# Louisiana HCR 102, more tidal water access legislation.



## jmrodandgun (Sep 20, 2013)

I've heard a lot of talk about this but as usual with these emotional bills it does not say too much. It will be heard on Tuesday May 10th by the Natural Resources Committee. 

We are getting squeezed out over here. Guides with gate keys are more common every time I fish south of Houma and I'm hearing it's even worse on the East side. Pretty soon all the interior marsh will be off limits. Just yesterday we were harassed by a crab boat while working the shoreline of a body of water too large to see across. Before that a guide got lippy with clients on board over a similar shoreline of sand and mangroves. I use to have a lot of sympathy for these areas but every time I travel down I become less interested and generally believe they will eat themselves in the end. 






HCR102







www.legis.la.gov







> 2022 Regular Session
> HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 102 BY REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT OWEN
> WATERWAYS/WATERBOTTOMS: Urges and requests that rules be codified defining the public's right to access the running waters of this state in accordance with the Louisiana's historical civil law tradition
> A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
> ...


----------



## The Fin (Sep 28, 2021)

jmrodandgun said:


> I've heard a lot of talk about this but as usual with these emotional bills it does not say too much. It will be heard on Tuesday May 10th by the Natural Resources Committee.
> 
> We are getting squeezed out over here. Guides with gate keys are more common every time I fish south of Houma and I'm hearing it's even worse on the East side. Pretty soon all the interior marsh will be off limits. Just yesterday we were harassed by a crab boat while working the shoreline of a body of water too large to see across. Before that a guide got lippy with clients on board over a similar shoreline of sand and mangroves. I use to have a lot of sympathy for these areas but every time I travel down I become less interested and generally believe they will eat themselves in the end.
> 
> ...


I feel your pain! The public (hunters, fishers, hikers)) is getting shut out of access everywhere. “Pay to play” seems to be our unfortunate ending. Watching multiple posts on this forum about fishing pressure and crowds are just obvious symptoms. Good luck with the fight!


----------



## sjrobin (Jul 13, 2015)

As water levels rise, Louisiana land owners water access and control are expanding exponentially, whereas in all other coastal states, the state owned property lines will continue to expand into private lands with the mean high tide line. As it should be. Even centuries old English coastal water law recognized the value of the coastal estuaries to everyone on the islands as being vital to life and too important to leave to private ownership. For Louisiana, there is no way out except Federal intervention


----------



## 35spline (Mar 21, 2020)

jmrodandgun said:


> I've heard a lot of talk about this but as usual with these emotional bills it does not say too much. It will be heard on Tuesday May 10th by the Natural Resources Committee.
> 
> We are getting squeezed out over here. Guides with gate keys are more common every time I fish south of Houma and I'm hearing it's even worse on the East side. Pretty soon all the interior marsh will be off limits. Just yesterday we were harassed by a crab boat while working the shoreline of a body of water too large to see across. Before that a guide got lippy with clients on board over a similar shoreline of sand and mangroves. I use to have a lot of sympathy for these areas but every time I travel down I become less interested and generally believe they will eat themselves in the end.
> 
> ...


As always this is going nowhere. Too many legislators in the pocket of big land owners. A better approach would propose a state constitutional amendment allowing access to tidal waters. give the people a chance to vote on this.


----------



## jmrodandgun (Sep 20, 2013)

It's complicated. A constitutional amendment is even more complicated.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Dec 31, 2012)

@sjrobin water levels are not rising, the marsh is sinking


----------



## 35spline (Mar 21, 2020)

jmrodandgun said:


> It's complicated. A constitutional amendment is even more complicated.


You're right and a state amendment probably wouldn't work since the US supreme court has already ruled on a case that led to the current situation. After that ruling Louisiana gave up all rights to contested lands now calling them private. Based on some old survey map from the 1800's , I believe. I had forgotten the history behind this situation.


----------



## jmrodandgun (Sep 20, 2013)

35spline said:


> After that ruling Louisiana gave up all rights to contested lands now calling them private. Based on some old survey map from the 1800's , I believe. I had forgotten the history behind this situation.


The map is from 1812 but that's not really the problem. The problem is how the waterways are defined and to complicate it further how does the state indemnify the landowners if they decide all tidal water is public. The property lines still exist and they are still paying taxes.


----------



## sjrobin (Jul 13, 2015)

One more time. All coastal states were granted the submerged land to the mean high tide line out to one mile on admission to the union. Texas was granted tide plus ten miles because they demanded it. Corrupt Louisiana politicians sold all coastal sea bottom to citizens. Just think how much better schools and roads would be now if lease and royalty $$ had flowed back to citizens


----------



## jmrodandgun (Sep 20, 2013)

sjrobin said:


> Corrupt Louisiana politicians sold all coastal sea bottom to citizens.


