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!
|