Considered by the state, by law.

Finn, I agree with your last paragraph because it does follow the statute for navigable streams. I see that scenario being accurate when you consider that the stream averages 30 feet in width.

You can have a navigable stream that has areas where it's only 10' wide for several hundred feet, but due to the overall length of the stream being greater, the narrow area is still considered navigable by statute.

I must admit, good points and questions have been presented in this thread and it's been a pleasure to be a part of the discussion.

quote:

---

Considered by the state, by law.

---

With all due respect, that's just your opinion. I was actually inquiring of Finn, as his post was the source of my post/question. What some are trying to discern is the basis for that same opinion (or consideration) by the State/Law. I'd like to know the specific wording in the particular statute that provides the legal foundation for this "consideration".

Citing a publication produced by a state (beauracratic) agency as if it had the force of law (assuming that's what your intent was Deats); well, that dog won't hunt!

^

Well it's not just my opinion, man... And is the Texas legislature some bureaucratic agency?

Current Statutes

Natural Resources Code 21.001. Definitions.

In this chapter ...
(3) "Navigable stream" means a stream which retains an average width of 30 feet from the mouth up.

The statute mentioned in Ursus post and the kayak post, if you bothered to read either. Does that dog hunt?

Link if you want it

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/NR/htm/NR.21.htm#21.001

Doc... In layman's terms what does this mean?

quote:

---

shall front one-half of the square on the stream with the line running at right angles with the general course of the stream

---

What are you surveying.....the bed or the water? Either would seem to be somewhat of a political football to me especially water. If I look at the various dams on Johnson Fork from GE you tend to lose water above them. If a survey date was set for August and the private dam owners dropped the weirs etc it would be a totally different result compared to one done in the spring with every thing in it's current state.

sunchaser, I would need to see the entire statement in order to understand what is being referred to in that quote.

When surveying the boundary of a navigable stream, it is a combination of the bed and the water. The gradient boundary (line separating public/private ownership) is determined as a half way point between the bed of the stream and the point where water will run over the lowest qualified bank and run in a separate "swale" to a point downstream. I don't know if that clears it up, but that is how the gradient boundary is located.

Just as a side note: When the Gradient Boundary is determined, it is only good for that day. It constantly changes.

A long time ago I was in a group of about 4 engineers.....none of which were future civil engineers. We were in some CE course. We had old steel tapes, transits and surveyor poles and our project was to map the civil engineering field. We had about a month to complete and it seemed we had a data point in every square yard. We thought we were going to get a really good grade. Rightttt.

I think the only thing I learned was how to fold the tape.

quote:

---

Sec. 21.012. SURVEYS ON NAVIGABLE STREAMS. (a) If the circumstances of the lines previously surveyed under the law will permit, land surveyed for individuals, lying on a navigable stream, shall front one-half of the square on the stream with the line running at right angles with the general course of the stream.(b) A navigable stream may not be crossed by the lines of a survey.Acts 1977, 65th Leg., p. 2355, ch. 871, art. I, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1977.Sec. 21.013. SURVEYS NOT ON A NAVIGABLE STREAM. Surveys that are not made on navigable streams shall be in a square as far as lines previously surveyed will permit.Acts 1977, 65th Leg., p. 2355, ch. 871, art. I, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1977.Sec. 21.014. SURVEY FOR DIVISION LINE. (a) Before running a division line between two settlers or occupants claiming land, the surveyor shall give written notice to the interested parties.(b) A survey made contrary to the true intent and meaning of this section is invalid.Acts 1977, 65th Leg., p. 2356, ch. 871, art. I, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1977.

---

This is an interesting discussion. OP have you contacted the local sheriff for his input? That would be my #1 step.

I ran into a similar situation in the marshes south of New Orleans when I lived in Louisiana, so at least take comfort in knowing Texas is not alone in unclear authority on waterways.

You can apparently own the water in that state and the vanishing wetlands adds to the confusion. The local game warden basically told me that they will not even mess with it and will call the local sheriff 100% of the time if contacted. I talked to the sheriff and they basically said if there aren't posted signs then feel free to hunt and fish, but if a landowner asks you to leave you likely should as the sheriff will side with the local landowner 99 out of 100 times. The local courts will side with the landowner as well, so unless you want a lengthy court battle in higher courts then just leave.

In three years down there, I only was ran off once by an unruly cajun and got some really good duck hunting in the interim.

I think the same situation would apply in Texas. Go ahead and fish if you honestly think it is public, but if asked to leave do so. If asked to leave then contact the sheriff the next day to get a ruling on how they would handle the specific issue if pressed and get a name and phone number to call if the Sheriff/Game Warden says you are good to fish there.

