ACCEPTED 15-25-00133-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 12/22/2025 12:10 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE No. 15-25-00133-CV CLERK __________________________________________________________________ FILED IN 15th COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS In The Fifteenth Court of Appeals 12/22/2025 12:10:50 PM __________________________________________________________________ CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk DAWN BUCKINGHAM, M.D., as Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office, Appellant, v. LONE OAK CLUB, LLC, Appellee. _______________________________________________________________ Appeal from Cause No. CV27446-A in the 253rd District Court of Chambers County, Texas _______________________________________________________________ BRIEF OF APPELLANT _______________________________________________________________ Ken Slavin Deborah C. Trejo [email protected] [email protected] Texas Bar No. 18496100 Texas Bar No. 24007004 KEMP SMITH LLP KEMP SMITH LLP N. Kansas St. | Suite 1700 1301 Nueces St. | Suite 100 El Paso, Texas 79901 Austin, Texas 78701 (915) 533-4424 (512) 226-0005 (915) 546-5360 (facsimile) (512) 320-5431 (facsimile) Attorneys for Appellant Appellant Conditionally Requests Oral Argument IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL Petitioner-Appellant-Defendant: Dawn Buckingham, M.D., as Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office Trial and Appellate Counsel Ken Slavin State Bar No. 18496100 [email protected] KEMP SMITH LLP North Kansas, Suite 1700 El Paso, Texas 79901 Telephone: (915) 533-4424 Facsimile: (915) 546-5360 Deborah Trejo State Bar No. 24007004 [email protected] KEMP SMITH LLP 1301 Nueces St., Suite 100 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 226-0005 Facsimile: (512) 320-5431 Respondent-Appellee-Plaintiff: Lone Oak Club, LLC Trial and Appellate Counsel: Edgar R. Norwood State Bar No. 15113500 [email protected] THE NORWOOD LAW FIRM Main Street, 2nd Floor Liberty, Texas 77575 Telephone: (936) 336-3700 Facsimile: (936) 336-7634

i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Identity of Parties and Counsel ..................................................................................i Table of Contents ..................................................................................................... ii Index of Authorities ................................................................................................. iii Record and Party References ....................................................................................iv Abbreviation and Record References .......................................................................vi Statement of the Case.............................................................................................. vii Statement on Oral Argument ................................................................................. viii Issues Presented ........................................................................................................ix Statement of Facts ...................................................................................................... 1 Summary of Argument .............................................................................................. 7 Argument..................................................................................................................10 I. In a bench trial, de novo review applies for questions of law and legal sufficiency review standards apply to factual findings ............................10 II. The Club does not own the bed of the Lone Oak Bayou in the Barrow Survey as it was not a navigable stream that could be conveyed by the Small Bill and its bed cannot be defined by a gradient boundary survey.................................................................................................................10 A. Lone Oak Bayou is not a navigable stream as it does not have banks that confine its waters to a definite channel ..................................................11 B. Lone Oak Bayou has no defined banks from which a gradient Boundary survey can be conducted to locate its bed ....................................14

ii III. The Club’s argument for avoiding the Texas Supreme Court’s instructions lacks merit ......................................................................................15 A. The Texas Supreme Court’s opinion is not clearly erroneous…………..17 B. The more fully developed facts exception does not apply to justify ignoring the Texas Supreme Court’s instructions…………………………..19 IV. Legal sufficiency challenges to Findings of Fact 3-5 and 7-8 are established by admission that Lone Oak Bayou is 80% marsh and has no banks necessary to perform a gradient boundary survey and an incomplete chain of title contradicts Finding of Fact 14 .......................23 Prayer .......................................................................................................................25 Certificate of Compliance ........................................................................................ 26 Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 27 Appendix A. Final Judgment (CR 1097-1116) B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (CR 1141-1146)

