In case any other posters are interested in the problem, here is another part of the 1837 plat that depicts the subdivision of about 18,000 acres on the West end of Galveston Island into lots. In a previous thread, I think it was shown that there wasn't much doubt but that the 1837 surveyors had measured with a 2-pole chain.
As before, the Lots 101, 122, 123, 144 ... 455, 458 front on the Gulf of Mexico, a shore with a wide sand beach.
The lots are all recognized as 5 chains wide and there is no reason at all to think that they were not originally laid out that way. Where lot lines are shown prolonged into the waters of the Gulf, that means that a 50 ft. wide "avenue" was laid out between the boundings lots.
The numbers to the right of the lots are the areas in decimal acres.
So, what are the most likely values of the side lot line lengths?
> The numbers to the right of the lots are the areas in decimal acres.
>
> So, what are the most likely values of the side lot line lengths?
And while the number of lots is off-putting, what you will find is that if you find the correct answer for the first four lots, you'll have a ready solution for the rest.
It's interesting for sure. It seems like there is some sort of linear progression of the shore that is reflected in the areas. Maybe a 'best fit' line between obvious deflection points works? How did you solve the riddle?
Well, since the lot areas are uniformly increasing by 0.25 acres every lot and the lots are 5 chains wide, that means that the rate of increase in the side lot lines is:
2.5/5 = 0.5 chains/lot
So, the average depth Lot 101 would be:
107.5/5 = 21.5 chains
and the trial length of the line of Lot 101 on the road between 101 and 100 would be:
21.5 chains - 0.5 chains/2 = 21.25 chains
starting with that seed value of the length of that line of Lot 101 gives the following values for the next lots, all of which are exactly consistent with expectation based upon the model of how the survey was most likely made.
Varying the seed value by even 0.1 chain (as indicated in the Trial A and Trial B columns below produces sets of highly implausible lengths that are only consistent with a uniformly regular undulation in the shoreline that would go on for more than 2 miles.
[pre]
Line Acres Length Trial A Trial B
(chains) seed - 0.1 seed + 0.1
101 21.25 21.15 21.35
10.75
101&122 21.75 21.85 21.65
11.0
122 22.25 21.15 21.35
road
123 22.75 22.85 22.65
11.25
123&144 22.75
11.50
144 23.25
road
145 23.25
11.75
145&166 23.75
12.0
166 24.25
road
167 24.25
12.25
167&188 24.75
12.50
188 25.25
road
[/pre]
Uh, make that:
[pre]
Line Acres Length Trial A Trial B
(chains) seed - 0.1 seed + 0.1
101 21.25 21.15 21.35
10.75
101&122 21.75 21.85 21.65
11.0
122 22.25 21.15 22.15 21.35 22.35
road
123 22.75 22.85 22.65
11.25
123&144 22.75
[/pre]
Nice job Kent. Since T&L platted this in 1837 and the south line of the platted lots is now several hundred feet into to Gulf of Mexico do you think the land between the current mean high water line and the south line of the lots should be private ownership or State of Texas submerged lands. This was pretty clear cut for years but with the Severance Ruling last year I'm not too sure anymore.
> Nice job Kent. Since T&L platted this in 1837 and the south line of the platted lots is now several hundred feet into to Gulf of Mexico do you think the land between the current mean high water line and the south line of the lots should be private ownership or State of Texas submerged lands. This was pretty clear cut for years but with the Severance Ruling last year I'm not too sure anymore.
The problem on Galveston Island is that the Hall and Jones patent that covered all of the unsold lots in Trimble and Lindsey's survey was issued under common law, rather than civil law. While some of the original lots in Trimble and Lindsey's survey were patented before January 20, 1840, and so are to be contrued under civil law, only a slim minority fall into that category.
Generally, I'd think that there will continue to be increased pressure by upland owners to assert claims to lands that were once upland but that are now tidal or submerged. Probably the bay side, where large parts of the original upland lots are now submerged flats and the water depths are quite shallow, would be the next point of challenge, particularly if Galveston Channel is ever extended westward.
I'm sure you're familiar with the decision in Coastal Indus. Water Authority v. York (520 S.W.2d 494) in which the issue of subsidence was considered as an important separate factor. I'm not sure how subsidence and erosion can be independent, since lowering the ground level by subsidence obviously extends the reach of the sea and its erosional processes. Subsidence has not been as great on Galveston Island, however, as it has been in places on the other side of Galveston Bay since WWII, where large-scale pumping from aquifers has been the norm.