The few times you get asked to leave and even rarer times you actually see a sheriff come out makes it worth the effort to fish there in my opinion. My guess is the vast majority of the time if you keep to yourself nobody will mess with you or even know you are there. But in the few times when the issue is pressed, just know that the landowner and sheriff will win 90% of the time unless you are willing to press the issue in higher court and are willing to get arrested or get a citation for it.

Bottomline: I would go fish there, but if asked to leave do so and call the sheriff for clarification/permission and default to what the sheriff says.

I thought that might be what the quote was referring to.

In laymans terms, what is going on is when land was originally granted, the state wanted to make sure everyone had pretty much equal lengths of ownership along navigable streams, according to the size of the grant.

If you had 640 acres granted, you would get approximately 1/2 mile of frontage along the river. 320 acres you would get 1/4 mile frontage, etc. The larger the grant, the more river frontage you would receive.

If you are able to get a copy of one of the Official County Maps from the GLO, you would see, with navigable streams, the grant lines were established as perpendicular to the streams as humanly possible, as stated in your quote.

quote:

---

This is an interesting discussion. OP have you contacted the local sheriff for his input? That would be my #1 step

---

No, since it's not my place, I don't feel it's my place to make that call. If it were my family's spot that would likely be my #2 step after asking permission like many have suggested.

quote:

---

This is an interesting discussion. OP have you contacted the local sheriff for his input? That would be my #1 step.

I ran into a similar situation in the marshes south of New Orleans when I lived in Louisiana, so at least take comfort in knowing Texas is not alone in unclear authority on waterways.

You can apparently own the water in that state and the vanishing wetlands adds to the confusion. The local game warden basically told me that they will not even mess with it and will call the local sheriff 100% of the time if contacted. I talked to the sheriff and they basically said if there aren't posted signs then feel free to hunt and fish, but if a landowner asks you to leave you likely should as the sheriff will side with the local landowner 99 out of 100 times. The local courts will side with the landowner as well, so unless you want a lengthy court battle in higher courts then just leave.

In three years down there, I only was ran off once by an unruly cajun and got some really good duck hunting in the interim.

I think the same situation would apply in Texas. Go ahead and fish if you honestly think it is public, but if asked to leave do so. If asked to leave then contact the sheriff the next day to get a ruling on how they would handle the specific issue if pressed and get a name and phone number to call if the Sheriff/Game Warden says you are good to fish there.

The few times you get asked to leave and even rarer times you actually see a sheriff come out makes it worth the effort to fish there in my opinion. My guess is the vast majority of the time if you keep to yourself nobody will mess with you or even know you are there. But in the few times when the issue is pressed, just know that the landowner and sheriff will win 90% of the time unless you are willing to press the issue in higher court and are willing to get arrested or get a citation for it.

Bottomline: I would go fish there, but if asked to leave do so and call the sheriff for clarification/permission and default to what the sheriff says.

---

Yeah, that South Louisiana issue is a very sticky one. The landowners are claiming that acts of God (i.e.- erosion & subsidence) does not mitigate their private property rights so that you might be in 4 foot of water in the marsh which was dry land 10 years ago- an area you accessed via public water- could be trespassing.

Louisiana's trespass laws lock anglers out of most coastal marshes

Thanks Finn, that was a good article.

The slippery slope with most these landowners (in both Texas and louisiana) is they really don't want this challenged in courts and especially in the court of public opinion.

Where it gets even worse in LA is the fact that millions, if not billions, of public dollars are being spent to restore what's being claimed as private property.

I fish Grand Isle/Fourchon regularly and you drive right by several of these areas considered by some to be private.

This debate is a microcosm of the ever increasing tension existing between private property owners and "the public" wanting to experience the outdoors and natural resources. Featured are the more daring among us bent on pushing the envelope of what is acceptable, if not legal. Citing both case law and statutory law, they justify their behavior that incurs the wrath of property owners, disregarding their claims of trespassing as rooted in ignorance of those same laws.

The point insisted upon by some is that the statutory law is is but a guidebook for reasonable people to utilize as an instrument to coexist. But when push comes to shove, and people cannot agree on the intent of the law, in their particular case, the court is the place of final resolution, but only for THAT situation! The only benefit of academic pursuits such as this are if/when they result in a consensus being formed which discourage folks from the costly and lengthy process of a lawsuit.

A similar controversial and misunderstood subject for debate is that of whitetail deer and other species which are technically owned or held in trust for "the people of Texas" rather than the land owners where they co-exist. Yet, just like the water existing on that same property, "the public" must gain permission to access the deer, turkey, etc.

