[greeneyes]

Even if the river channel is changing ie the river moves North the Southern boundary is also moving North, because the deeds reference the red river as the boundary.

So the ranchers to the North are actually losing acreage, while the ranchers to the South are gaining acreage. According to their deeds that's the way it is, and the government does own squat related to the land.

Now one could argue I suppose that the amount of new land on the south bank actually belongs to the rancher to the north, but it is beyond ridiculous that the government should claim ownership.

[greeneyes]

correction: Government does NOT own squat!

[JRandomFreeper]

Some crap just won't be put up with. This is close to home. I have relations near the Red River. We'd be likely to cancel the feud over something like this.

/johnny

[Marcella]

“Now one could argue I suppose that the amount of new land on the south bank actually belongs to the rancher to the north...”

There is NO new land - it was there all the time, just had water over it. The line should stay where it has always been, water over it or not. That’s what I think, bet Att. General Abbott thinks the same thing.