| OCR Text |
Show XI 18 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS sections 36 were surveyed in 1879. All three were fractional sections abutting the meander line run as part of the survey. It is the general rule that a meander line is not a line of boundary but one used to delineate the sinuosity of the bank or shore as a means of ascertaining the quantity of land in a fractional lot, the boundary line being the water itself. St. Paul and Pacific R. Co. v. Schurmeier, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 272 (1869). Thus, the Department has held on numerous occasions that grants by the United States of lands shown on plats of survey as adjoining navigable waters are not limited to the meander line but extend to the water line. Harvey M. LaFollette, 26 L.D. 453 (1898). John J. Serry, 27 L.D. 330 (1898). Gleason v. Pent, 14 L.D. 375 (1892). Louis W. Pierce, 18 L.D. 328 (1894). While this rule has been applied in cases involving the issuance of a patent, the certification of lands (such as school lands) is equivalent to patent and divests the Department of all jurisdiction over the lands or title thereto. Frasher v. O'Conner, 115 U.S. 102 (1885). Smith v. Portage Lake and Superior Ship Canal Co., 11 L.D. 475 (1890). State of California v. Boddy, 9 L.D. 636 (1889). Against this background, it can be expected that the State or its successors in interest might claim title to accretions to these three school sections. However, as above noted, title to these lands was expressly subject to reservations created prior to the survey thereof. Inasmuch as the Executive Order of May 15, 1876, effectively segregated the shoreline from these fractional sections 36 by including it in the reservation, it is concluded that accretions to this shoreline are lands held in trust for the Colorado River Indian Tribes and that they did not attach to the three fractional sections 36 as surveyed in 1879. For these reasons, correction surveys approved in 1964 which apportioned accretion lands to sections 36, Tps. 3 and 4 S., R. 23 E., should be suspended and the accretion surveys of these townships approved in 1962 should be reinstated in their entirety. There are also three parcels of School Indemnity Lands in sections 1 and 12, T. 5 S., R. 23 E., selection of which was approved in 1926. All three parcels abutted the meander line as surveyed by O. P. Callo-way in 1874. Congress had previously authorized Lieu Selections in California. 14 Stat. 218, 220. However, such Lieu Selections are limited to other lands of equal acreage. 26 Stat. 796. It may also be anticipated that the State or its successors in interest would claim accretions to these Indemnity parcels. The record discloses that, at the time California made its selection of these fractional lots, substantial accretions had previously formed between the meander line abutting these parcels and the course of the river. Since California was in any event limited to lands of equal acreage in making its Lieu Selections, it cannot be said that approval of these School Indemnity Lands carried accretions which had previously formed. To hold otherwise would mean that California acquired lands in excess of that which was permitted by law. This then, is an additional reason why the accretions would not have passed with title to the fractional lots. Of course, the rationale with regard to accretions to the school sections hereinabove discussed is equally applicable to the School Indemnity Lands in that the inclusion of the shoreline in the reservation prior to disposal of the fractional lots effectively segregated such shoreline from the abutting lands which the State eventually selected. As mentioned above, the proper location of the boundary in the reach from section 25, T. 2 S., R. 23 E., through section 12, T. 5 S., R. 23 E., is the line of ordinary high water along the west bank of the river at the time of issuance of the Executive Order of May 15, 1876, subject to application of the doctrine of erosion and accretion and avulsion. Absolute certainty as to the location of the bank in 1876 is probably not possible to achieve. However, in fixing the boundary, all that is required is such certainty as is reasonable as a practical matter, having regard to the circumstances. Arkansas v. Tennessee, 269 U.S. 152 (1925). The record discloses that the reach of the bank of the river from section 25, T. 2 S., R. 23 E., through T. 4 S., R. 23 E., was meandered in 1879 and that portion of the right bank in sections 1 and 12, T. 5 S., R. 23 E., was meandered in 1874. These meander lines were reestablished in a dependent resurvey made by the Bureau of Land Management in 1958. |
