bertram31.com

UV tell me this isn't so.


US federal judge declares boating illegal in all US navigable waters
In a rather bizarre ruling that has marine industry officials worried, Judge Robert G. James of the United States District Court, Western Division of Louisiana, has said that it is criminal trespass for the American boating public to boat, fish, or hunt on the Mississippi River and other navigable waters in the US.

In the case of Normal Parm v. Sheriff Mark Shumate, James ruled that federal law grants exclusive and private control over the waters of the river, outside the main shipping channel, to riparian landowners. The shallows of the navigable waters are no longer open to the public. That, in effect, makes boating illegal across most of the country.

http://www.ibinews.com/ibinews/newsdesk ... inews.html

From a second source

Judge rules much of Mississippi River off-limits to anglers

The right of outdoorsmen to fish and hunt on navigable waters was issued a stunning defeat Aug. 29 when a federal judge ruled that the public has no “right to fish and hunt on the Mississippi River.”

U.S. District Court Judge Robert G. James ignored recommendations from his own magistrate in ruling in a case pitting a group of anglers against East Carroll Parish Sheriff Mark Shumate over the legality of trespassing arrests stemming from their fishing on Mississippi River flood waters in Northeast Louisiana.

http://www.louisianasportsman.com/details.php?id=213

Sounds more like CT or NY than La...

Bet you can't find a cop that will enforce that new law! It sounds like an umbrella law. If the guy is a jacka@# when dealing with him, you insert umbrella and open it. Nothing surprises me anymore. Kevin

I think the key here is "flooded". In Texas, the courts have ruled on whether it is legal for boaters to enter private property that is normally dry land, but is temporaily submerged due to floodwaters. Even if this is more than an occasional occurance, I think they ruled in favor of the landowner.

I'll have to find and read the opinion, then report my views. News reports seem a little chicken little. This judge has a pretty solid reputation. I'm assuming this case ended up in federal court as a "1983" case where the fisherman is suing the sheriff for arresting him in violation of his const. rights. Thus some quirky procedural issues probably are at play, such as qualified immunity.

Anyway, I suspect what the judge is saying that if a river is out of its banks you can't go on someone's flooded land. Like you can't run your boat over the Bride's flooded flower beds at the camp when the Tickfaw floods. Also, the notion that the feds have the right to control uses of navigable waters is nothing new. - i.e. you can't stretch a gill net across New York harbor.

Doubt its as radical a ruling as the press says, but I'll read and report.

UV

"But he then reversed course, ruling that the group of anglers did not “have a right to fish and hunt on the Mississippi River up to the ordinary high-water mark when it periodically floods Walker Cottonwood Farms’ property.”

It looks like the "when it periodically floods" private property is the operative part.

OK, found & read. For you lawyers the cite is 2006 WL 2513921 (W.D. La). Interesting procedural history, it is a 42 U.S.C 1983 case, but was stayed while the state courts decided that the flooded land belonged to the landowner, not the state. The gist of Judge James' ruling is that the federal navigation statute does not give the public the right to fish or hunt on private lands that are periodically flooeded by the Miss. River. He ruled that a 1931 federal 5th Circuit case (La. is in the 5th Cir.) that held that you could boat for pleasure on such lands did not mean you could fish or hunt. Very narrow interpretion. It will surely be appealed to the 5th Cir. and a decision from that appeal court will take a year or so. A passel of fishing organizations filed freid of the court briefs, so the case has some national interest. But the narrow holding is only that private lands that are flooded now and then are off limits.

UV

What happens when the river changes it's path, and now runs over land that used to be privately owned?

Natures way of enforcing eminent domain...

Good Question, Prof. Actually that's what happened in the fishermen vs. sheriff case which is why it took the La. state courts years to declare the land privately owned. Each state has its own set of rules on that, and the concept is called "riparian rights", or rights of waterfront landowners to land and the state to waterbottoms. Louisiana's laws, rooted in the Code Napoleon, draw a distinction between inland waters, along rivers, for example, and the seashore. The state of La. owns all waterbottoms under navigable waters within the state. On the seashore, the state can only gain, never lose - if a coastal island moves and comes back, the landowner loses to the state. On the other hand, on rivers and inland lakes, the adjacent or "riparian" landowner's ownership moves with the high water mark. It can get tricky when oil is involved. I own some oil royalties where we had to fight tooth and toenail to establish that the land on which the well was located was "batture" formed by the Miss. River adjacent to our land and thus ours, and not an island that the state owned. We won and I revel in filling AJ up with $3 diesel......... Ya'll keep driving the price of oil up, please.......

UV