tommy henderson 140 acres

[hurleyjd]

I have been trying to find the true story on this case. Did the Red River move back north and leave Tommy Henderson 140 acres. Best I can find researching the net is that the River moved and his land metes and bounds remained the same. Any one know the true scope on this.

 

[kenny thomas]

I have been trying to find the true story on this case. Did the Red River move back north and leave Tommy Henderson 140 acres. Best I can find researching the net is that the River moved and his land metes and bounds remained the same. Any one know the true scope on this.

What I seen on it on TV it stated his deeds said to the edge of the river. As the river moved he lost land but the owner on the other side gain lamd. One thing I seen said 90,000 acres was involved.

 

[Red Bull Breeder]

The Red moves south the Texas loses land it moves north blm takes the land.

 

[kenny thomas]

The Red moves south the Texas loses land it moves north blm takes the land.

BLM was the owner on the other side of the river.You know the goberment wouldnt steal your land. But it said if the river moved back they would still keep the land.

 

[Red Bull Breeder]

I do for a fact no the government will steal your land or my land or any land they think they can.

 

[kenny thomas]

The hard part was to think they would argue that they were taking the land because the river moved but then argue that if it moved back it was still theirs. BLM that is.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

The hard part is to think that BLM owns any land- last I read they managed.

And it is The Peoples land that they manage. Really the land should be be The People's of the respective states it lies in- unless specifically designated as an army fort and such and then with a very specified and limited size.

But it sure appears to me that the BLM thinks it owns it.

 

[greybeard]

I have been trying to find the true story on this case. Did the Red River move back north and leave Tommy Henderson 140 acres. Best I can find researching the net is that the River moved and his land metes and bounds remained the same. Any one know the true scope on this.

Metes and bounds mean nothing if a natural waterway is a property boundary line and it is also a state line--as far as Ok/Tex is concerned anyway. (It's a different deal on the Tx/La border along the Sabine)
The crux of the Henderson case revolves around 3 words. Erosion, accretion, and avulsion.

Erosion is the gnawing away of land on one side of the river. That soil has to go somewhere, and it does.
The word accretion means to grow or to increase. Accretion is the gradual and imperceptible addition of soil by gradual deposition through the operation of natural causes, to that already in possession of the owner. It is the gradual intrusion of the dry land area into the water area. Accretion is formed by the washing up of sand, silt or soil so as to form firm ground, and that new ground is called alluvion.

Avulsion is the sudden and perceptible action of water which causes the removal of a considerable quantity of soil
from the land of one owner and its deposit upon or annexation to the dry land of another. This may be a sudden or
rapid change in the course and channel of a river or the sudden creation of a completely new channel. It is
distinguished from accretion and erosion by the time element. Avulsion is sudden; accretion, reliction and erosion are gradual--almost imperceptible.

Originally, here the river was out there-where it is now and it eroded and accreted up to here, and then it eroded and accreted back. Well, their interpretation is that it eroded up to here but avulsed back. So when you listen to them it is always erosion to the south because the property line follows it then, but it's always avulsion when it goes north. So the boundary can move south but it can never move back north."

Transcript of the Henderson interview:
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-re ... e-one-cent

 

[Richardin52]

Accretion and reelection is pretty much settled law in the U.S. Basically (and this is way over simplified) if it's slow over time the property line moves if it happens all at once the property line does not move.

You can read more than you want to know about it here;

http://www.blm.gov/cadastral/casebook/basicwater.pdf

 

[slick4591]

At least our AG is getting involved.

Story here.

 

[hurleyjd]

I have been trying to find the true story on this case. Did the Red River move back north and leave Tommy Henderson 140 acres. Best I can find researching the net is that the River moved and his land metes and bounds remained the same. Any one know the true scope on this.

Metes and bounds mean nothing if a natural waterway is a property boundary line and it is also a state line--as far as Ok/Tex is concerned anyway. (It's a different deal on the Tx/La border along the Sabine)
The crux of the Henderson case revolves around 3 words. Erosion, accretion, and avulsion.

Erosion is the gnawing away of land on one side of the river. That soil has to go somewhere, and it does.
The word accretion means to grow or to increase. Accretion is the gradual and imperceptible addition of soil by gradual deposition through the operation of natural causes, to that already in possession of the owner. It is the gradual intrusion of the dry land area into the water area. Accretion is formed by the washing up of sand, silt or soil so as to form firm ground, and that new ground is called alluvion.

Avulsion is the sudden and perceptible action of water which causes the removal of a considerable quantity of soil
from the land of one owner and its deposit upon or annexation to the dry land of another. This may be a sudden or
rapid change in the course and channel of a river or the sudden creation of a completely new channel. It is
distinguished from accretion and erosion by the time element. Avulsion is sudden; accretion, reliction and erosion are gradual--almost imperceptible.

Originally, here the river was out there-where it is now and it eroded and accreted up to here, and then it eroded and accreted back. Well, their interpretation is that it eroded up to here but avulsed back. So when you listen to them it is always erosion to the south because the property line follows it then, but it's always avulsion when it goes north. So the boundary can move south but it can never move back north."

