I love it
No more running level loops from the spillway to the site. Just walk down and locate the water mark! Easy as PI.
Some courts have picked contour lines of the ordinary high water mark, with the assumption that it is level and easy to determine, and they think water is level like in commode tank, and believe there couldn't be anything easier than finding the ordinary high water like a beaver--flat as a pancake. Really gets crazy when a swamp (with a very flat bottom) abuts a lake or when the shore of the lake is flat as a pancake like Great Salt Lake or some lakes where the slope of the terrain around the lake might be as flat as a foot of drop per mile or even flatter.
In saltwater tidal areas we can see the OHWM pretty clearly from the debris line and also from the discoloration of the vegetation. It is definitely not a constant elevation here, the line often differs in elevation by several feet from one side of the waterway to the other, depending mostly upon the prevailing winds and the shape of the waterway.
I agree. And with the ocean over the 19 year lunar cycle, generally the high level is much more stable and less variable than the water levels on a natural non-coastal lake. Many non coastal lakes have water levels that are actually controlled by the streams into which they discharge, especially when the stream is influenced by other upstream sources other than the lake. A natural lake can take on a stage hydrograph that resembles the river or stream it discharges into--much more variable than coastal ordinary high water.
The principals of science would make one expect that a body of water would be level like that of a glass or tub of water. Especially to an attorney.
For any other body of water there are many hydrological effects in motion that result in different levels around bodies of water.
To determine High Water Mark is done at recording the level of the body of water over years of data to determine an average mark. That can change thru time so it is never a constant level due to water availability from year to year.
It is usually a calculated level from the past "x" number of years of recordings. Next year there would be an expected difference.
After a flood, I once did a survey to locate the high water level of the Sulphur River from the Texas-Louisana line to Fort Lynn. The level was on a near constant change going downstream and yet, there was a definite variation at places due to bends in the river causing surges of water pressure into confined coves and other drainage areas and would be near level for some backwater areas outside the main current.
The Corp lakes around here have an elevation boundary in some places and thru the years we would call the dam and ask the elevation that day and set a stake to record the water level. It all depended upon the number you got from who answered the phone. That number was not always current nor was it exact, probably to the nearest foot. Nowdays they keep a good record that can be found online on most days.
You can look at most Corp lakes and whatever the elevation of the Overflow dam is, the flood level is usually about 3 or more feet above that. That is how deep the water can be flowing over that dam as it empties into the river below.
I would think that the normal High Water Mark for any body of water would be calculated as one elevation and not at different elevations the shoreline.
I love it
> No more running level loops from the spillway to the site. Just walk down and locate the water mark! Easy as PI.
If it wasn't easy, the laymen couldn't do it. Boundaries are intended to be "easy." Find the physical monument that marks the line, and that's your boundary. Once the landowner is informed, living within their boundaries is "easy."
JBS
In a theoretical situation where we surveyed a lake in a vacuum that had no inlets, outlets, or other disturbances, I would expect the edges to follow one perfect contour - right?
I reason that if we used spirit levels for the survey, both the water surface and the equipment would be influenced by the same gravitational affects.
However, if the survey was adjusted to some vertical datum, this could introduce a slightly sloped plane relative to the true equipotential geoid surface that would cause the contour to not follow the water exactly. Datums aren't perfect.
It would be interesting to have the perspective of a true geodesist on this.
> To determine High Water Mark is done at recording the level of the body of water over years of data to determine an average mark. That can change thru time so it is never a constant level due to water availability from year to year.
>
The state tried the "scientific" method of determining a mean "elevation" and was soundly defeated. It's not about elevation (on a natural lake).
It's not as if they didn't have the records.
> It is usually a calculated level from the past "x" number of years of recordings. Next year there would be an expected difference.
>
The 39-year cycle applies to tide levels, not OHWM determination.
> After a flood, I once did a survey to locate the high water level of the Sulphur River from the Texas-Louisana line to Fort Lynn. The level was on a near constant change going downstream and yet, there was a definite variation at places due to bends in the river causing surges of water pressure into confined coves and other drainage areas and would be near level for some backwater areas outside the main current.