iii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases Brainard v. State, 17 S.W.3d 6 (Tex. 1999) ...........................................7, 17, 22, 23 Briscoe v. Goodmark Corp., 102 S.W.3d 714 (Tex. 2003) .................................... 16 Bush v. Lone Oak Club, LLC, 546 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. granted) .......................................... 3 Bush v. Lone Oak Club, LLC, 601 S.W.3d 639 (Tex. 2020) ....................................... vii, 3-8, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23 Butler v. Sadler, 399 S.W.2d 411 (Tex. Civ. App.—Corpus Christi 1966, writ ref’d n.r.e.) ....................................................................................................... 13 Graham Cent. Station, Inc. v. Peña, 442 S.W.3d 261 (Tex. 2014) ........................ 10 HNMC, Inc. v. Chan, 683 S.W.3d 373 (Tex. 2024) ............................................... 10 Hoefs v. Short, 273 S.W. 785 (Tex. 1925) .......................................................11, 12 Hudson v. Wakefield, 711 S.W.2d 628 (Tex. 1986) ..................................... 8, 16, 19 Jefferson Cnty. Drainage Dist. No. 6 v. McFaddin, 291 S.W. 322 (Tex. Civ. App.—Beaumont 1927), aff’d, 4 S.W.2d 33 (Tex. [Comm’n Op.] 1928) ................................................. 12 Motl v. Boyd, 286 S.W. 458 (Tex. 1926) ....................................................11, 22, 23 Oklahoma v. Texas, 260 U.S. 606 (1923)...................................................11, 22, 23 Phillips v. Bramblett, 407 S.W.3d 229 (Tex. 2013) ............................................... 16 Tex. Health and Human Servs. Comm’n v. El Paso Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 351 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. 2011) ............................................................................. 16 iv Wilborn v. Terry, 161 S.W. 33 (Tex. Civ. App.—Galveston 1913, writ ref’d) .... 12 Statutes and Rules Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(d) .......................................................................................... 10 TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. Art. 5414a ................... vi, vii, ix, 3-5, 10, 14, 15, 17-24

v ABBREVIATIONS AND RECORD REFERENCES Abbreviations Barrow Survey: The 160-acre surface estate of Abstract 46, Chambers County, Texas, granted by the Governor of Texas on January 9, 1872, to Sophronia Barrow, recorded at Book L, Page 299 in the Official Public Records of Chambers County, Texas Commissioner: Appellant, Dawn Buckingham, M.D., as Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office GLO: The Texas General Land Office Lone Oak Bayou: The tidally-influenced body of water, located in Chambers County, referred to in the original Patent of the Barrow Survey as “Orr’s Bayou,” including bodies of water referred to as lakes, such as the Lone Oak Lake The Club: Appellee, Lone Oak Club, LLC Small Bill: TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. Art. 5414a Record References CR [page]: References to the Clerk’s Record filed in the Court of Appeals [Volume] RR [page]: References to the Reporter’s Record filed in the Court of Appeals

vi STATEMENT OF THE CASE Nature of the This case is an ultra vires title dispute over the tidally-submerged Case: beds of the Lone Oak Bayou. The Club sued the Commissioner to quiet title, contending that the Lone Oak Bayou was a navigable stream and that a 1929 statute, the Small Bill, conveyed the submerged land to the Club. CR 25-31. The Commissioner contended, inter alia, that the State owns the tidally-influenced bed below mean high tide and the Lone Oak Bayou was a marsh, not a navigable stream that could be conveyed by the Small Bill, thereby establishing State ownership of the tidally-submerged bed of the Lone Oak Bayou below mean high tide. CR 788, 847- 859, 861-862. The original lawsuit involved several parcels and the Club severed the Barrow Survey into this test case. CR 11-31.

Trial Court: 253rd District Court, Chambers County, Hon. Chap B. Cain, III Trial Court’s The trial court initially granted the Club’s summary judgment Disposition: motion, decreeing that the Club owns fee simple title to the entire bed of Lone Oak Bayou located in the Barrow Survey. CR 980- 84. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case to the trial court to determine “whether (and, if so, to what extent) the bayou within the Club’s tract is a navigable stream or watercourse such that the conveyance was validated by the Small Bill.” Bush v. Lone Oak Club, LLC, 601 S.W.3d 639, 657-658 (Tex. 2020). According to the Texas Supreme Court, this requires evidence that the Lone Oak Bayou has defined banks from which a gradient boundary survey could be conducted in order to determine if the bayou is a navigable stream and, if so, the location of any privately-owned submerged bed of the bayou conveyed by the Small Bill. Id. After a bench trial, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the Club, despite conceding that the evidence established that the Lone Oak Bayou through the Barrow Survey did not have the banks necessary for a surveyor to conduct the gradient boundary survey required to locate the boundaries of a navigable stream or watercourse. CR 1097-1116; 1143-1144 [FF 10, 11, 13]. vii STATEMENT ON ORAL ARGUMENT Appellant believe that this is a straight-forward appeal that can be decided without oral argument as the material facts are not disputed and the Texas Supreme Court’s requirements on remand are clear and correct. However, if Appellee requests oral argument and the Court grants oral argument, Appellant respectfully requests that it be allowed to participate in the oral argument.

viii ISSUES PRESENTED 1. Does the Small Bill apply to the bed under Lone Oak Bayou within the Barrow Survey?

2. Was it improper for the trial court to ignore remand instructions from the Texas Supreme Court based on the trial court’s opinion that the instructions were clearly erroneous?

