The recent survey "that monumented the bank" would be correct. Monuments should go on the bank. They are marking closing corners, not the terminus of the boundaries. The closing line between corners that follows the bank is also a correct way to depict the useable upland for area calculations. The closing (meander) line doesn't represent the boundary. The middle of the creek is the boundary. It would be nice if the plat and the recent survey depicted the location of the creek bed and the boundary along the middle of the creek, but the law doesn't really require it (even though that's where legally it falls). Personally, I'd show the corners on the bank, show the connecting (meander) line along the bank in a dashed designation with bearings and distances, show the banks of the creek, and show the boundary running along the middle of the creek without dimensions. I'd also be calling the job done. No need for an attorney or courts. They don't determine boundary locations. Surveyors do.
From our state survey code
“Meander line” means a traverse approximately along the margin of a body of water. A
meander line provides data for computing areas and approximately locates the margin of the
body of water. A meander line does not ordinarily determine or fix boundaries
The course of each boundary line shown on the plat may be indicated by a direct
bearing reference or by an angle between the boundary line and an intersecting line having
a shown bearing, except when the boundary line has an irregular or constantly changing
course, as along a body of water, or when a description of the boundary line is better
achieved by measurements shown at points or intervals along a meander line or an offset
line having a shown course.
They hold to the Glover rule then explain the Deed is ambiguous which allows them to bring in the extrinsic evidence of the intent being the thread of the river.
The California courts will allow extrinsic evidence in just about all boundary cases. They usually say they are merely defining the exact location, not changing the Deed.
Yes, it's ridiculous. Clearly the government screwed up and accepted something less than they bargained for, or the contract was changed to a lesser easement because the government couldn't come up with what the grantor wanted for the more expansive easement. They didn't just allow extrinsic evidence to help interpret, they used the contract for sale in place of the actual contract. The description is not ambiguous and even adds language of the intent "walking easement". The only thing that saves it without legal fiction and screwing up all the other rules is if they would have used the rule that express exception is needed to retain lands under water. Crazy decision that I doubt would have gone that way if the government were not one of the parties.
