I don't see why he can't retain title to the land if the river shifts its course. The land would now be in Oklahoma and should simply be registered in the OK land registry.
The law seems to be pretending that a river shifting its course somehow erases title to the land which now finds itself on the wrong side of the border and so that land is free for the BLM to grab. That seems kind of insane to me.
"I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." -Thomas Sowell
This guy appears to have a pretty legitimate gripe against the BLM.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.
The only sources I can find are small right-wing blurbs about it so its still questionable how much of this is true.
Can somebody explain to me what is going on here it is not making sense...
If I understand correctly, the river is naturally moving and slowly pushing the border of Ok to expand into Texas so Oklahoma gets a little bigger and Texas gets a little smaller and the BLM controls the land on the Ok side, right?
Now... this river moving is a slight process right? We're talking about less than 100 yards yes? How is it that this river moving is swallowing this guy's 90,000 acre ranch and homes will no longer be in Texas but Oklahoma? I.... I don't understand... wouldn't the river have to move over the home and destroy it as it moves to the other side? It doesn't say anything about the river diverting and shooting around another track swallowing entire swaths of area either.
If you look at the math with this river swallowing his ranch, if it is taking it by moving 100 yards, then his ranch would have to be 2,475 miles long and 100 yards wide. There are 43,560 square feet in an acre * 90,000 acres = ~3.9 billion square feet / 300 feet (lost to erosion) leaving ~13 million feet in length which is about 2,476 miles.
Then there is talk about erosion and accretion. The rancher is claiming that the river is moving back and forth but the feds only consider the boundary as changing when it is not in his favor.
Nothing about this story makes a lick of sense...
edit: What actually would make sense, would be if this guy is pissed that he lost 140 acres due to erosion.
Henderson lost a lawsuit 30 years ago that moved part of the northern Texas border over a mile to the south.
The Bureau of Land Management [BLM] took 140 acres of his property and didn’t pay him one cent.
Now, they want to use his case as precedent to seize land along a 116-mile stretch of the river.
“They’re wanting to take the boundaries that the courts placed here and extend those east and west to the forks of the river north of Vernon and east to the 98th Meridian which is about 20 miles east of us,” Henderson explained.
BLM, which oversees public land in the United States, claims this land never belonged to Texas.
The Texas landowners who have lived and cared for that land for hundreds of years beg to differ.
BLM plans on taking the land anyway. Property owners will be forced to spend money on lawsuits to keep what is theirs.
For many, that property has been in their family for generations.
"How can BLM come in and say, "Hey, this isn't yours." Even though it’s patented from the state, you've always paid taxes on it. Our family has paid taxes for over 100 years on this place. We've got a deed to it. But yet they walked in and said it wasn't ours," said Henderson.
Ever since the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, there has been controversy over where Oklahoma ends and Texas begins.
In layman’s terms the boundary is the vegetation line on the south side of the Red River.
A more technical explanation continues at the link.
If you do the math with the 140 lost acres it works out to about ~10 feet lost down a 116 mile stretch which makes sense in the rancher's case.
Absolutely terrible OP article, should be shot to death and cremated.