About Amerisurv| Contact    
Magazine | Newsletter    
Flickr Photos | Advertise    
HomeNewsNewsletterAmerisurv DirectoryJobsStoreAuthorsHistoryArchivesBlogVideosEvents
 
advertisement


Subscriptions
Sponsored By

Software Reviews
Continuing Series
     RTN
An RTN expert provides everything you need to know about network-corrected real-time GNSS observations.
Click Here to begin the series,
or view the Article PDF's Here
76-PageFlip Compilation
of the entire series
Test Yourself

Got Answers?
Test your knowledge with NCEES-level questions.
  Start HERE
Meet the Authors
Check out our fine lineup of writers. Each an expert in his or her field.
Wow Factor
Sponsored By


Product Reviews
Partner Sites

machinecontrolonline 


lbszone.com

GISuser.com

GeoJobs.biz

GeoLearn

 

Spatial Media LLC properties

Associates

ASPRS

newsnow 

Home arrow Archives   The American Surveyor     

Footsteps: A Review of Nicoll vs. Rudnick Print E-mail
Written by Landon Blake, PS   
Friday, 22 March 2013

A 113Kb PDF of this article as it appeared in the magazine—complete with images—is available by clicking HERE

In this installment of Footsteps we will review a recent court decision from the appeals court in California, Nicoll Versus Rudnick. This case involves a dispute over the distribution of water drawn from the South Fork of the Kern River. Although it is primarily a water rights case, it has interesting lessons about land subdivision and the way that rights can "attach" to land instead of a person or organization. It is for these reasons I thought it would be beneficial to review the case.

Dry conditions in the American Southwest are also making water rights even more important. Oftentimes land without the legal right to water (and the physical ability to obtain that water) is worthless or of very little value. It would make good sense for land surveyors to be at least passingly aware of water rights and water rights law.

Before we look at the legal questions raised by this case and consider the court's answers, we need to review the timeline for the dispute.

Timeline
1860's: JW Nicoll constructs a three (3) mile long ditch (the "Nicoll Ditch") to supply water from the South Fork of the Kern River to his 300.5 acre parcel.

1902: A court judgment confirms JW Nicoll's right to divert appropriated water from the South Fork of the Kern River through Nicoll Ditch.

1933: The bank forecloses on a 157.70 acre portion of the 300.5 acre Nicoll parcel. The 157.50 acre parcel is lowland known as "Nicoll Field". The 142.79 acre remainder parcel is upland known as "Nicoll Ranch".

????: Rudnick acquires Nicoll Field.

????: A dispute arises between Nicoll and Rudnick over water supplied in the Nicoll Ditch.

2006: A quite title action is filed for the water in Nicoll Ditch.

2007: The trial court rules in favor of Rudnick, granting him a share of the ditch water based on parcel area and not on historic water usage.

Legal Questions
The dispute in this case centers on how the water supplied by Nicoll Ditch is to be divided between the two (2) parcels which originated from the same parent parcel. Nicoll asserts the ditch water should be divided based upon historic water usage on each parcel. This method would give Nicoll a larger share of the water. Rudnick asserts the ditch water should be divided based upon parcel area. This method would give Rudnick a larger share of the water.

These are the legal questions raised by this case:
• What is the nature of the water right obtained by JW Nicoll?
• How should the water supplied by the Nicoll Ditch be divided between the two (2) parcels (Nicoll Ranch and Nicoll Field)?

The Trial Court's Decision
The trial court ruled in Rudnick's favor with a decision that determined the following:
• The water right recognized by the 1902 judgment in favor of JW Nicoll was an appropriative right that attached to the entire 300.5 acres of the historical Nicoll parcel.
• The water right was to be divided between Nicoll and Rudnick based on parcel area, not historic usage.

The Appeals Court Decision
The appeals court confirmed the trail court's decision in this case. This is the basis for the appeals court decision:
• The 1902 judgment granted a water right to JW Nicoll's 300.5 acre parcel, not to JW Nicoll personally. This appurtenant right attached to the entire 300.5 acre parcel, even if the water obtained under the right was only actually used on a portion of the parcel.
• Water rights are included in a conveyance through foreclosure, which originally separated the Rudnick parcel (Nicoll Field) from the 300.5 acre parent parcel owned by JW Nicoll. Because the water right is an appurtenant right, and attaches to all 300.5 acres, they water right should be divided using a method based on the area of the subdivided parcels.

The court also stated that modifications of this method of dividing the water obtained by area would have required clear and direct statements in the deed that carved the Rudnick parcel from the 300.5 acre parent parcel.

Questions
This case raises some interesting questions:
• How was the deed of trust that ultimately caused the subdivision of the 300.5 acre parcel written? Who prepared it? Was a land surveyor involved in the writing of the land description that was included with this deed?
• Was any thought given to water rights when the deed of trust was prepared? 
• How do Nicoll and Rudnick now share the cost of the ditch maintenance and repair? Was this issue addressed in the deed of trust? Or is that another battle waiting to start?

