No doubt about that.
A Harris, post: 422491, member: 81 wrote: From what I have read and from what I have been shown and told thru the years, the Decision by the Supreme Court was a lasting decision that set the boundary to where Stiles originally placed the gradient boundary as a result of his survey.
Actually, what the US Supreme Court did was to decide how the South bank of the Red River was to be determined, but in a way that would require a survey to give the language effect. Stiles and Kidder were the Commissioners chosen to actually put the line on the ground under the supervision of Associate Justice Willis Van Devanter as Special Master. Stiles own memoranda indicate that he and Kidder could not agree as to where a line located mid-height between the level of the river at normal or ordinary stage and where it first overtopped the banks in flood should actually be placed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_Van_Devanter
In other words, the gradient boundary was merely an attempt to put the language of the Supreme Court into effect and Stiles successfully presented his own method to the Special Master who approved it for the purposes at issue, i.e. determining whether some really good oil wells along a large bend in the Red River were in Texas or not.
So in Texas the bank is the boundary and not the water. So Texas is not trying to claim a low water mark? Seems that way to me.
The bank is the boundary, the boundary is the bank.
Stiles says that his gradient bank could be up to a mile away from the flowing river, and it was.
J Tanner, post: 422889, member: 7358 wrote: So in Texas the bank is the boundary and not the water. So Texas is not trying to claim a low water mark? Seems that way to me.
The bank is the boundary, the boundary is the bank...
Seems pretty definitive to this Okie. I can't understand why Texas started suing Oklahoma over 100 years ago...look where it got them. Texas should've tried and sued the river.
Something I've always wondered though...how loud would Texas have squealed if an Okie had come up with that silly "gradient method"? hmmmm?
paden cash, post: 422925, member: 20 wrote: Seems pretty definitive to this Okie. I can't understand why Texas started suing Oklahoma over 100 years ago...look where it got them. Texas should've tried and sued the river.
Something I've always wondered though...how loud would Texas have squealed if an Okie had come up with that silly "gradient method"? hmmmm?
I think you've been sleeping through the movie if you've missed the fact that them Okies was claimin' the bluff bank was the 1821 treaty boundary and that all them ole wells was in Okieland, not Texas.
While "the bank" may seem definite, on a reach of the river where there is no cut bank, the question is how to determine the location of a line that was fixed at "the bank". The Supreme Court split the difference between the level of the river at "normal" flow and the level of the river when rising it first overtops the bank in flood. Midway between those two heights was "the bank" as contemplated in 1821.
Finding evidence to support some particular stage of the river being that when the river first overtops its banks in flood involved identifying the physical evidence such as silt deposition, upland vegetation, and back drains along the river banks.
Kent McMillan, post: 423002, member: 3 wrote: I think you've been sleeping through the movie if you've missed the fact that them Okies was claimin' the bluff bank was the 1821 treaty boundary and that all them ole wells was in Okieland, not Texas..
Yes, I do sleep through a lot of movies. Apparently claiming ownership of the oil field has been a standard exercise for folks on both sides of the river since they discovered the land held some value. And I apologize for what might appear as a disinterest in the subject. Years ago I paid money to sit through an 8 hour seminar (the lunch was lousy) on the subject. I fell asleep back then and the habit has stuck with me ever since.
Actually I'm surprised Mexico hasn't thrown their hat in the ring asserting some sort of claim.
ps -how's Jasper?
Normal or substantial flow?
paden cash, post: 423003, member: 20 wrote: ps -how's Jasper?
Jasper tells me that he's doing fine, but would be better if there were more sticks in the yard.
I explained the gradient boundary theory to him and, intelligent dog that he is, he asked whether this meant that most of the sticks between the bluff bank of the Red River and the wet bank of the river were Texas sticks.
J Tanner, post: 423008, member: 7358 wrote: Normal or substantial flow?
Here's the exact language of the decree of the Supreme Court that described how the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma was to be determined:
That part of the Red River looks to me like it is just a big sand bed that gets varying threads of water in it, with no permanent channel anywhere. A wiggly thing like that will never stay still long enough to keep anyone happy. Whoever seems to gain with one position will be happy, but unhappiness will occur with land loss. With so much variability in channel width and location, does the river have a uniform gradient when it is not somewhat flooded? Seems like that thing is like trying to use a long string on a windy day as the boundary. Maybe each state should set boundary on highest high bank and the bed would become a very wide DMZ thread.
