Does anyone know of a court case (or cases) that involve riparian rights along lake shores. I specifically need anything that was adjudicated concerning erosion of the lake shoreline.
My scenario is that the City of Houston purchased land from 1945 through 1952 using the following typical description: Beginning at the intersection of the 45-foot contour line with the northerly line of the said 325 acre Jesse James tract, said point being located South 72 degrees 45 minutes East a distance of 13,045.67 feet from the northeasterly corner of the said Jesse James tract (the herein described tract being in conformity with the NAD of 1927 and the Texas Coordinate System, South Central Zone and the United States Engineer Vertical Control, 1936 Adjustment) said Point of Beginning having coordinate values as follows: N = 3,100,000.00 and E = 700,000.00.
Thence from said point of beginning and with the various meanders of the 45-foot contour, which contour will approximately putline the waters' edge of the proposed San Jacinto Reservoir when at normal pool level:
Bearing and distance 1,
Bearing and distance 2,
Bearing and distance 3,
Bearing and distance 4,
Bearing and distance 5 to a point at the intersection of the 45-foot contour line and the southerly boundary line of the aforesaid Jesse James tract...
It then departs the contour line and proceeds easterly to the San Jacinto channel (the San Jacinto was and is a navigable stream, by fact and law) and back to eventually close the parcel.
65 years later, the wave action and normal water activity have eroded the banks outwardly a distance of anywhere from 50 feet to 200 feet. All historical photographs have shown a gradual and very consistent change. I am not concerned about avulsion, just cases involving erosion of lake shorelines.
I just hope that some of y'all remember of a case off the tops of your heads. Thanks in advance.
JRC
The reservoir is a man-made feature whose ownership and delineation by definition can only encompass the contour meander line as it was engineered by the US Army Corps of Engineers or whoever designed the reservoir. Court established rules of delineating a naturally occuring riparian boundary cannot be followed with a man-made water feature if its boundary is defined by a countour line.
The countour line is the boundary regardless of the present elevation of the waterline and if the waterline has advanced beyond the defined meandering contour line and has surpassed whatever easement contour line was established, it can be assumed that the City must provide compensation to acquiesce the underlying bed of the new waterline from the adjoining land owner.
Now, as for the boundary that follows the bank of the San Jacinto River, then the usual suspects in case law should be followed and the gradient boundary established in order to delineate the riparian boundary. Those cases being Brainard, 12 S.W.3d, State v. Bradford, 50 S.W.2d 1065, 1069, Oklahoma v. Texas 260 U.S. 606, Hollan v. State 308, S.W.2d 122 and others
But, as for riparian boundaries affected by man-made changes, the Courts generally rule that man made features cause the state's intrest to be "frozen" in time and cannot impede the access, use and enjoyment of the riparian boundary at any given stage of the water line.
AS3
> Does anyone know of a court case (or cases) that involve riparian rights along lake shores. I specifically need anything that was adjudicated concerning erosion of the lake shoreline.
>
> My scenario is that the City of Houston purchased land from 1945 through 1952 using the following typical description: Beginning at the intersection of the 45-foot contour line with the northerly line of the said 325 acre Jesse James tract, said point being located South 72 degrees 45 minutes East a distance of 13,045.67 feet from the northeasterly corner of the said Jesse James tract (the herein described tract being in conformity with the NAD of 1927 and the Texas Coordinate System, South Central Zone and the United States Engineer Vertical Control, 1936 Adjustment) said Point of Beginning having coordinate values as follows: N = 3,100,000.00 and E = 700,000.00.
>
> Thence from said point of beginning and with the various meanders of the 45-foot contour, which contour will approximately putline the waters' edge of the proposed San Jacinto Reservoir when at normal pool level:
> Bearing and distance 1,
> Bearing and distance 2,
> Bearing and distance 3,
> Bearing and distance 4,
> Bearing and distance 5 to a point at the intersection of the 45-foot contour line and the southerly boundary line of the aforesaid Jesse James tract...
>
> It then departs the contour line and proceeds easterly to the San Jacinto channel (the San Jacinto was and is a navigable stream, by fact and law) and back to eventually close the parcel.
>
> 65 years later, the wave action and normal water activity have eroded the banks outwardly a distance of anywhere from 50 feet to 200 feet. All historical photographs have shown a gradual and very consistent change. I am not concerned about avulsion, just cases involving erosion of lake shorelines.
>
> I just hope that some of y'all remember of a case off the tops of your heads. Thanks in advance.
>
> JRC
The only thing that comes to mind quickly, is the streams status and population. After I think 40,000 people, either automatically or by request, the state transfers ownership of the river or stream to the municipal authority. The San Antonio River comes to mind.
As far as ownership goes, we have a lake here in the county where some of the corners are within the lake boundaries as the "take line" wasn't run very accurately and when the lake was inundated, the corners were in the water, thereby making private water ownership (which wasn't the intent). The original corners are still found (1/2" square steel rods 4' long). No case law to jump on, but if they took by the 45' contour line and corners were set at that line, then I would think that replacing where the corners were, and not the contour line, is where the lines should be, and sounds like they will be within the water.
