There's not a lot of meander lines that I get involved with.
Now I have one that I need to survey, the high bank is easy enough.
From what the landowner related to me is that bank is moving a few feet each year so we aren't going to locate a fixed boundary.?ÿ
But the lowlands, swamplands, that's a different thing.?ÿ
I'm hiring an expert to go out to the field with me, what do most of you do?
For the few times I have had to establish a new OHW line, I've used the line of continuous vegetation that is immediately above smooth mud in my neck of the woods.
I only worked on one case that was contentious (something more than "meander for area").?ÿ We took plant samples at various locations and worked with local ag extension office for opinion on hydrophilic vegetation.?ÿ Soil samples might also be helpful (hired a soils P.E. for this once for wetland delineation, but may also be a relevant tactic in your case).?ÿ?ÿ
The missing part of the info is what the deed calls go to.
We have a Rivers Protection Act dating from 1992 that created a 200' Riverfront Area around all perennial rivers and streams, measured from the Mean High Water Line. For an official line, the wetlands scientists flag this out for us to locate, and the municipal officials will check the flagging, and approve or modify it. The protections from development in the Riverfront Area are "non-trivial".
There's not a lot of meander lines that I get involved with.
Now I have one that I need to survey, the high bank is easy enough.
From what the landowner related to me is that bank is moving a few feet each year so we aren't going to locate a fixed boundary.?ÿ
But the lowlands, swamplands, that's a different thing.?ÿ
I'm hiring an expert to go out to the field with me, what do most of you do?
Become the expert.
The missing part of the info is what the deed calls go to.
Usually the deed just calls for the river. When it tries to get more specific it often ends up ineffectual because of the doctorine of strips and gore's or state or federal ownership of the river.?ÿ
@aliquot I don't get it, water law is what it is, water courses change via accretion or avulsion, the deed call can be to the top of bank, center or thread.?ÿ No gaps or gores are created by the movement of the water course unless the deed calls for the location on a specific date.?ÿ Sometimes you gain land, sometimes you lose land.
The gore is caused when one deed calls for the left bank and the other calls for the right bank, or an owner converts a goverment lot, or subdivision?ÿ lot into a metes description,or a deed calls to the "high bank" and the state owns to OHWM, ect....
The gore is caused when one deed calls for the left bank and the other calls for the right bank, or an owner converts a goverment lot, or subdivision?ÿ lot into a metes description,or a deed calls to the "high bank" and the state owns to OHWM, ect....
If one deed calls for left and the other right bank, practical location would dictate that, depending on the state and whether the waterway is navigable or not, ownership would extend to the accepted ambulatory water boundary.
Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the grantor expressly wanted to retain a strip of land (and ambiguities are resolved in favor of the grantee anyways), calling out for a waterway natural monument means the actual water boundary, whether that's MHW, OHWL, center, thalweg, etc. in that particular state.
It's a rebuttable presumption, but absent any other evidence, I'm not going to create a cloud on title.
The deeds for all the owners in this area are government lots or aliquot parts of sections.
The second "original" survey was completed in 1905, patents were issued from that survey. The first "original" survey was completed in 1883, however all patents in the sections of interest are post 1905. I'm not considering the 1883 survey. There could be multiple monuments in these sections, I haven't found an 1883 monument, although, in other nearby townships I've found many of those era monuments. Any lands east of the river were unsurveyed prior to 1905.
Between 1883 and 1905 the river moved in a major way according to the two surveys; over 1/2 mile east into the unsurveyed lands.
Since 1905 it's also moved considerably (both east and west turning a mostly due north section of the river into an S curve), that is the major reason why I want an expert to make determinations where the river HWL is today and if the movement was accretion or avulsion.
If the river moved the way it did 1883-1905, that was a big avulsion event. The next movement is less obvious, but my opinion is for accretion.
We have accessed old ortho's and as far back as we can find the river is mostly where it is today.?ÿ
I was lucky to get the regional guru onsite and we hacked our way through the HWL and located it, she will do a report and will make the avulsion/accretion determination.?ÿ
The issue is that the GIS has left the river location where the 1905 plat shows it and it's a free-for-all with people using hunting apps and tresspassing all over the local landowners claiming that the app shows state lands in hay meadows ect.?ÿ
It's possible the new COS could start a firestorm of legal filings. Some landowners are contacting the GIS and apps demanding they correct their errors.
FUN TIMES!!!!
One interesting comment by the water guru is "accretion leads to avulsion", that will stick with me for sure.?ÿ
The issue is that the GIS has left the river location where the 1905 plat shows it and it's a free-for-all with people using hunting apps and tresspassing all over the local landowners claiming that the app shows state lands in hay meadows ect.?ÿ
It's possible the new COS could start a firestorm of legal filings. Some landowners are contacting the GIS and apps demanding they correct their errors.
Ugh. Common sense would dictate that if the river on aerials does not line up with GIS linework, you'd better do some additional legwork to make sure you're in the right. Especially since GIS and apps are not authoritative with respect to boundaries, and they tell you so right there when you access the data. Doubly so when you find yourself in hay meadows on "state land". Unfortunately common sense is an uncommon virtue.
I wonder if the app developers could be held responsible for damages. Most municipal GIS sites are very clear about the fact that "boundaries shown are not authoritative and should not take the place of a survey". I've seen quite a few apps that do not do so, leaving the end user in the dark about the authenticity of the data but giving the impression that it is all good.
@rover83?ÿ
The river has made some big moves of up to 2000'. Of course the adjoining property lines will move with accretion, but the apps show them fixed to the original lines...
The amusing part is they show private landowners owning the river while the state owns the pasture/crop lands. It's a total #$%%show. There seems to be no state relief for the landowners so now I'm out there.?ÿ
?ÿ
The gore is caused when one deed calls for the left bank and the other calls for the right bank, or an owner converts a goverment lot, or subdivision?ÿ lot into a metes description,or a deed calls to the "high bank" and the state owns to OHWM, ect....
If one deed calls for left and the other right bank, practical location would dictate that, depending on the state and whether the waterway is navigable or not, ownership would extend to the accepted ambulatory water boundary.
Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the grantor expressly wanted to retain a strip of land (and ambiguities are resolved in favor of the grantee anyways), calling out for a waterway natural monument means the actual water boundary, whether that's MHW, OHWL, center, thalweg, etc. in that particular state.
It's a rebuttable presumption, but absent any other evidence, I'm not going to create a cloud on title.
Which is exactly my point. This is one reason why what the deed says is often not authoritative.?ÿ
@rover83?ÿ
None of the river was ever patented, but, the river shifted into areas originally occupied as patented lands. Thus the confusion, this area really shows the limited ability of the GIS industry to make correct maps. Some of the worst GIS maps I've ever seen. At this extreme they really create actual hardships.?ÿ