California Surveyors Forums

Michael,

Do you have a copy of the judgment that you could post?

We also applied the rules of artificial accretion which far too many surveyors do not understand and far less attorneys. I am not certain if any civil engineers understand it because it is not reduced to conventional measurement tools. Indeed, fancy measurements, tidal measurements and high tech GPS readings are of no value here yet too many surveyors with no understanding of water law, apply these tools.

Measurement is Dead.

Well Mr. Pallamary,
Let's face it, "artificial accretion", and the rules associated with it, are inventions of the courts. What is so difficult to understand?

First, lets just say the concepts of accretion and other matters associated with the mechanics of natural and artificial waterbodies fall within the professional domain of engineers and geologists. Not land surveyors. And I suspect the LS community will (or should) support this position. Including yourself.

As for measurement: what does measurement have to do with anything? If you believe the account of the Delta Meadows Case in Flushman's "Water Boundaries" is anything akin to scientific Hocus Pocus then you certainly have the favor of the courts. I for one honor the approach, but laugh at the believability of the results, including measurements (garbage in - garbage out). Like us all, I am a man of science. If anything, as a matter of course predictable results make me question my methods.

Artificial accretion is a noble and conservative approach to consider. When we were kids we used to steal Taco Bell trays and take them over to Marine Street to use as body whompin aids (body surfing terminology). I am familiar with that beach. Those seawalls protecting neighboring properties along the bluff? Those reefs off shore? The kelp beds just off shore? The fact that LJ sticks out beyond the normal line of the coast in that area? Is there much realistic scientific belief that there would be any such sort of accretion (natural or artificial) along that stretch of beach without disrupting the off shore coastal regime in some noticeable way, including the surf quality, that would go un-noticed? The beauty of working along the CA coast is the plethora of available aerial photographs dating back normally to the 1930s. If anything, I would anticipate the beach being stripped of its sands over the years. Replentishment coming only from the mistakes of upshore coastal engineering projects and the import of sands via dumptruck and tractor. Being a professional, limited to my own expertise, I would necessarily consult the expertise of a professional geologist, or geomporphologist, to enlighten me and my clients on such matters.

Back to "artificial accretion", I must say that we should get familar with that concept. Thank you Mr. Pallamary for bringing this up. There is hardly such a thing in California as "natural accretion" in its pure form these days, or perhaps within the last 50 years. Natural accretion requires natural processes, good luck finding that in CA.

Employing the rules of "natural accretion" is a noble approach, a CYA approach, which also lets the next guy in line know your head was in the game.

Please let this continue for the sake of educating us. This is a fascinating topic to me.

Regards,
Clark

additional questions and comments based on ongoing research of data regarding the location and/or title of the public beach area shown as a part of ROS that took 18 months to prepare and the basis of the discretionary land development permit by the City of San Diego being the subject of nationwide media coverage of a millionaire former MA governor and 2012 republican presidential nominee is forthcoming. Please check back soon. Thank You interested individuals.

Hi Clark,

I think we are on the same page. The law is pretty clear as to artificial changes and how to evaluate them and the evidence to use. It is purely a surveying issue as it is all about mapping and boundary lines. The corollary public resources code speaks to this issue.

PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE - SECTION 6357-6360

6357. The commission may establish the ordinary high-water mark or
the ordinary low-water mark of any of the swamp, overflowed, marsh,
tide, or submerged lands of this State, by agreement, arbitration, or
action to quiet title, whenever it is deemed expedient or necessary.
The amendment hereby made is declaratory of the existing law and any
such agreements heretofore made establishing the ordinary high-water
mark or the ordinary low-water mark of any of the swamp, overflowed,
marsh, tide, or submerged lands of this State hereby are ratified
and confirmed.

6358. On receipt of a request from the legislative body of a
county, city, or other political subdivision or agency of the State,
to which a legislative grant of tide and submerged lands has been or
may be made, or at its own instigation, the commission may survey,
monument, plat, and record in the office of the recorder in the
county or counties in which such lands are located, the area of state
lands described in such act of the Legislature. Whenever such survey
and plat has been made at the request of a grantee of the State, the
costs thereof shall be repaid by such grantee to the commission.

