# Louisiana's private waters - ain't this some BS



## pt448

Looks like "land"/(water) owners are now video taping and photographing "trespassers"/(fisherman) and local authorities are issuing warrants for trespassing. Sad times for what was once Sportsman's Paradise. My favorite part of the article was when the Sheriff of Cameron Parish says trespassers are presumed guilty without proof of permission (which is how the new law actually is). I thought this was America where we're innocent until proven guilty. Y'all be careful out there.

http://www.louisianasportsman.com/details.php?id=9577


----------



## jmrodandgun

The map the state uses to decide what's public is 204 years old and it was made by some dude in a canoe with a 66ft piece of chain. Only about 1/5th of the marsh is publicly accessible, potentially even less. 

$680 million coastal restoration budget is spent almost entirely on private property.


----------



## rhettstark

Sad part is that a friend of mine went fish during the week no other boats at the launch and got a $700 ticket for trespassing but there were no posted sings and the sheriff officer and land owner even admitted that people were tearing the posted signs out. They may need to put up some new signs if they are going to get this serious about private waters. Sad that can't go back to places I've fished the last 10 years


----------



## fishicaltherapist

GREED,GREED,GREED...........they just want others to know that THEY OWN IT, no matter how LITTLE they may use it themselves. Their DAY will come and then they will have the FINAL JUDGEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!! "Money is a tool.....wasted by a fool."


----------



## pt448

rhettstark said:


> Sad part is that a friend of mine went fish during the week no other boats at the launch and got a $700 ticket for trespassing but there were no posted sings and the sheriff officer and land owner even admitted that people were tearing the posted signs out. They may need to put up some new signs if they are going to get this serious about private waters. Sad that can't go back to places I've fished the last 10 years


Yep, they changed the law fairly recently. They used to not be able to ticket you if the property wasn't posted. Now it doesn't matter. It's up to you to know if the water you're on is private.


----------



## pt448

fishicaltherapist said:


> GREED,GREED,GREED...........they just want others to know that THEY OWN IT, no matter how LITTLE they may use it themselves. Their DAY will come and then they will have the FINAL JUDGEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!! "Money is a tool.....wasted by a fool."


One clever comment to the above article was for LDWF to ticket all "land"owners for possession of over the limit and undersized reds, specs, etc. It'll never happen, but it's definitely an interesting argument.


----------



## MariettaMike

jmrodandgun said:


> The map the state uses to decide what's public is 204 years old and it was made by some dude in a canoe with a 66ft piece of chain. Only about 1/5th of the marsh is publicly accessible, potentially even less.
> 
> $680 million coastal restoration budget is spent almost entirely on private property.


Much of the property in Louisiana was purchased by river or bayou frontage (arpents). Major purchases were by boundary descriptions with no regard to "navigable water", which is really how Louisiana was purchased.

I grew up in South Louisiana and can't recall any place I fished that wasn't public. And for the many places I hunted they were either public or posted "No Trespassing" by the owner or hunting club that had leased the hunting rights for the property.

My guess is property owners are looking for fishing clubs or outfitters to lease the fishing rights for their property.

What blurs the line for many is the assumption that anything accessible by water is public. That is NOT the case.

The term "navigable water" typically applies to cargo carrying vessels. Not 6" draft poling skiffs, airboats, and long tail surface drives.

I would venture a guess that many of you knew you were on someone else property because you wouldn't dare hunt there, but you figure fishing is OK because the fish have to enter and exit by water in much the same way you did by boat.

As a side note I think the Florida Marine Tracks guys need to eliminate any tracks that are on private property.


