Does anyone have a good resource for riparian rights in complicated situations? Particularly apportionment along narrow canals (with seawalls) with sharp 90 degree bends. IIRC, the lots on the outside of the bend, where it’s not practical or possible to go perp from the seawall to CL of the canal, get a “pie shaped” piece from their property corner (on the seawall) to the PI of the CL of canal. I’d just like to have a reference to that in writing because I’m thinking there could be a problem.
CLARK on Surveying and Boundaries usually provides a good overview and start.
But it all depends on the state in the case of riparian rights and boundaries.
Does Paul T. O’Hargan offer any CEUs online these days? It's been 20 years since I attended any of his seminars...
Googled the words "O'Hargan" and "Riparian"...Didn't open it yet, but have a look here...
http://www.ormap.com/mapmanual/pdfs/10-Chapter_10.pdf
O'Hargan in OR? Might help??
> CLARK on Surveying and Boundaries usually provides a good overview and start.
>
> But it all depends on the state in the case of riparian rights and boundaries.
That's a good point - just which State are you in?
Here in Maine we have 4 different methods we can use, based on the situation, to determine the line.
It's a tough area - every time I delineate a riparian line I sweat a little, and I'm only a lowly LSIT. (Don't worry; the boss reviews and makes all the final boundary decisions.)
In your spare time you may want to research case law or state statute to see what methods other than perpendicular may have been adopted by your state. From what you are describing, it appears the perp. method is creating absurd results in this case.
Could you employ the Colonial Method? Proportionment? Extension? Would any of these create a common sense and equitable solution? Or, are you stuck with the perp. method?
I might still pick up the phone and call an in state colleague for advice.
> > CLARK on Surveying and Boundaries usually provides a good overview and start.
> >
> > But it all depends on the state in the case of riparian rights and boundaries.
>
> That's a good point - just which State are you in?
>
> Could you employ the Colonial Method? Proportionment? Extension? Would any of these create a common sense and equitable solution? Or, are you stuck with the perp. method?
>
> I might still pick up the phone and call an in state colleague for advice.
This is in Florida. And no, this is a situation where the perpendicular method would not make sense. There are several lots with water frontage crammed into the outside corner of a true 90 degree bend in the seawall (it's a dredge canal), so if everyone claimed perpendicular to seawall, there would be overlap. This is a situation where some kind of equitable apportionment is called for.
Here's a visual, my lot is labeled 0080 at the top:
I've found generalized documents from the Florida DEP, that pretty much show slicing it up like a pie, perpendicular to the “tread”, limits of channel, or limits of deep water, but in all cases it deals with sweeping curves rather than bends. It also shows “cove” situations where lines extend radial to a common point at the PI of the limits of the channel.
To me, this looks like a case where simply extending the property lines makes more sense, since all the sidelines around that bend look roughly radial to some common point in the canal.
Thing is, no matter how much you think about it, someone gets P.O.ed about the results. Either the guy I'm working for thinks he should able to build perpendicular across the whole frontage, or someone's dock is cutting off someone's view … been there, done that. That's why I was hoping to find a good document to back up my decision (which is going to be some kind of radial method).
> To me, this looks like a case where simply extending the property lines makes more sense, since all the sidelines around that bend look roughly radial to some common point in the canal.
FWIW, I'd probably go this "simple" route too.
I would think that the apportionment should be based on the ratio of the water frontage distance of a single property compared to the total water frontage. That's how it's done in Louisiana for acreted land.
> I would think that the apportionment should be based on the ratio of the water frontage distance of a single property compared to the total water frontage. That's how it's done in Louisiana for acreted land.
That sounds like a great method - common sense and equitable.
But is there a common law precedent or state statute for the use of this in Florida? I would not want to hang my hat on an out of state delineation, especially if there is the potential for angry clients/neighbors who may decide to go to court.
James A. Simpson has one of the best books regarding river and lake boundaries. www.citlink.net/~platkey/ "River and Lake Boundaries, Surveying Water Boundaries, a Manual"
It may depend on whether the 'canal' is part of a navigable river or whether it is just a canal. You may have to look at the documents that created the subdivision and what they say about the rights to the water or the rights to the land under the water.
Anyway Jim's book is a plus for anyone working on boundaries along waterways.
Jerry
> To me, this looks like a case where simply extending the property lines makes more sense, since all the sidelines around that bend look roughly radial to some common point in the canal.
The thing that I'd look at about extending the lot lines is whether all of the lots can still have boat docks. If one misses out, you might successfully argue that that the scheme that renders it without enough room for a dock is inequitable and should look to an alternate scheme that partitions the land in the canal differently.
The big advantage to extending the lot lines is that it isn't subject to much uncertainty and so makes a definite partition that any two surveyors would be expected to make essentially identically.
Definite boundaries = good. No boat dock = very bad.
This http://www.floridageomatics.com/flalaw/cases/hayes-bowman.htm& 2">case might help. In a nutshell, they used the perp method, but went on to state that there is no single geometric rule that can be applied to all situations:
"We therefore prescribe the rule that in any given case the riparian rights of an upland owner must be preserved over an area "as near an practicable" in the direction of the Channel so as to distribute equitably the submerged lands between the upland and the Channel. In making such "equitable distribution" the Court necessarily must give due consideration to the lay of the upland shore line, the direction of the Channel and the co-relative rights of adjoining upland owners."
