Loss of water frontage

What state are you in? Can you post the before/now aerials?

MA, so ownership is down to low water (don't ask which low water, I can provide pages that can be summed up in the Rockwood v. Snow Inn Corp where the SJC specifically took a case to resolve the ambiguity of 'to where the tide doth ebb' then decided they would not determine the same).

There are many aerials, the connection occurred in 1992 and google earth can show it from 1995, 41-40-40 N, 69-56-56 W. The second example is 41-42-42 N, 69-55-52 W.

I have digitized 25 of the aerials and put them together into a series that I may have uploaded to an FTP, I'd have to look around. But the general concept will not change, can a shorefront property lose their water frontage when a natural accretion merges another beach to their own?

I got this from the 73 Manual, don't have the new one yet, doubt much would have changed. This is an interesting post for me, as I am dealing with this on some Yukon R. property my wife inherited ......

Apportionment of Accretion and Reliction

7-62. The term "accretion" is applied both to the gradual and imperceptible deposition of material along the bank of a body of water and the lands formed by this process.

7-63. "Reliction" is the gradual uncovering of land caused by the recession of a body of water. Relicted land is treated in the same manner as accreted land insofar as its survey is concerned.

7-64. A meander line is not surveyed as a boundary. When the Government conveys title to a fractional lot fronting on a navigable body of water, the intention, in all ordinary cases, is that the lot extends to the water's edge.

7-65. The title and rights of riparian owners in areas below the line of mean high water of navigable bodies of water are governed by State law rather than Federal law. Whether Federal or State law controls the ownership of land accreted to a riparian holding has been answered in a series of cases:

In Borax Consolidated, Ltd. v. Los Angeles, 296 U.S. 10 (1935), the Supreme Court held that "The question as to the extent of this federal grant, that is, as to the limit of the land conveyed, or the boundary between the upland and the tideland, is necessarily a federal question."

The ownership of accretion to land covered by an Indian trust patent was considered in United States v. Washington, 294 F. 2d 830 (1961), cert. den., 367 U.S. 817 (1962). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Federal law applied because of the underlying Federal title.

The general question of whether Federal or State law controls as to ownership of accretion was considered in Hughes v. State of Washington, 389 U.S. 290 (1967). The Supreme Court ruled:

The question for decision is whether federal or state law controls the ownership of land, called accretion, gradually deposited by the ocean on adjoining upland property conveyed by the United States prior to statehood. . . .

We hold that this question is governed by federal, not state, law and that under federal law Mrs. Hughes, who traces her title to a federal grant prior to statehood, is the owner of these accretions. . . .

This brings us to the question of what the federal rule is. The State has not attempted to argue that federal law gives it title to these accretions, and it seems clear to us that it could not. A long and unbroken line of decisions of this Court established that the grantee of land bounded by a body of navigable water acquires a right to any natural and gradual accretion formed along the shore. . .

We therefore hold that petitioner is entitled to the accretion that has been gradually formed along her property by the ocean.

It is therefore settled that wherever it retains title to the original subdivisions along a body of water, either navigable or nonnavigable, the Government may subdivide the lands formed by accretion or by recession of the water, since these, too, are public lands.

7-66. A survey of accreted or relicted land is usually made when one or more of the riparian subdivisions has been disposed of, and it is desired to mark the boundaries of the remaining public land. As in the apportionment of the beds of nonnavigable bodies of water, the riparian owner is entitled to the area lying in front of his basic holdings. In the case of navigable waters the extent of survey is the water's edge. Accrued lands granted by State law to riparian proprietors within the bed of a navigable body of water are not considered here, since their definition would be in accordance with State law.

Apportionment of the accreted lands is usually made by proportioning the new frontage in the same ratio as the frontage along the old shore as outlined in the case of Johnson v. Jones, 66 U.S. 117 (1861), discussed in sections 7-58 and 7-61.

7-67. If there should be substantial areas of accretion to be dealt with that fact will be brought out in the special instructions, with outline of the governing procedure, and the surveying work in reference to all accretion areas will be distinctly mentioned in the field notes and so shown upon the plat.

Accretion Prior to Entry

7-68. Occasionally, subsequent to survey, but before entry, a large body of land has formed by accretion between the meander line and the high water line. If such land had formed after entry, it would merely attach to the riparian holdings. If the land had been in place before the survey and at all subsequent times, it would fall in the class of omitted land, to be treated as hereafter described under that subject. But, in this special case, the meander line is treated as the boundary line of the grants, and patent is construed to convey only the lands within the meander line. Madison v. Basart, 59 I.D. 415 (1947).

7-69. The lands accreted after survey but before entry are not usually surveyed as would be ordinary accreted lands. Instead, the regular rectangular survey is extended to the body of water. The same procedure would be followed in surveying regular accreted lands only if none of the riparian lots had been patented and it was desired to extend the survey.

7-70. In determining what constitutes a "substantial" accretion, to which the rule in Madison v. Basart is applicable, the area of accretion should be compared quantitatively with the riparian lots to which it attached. Some consideration should also be given to the total area accreted. Accretion to a small lot might be large in proportion but negligible in absolute size. From the standpoint of size and relative size, the area in question can be weighed as in the case of omitted lands.

Is I close??

wow JD, that was a good chunk of public lands information that I have never read, i've never surveyed that far west... there is good information in there.

MA is one of those funny states with ownership to the low water, plus we have torrens system called the Land Court who is charged with land matters (though someone can bring a land matter to the regular old Superior Court, usually when their argument is not strong) and the Land Court is charged with apportioning the accretions / flats. In this case, there are a dozen or so properties (in the high rent district no less) whose frontage either meanders at a 45 degree angle to get to the water or terminates where the beach came ashore.

There is a third case in this area about a mile south where the barrier beach attached to a barrier island - South Beach to Monomoy. Monomoy is a Federal Wildlife Refuge, South Beach is Town owned with a National Park Service overlay. The three entities agreed the boundary between the two beaches is where the last bit of water was visible in aerials. I see this as the correct method, plus even if it is off by a bit, who cares? The three entities all hold the land to preserve it, not for development.

In the first case mentioned, we're talking high rent district with houses that typically are flipped. The difference between a beachfront and a waterfront home can be millions (or a million, whatever it's way over my paygrade) so there are potential consequences. Of course, the Town promotes the beach as their own, it's been on the top 25 US beaches several times and now two of the private owners are claiming to own the beach and are telling the Town to get off.

You might want to start with the Aaron Shalowitz text here:

http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsd/shalowitz.html

All 3 volumes online.

Start with Volume 1, Part1, Chapter 6, "The Tidal Boundary Problem", Page 101, "A. From Natural Causes".

Chuck

There have been some artificial shoreline changes, but they would have minimal impact on the accretions observed. Of course, one of the private homes in question had large sand bags erected to halt the erosion in the early 90s. Had nature taken her course, the situation would have been far different for a period, but the connection of south beach to the mainland would have occured based on the models of this cycle. A local geologist has several reports.on the history of this beach and some brief research will find that the barrier breaches.and eventually connects to the mainland. Shalowitz has not addressed the merger question. I have found no texts or cases addressing the same. That is what makes this an interesting question.