Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Scott W. on August 2, 2008 at 10:32

Which township and range? If sec 27 is near Lake Bistineau, and has land that is below the 148.6' contour line on the lake side, then YES, the state of LA claims it owns that land. It has been a controversy for 70 - 80 years or more. Currently in litigation between the state and federal govt. Court date to determine who owns what is Nov 2009. See Bossier, Webster and Bienville Parish networks for discussion on this topic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scott W. on August 2, 2008 at 11:12

Actually this contour line will come into play all along the Red River and tributaries. So, yes, it can affect land around Keithville. There will be a lot of property affected by this. Someone on the forum mentioned one family who had their lease check 'stopped payment' on after the land man discovered this controversy. If the State wins this litigation, can you see LA 'repurchasing' all this land they are now taking away from folks who bought it years ago? Will the State reimburse us all for the purchase price and taxes paid over the last 80 or so years? It will be cheaper the the State to just forget about any royalties to be gained in light of what will have to be paid out to families affected by this. .

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by kfly on August 2, 2008 at 11:43

Would the state receive royalties for river (Red River) bottoms? The Red River cuts thru the section that I live in. I've wondered how royalties would be divided up.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scott W. on August 3, 2008 at 9:23

If the Red cuts through the section you live in, it would be my guess that at least some of the land lies below the 148.6' contour and is being contested by the State. You could be lucky and the Red is below a bluff, putting all of your land above the contour, or you could be very unlucky and have all of the land you thought you owned be contested by the State and lose it all - land, royalties...the works!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ez on August 3, 2008 at 11:05

eagles nest is no where near red river its in keithville of coulquit rd. close to graywood church. the state should do the right thing and give these people there minerals back but we know that wont happen.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by PENNY on August 5, 2008 at 14:35

THANKS FOR THE CONCERN! I WISH THE STATE COULD GET THERE CRAP TOGETHER!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by PENNY on August 5, 2008 at 14:59

READ MY LAST POSTING , AND LET ME KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS.
THANKS!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on September 19, 2008 at 8:00

Do I understand correctly that the minerals in all navigable waterways belong to the State of Louisiana?

If it were navigable when the state was formed it would be presently owned by the state.

If the river or stream moved the old location is where the state owned.

Is this correct?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on September 19, 2008 at 8:01

Also, I keep hearing about the high water mark and the low water mark.

Does this determine how much the state owns.

Does the state own the surface also?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bandit, UMO on September 19, 2008 at 10:39

What does any of this riverbottom discussion have to do with Eagles Nest in Keithville?

Permalink Reply by PENNY on August 5, 2008 at 14:58

NO I DO NOT , BUT I WILL TRY TO FIND OUT!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by PENNY on August 5, 2008 at 15:01

EAST HALF OF SECTION27 ,TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 15 WEST, NORTHWESTERN LAND DISTRICT, LOUISIANA MERIDIAN, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page