Florida OHWL revisited

thanks for the follow up! If you ever play poker with Bon deWitt, hold onto your money!

Re: Dave Gibson (N/F Geomatics prof. UofF)

DEVELOPMENT OF PROCEDURAL METHODOLOGY TO ENABLE FLORIDA LAND SURVEYORS TO DETERMINE THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE BOUNDARY OF SOVEREIGN LANDS--Phase (1) Area Research (1987)
Gibson, David W.

Abstract
Research conducted in six areas associated with OHWL determination (geology, surveying, botany, law, hydrology, and soil science) is summarized. Research events are explained along with a listing of major conclusions. Recommendations are made for further development of OHWL methodology for application by the survey community. In response to a STAR program request for proposals from state university personnel to study OHWL methodology, a project team was assembled at the University of Florida, a proposal was made, and research was begun in July of 1986. The research approach was based on a feasibility report written for DNR by D. Bruce Means, Ph.D. which concluded that it is feasible for Florida Land Surveyors to perform OHWL surveys using scientifically valid methods provided that research be performed to identify and develop promising techniques resulting in an illustrated workbook for surveyors. Two phases were identified. Phase (1) was to consist of individual research into geology, surveying, botany, law, hydrology, and soil science to identify and develop the most promising scientific methods for implementation by surveyors. In addition, legal and surveying practice issues were to be identified and developed. Phase (1) results are given in this report. In Phase (2), the actual handbook would be written requiring integration of Phase (1) efforts, but due to funding limitations, Phase (2) could not be initiated this fiscal year.

Publication details
Download http://dc.cflge.org/fl_publications/53
Publisher Digital Commons @ CFLGE
Repository Digital Commons @ CFLGE - Center for Florida Local Government Excellence (United States)
Type

Mr. Havin, thanks for the follow up. I haven't had time to read all Nunely's article yet, but at the first glance find it confirms what the courts have long told us is required as we surveyors survey the boundary of the uplands abutting the sovereign lands. We often use experts from other disciplines to help confirm our determination. They can help to evaluate the various vegetation, soils, geology and other indicators, but only the surveyor can make the survey. Of course, our determination is always subject to judicial review.

And it is one of the most litigated concepts we surveyors will encounter. It is fascinating stuff to deal with and every case has its own wrinkle. I still say that one can use the imagery for approximation, but if it is going to court I want to walk on the ground. I want my boots muddy.

Thanks again. Oh, and sorry that I misunderstood from your first post what you were doing with the topo maps.

Jerry

Jerry,
Thats quite alright. I often assume too much when I post anyways. I'm sure I was not real clear. I accidentally got myself into this (OHWL delineation). However, I have since realized the entire site is on fill. My understanding is an artificial shore/bank can never alter/shift the “true” OHWL. Thus, the boundary between the Sovereignty and private uplands ownership would not have been affected by previous dredging/filling work done more than 40 years earlier. Therefore, since the OHWL is obscured at best or it is obliterated, lacking some historical document (none known to exist other than an old small scale aerial photo), I will likely have the perfect “excuse” to be able to get off the hook.
Your further thoughts on the matter are appreciated.
have a good weekend.

Thanks Andy. Something to consider I am sure.

Bon DeWitt is most intelligent surveyor I've ever met. It was a real pleasure taking his classes. It doesn't surprise me that he is a good poker player.

Mr. Havin, do you really want to get off the hook? These riparian boundaries are fun to research and discover the last natural location through analysis of all the old data. Perhaps a survey was made by the COE or some state agency prior to the dredging. Someone got paid for the dredging and there was most likely a determination of the quantity which would have required a survey of some type.

It is amazing how much aerial photography really exists from the 1950's and 1960's. It would surprise me if there is not more available than just the one photograph. Control for the old aerials can be developed by starting with modern photography and working backwards through the years. Points are found on the newer photograph that show up on the previous photograph. These points are used to control each photograph until you get back to the one you need.

The research and analysis takes time and time is money. Plus riparian boundary work is fun and interesting. As I said before, no two cases are alike. There is always something to learn.

Have fun.
Jerry

Question:

Down in florida there are lots of swamps abutting some of their lakes, and the swamps appear to be lower than some of the OHWL determinations. How are they handling such swamps? Are they trying to include them in the lake?

I also did not see much mentioned about a specific elevation for each lake. Any comments about that?

I spent only about 20 minutes reading the thesis, and I probably missed a lot. Will read more later.

The link to the publication in the other thread is broken. Can someone update the link?

INTERESTING STUFF

The biggest case I can think of was on Fisheating Creek Lykes Brothers and the State of Florida had a huge battle over that. A fellow surveyor, Jeff Cooner, was involved heavily in that survey work. He is on the State Board now.

I couldn't find the link to the case, but there is a whole wiki page about the creek.

Andy

Jerry, I was half joking re getting off the hook. Ever since I left central Florida (where vast majority of lakes are) in '74, and moved northward I just have not had the occasion to become involved with riparian boundaries other than along small creeks and a few rivers (with the exception of single lot surveys in recorded subdivisions fronting on fresh water lakes). Until now! The majority of creeks we deal with are non-navigable, hence no need to be concerned with OHWL (i.e. the State doesn't claim ownership of the beds of non-navigable creeks). As for rivers in my area of the state the banks are steep, and the “approximate” OHWL is somewhat easier to differentiate, and we always assert that ownership is to the OHWL. Back to the getting off the hook remark, I agree with you re the interesting part. I too have always enjoyed studying/researching challenging areas of practice, and I am finding myself getting more and more involved in this area. It's addictive.
Not sure about the fun part just yet though.

I'm familiar with LYKES BROS., INC. V. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, but it was more about defining navigable waterways than OHWL. USACOE lost. Perhaps there is a second case where the State of Florida tried to make a OHWL case.

I've found EarthExplorerto be a good source of historic aerials. Using Global Mapper and Jerry's method of working backwards through time, referencing the images are a snap.

DDSM:beer: