To: Texas Fossil
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.
11 posted on
04/13/2014 6:13:45 PM PDT by
greeneyes
(Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
To: greeneyes
correction: Government does NOT own squat!
12 posted on
04/13/2014 6:14:49 PM PDT by
greeneyes
(Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
To: greeneyes
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
To: greeneyes
“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.
101 posted on
04/13/2014 8:43:43 PM PDT by
Marcella
(Prepping can save your life today. Going Galt is freedom.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson