Well, I agree, but that would be too simple. The deeds were apparently written referencing the banks of the river. And was legally defined as the vegetation line on the south bank to settle the dispute regarding the state line.
Such a definition is crappy, because it actually means that the line changes as the river changes. And the actual amount of land changes as well, so apparently there is additional acreage on the southern side and less on the north.
An adequate description would function as you stated, and the amount of acreage would not change, but the location of the river would.
I have a deed to property that starts in the middle of a creek bed and west from there, so I have a somewhat similar problem. The state owns land located from the middle of the creek and the eastern side.
When the creek changes east or west, my boundary line would change so that it’s in the middle of the current path of the creek.
“When the creek changes east or west, my boundary line would change so that its in the middle of the current path of the creek.”
And the MOST important thing, is that you, and the people out west, still have access to the water. Although not sure how that works if it only extends to the brush line? Perhaps there is another river nearby to the south to provide for the Texans.
If it was me, and the feds wanted to get the land between me and my backyard neighbor (the jerk!), I’m pretty sure that we would BOTH figure something out between ourselves to keep the feds out of our backyards. (Hey - I’m a “NIMBY”!)