Incorrect. The sale of land to citizens has very little if not nothing to do with where are are today.


----------



## 35spline (Mar 21, 2020)

jmrodandgun said:


> Incorrect. The sale of land to citizens has very little if not nothing to do with where are are today.


I don't believe there was ever a sale of land. The Louisiana legislature just voted to give up any claim they had to the tidal water bottoms except for what was marked on that 1812 map.


----------



## brianBFD (Oct 25, 2017)

I remember watching the state legislative session live when the last bill like this was introduced. They stood around looking at each other before deciding to "table" the bill until a later date. I guess it took some of those guys that have never done anything else the few minutes to remember which side their bread is buttered on versus pissing off the masses and just did nothing.


----------



## redchaser (Aug 24, 2015)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> @sjrobin water levels are not rising, the marsh is sinking


Actually both are happening.


----------



## redchaser (Aug 24, 2015)

jmrodandgun said:


> I've heard a lot of talk about this but as usual with these emotional bills it does not say too much. It will be heard on Tuesday May 10th by the Natural Resources Committee.
> 
> We are getting squeezed out over here. Guides with gate keys are more common every time I fish south of Houma and I'm hearing it's even worse on the East side. Pretty soon all the interior marsh will be off limits. Just yesterday we were harassed by a crab boat while working the shoreline of a body of water too large to see across. Before that a guide got lippy with clients on board over a similar shoreline of sand and mangroves. I use to have a lot of sympathy for these areas but every time I travel down I become less interested and generally believe they will eat themselves in the end.
> 
> ...


Thanks for posting Mark. I hadn't heard about it this go round. I'm sending emails.


----------



## sjrobin (Jul 13, 2015)

jmrodandgun said:


> Incorrect. The sale of land to citizens has very little if not nothing to do with where are are today.


Private marshland owners in Louisiana are gaining more marshland but losing terra firma. All other coastal states are gaining state owned public marsh tideline property and marshland.


----------



## jmrodandgun (Sep 20, 2013)

redchaser said:


> Thanks for posting Mark. I hadn't heard about it this go round. I'm sending emails.


Allegedly there is a criminal trespass case from late 2021 that rescheduled for June that will shake things up a little bit. There is a lot of bluffing on both sides of this issue so it's hard to say for sure. From what I've been told, Eddie Lambert is the representing attorney. It's strange to me that a sitting senator would get involved but if that goofy DA over in Houma follows through we might be in for a good show.


----------



## cbTX (Oct 5, 2017)

Moved over to the northshore this winter. Haven’t gotten out too much but the one time I launched near Lake St Catherine the number of private signs was pretty depressing. Started heading further East and fishing out of state when I can. Hope things change, nobody sounds too hopeful though. I’ll definitely start following that criminal trespass case.


----------



## jmrodandgun (Sep 20, 2013)

HCR 102 passed committee hearing this morning and will be moved to the house floor. Even though I was hopeful I was still surprised to see it pass.


----------



## redchaser (Aug 24, 2015)

jmrodandgun said:


> HCR 102 passed committee hearing this morning and will be moved to the house floor. Even though I was hopeful I was still surprised to see it pass.


I was glad to see that, the vote was 10-0 as well.


----------



## jmrodandgun (Sep 20, 2013)

redchaser said:


> I was glad to see that, the vote was 10-0 as well.


This one is headed to the senate. I'll be at the capital this afternoon so hopefully I'll get some updates.


----------



## Capt.Ron (Mar 5, 2014)

Why not……. Just stay out of the stuff that is patrolled? Everyone knows exactly where they do and don’t. I haven’t had an issue in years.


----------



## Capt.Ron (Mar 5, 2014)

Or we can push the issue and make it worse for everyone. P.s. blame the fucking bow fishers, they started this mess.


----------



## Mark H (Nov 22, 2016)

Being from Texas it's so strange to me to think navigable waters can be private.


----------



## 35spline (Mar 21, 2020)

jmrodandgun said:


> This one is headed to the senate. I'll be at the capital this afternoon so hopefully I'll get some updates.


The wording of this bill is not very clear to me. Is this really going to change anything for the better?


----------



## jmrodandgun (Sep 20, 2013)

[/QUOTE]


Mark H said:


> Being from Texas it's so strange to me to think navigable waters can be private.


They aren't. The entire issue revolves around the definition of navigable. Things that were once defined as non navigable have become what you would typically consider as navigable. The problem lies with the definition. These waterways retain their definition as private in perpetuity. There is also an issue with mineral rights and surface rights being mutually exclusive.