>
Be very careful that "after a flood" you're not using evidence created by an evulsive event to determine the OHWM. OHWM is not based upon "flood stage."
> The Corp lakes around here have an elevation boundary in some places and thru the years we would call the dam and ask the elevation that day and set a stake to record the water level. It all depended upon the number you got from who answered the phone. That number was not always current nor was it exact, probably to the nearest foot. Nowdays they keep a good record that can be found online on most days.
>
The rights acquired to to construct a man-made lake are based upon flood pool behind the dam. Those acquisitions (usually done by the engineers who design the dam) are often made to specific contours. I, personally disdain the practice as elevations are not monuments and landowners are left with nothing to "mark" their boundary after the take. It is not uncommon, however, and is a constant source of litigation.
> You can look at most Corp lakes and whatever the elevation of the Overflow dam is, the flood level is usually about 3 or more feet above that. That is how deep the water can be flowing over that dam as it empties into the river below.
>
That's applicable in man-made reservoirs where the outflow elevation controls the flood pool elevation AND the acquisitions were made by an engineer who didn't fully understand that they weren't constructing a bath tub. They also failed to understand that they were affecting future landowners' ability to determine their boundaries.
> I would think that the normal High Water Mark for any body of water would be calculated as one elevation and not at different elevations the shoreline.
What we "think" doesn't govern the law on boundaries. The law governs what we should "know."
JBS
> In a theoretical situation where we surveyed a lake in a vacuum that had no inlets, outlets, or other disturbances, I would expect the edges to follow one perfect contour - right?
>
> I reason that if we used spirit levels for the survey, both the water surface and the equipment would be influenced by the same gravitational affects.
>
> However, if the survey was adjusted to some vertical datum, this could introduce a slightly sloped plane relative to the true equipotential geoid surface that would cause the contour to not follow the water exactly. Datums aren't perfect.
>
> It would be interesting to have the perspective of a true geodesist on this.
I think I understand what you mean. But I would suggest that the "perfect" contour is the true equipotential surface. Your measured contour might vary because you are doing your readings from one position that might have a slight different gravitational pull than the spot you are shooting.
I gave away a perfectly good pare of water skis because I could never find a lake with a hill on it, should have kept looking.
😉
jud
I guess that's why the Louisiana State Land Office ...
donated their geodetic tilting level and invar rods to LSU!
If a lake doesn't rise to the same level each year, and the highs have several feet of variability, it is not reliable. And you might have the case where the water level rises to a level higher than the scarp or vegetation line and into nearby woodland for brief periods annually. Where do you pick the gauge ordinary high water number? What duration? If it floods for one day each year would you use that as the ordinary high water? Gauge levels are usually not good on inland lakes for that reason, among others. I agree with JB's post below.
> Does the ordinary high water mark of a natural lake have to be at the same contour for the whole lake?
If it fits THIS DESCRIPTION; then it's the Ordinary high Water Mark. In Washington anyway....
JBS, your law book is not a one cure for every cause.
What happens at the Great Salt Lake has nothing to do with most other lakes that have a flow of water into and out of them. The Great Salt Lake is a basin and has no outlet.
We have Caddo Lake which was originally a fresh water natural lake until the COE developed it into it a flood control lake and constructed a dam.
Wright Patman Lake is also a flood control lake on the Sulphur River.
The study that was done on the Sulphur River was below the dam. There became a need to locate the actual flood water levels in order to show the possible contaminated area from chemicals that were released when the river waters overflowed into containment ponds and the result was that harmful chemicals were released into the river. It basically consisted of locating a splash line/wash mark along the bank of the river.
All of the above fresh water lakes have a diffrent actual water level from one end to the other and from one side to the other due to natural forces.
For the last 4-5 years and into the future, Ellison Reservoir is undergoing a new boundary survey. The property boundary for the body of the lake is based on elevation as orginally set by deed to the USA in fee for Defense Plant purposes. That is a definite MSL elevation and not one based upon water level.
Whether you disdaine or not the use of elevations as boundaries. Elevations used for boundaries is a reality around here. It was based on MSL and has been derived by the reading the guage at the dam of COE lakes.