----------



## pt448

MariettaMike said:


> Much of the property in Louisiana was purchased by river or bayou frontage (arpents). Major purchases were by boundary descriptions with no regard to "navigable water", which is really how Louisiana was purchased.
> 
> I grew up in South Louisiana and can't recall any place I fished that wasn't public. And for the many places I hunted they were either public or posted "No Trespassing" by the owner or hunting club that had leased the hunting rights for the property.
> 
> My guess is property owners are looking for fishing clubs or outfitters to lease the fishing rights for their property.
> 
> What blurs the line for many is the assumption that anything accessible by water is public. That is NOT the case.
> 
> The term "navigable water" typically applies to cargo carrying vessels. Not 6" draft poling skiffs, airboats, and long tail surface drives.
> 
> I would venture a guess that many of you knew you were on someone else property because you wouldn't dare hunt there, but you figure fishing is OK because the fish have to enter and exit by water in much the same way you did by boat.
> 
> As a side note I think the Florida Marine Tracks guys need to eliminate any tracks that are on private property.


It's true that many navigable water laws and statutes are in terms of interstate commerce, but in 49 states and DC you can hunt or fish wherever your boat can float for the most part. If you step foot on any private land surrounding the water,_ then_ you are trespassing. That's not the case in bassackwards Louisiana. It's certainly a very complex and convoluted issue, and it's hard to fight oil/gas/politics here, but if they're gonna start putting out warrants for tournament fishermen it's gonna be hard to sell tourism to the "Sportsman's Paradise". I can see the slogans now: "Enjoy the finest fishing in the country, but make sure you have a good gps and study your maps from 1812 or we'll lock you up for trespassing in open water."


----------



## pt448

This article gives a very good explanation of the history and significance of the problem.
http://www.nola.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2014/08/louisianas_trespass_laws_lock.html

Here's a link to the state website showing which water is public and which is private:
http://sonris-www.dnr.state.la.us/gis/agsweb/IE/JSViewer/index.html?TemplateID=381


----------



## pt448

This is a map of the Lafitte/Myrtle Grove area. Everything that's purple or bluegreen with lines on it is claimed by the state. The red/peach with lines is claimed by the state and the "land"owner. The rest of the water you see is privately owned. If you play around with the map you'll see that outside of PAC WMA/sulphur mine, some areas around Leeville and Fourchon, and the Biloxi Marsh WMA all the shallow marsh and ponds are privately owned and you could potentially get cited for trespassing if you fish it. That includes almost all the marsh around Hopedale, Reggio, Shell Beach, Delacroix, Venice up to Myrtle Grove, Lafitte, Golden Meadow, Cocodrie, and Dularge. And that's just the southeast part of the state. The same problem continues westward to Cameron Parish where the warrants were issued for these fishermen.


----------



## jmrodandgun

For what it's worth, I very rarely have issues but I have been chased out of a pond or two. Once I was poling a sandy flat close to hundred yards or better from any marsh grass and a crab boat rolled up on my freaking out about me trespassing. Crazy. I still fish that flat btw.

. Most people I know don't care. If things go bad they just beg for forgiveness. Most places with camps and marinas wouldn't exist if people followed the rules and the parish law enforcement is aware so they do very little unless owners start bugging them about trespassers.

I make an effort to not trespass but it's impossible. Getting permission has been hit or miss but I ended up getting lucky and a couple land owners were cool with it as long as I promised not to bowfish. I'm slowly making more connections. I started sending christmas cards to people who have given me permission as well as calling them before I head in to ask if they would like a few fish for their freezer. This tactic has worked wonders. Now when I contact someone I have good references. Rule #1, be nice. 

Here is where it gets interesting. Louisiana Land and Exploration owns more tidal marsh below the saltwater line than all public WMA's and state land combined. However, the state of Louisiana has a $600+ million dollar budget to restore the marsh below the saltwater line. Louisiana lands costal restoration budget is zero dollars.

Too muddy the waters even more. Nearly half of ALL marsh loss can be directly linked to privately dug exploration and transportation canals. A good example would be the marsh to the east of Leeville. There is a big chunk of state land in the area. It's probably close to 1/3 of the size it used to be mostly because of private canals that were dug on private property that caused the erosion. 

