right- i stated that incorrectly.?ÿ i accept the case law, just in the particular situation i was talking about it was used in combination with some other, more dubious arguments to assert title to something that i'm still pretty convinced they'd pretty clearly quit by multiple acts over decades.
short version: an explicit call to bank and "along meanders" is controlled by the bank call.?ÿ which is... i still don't know how i feel about that, 5 or 6 years after having this cited by the GLO to extract money out of my client.
This case is a very interesting case, thanks for posting it, but it is not applicable to the current conversation. The boundary of this parcel was not the bank but a line 15 Vargas from the bank.
The question of center versus bank was not even brought up, because a call to a line that far away obviously is ment to exclude not only the bank but a significant amount of land in front of the bank. In fact this ruling makes it clear the riparian law does not apply at all in this case.?ÿ
Depends on the state. My state would have title at the bank and not to the c/l regardless of what any adjoiner said. It is the intention of the party conveying the property. Neighbors don't have any say as to what you are intending to convey and neither does the surveyor.
So, unless local laws redefine the call, it is as clear as day as to where the line went to.
Depends on the state. My state would have title at the bank and not to the c/l regardless of what any adjoiner said. It is the intention of the party conveying the property. Neighbors don't have any say as to what you are intending to convey and neither does the surveyor.
So, unless local laws redefine the call, it is as clear as day as to where the line went to.
?ÿ
Do you have anything to back that up? I am not doubting you. I just have never seen that and am interested in how that would work.
Among the multitude of other variables, I am envisioning an area around here where you might have a major cutbank that could be 50' or more from the waters edge even when flowing in the largest of storms. This would leave no worthless strip of land, it could be ample room for a trail to be built, a campsite to be constructed, a rope swing to be installed, etc. A call to the bank would provide specific intent that the grantor did not want to provide access to the water and did not want to ?ÿprovide rights to the water.?ÿ
Among the multitude of other variables, I am envisioning an area around here where you might have a major cutbank that could be 50' or more from the waters edge even when flowing in the largest of storms. This would leave no worthless strip of land, it could be ample room for a trail to be built, a campsite to be constructed, a rope swing to be installed, etc. A call to the bank would provide specific intent that the grantor did not want to provide access to the water and did not want to ?ÿprovide rights to the water.?ÿ
Sure, no one said you have to include the bed, but if you dont you need to specifically state it.?ÿ
If both sides are sold only to the bank, even under the circumstances you describe the remaining land is worthless. A call to a bank, unless otherwise clearly stated is a call to OHW,OLW, or the geandient boundary depending on your state. In all of these cases the land is submerged at high water.
Not every state recognizes riparian rights. Even owning the entire stream doesn't mean you have any rights to the water in that stream. In the case of my state there are many deeds that run along the bank, the adjoiner owning across the stream to the bank. And it's unrelated to what happens to the water. The owner to the bank could well own water rights to the stream where the person who owns the land the stream passes across has none. That would be unusual but not unheard of.?ÿ
This may have impacts on just how deeds like this will be interpreted in each state. I would tend to see this deed running down the CL but I would need to follow all the creation deeds and adjoiners. I'm doing one now where the original land owner deeded the tract south of the stream to the CL and tract north of the stream to the left bank as the streams falls to the east, thus creating a strip. The lawyers have taken over and it's being quiet titled to the owner to the north.
The OP deed is ambiguous, but maybe in the state it was created in it isn't.?ÿ
Not every state recognizes riparian rights. Even owning the entire stream doesn't mean you have any rights to the water in that stream. In the case of my state there are many deeds that run along the bank, the adjoiner owning across the stream to the bank. And it's unrelated to what happens to the water. The owner to the bank could well own water rights to the stream where the person who owns the land the stream passes across has none. That would be unusual but not unheard of.?ÿ
This may have impacts on just how deeds like this will be interpreted in each state. I would tend to see this deed running down the CL but I would need to follow all the creation deeds and adjoiners. I'm doing one now where the original land owner deeded the tract south of the stream to the CL and tract north of the stream to the left bank as the streams falls to the east, thus creating a strip. The lawyers have taken over and it's being quiet titled to the owner to the north.
