Has anyone ever heard of someone buying land that is submerged under a lake? I recently became aware of someone who is claiming to have title to land below the Lake Buchanan high pool water level, so basically shoreline of the lake when the water level is below full pool. This could have implications for lake front lot owners as theoretically they may not be lake front unless the lake is actually full. I'm not looking for legal advice yet, but just trying to see if they makes any sense at all.
Can someone own land under a submerged lake that affects lake front access?
2,761 Views |
36 Replies |
Last: 1 day ago by Knucklesammich
I didn't think you could own land below the shore line. Unless it's a private lake of course.
Up here in the Great Lakes it depends. Lake front owners on a Great Lake don't own the lake bottom. It's Federal. On an inland lake the owner owns the lake bottom in a slice to the center of the lake. This causes some confusion because a person on a Great Lake could legally stand in ankle-deep water on your shore and not be trespassing. On an inland lake they couldn't.
If I remember correctly, from some surveying I've done in the past in that area, there are parts of the lake where some HOA's and LLC's, have ownership that extends several hundred feet into the lake and parts of the Colorado River. I believe there are also some areas around Lake Travis that are also like this. I will have to go back in my spare time and revisit where and when I surveyed in these areas.
yes. there's a development on lake Buchanon that Gary Guidry and his wife bought years ago on the southwest side of the lake when property was cheap and there was no demand. we had property in an adjacent subdivision that also owned some of the lake bottom that he wanted in the "deal"; our dumb&&& POA voted to sell it to him for a nominal fee in lieu of leasing it in perpetuity.
so yes, its possible.
so yes, its possible.
I'm sure it depends on the lake. We have waterfront on Lake Palestine, but don't own it. It is a free restricted use lease from the Neches River Authority all the way up to 10' above full pool. We cannot build anything in that 10' between full pool and that extra 10' either.
Now, I don't understand why I have to pay taxes on land I don't actually own. But, I'm sure other owners have looked into this and there must be a reason.
Now, I don't understand why I have to pay taxes on land I don't actually own. But, I'm sure other owners have looked into this and there must be a reason.
It might depend on what state you live in. I live in Guadalupe county. I believe in the last 10 years we've had two old GVRA old hydro electric dams fail. This is my recollection. I'm old so take it with a grain of salt.
The property owner owns up to the traditional shore line. When the dam broke (which have since been fixed), the owners did not gain additional property as the lake recessed. They did not have to pay extra taxes for any additional land that surfaced. It is my recollection that since GVRA owned the lake, they owned the exposed land. Consequently, you could have an issue of someone setting up a canopy and have a party... essentially in your back yard.
To me the best way to think about it is that, at least in Texas, most lakes are just dammed up rivers. Texas owns the traditional "navigable waterway." So if the river goes dry, that land is owned by the state of Texas and consequently can't be sold. You can't have a guy there all of a sudden put up a house on stilts there.
So after giving you my very limited arguement... No. the scenario you are pitching doesn't make sense.
The property owner owns up to the traditional shore line. When the dam broke (which have since been fixed), the owners did not gain additional property as the lake recessed. They did not have to pay extra taxes for any additional land that surfaced. It is my recollection that since GVRA owned the lake, they owned the exposed land. Consequently, you could have an issue of someone setting up a canopy and have a party... essentially in your back yard.
To me the best way to think about it is that, at least in Texas, most lakes are just dammed up rivers. Texas owns the traditional "navigable waterway." So if the river goes dry, that land is owned by the state of Texas and consequently can't be sold. You can't have a guy there all of a sudden put up a house on stilts there.
So after giving you my very limited arguement... No. the scenario you are pitching doesn't make sense.
I own 50 acres in Trinity county that is the first non easement property on Caney Creek leading into Lake Livingston. The property has been in our family since the 1800s. The deed states up to the middle of Caney, and I checked on that, and we do indeed own up to the middle of the creek and the acreage will shift with the creek. The creek is navigable at that point, so if it can happen there, I would imagine it can happen in a lake. Maybe it's long standing ownership.
Does his name rhyme with Glad Thaw? He did some very creative things with property around Lake LBJ. It would not surprise me if he had branched out upriver.
I have heard (read on here I think) of some rare instances where people did not give up title to their land when a reservoir was impounded. They technically still own the land IIRC, although they will never actually get to use it.
Hoosegow said:
It might depend on what state you live in. I live in Guadalupe county. I believe in the last 10 years we've had two old GVRA old hydro electric dams fail. This is my recollection. I'm old so take it with a grain of salt.
The property owner owns up to the traditional shore line. When the dam broke (which have since been fixed), the owners did not gain additional property as the lake recessed. They did not have to pay extra taxes for any additional land that surfaced. It is my recollection that since GVRA owned the lake, they owned the exposed land. Consequently, you could have an issue of someone setting up a canopy and have a party... essentially in your back yard.
To me the best way to think about it is that, at least in Texas, most lakes are just dammed up rivers. Texas owns the traditional "navigable waterway." So if the river goes dry, that land is owned by the state of Texas and consequently can't be sold. You can't have a guy there all of a sudden put up a house on stilts there.