3. Did the evidence establish that the submerged bed of the Lone Oak Bayou in the Barrow Survey belongs to the State?

4. The Commissioner challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the following Findings of Fact: a. Finding of Fact 3; b. Finding of Fact 4; c. Finding of Fact 5; d. Finding of Fact 7; e. Finding of Fact 8; and f. Finding of Fact 14.

ix STATEMENT OF FACTS This ultra vires trespass to try title dispute concerns the ownership of the submerged bed of the Lone Oak Bayou within the Barrow Survey—an inlet to the Trinity Bay, connected to the Gulf of Mexico (also known as the Gulf of America) (“Gulf”). CR 25-31, 37, 787; 2 RR 216; 3 RR 99; 5 RR Defendant’s Exhibit (“Dx”) 15. The water in Lone Oak Bayou has always been tidally influenced. CR 450, 787, 798; 2 RR 219.

The Lone Oak Bayou within the Barrow Survey is without a doubt a marsh that lacks the qualified banks necessary to contain the flow of the bayou and prevent its water from overtopping those banks, which qualified banks would be required for a surveyor to conduct a gradient boundary survey to properly locate a gradient boundary for the bayou and determine its width. 2 RR 18-19, 30, 37-40, 100, 128- 130, 150, 156, 164-171, 188, 193-194, 220-222; 3 RR 20, 23-26, 79, 90; 5 RR Dx 17-19.

The State conveyed the 160-acre property in the Barrow Survey to the Club’s predecessor-in-title in 1872 when the Texas Governor patented the survey—the lines of which crossed portions of the Lone Oak Bayou, then referenced in the patent as “Orr’s Bayou.” 4 RR Plaintiff’s Exhibit (“Px”) 39-41. The Club acquired title to most, but not all, of the Barrow Survey in 2002. 4 RR Px 79.

The GLO manages the state-owned submerged lands located within the tidewater limits for the benefit of the Permanent School Fund, including the arms, beds and shores of the Gulf within the boundaries of Texas, including the Lone Oak Bayou. 3 RR 95; 5 RR Dx 33, 37. By letter dated August 23, 2004, the Club learned that the GLO claimed that the State owned the submerged bed of the Lone Oak Bayou. 3 RR 93-98; 5 RR Dx 37. In response to learning that the Club proposed to rebuild a bridge and construct a rock weir at the mouth of the Lone Oak Bayou, where it joins the Trinity Bay, the GLO advised the Club that it must obtain an easement from the State to do so. 3 RR 58-62; 5 RR Dx 37.

Later on, in December of 2008, after disputes arose between the Club and members of the public attempting to hunt ducks in the bayou, who were concerned about being denied access to hunt by the Club, the Club asked the GLO to explain the “extent of state ownership in Lone Oak Bayou and the attendant waterways and their beds adjacent to and flowing through” the Club’s property. 3 RR 63; 4 RR Dx 52, 54. On April 16, 2009, the GLO explained to the Club the GLO’s position that “the boundary between the state owned submerged land along the tidally-influenced Lone Oak Bayou and connected lakes is the line of mean high water (MHW)” and that “the stretch of Lone Oak Bayou and the lakes directly connect to the bayou . . . are state-owned submerged lands,” to which the public had access. 4 RR Dx 53.

On September 13, 2012, the Club sued the Commissioner for ultra vires trespass to try title to recover possession of property. CR 11. The original suit covered multiple surveys. CR 25-31. The trial court severed out the land covered by the Barrow Survey as this test case before this Court. CR 11-31.

In 2017, upon initially hearing competing summary judgment motions, the trial court concluded that the Small Bill applied and that the Club owned the tidally- submerged bed of the Lone Oak Bayou within the Barrow Survey. CR 980-84. The First Court of Appeals affirmed. Bush v. Lone Oak Club, LLC, 546 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. granted).

The Texas Supreme Court, however, reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case to the trial court, ruling that the Club did not establish that “the bayou is a navigable stream or water course as a matter of law.” Bush v. Lone Oak Club, LLC, 601 S.W.3d 639, 657 (Tex. 2020).

In order to establish superior title to the bed of the Lone Oak Bayou under the Small Bill, the Texas Supreme Court said that the Club must demonstrate that the bayou is not a marsh for which no qualified boundary banks exist but a “water course” or a “navigable stream,” with qualified banks. Id. at 657-658. The court explained that a stream’s gradient boundary is: midway between the lower level of the flowing water that just reaches the cut bank, and the higher level of it that just does not overtop the cut bank. In other words, it is that portion of a stream’s soil which is alternately covered and left bare as there may be an increase or diminution in the supply of water, and which is adequate to contain it at its average and mean stage during an entire year. Id. at 658 (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citation omitted). The court instructed: To constitute a “stream” or “water course” and calculate its gradient boundary, Lone Oak Bayou must have banks. The Club has not proven this to be the case. The Club’s evidence concerning the presence of banks includes a surveyor affidavit stating that “in certain areas Lone Oak bayou has a defined bank.” But the bayou has also been described as a marsh, for which no banks exist,” and for which “a gradient boundary cannot be determined.”1 Id. at 658 (emphasis supplied, citations omitted).

Although the Texas Supreme Court found that the Small Bill might apply to a tidally-influenced navigable stream or watercourse in some circumstances, the court also advised, “Our holding does not affect the State’s ownership of land below mean high tide and outside the gradient boundary of a watercourse or navigable stream because those areas are not included within the Small Bill’s scope.” Id. at

At the subsequent bench trial, the same surveyor, Michael Chandler, testified and conceded that there are no banks of the Lone Oak Bayou within the Barrow Survey from which a gradient boundary could be conducted. 2 RR 100, 128-29, 150. Counsel for the Club and the trial court also concede this undisputed fact. CR 1143 [Finding of Fact 10]; 2 RR 12-13. 16, 18, 37-41; 3 RR 109, 125-126.

657 (emphasis supplied). The Texas Supreme Court explained, “To be a statutory ‘navigable stream,’ the average width between the banks must be 30 feet, and the stream continues ‘so far up as [it] retain[s] that average width.’ We measure the distance between a stream’s banks considering the ‘entire bed of the stream’: the land between the horizontal gradient boundary on each bank.” Id. at 657-58 (emphasis supplied; citations omitted).

After explaining these requirements and the proper method for locating the gradient boundary of a navigable stream, the Texas Supreme Court noted that it was unable from the summary judgment record to determine if Lone Oak Bayou was a statutory navigable stream or to determine the location of any defined banks along the bayou’s waters from which a gradient boundary for the bayou could be determined to define it. Id. at 658. The Texas Supreme Court then remanded to the trial court the question of “whether (and, if so, to what extent) the bayou within the Club’s tract is a navigable stream or water course such that its conveyance was validated by the Small Bill.” Id. Therefore, on remand, the Texas Supreme Court required the Club to prove where the submerged bed of the Lone Oak Bayou within the Barrow Survey lie within (and not outside of) the gradient boundary of the Lone Oak Bayou. This required evidence of the existence of qualified banks necessary to establish Lone Oak Bayou as a statutory navigable stream and determine its boundaries to properly locate the submerged bed of the Lone Oak Bayou that the Club claims to own. Id. at 657-658.

At the bench trial, the Club’s counsel and the trial court both conceded that the Lone Oak Bayou lacks the type of banks necessary to perform a gradient boundary survey to locate the boundaries of Lone Oak Bayou. CR 1143 [Finding of Fact 10]; 2 RR 12-13. 16, 18, 37-41; 3 RR 109, 125-126. However, the trial court found that the Club was not required to show the location of any boundary of the Lone Oak Bayou that it claims to own by gradient boundary survey because the Texas Supreme Court got the law wrong and its legal instructions to the trial court on remand were clearly erroneous. CR 1144 [Finding of Fact 13]. The trial court’s judgment awarded title to the Club of all of the submerged bed of the Lone Oak Bayou within the Barrow Survey. CR 1097-1116. The judgment located the boundaries of the submerged bed awarded to the Club based on a “sight survey,” locating so-called “evident” banks. CR 1097-1116. These plotted low banks were submerged daily by the ebb and flow of the tide and did not contain the waters of the Lone Oak Bayou, which disbursed throughout the marsh. 2 RR 115, 144-48, 153-156, 208-209, 221-222; 3 RR 7-18, 26-27. From the trial court’s judgment, the Commissioner appeals.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT To establish title to the submerged bed of Lone Oak Bayou within the Barrow Survey, the Club must, but cannot, prove that Lone Oak Bayou has two characteristics: (1) banks high enough to contain the flow of water within the channel and prevent the water from overtopping those banks, and (2) the type of qualified banks necessary to conduct a gradient boundary survey in order to calculate the width of Lone Oak Bayou and properly locate its bed within its boundaries. Bush, 601 S.W.3d at 657-58. However, the gradient boundary of the Lone Oak Bayou within the Barrow Survey cannot be located. Lone Oak Bayou has no qualified banks necessary to perform a gradient boundary survey. And the low banks that do exist do not confine the water to a defined channel as those banks are overtopped daily by the ebb and flow of the tide. These facts are undisputed.

Nevertheless, the Club’s lawyer argued, and the trial court agreed, that the Texas Supreme Court got the law wrong in this case and that its mandate requiring the Club to locate the gradient boundary of the Lone Oak Bayou was clearly erroneous.