6359. Whenever by legislative enactment tide or submerged lands of
the State are granted or conveyed or authorized to be granted or
conveyed or whenever a previous enactment is amended, and no prior
survey has been made, and such act does not contain a description of
such lands by metes and bounds, the commission shall within two years
following the effective date of such act survey, monument, and
record a plat and a metes and bounds description of such lands in the
office of the county recorder in the county or counties in which
such lands are located. Upon recordation, the survey, monuments, plat
and description shall be binding upon the State, the grantee, and
their successors in interest.
No such grant or conveyance or amended grant or conveyance shall
be effective until completion of the survey and recordation. The cost
of such survey and recordation shall be paid by the person or entity
to which the grant or conveyance is made.

6360. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the boundary line
of land lying within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (as defined in
Section 12220 of the Water Code) bordering upon tidal waters or upon
a navigable stream is, for the purpose of determining boundary
location, conclusively presumed to be located at the ordinary
high-water mark when such land borders on tidal lands not validly
patented into private ownership and at the low-water mark when such
land borders upon a navigable stream where there is no tide or where
such lands consist of tidelands validly patented into private
ownership, as such high- or low-water mark exists upon the effective
date of this section and from time to time thereafter where, for a
period of not less than 30 years continuously, prior to the effective
date of this section, the following facts exist:
(a) The land including any accretion thereto has been occupied
openly and notoriously by persons claiming title thereto or their
predecessors. Land shall be deemed occupied for the purpose of this
section when protected by a substantial enclosure; or when usually
cultivated; or when improvements have been constructed thereon by the
persons claiming such title or their predecessors, including, in the
case of improvements located waterward of the landward toe of a
levee, that land surrounding such improvements as is incidental to
the usual and reasonable use of the improvements.
(b) Taxes (state, county or municipal) have been levied and
assessed during such period on such land including any accretion
thereto and such persons or their predecessors have paid all such
taxes during such period. The requirements of this subparagraph shall
be deemed to have been met during any period when the owner or
claimant to such land was exempt from ad valorem taxation.
(c) The persons claiming title or their predecessors have based
their claim upon a deed or map, or both, describing or depicting the
land including any accretion thereto, which deed or map has been
recorded in the office of the recorder of the county in which the
land is situated.
Nothing in this section shall be construed as vesting in an
adjacent or contiguous landowner title to any lands which have been
artificially filled by the landowner or his predecessors or any
public agency or which have attached to his lands as a result of an
avulsive change in the shoreline or as the result of an avulsive
change in the course of, or an artifical rechannelization of, any
river or stream, or divesting such landowner of any title which he
may have to any lands which have been artificially dredged by the
landowner or his predecessors or any public agency or which have
detached from his land as a result of an avulsive change in the
shoreline or as the result of an avulsive change in the course of, or
an artifical rechannelization of, any river or stream.

*******************************************

I don't make the laws - I simply follow them.

Clark, as you probably know, we worked very closely with several geologists and soils engineers. It was a large team.

Check out the attached correspondence. It might be of interest.

DJLS wrote:additional questions and comments based on ongoing research of data regarding the location and/or title of the public beach area shown as a part of ROS that took 18 months to prepare and the basis of the discretionary land development permit by the City of San Diego being the subject of nationwide media coverage of a millionaire former MA governor and 2012 republican presidential nominee is forthcoming. Please check back soon. Thank You interested individuals.

Thank you for your input.

If anyone is interested in how things are measured here in San Diego, this might be of interest.

All in all, this is a fascinating topic that is generally misunderstood by many people.

http://docs.sandiego.gov/municode/MuniC ... sion02.pdf

Here in San Diego, the extent of ownership was established by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. There are also some cases that deal with a nexus between cause and effect as to shoreline migration. Here is an important one.

Mr. Ciani concerns may have some merit regarding ownership of certain lands shown on ROS 21533.

