Ben was the head surveyor of the GLO for Texas for years. Now he is on the speaking circuit.
FWIW, the gradient line is right at the vegetation line for most all surveying needs.
The guy who invented it, Stiles, that was a smart guy!
'Law enforcement officers are encouraged to attend.'
I could imagine all of the city police departments, loaded with
total station and doing jack-leg accident surveys, will be out there in the
weeds on the river banks with their total station patroling the 'gradient boundary'.
> 'Law enforcement officers are encouraged to attend.'
>
> I could imagine all of the city police departments, loaded with
> total station and doing jack-leg accident surveys, will be out there in the
> weeds on the river banks with their total station patroling the 'gradient boundary'.
They probably encourage law enforcement officers to attend, because there is always a great rub between landowners who own the land adjoining a navigable river or stream and some kayakers or canoeists from the city who think they can beach and camp or trespass anywhere they wish.
I have heard that kayakers in Texas and Colorado have
a bunch of political stroke.
THe problem that he won't explain to them is that every surveyor has a different idea of what a "qualified bank" is. More so than a typical survey, opinions amongst surveyors as to what elements qualify as part of making a determination, and thusly, where a gradient boundary is located, is varied. Just look to the opinions held in the Canadien River litigation.
Count me in as not a fan of the Gradient Boundary method.
After reading about the Canadian River case and Oklahoma vs The State
of Texas, apparently the surveyors at the General Land Office do not
know as much as they think they do. If you win a case, you probably
gain notoriety as an expert witness. The GLO lost the Canadian River
case and there was apparently no winners in the TX vs OK case.
In Kentucky, we use the north bank of the Ohio River, which was
digitized off of a quad map by college students.
The coordinates are very precise but the accuracy is not.
Some say that money influenced the arguments for the Canadian River case as it meant a lot of money into the state coffers from oil development of the river bottoms. If the lands were deemed state/public land, the leases would be rolling.
> After reading about the Canadian River case and Oklahoma vs The State
> of Texas, apparently the surveyors at the General Land Office do not
> know as much as they think they do. If you win a case, you probably
> gain notoriety as an expert witness. The GLO lost the Canadian River
> case and there was apparently no winners in the TX vs OK case.
>
Yes, you are pretty well correct.
> Some say that money influenced the arguments for the Canadian River case as it meant a lot of money into the state coffers from oil development of the river bottoms. If the lands were deemed state/public land, the leases would be rolling.
Andy,
I agree that that seemed like another factor in it. Legal interests aside, they would never really agree, like any other gradient case with more than one surveyor.
Andy or Kris:
I do not understand the royalty system in Texas. Does the mineral lease
owner automatically give a per cent royalty to the department of minerals
in Texas? Who do the oil companies pay the royalties to? If the State of
Texas won the Canadian River law suit, would the oil companies pay royalties
to the State for land between the high bank and the new gradient boundary?
If the original landowner had 600 acres touching the gradient boundary,
and now there was 660 acres, what law or term gives the State of Texas
interest in the surface and also what interest in the minerals?