TLDR; Private land owners profited from oil and gas while destroying their marsh AND neighboring publicly owned land. Now the tax payers are footing the bill to try and fix or at least slow the erosion, mostly benefiting private land owners.


----------



## MariettaMike

pt448 said:


> It's true that many navigable water laws and statutes are in terms of interstate commerce, but in 49 states and DC you can hunt or fish wherever your boat can float for the most part. If you step foot on any private land surrounding the water,_ then_ you are trespassing. That's not the case in bassackwards Louisiana.


Georgia "intrastate" navigable waters have been argued about for years, but many of the best trout streams are private. There are even parts of the Toccoa that have been posted as "No Fishing" as an owners compromise for letting people float through, but not fish by the feeders they have set-up to grow their pellet pigs. Many tidal creeks and sloughs on the coast could also be posted if land owners wanted to. (Georgia has the most marsh of any state East of the Mississippi.)

The consensus in Georgia is "Don't start no chit, and there won't be no chit." Unfortunately it looks like somebody started some chit in Louisiana, and the landowner is exercising their rights.

BTW There are benefits to having private water, but you will pay for admission:
http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=110113&highlight=private+water


----------



## Copperspoonfly

I don't see why the taxpayers of Lousiana are paying for the marsh erosion project in privately owned waters which they are not welcome use. The solution should be that the private landowners either pay for the 600 million coastal erosion project on their land or they give up ownership of the water rights to the state of Lousiana making it public.


----------



## MariettaMike

Copperspoonfly said:


> I don't see why the taxpayers of Lousiana are paying for the marsh erosion project in privately owned waters which they are not welcome use. The solution should be that the private landowners either pay for the 600 million coastal erosion project on their land or they give up ownership of the water rights to the state of Lousiana making it public.


Especially when a contractor on the project is a landowner. But when I saw what Edwin Edwards got away with, nothing would surprise me.


----------



## jmrodandgun

Copperspoonfly said:


> I don't see why the taxpayers of Lousiana are paying for the marsh erosion project in privately owned waters which they are not welcome use. The solution should be that the private landowners either pay for the 600 million coastal erosion project on their land or they give up ownership of the water rights to the state of Lousiana making it public.


To be honest, I don't think it's a widely known issue outside of those of us who fish shallow water. I bet if you went to the most popular boat ramp in Alexandria you would surprise nearly everyone with the legality of fishing the marsh in South Louisiana. I'm willing to bet you would get a liar if you told them that there is a multi million dollar project to restore Fourchon beach but it's closed to the public because surrounding land owners refuse to give servitude to access the public beach. The owners went as far as driving giant poles into the sand to block access. For all intents and purposes it's a now private beach that was restored with public funds for private use.


----------



## MariettaMike

jmrodandgun said:


> To be honest, I don't think it's a widely known issue outside of those of us who fish shallow water. I bet if you went to the most popular boat ramp in Alexandria you would surprise nearly everyone with the legality of fishing the marsh in South Louisiana. I'm willing to bet you would get a liar if you told them that there is a multi million dollar project to restore Fourchon beach but it's closed to the public because surrounding land owners refuse to give servitude to access the public beach. The owners went as far as driving giant poles into the sand to block access. For all intents and purposes it's a now private beach that was restored with public funds for private use.


It would appear the reasons for restoring that beach is far more comprehensive than just making a private beach for the land owner.

http://www.louisianasportsman.com/l...ports&event=view&action=full_report&id=172210


----------



## pt448

jm is right. It's not all doom and gloom. Living here, if you don't find the humor and take a good attitude with it, you'll drive yourself nuts with frustration and anger. 