These are simply different examples of river and lake levels in my area.
This topic was about if the normal high water mark would be the same around a lake.
My answer would be yes.
The actual water level on any given day would be different around a lake because of many natural occurances that change what water does.
Whatever elevation or height above or below today's water level is determined for that normal high water mark. One mark would be used for the whole lake.
The contrary may be proven but mother nature will still control what normal water level actually is.
😉
> JBS, your law book is not a one cure for every cause.
>
Actually, Mr. Harris, the law book does have a cure for every cause; however, it's not the same cure for every cause.
> What happens at the Great Salt Lake has nothing to do with most other lakes that have a flow of water into and out of them. The Great Salt Lake is a basin and has no outlet.
>
The GSL isn't the only lake in Utah, and does have unique characteristics given both its size and its lack of outflow. We do have a variety of natural and artificial lakes both with and without man-made control outlets. There are different laws and rules for each, because each poses a different set of circumstances.
> We have Caddo Lake which was originally a fresh water natural lake until the COE developed it into it a flood control lake and constructed a dam.
>
COE projects are precisely the type of projects I was referring to above which typically rely upon an elevation to determine the flood pool. Many descriptions for the flood control easements were prepared by the design engineers who thought it was ok to describe a contour line as the controlling element. Unfortunately, most owners' x-ray glasses don't highlight those contours to a sufficient level of contrast so they can be easily seen. They actually prefer to rely upon physical monuments, instead.
> Wright Patman Lake is also a flood control lake on the Sulphur River.
>
We've got a few of those as well. Some small, some large. Some are simply flood control dykes constructed along the sides of the river within flood control easements described by metes and bounds; some of those are even monumented.
> The study that was done on the Sulphur River was below the dam. There became a need to locate the actual flood water levels in order to show the possible contaminated area from chemicals that were released when the river waters overflowed into containment ponds and the result was that harmful chemicals were released into the river. It basically consisted of locating a splash line/wash mark along the bank of the river.
>
Flood water levels are most often tied to elevations. Splash lines, wash marks and flood levels aren't OHWMs.
> All of the above fresh water lakes have a different actual water level from one end to the other and from one side to the other due to natural forces.
>
Water levels aren't OHWMs either. OHWMs are "marks" left by the erosion caused by the natural forces. The "marks" are a physical monument, not an elevation.
> For the last 4-5 years and into the future, Ellison Reservoir is undergoing a new boundary survey. The property boundary for the body of the lake is based on elevation as originally set by deed to the USA in fee for Defense Plant purposes. That is a definite MSL elevation and not one based upon water level.
>
Yep, typical Government project done by well-meaning engineers. It sounds like they're finding out how badly that's (not) worked and are finally repairing the damage by renegotiating the boundaries. These also are not (typically) riparian boundaries and they are (likely) not going to be governed by the OHWM.
> Whether you disdain or not the use of elevations as boundaries. Elevations used for boundaries is a reality around here. It was based on MSL and has been derived by the reading the gauge at the dam of COE lakes.
>
No denying that one. Just because they've done it is no reason to like it or to consider it an acceptable practice. I would venture that, even though it's reality, no two surveyors could determine the same boundary line location on the same piece of property. If surveyors can't consistently locate it, what good is it to the landowner?
> These are simply different examples of river and lake levels in my area.
>
And, there are many more, no doubt, both in your area, my area and many others'.
> This topic was about if the normal high water mark would be the same around a lake.
>
Yes. The OHWM, technically.
> My answer would be yes.
>
My answer is still no. It's not elevation base by definition.
> The actual water level on any given day would be different around a lake because of many natural occurrences that change what water does.
>
Yes. That's true. The OHWM and the water level are two different things.
> Whatever elevation or height above or below today's water level is determined for that normal high water mark. One mark would be used for the whole lake.
>
Not true. The OHWM is a natural monument which defines the division between the upland and the bed (including the shore). The "mark" is a continuous line around the lake determined by physical features such as a change in vegetation or an escarpment. There is not "one mark" (elevation) used for the whole lake.
> The contrary may be proven but mother nature will still control what normal water level actually is.
