I don’t get it. Even if the land is now Oklahoma and not Texas, why doesn’t he simply own land in Oklahoma? How does it suddenly become BLM land?
It doesn’t help matters that the author doesn’t know a thing about geology. Accretion is the opposite of erosion.
Same here. Seems like it would go to either the guy on one side of the river or the guy on the other side of the river....but somehow BLM thinks it goes to them. And a flippin' court AGREED with them in at least one case.
Which just goes to prove: the deck's stacked.
What it does do is give the Fed what they think is “ownership” of the actual shoreline for 116 miles on one side or the other. Since water is the issue in dry times, they will control ACCESS to the water. You gotta go through what they see as their land to get to the water.
And, rest assured, since the movement of rivers is a geologic phenomenon that takes place everywhere, if they get away with it here, they will do it everywhere.
And suddenly access land to even get to water will belong to the Fed in all of America.
Rivers, creeks, streams, lakes, springs.
You name it.
Exactly. It’s either part of Texas or part of Oklahoma, it is not part of the BLM.
River movements happen all the time on state boundaries and they are worked out by the courts. I know this because Iowa has three rivers that form it’s boundaries and they have won court cases when the river shifted.
What legal right does the BLM have if there is no federal lands in question here?