Mike, it's not that people used to own marsh land that's been eaten away and is now water, but they still want to own it. It's that innocent fisherman meaning no harm are being ticketed or warrants issued for their arrest for fishing open water that isn't indicated as private in any way other than a map from 1812. You know how bad the erosion is over here and how hard it is to know what used to be land when you're out there on the water. Either the owner should have to post their private "land" or the fisherman should be politely asked to leave before substantial fines or warrants are issued. I think it's gotten worse recently for 2 reasons: the erosion problem really has gotten that bad and the popularity of kayak fishing (and shallow water fishing in general) has put more anglers in water they weren't usually in before. I think "land"owners and fisherman are gonna have to find a way to work it out and not be buttholes to each other about it.

jm, have you made contact with any "land"owners around Lafitte or Myrtle Grove I could send Christmas cards to?


----------



## jmrodandgun

MariettaMike said:


> It would appear the reasons for restoring that beach is far more comprehensive than just making a private beach for the land owner.
> 
> http://www.louisianasportsman.com/l...ports&event=view&action=full_report&id=172210


Yes, of course. There is motivation behind restoring the beach. The rub is the land owners decided to cut off access, when access was previously allowed, after the project started. 



pt448 said:


> jm, have you made contact with any "land"owners around Lafitte or Myrtle Grove I could send Christmas cards to?


I wish. I have been trying to get into myrtle grove for 2 years. Lafitte isn't too bad, Myrtle grove on the other hand you might get death threats. Anther reason myrtle grove is so tricky is most of it is leased from OG companies so you have to chase down the title holder, and then get them to put you in touch with the lease holder.


----------



## WhiteDog70810

Louisiana is a victim of its own success. We were a banana republic disguised as a state for so long that the rest of the nation wrote us off as a bunch of unsophisticated hicks living in a bug infested backwater. People only visited to see family or to go to Mardi Gras. Otherwise, Louisiana was just another rest area along the interstate. However, Louisiana's hunting and fishing has slowly earned peoples' attention. Now people vacation to Louisiana to fish and hunt. As a result, marshland has value that isn't solely linked to the mineral/oil rights beneath it. The property owners are seeking to profit from it. This isn't completely new; the good brackish water duck marshes have been locked down under leases since before I was born. Restricted fishing access in salt marsh is a new thing. While the land owners' claims are legal based on the law as written, I feel it needs more common sense in application. If the owner takes the effort to dike marshland and install weirs and gates like most of the duck leases, I have not issue with it being posted. Although many disagree, neglecting marsh until it washes away and then saying no one can access the area is BS. However, I know at least Georgia (as mentioned) and Maryland recognize property rights to extend under waterways, so the precedent is out there.

I wish the state had the funds to pay landowners some form of stipend to preserve public access, but that is dream. It would be nice to tie marshland restoration funds to public access, but, in the grand scheme of things, marshes are more important as buffers against hurricanes than as fishing holes, so don't expect that to happen anytime soon.

What frustrates me is that you can't just talk to one or two landowners to get permission to fish their property. That would almost be easy. We were very successful, but we often ran 30-40 miles in a day to find where the fish were biting. That means we didn't just fish on one or two tracks. We fished across vast areas. Only the damn snowbirds that were scared of getting lost camped out on the same spots everyday.

Nate


----------



## sjrobin

Texas has some coastal development problems, but not like LA. Texas law is land covered by mean high tide is owned by the state(people of Texas) as it should be. We also have a open beaches law. Start a referendum and vote the arcane tide water ownership law out. It would not be as difficult as you may think.


----------



## jmrodandgun

sjrobin said:


> Start a referendum and vote the arcane tide water ownership law out. It would not be as difficult as you may think.


People have tried, but it just costs too much money to fight. Louisiana Sportsman Coalition is doing a little bit but there is a lot of foot in the mouth moments with them. Most people don't really care about Charlie Drake Fetchers duck hunting lease anyway so they can't be bothered to donate to the cause. On the other side you have guys who are perfectly fine with the law, they usually roll their eyes and say a big deal is being made about nothing.

