bodies. Those are in a nut shell your rights as a citizen and the rights of others as property owners. As far as why you could use it so freely in the past under another DA (and I agree, Mr. Picou was a fine man and lawyer) is perhaps it was simply the ownerís prerogative at that time. In example, when I was a young gator, there was an open lot in my neighborhood next to my house. My fellow hatchlings and I used the lot to play on and no one ever said a word about it until after about 8 years or so, when I man came to us and said that he just purchased the lot and wanted us to stay off of it, which of course we had to despite the fact that we enjoyed the use of it for the better half of my life at that time. My point of the story is, just because one person allowed you to do that another wont, doesnít mean that the latter is violating your rights, it means that the former allowed you greater liberties.
DIY Land Mogul

Oklahoma City, OK

#10 Mar 12, 2013
Old_Gator wrote:
Zachary, this may be of some help to you
La. Civ. Code art. 450 - All natural navigable bodies of water are owned by the state as public things and their is is free to all.
A body of water is "navigable" if it is capable of being used as a highway for commercial traffic. If it is navigable in fact, it is navigable in law. The body of water need not be currently navigated; it must only be capable of being used.
In Dardar v. Lafourche Realty , the Fith Circuit held that nonnavigable tidelands and swamplands subject to indirect freshwater tidal overflow-but not direct coastal edd and flow are not seashore and may be privately owned. Hence why areas like the bank at Thompson creek are subject to private ownership.
La. Civ. Code art. 450 - Bottoms of nonnavigable water bodies are Privately owned. The state owns the beds of navigable rivers and streams to the ordinary low water mark.
La. Civ. Code art. 456 - The bank is the land between the ordinary high and low water marks. Nevertheless, when there is a levee established according to lay it establishes the bank. The banks of navigable rivers ans streams are private things subject to limited public use. Public use must be incidental to navigation on the stream, Mooring would be allowed but not camping on the banks.
So in other words you can use the bank to anchor and tend to your boat, but you can't set out lawn chairs and drink some beers next to a camp fire.
State v. Placid Oil Co. lays out the factors to distinguish between rivers and other water bodies. The factors are 1) Size and Shape 2) Depth in relation to other waters flowing into it 3)Historical designation 4) Current relation to other waters flowing into it.
Ah Yes, but if you abandon some old equipment on the bank of a private or public bank and they don't stop you, you can claim it as your own.
If the owner of this river area then removes your junk, you can tie them up in a lawsuit for years.
It will cause them so much headache and money, they will probably give up and just let you have it. If you are really good, you can start charging them rent to use their own property.
It is easiest to do this on public land because very few elected officials are knowledgeable or care about the publics real estate holdings.

Since: Feb 13

Saint Francisville, LA

#11 Mar 12, 2013
DIY Land Mogul wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah Yes, but if you abandon some old equipment on the bank of a private or public bank and they don't stop you, you can claim it as your own.
If the owner of this river area then removes your junk, you can tie them up in a lawsuit for years.
It will cause them so much headache and money, they will probably give up and just let you have it. If you are really good, you can start charging them rent to use their own property.
It is easiest to do this on public land because very few elected officials are knowledgeable or care about the publics real estate holdings.
Not only is your act getting old, but you are off topic in this thread.
Hahahahaha

United States

#12 Mar 12, 2013
kinda like louisv huh?
bes42

United States

#13 Mar 12, 2013
Old Gator:

An old lawyer is like an old heat rash. While one may not die from the association, the itch remains for a long time after the encounter.

Since: Feb 13

Donaldsonville, LA

#14 Mar 12, 2013
bes42 wrote:
Old Gator:
An old lawyer is like an old heat rash. While one may not die from the association, the itch remains for a long time after the encounter.
Hmm....I think that was a insult...but...yeah, I can't sure.
bes42

United States

#15 Mar 12, 2013
Old_Gator wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmm....I think that was a insult...but...yeah, I can't sure.
If the shoe fits..........

Since: Feb 13

Saint Francisville, LA

#16 Mar 13, 2013
bes42 wrote:
<quoted text>If the shoe fits..........
what does my penny loafers have to do with any of this?
zachary

Oklahoma City, OK

#17 Mar 14, 2013
has anyone read the website yet, I know Old Gator was a lawyer but there is a chance he could be wrong sometime, I read the site and thought it was probably right and would over ride state and parish law. Please read it before posting.
Legal Beagle

Saint Francisville, LA

#18 Mar 15, 2013
zachary wrote:
has anyone read the website yet, I know Old Gator was a lawyer but there is a chance he could be wrong sometime, I read the site and thought it was probably right and would over ride state and parish law. Please read it before posting.
Zachary, the Fedís laws are essentially the same stateís statutes. None of them are really contradictory. Iím not sure what you think the federal laws would allow that our State laws do not.

Thompson Creek is defined as a navigable body of water, as is the river of course, by both set of laws. Both set of laws say that the public can have access to the waterways for purpose of navigation, meaning one can use it to kayak, canoe, etc.

Both set of laws recognize that a private owner can on up to the banks or a public water way but the mean between the average high and low water marks will be subject to public use in connection to navigation of the waterway. Neither law gives anyone the right to use the banks for fishing or recreational purposes other than something associated with the navigation of the waterway. Both recognize that some water bodies are subject to private ownership and are not held in "public trust."

In addition, States have a right to build on federal laws that are in place as long as they donít contradict the federal laws. Because of this that site is wrong in saying the laws donít differ from state to state. For example, in Mississippi you canít drink alcohol while boating, regardless if the vessel is motorized or not but in Louisiana you can. Now of course you can get a DWI if you drink about the legal limit but nonetheless you can drink. Then the states registration laws differ, some states force you to register any craft, motorize or not, in order to use them on public water ways, some you only have to have motorized vessels registered, and some neither.

So the question becomes, what is it exactly that the Parish is doing that you think they shouldnít be?
zachary

Oklahoma City, OK

#19 Mar 16, 2013
Well would it be legal to drive down the side of hwy. 61 to under the thompson creek bridge? And would it be legal to fish or swim in the creek or does land under the bridge belong to someone or is it public property? If it is public property how far does the public property extend from the hwy. before it hits the private property on either side?

Since: Feb 13

Donaldsonville, LA

#20 Mar 16, 2013
zachary wrote:
Well would it be legal to drive down the side of hwy. 61 to under the thompson creek bridge? And would it be legal to fish or swim in the creek or does land under the bridge belong to someone or is it public property? If it is public property how far does the public property extend from the hwy. before it hits the private property on either side?
You're fine parking under the bridge and fishing there, a buddy of mine puts his kayak in right there all the time.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

St. Francisville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Exciting news! Viking River Cruises stopping in SF 1 hr junkie 56
Rod Dreher is on the cover of the latest Greate... (Apr '13) 10 hr deep enough 397
New hospital Mon watching 19
For or against Walmart in St Francisville and why? (Jul '11) Mon user1234 58
Walmart in East Feliciana Mon user1234 9
Mel Percy West Feliciana Parish Council Mon Thorn in da ville 18
Couhig (Aug '13) Mon Thorn in da ville 302
More from around the web

St. Francisville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 5:33 am PST

NFL 5:33AM
Saints' Sean Payton hopes to re-sign Mark Ingram
Bleacher Report 9:47 AM
Insider Buzz: Mutual Interest Between Andre Johnson and Indianapolis Colts
NFL11:46 AM
Andre Johnson 'laughed' at not starting for Texans
CBS Sports 1:04 PM
Report: 3 teams willing to pay Andre Johnson $10 million in 2015
Bleacher Report 1:10 PM
Report: Saints Looking to Re-Structure Colston Deal