Texas gave the BLM permission to conduct a survey inside and along their boundaries no more than 5yrs ago.
When I read the notice, there was no mention of where the survey was and when I ask, all I received were blank expressions and nobody made a peep.
My first thought was that it would be between Louisiana and Texas because some recent findings that were presented and discussed during a seminar a few years ago brought up the fact that the three different surveys made on that boundary set monuments along 3 different lines and none of them were straight.
However, no survey had been conducted along that state line by the BLM.
The permit was apparently granted for the BLM to survey the upper Red River.
Had they understood the Supreme Court decision at that time, they would not have had reason to make a new survey.
Someone must have thought they would have found reason to change that court decision.
"Who Dat" I wonder...............
A Harris, post: 422511, member: 81 wrote: Texas gave the BLM permission to conduct a survey inside and along their boundaries no more than 5yrs ago.
When I read the notice, there was no mention of where the survey was and when I ask, all I received were blank expressions and nobody made a peep.
My first thought was that it would be between Louisiana and Texas because some recent findings that were presented and discussed during a seminar a few years ago brought up the fact that the three different surveys made on that boundary set monuments along 3 different lines and none of them were straight.
However, no survey had been conducted along that state line by the BLM.
The permit was apparently granted for the BLM to survey the upper Red River.
Had they understood the Supreme Court decision at that time, they would not have had reason to make a new survey.
Someone must have thought they would have found reason to change that court decision.
"Who Dat" I wonder...............
The survey I linked above commenced in 2002 and was completed in 2006 which, if memory serves me correctly, was entirely during former Texas Governor George W. Bush's administration.
All of the BLM field notes I have found hold the Stiles location.
paden cash, post: 422488, member: 20 wrote: To give you all some perspective as to the longevity of the Oklahoma-Texas-Red River boundary gnat-f%ck, here's an interesting article concerning the affair.
http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/drawing-the-line/
Note the commission mentioned in the article was put together by the Texas Governor at that time, George W. Bush. The article practically could have been written a month ago, but it is a twenty year old article. All this work and sweat and worry over an 1821 boundary that was penned as "the south bank of the Red River". You can thank the attorneys of record for the 196 year old dispute.
"..and the beat goes on...." as Sonny and his skinny wife once sang.
It would've been a lot better if the Supreme Court had "interpreted" the boundary to be the thread of the stream instead of the nebulous south bank.
Dave Karoly, post: 422517, member: 94 wrote: It would've been a lot better if the Supreme Court had "interpreted" the boundary to be the thread of the stream instead of the nebulous south bank.
That's where I get confused. Fee patents on the Oklahoma side have been interpreted (I believe) to only run south to the thread. I'm assuming the areas south of the thread to the gradient boundary are what the BLM considered "theirs".
I avoid working in the area because I don't know enough about it to make any sort of educated decisions...and I make no apologies for that.
paden cash, post: 422519, member: 20 wrote: That's where I get confused. Fee patents on the Oklahoma side have been interpreted (I believe) to only run south to the thread. I'm assuming the areas south of the thread to the gradient boundary are what the BLM considered "theirs".
I avoid working in the area because I don't know enough about it to make any sort of educated decisions...and I make no apologies for that.
The thread or "medial line" as they call it.
It seems to me the original lawsuit was in the late 19th century where the Court ruled the boundary is the south bank (Texas contended for the thread) but then nobody knew where the bank was so Stiles invented this gradient boundary.
I think you are right, the BLM Surveyors are just following instructions issued to them.
Wouldn't the simplest solution here be for Texas and Oklahoma to become one state? Then uncles Paden and Kent could become compadres; It"d also save a lot of bandwidth here on rpls, discussing which states' surveying practices are superior.
rfc, post: 422525, member: 8882 wrote: Wouldn't the simplest solution here be for Texas and Oklahoma to become one state? Then uncles Paden and Kent could become compadres; It"d also save a lot of bandwidth here on rpls, discussing which states' surveying practices are superior.
Kent and I are good compadres...(!?) My ability to tolerance Kent's apparent insolence was honed years ago when I owned a 17 year old Jack mule named Roosevelt. Any discussion with that animal required the use of a short piece of 2 x 4. Respectful disagreement can be an art....