Things are getting bad in Louisiana. Every year we have less public access. Look at what is going on with Catahoula lake, if you want to get pissed off go read the cluster that is going on there. Land owners managed to get a judge to rule on the lake being a river and giving adjacent land owners ownership all the way to the low water mark, effectively making the lake private. Crazy.


----------



## ifsteve

1. This is a really messy situation that needs to be addressed. Using maps from eons ago is really meaningless. It may be legally accurate (for the time being) but fails the ho ho test.
2. Good luck using the states map site to decipher where you can and can't go. You need a PhD in cartography and even then look at how much of the area is claimed by both the state and a private landowner.
3. It really is a simple fix from a legal perspective. Probably will be a very long fight in practice.


----------



## pt448

Updates with some very interesting and informative articles as well as links to the Louisiana Sportsmen's Coalition website and facebook page.

http://www.nola.com/outdoors/index....offices_enforce_on-wa.html#incart_river_index

http://www.nola.com/outdoors/index....lost_louisiana_angler.html#incart_river_index

https://louisianasportsmenscoalition.com/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/936109849813025/


----------



## Egrets Landing

MariettaMike said:


> Much of the property in Louisiana was purchased by river or bayou frontage (arpents). Major purchases were by boundary descriptions with no regard to "navigable water", which is really how Louisiana was purchased.
> 
> As a side note I think the Florida Marine Tracks guys need to eliminate any tracks that are on private property.


Louisiana is not released yet. But when it is released it will be the best chip you can buy hands down to run the area just as is the case now for the inshore crew in FL. The FMT North Florida imagery updates will be done this month and the improvements to the Tampa area, Merritt Island area and the big bend area and Panhandle are very substantive. The imagery is really fantastic. After the NFL update is complete this month and released the focus goes back to Louisiana to finish the map for the western portions of the State. As far as tracks on private lands, FMT is more concerned about getting the tracks exactly correct in terms of navigating rather than perfect on legal boundaries. But they are trying to get detailed data from the State on this to add to the map to show the boundaries for all of the private lands just as they already have a layer on the LA map for all of the Oyster Lease areas and the Post Lines or in Florida for Manatee Zones. But if this Private Land area data is not readily available on something that can be used to create a highly accurate map basically it may not be possible to present track data on a map that is all 100% guaranteed to be totally safe of this trespass issue unless you just wanted the main runs that you can pull off most paper maps or a couple of other chips that just have some basic primary runs. FMT has already drafted out thousands of miles of detailed tracks in LA and mapped thousands of PVC stakes and all kinds of infrastructure sticking up that are on no other maps available so the notion that they would provide just a basic track set to match the others is not the way they operate. It will be loaded with track detail.

The same authorization (trespass) issue goes for portions of the Merritt Island refuge that run near the space center. The tracks are there but not legal for many to run unless you are authorized and some FMT users are authorized and the tracks work great. Tracks also run in Idle zones. It's up to the user to pay attention to the signs. But they do have signs posted for these spots and it seems the raparian rights and the associated law in LA are different from FL. Also, for LA, tracks that could run on private areas may be useful for those that are authorized to run them. Hopefully, if a land owner does not want others there, they will have some signs posted to help but it's not clear if that is a legal requirement. Many road maps show lots of roads (paved and dirt) that run on private lands but it does not necessarily mean its all public roads. It is an interesting issue and FMT is trying to map LA in such a way that the map would provide a clear boundary for all of the "private lands" so it would be obvious just as was done on FMT for Manatees where tiny yellow hash marks begin to appear on top of the imagery when you enter the zone. That is the plan anyway if precise boundary data can be obtained without spending years digging through courthouse land records.