I agree with Adam.
No case law, but the way that description was written seems to place the lines as described the stable and intended boundary, the waters edge only a footnote. A claim that the intent was to define a stable line unaffected by the action of the water could be made from the writings in my opinion, granted usually the ownership lines would move over time, but the description, as written, may limit that from taking place. Sorry for putting my 2 cents in, but I would like to see some remarks about that descriptions interpretation by others.
jud
I've done several of these in Louisiana along navigable waterways. All it takes is evidence from old aerial photography that is plotted by a Photogrammetrist to show erosion from prop wash, etc. to acquire a permit to bulkhead from the Corps of Engineers. The "original" shoreline as shown on aerial photography is physical proof.
However, it would seem that only a portion of the boundary is along the natural riparian boundary of the navigable stream, and that portion was directly affected by the whatever man-made feature created the reservoir, if this is the case, erosion may have been caused unaturally and the riparian boundary may not follow the rules of gradient boundary. If so, eminent domain must be followed and the adjoining land owner compensated.
AS3
UNBELIEVABLE!
😀
I have been reviewing some case law with regard to dams and downstream bed widths. Not necessarily what you are looking for, but I found the following article very interesting with regard to dam affects on gradient boundary. Apparently, Ben Thomson is the last of the Big River Surveyors in the State of Texas. Very enlightening article for Texas Surveyors.
A brief commentary on the abuse of sovereign immunity by the State of Texas along Texas rivers
Kent McMillan guided me in the direction of the Canadian River issues. Thanks.
Coastal Industrial Water Authority v. York 532 S.W. 2d 949,951-52 (Tex. 1976) Deals with subsidence and that gradual subsidence of the land surface is not an ordinary hazard. Being in Houston, wouldn't your lake involve subsidence as much as wave action, if not more?
Brainard summarized its holding in York saying "a riparian owner does not lose tiel to submerged land resulting from the effects of subsidence caused by the activities of cities and industries over which the riparian owner has no control".
Supporting the 'man-made' theory:
Barakis v. American Cyanamide Co.
The Barakis tracts, at least in substantial part, are "man made" soil; portions of the tracts did not exist prior to the year 1954. Neither the land nor the river channel are the same today as they were at the time of the patent from the sovereign. The channel of the Trinity River was changed, not by accretion, but by the efforts of the Tarrant County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1. The land conveyed by the deeds to the District could only have been up to the bank of the river, as it was then constituted. If the course of the river had been changed by accretion, which is a slow, gradual building up of the land by the gradual deposit, by the river of a solid material, 44 Tex. Jur. 96, then the boundary lines would have changed with the bank of the river. However, where the change is by avulsion, which is a sudden and perceptible loss or addition to land by the action of water or otherwise, 44 Tex.Jur. 98, then the boundary line remains fixed as originally settled and does not change with the course of the river.
Thus, the land built up artificially by the Water District comes under the doctrine of avulsion, and cannot be added to the land as originally constituted, and such change in the channel works no change in the boundary line of the premises. The map, photographs and testimony show that some of plaintiff's agricultural tracts cannot be riparian lands; those "man made" acres along the "man made" river channel, and those acres separated from the artificially constructed channel by the artificially made land, lost their riparian characteristics. There was no vested and no riparian right to irrigate those acres.
Re: American Cyanamid, I got to survey that tract about 11 years ago. I think it ended up being a superfund site and the soil contaminated with heavy metals was scooped up and buried on the site.
Adam
Just because I don't agree with you on anything political doesn't mean that I don't think you know your stuff as a surveyor. Within the context of this thread, I have no problems agreeing with your synopsis.
That was a very interesting read.
The only thing that I can derive from this article is that CB Thomson
is one arrogant son-of-a-gun and should be held in contempt of the
Supreme Court of Texas because the State ruled against him and his
land office in the Canadian River case. He (the State) continued to blackmail
the oil companies having mineral interests by accepting royalties
in the Canadian River valley after the court ruling said the riparian
owners owned to the new bank because of the gradual reliction.
Is Kent buddies with Thomson?
Jack
Not being picky though it might seem so.
Riparian along the San Jacinto is correct but not along any lake, natural or man made.
Expand your search to include Littoral rights also.
It looks like you have already gotten some good info on Riparian.
SJ
> The only thing that I can derive from this article is that CB Thomson
> is one arrogant son-of-a-gun and should be held in contempt of the
> Supreme Court of Texas because the State ruled against him and his
> land office in the Canadian River case. He (the State) continued to blackmail
> the oil companies having mineral interests by accepting royalties
> in the Canadian River valley after the court ruling said the riparian
> owners owned to the new bank because of the gradual reliction.
I got the same impression.
> Is Kent buddies with Thomson?
I don't want to speak for Kent, but I can't imagine that's possible.
Jack
Here's a Google Scholar search of "littoral" for Texas court cases.
Google Scholar Littoral Texas Court Cases
I read this one, and while it's not exactly germane to your case, it does quote and cite a gaggle of littoral case law.
Cummins v. Lake Travis Water District (or something like that)