Frank Willis, post: 423068, member: 472 wrote: That part of the Red River looks to me like it is just a big sand bed that gets varying threads of water in it, with no permanent channel anywhere.
It is a meandering stream, without a doubt. The channel between the cut banks wanders more or less constantly. This should worry any Texan who might find himself in Oklahoma after the next rain. The real subject of the lawsuit between Okieland and Texas was exactly where some oil wells drilled near the river (and that weren't meandering anywhere) were situated with respect to the limits of the rights that the grasping Okies might assert along one particular reach of river where the oil revenue involved meant that everything got held under the microscope.
In my opinion, the most interesting issue dealt with whether avulsions had occurred in specific areas. That was where most of the expert testimony was directed, I believe. Texas produced experts on geology and plant ecology to explain why what the Okies claimed were avulsions were not.
BLM Manual talks about trees used as evidence to indicate an avulsion took place, but they do not dictate or preclude it. I wonder if they took excerpts from BLM Manual about that and tried to use (mis-use) it.
Frank Willis, post: 423071, member: 472 wrote: BLM Manual talks about trees used as evidence to indicate an avulsion took place, but they do not dictate or preclude it. I wonder if they took excerpts from BLM Manual about that and tried to use (mis-use) it.
In this case, the experts were actual scientists who were asked to investigate the physical evidence that indicated whether or not a channel had existed in 1821, the operative date of the treaty that fixed the boundary between Texas and what was to become Okieland. Their reports were published by the Bureau of Economic Geology of the University of Texas and extended well beyond the obvious lack of mobile home foundations that would indicate that the land had anciently been part of Okieland.
Frank Willis, post: 423071, member: 472 wrote: BLM Manual talks about trees used as evidence to indicate an avulsion took place, but they do not dictate or preclude it. I wonder if they took excerpts from BLM Manual about that and tried to use (mis-use) it.
Oklahoma Volume 242, Page 495, 500 (Page 4), Dependent Resurvey in Township 4 South, Range 14 West, Indian Meridian:
"On January 14, 2005, the Cadastral Survey Team of the New Mexico State Office prepared a "REPORT ON THE BOUNDARY ISSUES ALONG THE RED RIVER IN RANGES 12 THROUGH 15 WEST, OF THE INDIAN MERIDIAN, IN THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA", which provided numerous Supreme Court cites and outlined the surveying methodology that would be used on that stretch of the Red River."
Admittedly though, if the article is regarding the Red River at US79 then that is Range 9 West and appears to be controlled by a US District Court Judgment circa 1980 which rules the "Wheat Field Bank" is the boundary, no mention being made of the gradient boundary. The Wheat Field Bank is the bank on the river side of a wheat field on the Texas side; it is not the most riverward bank being about a mile from the flowing River.
Dave Karoly, post: 423097, member: 94 wrote: Oklahoma Volume 242, Page 495, 500 (Page 4), Dependent Resurvey in Township 4 South, Range 14 West, Indian Meridian:
"On January 14, 2005, the Cadastral Survey Team of the New Mexico State Office prepared a "REPORT ON THE BOUNDARY ISSUES ALONG THE RED RIVER IN RANGES 12 THROUGH 15 WEST, OF THE INDIAN MERIDIAN, IN THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA", which provided numerous Supreme Court cites and outlined the surveying methodology that would be used on that stretch of the Red River."Admittedly though, if the article is regarding the Red River at US79 then that is Range 9 West and appears to be controlled by a US District Court Judgment circa 1980 which rules the "Wheat Field Bank" is the boundary, no mention being made of the gradient boundary. The Wheat Field Bank is the bank on the river side of a wheat field on the Texas side; it is not the most riverward bank being about a mile from the flowing River.
