“Now one could argue I suppose that the amount of new land on the south bank actually belongs to the rancher to the north...”
There is NO new land - it was there all the time, just had water over it. The line should stay where it has always been, water over it or not. That’s what I think, bet Att. General Abbott thinks the same thing.
Well, I agree, but that would be too simple. The deeds were apparently written referencing the banks of the river. And was legally defined as the vegetation line on the south bank to settle the dispute regarding the state line.
Such a definition is crappy, because it actually means that the line changes as the river changes. And the actual amount of land changes as well, so apparently there is additional acreage on the southern side and less on the north.
An adequate description would function as you stated, and the amount of acreage would not change, but the location of the river would.
I have a deed to property that starts in the middle of a creek bed and west from there, so I have a somewhat similar problem. The state owns land located from the middle of the creek and the eastern side.
When the creek changes east or west, my boundary line would change so that it’s in the middle of the current path of the creek.