When the Oroville Dam spillway was suddenly cut off, the river water elevation dropped dramatically. The saturated banks suddenly collapsed 20 to 30 feet inland damaging large areas of farmland, roads and irrigation equipment. Another unforeseen result of poor dam maintenance and operation.
Avulsion is a sudden change in the rivers path, which did not occur.
Erosion is a gradual process, which also did not occur..
Any idea what the word is and what survey laws might apply.
One good thing is, there is 1.7 million cubic yards of loose rock in the river below the spillway. Enough to rip rap the banks for miles.
Paul in PA
Generally, California is unique in that human made effects don't affect riparian and tidal boundaries.
Ask Nancy Pelosi. She probably has some ideas. I'm from Arkansas. If I'm an Out of state surveyor, I charge for that. So, I'd like 300k retainer fee, and I'll get started right away. First, I'd need you to sign here........................._x (liability release form)
Then, get my retainer.....
And we will be off...
Paul in PA, post: 416908, member: 236 wrote:
One good thing is, there is 1.7 million cubic yards of loose rock in the river below the spillway. Enough to rip rap the banks for miles.
Paul in PA
Aren't they going to have to haul that back up the hill (where it came from), to rebuild the destroyed spillway?
"State officials, in an email to The Chronicle, said the reduction in outflows from the dam was ÛÏmanaged in a way to reduce risk to levees.Û The email said nothing about the riverbank, except that local government agencies were responsible for addressing any erosion because it was private property.
The eroded lands are within the Feather RiverÛªs floodplain. TheyÛªre generally located between the river and levees that are designed to allow flooding there, but not beyond. Owning land between the river and the levees comes with a certain amount of risk"
A lawyer's dream come true.
Trying to control a river also comes with a certain amount of risk.
In the early 1800's the Legislature of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania gave full control of the Lehigh River to a company wanting to build a canal. Well the river flooded as it does regularly and adjoining land owners successfully sued the new owners of the river for damages. It took many years to get that legislation and the attendant liability undone.
Be careful what you wish for.
Paul in PA
Under federal law avulsion only accurs when upland is left between the old and new course. Some states use the same definition, but some also include erosion that happens fast enough to witness. I don't know where California stands.
Most jurisdictions apply the same rules to man made changes as to natural changes, unless the man made change was a direct result of trying to change the course of the river. Again, I don't know where California stands.
aliquot, post: 417044, member: 2486 wrote: Under federal law avulsion only accurs when upland is left between the old and new course. Some states use the same definition, but some also include erosion that happens fast enough to witness. I don't know where California stands.
Most jurisdictions apply the same rules to man made changes as to natural changes, unless the man made change was a direct result of trying to change the course of the river. Again, I don't know where California stands.
I'm not an expert but California holds to the last natural location unless the man made affect was very remote. Wing dams and other structures in the river that cause accretion do not add to the upland. I imagine a sudden release from a dam wouldn't affect the boundary either. Justice Davis of the Third District Court of Appeal wrote an extensively researched opinion arguing for converting California to the way the law is in other States, his reasoning is the Courts misinterpreted early California precedent, see State ex rel. State Lands Com'n v. Su, 21 Cal.App.4th 38 (1993). The Supreme Court declined overrule their precedent at State of Cal. ex rel. State Lands Com. v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.4th 50 (1995) except to rule that hydraulic mining sediment from hundreds of miles upstream may be considered accretion because it's so remote and impossible to distinguish from natural sedimentation.
I believe the common law rule was that any sediment dropped by the water is accretion regardless of structures in the water. Only direct action such as pushing dirt into the water is not considered accretion.
Edit: my writing above isn't very precise. I'm talking about the California artificial accretion rule. California has a broader definition of what is artificial than other states is my understanding. At any rate, the rule only applies to the public trust doctrine according to a headnote. I assume the Feather is navigable and therefore subject to the public trust at least below the low water mark. The limit of tidal influence is roughly the I Street bridge in Sacramento.