Here's a link to the decision in that 1981 case, James v. Langford (558 F.Supp. 737). The central question in that matter was whether an avulsion had taken place in 1908 that shifted the channel of the Red River well away from the prior boundary bank or whether the change had been by erosion. A 100-year-old elm tree was part of the evidence showing an avulsive change. The gradient boundary didn't figure into the matter because the original boundary bank was a high, nearly vertical bank and the court held that an avulsion had moved the boundary from that bank.
http://www.leagle.com/decision/19811295558FSupp737_11154/JAMES v. LANGFORD
Kent McMillan, post: 423102, member: 3 wrote: Here's a link to the decision in that 1981 case, James v. Langford (558 F.Supp. 737). The central question in that matter was whether an avulsion had taken place in 1908 that shifted the channel of the Red River well away from the prior boundary bank or whether the change had been by erosion. A 100-year-old elm tree was part of the evidence showing an avulsive change. The gradient boundary didn't figure into the matter because the original boundary bank was a high, nearly vertical bank and the court held that an avulsion had moved the boundary from that bank.
http://www.leagle.com/decision/19811295558FSupp737_11154/JAMES v. LANGFORD
That is an interesting decision. The Court found the highway prevented the river from returning to its original channel near the so-called Wheat Field Bank. The Court doesn't do a very adequate job of describing exactly where the Wheat Field Bank is located.
Kent McMillan, post: 423102, member: 3 wrote: Here's a link to the decision in that 1981 case, James v. Langford (558 F.Supp. 737). The central question in that matter was whether an avulsion had taken place in 1908 that shifted the channel of the Red River well away from the prior boundary bank or whether the change had been by erosion. A 100-year-old elm tree was part of the evidence showing an avulsive change. The gradient boundary didn't figure into the matter because the original boundary bank was a high, nearly vertical bank and the court held that an avulsion had moved the boundary from that bank.
http://www.leagle.com/decision/19811295558FSupp737_11154/JAMES v. LANGFORD
is this the wheat field bank?
@34.1297006,-98.1065432,3a,75y,152.16h,61.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLIrkH4i1dilKDzt6F6tYJg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1"> https://www.google.com/maps/ @34.1297006,-98.1065432,3a,75y,152.16h,61.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLIrkH4i1dilKDzt6F6tYJg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Dave Karoly, post: 423167, member: 94 wrote: is this the wheat field bank?
@34.1297006,-98.1065432,3a,75y,152.16h,61.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLIrkH4i1dilKDzt6F6tYJg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1"> https://www.google.com/maps/ @34.1297006,-98.1065432,3a,75y,152.16h,61.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLIrkH4i1dilKDzt6F6tYJg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
I'm going to guess that this is the continuation of the Wheat Field Bank:
@34.1288418,-98.1110632,3a,75y,170.89h,85.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sW5oxsNAC6PSML3fuar7Ptg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DW5oxsNAC6PSML3fuar7Ptg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D346.37567%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656"> https://www.google.com/maps/ @34.1288418,-98.1110632,3a,75y,170.89h,85.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sW5oxsNAC6PSML3fuar7Ptg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DW5oxsNAC6PSML3fuar7Ptg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D346.37567%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
Kent McMillan, post: 423171, member: 3 wrote: I'm going to guess that this is the continuation of the Wheat Field Bank:
@34.1288418,-98.1110632,3a,75y,170.89h,85.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sW5oxsNAC6PSML3fuar7Ptg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DW5oxsNAC6PSML3fuar7Ptg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D346.37567%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656'"> https://www.google.com/maps/ @34.1288418,-98.1110632,3a,75y,170.89h,85.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sW5oxsNAC6PSML3fuar7Ptg!2e0!6s//geo1.ggpht.com/cbk?panoid=W5oxsNAC6PSML3fuar7Ptg&output=thumbnail&cb_client=maps_sv.tactile.gps&thumb=2&w=203&h=100&yaw=346.37567&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i13312!8i6656
Look at this:
@34.1287385,-98.1115756,3a,70.6y,307.74h,68.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEFEsruq4iE5m6bI2BSdcqA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656"> https://www.google.com/maps/ @34.1287385,-98.1115756,3a,70.6y,307.74h,68.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEFEsruq4iE5m6bI2BSdcqA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Dave Karoly, post: 423174, member: 94 wrote: Look at this:
@34.1287385,-98.1115756,3a,70.6y,307.74h,68.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEFEsruq4iE5m6bI2BSdcqA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656"> https://www.google.com/maps/ @34.1287385,-98.1115756,3a,70.6y,307.74h,68.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEFEsruq4iE5m6bI2BSdcqA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Yes, I saw that. I trust you noticed that the "Welcome to Oklahoma" for travellers headed in the opposite direction was in the form of an advertisement for a church.