----------



## pt448

Egrets Landing said:


> Louisiana is not released yet. But when it is released it will be the best chip you can buy hands down to run the area just as is the case now for the inshore crew in FL. The FMT North Florida imagery updates will be done this month and the improvements to the Tampa area, Merritt Island area and the big bend area and Panhandle are very substantive. The imagery is really fantastic. After the NFL update is complete this month and released the focus goes back to Louisiana to finish the map for the western portions of the State. As far as tracks on private lands, FMT is more concerned about getting the tracks exactly correct in terms of navigating rather than perfect on legal boundaries. But they are trying to get detailed data from the State on this to add to the map to show the boundaries for all of the private lands just as they already have a layer on the LA map for all of the Oyster Lease areas and the Post Lines or in Florida for Manatee Zones. But if this Private Land area data is not readily available on something that can be used to create a highly accurate map basically it may not be possible to present track data on a map that is all 100% guaranteed to be totally safe of this trespass issue unless you just wanted the main runs that you can pull off most paper maps or a couple of other chips that just have some basic primary runs. FMT has already drafted out thousands of miles of detailed tracks in LA and mapped thousands of PVC stakes and all kinds of infrastructure sticking up that are on no other maps available so the notion that they would provide just a basic track set to match the others is not the way they operate. It will be loaded with track detail.
> 
> The same authorization (trespass) issue goes for portions of the Merritt Island refuge that run near the space center. The tracks are there but not legal for many to run unless you are authorized and some FMT users are authorized and the tracks work great. Tracks also run in Idle zones. It's up to the user to pay attention to the signs. But they do have signs posted for these spots and it seems the raparian rights and the associated law in LA are different from FL. Also, for LA, tracks that could run on private areas may be useful for those that are authorized to run them. Hopefully, if a land owner does not want others there, they will have some signs posted to help but it's not clear if that is a legal requirement. Many road maps show lots of roads (paved and dirt) that run on private lands but it does not necessarily mean its all public roads. It is an interesting issue and FMT is trying to map LA in such a way that the map would provide a clear boundary for all of the "private lands" so it would be obvious just as was done on FMT for Manatees where tiny yellow hash marks begin to appear on top of the imagery when you enter the zone. That is the plan anyway if precise boundary data can be obtained without spending years digging through courthouse land records.


I admire what you're trying to do with the maps, but here are some quotes from the second article I posted to answer some of your questions and give you an idea what you're up against.

"The problem was exacerbated by a well-intentioned state law passed in 2003 absolving landowners of the responsibility to post their holdings as private." - Private water does not have to be posted for you to suffer legal penalty for trespassing.

"The state says anything that wasn't declared as navigable when Louisiana was granted statehood in 1812 isn't navigable today." 

This next one is long, but has important information from the State Land Office.
"
To determine if a particular tract of tidal water is legally navigable, employees with the State Land Office examine a spate of legal documents, including historical survey data prepared by the U.S. General Land Office in the early 1800s, according to Richard Carbo, communications director for the Governor's Office.

"After carefully analyzing the historic and present-day data, surveyors for the State Land Office generate the inventory of all water bottoms claimed by the state," Carbo wrote in an emailed response to a series of questions submitted by NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune.

Surveyors use five "general guidelines," Carbo said, when examining a particular tract:

1. Whether the waterway has a width of one chain or 100 links (66 feet) on township plats and/or the associated field notes;
2. Whether the waterway is meandered or shown with a double line on township plats;
3. Whether the waterway is either connected to another navigable waterway or is in close proximity to one (i.e., not landlocked);
4. Whether water flows through the waterway at least part of the year;
5. Whether the waterway has been given a name on either the township plat or the associated field notes.

Even if all these factors are met, however, and the State Land Office determines a waterway belongs to the public, nothing is set in stone until it's adjudicated, Carbo said.

*"It is important to note that whether a waterway is navigable is a legal determination that can only be made definitively by a court of law," he wrote. "The State Land Office ... fulfills its statutory duty to identify and inventory state-claimed water bottoms, but those claims are ultimately subject to change based on judicial findings."

