Land was acquired in 1910 for a rail extension. This extension crossed the Colorado river. The tracts on either side of the river were described to a station along the centerline of the ROW being in the center of the river. My surveys will only be able to go to the gradient boundary on either side of the river.
What is going to be the correct way to show the railroad going over the river? I was going to show the record lines to the center of the river but have the gradient boundary as the edges of two tracts being on either side of the river. What info should I look for pertaining to possible implied easements over Public Lands?
I know I am going to be hammered with questions from law dogs about the issue. Any suggestions would be great, Thanks
> Land was acquired in 1910 for a rail extension. This extension crossed the Colorado river. The tracts on either side of the river were described to a station along the centerline of the ROW being in the center of the river. My surveys will only be able to go to the gradient boundary on either side of the river
Well, dig into the old statutes. Many of the railroad companies were granted rights-of-way across lands then owned by the State of Texas and that would include the river bed. Check the valuation map first to determine (a) what it discloses about the right-of-way across the river and (b) what the name of the railroad company was in 1910. Then search the early laws.
>
> Well, dig into the old statutes. Many of the railroad companies were granted rights-of-way across lands then owned by the State of Texas and that would include the river bed. Check the valuation map first to determine (a) what it discloses about the right-of-way across the river and (b) what the name of the railroad company was in 1910. Then search the early laws.
Thanks!
Im looking up all I can along those lines. No, luck so far. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry Co. ... Where could I find the Valuation map on line?
> Thanks!
> Im looking up all I can along those lines. No, luck so far. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry Co.
Well, for starters look at 7 Gammel's Laws of Texas 1302 for the statute dealing with the G.C.& S.F. Rwy. Co. enacted May 28, 1873. Section 10 of that act provides for the right-of-way across public lands such as the river bed as follows:
I had seen that one in the incorporation of the company but I was not sure. So let me get this out in one sentence...
Chapter 214 of the Laws of the State of Texas section 10
"Sec. 10. It shall be lawful for said company to enter upon, purchase, or otherwise receive, take, hold, or obtain, in the manner provided by the laws of this state, any lands necessary for the purpose of locating, constructing and maintaining said railway, with all needed depots, turnouts, sidings, extensions and buildings connected with said railway. When lands cannot be obtained by agreement, the land taken for this railway shall not exceed two hundred feet in width, un less for depots and buildings. Whenever said railway shall be constructed over any part of the public domain of this State, the right of way not exceeding two hundred feet along such portion of said line, and all necessary grounds for de pots, buildings, turn-tables, turnouts and side-tracks is here by granted to said company; and also the right to take from said public domain and use all rock, timber, earth, or other material thereon, necessary in the construction and maintenance of such portion of said railway."
so in layman terms, since the property I am working on is an extension of a railway line for GC&SF RY CO and this law exsist, they have the right to go thru public lands as needed and can acquire land as needed by agreement with the landowner or if the landowner is not in agreement then they can acquire a 200 ft wide ROW where needed by state law.
So in that light, the railroad does "own or have right to use" land in the river bed........... am I missing something?
> so in layman terms, since the property I am working on is an extension of a railway line for GC&SF RY CO and this law exsist, they have the right to go thru public lands as needed and can acquire land as needed by agreement with the landowner or if the landowner is not in agreement then they can acquire a 200 ft wide ROW where needed by state law.
Well, what that 1873 statute gave to the G.C.& S.F. Rwy. Co. was the power of eminent domain over private lands and certain easements across the public domain. If the G.C.& S.F. Rwy. Co. was the entity that constructed the track across the river, then as I read the law it granted a right-of-way to that company not to exceed 200 ft. in width across the public domain. The river bed was public domain, I believe, even if it had been appropriated for a specific purpose in 1910.
So tell the lawyers to research that as the source of the railroad company's title to an easement across the river. I doubt that the easement acquired in 1910 could be expanded to include other uses not contemplated by the original grant. In that case the folks at the GLO would be happy to tell you where to send the check to lease that part of the river bed.
Kent,
As always, You are a gentleman and a scholar. Thank you.
> You are a gentleman and a scholar. Thank you.
Well, one out of two ain't bad at all. :>
is the small bill not applicable here? where, exactly, on the river are we talking about?
does the original patent cross the river or go to the thread?
> does the original patent cross the river or go to the thread?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's very unlikely that any original land grants in Texas crossed the Colorado River with the exception of later grants to the City of Austin covering the bed and the surveys at the extreme upper end of the watershed above Coke County. Below Coke County, the GLO GIS shows land grants stopping at the river which almost certainly means it was treated as navigable.
ha, yeah, that's probably a safe bet. i just ran into a situation on brushy creek while working on the 130 project. seems like, if memory serves, that all but about 4 of the original grants treated it as a navigable waterway, including the parent tract of this particular parcel the state wanted for road. original severing deed called to north bank, a few subsequent conveyances honored the north bank, then a deed circa (roughly) 1918 all of a sudden calls to the center of the creek, which every subsequent conveyance held. neither adjoiner ever followed suit, nor did the "adjoiner" on the south bank.
i pointed this out (in my capacity at the time as an unregistered research rat) to the boss and ended up in many a meeting with various TTA and TxDOT surveyors (who shall remain nameless) and lawyers. their conclusion was that the owner had title to the center of brushy creek, regardless, under provisions of the small bill. what seems clear is that it was a move of expediency as opposed to (or maybe not opposed to, but certainly in lieu of) a proper examination of the issue. in the end i think they simply decided to fork over the cash for the extra 24,000 s.f. and save themselves the headache. really a drop in the bucket in the expenditures of that project, but i really still wish i'd gotten to see that hashed out in a vacuum devoid of financial consideration.
not long after that i pointed out a discrepancy in the long assumed (and held) r.o.w. width of IG&N out near manor. was basically told what the railroad wants the railroad gets- except once they saw the 1880s calls mapped out relative to contemporary conditions, the guys from the RR commission actually agreed and, as far as i know, several land owners through there have since been "given" their 25 and/or 50 feet of RR frontage back.