If only Kent's opinions were limited to surveying practices.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Kent has admonished us all with his superior tastes in not only survey practice but also how we draw up our surveys, how we set our pins, what we drive, where we live, what we wear (remember when he bought that ridiculous straw hat he still wears?), what (and where) we eat, our libations and I even remember Kent being semi-boastful about what stinging insects inhabit the delusionally utopian desolation he calls West Texas...come to think of it, he has even been critical of other Texans for not being in his "correct" part of Texas.
Combining Oklahoma and Texas would only fuel Kent's keyboard oratory rants to an unheard of crescendo.
ps - I'm sure he'd disagree though....;)
paden cash, post: 422535, member: 20 wrote: Kent and I are good compadres...(!?) My ability to tolerance Kent's apparent insolence was honed years ago when I owned a 17 year old Jack mule named Roosevelt. Any discussion with that animal required the use of a short piece of 2 x 4. Respectful disagreement can be an art....
If only Kent's opinions were limited to surveying practices.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Kent has admonished us all with his superior tastes in not only survey practice but also how we draw up our surveys, how we set our pins, what we drive, where we live, what we wear (remember when he bought that ridiculous straw hat he still wears?), what (and where) we eat, our libations and I even remember Kent being semi-boastful about what stinging insects inhabit the delusionally utopian desolation he calls West Texas...come to think of it, he has even been critical of other Texans for not being in his "correct" part of Texas.
Combining Oklahoma and Texas would only fuel Kent's keyboard oratory rants to an unheard of crescendo.
ps - I'm sure he'd disagree though....;)
I doubt the Treaty had anything to do with land titles anyway.
The Louisiana purchase was not a land purchase, it was just the US purchasing a right to impose European style sovereignty and eventually land titles upon the land without interference from the French who presumably owned the rights before that. That's why it was so cheap. They simply divided up someone else's land then had to agree with the Spanish where the fuzzy boundaries of this right were located. Now people who have been around a few hundred years are upset that the successors of the original pirates are arguing over the origin of the common boundary of their "rights" (two hundred years is not much in comparison to the previous possessor's thousands of years, but they did not have a European style concept of sovereignty or land title). I think the Feds are representing the Native American's interest, maybe held in trust, not sure about that.
Dave Karoly, post: 422537, member: 94 wrote: I doubt the Treaty had anything to do with land titles anyway.
The Louisiana purchase was not a land purchase, it was just the US purchasing a right to impose European style sovereignty and eventually land titles upon the land without interference from the French who presumably owned the rights before that. That's why it was so cheap. They simply divided up someone else's land then had to agree with the Spanish where the fuzzy boundaries of this right were located. Now people who have been around a few hundred years are upset that the successors of the original pirates are arguing over the origin of the common boundary of their "rights" (two hundred years is not much in comparison to the previous possessor's thousands of years, but they did not have a European style concept of sovereignty or land title). I think the Feds are representing the Native American's interest, maybe held in trust, not sure about that.
The Red River bed was once an actual, albeit seasonal, navigable waterway. It still is today in places at certain times of the year. I believe from my distant memory of a schoolboy's required class of "Oklahoma History" the lands claimed by France included the riverbed of the Red in a probable effort to insure some sort of military (or naval) superiority. And you're right about the chain of title. Any 'patent' issued from the "States United" for lands north of the Red River are definitely not any sort of warranted deed. They more closely resemble a mere quit claim deed if anything.
Just a guess, I would think that the State of Oklahoma would rather Texas get the land as opposed to the Federal Government/BLM. Nobody in their right mind would prefer to be neighbors with the BLM.
James
JaRo, post: 422548, member: 292 wrote: Just a guess, I would think that the State of Oklahoma would rather Texas get the land as opposed to the Federal Government/BLM. Nobody in their right mind would prefer to be neighbors with the BLM.
James
I certainly wouldn't want to share an aliquot boundary with any Federal agency. A section line might be okay if the actual original monuments are there or at least marked with GLO brass caps. But to share a protracted line with them would be craziness, they didn't survey it in the first place then they want to be free to move them decades after someone else did but I understand this varies by State office with California being more likely to recognize an established boundary.
JaRo, post: 422548, member: 292 wrote: Nobody in their right mind would prefer to be neighbors with the BLM.
James
In the western states, anyone that owns a mining claim has Imperial Entanglements.
paden cash, post: 422542, member: 20 wrote: They more closely resemble a mere quit claim deed if anything.
With rare exception, Federally issued patents are quit claim deeds. At least that is the case with mineral lands patents.