To the contrary, long-standing Texas law establishes that a gradient boundary survey determines “the line between public and private ownership along the banks of a navigable stream.” Brainard v. State, 17 S.W.3d 6, 15-16 (Tex. 1999) (citations omitted). For a tidally-influenced watercourse that lacks qualified banks to conduct a gradient boundary survey, and thus, is not a statutory navigable watercourse, the boundary between state-owned and privately-owned land may be determined by mean high tide, using the scientific tide gauge survey methodology.2 2 RR 151. See Bush, 601 S.W.3d at 657.

Texas law obligated the trial court to follow the mandate and opinion of the Texas Supreme Court. See Hudson v. Wakefield, 711 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex. 1986) (“[C]ourts should look not only to the mandate itself, but also to the opinion of the court.”). The trial court admittedly did not follow the Texas Supreme Court’s instructions. Primarily because of the ebb and flow of the tide, Lone Oak Bayou lacks qualified banks necessary to perform a gradient boundary survey. Further, the so-called “evident banks” eye-balled and plotted by the Club’s surveyor are not banks that contain the flow of the Lone Oak Bayou with some points only marking the water line on grasses and other vegetation rising from submerged land in the watery marsh. In fact, most of these low banks identified by the Club’s surveyor are overtopped daily by the tide. 2 RR 115, 144-48, 153-156, 208-209. 221-222; 3 RR

In this case, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the State owns the tidally-influenced bed below mean high tide located outside of the gradient boundary of any navigable stream or watercourse in the Barrow Survey. Bush, 601 S.W.3d at 657.

7-18, 26-27. Therefore, the trial court’s judgment should be reversed and rendered in favor of the Commissioner.

ARGUMENT I. In a bench trial, de novo review applies for questions of law and legal sufficiency review standards apply to factual findings.

De novo is the proper standard on review for questions of law decided by the trial court and the no evidence standard of review applies to legal sufficiency challenges to the evidence. HNMC, Inc. v. Chan, 683 S.W.3d 373, 380 (Tex. 2024); Graham Cent. Station, Inc. v. Peña, 442 S.W.3d 261, 263 (Tex. 2014). In a nonjury case, no objection in the trial court is required to challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(d). The Commissioner here asserts legal sufficiency challenges to Findings of Fact 3-8 and 14 on which she did not have the burden of proof. CR 1142-1144.

II. The Club does not own the bed of the Lone Oak Bayou in the Barrow Survey as it was not a navigable stream that could be conveyed by the Small Bill and its bed cannot be defined by a gradient boundary survey. [Issues 1-3] The Club does not own the submerged bed of the Lone Oak Bayou under the Small Bill for two reasons. First, to be a watercourse subject to the Small Bill, Lone Oak Bayou must have banks that contain the flow of the water and prevent that water from overtopping. There is no dispute that Lone Oak Bayou in the Barrow Survey contains no such banks. Second, the Club is unable to locate the bed of the Lone Oak Bayou it claims to own under the Small Bill because the Lone Oak Bayou does not contain the type of banks necessary to perform a gradient boundary survey to locate the submerged bed within those boundaries.

A. Lone Oak Bayou is not a navigable stream as it does not have banks that confine its waters to a definite channel.

To be a navigable stream or watercourse, Lone Oak Bayou “must have bed, banks, a current of water, and a permanent source of water supply.” Hoefs v. Short, 273 S.W. 785, 787 (Tex. 1925). The banks “are the water-washed and relatively permanent elevations or acclivities at the outer lines of the river bed which separate the bed from the adjacent upland, whether valley or hill, and served to confine the waters within the bed and preserve the course of the river when they rise to the highest point at which they are still confined to a definite channel.” Motl v. Boyd, 286 S.W. 458, 467 (Tex. 1926) (emphasis supplied) (citing to Oklahoma v. Texas, 260 U.S. 606, 631-632 (1923)). No identified “banks” of the Lone Oak Bayou within the Barrow Survey confine the water within the Club’s identified banks. The testimony of Club’s surveyor, Michael Chandler (“Chandler”), establishes that the “evident banks” he plotted from a “sight survey,” which are indeed, often just lines on grass and not banks at all, do not confine the water. 2 RR 67-71, 107, 115, 125- 130, 144-156; 4 RR Px 13, 21. Instead, daily, as the tide rises, the water flows over and beyond most of Chandler’s identified “banks.” 2 RR 153 (Chandler admits “that the measurements that [he] took indicate that water is regularly overtopping the banks [he has] identified based on daily tide.”); 3 RR 8-12, 17-20. Chandler also agrees that what properly constitutes the banks of a watercourse are banks that contain the flow of Lone Oak Bayou on a regular basis. 2 RR 151.