It's simply human nature for some to deliberately push that envelope (as some have bragged about doing on this thread). Likewise, it should come as no surprise (to those same zealots) that the resistance they receive has the benefit of multi-generational experience in dealing with them and their predecessors. Perhaps they're not quite the rebels they see themselves as.

quote:

---

The slippery slope with most these landowners (in both Texas and louisiana) is they really don't want this challenged in courts and especially in the court of public opinion.

---

With the passage of time, and as the urbanization of this country increases, public opinion becomes less sympathetic with that of their rural cousins. Hope you don't see that as a good thing.


Edit for spacing

In part BG is saying that while we understand that you city folks would like to get out in nature every now and then, we live here, and would just as soon you not be messin our stuff up...

quote:

---

With the passage of time, and as the urbanization of this country increases, public opinion becomes less sympathetic with that of their rural cousins. Hope you don't see that as a good thing.

---

I see public waterways remaining open to the public a good thing. This isn't an urbanization or rural arguement, although if it was the rich greedy landowner that wants to restrict all access would be more aligned with the city folk than the neighborly rural mindset.

Public waterways remaining open to the public is not being debated.

The debate is over what IS public.

Why focus on greedy landowner's? Can you identify them in this discussion? How about the greedy public? You don't seem to recognize their existence. Or did I misread you?

How many times we gonna chase our tails?

If the law were as clear as you suggest, there'd be much less need for your services now, wouldn't there?

Surely we can agree THAT would be a good thing!

quote:

---

Public waterways remaining open to the public is not being debated.

The debate is over what IS public.

Why focus on greedy landowner's? Can you identify them in this discussion? How about the greedy public? You don't seem to recognize their existence. Or did I misread you?

---

I think you misread me. I guess the same can be said as to why your are focusing on the irresponsible/greedy public though. Most hunters and fishermen, which is what is being debated are not purposefully trespassing. They are entering what they believe to be public waterways based on the laws of the state, just as the OP did.

It has pretty much been determined that there is no right answer (only strong opinions) on the vast majority of these cases. I don't blame the landowner for wanting to keep people off what he believes to be his own and I don't blame outdoorsmen for entering waterways they believe to be public if the state fails to give a clear ruling on either.

The status quo, will exist and there will be very few citations issued for this gray area though, so for a landowner to claim absolute ownership is a losing cause.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

With the passage of time, and as the urbanization of this country increases, public opinion becomes less sympathetic with that of their rural cousins. Hope you don't see that as a good thing.

---

I see public waterways remaining open to the public a good thing. This isn't an urbanization or rural arguement, although if it was the rich greedy landowner that wants to restrict all access would be more aligned with the city folk than the neighborly rural mindset.

---

Agreed that the public use of a public resource is a good thing. However, it must be done in a reasonable and responsible manner. It is imparitive for the outdoorsman to know their rights and limitations. Disrepecting private property rights or trespassing is just as bad and as harmful as landowner's trying keep the public from using public waterways.

---

How do you respond to the (hypothetical) 5th generation landowner who claims his land grant or century old deed includes the entirety of a stream bed, and whose forefathers constructed dams to impound water for livestock long before the existence of state agencies which now pretend to regulate their long standing use of said stream in the middle of their ranch? Put yourself into his boots as he contends with the threat imposed by someone who suddenly views his ranch pond as public property. The liability issues alone are significant.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

With the passage of time, and as the urbanization of this country increases, public opinion becomes less sympathetic with that of their rural cousins. Hope you don't see that as a good thing.

---

I see public waterways remaining open to the public a good thing. This isn't an urbanization or rural arguement, although if it was the rich greedy landowner that wants to restrict all access would be more aligned with the city folk than the neighborly rural mindset.

---

Agreed that the public use of a public resource is a good thing. However, it must be done in a reasonable and responsible manner. It is imparitive for the outdoorsman to know their rights and limitations. Disrepecting private property rights or trespassing is just as bad and as harmful as landowner's trying keep the public from using public waterways.

---

How do you respond to the (hypothetical) 5th generation landowner who claims his land grant or century old deed includes the entirety of a stream bed, and whose forefathers constructed dams to impound water for livestock long before the existence of state agencies which now pretend to regulate their long standing use of said stream in the middle of their ranch? Put yourself into his boots as he contends with the threat imposed by someone who suddenly views his ranch pond as public property. The liability issues alone are significant.

---

I would probably tell him he should go talk to a native american about counting on who was there first to get you through today.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Public waterways remaining open to the public is not being debated.

The debate is over what IS public.

Why focus on greedy landowner's? Can you identify them in this discussion? How about the greedy public? You don't seem to recognize their existence. Or did I misread you?

