Property lines defined by water

[IowaBowHunter1983]

Anyone have experience with property lines defined by a river or stream that changes or changed a lot? Kinda weird deal. Someone could gain or lose substantial acreage depending on how the water changes. When it changes could someone technically own on the other side? Strange deal. Wierd scenario. Does case law address this at all I wonder?

 

[deadeye]

I am not for certain but I would think it follows the original water boundary as much as possible. Like the old riverbed and not the current riverbed. A lot of times old riverbeds are quite visible for quite some time.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

 

[hans1]

The amount of land you would own wouldn’t change it is still the same size and would be legally described as such. Unless the abstract or language in a deed made reference to the “River” in there Metes and bounds definition.
Your access or others access to the property under the river could change with the river.

 

[rc10pt]

Look up erosion vs avulsion in boundary surveying books. Avulsion is a violent act of losing ground due to a flood etc. erosion is the gradual loss over time. These will have different outcomes on land transfers. Is this a navigable stream as defined by the state? If navigable, you would own to the high water mark if not you would own to the thread of the stream. I believe how your deed reads would also come into play. If the thread of the stream is called out in the deed, you may only ever own to it, if it’s an 1/4 section, acreage, or metes and bounds description they may hold. It’s been a long time, but I sat through a land survey class years ago discussing this topic.

 

[kstur]

Research Riparian Rights in Iowa.