GEOSCAN Search Results: Fastlink


TitleFish weirs, ktaronto & 13 other riparian boundary fallacies
AuthorBallantyne, B A
SourceOntario Professional Surveyor 2013, 2013 p. 8-10, 12
LinksOnline - En ligne
Alt SeriesEarth Sciences Sector, Contribution Series 20130319
PublisherAssociation of Ontario Land surveyors
File formathtml; pdf
Subjectshydrogeology; erosion; rivers
AbstractGiven simplicity in riparian bounds (mostly water¿s edge, sometimes mean low/high water, ad medium filum in the absence of statute); gradualness in erosion; equity in apportioning accretion; and plethora in commentaries - let¿s not reinvent the wheel. Rather, let¿s debunk 13 fallacies of riparian bounds. Some fallacies are overt - set out verbally, on plans, through practice and in policy; others are covert - inferred through action and inaction.
Summary(Plain Language Summary, not published)
Legal principles for re-establsihing water boundaries are straight-forward. However, there are 13 fallacies that constrain such principles - some are trumpetted while others are whispered. As one example, it is a fallacy that water boundaries are re-established using the same principle and in the same location across Canada. Not true; the location varies across jurisdictions - sometimes edge of vegetation, sometimes edge of water, sometimes average high tide, and sometimes the middle thread of the channel. Let's debunk this fallacy and 13 others.