Chandler also testified that about 80% of the Barrow Survey is marsh; one of the questions posed by the Texas Supreme Court about the Lone Oak Bayou. 2 RR 130. Texas courts have characterized marshes as flat, low lying areas frequently inundated with water. See Wilborn v. Terry, 161 S.W. 33, 34 (Tex. Civ. App.— Galveston 1913, writ ref’d); Jefferson Cnty. Drainage Dist. No. 6 v. McFaddin, 291 S.W. 322, 326 (Tex. Civ. App.—Beaumont 1927), aff’d, 4 S.W.2d 33 (Tex. [Comm’n Op.] 1928). Swamps and marshes like the Lone Oak Bayou within the Barrow Survey are generally not watercourses. See Hoefs, 273 S.W. at 787.

A substantial part of the Lone Oak Bayou in the Barrow Survey disperses well beyond the Club’s identified channel of the Lone Oak Bayou into what the Club’s surveyor called a lake. 2 RR 107, 146, 153-56. Chandler admitted that any “evident banks” he marked around the so-called lake do not contain the water within those banks and that those banks are not qualified banks from which one could conduct a gradient boundary survey. 2 RR 150, 153, 156. As the tide rolls in, water spreads throughout the marsh known as Lone Oak Bayou beyond and outside the “evident banks” identified by Chandler. 2 RR 107, 156 (“water is going to flow probably out of every low crevice in the Lone Oak Lake that you can find during high tide”). The top elevation of some of the “banks” that Chandler identified was where the water hits the salt grass sprouting from the submerged bed below. 2 RR 153-155. Chandler marked the water line elevation on the grass even though he admitted that the grass alone obviously does not contain the flow of the water which water disbursed through the marsh of the Lone Oak Bayou. Id. Texas law treats marshes as a distinct category of state-owned property separate from navigable streams, and the evidence establishes that Lone Oak Bayou is predominantly marsh rather than a navigable stream. The Legislature has consistently recognized state ownership of "marshes and other areas along the Gulf of Mexico within tidewater limits" as property "held in trust for the benefit of all inhabitants." Butler v. Sadler, 399 S.W.2d 411, 415 (Tex. Civ. App.—Corpus Christi 1966, writ ref’d n.r.e.). Legislative enactments specifically include "all islands, saltwater lakes, bays, inlets, marshes and reefs owned by the State within tide water limits" as a separate category from navigable streams. Id. The evidence from the Club’s surveyor shows that at least 80% of the Barrow Survey consists of marsh, with water regularly diffusing beyond any of his identified low banks throughout the marsh area during daily tides. The nature of the Lone Oak Bayou in the Barrow Survey as marsh, combined with the lack of banks that confine water flow, distinguishes Lone Oak Bayou from true navigable streams.

B. Lone Oak Bayou has no defined banks from which a gradient boundary survey can be conducted to locate its bed.

The type of banks needed to conduct a gradient boundary survey of the Lone Oak Bayou admittedly do not exist within the Barrow Survey. CR 1143 [Finding of Fact 10]; 2 RR 12-13, 16, 18, 37-41; 3 RR 109, 125-126. Therefore, the Club is unable to properly locate the boundaries of the Lone Oak Bayou that the Texas Supreme Court required to establish what bed, if any, was conveyed by the Small Bill. The Club asserts that Lone Oak Bayou has a current of water, but even according to the Club’s own surveyor, the source of the water comes from tidal flow or fresh water and the flow of water runs both ways—to and from the coast. 2 RR 130. Thus, the current is inconsistent and flows in different directions depending on the source of water. This tidal influence and flat, low land near the coast explain why no qualified banks exist in the Lone Oak Bayou and why no surveyor can conduct a gradient boundary survey to locate its boundaries and bed within the Barrow Survey.

III. The Club’s argument for avoiding the Texas Supreme Court’s instructions lacks merit. (Issue 4) The Club’s counsel correctly observed that if the Club is required to use a gradient boundary survey to locate the bed that it claims to own under the Small Bill, “the case is over” and “Lone Oak loses.” 2 RR 18, 37. The Club’s counsel stated that the slow flow of water in the Lone Oak Bayou near the coast is subject to the tides and does not create the qualified banks needed to locate the boundaries of a stream through a gradient boundary survey. 2 RR 39-40. The Club’s counsel admitted that “there is no case if - - if we’re constrained or required to prove that Lone Oak Bayou is greater than 30 feet by the gradient boundary method. It can’t be done.” 2 RR 19.

Attempting to avoid the evident loss, the Club characterized the issue as a “law of the case” problem and argued two inter-related exceptions to the law of the case apply here: (1) the Texas Supreme Court got the law wrong and its decision is “clearly erroneous” and (2) the facts were different and more fully developed at the bench trial than in the summary judgment stage justifying a departure from the law of the case doctrine. 2 RR 13-14. Even if the Texas Supreme Court’s remand presents a law of the case issue, however, both exception arguments lack merit.