> Nice job Kent. Since T&L platted this in 1837 and the south line of the platted lots is now several hundred feet into to Gulf of Mexico do you think the land between the current mean high water line and the south line of the lots should be private ownership or State of Texas submerged lands. This was pretty clear cut for years but with the Severance Ruling last year I'm not too sure anymore.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! This is the only question that needs to be asked.
🙂
> Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! This is the only question that needs to be asked.
LOL! Very funny, if unintentionally so since Robert's point is that the location of the original shoreline at the time patent was issued may yet become a relevant fact on the Gulf side of the island.
This area does create a lot of questions - Hall and Jones was patented (1836) prior to the T&L Survey so why does the after 1840 date on most of the T&L lots affect the story.
> This area does create a lot of questions - Hall and Jones was patented (1836) prior to the T&L Survey so why does the after 1840 date on most of the T&L lots affect the story.
The patent to 18,215 acres of land situated on Galveston Island that the Republic of Texas issued to Edward Hall and Levi Jones is dated November 28, 1840. It is that date that places the grant after the adoption of common law.
BTW, one interesting feature of all of the patents to the lots on Galveston Island, including that issued to Hall and Jones is that they make reference to the map of Trimble and Lindsey's survey drawn by one Andrew J.F. Phelan. After looking into the matter, it turns out the Andrew J.F. Phelan was the first Chief Clerk of the General Land Office, serving from early 1838 until about the early summer of 1840, when apparently he resigned in order to remain in the vicinity of Houston to pursue fame and fortune, rather than relocating to Austin when the land office moved here.
There is a large, rather ugly map in the holdings of the GLO that may well be the Phelan map. It's credited to him in the entry in the map collection and appears to date from the time of Phelan's tenure. Mr. Phelan later moved to Sabine City where he served as one of the directors of Sam Houston's Sabine City Company attempting to develop the mouth of the Sabine River as a major Texas port.
> The patent to 18,215 acres of land situated on Galveston Island that the Republic of Texas issued to Edward Hall and Levi Jones is dated November 28, 1840. It is that date that places the grant after the adoption of common law.
>
You are correct I was looking at the date of the Script and not the patent date.
Where there is a wall, the line between civil and common law is irrelevant for all practical purposes. Where there isn't a wall, that line, could theoretically, between lots patented under the different laws, change QUITE drastically and there are places along the gulf where upland ownership is at the 18.6 line and then you must back up the upland line nearly a mile to get to the "highest tide in winter" line for any civil law conveyances. I'm not aware of any cases whereby one could use tidal waters to make up for deficient acreage in a patent, unlike where it can be done along riparian boundaries.
> ... and there are places along the gulf where upland ownership is at the 18.6 line and then you must back up the upland line nearly a mile to get to the "highest tide in winter" line for any civil law conveyances.
Should one assume that by "18.6 line" you're referring to a line fixed by a tidal datum, such as MHW or MHHW? In subsiding areas, such as around Galveston Bay, the apparent change in water level registered by the gauge due to subsidence means that much shorter records of five or six years are considered to be a more reliable basis for computing tidal datums. On the bay, the effects of weather tend to have a large effect on water level, making predictions based upon the astronomical tides relatively poor.
> > ... and there are places along the gulf where upland ownership is at the 18.6 line and then you must back up the upland line nearly a mile to get to the "highest tide in winter" line for any civil law conveyances.
>
> Should one assume that by "18.6 line" you're referring to a line fixed by a tidal datum, such as MHW or MHHW? In subsiding areas, such as around Galveston Bay, the apparent change in water level registered by the gauge due to subsidence means that much shorter records of five or six years are considered to be a more reliable basis for computing tidal datums. On the bay, the effects of weather tend to have a large effect on water level, making predictions based upon the astronomical tides relatively poor.
Yes. 18.6 years is the standard for "one epoch" which defines those lines.
> Yes. 18.6 years is the standard for "one epoch" which defines those lines.
Actually, where the astronomical tide is secondary to weather influences, as on Galveston Bay, using full years would be better practice so that you get equal numbers of seasons. Subsidence has such a large effect in some areas of the Texas Gulf Coast, such as around Galveston, that the 19-year cycle is actually significantly less accurate as a means of computing tidal datums.
One of the fundamental tide gauges of the Gulf Coast is that at Pier 21 at Galveston and its tidal datum as presently published was derived from a five year record between January, 1997 and December, 2001 for that very reason.