Lessons
What lessons can we take away from this court decision and the events that led up to it? 
• Some jurisdictions still allow subdivisions by deed to occur when there has been a default on a loan where real property is used as collateral. The danger with this is the lack of precautions and oversight that occur in a normal land subdivision process. This risk is especially great if a land surveyor isn't properly involved in overseeing the process. I suspect more problems are experienced with this type of default initiated subdivision because the subdivision is only "theoretical" and doesn't occur unless there is a default. 
• The right to access and use water is a critical component of land use and land value in many parts of the United States, and especially in the Southwest. Water rights should be considered by land surveyors and others involved in subdivision planning.
• Rights can attach to people, organizations OR land parcels. These different types of rights are treated differently in our legal system. In this case, the attachment of the water right to the 300.5 acre parcel of land, and not any person or organization, was an important factor.

I hope you have enjoyed reviewing this court decision with me. It includes a short discussion of water rights in California and other issues that we didn't have room to discuss in this article. I encourage you to read the case itself.

I'd like to talk more about water rights and their close relationship with land division and land use in this column.

Editor's note: You can read about upcoming articles in Footsteps and get other content about boundary surveying from Landon at the Footsteps blog: www.redefinedhorizons.com/footsteps/

Landon Blake is currently project manager and project surveyor for a small civil engineering and land surveying company in California's Central Valley. Licensed in California and Nevada, his many activities include speaking and teaching at group conferences around the state.

A 113Kb PDF of this article as it appeared in the magazine—complete with images—is available by clicking HERE

 
< Prev   Next >

 American Surveyor Recent Articles
Editorial 
Thought Leader: Land is Too Important to Be Left to Land Specialists
A while back I was searching the Internet for an old treatise on land titles. A Google query yielded a book published in 1914. The author was Charles Claudius Kagey and the book was titled "Land Survey and Land Titles, a book for boys and girls, a reference volume for property owners, a text ....
Read the Article
Jason E. Foose, PS 
Decided Guidance: Wacker vs. Price - Irony in Sevenfold
This month's case takes us to Phoenix, Arizona in 1950. The Arizona Supreme Court went all guns-a-blazin' in Wacker vs. Price (216 P.2d 707 (Ariz. 1950)). Maybe it's just me, but I'm sensing plenty of irony and have taken license to point it out along the way. I like what the Court did with this case ....
Read the Article
Allen E. Cheves 
Around the Bend - A Visit to Carlson Software
The Ohio River is one of America's greatest, running near 1,000 miles between Pittsburgh and the Mighty Mississippi. Much of the coal and other products that fueled our nation's industrial expansion flowed between the shores of this maritime ....
Read the Article
Lee Lovell, PS 
Surveying & Mapping Economics Part 3 - Customers & Services
This article continues an inquiry into the economic conditions of the Surveying and Mapping industry (NAICS 541370) using data from the U.S. Census Bureau. This time we will look at customers and services. The data comes from the Economic Census conducted every 5 years on American ....
Read the Article
Jerry Penry, PS 
True Elevation: Black Elk Peak
Black Elk Peak, located in the Black Hills region of South Dakota, is the state's highest natural point. It is frequently referred to as the highest summit in the United States east of the Rocky Mountains. Two other peaks, Guadalupe Peak in Texas and ....
Read the Article
Larry Trojak 
Bringing The Goods - Mobile Scanning an Integral Component
When Jim Smith, Jerrad Burns and Charlie Patton left the Memphis division of a major construction company in 2015, they took with them the knowledge of how to get even the most complex jobs done and what equipment could best serve them in making that happen. So when they joined West ....
Read the Article
 
Lee Lovell, PS 
Test Yourself 41: Integers, Integers, and Integers
ABF is a 5:12:13 triangle, ACF is a 48:55:73 triangle, ADF is a 3:4:5 triangle, and AEF is a 7:24:25 triangle, all with integer sides and inscribed in a semi-circle. What are the lengths of BC, CD, and DE? ....
Read the Article
Wendy Lathrop, PS, CFM 
Vantage Point: Sunset or Sunrise?
While we often think of legislated government programs as static, they do change over time. Such evolution and opportunity for transformation are part of the dialogue in reauthorizing these programs. Every so many years there is a sunset on each government program, and this September is the ....
Read the Article
 

deliciousrssnewsletterlinkedinfacebooktwitter

Amerisurv Exclusive Online-only Article ticker
Featured Amerisurv Events
List Your Event Here
please
contact Amerisurv


Google
 
AMERISURV TOP NEWS

JAVAD Intros
Spoofer Buster

GOT NEWS? Send To
press [at] amerisurv.com
Online Internet Content

Sponsor


News Feeds

 
Subscribe to Amerisurv news & updates via RSS or get our Feedburn
xml feed

Need Help? See this RSS Tutorial

Historic Maps
Careers

post a job
Reach our audience of Professional land surveyors and Geo-Technology professionals with your GeoJobs career ad. Feel free to contact us if you need additional information.

 

Social Bookmarks

Amerisurv on Facebook 

Amerisurv LinkedIn Group 

Amerisurv Flickr Photos 

Amerisurv videos on YouTube 

twitter

 




The American Surveyor © All rights reserved / Privacy Statement
Spatial Media LLC
905 W 7th St #331
Frederick MD 21701
301-620-0784
301-695-1538 - fax