I performing a survey which involves property back to the early 1800's.
A couple of descriptions call for bearings and distances to a the low water mark of the westerly bank of the Mahoning River.
For the most part everything looks good except one call.
The called for distance carries me to the west side of an island in the Mahoning River after crossing, what appears to be a possible reditching of the river.
This area is immediately downstream of a power plant which stood to a few years back and the dam(still there), appears to be the same dam called for in deeds pre-dating the power plant.
When I look at old maps, the stream looks different. If I scan the old maps and overlay them on top of the latest aerials, the islands(a string of them in a straight line), appear to have been part of the west bank of the river.
Problem is, I cannot find any valid documentation that supports the idea of the stream being moved. All the property was owned by one person, then by the power company. Splits took place later.
I'm fearful that since the entities owned both sides of the river(first a grist mill, then a water plant(?), then the power plant), that whoever did it(some time after 1874 or so to before 1938, that it was "just" done, with no documentation.
If it was the power plant, I'd just call Ohio Edison, but it really appears to me to predate O.E..
Any ideas?
Does historical data support avulsion or erosion?
If avulsion, I think you have already located the boundary. If erosion, you are going to have a fun one, from your initial description.
B-)
I don't really understand what you're trying to say. But, avulsive actions may be treated as erosive actions if human intervention is involved. I would also agree that the scrivner may not have known what the conditions were at the time. However, it is clearly the intent to convey a riparian parcel by your statements. So, I would have a problem with anything less than that, given that any interference with that right was caused by said human intervention. If that makes any sense.
Looking at the old maps is a good approach. I would also be looking up the county extension agent and inquiring about USDA aerial photos dating back to the 1930's. Some Ohio counties also have the photos in the county engineer's tax map office.
I think that you are going to have to try to reason out what happened to the river. Once that is done, the rest of the boundary issue is just an application of Gavit v. Chambers & Coats, 1828, as the Mahoning River is navigable.
...agree with aerial historical data...sounds like a good one...
Aerials for parts of southern Ohio are available back to about mid 1920's, but up here for some reason they only go back to 1938 . . . gee . . . that's almost 1940.
The river used(I think) wind south with a hard turn to the west at about 1200 feet.
An old map that shows the river(but it's not a map "of", the river), indicates the same thing.
All the more modern evidence shows a "newer"(?). main channel that is about straight as an arrow, cutting off the big bend that used to exist, which has now become a secondary channel.
The old maps show no islands, but now there are a series of long islands(3 islands about 40 feet wide and in total about 700-800 feet long in a straight line) that begin when I think the straightening begins and separates the straight main channel from the wandering secondary(old main?), channel.
It's at the end of the third island that deed calls for corner on the west bank of the river. Now that point appears to be the west bank of the secondary channel.
In any case, if the description is correct, there's a lot of mature growth(large trees), on the island, which, had the river slowly changed it's course probably wouldn't have had time to grow and mature(probably).
But, it's one thing to have a hunch, even with this evidence, and to state something for a fact.
Interestingly, there's also a "hole", left in the area between the two channels that do not fit into deeds, which might help explain how this condition arose. I'm trying to research into this "hole", so far with no luck.