Water Boundaries Anyone

[Warren Smith]

Wow, DJ, tell us how you really feel ...

A join date of 2007, and only 15 posts. Makes me feel prolific.

[mpallamary]

To be clear, I am moving on from a dialogue with you as can be seen. I will gladly converse with others who reveal their names and identity. You will have to take your issues up with the various agencies who "have either been duped, are incompetent, hypocritically discriminating or in collusion in the support of the growing oligarchy this country has been infected with from since the 70’s."

[bruce hall]

think it would have been easier just to scale the edge of the water off the map, and be done with it. ;-))

Bottom line is, the public still gonna get to use the beach and I guess there is some kind of access to it. Romney got a huge house with the visible portions of the house in an acceptable architecture for the area (remember he put a third of it underground. outa sight-outa mind). And there is probably something else, just don't know what it is yet.

I still like the scaling idea.?!?! ;-)))))

[bruce hall]

Were did Woolleys post go to? I didn't think it was that egregious (fancy word for unacceptable-kinda sorta) Or did you pull down, Dave, after you saw it again in black and white?

[E_Page]

I haven't had an opportunity to look at all that's been posted as attachments. I can't seem to find the recent RS. Michael, can you post your RS of the Romney property, and your earlier maps of adjacent properties if they've not also been posted. Not going to chime in with an official response (referring to my position at CSLC), but may have some questions and comments relative to my own professional curiosity.


There's been some discussion, primarily by that guy who decided to get rude, that the waterward boundary doesn't call for being on a meander line or the shore, or anything so obviously referencing a water boundary, but rather calls to the boundary of Rancho (one or the other - not going back to look right now).

If the boundary of Rancho Whicheveritis called in the deed is the waterward boundary of that Rancho, then generally, whether or not the deed directly calls for a water boundary, and whether or not the Rancho Plat labels the waterward courses as meanders, if it is the waterward boundary, the courses are considered to be meanders and the boundary between the State sovereign land and the upland of Rancho Whicheveritis is at the OHWM.

Per Borax Ltd. v. The City of Los Angeles, the OHWM is, in a coastal location, the line at which the elevation of MHW, as determined by all high tides, intersects the ground of the shore. That holds true for lands originating with a federal patent and for federal lands. Generally, lands originating from a Rancho - a confirmed Mexican or Spanish land grant, would be treated the same as other federally patented lands.

The "California Rule" of the OHWM being at the line of average high neap tides came about in the mid 1800s because the parties arguing gave the court the choices of the MHTL based on the neap tides (lesser tidal range) and the MHTL based on the spring tides (greatest tidal range). To my knowledge, the CA Supreme Court has not yet tossed that rule into the dustbin of unfortunate rulings.

Not to get too far off track, the neap tide MHTL would not normally apply to lands originating from a Rancho, but an exception might be an adjudicated line. I'll have to look to see what the Superior Court Judgment says. Thanks for posting that.

I'll have time to catch up on my recreational reading (posts like this one) next week. In the meantime, I wanted to get a couple of basic water boundaries principles into the discussion because it seemed to be skidding a little sideways because of what appeared to be a misunderstanding of the significance of a boundary call.

[mpallamary]

Hi Evan,

The property is not located in a rancho, it is a segment of the Pueblo of San Diego, approved by the United States Lands Commission pursuant to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. As to my experiences, I have been surveying coastal properties in San Diego for more than 30 years with the bulk of my work in La Jolla. I have been deposed to death over this topic and testified many times.

The first time I worked in this small strip of beach (each beach and map has its own characteristics) I worked with Roy Minnick and Bud Uzes as well as several members of the State Lands. That was 17 years ago and we went though this all before. One of the other reasons we ran this by State Lands is because the title company was asked to insure the boundaries I established and they wanted some more assurances. State Lands characterized the line as a de facto boundary line agreement and as it had been honored for so lone as such, they had no interest in challenging it.

Remember also that the state transferred the tidelands under the public trust doctrine to San Diego years ago and that there have not been any disputes over this line.

The lines that I used here serve as the basis for other agreements between the state and the city and is in fact embodies in the city's municipal code, a place some people don't consider when doing a survey.

The base lines that were used were determined by a collaborative effort between the federal government and the City of San Diego and were done over an 18 year period in anticipation of shoreline modifications associated with World War II. As I said, there are unique circumstances associated with each stretch of the coast line and this is one of those cases.

Interestingly enough, an entire subdivision map was filed using this line many hears ago and it was never challenged and it included some beach area. The problem as I see it is those who don't understand what is going on here are applying improper rules. It is sort of like the surveyor who prorates before exhausting evidence examination. This is always a problem as proration is the rule of last resort and not the first.

[mpallamary]

Back in 1985 when I was working on my book "Lay of the Land," I travelled to Northern California to interview Norman Glover who, at the time, was 85 years old. We spent two days discussing historical survey matters and I recorded the conversation as an oral history interview.

http://www.amazon.com/Lay-Land-History- ... 1410702847

The attached article involves one of the primary topics of conversation between us. Of all the cases he worked on, this was the only one wherein he retained all of his old files. He gave them all to me and I was quite honored. As a result of his gift, I possess the largest private collection of historical and survey data related to the waters surrounding San Diego as said material existed as of the time of that litigation. Because of his client's interests and resources, Norm was given an open checkbook to do his research which, in addition to a lot of maps, resulted in three massive bound volumes. He told me he was paid in excess of $100,000 at that time to do his research.

The case is interesting for a lot of reasons particularly the political intrigue and the absence of testimony compared to what Norm did and said. Norm was very smart and did his homework.

I have also attached a photograph of what went in there; it is this project that founded the basis for the Coastal Commission.

From my perspective and as noted above, because each case is different, one has to apply the proper rules and be aware of the history and most importantly, the prior applications of law and the rules. Put another way, one does not prorate everything.

As I always tell my children, if you don't like the rules, change them.

Again, this is one of the reasons I advocate continuing education. The laws are not static and in this case (tongue in cheek) are quite fluid.

Many thanks for the thoughtful comments.

[mpallamary]

Latest News:

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/nov ... h-lawsuit/