2009S0660-1 03/11/09
By: Seliger S.C.R. No. 43
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.