That means an angler can't know for certain if a tract is public until that angler, or one fishing the area previously, gets ticketed and has a court ruling in favor of public access."*

Basically, there is no way to definitively know if the water you're on is public or not. That's why I posted the first article as well to shed light on how LDWF and the various parish sheriff's offices enforce trespassing on the water. For whatever reason, since that 2003 law removing the requirement to post private holdings, landowners or their lessees have been out with a vengeance to run off people and families who have been fishing the waters for many years, generations even.


----------



## pt448

There's an LASC meeting in Raceland next Wednesday, July 20, for anyone who's interested. Check out their facebook page for details.


----------



## jmrodandgun

pt448 said:


> There's an LASC meeting in Raceland next Wednesday, July 20, for anyone who's interested. Check out their facebook page for details.


LASC really needs to close the public comment section on their facebook page. Antagonizing land owners isn't helping anyone. Like it or not, the land owners are on the right side of the law. Sitting around and shouting about the law being erroneous is not how you get things changed. Don't even get me started on the people trying to use sportsmen harassment laws to support their efforts to fish private duck ponds. Whoever the state legislator they took out on a boat ride in Lower Lafourche is full of shit, he knew exactly how bad the problem was all along. This has been a well documented issue for a very long time. 

Things can be fixed but opting to take the path of most resistance just to prove a point will drag this thing out for another 20 years. Nothing is going to change, at all, until at least 2018. Even if we do get a bill with enough support it will not even go to committee until 2018. Best case scenario we are looking at 3 years of work before the first gate comes down by force of law. 

I'm interested in hearing what ideas they have for the short term or if they are putting all their eggs in one basket hoping they can change a long standing law with legal precedence. 

I sent them some money and wished them the best but I am not overly confidant in their direction.


----------



## Egrets Landing

pt448 said:


> I admire what you're trying to do with the maps, but here are some quotes from the second article I posted to answer some of your questions and give you an idea what you're up against.
> 
> "The problem was exacerbated by a well-intentioned state law passed in 2003 absolving landowners of the responsibility to post their holdings as private." - Private water does not have to be posted for you to suffer legal penalty for trespassing.
> 
> "The state says anything that wasn't declared as navigable when Louisiana was granted statehood in 1812 isn't navigable today."
> 
> This next one is long, but has important information from the State Land Office.
> "
> To determine if a particular tract of tidal water is legally navigable, employees with the State Land Office examine a spate of legal documents, including historical survey data prepared by the U.S. General Land Office in the early 1800s, according to Richard Carbo, communications director for the Governor's Office.
> 
> "After carefully analyzing the historic and present-day data, surveyors for the State Land Office generate the inventory of all water bottoms claimed by the state," Carbo wrote in an emailed response to a series of questions submitted by NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune.
> 
> Surveyors use five "general guidelines," Carbo said, when examining a particular tract:
> 
> 1. Whether the waterway has a width of one chain or 100 links (66 feet) on township plats and/or the associated field notes;
> 2. Whether the waterway is meandered or shown with a double line on township plats;
> 3. Whether the waterway is either connected to another navigable waterway or is in close proximity to one (i.e., not landlocked);
> 4. Whether water flows through the waterway at least part of the year;
> 5. Whether the waterway has been given a name on either the township plat or the associated field notes.
> 
> Even if all these factors are met, however, and the State Land Office determines a waterway belongs to the public, nothing is set in stone until it's adjudicated, Carbo said.
> 
> *"It is important to note that whether a waterway is navigable is a legal determination that can only be made definitively by a court of law," he wrote. "The State Land Office ... fulfills its statutory duty to identify and inventory state-claimed water bottoms, but those claims are ultimately subject to change based on judicial findings."
> 
> That means an angler can't know for certain if a tract is public until that angler, or one fishing the area previously, gets ticketed and has a court ruling in favor of public access."*
> 
> Basically, there is no way to definitively know if the water you're on is public or not. That's why I posted the first article as well to shed light on how LDWF and the various parish sheriff's offices enforce trespassing on the water. For whatever reason, since that 2003 law removing the requirement to post private holdings, landowners or their lessees have been out with a vengeance to run off people and families who have been fishing the waters for many years, generations even.