After reading this case, in my opinion you should see what the extension method does for you in terms of equality. Also, from a practical location standpoint, are the adjoiners (lots 50 and 60) already using the extension method to place their piers?
Based upon the court case and the evidence on the ground, what method makes the most sense? I think you'll feel more comfortable with whatever decision you make once you answer that question.
There are some good general guidelines set out of the DEP, based on court decisions, but even they note that there is more than one theory that could apply in some situations. And, like a lot of things, my idea of what is equitable and reasonible may be different than someone else's idea.
Nice case. Thanks for posting.
Jerry
Was the dredge canal created by cutting through already existing uplands, or were the adjacent lands created through dredging, pumping, etc.?
I think that the timeline and method of the creation of the lots could be important.
I had just looked at that case, it was mentioned here, at the DEP's website:
http://data.labins.org/2003/SurveyData/WaterBoundary/tide/full_rr.pdf
Yes, they went perp. to the channel, rather than perp. to the seawall, when they were not pararrel. It does seem to support the idea of extending the property lines in this case, since they appear (more or less) to extend to a common point in the channel, and would give each lot a "slice of the pie" based on how much water frontage they own. Tomorrow I'm going to do the math on the plat, and see if the extensions of the lot lines really do meet at a common point.
BTW, that case rubs me the wrong way. The developer probably sold the lots on the end of "phase 1" as "unobstructed ocean view", then when he made his money there, dredged up another subdivision behind it with all new "unobstructed ocean view" lots...
Judging by the surrounding area, I'm fairly sure it was originally marshland. So, the canals were probably cut and used as fill to raise the marshland.
> I would think that the apportionment should be based on the ratio of the water frontage distance of a single property compared to the total water frontage. That's how it's done in Louisiana for acreted land.
Except in this case the question, as I understand it, is really how the lines extend past the water front and partition the canal into areas where boat docks can be floated. The land under the canal is only valuable to the extent that:
a) a boat dock of some integral number of bays can be maintained on it and
b) the dock has a natural-seeming relationship to the house, i.e. the house looks out to the dock.
Schemes for proportioning according to frontage have the potential to produce some really weird-looking shapes that aren't necessarily very suitable for use.
Treat the centerline of the canal (between platted lots, not between existing banks) as the thread of a stream. Equitably proportion the platted shoreline distances to the length of the centerline, recognizing that in most cases, the riparian owner can only exert their influence and dockage rights within the first 25% of the canal width nearest their property (that 25% should include ALL dolphin piles and boat lift accessories). The 25% of the canal width lying each side of the centerline must remain passable for boat traffic and maneuvering.
As for what constitutes the best solution when these things go to court, nothing is set in stone. I've seen rulings all over the field after the lawyers argue their sides and the judge is left to sort things out and strike the gavel. Only those that go to appeal and are decided upon at the apellate level become worthy precedent. I've also seen cascading lawsuits that work like dominoes where one guy in the corner or a cove has a problem, and next thing you know there are 5 docks and owners in the courtroom because the peaceful coexistence that has been going on for decades was disrupted by the last guy who decided to build a dock for his 50' yacht when he only has 12' of frontage.
Note the author of the riparian allocation white paper that FDEP distributes (he's a retired UF professor, use the DOACS license lookup to find him), and contact him for his current thoughts on riparian issues. You may be surprised what you find out.
Be aware that if lots 0060, 0080, and 0090 dredged and appropriately relocated their seawalls back at their platted lot lines rather than wasting their frontages with dirt, they'd actually acquire more space to park a boat. The guy on lot 0120, having let his shore go to waste, has acquired considerable additional potential docking space to park boats at the expense of wasting his upland property. If he were to dig up his entire lot, he could build a nice marina (he just wouldn't have any parking). I've seen cases where owners in the narrow corner like lot 0060 bulkheaded their neighbors yards, and dug directly into their own backyard to park their yachts stern to shore so the bow of their yacht fit in their pie shaped allocation.
While we're on the subject, I don't necessarily agree with the lot line extension methodology that appears to be happening between lots 0060 and 0080. It appears that 0060 is slowly cutting off 0080 from the water, and if this approach continues, 0080 will gradually have less water frontage every time the seawall is replaced. (because they always replace the seawall by putting it 1' waterward of the last one, encroaching further into the waterway with each successive replacement wall).
>Equitably proportion the platted shoreline distances to the length of the centerline, recognizing that in most cases, the riparian owner can only exert their influence and dockage rights within the first 25% of the canal width nearest their property (that 25% should include ALL dolphin piles and boat lift accessories). The 25% of the canal width lying each side of the centerline must remain passable for boat traffic and maneuvering.
If only the first 25% of the canal width is eligible for dock construction, it sounds as if any scheme of equitable proportionment ought to be done not on the centerline of the canal but on a line constructed at 25% of the canal width and the lines be extended from the lot corners through points on the porportioned fronts at that 25% width limit to the centerline. That is, if the submerged land in the middle half of the canal is of no private use, then there isn't any point in worrying about evenly distributing it.