transfers ownership of a navigable river out of the State.
and erosion. Accretion is the gradual adding dry land that was previously covered by water. This can be through the deposit of solid material or mud (accretion by alluvion) or by the recession of water (accretion by reliction). Avulsion on the other hand is a sudden change in the bed or course of a stream. These changes may reallocate riverbed ownership rights as between the State of Texas and its bordering riparian owners.
II. What Exactly Counts as a Streambed?
The boundary line between the bed of a navigable stream and the bordering “riparian” land – being the line between State and private ownership – is not always clear. The Texas Supreme Court has stated that the bed of a stream is “that portion of its soil which is alternately covered and left bare as there may be an increase or diminution in the supply of water, and which is adequate to contain it at its average and mean stage during an entire year, without reference to the extra freshets of the winter or spring or the extreme drouths [sic] of the summer or autumn.” 5 If this definition seems as clear to you as Buffalo Bayou, 6 you are not alone. Texas has also adopted what is known as the “gradient boundary” methodology for defining streambeds. The gradient boundary of a navigable stream is ‘‘the water-washed and relatively permanent elevation or acclivity at the outer line of the riverbed that separates the bed from the adjacent upland, whether valley or hill, and serves to confine the water within the bed and to preserve the course of the river.’’ 7 The boundary between the private riparian landowner and the State of Texas is thus the mean level midway between the line made by the flowing water that just reaches the cut bank (the water-washed and relatively permanent elevation separating the bed from the adjacent upland) and the higher level that just does not overtop the cut bank. 8
III. State v. Riemer 9 - Background & Trial Court
In 1937, J.M. Huber Corporation (“Huber”) leased portions of the Canadian riverbed from the state, and drilled numerous productive wells. Once the Sanford Dam reduced the navigable Canadian to a trickle, previously submerged lands began to emerge through reliction. According to the landowners, as the water receded, the State’s interest contracted to the centerline and the newly-exposed lands (and minerals) became private property. Nonetheless, the state continued its relationship with Huber by renewing leases and accepting royalty payments on the 21 oil and gas wells drilled prior to 1982. 10 Sometime in the early 1980s, in order to settle the question of ownership, Huber commissioned a resurvey of the disputed portion of the river (the “Shine Survey”). The Shine Survey was filed on January 28, 1982 and identified the gradient boundary of the Canadian by locating the last natural riverbed before the dam’s completion. 11 The adjacent landowners later challenged the Shine Survey and identified January 28, 1982 as the key date that the State allegedly began taking their minerals without compensation. However, the landowners did not 5 Motl v. Boyd, 286 S.W. 458, 467 (Tex. 1926). 6 A navigable waterway. Though navigating it is probably not advisable. 7 Oklahoma v. Texas, 260 U.S. 606, 631-32 (1923). 8 Diversion Lake Club v. Heath, 86 S.W.2d 441, 446-47 (Tex. 1935). 9 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 4406 (Amarillo, June 25, 2025). 10 Id. at 2. 11 This was based on a 1971 Texas Attorney General’s Opinion stating that dam construction does not alter State riverbed ownership. See State v. Sims, 871 S.W.2d 259, 260 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1994, no writ).
Complicating the determination of the gradient boundary of a stream is the fact that these boundaries are not static. Streams gradually shift and change course through the processes of accretion
18
N at i onal A ssociation of D i v i s i on O rder A nalys t s
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting