River Property Ownership?

[toledo]

Attached map is a random stretch of Brazos river. The red line represents the river when the property was originally platted. Through many years of erosion and accretion, the river has slowly moved to look like it does in the aerial today.

Which land owner owns which piece of grey shaded property? Do they each own their original property which is now on the other side of the river? Or has ownership moved with the river?

Is there a legal difference between erosion/ accretion and if the river just cuts a new path through the land as the result of a flood event?

[PoppinPiggies]

Interesting.....

[bowhunterhelm]

They each own the original property they had. The property lines don't change because the river did.

Just my guess, no facts to back it.

[150class]

Would imagine ownership remains the same since the property line is still the same.

Very interesting though and never a situation I would've thought about so following for more info.

[LAW]

Legal issue ask attorney but I’ve known people to claim they have gained ground and lost ground because of change in river course, most disputed claim is between the States of Texas and Oklahoma with the Red River

[CWendling]

Wouldnt the property lines be marked as something other than the river itself?

[BrianL]

Does survey use center of river as a boundary?

[climatecrisis]

The ownership remains the same but the acreage and boundaries are most likely different. West of the current river is owner 1 and East is owner 2. Most likely the deeds say to the center of the river bed or shoreline being the boundaries. If you have a creek or river as boundaries, you can grain or lose land based off movement of said boundary.

[cehorn]

I would think it would depend on how the platt/deed/survey was originally worded. If it was worded to the river or center of river for the property line then I think if the river shifts the property lines shift. If it was worded with points x, y, z, bearings, etc then the original property line is still in affect even if the river shifted.

[J Wales]

You are talking about the doctrines of accretion and avulsion. As with most things legal, the answer is, "it depends."

Here's a short article that explains the differences:

https://www.jgradyrandlepc.com/real-estate/river-changes-course-real-property/

[RS3]

No help here but that’s a great question!

[toledo]

You are talking about the doctrines of accretion and avulsion. As with most things legal, the answer is, "it depends."

Here's a short article that explains the differences:

https://www.jgradyrandlepc.com/real-...real-property/

Thanks. Seems an argument could be made either way.

"The doctrine of erosion and accretion applies in cases when a witness may see from time to time that progress has been made, but they could not perceive it while the progress was going on."

Anyone that has spent time on the Brazos during high water knows you can sit there and observe huge hunks of land falling into the river.

[bmac]

Seems like if you really look at the picture you can see some old channel as well which would further complicate the issue if the River doesn’t set the boundary not but did in the past


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cookiemonster1]

Isnt this a big deal on the Red River with Oklahoma also?

[SabineHunter]

Wow, that's crazy. From your OP question, it's obvious that the river was used as a boundry, not coordinates. Definitely a gain/loss of land there.