Louisiana Senate Bill SB177

Louisiana 2020 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/26/20
• Refer: 2/26/20
• Refer: 3/9/20

Caption

Constitutional amendment to authorize the state to enter into certain agreements with landowners concerning boundaries between state claimed and privately claimed water bottoms. (2/3 - CA13s1(A)) (OR SEE FISC NOTE GF EX)

Impact

The impact of SB 177 on state laws hinges on its provisions that would alter existing constitutional protections against the alienation of water beds. Specifically, it would allow the state to enter into agreements that could reserve mineral rights for landowners while simultaneously ensuring public access to these water bodies. This dual approach addresses concerns over private ownership against the backdrop of public interest, providing a framework for regulated access to essential resources.

Summary

Senate Bill 177 proposes a constitutional amendment that would enable the state of Louisiana to enter into agreements with private riparian landowners regarding the boundaries between state-claimed and privately-claimed water bottoms. This initiative seeks to establish fixed boundaries, which could lead to clearer delineations of land rights that have historically been contentious. If passed, the amendment aims to benefit both the state and private landowners by allowing them to settle boundary disputes over navigable waters, thereby avoiding protracted legal challenges.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB 177 appears to be mixed. Proponents of the bill argue that it offers a pragmatic solution to the complications surrounding ownership and access to water bodies, fostering cooperation between the state and private landowners. They view the bill as a proactive step toward resolving longstanding disputes and enhancing public access. Conversely, some critics express concerns over potential overreach, fearing that this may undermine public interest by granting more rights to private individuals at the expense of broader community access.

Contention

Notable points of contention relate to the specifics of the agreements proposed under SB 177. Critics worry that while the bill aims to clarify boundaries, it may inadvertently facilitate the privatization of public resources. Ensuring that public access is genuinely preserved is crucial, and there are apprehensions about how effectively this will be managed over time. The potential for erosion and changes in navigability also raises questions about the long-term implications of granting exclusive rights to landowners that could complicate future public access.