First, the Club’s argument incorrectly assumes that the trial court had any discretion to ignore the instructions of the Texas Supreme Court on remand. The trial court simply lacks such discretion.

The law of the case doctrine is defined as “that principle under which questions of law decided on appeal to a court of last resort will govern the case throughout its subsequent stages. Hudson v. Wakefield, 711 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex. 1986). Application of the law of the case doctrine generally is discretionary “depending on the particular circumstances surrounding that case.” Briscoe v. Goodmark Corp., 102 S.W.3d 714, 716 (Tex. 2003). The doctrine applies only to questions of law, not questions of fact. Id. However, a trial court has no discretion to ignore the ruling of the Texas Supreme Court on remand. The Texas Supreme Court’s mandate imposes a mandatory duty on the lower court to comply with the higher court’s judgment.

Phillips v. Bramblett, 407 S.W.3d 229, 234 (Tex. 2013). Instructions given to the trial court on remand must be adhered to and enforced. Hudson, 711 S.W.2d at 630.

The trial court lacked discretion to ignore the remand instructions from the Texas Supreme Court. See Tex. Health and Human Servs. Comm’n v. El Paso Cnty. Hosp.

Dist., 351 S.W.3d 460, 472-473 (Tex. 2011).

A. The Texas Supreme Court’s opinion is not clearly erroneous.

The Texas Supreme Court’s decision that requires a gradient boundary survey to locate any submerged, otherwise state-owned watercourse bed to be conveyed by the Small Bill is not clearly erroneous. The Texas Supreme Court’s decision applies over 100 years of Texas jurisprudence. Texas law has long required the existence of qualified banks to perform a gradient boundary survey in order to locate the property line between the state-owned submerged bed of a stream or watercourse and privately-owned adjacent land. See Brainard v. State, 12 S.W.3d 6, 15-18 (Tex. 1999) (and cases cited therein). The crux of the matter here is the location of the submerged bed that the Club claims to own under the Small Bill.

That claim legally requires the Club to prove that the Lone Oak Bayou has banks that confine the water and that are essential to conduct a gradient boundary survey— qualified banks that do not exist in the Lone Oak Bayou within the Barrow Survey.

A stream or watercourse that is navigable by statute is one that averages a width of thirty (30) feet from the mouth up so far as the stream maintains that average width. See Bush, 601 S.W.3d at 647 (discussing the Navigable Stream Statute). Along the way, there are likely segments of the stream much greater than feet wide and other segments less than 30 feet wide or where no qualified bank

for performing a gradient boundary survey can be located. The key here is proof of the location of the boundaries of the submerged bed of the Lone Oak Bayou that the Club claims to own under the Small Bill. For a coastal, tidally-influenced submerged watercourse without qualified banks such that it is not a statutory navigable watercourse, like the Lone Oak Bayou, the proper method to determine the boundary between the privately-owned submerged bed and the state-owned submerged bed is the scientific tide gauge survey methodology. Id. at 657; see also RR 150-151; 3 RR 10-11.

The boundary between privately-owned land and the state-owned submerged bed of a navigable stream is located by a gradient boundary survey. Id. In this case, the Texas Supreme Court noted that for the Club to own the tidally-influenced submerged bed it claims to own under the Small Bill, the Club must be able locate that bed with a gradient boundary survey. Id. A gradient boundary survey requires qualified banks. If qualified banks do not exist, as is admittedly the case here, the property line is determined by mean high tide. Id. There is nothing in the Texas Supreme Court’s opinion on these legal concepts that is clearly erroneous.

B. The more fully developed facts exception does not apply to justify ignoring the Texas Supreme Court’s instructions.

There is no basis to support the Club’s argument that the facts were materially different and more fully developed at the bench trial than at the summary judgment stage justifying a departure from the law of the case doctrine. 2 RR 13-14.

Typically, the more fully developed facts exception to the law of the case doctrine allows a court to reconsider prior legal rulings in situations where parties change, amended pleadings raise new facts and issues on remand or the facts more fully developed are materially different and significant enough to potentially affect the legal conclusions reached in the prior determination. See Hudson, 711 S.W.2d at 630-631. None of those circumstances exist in this case. The facts developed on remand are not substantially different and there were no new parties added, nor new claims asserted. Nothing in the evidentiary record justifies a departure from what has been Texas law for over 100 years—the gradient boundary is necessary to locate the property line between privately-owned land and the state-owned submerged bed of a navigable stream or watercourse. Although here, a conveyance by the Small Bill would mean that the bed of a tidally-influenced navigable stream is owned by the private party, how to legally locate the boundary of any Small Bill-conveyed bed has not changed—a gradient boundary survey is required. If the gradient boundary of the watercourse cannot be located, the property line is determined another way by locating mean high tide through a scientific tide gauge survey method. Bush, 601 S.W.3d at 657.