73B C.J.S. Public Lands å¤ 41.Nature of disposal generally:
The disposition of lands owned by the federal government is a matter of the intention of the grantor.
The disposition of lands owned by the federal government is a matter of the intention of the grantor. 1 If the intention of the federal government is not shown, the government will be deemed to have assented that its conveyance should be construed according to the law of the state in which the land lies. 2 Nothing passes by implication, 3 and a public grant will be interpreted in favor of the grantor 4 unless the language of the grant is clear and explicit with respect to the property conveyed. 5
The government, in disposing of the public lands, is not to be classed with the ordinary purveyor of real estate. 6 The disposal is not a matter of sale, 7 but it is a matter of gift on condition pursuant to definite statutory requirements 8 creating a situation somewhat comparable to that of a donee under a parol gift of land under the Statute of Frauds. 9 It is not the policy of the government to enforce strictly the provisions of the land laws against settlers on the public domain where circumstances may make it difficult for such settlers to comply with the provisions. 10 The federal government is a party in interest in every case involving the disposal of public lands. 11
Primary disposal.
Primary disposal of lands of the United States is the disposal of them by the government when it parts with its title. 12 It is their disposal by the officers or agents of the government to some person qualified to acquire them. 13
Here it is, found it:
73B C.J.S. Public Lands å¤ 235.Nature and definition of patent:
A "patent" may be defined as a government conveyance transferring title to portions of the public domain, passing fee
simple title in the nature of a deed.
A "patent" is the conveyance by which the federal government passes its title to portions of the public domain 1 and is necessary
to accomplish a transfer of ownership from the United States. 2 As a general rule, a federal land patent conveys fee simple
ownership to the patentee 3 unless a property interest is specifically reserved in the patent or by a statute or regulation then in
effect. 4 It is equivalent to fee simple ownership, 5 and serves in the same capacity as a deed. 6 It is the highest evidence of
title, the most accredited type of conveyance, and the best and only perfect title. 7 A patent does not merely pass title, like a
deed, but operates as an official declaration of title 8 and is conclusive of title, 9 but while not subject to collateral attack, 10
it is subject to limited direct remedies. 11Federal land patents are effected by enactments that constitute laws as well as contracts. 12
Grant as patent.
A land grant is another name for a "patent," 13 the terms "grant" and "patent" being regarded as synonymous. 14
Here is an interesting article on the BLM and their ideas getting taken down a notch
http://fox13now.com/2017/03/27/trump-signs-bill-to-rollback-regulations-on-blms-planning-2-0/
JaRo, post: 422575, member: 292 wrote: Here is an interesting article on the BLM and their ideas getting taken down a notch
http://fox13now.com/2017/03/27/trump-signs-bill-to-rollback-regulations-on-blms-planning-2-0/
Article 1, Section 8; its way beyond time to enforce it
The aerial photos that Kent posted along the Red River struck me that it is a hybrid of two stream types, braided and meandering. Braided streams have large bedloads and are characterized by wide, shallow "channels". Because the channel is often choked by the bedload sediments, it frequently shifts position. The South Platte River in Colorado is classified as a braided river and sections of the Red River show similar morphology. I don't have any experience as a surveyor with riparian surveys because there are so few riparian boundaries in Colorado. It seems to me that it would be difficult under the best of circumstances to determine riparian boundaries for braided streams.
My interest in topics like this is mostly related to geology and the interactions between rivers and shallow aquifers. While looking for information on the use of remote sensing and stream morphologies related to riparian boundaries I ran across this Red River reference. Several folks here know Davey Edwards. He obtained a PhD in Geosciences from UT at Dallas last year and is a TX RPLS, LSLS; OK LPLS and CFedS. I found a preview of his dissertation online that others may find interesting. The preview stops on page 10. I wish that the preview would have included Figure 38, "GIS tool generated gradient boundary using available satellite imagery compared to respective terrestrial surveys".
http://search.proquest.com/openview/bc1ee12e05e0822e4f239c92294018b4/1.pdf?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y&apos ;">River channel monitoring of the Red River of the Texas and Oklahoma state boundary, U.S.A., using remote sensing techniques and the legal implications on riparian boundaries
Wendell also wrote this January 2016 article about his foundation, Surveyor Creates Foundation to Protect Red River Rights
I see that he is also a candidate for the Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office.
It would be nice to have someone in that position that actually understands the complexity of surveying and boundary law in Texas.
And knows about bogus theories.