PROPERTY LOSS AT DIFFERENT LAKE LEVELS
Highland Lakes Marina during the July 2002 floods.
The Marina when the water is at the property line.
At different lake levels, Highland Lakes Marina loses
property to Lower Colorado River Authority as the property becomes submerged
underwater. Though it remains in
question whether Highland Lakes Marina could successfully bring a lawsuit
against the United States Government, ArcGIS allows one to figure the property
lost to the lake and how much Highland Lake Marina could ask for in
compensation.
Taking Cases Against the United States Government
The Supreme Court of the United States of America has found
that a government regulation constricting the use of private property or an
actual physical occupation of private property by the government constitutes a
“taking.” A taking violates the 5th
Amendment by using the 14th Amendment in the Bill of Rights. The 5th Amendment states the
government shall not put any undue hardship upon a citizen while the 14th
Amendment applies all the amendments to states as well as the federal
government. In laymen terms the 5th
Amendment means no citizen should have to do more for the public good than any
other. A taking goes against this by
forcing a landowner to give up some of his rights for the betterment of the
country while others do not have to give up these same rights.
But the Supreme Court sees that some land regulation is
necessary even if it does give some hardship to certain landowners. Without this planners could not zone, and in
effect not regulate land use in any way.
The Supreme Court has set up a test to see if a taking is unjust or
not. The Court asks what is the economic
impact of the regulation, what was the investment backed expectation of the
land owner for the property, and the character of the invasion.
The cases ahead solidify the Supreme Court’s stance on
takings.
Nollan v. California
Coastal Commission
The Nollans wanted to expand their house but to do this they
needed permission from the California Coastal Commission. California had built a sea wall along the
beach to prevent erosion and the Nollans’ property line was determined by high
tide, normally beachside of the seawall.
The Coastal Commission wanted beach goers to be able to transverse the
beach at all times. If the Nollans gave
the county public right of way to their part of the beach under the sea wall
they would be allowed to expand their home.
The Nollans sued the Commission, claiming it was an unjust taking. They should not be forced to allow people on
their private property. The Supreme
Court agreed. The Nollans cannot be
forced to allow public access through their property. Withholding a building permit from them when
their neighbors were allowed to expand singles them out and places undue burden
upon the Nollans. The decision was
forcing them to provide more than their fair share for the public good.
Dolan v. City of
Dolan wanted to expand her plumbing business. But the city of Tigard, Oregon would only
allow her to do so if she donated part of her property, which lied in the
floodplain, to the city for green space.
She sued under a takings’ claim.
She said the city never explained the benefits of the donation and why
she should pay for this “public” good.
The Supreme Court agreed with Ms. Dolan.
The taking of land should only be used to mitigate something from her
property; nothing was mitigated by donating the land. The city should have just told her not to
build if it wanted that area protected.
Cities can not ask for too much in regulations.
Loretto v. Teleprompter
Manhattan CATV Corp.
Loretto owns an apartment building that houses a cable box on
the roof. The cable company paid him
rent for the space used by the box. The
New York State Legislature enacted a law saying property owners could not be
compensated for the cable boxes on their property because it was a public
good. Loretto brought a takings claim
against the cable company for lost payment saying it was an invasion of private
property. The Supreme Court agreed with
Loretto. The government physically
invaded his property permanently without just compensation. In other words, the government is forcing
Loretto to provide more for society than his neighbors.
Lucas v. South Carolina
Coastal Council
The South Carolina Coastal Council wanted to preserve the
state’s coastline so they disallowed any new development within the 40 year
high tide line. Lucas, a developer,
owned two lots below the line. He lost
all economic value to the lots when the law took effect. Lucas sued the Coastal Council for loss of
initial investment. The Supreme Court
agreed with Lucas. The state was
essentially transferring private property into public without compensation. To do this the Council would have to buy the
contested property from Mr. Lucas. A
government cannot condemn land without a conceivable public purpose,
environmental protection is not enough.