Blackstone states the rule: ÛÏAs to the lands gained from the sea by alluvion, i.e. by the washing up of sand or earth, so as in time to make terra firma, *768 the law is held to be that if this gain be by little and little, by small and imperceptible degrees, it shall go to the owner of the land adjoining. (2 Bl.Com. 61 [see 2 Bl.Com. 262].)Û
"This common law rule did not refer specifically to natural causes, but instead delineated two aspects of ÛÏalluvionÛ law: the ÛÏwashing up of sand or earth, so as in time to make terra firmaÛ and ÛÏgain ... by small and imperceptible degrees.Û (31 Cal. at p. 120.)" -21 Cal.App.4th 38, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 761, 768
At any rate, California distinguishes between natural and artificial accretion. The controversy involved what exactly is artificial accretion. The Supreme Court mostly stayed with a broad definition of what is artificial.
The Feather River is navigable as evidenced by tugs and barges in photos.
Paul in PA
Paul in PA, post: 416908, member: 236 wrote: When the Oroville Dam spillway was suddenly cut off, the river water elevation dropped dramatically. The saturated banks suddenly collapsed 20 to 30 feet inland damaging large areas of farmland, roads and irrigation equipment. Another unforeseen result of poor dam maintenance and operation.
Avulsion is a sudden change in the rivers path, which did not occur.
Erosion is a gradual process, which also did not occur..
Any idea what the word is and what survey laws might apply.
One good thing is, there is 1.7 million cubic yards of loose rock in the river below the spillway. Enough to rip rap the banks for miles.
Paul in PA
It doesn't appear that much of the eroded material is competent enough to be utilized as rock slope protection.
In Washington State, I just went through this on one of my projects where an oxbow in a river was created over a long time by accretion. This changed the boundaries of the Government Lots. There was man-made change to the river which caused the oxbow to be cut off and back to where it was way back in the 1800s. Here man-made change is considered to be an avulsive action, so it was determined that the "last natural state" of the river is where the ownership lines remain and the location of the old bed, was quit claimed to the County to clear up Title. I'm not familiar with the Oroville Dam specifics, but sure doesn't appear to be a slow imperceptible change in the course of the river, so I believe it will more than likely be determined the ownership would remain at the last "Natural State".
Per the 1995 case Dave cited (known as the Lovelace case), the artificial condition must be the primary or proximate cause of the effect to the banks to work to fix the boundary location at the place of the last natural bank. At one time, the hydraulic mining that occurred in the foothills and mountains was considered to be an artificial condition affecting the Sacramento River and its tributaries (including the Feather) all the way down to San Pablo Bay. Part of why it no longer was in the Lovelace case was that, not only was the source (or sources) 100 or so miles upstream, but they were 100+ years in the past. The rivers previously affected by the sediments of hydraulic mining had long since settled into a state that had taken on the character of natural conditions.
The reason for California's differentiation between natural and artificial causes comes from the view that an upland landowner should not benefit from artificially created accretions in order to expand their land unfairly at the expense of other nearby landowners or at the expense of the general public (the State). Up until now, the situations in the published cases concerned only accretions. I've recently been advised that the rule (arguably) doesn't apply to erosions caused by artificial influence. By that advice, the State owns artificial accretions to the location of the last natural bank (at LWM), but gains to the LWM of the new bank location where the artificial influence causes erosions. I'll gain a good deal of comfort when and if that theory is tested in our appellate courts, thus giving us clear direction in this apparently unanswered legal question.
Whether considered erosion or avulsion, it was the existence and partial failure of a man-made structure that caused the recent changes to the banks. Not much arguing about primary or proximate. Under the Civil Code, the upland owner has one year to "recover" the land lost to avulsion. But of course, they need to get a number of permits from various federal and state agencies, so I'm not sure how that will work out as a practical matter. I expect that there is likely to be legal wrangling over both the boundary locations and the costs of recovery/land rehabilitation for affected properties along the Feather River for many years to come.
On the positive side, there was a potential for even greater harm and loss of life. I haven't heard of anyone being killed by the waters spilling from Lake Oroville. Local law enforcement and media (and I find so few opportunities to praise media) did an excellent job of keeping people informed and facilitating evacuations from risk areas.
[MEDIA=youtube]7gQcPYKUEnc[/MEDIA]