The title deed of the proprietor of Map No. 891, Alma Boal, (attached, poor copy) distinctly defines two separate unnumbered parcels being shown on Map No. 891 decribed as “Playa de las Arenasâ€￾ and “Neptunia Rupesâ€￾ along with other lands.

The areas defined on Map No. 891 as “Playa de las Arenasâ€￾ and “Neptunia Rupesâ€￾ are discernable on the map.

The premise of the deed description for 331 Dunemere Drive (attached) states that it is a part of “Playa de las Arenasâ€￾ as shown on Map No. 891 and the westerly line of the property described therein is called out to be the westerly line of “Playa de las Arenasâ€￾ and not the mean high tide line. This is also true with predecessor’s deeds. (attached)

If you do a mosaic of Map No. 891 and Map No. 893 that adjoins to the north of Map No. 891 prepared by the same surveyor and filed approximately six weeks after Map No. 891 showing annotations of dimensions along the northerly boundary of Sea Lane that is in agreement with the demarcation of the physical features shown on both maps and other surveys (ROS 598, Map No. 5840) performed in that vicinity showing the westerly line of “Playa de las Arenasâ€￾ and Neptune Place (Neptune Place being the westerly line of Map No. 893 presently and not labeled as such thereon).

Certain City documents filed with the Coastal Commission (LCP) show an area to be either owned in fee or dedicated to the City that is shown to be privately owned on ROS 21553.

In note 6 of ROS 21553 states the line shown on Map No. 891 westerly of “Playa de las Arenasâ€￾ is unidentified whereas it is clearly annotated as “Water Lineâ€￾.

Can a court decision on a specific matter be determined to affect a separate matter by anyone other than a judge in a court of law?

Does the filing of a Certificate of Compliance create or establish title/property lines?

Can one grant what one does not have?

There has been no appropriate action to quiet title on any claim of ownership of the specific area of land shown on ROS 21553 addressed in Mr. Ciani’s concerns and since public lands may be involved doesn't any member of the public have the right to question this matter without prejudice?

Hope this provides stimulus for further discussion on this very interesting and controversial matter.

Hello DJLS,

Great inquiries. Are you working with Tony? Just curious. Do you have a name?

As you may know, this area has been litigated several times. Those areas you described have been accounted for by the court both in 1997 when I testified extensively about how to read the map and in the 1960's when Curt Brown was involved.

There is an interesting case that I do not agree with for properties to the north that would support Ciani's assertions. In fact he exploited it very successfully for the benefit of some of his clients.

I attached the ruling and the associated map.

When I worked on the adjoining property in 1996, the State Lands Commission was in fact involved and we had extensive discussions about these lines. In connection with these lines and the legal resolution, Cliff Robinson and his neighbor filed a subdivision map (5840) and this same line was used years ago on map 2353 to the south. One has to analyze everything to resolve the question.

The city performed an 18 year neap tide survey prior to development activity in this area.

The coastal commission exhibit was in error as everyone acknowledged.

As to the other legal questions, I am not an attorney so I would defer to one there. The law and prior court decisions determined the rules we applied.

"Can one grant what one does not have?"

I suppose he can, if he can get away with it, at least for a time, i.e our federal and state governments. A little off point, but.......

As to who DJLS is I would suspect his name is Dick Jones, Land Surveyor. ;-))

Hi, Can you confirm this is you? It is nice to know who one is communicating with.

Thanks!

I have a wonderful recording of the late Cliff Robertson talking about this matter and the associated litigation. If anyone is interested in hearing it, please email me at mpallamary@pipeline.com

I will gladly share it with you. It might provide some perspective.

It is too large to attach.

mpallamary wrote:If anyone is interested in how things are measured here in San Diego, this might be of interest.

All in all, this is a fascinating topic that is generally misunderstood by many people.

http://docs.sandiego.gov/municode/MuniC ... sion02.pdf

Land surveying in one pdf file.