Applying this to
Volente
State law gives all private property under the water line in
Lake Travis, and all the Highland Lakes, control to the Lower Colorado River
Authority. Though this is only a
temporary physical invasion the Supreme Court has ruled in past occasions that
this could be cause for compensation since the taking would drive property
values down and the property owner could not recoup damages.
Also, is there a public good served by private lake owners
forced to give up their property to LCRA?
The property might have to be given up possibly for policing reasons but
state law allows police to enter private property if they see illegal
activities. Also, Texans own all water
on their land under 1904’s Right to Capture.
By LCRA controlling all land under water they do not have to worry about
compensating those landowners when they direct water to municipalities for use. Property owners might be able to claim a
taking for loss of water, something that is becoming a hot topic in Texas with
the Ogalla Aquifer drying up.
On the opposite side of the legal question, one must wonder
what economic expectations the property owners had to the submerged
property. Besides the possible water
issue, which would set a precedent, they could not build on that property, no
one would insure for it. The asking
price for that section would be pretty low.
In fact, Highland Lakes Marina has its lowest rental fees closest to the
water.
Lake Travis is one of several Highland Lakes created from the
Colorado River. The water level
constantly changes as Lake LBJ holds at a constant level and LCRA releases
water for farming and municipal use downstream.
Aerial photograph of
Located in Central Texas, Lake Travis sits in northwestern
Travis and Burnet counties. The lake
follows the river bed and appears like a snake from the air. The Colorado River was dammed in the 1930s
and 1940s to provide a constant water supply and to stop devastating floods
that once plagued the watershed. Lake
Travis is 65 miles long and has a capacity of 195000 acre-feet, 778000acrefeet
for flood control. It drains 38130
square miles.
Volente
Volente is located just north of Mansfield Dam on Lake
Travis. The most famous feature within
its city limits is a water park but it also holds several restaurants and
neighborhoods housing mostly vacation homes.
Volente is within a 30 minute drive of Austin via FM 2222. Stories circulate about the name. Some say the name came from a book. Others believe volente is an old Indian phrase. Until the creation of Lake Travis Volente was
tiny, the town could not even support postal service. When Lake Travis was first created the town
was flooded and had to be relocated. The
new location received a new name, Dodd City, but the locals continued the
romantic attachments to Volente and the town was renamed for the old
community. Today Volente draws most of
its income from tourism dollars with its marinas and of course the only water
park on Lake Travis.
Satellite
photograph of Volente
Highland Lakes
Highland Lakes Marina sits next to Volente Beach in the town
of Volente on Lake Travis. The marina
houses boats in a parking lot style but offers a ramp for boats to enter the
lake. The marina allows 24 hour access
to boats and ramp which is extremely helpful when one only has access to a GPS
unit at night. From the boat ramp the
marina rises slowly from the lake until it abuts steep hills. An approachable peninsula cuts the marina’s
waterfront property in half. The Travis
County Tax Appraisal District classifies Highland Lakes Marina as personal
property commercial and values it at $86,433.00. The classification means while the property
is zoned commercial it is not owned by a corporation but rather an
individual. If the land was to be seized
the owner would be held responsible. For
anything that happens on his property, the owner is held personally
responsible. While the appraised value
seems small compared to other lake front property it must be remembered that it
is relatively undeveloped land, the $86,433.00 is for just the lot itself.
July 2002 Flood
A cold front moved into Central Texas the first weeks of July
2002. With it came thunderstorms and
torrential downpours. Floodgates were
opened at Mansfield Dam to stop the lakes from overflowing. All lakes closed to recreational use for fear
of flooding. As of July 11 Lake Travis
was at 692 feet, 23 feet above the July average.
GPS Measuring Units
The Global Positioning System tells a user his position on
the globe by using satellites encircling the globe. 24 satellites sit in the heavens constantly
broadcasting time information. Four
satellites are needed to pinpoint a location because of triangulation effects
of a sphere. Location is found because
the satellites do not move. The time it
takes for the satellite signal to reach the receiver is converted to location
simply using the formula for velocity.
