navigable water bodies and non-navigable tidally influenced waters were part of the public trust 

 lands given to the State under Federal law. Therefore, the same public policy should apply to 

 navigable water bodies and non-navigable tidelands (Yiannopoulos 1988). 



Other legal scholars maintain that the Phillips Petroleum decision will have little effect on titles 

 to land in Louisiana because the State did make the conscious decision to alienate the non- 

 navigable tidelands. In addition, legal arguments aside, many argue that when presented with 

 unclear cases of State alienation of tidelands, Louisiana courts would be reluctant for political 

 reasons to overturn long established ownership rights. This, however, should be within the purview 

 of the legislature. 



The details of these legal theories are too involved for the scope of this discussion. However, 

 the possibility of future far reaching ramifications in Louisiana from Phillips Petroleum should be 

 kept in mind. Of paramount importance to land owners is of course the possibility of losing 

 ownership of land. In addition, the Phillips decision could have an important impact on marsh 

 management. If the State were to assert its ownership of tidelands in areas under marsh 

 management plans it could impose restrictions such as those already mentioned against alienation 

 of State lands. It could also discourage marsh land owners from undertaking marsh management 

 plans if they thought their land actually belonged to the State. The State could ill afford to 

 practice marsh management on all of the newly acquired land. With the possibility of such 

 additional regulatory burdens and financial considerations, the issues presented here will bear close 

 scrutiny in the future. 



A marsh management plan that includes reclamation of an area of land that had been lost 

 through erosion of the shore or bank of a State-owned water bottom would fall under the statutes 

 dealing with State water bottom management also administered by DSL. A permit for such 

 reclamation is required and a prerequisite for obtaining such a permit is proof of ownership and 

 boundaries of the eroded lands. Permits may also be required for other structural encroachments 

 on State-owned water bottoms such as pilings, breakwaters, and piers (La. R.S. 41:1701-1714). 



Other Marsh Management Activities 



Other activities which do not fall within the above definition of marsh management but have 

 been either traditionally associated with marsh management or in some way linked to it may also 

 be regulated. Marsh burning, the use of pesticides, and hunting and trapping will be discussed very 

 briefly while more emphasis will be placed on mariculture and on boat barricades. 



Marsh burning is often used to prevent plant succession and to promote new vegetation growth. 

 It is supposedly regulated under La. R.S. 56:7, which prevents anyone from setting fires to 

 marshland except the owner who is attempting to improve food conditions for wildlife. Such 

 burning must be done under permit and supervision of the DWF (La. R.S. 56:107). This provision 

 seems to be widely unenforced such that marsh burning is essentially unregulated (W. Vidrine, 

 DWF; pers. comm.). 



The use of pesticides is regulated by the Department of Agriculture. Some landowners use 

 herbicides to control what are considered "noxious weeds." Another practice, and one that is 

 currently being promoted by the DWF in their Acres For Wildlife Program, is the use of herbicides 

 to increase open water areas in marsh land to improve waterfowl habitat (Vice 1988). Hunting and 

 trapping to harvest the natural resources of marshland and to control destructive animals such as 

 muskrat is considered by many to be a sound marsh management practice. These activities are 

 regulated under the appropriate Wildlife and Fisheries statutes (La. R.S. Title 56). 



376 