>
Yes. The continual actions of nature are what defines the OHWM and continues to act upon it daily, seasonally, and annually. Don't confuse the OHWM with the lake elevation; they are relative only in the sense that a bearing and distance is related to the monument which marks the terminus of the line. It could be said that the OHWM is the monument, where the ordinary high water elevation would be the vertical distance where you would begin your search.
JBS
Water level is different around the shoreline of all lakes.
Here is one for you JBS
There are many deeds that exist around Caddo Lake that the beginning point is the water mark and a metes and bounds description follows.
Here is my question for you:
Where is that beginning point and does it cause the property to move and change with the changes of the determined water mark?
😉
> Water level is different around the shoreline of all lakes.
>
Of course the water level is different. That has nothing to do with the OHWM and its determination. I don't get your point.
> Here is one for you JBS
>
> There are many deeds that exist around Caddo Lake that the beginning point is the water mark and a metes and bounds description follows.
>
Certainly wouldn't be a preferred method for describing the property. I think we'd both agree. By "water mark" I'm assuming you mean OHWM, not an elevation. The OHWM is a dynamic boundary which makes it relatively straight forward to determine its position today, but somewhat difficult to discover where it was at the time the deed was first written.
> Here is my question for you:
>
> Where is that beginning point and does it cause the property to move and change with the changes of the determined water mark?
>
The POB would be the "water mark" (OHWM?) as of the date of the deed. All boundaries (and deeds) are to be construed in light of the circumstances and conditions present at the time the deed was first written. And, no; the parcel location would not shift with the changing location of the OHWM. Your best shot would be to recover evidence of the other boundaries described and work backwards to determine where the OHWM used to be (not that it would matter any more).
> 😉
;o) ;o)
When discussing water boundaries it is critical to understand that different professions such as hydrologist, geomorphologist, engineer, boundary surveyor and perhaps other disciplines, may be using terminology that is similar, but are actually describing a different situation.
The OHWM is a legal term used by the courts and boundary surveyors to describe the boundary between the upland and a natural fresh water body. This boundary is a horizontal position as has been previously stated. It is determined by on the ground evidence of vegetation, escarpments and etc. as others have indicated. The OHWM is an ambulatory boundary and is changed from time to time by the action of the water.
A geomorphologist may confuse what he describes in his professional terminology as 'bankfull stage" with what a boundary surveyor would call the Ordinary High Water Mark. If one looks into how the bankfull stage is determined by the geomorphologist it is evident that it is not the same as the OHWM. His bankfull stage is actually an elevation and not the horizontal position of the boundary. There is nothing incorrect about this expert using whatever terminology is appropriate for his work, but it should not be used to describe land boundaries.
There are many man made lakes that have the elevation as the boundary. This is generally a fixed boundary at that elevation and many times the horizontal position of that elevation is fixed at the time of taking. Nothing wrong with this, but do not confuse a high water elevation with an OHWM.
It seems to me that many of the disagreements are caused by 'experts' working outside the area of their expertise and not realizing it. A surveyor is the boundary expert. The surveyor should have an understanding of water boundary law and know when to involve other experts as necessary to resolve the boundary issue. These experts may come from fields of dendrochronology, botany, hydrology, geomorphology and etc., but it remains the responsibility of the surveyor to put it all together and survey the boundary.
This is a really interesting thread. I enjoy all the comments and thank Frank Willis for starting it. But, as in many cases, we each are thinking of a particular situation. The solution for each case will hopefully rest on the facts and the law appropriately applied to that situation.
Jerry
Jerry, I agree with you completely. I am going to email you a link that contains a confusing ordinary high water mark study. It sounds like you could have written part of it.
Yes and no. Most of the lakes, that I have worked on, have had the OHWM established by someone in authority and that elevation became the established elevation and legal definition for that lake.
Does it reflect the true OHWM? The OHWM is in reality is an abstract concept and subject to change and interpretation. Because of this, we as a society establish one quasi-statutory elevation to in order to establish certainty for land use purposes.
Think of it terms of the Scientific Method. No two people would come up with the same results on it's location thus the need for a one time establishment by someone in authority.