quote:

---

^ ^ I thought we fixed this post yesterday while having drinks!!!

---

Having reread yesterday's posts, I'm still unsure of this is directed at me. Confusing and unnecessary if so.

FF was in town yesterday, and he and his bride and I enjoyed a glass of tea. This thread was discussed. You weren't even mentioned!

I hope dogs that wont hunt were discussed.

quote:

---

I hope dogs that wont hunt were discussed.

---

Matter of fact, we did kick your dog around just a bit I think...

glad to hear two old grumps did somedog kicking... hope you learned to read as well.

I've been out for a littl while and was surprise to see it still going.

To comment on one thing I read a page back, the gradient line won't be altered by artificial means. When a dam or artificial channel is constructed, the gradient boundary no longer exists. This has been confirmed through actual attempts in the field and I was actively involved in a 6 year long lawsuit involving the San Antonio River where another LSLS along with landowners attorneys tried to establish or recreate the gradient boundary along the Riverwalk. They failed just as I told them they would. It was stated by one of the judges that recited previous case law, when an artificial channel is created or dammed, evidence of the gradient boundary is lost and the normal flow of the stream no longer exists.

Normal eagle pretty much did by my reading.

quote:

---

Texas is riddled with surveys made in violation of the law prohibiting their crossing of a navigable stream.

---

Given the number of streams that have been crossed by survey lines from origin to mouth in Texas, that's a heck of a lot of surveys made in violation of law. Are we to assume not a single one of those surveyors knew the law? Or are we to assume that those creeks were not seen as navigable when the sovereign released their stream beds?

Your last question would be the correct assumption.

quote:

---

glad to hear two old grumps did somedog kicking... hope you learned to read as well.

---

While I do not deny my curmudgeonry ways, you've been the sourpuss on this thread, for what it's worth.

As to my reading skills, they're just fine. It's the comprehension that's the problem.

Seriously, Deats, I learned long ago not to believe all I read, and even less what I hear from others? So, it's not that I haven't read what you have; I've just rejected it. That's the way the mind works.

quote:

---

Normal eagle pretty much did by my reading.

quote:

---

Texas is riddled with surveys made in violation of the law prohibiting their crossing of a navigable stream.

---

Given the number of streams that have been crossed by survey lines from origin to mouth in Texas, that's a heck of a lot of surveys made in violation of law. Are we to assume not a single one of those surveyors knew the law? Or are we to assume that those creeks were not seen as navigable when the sovereign released their stream beds?

---

Ding! Ding! Ding!

IMO, and not reciting anything from Vernon's, the original Surveyors of the original land grants, took navigable to be in fact. Meaning they believed it could be used for commerce.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Normal eagle pretty much did by my reading.

quote:

---

Texas is riddled with surveys made in violation of the law prohibiting their crossing of a navigable stream.

---

Given the number of streams that have been crossed by survey lines from origin to mouth in Texas, that's a heck of a lot of surveys made in violation of law. Are we to assume not a single one of those surveyors knew the law? Or are we to assume that those creeks were not seen as navigable when the sovereign released their stream beds?

---

You should assume that the surveyors know that it isn't their job to determine what stream is navigable and which ones are not. In this case it is much easier in simple to include the bed in the survey even if it is excluded by law. If they failed to include it and it was later determined to be non navigable there would be a major problem.

---

I think you have a misunderstanding of a surveyor's authority in matters related to legally binding property boundaries. A surveyor can't just go out and run lines wherever they wish without consequence. This is particularly true of the original surveyors who aided in the allocation of land from the sovereign to private ownership. When those surveys are found to have errors it creates all sorts of fun. Have you ever heard of or dealt with a vacancy? Those are a blast. It is absolutely incumbant upon them to provide an accurate representation of factual ownership. As with any profession, surveyors are not above making mistakes and I've seen my share of questionable surveys; however there is no way I can be convinced that surveyors in mass ignored state law and went ahead and crossed stream beds. The sovereign would have nipped that in the bud the minute it started.

quote:

---

Again, I believe everyone is referring to navigable waterways, which are open to the public. Nobody is saying you should be able to wade up a stream on private property just because you feel like it.

---

Apparently the only requirement for being navigable is a bed averaging 30 feet in width, I've seen streams that meet that requirement without having water deep enough to float a canoe, the only way for the public to access them would be to wade.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Your last question would be the correct assumption.

---

Why? Who made the determination which streams were navigable and which ones were not? Serious question.

---

I have a serious question for you, sir. Do you believe a so-called "stream" needs to have water in it sufficient to float a boat, or raft of some sort, in order for it to be deemed navigable?

In much of Texas, creeks are but drainages that only contain water throughout its course for brief periods after a measurable rain, with pools lingering for longer periods of time. Rivers, on the other hand almost always contain water, even flowing, from bank to bank and end to end. Do you agree with that generalization?

The first surveyors had the authority to describe land being dispersed to private ownership. They were damn near royalty because of the public's respect for them. Today surveyors are authorities on property boundaries, and they must be able to support their boundary claims all the way back to sovereignty. They don't get to just makeup property boundaries because there is some complex legal issue they don't want to take responsibility for.

Boerne: somewhere in this topic is a link which cites the fact that a stream, once deemed navigable, could be dry the majority of the time and for extended distances and still be considered navigable.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Again, I believe everyone is referring to navigable waterways, which are open to the public. Nobody is saying you should be able to wade up a stream on private property just because you feel like it.