Both the satellite and the receiver have internal clocks and the speed
of the transmission is known. Multiply
speed by the time difference of the two internal clocks and you get distance,
four distances triangulated gets location.
Rather simple, actually.
But there is one problem with GPS. The United States government runs GPS; the
Europeans have to launch their version.
So, in times of war location might be given inaccurately for the
protection of military personnel. The
signal coming from the satellites will purposely give a false time so location
can be thrown off.
The Magellan 310 sits next to the Leica GS50
Magellan 310
The Magellan 310 is a handheld unit that is used primarily by
hikers and recreational fishermen. Due
to its market it only gives readings to the degree second. The Magellan is great for its price at $100
but it does not give as accurate of readings needed for surveying.
To slightly improve the accuracy of the location one can take
multiple readings at a single point. By
averaging the readings, the location is more precise.
Leica GS50
The Leica GS50 is a much more accurate GPS unit. It has an internal CPU unit and gives it
accuracy on site. It will also go
directly into ArcGIS format, not needing to be reformatted. The Leica GS50 can read to 1cm accuracy. It tracks differential signals with its
receiver. It uses its own base station
for differential correction to the receiver.
Value of Land
The value of land in compensation cases can be determined in
two ways. The courts differ on which
value they choose so all two must be looked at to see how much Highland Lakes
Marina can expect from LCRA if their takings claim is proved.
Travis County Tax
Appraisal District
All counties in the state of Texas are responsible for
taxing. The state draws its revenue from
property taxes, as do counties and school districts. The counties are responsible for collecting
these taxes and then distributing them to the three entities.
Every year property is appraised to determine its worth. The county looks at permanent structures and
how much the property has been “improved.”
Improved looks at how much the property is controlled by man. Has the land been modified by use? Once the value of the property is determined
the tax appraisal district applies a percentage for each tax district the
property sits.
The Travis County Tax Appraisal District appraises all
property in Travis County, including Highland Lakes Marina at Volente. Since the property is relatively unimproved
the appraisal district only values it at $86,433.00. While this figure seems large compared to its
neighbors, with improved land, the property is cheap.
After the appraisal district determines the value it charges
the property owner for taxes. The owner
pays the state rate, county rate, and school district rate. Highland Lakes Marina pays property taxes to
Texas, Travis County, and Leander ISD.
Children who live in Volente are bussed to Leander for school.
Highland Lakes Marina does not change much over its property
so it was fairly easy to realize the loss of property. The total acreage of the property was
realized and then the area lost was proportioned to it. Then the proportion was multiplied by the
original value to find the value of that area, or the value of loss of property
to Highland Lakes Marina.
Property Market
While the government will use the tax appraised value, but
the property owner will fight for more money.
Property is normally appraised for less value than on the normal market
because the property market is so volatile.
In realty terms, unimproved land on Lake Travis is worth so
much more than Travis County Tax Appraisal District’s unimproved value. Developers would not have to raze existing
structures before they start building.
The property owner would argue they deserved the market price because
that is what they could sell property for.
Information from Volente Realty gave the idea of how much
land was worth in market terms. Land
normally sells for $1000 per linear foot to $4000 per linear foot.
Data Collection
Current
Several steps were taken to gather points.
The slope is so gentle raising from the boat ramp the water
does not have a definite line. An arbitrary
height was set to determine the waterline.
Half an inch of water determined the water line. At lower heights the water filled land
pockets and did not give an accurate reading.
The property was measured from the property line of the
marina to one side of a peninsula. The
area included the boat ramp and has the steepest slope of the marina. Also, the boat ramp has a steeper slope than
the rest of the measured area. The boat
ramp caused the water line onto higher ground for each measurement. The property line measured equaled close to
40 meters. Measurements were taken every
2 meters or when there was a distinct change in the water line; either it
dipped inland or curved outward.
Spending a Saturday taking GPS measurements
Historical
Since problems persisted in taking current measurements
historical data was used for past water levels events.
First, photographs were examined. The photographs were taken from the July 2002
flood. Luckily, a colleague photographed
the flood at the marina as water continued to rise.