So after giving you my very limited arguement... No. the scenario you are pitching doesn't make sense.
There's a lot of submerged land on Lake Travis that is privately owned. You can go look on Travis CAD and see for yourself.
I know someone with a house on Lake Travis that is very skilled in real estate and they claim to own to the center of the Colorado River, regardless of how high the river/lake is.
How true that is, I don't know.
How true that is, I don't know.
Is this in front of the Point Tella subdivision? I've heard someone owns the property directly in front of those houses, so no one can build a dock in front of their property there.
Spanish land grant type situation?
The state probably would not allow you to build anything on it, and would still require you to pay property taxes.
The state probably would not allow you to build anything on it, and would still require you to pay property taxes.
And here's where it can get even wonkier- say you own that submerged land and it is indeed underwater. You cannot stop somebody from fishing that water or swimming in it. And I'm pretty sure somebody could wade around it too without trespassing.
TarponChaser said:
And here's where it can get even wonkier- say you own that submerged land and it is indeed underwater. You cannot stop somebody from fishing that water or swimming in it. And I'm pretty sure somebody could wade around it too without trespassing.
Correct, if navigable waters, but they're trespassing as soon as they step foot on the dry land. That is the advice I've gotten on our property.
Wonder if people buy/hold that "land" for mineral rights?
I don't know if it's different for a lake vs. a river/navigable waterway but that's incorrect on a navigable waterway. You may own the land under the water but a person can travel up to the midpoint between the waterline and the cut-bank/mean high water mark and not be trespassing. Or something like that.cavjock88 said:TarponChaser said:
And here's where it can get even wonkier- say you own that submerged land and it is indeed underwater. You cannot stop somebody from fishing that water or swimming in it. And I'm pretty sure somebody could wade around it too without trespassing.
Correct, if navigable waters, but they're trespassing as soon as they step foot on the dry land. That is the advice I've gotten on our property.
Additionally, say a person is paddling down a navigable waterway in a canoe and a tree or some other obstruction has blocked safe passage on the water then there's a defensible right of safe passage that would allow somebody to trespass on your property to get around the hazard. However, they have to take the shortest, most direct route that is safe.
All kinds of fun scenarios and conflicting info out there, right?
This. Buchanan Dam was originally called Hamilton Dam when it started construction in 1931. My mom had a eccentric step uncle who was related to Alvin Wirtz who was a Texas State Senator in 1930. The story went that Alvin Wirtz, (A t-sip lawyer) became involved with some men that had the idea to develop the Guadalupe River for hydroelectric power. He and this utility firm built a chain of privately owned hydroelectric dams on the Guadalupe... and also started Hamilton Dam on the Colorado River.
When the stock market fell and the depression started the utility company building the Hamilton Dam went kaput and Wirtz supposedly became the receiver of that utility construction companies properties which included the unfinished Hamilton Dam. Wirtz became a Texas State Senator and finagled ( With the help of a U.S. Rep JP Buchanan) funding from the federal government to resume building the damn.
The story goes that they, the federal government, gave them the funding on the condition that the money would go to a public agency created and owned by the State of Texas. So in 1933 Wirtz drafted legislation creating a Colorado River Authority. It seems that land owners and ranchers were not in favor of this with the concern of loosing water rights and land along the river. The bill to form the CRA ( Later called LCRA) failed to pass in the legislature like three or four times until then Governor Ma Ferguson, worked a compromise. That compromise was for the new LCRA would only control the lower portion of the river and not the upper portions. This is supposedly why there is some of land under Lake Buchanan that was, and still is owned by private individuals.
In 1934, Hamilton Dam was renamed Buchanan Dam ( Because of the U.S. Rep dude who wanted it that way I assume) and construction resumed in February of 1935. It was impounding water by May of 1937. The damn was completed in 1938. They thought the lake would take years to fill but a rain event dropped 20" of rain and it actually was filled in just a few months. The lake filled up over the then town of Bluffton.
Of course the t-sip Wirtz wanted a damn named after him too so the damn on the the then Lake Granite Shoals (now Lake LBJ) is named after him.
Guess that all explains how there actually is some private ownership of land under lake Buchanan?
When the stock market fell and the depression started the utility company building the Hamilton Dam went kaput and Wirtz supposedly became the receiver of that utility construction companies properties which included the unfinished Hamilton Dam. Wirtz became a Texas State Senator and finagled ( With the help of a U.S. Rep JP Buchanan) funding from the federal government to resume building the damn.
The story goes that they, the federal government, gave them the funding on the condition that the money would go to a public agency created and owned by the State of Texas. So in 1933 Wirtz drafted legislation creating a Colorado River Authority. It seems that land owners and ranchers were not in favor of this with the concern of loosing water rights and land along the river. The bill to form the CRA ( Later called LCRA) failed to pass in the legislature like three or four times until then Governor Ma Ferguson, worked a compromise. That compromise was for the new LCRA would only control the lower portion of the river and not the upper portions. This is supposedly why there is some of land under Lake Buchanan that was, and still is owned by private individuals.