On bluff location I really like "B"

One county I dealt with min lot size was 1 ac. the original subdivision created 2 ac lots. County didn't want the lots subdivided. The one we were working on on one side was a 5ft storm drain easement, setbacks were 5ft. They denied the subdivision because the 5 side yard easement resulted in less than 2- 1 ac lots. The subdivider just walked away wasn't worth the fight.

I found a D.J. Land Surveyor practicing in San Diego, licensed in 1996. The company has a website and contact person. Various perspectives are always inviting, I'm wathcing and will probably never survey MHTL.
Thanks.

Thanks John,

One of the things I strive to do is to share my experiences with others so that we can all benefit from diverse experiences. I do a lot of expert work (I am carrying 5 trials right now) and I am always trying to elevate the profession by getting everyone to think about what they are doing. I do insurance work wherein surveyors are sued for doing something wrong and those are always painful. We really need continuing education for the benefit of the profession and practitioners.

Please do not hesitate to ask something as one of us will have some ideas and perspective.

Here are a few thoughts from Curt Brown on this topic:

1 of 2

DETERMINATION OF OWNERSHIP BOUNDARIES ALONG SEASHORES

Curtis M. Brown

Circa 1965

In the past the primary value of the seashore was for commerce, recreation and harvesting foods such as clams, lobsters and fish; court decisions pertained to these interests. In recent times the discovery of mineral wealth in tidal and offshore areas has led to fee title disputes and U. S. Supreme Court decisions.

In general, prior to these court cases, the upland riparian owner, with some exceptions as given below, had a fee title which extended seaward to the mean high tide line. Most coastal states believed that they had a fee title extending from the mean high tide line oceanward at least three geographical miles. The Federal Government claimed to the continental shelf. Disputes arose over oil leases issued by California in the Santa Barbara area. Both California and the Federal Government claimed fee title to the submerged lands existing between low water line and the three mile limit and both claimed benefits from oil discovered in this area.

The rule for the limits of ownership between the riparian upland owner and the State has always been that states (Texas excepted) owned below the mean high tide line. As an incident of ownership, each State had and still has the right to sell, lease or otherwise dispose of the fee title to their tide lands. In several instances this was done.

A Massachusetts colonial ordinance granted to riparian owners tidelands between the mean high tide line and the low water mark, but not more than 100 rods (1650’). New Hampshire and Maine adopted similar laws (see Reference #1). Grants made prior to the ordinance were held to extend only to the high water mark in Massachusetts and to the low water mark in Maine.

In the State of California the legislature did authorize the sale of tidelands from the mean high tide line to the low water line, and in a number of places, such as San Francisco Bay, San Diego Bay and Moro Bay, this was done.

In three Supreme Court cases, United States v California (332 US 19 in 1947), United States v Louisiana (339 US 699 in 1950), and United States v Texas (339 US 707 in 1950), the Federal Government won exclusive ownership of the fee below ordinary low water line. In the words of the court, “California is not the owner of the three-mile marginal belt along its coast, and the Federal Government rather than the State has paramount rights in the power over that belt, an incident to which is full dominion over the resources of the soil under the water area, including oil.”

The Federal Government’s victory was short lived. If the United States owned lands to the three mile limit, it could deed these lands to the States. By the submerged Lands Act of 1953 (Public Law 31) offshore lands were granted to the various States.

Apparently, at the time of the passage of the act, there was fear that the courts might decide that the bed of the Great Lakes belonged to the Federal Government; rights to the bed of the Great Lakes were granted to the adjoining States by this act. Also it appears that some of the congressmen were not at all pleased with the Supreme Court’s ideas since the committee wrote, “The Court believed it to be in the past.” Since the time of the packing of the Supreme Court during the Roosevelt Administration, many unexpected decisions have been handed down. Whether this is good or bad is not for me to say. One thing is certain, this concept of Federal fee ownership below the ordinary low water mark was the reverse of all previous expressions or expectations.