From studying the photographs the water line was
determined. The marina has a very
distinct layout with many markers to use.
Luckily the water hit well sighted places as it rose from its
banks. After the first flood day, the water
reached the paved road. By the next it
reached the sail house. And by the third
the water passed the outhouse.
Measurements were taken only where the photographs distinctly
showed water. No hypothesis was done to
guess where the water line continued.
Interpolation occurred so much accuracy was important wherever it was
possible. Of course because of this the
area found flooded will be lower than actually lost on those days but it could
stand up in court because there was no speculation.
Problems
Several problems occurred during this project. Each problem compounded the one it followed.
Weather
Due to other commitments measurements could only be taken on
weekends at Highland Lakes Marina.
Unfortunately, several weekends this semester saw continuous, heavy
cloud cover; Lake Travis seemed to be in a constant shroud.
Measurements should have been taken those days but they were
not. Heavy cloud cover can throw off GPS
measurements because the satellites’ signals are distorted by clouds; the signal
is reflected through clouds so the time is inaccurate. But the Texas Commission of Environmental
Quality offices at W. 38th Street can give DEQ readings. The building’s location on Earth is known
precisely so if a false reading is given for that location the inaccuracy can
be figured out. The same clouds
interfering that signal would interfere the signal at Lake Travis.
Magellan 310
This particular Magellan 310 has been used many times hiking
and also several times in the water and it has worked for the specific
purposes. But, it only reads to the
degree second in longitude and latitude measurements. And a second equals about 30.3 meters. The Magellan 310 was wholly inappropriate for
measuring a shoreline of just 40 meters.
And this inaccuracy shows. For
one shoreline it only read two distinct locations though ten measurements were
taken.
|
Marker |
Latitude |
Longitude |
|
A |
30.44361111 |
-97.91555556 |
|
B |
30.44361111 |
-97.91555556 |
|
C |
30.44361111 |
-97.91527778 |
|
D |
30.44361111 |
-97.91555556 |
|
E |
30.44361111 |
-97.91527778 |
|
F |
30.44361111 |
-97.91527778 |
|
G |
30.44361111 |
-97.91527778 |
|
H |
30.44361111 |
-97.91527778 |
|
I |
30.44361111 |
-97.91527778 |
|
J |
30.44300000 |
-97.91527778 |
Also, during the first part of the semester data points could
only be collected, not analyzed. It was
not until the end of October the problem of the Magellan 310 was
discovered. Luckily a Leica GS50 became
available.
|
|
Leica GS50 |
Magellan 310 |
|
|
Leica GS50 |
Magellan 310 |
|
Marker |
Latitude |
Latitude |
|
Marker |
Longitude |
Longitude |
|
A |
30.44376700 |
30.44361111 |
|
A |
-97.91533000 |
-97.91555556 |
|
B |
30.44373900 |
30.44361111 |
|
B |
-97.91533700 |
-97.91555556 |
|
C |
30.44372100 |
30.44361111 |
|
C |
-97.91534200 |
-97.91527778 |
|
D |
30.44367700 |
30.44361111 |
|
D |
-97.91536400 |
-97.91555556 |
|
E |
30.44363900 |
30.44361111 |
|
E |
-97.91537200 |
-97.91527778 |
|
F |
30.44360200 |
30.44361111 |
|
F |
-97.91538200 |
-97.91527778 |
|
G |
30.44358500 |
30.44361111 |
|
G |
-97.91538400 |
-97.91527778 |
|
H |
30.44356400 |
30.44361111 |
|
H |
-97.91537800 |
-97.91527778 |
|
I |
30.44355500 |
30.44361111 |
|
I |
-97.91535100 |
-97.91527778 |
|
J |
30.44353200 |
30.44300000 |
|
J |
-97.91533500 |
-97.91527778 |
This table shows the difference the two different GPS units,
the corresponding points were taken at the same location and the same time.
This image portrays the difference between the Magellan 310
and the Leica GS50; these measurements were taken at the same time, and the
same location.