In 1934, Hamilton Dam was renamed Buchanan Dam ( Because of the U.S. Rep dude who wanted it that way I assume) and construction resumed in February of 1935. It was impounding water by May of 1937. The damn was completed in 1938. They thought the lake would take years to fill but a rain event dropped 20" of rain and it actually was filled in just a few months. The lake filled up over the then town of Bluffton.
Of course the t-sip Wirtz wanted a damn named after him too so the damn on the the then Lake Granite Shoals (now Lake LBJ) is named after him.
Guess that all explains how there actually is some private ownership of land under lake Buchanan?
Here is link to the history of Lake Buchanan and the dam. I thought some might enjoy. Interesting read. https://www.twdb.texas.gov/surfacewater/rivers/reservoirs/buchanan/index.asp
CanyonAg77 said:
Wonder if people buy/hold that "land" for mineral rights?
Possibly. On lakes that aren't constant level, it's primarily for boat dock permits.
My family homesteaded a ranch on the Guadalupe River above what is now Canyon Lake. It was in the Rebecca Creek area. Lots of German immigrants and other members of the same family homesteaded all up and down the river in that area. This would have been in the mid to late 1800's. The old deeds showed that the property lines actually went either across the river or to the middle of the river, depending. Through the years this was always a cause of debate of ownership and trespassing issues. Texas had some very non consistent vague laws in regards to this back in that time.
Is that closer to Riverside?
Ours was somewhere around there. Under water now. Been wanting to figure it out but not sure where to start. The cemetery is around lake estates golf course. My dad said his grandfather would drive over the bridge and just point out in the middle of the lake.
Title of the thread made me think of it. Then saw your post.
Ours was somewhere around there. Under water now. Been wanting to figure it out but not sure where to start. The cemetery is around lake estates golf course. My dad said his grandfather would drive over the bridge and just point out in the middle of the lake.
Title of the thread made me think of it. Then saw your post.
State specific.
Some ******** bought like 10'or 15 foot strips of land along the waterfront somehow in part of Buchanan. He extorts folks with water view to cross.
Apparently at Lake Travis you can own to the middle of the river or to some nebulous water level of the lake. My understanding of how this transpired depended on how the land was acquired. If the land was sold to LCRA, or whatever authority it was, then you own to the middle of the lake. If the land was acquired by condemnation, then you own to some property line and if the lake goes away in the future the previously submerged land reverte to the original owner. Don't know if this is true or just a local story.
I believe this also happened at Lake McQueeney.
Build It said:
Some ******** bought like 10'or 15 foot strips of land along the waterfront somehow in part of Buchanan. He extorts folks with water view to cross.
That's what I talked about happening on Lake LBJ.
This sounds like a problem that the OB could come up with solid solutions for....Deerdude said:Build It said:
Some ******** bought like 10'or 15 foot strips of land along the waterfront somehow in part of Buchanan. He extorts folks with water view to cross.
That's what I talked about happening on Lake LBJ.
While we are on lakes, does anyone know the history of Twin Buttes out toward San Angelo. That damn lake never has any water of significance in it since it was built back in the 60's. Seems like a big boondoggle to me.
https://waterdatafortexas.org/reservoirs/individual/twin-buttes
OTOH, Bois d'Arc seems to be filling nicely.
https://waterdatafortexas.org/reservoirs/individual/bois-darc
https://waterdatafortexas.org/reservoirs/individual/twin-buttes
OTOH, Bois d'Arc seems to be filling nicely.
https://waterdatafortexas.org/reservoirs/individual/bois-darc
Twin Buttes has been a real sore spot for folks in SanAngelo. The marine dealers have complained about that for years. They say the issue is they pump lots of water out of the lake and it has limited watershed so unless of huge floods it never has sustainable water due to how much is taken out of it.
https://sanangelolive.com/news/outdoors/2024-05-21/twin-buttes-reservoir-hits-lowest-water-levels-five-yearsGunny456 said:
Twin Buttes has been a real sore spot for folks in SanAngelo. The marine dealers have complained about that for years. They say the issue is they pump lots of water out of the lake and it has limited watershed so unless of huge floods it never has sustainable water due to how much is taken out of it.
All kinds of issues with the dam at Twin Buttes documented here. Repairs went on for decades evidently for a dam and lake that just doesn't fill....
https://www.conchovalleyhomepage.com/water/our-water-twin-buttes-special-report-continues/
Doc Hayworth said:
If I remember correctly, from some surveying I've done in the past in that area, there are parts of the lake where some HOA's and LLC's, have ownership that extends several hundred feet into the lake and parts of the Colorado River. I believe there are also some areas around Lake Travis that are also like this. I will have to go back in my spare time and revisit where and when I surveyed in these areas.
This is correct. We were looking at a lot in Lago Vista and this was the case. I don't remember all the legal specifics but the property went well beyond where the water hit the bank.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Not under a lake but I do know that the San Antonio River Authority owns some inundation easements along side of several SCS lakes in eastern Bexar County.
Featured Stories
See All
5 Thoughts: No. 13 Texas A&M 76, South Carolina 72
by Luke Evangelist
68:03
1d ago
6.3k
6:05
30m ago
290
Presenting Texas Aggies United's 'Florida Slam Dunk' Sweepstakes!
by Texas Aggies United