OCR Text |
Show -3- Numerous decisions in the United States Supreme Court and many of the State courts assert the principle that meander lines are not boundaries defining the area of ownership of tracts adjacent to waters. The general rule is that meander lines are not run as boundaries, but to define the sinuosities of the banks of the stream or other body of water, and as a means of ascertaining the quantity of land embraced in the survey, the stream, or other body of water, and not the meander line as actually run on the ground, being the boundary. When by action of water the bed of the body of water changes, high-water mark changes and ownership of adjoining land progresses with it. Lane v. United States, 274 Fed. 290 (C. C. A. 5, 1921); Harper v. Holston, 205 P. 1062 (Wash. 1922). Meander lines will not be established at the segregation line between upland and swamp or overflowed land, but at the ordinary high-water mark of the actual margin of the river or lake on which such swamp or overflowed lands border. 227. Practically all inland bodies of water pass through an annual cycle of changes from mean low water to flood stages, between the extremes of which will be found mean high water. In regions of broken topography, especially where bodies of water are bounded by sharply sloping lands, the horizontal distance between the margins of the various water elevations is comparatively slight, and the engineer will not experience much difficulty in determining the horizontal position of mean high-water level with approximate accuracy; but in level regions, or in any locality where the meanderable bodies of water are bordered by relatively flat lands, the horizontal distance between the successive levels is relatively great. The engineer will find the most reliable indication of mean high-water ele- |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : |