| |
| |
|
|
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
|
|
|
WHEREAS, Jimmy Glen Riemer and other property owners along |
|
|
and adjacent to the Canadian River allege that: |
|
|
(1) the patented field notes for the following surveys call |
|
|
for a common boundary with the Canadian River: |
|
|
Sections 29, 30 and 31 in Block 47, |
|
|
H.&T.C.R.R. Survey, Hutchinson County, |
|
|
Texas |
|
|
Sections 66, 67, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, |
|
|
78 and 79 in Block 46, H.&T.C.R.R. Survey, |
|
|
Hutchinson County, Texas |
|
|
Sections 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, and |
|
|
83 in Block 46, H.&T.C.R.R. Survey, |
|
|
Hutchinson County, Texas |
|
|
Sections 79 and 81 in Block 46, H.&T.C.R.R. |
|
|
Survey, Hutchinson County, Texas, and |
|
|
Sections 31, 32, 33, 37, 38, and 39 in Block |
|
|
47, H.&T.C.R.R. Survey, Hutchinson County, |
|
|
Texas |
|
|
Section 26, Block 47, H&TC RR Co. Survey, |
|
|
Hutchinson County, Texas, Abstract Number |
|
|
A-689 |
|
|
Section 25, Block 47, H&TC RR Co. Survey, |
|
|
Hutchinson County, Texas, Abstract Number |
|
|
A-107 |
|
|
Section 24, Block 47, H&TC RR Co. Survey, |
|
|
Hutchinson County, Texas, Abstract Number |
|
|
A-833 |
|
|
Section 23, Block 47, H&TC RR Co. Survey, |
|
|
Hutchinson County, Texas, Abstract Number |
|
|
A-106 |
|
|
Section 22, Block 47, H&TC RR Co. Survey, |
|
|
Hutchinson County, Texas, Abstract Number |
|
|
A-637 |
|
|
Sections, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, |
|
|
32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, |
|
|
21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, and into Section 15 |
|
|
to the point of beginning of the survey |
|
|
performed by W.C. Wilson, Jr, in Block 47, |
|
|
H. & T.C.R.R. Co. Survey, Hutchinson |
|
|
County, Texas |
|
|
Sections, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, |
|
|
75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, |
|
|
64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, and into Section 58 |
|
|
to the point of beginning of the survey |
|
|
performed by W.C. Wilson, Jr., in Block 46, |
|
|
H. & T.C.R.R. Co. Survey, Hutchinson |
|
|
County, Texas; |
|
|
(2) in Brainard v. Texas, 12 S.W.3d 6 (Tex. 1999), the Texas |
|
|
Supreme Court held that the surveying method employed by the |
|
|
General Land Office in that case was flawed and inconsistent with |
|
|
the gradient boundary method which has been the law of the land |
|
|
since Oklahoma v. Texas, 260 U.S. 606, 43 S.Ct. 221, 67 L.Ed. 428 |
|
|
(1923); |
|
|
(3) the General Land Office in concert with other state |
|
|
agencies continued to employ the methodology condemned in the |
|
|
Brainard case, creating confusion and uncertainty as to the |
|
|
location of the boundary line between those surveys and the |
|
|
Canadian River; and |
|
|
(4) a dispute exists as to the ownership of surface and |
|
|
minerals between the state and the riparian owners that requires |
|
|
judicial action to determine and establish the boundary between the |
|
|
Canadian River and the riparian surveys under present conditions; |
|
|
now, therefore, be it |
|
|
RESOLVED by the Legislature of the State of Texas, That the |
|
|
following are granted permission to sue the State of Texas and the |
|
|
General Land Office subject to Chapter 107, Civil Practice and |
|
|
Remedies Code, to determine and establish the boundary line between |
|
|
the above described surveys and the Canadian River: |
|
|
Jimmy Glen Riemer; |
|
|
Richard Coon, Jr.; |
|
|
June Meetze Coon Trust; |
|
|
Johnson Borger Ranch Partnership; |
|
|
W.R. Edwards, Jr., d/b/a W.R. Edwards, Jr. Oil and Gas; and, |
|
|
be it further |
|
|
RESOLVED, That the commissioner of the General Land Office be |
|
|
served process as provided by Subdivision (3), Subsection (a), |
|
|
Section 107.002, Civil Practice and Remedies Code; and, be it |
|
|
further |
|
|
RESOLVED, That a survey of the boundary line between the |
|
|
above described surveys and the Canadian River shall be performed |
|
|
by plaintiffs, using the gradient boundary survey methodology |
|
|
approved by the United States Supreme Court in Oklahoma v. Texas; |
|
|
and, be it further |
|
|
RESOLVED, That any final judgment adjudicating the title |
|
|
dispute in a suit brought concerning title to boundaries of the |
|
|
Canadian River under this resolution is limited to settling the |
|
|
title dispute and may not award monetary damages; and, be it further |
|
|
RESOLVED, That the lawsuit authorized by this resolution must |
|
|
be filed on or before the first anniversary of the final adoption of |
|
|
this resolution; and, be it further |
|
|
RESOLVED, That any final judgment adjudicating the location |
|
|
of the boundaries of the Canadian River in a suit brought under this |
|
|
resolution shall be res judicata as to those boundaries for all |
|
|
purposes, subject to the rules of law applicable to future erosion |
|
|
or accretion. |