HWM Case NY

[ralph-perez]

There’s is actually a famous question on the NY State Specific, regarding Lake George.

I don’t think I can go into more detail.

Cheers,
Ralph

[derek-g-graham-ols-olip]

Thank you Duane

Is it me, or are there two links the same ?

Cheers

Derek

[dave-karoly]

“To give effect to such uniform practice is not, as the town contends, to delegate arbitrary powers to surveyors to determine property lines; rather it is the obverse, namely, to recognize that property lines are fixed by reference to long-time surveying practice.”

[duane-frymire]

Right. Let’s see if this works. The case I’m trying to link discusses dunes as a historical record and cites the first case as the proper way to determine what the HWM was back in time. Similar I thought to what Frank was after.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3432892693910361552&q=37+N.Y.2d+292&hl=en&as_sdt=2,33

[duane-frymire]

I have a problem with lake specific or regional specific questions. I have talked with people about this and I don’t think future exam takers will see them. Still not a good idea to post specific questions. No need to get more specific, those interested can research it pretty easily. Better questions would allude to the regional and lake specific character of the inquiry. Something like: Where is the boundary on NY lakes?
a) HWM
b)LWM
c) where the OGS thinks it is
d) each situation needs to be independently researched
e) (actually e has been done away with) center of lake

[ralph-perez]

> I have a problem with lake specific or regional specific questions. I have talked with people about this and I don’t think future exam takers will see them. Still not a good idea to post specific questions. No need to get more specific, those interested can research it pretty easily. Better questions would allude to the regional and lake specific character of the inquiry. Something like: Where is the boundary on NY lakes?
> a) HWM
> b)LWM
> c) where the OGS thinks it is
> d) each situation needs to be independently researched
> e) (actually e has been done away with) center of lake

:good: I agree!

Ralph

[duane-frymire]

My favorite part

“To accept the linguistic definition but then to employ an entirely new technique, however intellectually fascinating, for the application of that definition, with the result that the on-the-site line would be significantly differently located, would do violence to the expectations of the parties and introduce factors never reasonably within their contemplation.”

[dave-karoly]

My favorite part

Yes, I saw that too.

“intellectually fascinating” -good one.

[dave-karoly]

I hate to be cynical but the California Court would just reverse which would go back for a new trial which would the same decision for different reasons.

I like how this Court told the local court (what you call Supreme Court) to make a new ruling in accordance with this decision.

[james-vianna]

> Where is the boundary on NY lakes?
> a) HWM
> b)LWM
> c) where the OGS thinks it is
> d) each situation needs to be independently researched
> e) (actually e has been done away with) center of lake

[sarcasm]Why “C” of course duh[/sarcasm]

[tangent]

If I understand the conclusion correctly it does not surprise me that this matter is surrounding and overtaking our profession on all coasts. Here in Washington, from what I understand of the issue, major parts of the Columbia River Basin’s HWM and/or other tidal divisions were determined by the types of grass and vegetation, the results of which had little or nothing to do with elevations or benchmarks. When left up to agencies of governance they will most certainly employ sciences and methodologies that rely upon continuously changing factors and even newer (best available) sciences. The idea that a reliably measurable line can be drawn in the sand (literally and figuratively) flies in the face of political posturing and ‘business as usual’, and should be legislated away with at its earliest convenience:-X.