Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on May 7, 2010 at 15:07

Whoever sold the property to the SRA owns the leaseback.

Permalink Reply by Shaleeee on May 7, 2010 at 15:53

Do you mean the people who owned the land before the lake was built? That will be good for them!

Permalink Reply by Belmont Boy on May 7, 2010 at 16:41

I believe if you run this question by the Louisiana Toledo Bend engineer you're going to find out the minerals are held by the state. I'm sure the following explanation will leave out some of the pertinent details, but should hit most of the more important points. When Toledo Bend was initially surveyed, they surveyed for 2 primary lines; the normal pool stage (the depth/height the water would normally be at) and then the maximum depth/height the water might reach in worst case flood periods. I think they referred to this as the "take line," because they "took" ownership of the land back to this line. No permanent or "habitable" structure could be built on the lake side of the take line. In many instances, the distance from the take line to the normal shore line was significant. And people who bought the adjacent land wanted the ability to improve and maintain the area between the lines. The SRA came up with the "lease back" option. If you were the adjacent landowner, you could get a 99 year surface lease of the property for a nominal amount. You don't own it, you can't put a permanent structure on it (boat house permits are available), etc., but you can use it and protect it. Bottom line...the state owns the minerals because they bought and/or took the land for the construction of Toledo Bend back in the '60's. Same situation as would exist for hunting leases. You lease the hunting rights, but receive no mineral rights. Hope this helps. A parting "fly in the ointment." What about the people who had the leaseback corrected a few years ago. That is, the original lake survey was incorrect in some places, and people were allowed to get the area they were interested in re-surveyed and have the lease back area corrected. Now that is, per my understanding, an ownership situation. Who owns those mineral rights?

Permalink Reply by Chad Procell on May 7, 2010 at 17:02

Minerals are owned by the seller for life then passed down to his or her estate. State DOES NOT own rights.

Trust me,
Chad Procell
458.4333

Permalink Reply by Shaleeee on May 7, 2010 at 17:27

Hmmm? Belmont Boy, It does seem that the SRA (If they are what you mean by the state) owns surface rights of the lease back since they control usage - but CP you make a point too - where does the seller's mineral rights begin and end? I would be interested to know how Boise (previous owner of my land) claims their minerals and I think I would like the same claim for myself!!!! Just saying "what is good for the goose is good for the gander"

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on May 8, 2010 at 2:28

A lot of the Boise land is held by different servitudes running against the property. A well 10 miles away can keep the land HBP. I have yet to see a sale into the SRA that the minerals weren't reserved by the land owner. Now the SRA has created some problems on some of the leaseback property by selling some of it off where the lake didn't rise to the expected levels.

Permalink Reply by Shaleeee on May 8, 2010 at 3:37

Two Dogs - The SRA has not set standards that are clear and fair across the board - I think original owners of the land should maintain ownership of the minerals - not the state. This lease back situation is another 800 lb gorilla - the lake around my land has not even come close to flooding the lease back and there is a small creek beside the poperty that takes up another large portion in lease back - I think SRA should just get a release from liability from the owner and let them get on with enjoying and improving their lake property as they do in other states - As much as I love Louisiana it has a long way to go in it's thinking and actions.

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on May 8, 2010 at 3:57

The people that sold to SRA will hold the minerals forever unless they sell them, the leaseback included. Now you go into a gray area on the leaseback that was sold back to whoever. There is conflicting language in some of the laws pertaining to this matter. The original owner was supposed to get first shot in buying back property and this was not done in some or maybe all the transactions. That could create a whole nother can of worms.

Permalink Reply by weddew on May 8, 2010 at 10:40

Chad is correct.
I believe a general definition of leasback is all land from 172 (top of pool or full) to 175 feet mean sea level or 50 feet from waters edge whichever is greater. SRA leases this land to the adjacent property on for $1 for 99 years. This is the way SRA controls access to the lake for shore management reasons. The leaseback is property of the SRA (STATE) same as the lake level below 172 feet mean sea level.

The ownerss of the property at the time it was purchased by SRA retain minerals rights in perpetuity (forever) unless they were sold with the surface rights (land). This "in perpuity" is extended to the descendents of the owner. I checked into this because my family owned propery on Sabine River that is now part of the lake.

The issue of SRA selling leasback to adjacent property owner could definitley cause an issue if the terms were not well defined. Good luck!