BLM in Texas Land Dispute

[carlfense]

Why would the BLM come in and claim it?

They aren't.

 

 

(In the 1986 case it's because the government owned the land on the Oklahoma side of the river and this gentleman owned land on the Texas side. It wasn't two private landowners.)

[BigRedBuster]

So, the government owned land on one side and the the private land owner owned it on the other side. The government claims that the border between the states is the bank of the river. The river bank changed.

 

Do I have that all correct?

[carlfense]

So, the government owned land on one side and the the private land owner owned it on the other side. The government claims that the border between the states is the bank of the river. The river bank changed.

 

Do I have that all correct?

Mostly correct but the bolded section is a bit more complicated than that. The U.S. Attorney sided with the private landowner, for example.

[BigRedBuster]

So, the government owned land on one side and the the private land owner owned it on the other side. The government claims that the border between the states is the bank of the river. The river bank changed.

 

Do I have that all correct?

Mostly correct but the bolded section is a bit more complicated than that. The U.S. Attorney sided with the private landowner, for example.

Sided with the private land owner in what way?

[carlfense]

So, the government owned land on one side and the the private land owner owned it on the other side. The government claims that the border between the states is the bank of the river. The river bank changed.

 

Do I have that all correct?

Mostly correct but the bolded section is a bit more complicated than that. The U.S. Attorney sided with the private landowner, for example.

Sided with the private land owner in what way?

That's a good question. The landowner's quote was: "Well, there was a court case in Oklahoma City. And we were in the Oklahoma courts. And the judge there gave it to the BLM, even though the attorney general -- U.S. Attorney General John Greene sided with us on the Texas side."

 

I've tried to find the case itself but haven't been successful . . . which is unfortunate. Usually going right to the source clears up a lot of the misinformation. Tough to do when you can't find the source though!

[BigRedBuster]

So, the AG is confused also?

Most certainly not . . . but he would very much like to be elected governor. I'd imagine that the timing could have been better for him . . . he hitched onto the BLM outrage spewing from the Bundy story the day before Bundy's racial comments came out. I wonder if the AG would have sent that letter if he would have waited until Friday before joining the action? My guess is that it would have been quietly filed away instead.

 

I would like to see a map of the area showing what has happened over the years to the border and ownership of the land.

That 1986 case (that the landowner claims, and why why would he know?, is being used as precedent) is about accretion and avulsion. Basically, when a property line is a river, and the river moves, what happens to the property line? The short version is that it depends on whether the river moves suddenly, like in a flood, or slowly over time.

 

Decent intro to the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avulsion_(legal_term)

 

Your link takes me to a page that basically says Wiki doesn't have an article about this.

[carlfense]

So, the AG is confused also?

Most certainly not . . . but he would very much like to be elected governor. I'd imagine that the timing could have been better for him . . . he hitched onto the BLM outrage spewing from the Bundy story the day before Bundy's racial comments came out. I wonder if the AG would have sent that letter if he would have waited until Friday before joining the action? My guess is that it would have been quietly filed away instead.

 

I would like to see a map of the area showing what has happened over the years to the border and ownership of the land.

That 1986 case (that the landowner claims, and why why would he know?, is being used as precedent) is about accretion and avulsion. Basically, when a property line is a river, and the river moves, what happens to the property line? The short version is that it depends on whether the river moves suddenly, like in a flood, or slowly over time.

 

Decent intro to the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avulsion_(legal_term)

 

Your link takes me to a page that basically says Wiki doesn't have an article about this.

It does the same for me and I don't know why . . . on the page that says that they don't have a page click on the "Did you mean: Avulsion (legal term)" part. Should work.

 

Or just google avulsion accretion and it should be the top link.

[carlfense]

I suppose I can just quote it too.

In real property law, avulsion refers to a sudden loss or addition to land, which results from the action of water. It differs from accretion, which describes a gradual loss or addition to land resulting from the action of water.

 

The distinction between avulsion and accretion becomes important where a river forms the boundary between two riparian owners. In many states (though not all), if the river changes channels by avulsion, the boundary does not change; it remains in the middle of the old channel. (This is why if you look at maps of the lowerMississippi river, you will find that some land on the east side of the river is part of Arkansas, and some land on the west side of the river is part of Tennessee. The river changed course quickly, so the state boundary did not change.[1] However, as a river gradually changes through accretion, the boundary changes with it.

To prove that a change was avulsion and not accretion, it is sufficient for the owner of land which was washed away to point out approximately as much land added to the opposite bank as washed away from his bank.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avulsion_(legal_term)

[HUSKER FREAK]

It is really hard to fathom owning land and use it for income or whatever else you do with it and one day the feds come in and say sorry we are taking it from you and you are just SOL. I guess it also happens on a different level as well such as when Omaha annexed Elkhorn a few years ago. Just doesn't seem right or fair.

[BigRedBuster]

It is really hard to fathom owning land and use it for income or whatever else you do with it and one day the feds come in and say sorry we are taking it from you and you are just SOL. I guess it also happens on a different level as well such as when Omaha annexed Elkhorn a few years ago. Just doesn't seem right or fair.

 

You really haven't read this entire thread have you?

[HUSKER FREAK]

I guess I am not sure what you are asking here BRB.

[Junior]

It is really hard to fathom owning land and use it for income or whatever else you do with it and one day the feds come in and say sorry we are taking it from you and you are just SOL. I guess it also happens on a different level as well such as when Omaha annexed Elkhorn a few years ago. Just doesn't seem right or fair.

 

You really haven't read this entire thread have you?

 

I'm not convinced he can read at all.

[BigRedBuster]

I guess I am not sure what you are asking here BRB.

 

Carl and I are going through a rather in depth discussion about the actual situation and (as usual) it is much more complicated than "THE GOVERNMENT IS COMING TO TAKE MY LAND".

 

The government isn't swooping in and taking 90,000 acres of land as friggen Fox News claims. It's a complicated issue based on court cases in both 1986 and 1994 and how legally the border between Oklahoma and Texas is determined.

[carlfense]

It's a complicated issue based on court cases in both 1986 and 1994 and how legally the border between Oklahoma and Texas is determined.

This is true. I really wish that these articles would directly cite the court case . . . it'd certainly help clear up the issue . . . but that might mitigate the manufactured outrage.

[HUSKER FREAK]

So what are they doing then if they aren't taking the LAND. Isn't that what they have the Army Corp of Engineers for. So this doesn't happen? Seriously not attacking but just wondering. I mean you can make the river flow where ever you want to. I understand Mother Nature did this so now it would be a perfect time to take their land. Sounds weird but also true. sh#t I forgot I can't read sorry disregard.