And most everyone can see this to be a classic case of "it takes one to know one"!
quote:
Anyone can see that fence is there with that sign on it because the a-hole who owns that land doesn't want people on the river.
quote:Oops! I should have said "streams" instead of rivers. I don't know that fences are allowed across rivers, per se, but I've no doubt they indeed exist on the headwaters of some rivers like I presume this one is. I was alluding to the OPs representation given by the GW regarding this instance. Perhaps a Supreme Court ruling is not technically "law", or is it?quote:
I don't disagree with the bolded text, but some fences (and apparently this fence is one of those) are allowed, by law, to extend across rivers. Granted, property owners have an obligation to the public to follow the law. It's far from clear to me that any law is being broken in this example.
Bg can you give me a cite for this law? I am curious to know the details.
quote:quote:I have read and reread this, it still doesnt make sense.
Was by myself in a lampro nudged into the bank tieing a deer hair popper on. Never forget it.
quote:
Thank you for your inquiry regarding the navigability of the South Fork of the Guadalupe River, Kerr County, Texas, in the vicinity of the latitude and longitude you submitted.
In Texas a stream is considered navigable if it is found to be navigable in fact or navigable by statute. A statutory navigable stream is defined in the Texas Natural Resources Code, Article 21.001 as, "...a stream which retains an average width of 30 feet from the mouth up". Numerous width measurements of the South Fork of the Guadalupe River in the vicinity of the submitted coordinates were taken on Google Earth aerial imagery and the GLO's GISWeb in which the river appears to measure 30 feet or more. However, only an on-the-ground survey by a qualified surveyor can accurately determine the width of the river.
The Guadalupe River is crossed by the original land surveys throughout the vicinity and is therefore subject to the Small Bill (Texas Revised Civil Statute Article 5414a) , if the said river qualifies as a navigable stream. Under the Small Bill, in most cases, original survey boundaries that cross navigable streams were validated and title to the streambed was relinquished to the patentee, to the extent the acreage in the streambed is required to make up the total acreage called for in the original grant. However, under the provisions of the Small Bill, the public has the right to lawfully recreate in the bed of a navigable stream (provided they do not trespass on private property to access the streambed) and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has jurisdiction over the sand and gravel within the streambed.
Please find the images used to make this determination attached for your reference.
quote:
Update as promised. Nothing really new to see, but it's good to at least have the GLO's opinion on the matter, although I'm not sure it makes any difference if the GW see's it differently.
Here is the GLO's replyquote:
Thank you for your inquiry regarding the navigability of the South Fork of the Guadalupe River, Kerr County, Texas, in the vicinity of the latitude and longitude you submitted.
In Texas a stream is considered navigable if it is found to be navigable in fact or navigable by statute. A statutory navigable stream is defined in the Texas Natural Resources Code, Article 21.001 as, "...a stream which retains an average width of 30 feet from the mouth up". Numerous width measurements of the South Fork of the Guadalupe River in the vicinity of the submitted coordinates were taken on Google Earth aerial imagery and the GLO's GISWeb in which the river appears to measure 30 feet or more. However, only an on-the-ground survey by a qualified surveyor can accurately determine the width of the river.
The Guadalupe River is crossed by the original land surveys throughout the vicinity and is therefore subject to the Small Bill (Texas Revised Civil Statute Article 5414a) , if the said river qualifies as a navigable stream. Under the Small Bill, in most cases, original survey boundaries that cross navigable streams were validated and title to the streambed was relinquished to the patentee, to the extent the acreage in the streambed is required to make up the total acreage called for in the original grant. However, under the provisions of the Small Bill, the public has the right to lawfully recreate in the bed of a navigable stream (provided they do not trespass on private property to access the streambed) and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has jurisdiction over the sand and gravel within the streambed.
Please find the images used to make this determination attached for your reference.
quote:She did on the phone. She said, technically that is not a legal fence contrary to what a few have said on this thread.
Good response but I am kind of surprised they made no reference to the fence.
quote:Copied from page 1. Let's assume this deed is one that indeed does extend across the stream bed. Assume also that "a" fence has existed on that property line since Texas came to exist, or not long after, but well before current water law came to be. That being the case (and there's NO doubt more than a few such situations exist), it follows that those same fences have been "grandfathered", whether they've been challenged in court individually or not. This has been my point all along.
The law does allow you to get out of your boat or watercraft within reason. First and foremost Texas law and the Spanish/Mexican law it's based on allows for scouting and safe portage of obstacles within navigable streams and rivers. So in that case the question would go back to whether or not this stream was considered navigable. There are also situations where deeds did and still do cross state waters. That's not to say that it's illegal to put your foot on the riverbed. Both and more situations are covered in the following opinion.
quote:Technichally, hers is not a legal opinion, and thus worth no more than mine and yours on this forum. But it might make a few posters here smile and get a warm fuzzy.quote:She did on the phone. She said, technically that is not a legal fence contrary to what a few have said on this thread.
Good response but I am kind of surprised they made no reference to the fence.
quote:
Spent a lot of time canoeing around there and my dad said if we could get our canoe down it, it was navigable. I always considered that to be solid reasoning. With all the gray area about what is navigable or not I'd keep going until told otherwise.
quote:
Let's assume this deed is one that indeed does extend across the stream bed. Assume also that "a" fence has existed on that property line since Texas came to exist, or not long after, but well before current water law came to be.