I must be missing something here. Does the BLM own the Red River bed?
If the river moves to the South, parts of Texas could be in Oklahoma, but still owned by ranchers in Texas, and if the river moves North, parts of Oklahoma could be in Texas and owned by ranchers in Oklahoma.
So where does the BLM come in on this? This sounds more like a state issue than a BLM issue.
They claim the “waterways”.
Twisted legal logic.
All the property both sides of the Red River has deeds from statehood.
But BLM now claims it.
States are the federal government’s tax collectors. I was looking at a map of the Mississippi River and saw that parts of Arkansas were on the east and parts of Ms were on the west. I guess borders don’t move with the river.
And supposedly, this was upheld in 1984 when the feds got the 140 acres.
These numbers, 90,000 acres and 136 linear miles of river, are scientific wild ass guesses(SWAG). Its a strip on land, undetermined at this point.
If the river moves to the South, parts of Texas could be in Oklahoma, but still owned by ranchers in Texas, and if the river moves North, parts of Oklahoma could be in Texas and owned by ranchers in Oklahoma.
So where does the BLM come in on this? This sounds more like a state issue than a BLM issue.
**********************************************************
I had similar questions, and here's what I have found so far:
Background info on the Henderson case and the Oklahoma/Texas Boundary are noted below:
The ADAMS/ONIS TREATY of 1819:
http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/TAHv3/Content/PDFs/Adams_Onis_Treaty_1819.pdf
SUPREME COURT CASES:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/260/606
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/457/172
Rule of ERROSION and ACCRETION: If a stream changes gradually due to natural erosion and accretion, the boundary changes. (With current day technology, I don't know that this is even necessary).
Rule of AVULSION: If a river suddenly leaves it’s bed and forms a new one whether by natural or some other means, the boundary does not change, even though the course of the river changes.
A brief description of each and how they impact Texas and the HENDERSON CASE.
This treaty of 1819 settled the boundaries of USA purchase/ownership of land. One of the issues was the boundary between current day Oklahoma and Texas.
Adams was determined to have the whole of the Red River belong to the USA. The Spanish representative wanted it to be the medial point of the River, but eventually acquiesced to Adams.(Note many states do use the medial line of a river as the boundary between them). If the medial point had been chosen, there would not have been as much contention.
Both parties agreed that the people of both nations could continue to use the Red River. Any islands in the River were to also be the property of the USA. Any grants made prior to Jan 24, 1818 to individuals were to be honored.
The Supreme Court relied heavily on the Treaty in their decision regarding the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma. There is also the treaty with the Indians to consider, which I haven’t had time to track down.
The various court rulings have resulted in the following:
1. Oklahoma Plaintiffs(Riparian Owners) awarded the lands north of the medial line of the Red River.
2. Lands lying in the bed of the river south of the medial line are in trust for the Indians (owned by USA -hence the BLM “management”).
3. Lands of the south bank belong to Texas Land Owners subject to the rules of erosion, accretion, and avulsion.(A bunch of twisted rules that should be outdated by modern technological ability - JMHO).
4. The bank of the river on the south side was determined by the Supreme Court to be the high water mark - not the low water mark.(I agree with the dissenting opinion here - it should have been the low water mark).
The judge who ruled on the Henderson case relied on the prior court rulings and the rules of erosion, accretion, and avulsion. Here’s a link to the case:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/220303420/Currington-v-Henderson-1986
It sucks. I think if Henderson could trace the ownership back to an original Spanish Land Grant which included ownership to the medial point of the River, or even to the low water mark, he might have been able to prevail.
His family had ownership back to the later 1800’s, IIRC from his interview with Greta, but not back to 1818.
Note: In all the agreements and info I have tracked down so far, the rights of individual landowners have been acknowledged. However, the courts are looking back to the Adams/Onis Treaty, and so far the deeds in the cases where the landowners lost have not gone back that far.