A small ditch that once meandered through privately owned brackish marsh may now be 50 ft wide and deep enough for a shrimp boat to navigate all while the property owner is still paying property taxes.


----------



## jmrodandgun (Sep 20, 2013)

Capt.Ron said:


> Why not……. Just stay out of the stuff that is patrolled? Everyone knows exactly where they do and don’t. I haven’t had an issue in years.


On a lot of levels I agree with you but you better hope people don't change their mind. They can certainly make your way of life more difficult if all of a sudden owners start stringing cable across sections of water. They would be well within their rights to do so. 

You know where you can go and where you can not but weekend warriors don't have that information, no matter how obvious it may be to you. Like it or not, those weekend guys are a giant part of what keeps the economy down there afloat. Pun intended.


----------



## redchaser (Aug 24, 2015)

jmrodandgun said:


> On a lot of levels I agree with you but you better hope people don't change their mind. They can certainly make your way of life more difficult if all of a sudden owners start stringing cable across sections of water. They would be well within their rights to do so.
> 
> You know where you can go and where you can not but weekend warriors don't have that information, no matter how obvious it may be to you. Like it or not, those weekend guys are a giant part of what keeps the economy down there afloat. Pun intended.


Capt Ron just likes being a contrarian.


----------



## Mark H (Nov 22, 2016)

jmrodandgun said:


> They aren't. The entire issue revolves around the definition of navigable. Things that were once defined as non navigable have become what you would typically consider as navigable. The problem lies with the definition. These waterways retain their definition as private in perpetuity. There is also an issue with mineral rights and surface rights being mutually exclusive.
> 
> A small ditch that once meandered through privately owned brackish marsh may now be 50 ft wide and deep enough for a shrimp boat to navigate all while the property owner is still paying property taxes.


Seems pretty simple in Texas. If anything, I see GW's erring on the side of regular folks duck hunting and fishing.


----------



## Capt.Ron (Mar 5, 2014)

redchaser said:


> Capt Ron just likes being a contrarian.


And he’s a property owner. That likes to be able to say who can or can’t hunt on his property. If the waters can not be posted, would the right of telling who and who can not hunt there be removed? Would oyster leases, hunting and commercial fishing leases be Null and void as well? Would you like to be duck hunting and have a boat run across the decoys, or have random people building blinds in your backyard?


----------



## Mark H (Nov 22, 2016)

Capt.Ron said:


> And he’s a property owner. That likes to be able to say who can or can’t hunt on his property. If the waters can not be posted, would the right of telling who and who can not hunt there be removed? Would oyster leases, hunting and commercial fishing leases be Null and void as well? Would you like to be duck hunting and have a boat run across the decoys, or have random people building blinds in your backyard?


If it's navigable, the public can hunt and fish it in Texas not counting areas the govt disallows such activities. As a property owner, I'd like a lot of things but you have to balance the rights of the public vs the property owners. Louisiana can do what they want.


----------



## jmrodandgun (Sep 20, 2013)

Capt.Ron said:


> And he’s a property owner. That likes to be able to say who can or can’t hunt on his property. If the waters can not be posted, would the right of telling who and who can not hunt there be removed? Would oyster leases, hunting and commercial fishing leases be Null and void as well? Would you like to be duck hunting and have a boat run across the decoys, or have random people building blinds in your backyard?


Obviously I wouldn't enjoy someone running through decoys or building anything in my yard, I don't think anyone here wants that. Unfortunately the issue is not that simple even though every single other coastal state seems to manage just fine. There is also a good argument to force land owners to impound their commercially dug canals to stop the ingress of stalwater. These canals have been a giant problem since the 1950's . Of course the levee system and the MRGO caused land loss but so did those canals. It's one of the bigger issues we face and landowners are patently denying any responsibility. It's a real problem.

All I can tell you is people are going to stop supporting economies like yours if this continues. If that happens then why would the state continue to pump money into the marsh?


----------



## ifsteve (Jul 1, 2010)

jmrodandgun said:


> Obviously I wouldn't enjoy someone running through decoys or building anything in my yard, I don't think anyone here wants that. Unfortunately the issue is not that simple even though every single other coastal state seems to manage just fine. There is also a good argument to force land owners to impound their commercially dug canals to stop the ingress of stalwater. These canals have been a giant problem since the 1950's . Of course the levee system and the MRGO caused land loss but so did those canals. It's one of the bigger issues we face and landowners are patently denying any responsibility. It's a real problem.
> 
> All I can tell you is people are going to stop supporting economies like yours if this continues. If that happens then why would the state continue to pump money into the marsh?


Thisl


----------