The submerged Lands Act provided among other things:

1. All rights of the Federal Government to mineral resources, fee title, etc., were quit claimed to the States for a distance of three geographical miles seaward in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
2. The fee title, mineral rights, etc. in all bays and inland waters (including the Great Lakes and excepting lands acquired by the Federal Government) were quit claimed to the States.
3. Within the Gulf of Mexico, States could claim to the extent of their boundaries at the time of their admission to the Union but not more than three marine leagues (nine geographic miles).
4. The U. S. reserved lands between the three geographical mile limit and the continental shelf into itself. The United States reserved the usual rights to control commerce, navigation, national defense, etc.
5. The Act defines the three geographical mile limit as being measured from “the line of ordinary low water.”

Since the passage of the act, the U. S. Supreme Court has decided that Texas and Florida, at the time of their admission to the Union, had rights to nine geographical miles, hence they could claim nine geographical miles into the Gulf of Mexico. Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama were limited to three geographical miles.

California is contending for three geographical miles beyond the headland line of certain “historic bays” such as Monterrey Bay. As yet, this decision has not been handed down though the special master has expressed his opinion.

As of the present time, the limit of demarcation between the riparian owner and the state can be in any one of several locations depending upon the general laws in force at the time of the alienation from the sovereign to the individual. These locations are:

1. Mean high water line (most States)
2. Ordinary low water line
3. Mean low water line
4. Mean lower low water line
5. One hundred rods (1650 feet) seaward of the mean high water line (Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine)
6. Mean Higher high water line (In Texas adjoining Spanish and Mexican land grants)
7. Meander lines (Swamp lands only) In the State of Texas many Spanish and Mexican grants were made. Spanish law at the time of these grants was said to reserve in the sovereign all lands to the highest winter wave. As a practical matter the Texas supreme court interpreted this as “the mean of the higher high tides (See Reference #4). Thus, lands granted to private parties by the Spanish or Mexican governments within Texas did not extend seaward as far as those which were granted by the State of Texas. To my knowledge this rule has not been applied in other rancho land grant States such as parts of Alabama, Florida and California.

The early swamp land act of the United States has created difficult boundary problems for those resurveying swamp lands. In the early history of the United States, the Federal Government passed a statute law whereby the various States could apply for certain swamp and overflow lands. After these lands were acquired by the States from the Federal Government, the States could dispose of them, and they often did. Some of these so-called swamp lands adjoined the ocean. Theoretically a swamp has no definite water line limit; it is an area subject to flooding part of the year and dryness at other times. It cannot be said that a swamp has a definite water line such as a river or ocean shore; the land may be merely a bog without a standing surface pond or lake. Most States have ruled that lands acquired via the swamp lands act are not riparian and ownership is limited to the meander lines. Many of the California coastal lagoons that are permanently cut off from the ocean and were acquired via the swamp land route come under this rule (Important: The lands must have been granted to the State in compliance with the swamp lands act).


4. Willson, William H.; The Seashore Boundary in Texas, 12th Annual Texas Surveyors Association Short Course, 1963.
[MP NOTE: Paper on file at UCLA Map Library August 19, 1965, Record ID: 4927792, UCLA Libraries and Collections]

Curtis brown

2 of 2

Accretion laws add confusion to the upland owners’ limit of ownership. Soil attaching itself to the riparian owners land by slow and imperceptible means belongs to the riparian owner. Land gradually eroded is lost to the riparian owner. Often accretion or erosion is caused by a man made barrier. For example, if a rock jetty is built from the shore into the ocean and the offshore currents are southerly, sand is apt to deposit northerly of the jetty.

In Mission Beach, California, about 100 acres of sand were added to the
shore because of just such a cause. According to the Federal rule of law, accretions belong to the riparian owner regardless of the cause; according to the California rule of law, accretions caused by man made barriers belong to the State. (The Federal rule of law does not apply to fills or sudden causes.)

Since the limits of the boundary of a State’s ownership now extends three geographical miles beyond the ordinary low water line, and if the same Federal rule of law for mean high tide is applied to the ordinary low water line, I suppose a State could increase its area of jurisdiction by constructing numerous jetties out from its shores, thus moving the ordinary low water line seaward by the process of accretions.

Thus far, numerous terms have been used without precise definitions.