We discussed this at length with LA office of State Lands. FMT has a detailed map layer that replicates what was posted earlier delineating what the State of LA contends is Land they control and FMT will include that so boaters can know for sure if their location or intended route will leave the area the State contends they control and potentially go on Private Land. What makes it a bit more complicated as you point out is that some of the Land the State contends it controls is being disputed by another party who contends the State does not control it. Because these disputes are not yet settled in the Courts, it remains a Grey area and it will remain unclear as to who controls the land until it is ruled in the courts. For these areas, the State is still showing it as Land they do control until is it clearly ruled they do not. I would imagine until it is settled definitively, a boater could not be charged with Trespassing. All FMT can do is provide the boundaries the State says they control and let the boater decide if they want to leave those boundaries even if a Track does leave the boundary and enter what may be ultimately determined by a court to be private. 

Personally, I think the way the State of LA has decided to address this issue of raparian rights in a legal way is very messy and poorly conceived. The boundary map is a bit ridiculous. It goes all over the place in tiny corners etc. And since there is no legal requirements for signs it would be virtually impossible for most people to know when they are trespassing. 

If you can float your boat in it and connect to other water areas floating without going across dry land I think that should be the determining factor of where the public can legally run. As water levels move up and down it would change but it would certainly make it easy for boaters to know and for everyone to understand.


----------



## jmrodandgun

I would take anything given to you by the State Land Office with a grain of salt. Even if you ignore all the lies and corruption that exits that office they are little more than a gang of unemployable idiots.

These are the same people who created fake maps of oil and gas leases to protect preferred bidders as well as used state funds to dredge a canal on private property that didn't even exist on any maps. 

You quite literally gain nothing from entertaining a conversation with that office. I'm willing to bet they sent you a copy of the freely DNR map that SONRIS maintains.


----------



## Egrets Landing

Cartographers can only provide map data in terms of these boundaries that are provided by govt. agencies that they say they control as those boundaries are published. They can't anticipate what a court may say about that if the area is in dispute or modify it to provide what they personally believe a boundary should be. They can only map the data that are available and caveat it by source accordingly for users to digest as they see fit. When you have a boundary situation that appears fluid and/or is a bit convoluted in terms of available data and how it may be interpreted or relied upon by different parties, working to map it "accurately" is not possible in every case because what is accurate for party A may be viewed by party B to be innaccurate and until the matter is finally settled in a court there is no telling what the correct answer is or may be. And then there is the matter of how a law enforcement officer may interpreting the same current data that may be in question. I would think they will side with whatever the govt. is currently suggesting as the boundary. If not and they decided to cite a person for trespass and that person could demonstrate what they govt. official boundary was indicating otherwise I would think they would have a reasonable argument. 

If you have a suggestion for how you think this matter should be best rendered on marine navigation maps to help people navigate most successfully that would be helpful. Castigating the govt. employees that work around this issue (while confirming lots of frustration and even disgust) doesn't help boaters understand where they should and should not run their boat.


----------



## Finn Maccumhail

This whole thing is bizarre to me. People talk about Texas being its own country and if we are then Louisiana definitely is too.

I've fished some of these areas south of Golden Meadow for the past few years- basically west of Bayou LaFouche and all around that marsh from Port Fourchon up to Leeville getting as far north as Bay Courant depending on the conditions. I've seen the posted signs and until I was made aware of these issues I'd just assumed they applied to the islands in the marsh and paid them no mind.

It's become a concern for sure. Don't want to get popped for trespassing. But even more so, there are spots I fished 3-4 years ago that were dry land or sloughs between lakes that were only 20-30 feet across that are now 100 yards across and according to LA law those can still be considered private. That's absolutely insane.


----------



## pt448

Finn Maccumhail said:


> That's absolutely insane.


Yes,yes it is.


----------