---

Apparently the only requirement for being navigable is a bed averaging 30 feet in width, I've seen streams that meet that requirement without having water deep enough to float a canoe, the only way for the public to access them would be to wade.

---

Agree. If a stream is deemed a navigable waterway by the state then it is legal for the public to access, regardless of depth, hence the confusion. If we had a bad drought and say the Colorado ran almost dry then it wouldn't all of a sudden fail to be a navigable waterway. Likewise, a tiny stream during a historic flood is not all of a sudden a navigable waterway.

quote:

---

What "authority" does a surveyor have?

---

That which is required to find and report fact. That is all.

quote:

---

In much of Texas, creeks are but drainages that only contain water throughout its course for brief periods after a measurable rain, with pools lingering for longer periods of time. Rivers, on the other hand almost always contain water, even flowing, from bank to bank and end to end. Do you agree with that generalization?

---

You seem to despise Texas' 30 foot navigability statute but in this post you nearly quoted the court from the opinion striking down your position. Go do some reading of the applicable court cases. Seriously.

quote:

---

Boerne: somewhere in this topic is a link which cites the fact that a stream, once deemed navigable, could be dry the majority of the time and for extended distances and still be considered navigable.

---

I remember that, and it is nonsensical to me. Seems to me nonsense breeds contempt.

Thanks.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Your last question would be the correct assumption.

---

Why? Who made the determination which streams were navigable and which ones were not? Serious question.

---

I have a serious question for you, sir. Do you believe a so-called "stream" needs to have water in it sufficient to float a boat, or raft of some sort, in order for it to be deemed navigable?

In much of Texas, creeks are but drainages that only contain water throughout its course for brief periods after a measurable rain, with pools lingering for longer periods of time. Rivers, on the other hand almost always contain water, even flowing, from bank to bank and end to end. Do you agree with that generalization?

---

No, I don't believe that is the only way to deem a waterway navigable. Do you?

---

I'm not qualified to speak to that authoritatively, but my common sense tells me that if a drainage is "dry more than it's wet", it's hardly navigable. I'd hafta study that more, but I will declare I don't believe Johnson Fork is, nor should be considered navigable. That's because I'd bet if we jumped a kayak or canoe off Moody Lake tomorrow, we'd be carrying it at least as much as riding in it, and likely more. To me, that's not navigable.

quote:

---

That's because I'd bet if we jumped a kayak or canoe off Moody Lake tomorrow, we'd be carrying it at least as much as riding in it, and likely more. To me, that's not navigable.

---

And you'd be correct in that assessment and we all understand that sentiment. But it does not jive with statutory law or case law. Both long standing and consistent on the subject.

quote:

---

quote:

---

In much of Texas, creeks are but drainages that only contain water throughout its course for brief periods after a measurable rain, with pools lingering for longer periods of time. Rivers, on the other hand almost always contain water, even flowing, from bank to bank and end to end. Do you agree with that generalization?

---

You seem to despise Texas' 30 foot navigability statute but in this post you nearly quoted the court from the opinion striking down your position. Go do some reading of the applicable court cases. Seriously.

---

Despise may be too harsh, but I do disrespect what I'm given to understand about the determination of navigability. I relate to country's understanding and explanation of Kimble County's rationale for making the determination.

^^^^^^^
Old Grumpy Men with common sense > than a brilliant speculator!

quote:

---

quote:

---

What "authority" does a surveyor have?

---

That which is required to find and report fact. That is all.

---

Unless of course you're too dumb to understand statutory law......then it is OK for you to just ignore it and draw your lines where you want

quote:

---

quote:

---

In much of Texas, creeks are but drainages that only contain water throughout its course for brief periods after a measurable rain, with pools lingering for longer periods of time. Rivers, on the other hand almost always contain water, even flowing, from bank to bank and end to end. Do you agree with that generalization?

---

You seem to despise Texas' 30 foot navigability statute but in this post you nearly quoted the court from the opinion striking down your position. Go do some reading of the applicable court cases. Seriously.

---

You seem to want to liberally apply the law to every waterway in the State in order to avoid debating the fact that this issue isn't as clear cut as you try to make it sound. If it were, basically 0 of the cases we have been discussing would have ever been brought to trial.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Again, I believe everyone is referring to navigable waterways, which are open to the public. Nobody is saying you should be able to wade up a stream on private property just because you feel like it.

---

Apparently the only requirement for being navigable is a bed averaging 30 feet in width, I've seen streams that meet that requirement without having water deep enough to float a canoe, the only way for the public to access them would be to wade.

---

Agree. If a stream is deemed a navigable waterway by the state then it is legal for the public to access, regardless of depth, hence the confusion. If we had a bad drought and say the Colorado ran almost dry then it wouldn't all of a sudden fail to be a navigable waterway. Likewise, a tiny stream during a historic flood is not all of a sudden a navigable waterway.

---

So you are, in fact, saying that anyone should be able to wade up a stream on private property if they feel like it, as long as its accessed legally, which I grant is the law.

I think the reason this seems so debatable is because of how ridiculous it is to declare any waterway that does not consistently maintain a volume of water sufficient to float any vessel navigable, but such is the law...