---

I think you misread me. I guess the same can be said as to why your are focusing on the irresponsible/greedy public though. Most hunters and fishermen, which is what is being debated are not purposefully trespassing. They are entering what they believe to be public waterways based on the laws of the state, just as the OP did.

It has pretty much been determined that there is no right answer (only strong opinions) on the vast majority of these cases. I don't blame the landowner for wanting to keep people off what he believes to be his own and I don't blame outdoorsmen for entering waterways they believe to be public if the state fails to give a clear ruling on either.

The status quo, will exist and there will be very few citations issued for this gray area though, so for a landowner to claim absolute ownership is a losing cause.

---

Are you suggesting that a landowner should not vigorously defend what he considers his? Do you allow others to define what you know to be yours? Say it ain't so!

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

With the passage of time, and as the urbanization of this country increases, public opinion becomes less sympathetic with that of their rural cousins. Hope you don't see that as a good thing.

---

I see public waterways remaining open to the public a good thing. This isn't an urbanization or rural arguement, although if it was the rich greedy landowner that wants to restrict all access would be more aligned with the city folk than the neighborly rural mindset.

---

Agreed that the public use of a public resource is a good thing. However, it must be done in a reasonable and responsible manner. It is imparitive for the outdoorsman to know their rights and limitations. Disrepecting private property rights or trespassing is just as bad and as harmful as landowner's trying keep the public from using public waterways.

---

How do you respond to the (hypothetical) 5th generation landowner who claims his land grant or century old deed includes the entirety of a stream bed, and whose forefathers constructed dams to impound water for livestock long before the existence of state agencies which now pretend to regulate their long standing use of said stream in the middle of their ranch? Put yourself into his boots as he contends with the threat imposed by someone who suddenly views his ranch pond as public property. The liability issues alone are significant.

---

I would probably tell him he should go talk to a native american about counting on who was there first to get you through today.

---

This tells me all I need to know about your perspective, and makes my previous point about the vagaries of public opinion!

IOW, because the "native Americans" before him were "robbed", and not even by his direct relatives, it's justifiable for others to rob him of what has been his (since the Indians). It just the way the cookie crumbles!
What an enlightened POV!

No I actually said the landowner and the public should both vigorously defend what they believe to be theirs which in this case happens to be the same waterways. The native americans should have and did defend what they believed to be theirs just as vehemently, but in the end there is always a loser.

I don't blame anyone for defending or using what they beleive is their right. In this case, I just think the landowners are on the wrong side, based on Texas law and they definitely are losing the battle in the court of public opinion.

quote:

---

.... and they definitely are losing the battle in the court of public opinion.

---

If/when they do, it won't be on the merits; but based on ignorance.

A pure democracy will one day consume us all!

quote:

---

IOW, because the "native Americans" before him were "robbed", and not even by his direct relatives, it's justifiable for others to rob him of what has been his (since the Indians).

---

We are just talking about fishing in navigable waterways adjacent to private property still, correct? If a landowner felt they were being "robbed" then that is what I would consider an ignorant point of view. I think the largest factor unfortunately is liability, but I'm sure there are many who just don't want to share what is "theirs."

Glad you used the modifier "seem" because I do not "reject any approach that recognizes the public's right to access public waterways".

My entire argument centers around what is and is not public. I don't know where I've failed to make that clear to all. And I don't have any vested interest as a bias, other than that as a member of the public, much as you perhaps. But that bias is informed by a lifetime of experiencing dealing with what can be an intrusive and demanding public.

quote:

---

In this case, I just think the landowners are on the wrong side, based on Texas law and they definitely are losing the battle in the court of public opinion

---

Where in all of this discussion was it proven based on Texas law that the landowner was in the wrong by asking the OP to leave the dam?

We went about fifty years with nothing more than a small chain and snap hooks on a gate. Then we went to locks....then to bigger chains and better locks....then to birdman locks. If you have a place where people can swim, fish, hunt, hike etc people have no qualms about doing their thing. I would hate to see the day that property owners lose that battle in the court of public opinion.

This case is one example that pales in comparison to the thousands of examples were people use navigable waters and I bet this one can be fixed with the OP, Country and the landowner..

quote:

---

Glad you used the modifier "seem" because I do not "reject any approach that recognizes the public's right to access public waterways".

My entire argument centers around what is and is not public. I don't know where I've failed to make that clear to all. And I don't have any vested interest as a bias, other than that as a member of the public, much as you perhaps. But that bias is informed by a lifetime of experiencing dealing with what can be an intrusive and demanding public.

---

But what you haven't made clear (at least as far as I've read) is whether or not the public has a right to be on an impoundment created on a public waterway by means of a privately funded dam where the "owner" of said dam might own the land on both sides of the waterway.