Wendell-
While it is a bit 'polytickle' I trust Angel will convince you that it has to do with "boundary by elevation" and as such is closer to surveying than P&R and is of such a significant nature for we 'bar pounders'.
We have similar restrictive practices in Ontario.
Mea culpa if I have erred.
http://www.connectmidmissouri.com/news/story.aspx?id=675186#.TpxyldTCnec
Cheers
Derek
Very interesting situation. I'm guessing most of the early construction was done so with full knowledge that they were "cheating". Latecomers merely followed the example. Truth be told, FERC should condemn them all and charge them for the removal. But, imagine the chaos that would ensue as everyone would want to collect outrageous amounts of damages from someone. Meanwhile the local governments would be crushed by the sudden drop in valuation, followed by the rapid loss of business at the various places that only exist because these trespassers need them close by.
> Very interesting situation. I'm guessing most of the early construction was done so with full knowledge that they were "cheating". Latecomers merely followed the example. Truth be told, FERC should condemn them all and charge them for the removal. But, imagine the chaos that would ensue as everyone would want to collect outrageous amounts of damages from someone. Meanwhile the local governments would be crushed by the sudden drop in valuation, followed by the rapid loss of business at the various places that only exist because these trespassers need them close by.
Or perhaps the 'early' folks had full knowledge that they were buying fee simple to an elevation of 662 and that over the years had given the 'Govt' flowage easements and signed restrictive covenants in return for the 'understanding' that their 'construction' would be 'grandfathered'. The 'Govt' requested the easements for two purposes...1. To limit the liability in case of high water and 2. To give them control over docks, break walls, and erosion control.
The Project 'Boundary' encompasses the land below elevation 662, the dam structures, and the 'easements'. Some of the 'easements' are described using a contour elevation or a metes-bounds description. The Project 'Boundary' line is not the same as the 'Property' boundary.
DDSM
(anybody want to buy a cabin on a lake?)
For an interesting discussion of this general topic I recommend the following:
http://oh.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20050912_0000143.SOH.htm/qx
US v. Newcome is interesting in several aspects, not least of which would be license or easement, and acceptability of parol evidence in court. Nothing really new, but reiterated and clearly stated.
> Wendell-
>
> While it is a bit 'polytickle' I trust Angel will convince you that it has to do with "boundary by elevation" and as such is closer to surveying than P&R and is of such a significant nature for we 'bar pounders'.
>
> We have similar restrictive practices in Ontario.
>
> Mea culpa if I have erred.
>
>> http://www.connectmidmissouri.com/news/story.aspx?id=675186#.TpxyldTCnec
>
> Cheers
>
> Derek
It is good to have a U.S. senator in your corner.
It ensures a political solution which may be the best solution in this case.
I deference to James Fleming, maybe all those oxford cap-toe attorneys will not be dancing around the courtroooms in this matter.
