03-01-2014, 07:17 PM
He references the case from Louisiana totally out of context. I actually referenced this case on BFT when the Legislature was trying to seize our waterways illegally. The case actually supports the public rights to the usually high water mark but not to flooded area over private land. This isn't an issue I know of anyone in Utah trying to push. From the Case "Plaintiffs brought their claims against Sheriff Shumate under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that they were falsely arrested for trespass when they
refused to cease fishing on waters covering ordinarily dry, private property (the
“Property”)"
The Court in this case reaffirmed the lower courts finding "It observed that under Louisiana law, the bank of the Mississippi River
consists of all the land lying between its ordinary low and high water marks,
which includes all of the Property, and noted that a public servitude preserves
a river’s bank for the public’s navigational use. Id. at 1268 & n.16. And while
it stated that “[f]ishing and hunting on flooded lands do not meet the definition
of using the bank of a river at its high water mark for a navigational purpose,"
While Louisiana may have some peculiarities in their laws regulating waterways that Utah and the rest of the country doesn't the finding basically says the public doesn't have the right to access flooded private property or an lake that is usually surrounded by private property that you accessed from flooded property is my interpretation.
[signature]
U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that they were falsely arrested for trespass when they
refused to cease fishing on waters covering ordinarily dry, private property (the
“Property”)"
The Court in this case reaffirmed the lower courts finding "It observed that under Louisiana law, the bank of the Mississippi River
consists of all the land lying between its ordinary low and high water marks,
which includes all of the Property, and noted that a public servitude preserves
a river’s bank for the public’s navigational use. Id. at 1268 & n.16. And while
it stated that “[f]ishing and hunting on flooded lands do not meet the definition
of using the bank of a river at its high water mark for a navigational purpose,"
While Louisiana may have some peculiarities in their laws regulating waterways that Utah and the rest of the country doesn't the finding basically says the public doesn't have the right to access flooded private property or an lake that is usually surrounded by private property that you accessed from flooded property is my interpretation.
[signature]