Leica GS50
The Leica GS50 is a truly sweet machine. It is a surveyor’s dream. Frankly, it was a whole lot of fun just
strapping on the backpack and taking measurements. But unfortunately the Leica was only
available on two occasions. I would not
be able to Property loss could not be shown over a constant rate of time.
Luckily, Central Texas was flooded in July, 2002. Boats at Highland Lakes Marina had to be
moved up ground as lake levels rose. One
of the men moving the boats, mostly catamarans and sunfish, took photographs at
different stages of the flood for insurance purposes. Each day the flood was photographed at the
marina. The historical data could be
analyzed and water lines found for each day during the event.
Data Analysis
Once the points were gathered, they could be analyzed by
going to the lab and sorting through all the raw data and using ArcGIS to find
the area of property flooded at different times of the year.
First, all the points were put into Excel tables to be
reformatted as .dbf files to be viewed in ArcGIS. At first only longitude and latitude data
were viewed to determine accuracy.
Remember to always format location data as numerical in Excel or else it
cannot be viewed in ArcGIS.
The points
given by the GPS units
The raw data points conclusively proved how poor the Magellan
310 data points were but how much Leica is truly a modern marvel.
Lines/Polygons
Several trials were run to find the area of the lost
property.
The polygons
created from the points.
First, the drawing option was utilized in ArcGIS to find the
area. It created lines and polygons, but
they were just drawings, easily moved off the measured points. Only the area of the drawing could be
determined, not actual area. The
measuring tool was tried but the polygons were too complex for area.
Next the lines and polygons were created as New
Shapefiles. The shapefiles were created
in ArcCatalog, making sure polygon was the chosen type and the correct
coordinate system is chosen. Then in
ArcMap Editor the features were added with Create New Feature. But there the area could not be found
automatically. XTools would not
recognize created shapes unless they were integrated.
3DAnalyst was tried, but its answer was too large and it did
not always recognize the polygons having longitude and latitude data.
XTools did not seem to work for area, though set to meters
squared the answers were too small, in the order of .00000072. After working for the program for about a
week it was realized that the map projection was wrong. To get the correct area the map projection
must also use meters as its base unit.
The map projection first used caused XTools to measure in decimal
degrees. One must create a new shapefile
and convert the polygon shapefile into a new projection, UTM, which reads in
meters. In meters the numbers seemed
more reasonable. The given perimeter
with the one calculated using the measuring tool and they were close to
identical.
Apparently, XTools will create polygons you as a new
shapefile but only two water lines can be in a layer or the polygon will become
distorted as it considers all points to form a single polygon.
Shapefiles also had to be created to determine the loss of
rental property.
Results
Highland Lakes
|
Area |
Perimeter |
Acres |
|
143202.39928238400 |
1832.27378286830 |
3.28747473100 |
Property Loss on
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
The polygon corresponds with the picture taken on November
10, 2002.
Property Loss November 19, 2002
|
Area (meters squared) |
Perimeter (meters) XTools |
Perimeter (meters) Measured |
Acres |
Market Value of Area Lost |
|
|
|
170.40257097965 |
100.34055233773 |
93.48182600000 |
0.04210877020 |
$21,054.39 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
July 2002 flood
Property Loss July 5, 2002 (1:10 pm)
|
Area (meters squared) |
Perimeter (meters) XTools |
Perimeter (meters) Measured |
Acres |
Market Value of Area Lost |
|
1875.46681837241 |
233.53889630376 |
232.79049000000 |
0.46345310883 |
$231,726.55 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Polygon formed from the picture.
The picture
used to determine data points.
Property Loss July 5, 2002 (6:00pm)
|
Area (meters squared) |
Perimeter (meters) XTools |
Perimeter (meters) Measured |
Acres |
Market Value of Area Lost |
|
1703.41668237080 |
250.29878921330 |
250.18339100000 |
0.42093720312 |
$210,468.60 |
Property Loss
|
Area (meters squared) |
Perimeter (meters) XTools |
Perimeter (meters) Measured |
Acres |
Market Value of Area Lost |
|
1715.31934487253 |