The OP deed is ambiguous, but maybe in the state it was created in it isn't.?ÿ
?ÿ
Riparian rights and water rights are two different things. In some places and situations they are related, in some they are not.
Every state recognizes riparian rights as to boundary locations. There are some differences, like OHW vs OLW and the definition of avulsion, but the the basics, erosion, accretion and center versus bank, are extremly similar across all states.?ÿ
Not every state recognizes riparian rights. Even owning the entire stream doesn't mean you have any rights to the water in that stream. In the case of my state there are many deeds that run along the bank, the adjoiner owning across the stream to the bank. And it's unrelated to what happens to the water. The owner to the bank could well own water rights to the stream where the person who owns the land the stream passes across has none. That would be unusual but not unheard of.?ÿ
This may have impacts on just how deeds like this will be interpreted in each state. I would tend to see this deed running down the CL but I would need to follow all the creation deeds and adjoiners. I'm doing one now where the original land owner deeded the tract south of the stream to the CL and tract north of the stream to the left bank as the streams falls to the east, thus creating a strip. The lawyers have taken over and it's being quiet titled to the owner to the north.
The OP deed is ambiguous, but maybe in the state it was created in it isn't.?ÿ
?ÿ
Riparian rights and water rights are two different things. In some places and situations they are related, in some they are not.
Every state recognizes riparian rights as to boundary locations. There are some differences, like OHW vs OLW and the definition of avulsion, but the the basics, erosion, accretion and center versus bank, are extremly similar across all states.?ÿ
Riparian rights and water rights are two different things. In some places and situations they are related, in some they are not. Every state recognizes riparian rights as to boundary locations.?ÿ
As I say there are no riparian rights (the exception being in stream stock use) in this state and that is related to water rights. This is a Prior Appropriation Doctrine state. There is no use of the water allowed because you own the land the water is on, putting a pump in a stream or irrigation ditch that passes over your land can get you into all kinds of trouble. As far as riparian rights to boundary locations, that isn't a riparian right. A riparian right is use of the water because the land owners location to the water. The water is all owned by the state and is allocated irrespective to location to the water.?ÿ
Yea I wish that wasn't the case. My own property, I own to the center of a creek and would love to pull water out but I don't have water rights and I'm afraid of Fish & Game busting me though I may just do it anyway but am hesitant cause those guys are serious. It's messed up because the water Co. has a pumping station just 1,000 feet upstream so they pump the water out ?ÿthen just sell it back to me.?ÿ
Yea I wish that wasn't the case. My own property, I own to the center of a creek and would love to pull water out but I don't have water rights and I'm afraid of Fish & Game busting me though I may just do it anyway but am hesitant cause those guys are serious. It's messed up because the water Co. has a pumping station just 1,000 feet upstream so they pump the water out ?ÿthen just sell it back to me.?ÿ
Yeah, that can get you arrested if you were to persist, of course first they would cut power off to the pump and place a big nasty sign on it, I've seen those before.?ÿ
The Game and Fish has something to do with enforcement there?
We are talking about a presumption, it doesn't mean that the bank can't be the boundary, just that the Court will presume the centerline unless there is evidence otherwise. A presumption shifts the burden of proof to the person that wants to claim the bank is the boundary.
I could be wrong but I think it's Ca. Dept. of Fish & Game that enforces this type of thing around here. I'll probably never do it but it's tempting. Problem is that during dry months the water level can get pretty low and pumping could hurt the few fish that are there, during rainy season it rages and just dumps into ocean a couple miles away. Ethically I wouldn't have any problem pulling during the short rainy season but couldn't store enough to get through the dry summer months. I've thought about building a huge water tower but the County would get on my nuts for that if they knew. It's fu&@ed! Meanwhile my water bill is astronomical just to keep a small lawn and landscaped area going through summer. On top of that, by County code I'm not allowed to drill a well because I'm on public water system.?ÿ