Transcript of the Henderson interview:
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-re ... e-one-cent

GB I opened the site you posted and read where the BLM offered the land to Tommy in 1984 if he would apply for title what ever that means. Why did he not do that I wished that question had been asked. What happens when a hurricane eats away the land along the Texas coast I cannot remember but I think there was a problem with Texas and land owners.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

Accretion and reelection is pretty much settled law in the U.S. Basically (and this is way over simplified) if it's slow over time the property line moves if it happens all at once the property line does not move.

You can read more than you want to know about it here;

http://www.blm.gov/cadastral/casebook/basicwater.pdf

That is what Texan land owners are saying as well. The BLM does not agree and is acting lawlessly attempting to change previously established law, in addition to acting unconstitutional.

Federal BLM definitions are wortheless- Water rights and law are decided by the states, federal courts reference them when making decisions. The treaties might be used here as well to determine original boundaries.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

I have been trying to find the true story on this case. Did the Red River move back north and leave Tommy Henderson 140 acres. Best I can find researching the net is that the River moved and his land metes and bounds remained the same. Any one know the true scope on this.

Metes and bounds mean nothing if a natural waterway is a property boundary line and it is also a state line--as far as Ok/Tex is concerned anyway. (It's a different deal on the Tx/La border along the Sabine)
The crux of the Henderson case revolves around 3 words. Erosion, accretion, and avulsion.

Erosion is the gnawing away of land on one side of the river. That soil has to go somewhere, and it does.
The word accretion means to grow or to increase. Accretion is the gradual and imperceptible addition of soil by gradual deposition through the operation of natural causes, to that already in possession of the owner. It is the gradual intrusion of the dry land area into the water area. Accretion is formed by the washing up of sand, silt or soil so as to form firm ground, and that new ground is called alluvion.

Avulsion is the sudden and perceptible action of water which causes the removal of a considerable quantity of soil
from the land of one owner and its deposit upon or annexation to the dry land of another. This may be a sudden or
rapid change in the course and channel of a river or the sudden creation of a completely new channel. It is
distinguished from accretion and erosion by the time element. Avulsion is sudden; accretion, reliction and erosion are gradual--almost imperceptible.

Originally, here the river was out there-where it is now and it eroded and accreted up to here, and then it eroded and accreted back. Well, their interpretation is that it eroded up to here but avulsed back. So when you listen to them it is always erosion to the south because the property line follows it then, but it's always avulsion when it goes north. So the boundary can move south but it can never move back north."

Transcript of the Henderson interview:
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-re ... e-one-cent

GB I opened the site you posted and read where the BLM offered the land to Tommy in 1984 if he would apply for title what ever that means. Why did he not do that I wished that question had been asked. What happens when a hurricane eats away the land along the Texas coast I cannot remember but I think there was a problem with Texas and land owners.

What does the coastline have to do with the Red River and state boundaries? This has been settled law for some time.

Seems like you have to travel pretty far to find something to defend your love for big government.

 

[greybeard]

Hurley:
Texas coastal erosion only means property owners can't use that property. They don't lose it--they still own it unless they CHOOSE to sell out to the State. Feds have nothing to do with this.
When the beach erodes like it did at Crystal Beach Bolivar Pennisula in Hurricane Ike, the property owners of the closest lots to the water couldn't rebuild until the new Line of Vegetation was determined, the new Mean High/Low Tide was determined, and the new Dune Protection Line was determined. Most only lost a portion of their lot, but sold out anyway, while others kept their property. They couldn't build on it immediately as it akes about 9 months to determine where the new mean high tide line is---high tide mark varies according to season, so the state has to make observations over several months. As the daily tides bring in sand, it's pushed up into dunes on the back landward side of the sandy beach to make a long dune. It's sand, sediment and seaweed, and grows vegetation really quick. (Dune has to be vegetated to keep rain and wind from eroding it down) It's from the backside of this dune's vegetation line that the
setback for construction is measured, and it isn't very much. There are now houses 20' from those dunes.
The rule for Galveston county is 200' from mean LOW tide plus 50' to allow for dune building and maintenance.

Many sold out and wished they had not. As time goes by, the beach builds up, leaving more and more beach area above water line, the dunes are ever moved seaward and what was public beach after the storm becomes ok to build on again, as the width of the exposed area has increased.

But, even for property owners whose land is now public beach, they have the option to continue ownership and do have to pay property taxes on it, in hopes that the beach will eventually widen enough that their property falls fully outside the 250' exclusion zone. (My brother has a home on Crystal Beach 4 lots landward of the dunes so I have some knowledge of how this works)

Scroll down at this website to the Labor Day 2013 picture and you can see how close to the backside of the dunes private homes have been built since hurricane ike.

http://www.bolivarchamber.org/Beaches.aspx

 

[greybeard]

GB I opened the site you posted and read where the BLM offered the land to Tommy in 1984 if he would apply for title what ever that means. Why did he not do that I wished that question had been asked. What happens when a hurricane eats away the land along the Texas coast I cannot remember but I think there was a problem with Texas and land owners.

1. Henderson already held Texas title to that land. He didn't see why he would need to apply for it again, but he did inquire about it later:
2. Turns out, the BLM spokesman who made him that offer was (according to BLM) "not authorized to make it".