Skip to main content

View Diary: Midday openthread (90 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't see how this is in dispute (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hoof32

    It should be based off of where the river was.  Otherwise, one side could make a land grab by doing something to purposely redirect the river.  

    •  This is the problem. (0+ / 0-)

      Say Farmer Jones has a nice piece of arable land next to a big river.  Suddenly the river changes course and flows over Jones's property instead of its old course, while creating another piece of dry, arable land where it used to flow.

      By your recommendation, Farmer Jones would be out of luck.  His land would remain exactly what it was, only now it would be under x-number of feet of water and no good to him.

      Boundary commissions are set up to deal with these very issues.  In this case, the newly-dry land would probably be deeded to Farmer Jones in place of his old land, because otherwise who would own the new land?

      I'm not sixty-two—I'm fifty-twelve!

      by Pragmatus on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 03:54:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site