Ordinarily, legal terms are not subject to mathematical definition, and it is often times difficult to translate a court decree into an exact location on the ground. Fortunately, the courts have been precise in many shore definitions and have in general adopted meanings as proposed by the Coast and Geodetic Survey. It is easy to misunderstand tide datum definitions and thus locate lines in error.

According to the court rules of law, mean high tide line (also ordinary high tide line) is the average of all higher tides at the spot being located. This is a simple definition but one that is exceedingly expensive to put into effect. Most surveyors are prone to say, “I will take the average elevation for a mean high tide line as published by the USC&GS and use this value to determine a level tide line along the shore.” This can be right in a few selected locations, but more often it is wrong.

The datum of the USC&GS is based upon the general adjustment of 1929 wherein sea level as observed at 26 tide stations (21 in the United States and 5 in Canada) was held fixed. This must not be confused with local mean sea level which is the datum referred to in court cases. While the two may be identical in a few places and may approximate one another in other places, investigations should be made to determine the differences.

In determining the local average sea level or local mean high tide line or local mean low tide, numerous considerations make this problem complex.
Tides are the result of gravitational pull of the moon and the sun. Superimposed on the predictable causes of the tide are such unpredictable factors as barometric pressure, wind velocity in one direction, land barriers, ocean currents and other items. In addition, the ocean is gradually rising at an imperceptible rate due to the melting of ice caps. Also, lands rise or fall due to various geographic causes. Taking all of the periodic factors into account, the USC&GS has concluded that an average of 18.6 years of observation is necessary to obtain a correct value for sea level. From this it can be seen that sea level varies from day to day, month to month and year to year (See page 63, reference 3).

Table of expected variation of sea level from

day to day 1 ft. or more
month to month 1 ft. or less
year to year .1 to .2 accumulative

For any given location the error of sea level determination can be reduced by using the method of comparison (see reference 2) with the nearest tidal station that has records of 19 year tidal observations. When using this method, the probable error will be in about the following range (this varies with the distance from the tidal station and the local conditions):

1 day of observations .25 foot error
30 days of observations .10 foot error
365 days of observation .05 foot error

Where the shore is flat, as in marsh lands, and where a few hundredths of a foot in elevation of the water will inundate a large area, these small errors can be significant. In steep shore conditions, 30 days of tidal observations compared with similar observations at a nearby 19 year observation station can be quite satisfactory and accurate enough for practical matters.

In summary, the line of demarcation between the upland riparian owner and the state is usually the average of all the high tides over an 18.6 year period. In some States, depending upon the laws in existence at the time of the alienation of the land from the sovereign, other legal ownership lines exist.

The correct tidal datum is that tidal datum that exists at the place the deed is written. The USC&GS 1929 datum when applied to a local spot, unless it happens to be near a control tidal observation station, is not necessarily sufficiently accurate to determine a local elevation for a specific tidal line.

The best method of determining a local datum is by the comparison method developed by the USC&GS and given in the books listed in references 2 and 3.

References

1. Brown, Curtis M.; Boundary Control and Legal Principles, Chapter 7, John Wiley & Sons, N. Y.
2. Kissam, Phillip; Surveying for Civil Engineers McGraw-Hill Book Co., N. Y.
3. Shalowitz, Aaron L.; Shore and Sea Boundaries, Publication 10-1, USGPO.

If the description of the west line of the lands in the Robertson deed is identical to the description of the lands in the deed that is the subject of your survey and all the other circumstances were the same, one could agree that a quieting title action on the area shown on your survey west of the unnumbered lot Playa de las Arenas and the mean high tide could result in the same outcome as the 1966 Decree Quieting Title.

But the fact is that there has simply not been a subjective action to quiet the title to the specific area shown as being owned privately west of Playa de las Arenas on your survey. Predicting the outcome of litigations would be presumptuous ineffectual prophesies and would dismiss immediately an attorney making such a claim whom I was seeking legal advice from. I think is reasonable to say your professional opinion “that the decision of the Robertson case applies to the subject property relative to the survey, legal and technical findings as to this areaâ€￾ can only be expressed by a judge under certain circumstances no matter how you qualified it.

Considering everything pertaining to this parcel and planned development thereon, I am curious why a quieting title action was not recommended where its litigated history is well known and having a seemingly high confidence factor to a favorable outcome of such an action.

The Robertson case could be construed to be an action that is a prerequisite for the consideration of a land development project that includes lands within the area between the “water lineâ€￾ and “Playa de las Arenasâ€￾ as shown on Map No. 891. This appears to have been necessary or at least prudent for “La Jolla Woodsâ€￾ and benefits are clear along with the conscience of the land developer and the surveyor involved knowing that the issue of the questionable area was address in a proper manner.

It is hard to get by head around the fact that the lands known as “Playa de las Arenasâ€￾ and “Neputnia Rupesâ€￾ existed 110 years ago as real property in title particularly described and shown on/in record documents but like what the waves do to footprints in the sand, opinions have made a portion of the properties disappear. The footprints may never reappear but am hopeful the property someday will.

I share the same concerns as Mr. Ciani and have been in contact with him.

Who I am is unimportant and wish operate in quiet and keep everything under the radar, you know how that is.

Mr. Woolley, I have not seen public areas along the Ocean assigned any sort of designation on the APM's in the County.

Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.

Thanks for your comments DJLS whoever you are.

I am moving on at this point as I am pretty busy and prefer dealing with folks in an open forum; it is more constructive.

This is an interesting thread.

I agree, we need a lot more education, especially legal education.

Thanks Dave,

As you can well imagine, given the status of my client, my work has been scrutinized very closely. I would add that I have 5 water boundary cases going on across the state and each requires a different set of rules and applications depending on the underlying facts and actions.

This is one of the reasons I am such a strong advocate of continuing education. This area of law is one of the most fascinating and one that is changing rather fast. When you consider sea level rise, datum shifts and other things, it is quite dynamic. In addition, there have been quite a few decisions at the national level that are raising more questions.

To be clear, I am offering all of this information not to defend anything I have done, but instead to generate dialogue. This is more constructive than arguing about who did what and when.

Again, thanks for the comments. They are positive and they move the profession forward.

I am disconsolate you are moving on from this thread initiated by yourself entitled “Water Boundaries Anyoneâ€￾ being so ironic since the description in the grant deed of the parcel surveyed and subject of the thread clearly have no water boundaries and nothing can justify that there are in your prevaricated responses, comprising voluminous material irrelevant to the concerns of the issues.

The survey does not demarcate the record monument called out as “west line of Playa de las Arenasâ€￾ and includes the note pertaining to a make-believe outcome of a fantasy quiet title action, the false statement in a note calling for the attention of the examiner of the record stating the line delineated on Map No. 891 lying west of “Playa de las Arenas is unidentified, the reference to irrelevant matters outside of the survey in which you partook, reference to a certificate of compliance borne from common fallacies and the statement made regarding the assessor’s parcel maps being in agreement with your conclusions do not and cannot define, substantiate or provide color of title even in the most obscured circumstances, certain rights, title or interests in the lands west of Playa de las Arenas as unjustifiably insinuated on your survey. The purpose of these distorted and unauthorized presuppositions cannot be disputed. And to attempt to cover up this injustice by encumbering the area by the felonious granting of an easement to the public, yet to be executed with unknown language and having unforeseen future consequences, over lands that the grantor of the proposed easement has no rights to convey is amoral, unethical, illegal and preposterous.

The local and state agencies having jurisdiction over the matters at hand 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.

It is indisputable that some other person or recognizable entity other than your client has legal title to the disputed area. The true title holder could be the successor to Alma Boals but I am hoping the efforts underway reveals that the underlying rights and interests are proven to be held by the public, who have used and enjoyed this area without encumbrances as a public beach and such use having been uncontested for all time.

Self-indulgent actions made to inflate ones ego often times miscarry and wish to thank you for providing an opportunity to assist in the disclosure of the facts of this abhorred travesty to the members this forum.