Texas 2009 - 81st Regular

Texas Senate Bill SCR43 Compare Versions

Only one version of the bill is available at this time.

Old	New	Differences
1	1	2009S0660-1 03/11/09
2	2	By: Seliger S.C.R. No. 43
3	3
4	4
5	5	CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
6	6	WHEREAS, Jimmy Glen Riemer and other property owners along
7	7	and adjacent to the Canadian River allege that:
8	8	(1) the patented field notes for the following surveys call
9	9	for a common boundary with the Canadian River:
10	10	Sections 29, 30 and 31 in Block 47,
11	11	H.&T.C.R.R. Survey, Hutchinson County,
12	12	Texas
13	13	Sections 66, 67, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77,
14	14	78 and 79 in Block 46, H.&T.C.R.R. Survey,
15	15	Hutchinson County, Texas
16	16	Sections 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, and
17	17	83 in Block 46, H.&T.C.R.R. Survey,
18	18	Hutchinson County, Texas
19	19	Sections 79 and 81 in Block 46, H.&T.C.R.R.
20	20	Survey, Hutchinson County, Texas, and
21	21	Sections 31, 32, 33, 37, 38, and 39 in Block
22	22	47, H.&T.C.R.R. Survey, Hutchinson County,
23	23	Texas
24	24	Section 26, Block 47, H&TC RR Co. Survey,
25	25	Hutchinson County, Texas, Abstract Number
26	26	A-689
27	27	Section 25, Block 47, H&TC RR Co. Survey,
28	28	Hutchinson County, Texas, Abstract Number
29	29	A-107
30	30	Section 24, Block 47, H&TC RR Co. Survey,
31	31	Hutchinson County, Texas, Abstract Number
32	32	A-833
33	33	Section 23, Block 47, H&TC RR Co. Survey,
34	34	Hutchinson County, Texas, Abstract Number
35	35	A-106
36	36	Section 22, Block 47, H&TC RR Co. Survey,
37	37	Hutchinson County, Texas, Abstract Number
38	38	A-637
39	39	Sections, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33,
40	40	32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22,
41	41	21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, and into Section 15
42	42	to the point of beginning of the survey
43	43	performed by W.C. Wilson, Jr, in Block 47,
44	44	H. & T.C.R.R. Co. Survey, Hutchinson
45	45	County, Texas
46	46	Sections, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76,
47	47	75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65,
48	48	64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, and into Section 58
49	49	to the point of beginning of the survey
50	50	performed by W.C. Wilson, Jr., in Block 46,
51	51	H. & T.C.R.R. Co. Survey, Hutchinson
52	52	County, Texas;
53	53	(2) in Brainard v. Texas, 12 S.W.3d 6 (Tex. 1999), the Texas
54	54	Supreme Court held that the surveying method employed by the
55	55	General Land Office in that case was flawed and inconsistent with
56	56	the gradient boundary method which has been the law of the land
57	57	since Oklahoma v. Texas, 260 U.S. 606, 43 S.Ct. 221, 67 L.Ed. 428
58	58	(1923);
59	59	(3) the General Land Office in concert with other state
60	60	agencies continued to employ the methodology condemned in the
61	61	Brainard case, creating confusion and uncertainty as to the
62	62	location of the boundary line between those surveys and the
63	63	Canadian River; and
64	64	(4) a dispute exists as to the ownership of surface and
65	65	minerals between the state and the riparian owners that requires
66	66	judicial action to determine and establish the boundary between the
67	67	Canadian River and the riparian surveys under present conditions;
68	68	now, therefore, be it
69	69	RESOLVED by the Legislature of the State of Texas, That the
70	70	following are granted permission to sue the State of Texas and the
71	71	General Land Office subject to Chapter 107, Civil Practice and
72	72	Remedies Code, to determine and establish the boundary line between
73	73	the above described surveys and the Canadian River:
74	74	Jimmy Glen Riemer;
75	75	Richard Coon, Jr.;
76	76	June Meetze Coon Trust;
77	77	Johnson Borger Ranch Partnership;
78	78	W.R. Edwards, Jr., d/b/a W.R. Edwards, Jr. Oil and Gas; and,
79	79	be it further
80	80	RESOLVED, That the commissioner of the General Land Office be
81	81	served process as provided by Subdivision (3), Subsection (a),
82	82	Section 107.002, Civil Practice and Remedies Code; and, be it
83	83	further
84	84	RESOLVED, That a survey of the boundary line between the
85	85	above described surveys and the Canadian River shall be performed
86	86	by plaintiffs, using the gradient boundary survey methodology
87	87	approved by the United States Supreme Court in Oklahoma v. Texas;
88	88	and, be it further
89	89	RESOLVED, That any final judgment adjudicating the title
90	90	dispute in a suit brought concerning title to boundaries of the
91	91	Canadian River under this resolution is limited to settling the
92	92	title dispute and may not award monetary damages; and, be it further
93	93	RESOLVED, That the lawsuit authorized by this resolution must
94	94	be filed on or before the first anniversary of the final adoption of
95	95	this resolution; and, be it further
96	96	RESOLVED, That any final judgment adjudicating the location
97	97	of the boundaries of the Canadian River in a suit brought under this
98	98	resolution shall be res judicata as to those boundaries for all
99	99	purposes, subject to the rules of law applicable to future erosion
100	100	or accretion.