It was inappropriate for the trial court to reconsider the prior legal rulings of the Texas Supreme Court in this case under the more fully developed facts exception. The evidence at trial conclusively answered the Texas Supreme Court’s questions on remand: was the Lone Oak Bayou a marsh or was it a stream or watercourse with banks from which a gradient boundary could locate its submerged bed. These factual questions and Club’s pleadings did not change on remand.

The Club asserts that because qualified banks necessary to perform a gradient boundary survey do not exist in the Lone Oak Bayou, it is legally wrong to require the Club to locate the gradient boundary of the bed it claims to own under the Small Bill. In other words, the Club appears to argue that if the Texas Supreme Court knew a gradient boundary survey of Lone Oak Bayou could not be conducted because it lacks qualified banks, the Texas Supreme Court would not have required locating the gradient boundary of the Lone Oak Bayou.

To the contrary, the Texas Supreme Court knew well that there are two survey methodologies at play in this case to determine the property line between privately owned and state-owned land involving a tidally-influenced stream or watercourse and application of the Small Bill. A gradient boundary survey locates any bed conveyed by the Small Bill and mean high tide locates the property line outside the gradient boundary. The Texas Court specifically stated: “Finally, our holding does not affect the State’s ownership of land below mean high tide and outside the gradient boundary of a watercourse or navigable stream because those areas are not included within the Small Bill’s scope.” Bush, 601 S.W. 3d at 657.

The Texas Supreme Court’s opinion remanded to the trial court to have the facts be more fully developed to determine whether Lone Oak Bayou had the type of banks required for a gradient boundary survey to be able to locate the bed that the Club claims the Small Bill conveyed or whether the bayou was “ ‘a marsh for which no banks exist,’ and for which ‘a gradient boundary cannot be determined.’ ” Id. at 658 (emphasis added). At the bench trial, the Club’s surveyor admitted that Lone Oak Bayou was 80% marsh for which a gradient boundary cannot be determined. 2 RR 128-130; see also 3 RR 20, 4 RR Dx 17 and 17A(discussing historical topographical maps depicting Lone Oak Bayou as a marsh). Chandler also testified that the water regularly overtops the low “banks” he identified and marked and that those labeled “banks” do not contain the water within those banks, which are regularly overtopped by the daily tide. 2 RR 128-130, 144-146, 153-156. Of the low banks characterized by Chandler, 99 are below mean high tide, are overtopped by water on a regular basis and do not contain the flow of water. 3 RR 8-12. In other words, the undisputed evidence offered at trial conclusively answered the Texas Supreme Court’s questions in its opinion: Lone Oak Bayou was 80% marsh without the type of banks from which a gradient boundary could be determined and located.3 2 RR 128-130.

Importantly, Lone Oak Bayou in the Barrow Survey does not constitute a navigable stream or watercourse to which the Small Bill applies because its low banks do not confine the flow of water to a definite channel and those banks are regularly overtopped by water from the ebb and flow of the tide. Motl v. Boyd, 286 S.W.458, 467 (Tex. 1926); Brainard, 17 S.W.3d at 15-16; Oklahoma v. Texas, 265 U.S. 500, 501 (1924). Both Chandler and the State’s surveyor Nedra Townsend testified that to constitute a watercourse, the banks must contain the flow of water, without the water regularly overtopping the banks. 2 RR 151-153, 206-209; 3 RR 25-27. Lone Oak Bayou fails the test.

Therefore, in light of the binding instructions on remand, as the Club’s counsel observed from this evidence, absent a change in the Texas Supreme Court’s legal rulings: “Lone Oak loses.” 2 RR 37. Just because the Club cannot prove the

Although there are areas near the coast where a tidally influenced watercourse does qualified banks where you could perform a gradient boundary survey despite the tidal influence. 3 RR 29. location of the gradient boundary of the bed of the Lone Oak Bayou it claims to own under the Small Bill does not mean the Club is entitled to change the law to locate the bed a different way using low banks that do not confine the water within those banks. The cases of Oklahoma, Motl, Brainard and Bush referenced earlier present insurmountable hurdles to the Club’s position.

IV. Legal sufficiency challenges to Findings of Fact 3-5 and 7-8 are established by admission that Lone Oak Bayou is 80% marsh and has no banks necessary to perform a gradient boundary survey and an incomplete chain of title contradicts Finding of Fact 14. [Issue 4] The Commissioner challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence at trial to support the factual findings contained in Findings of Fact 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 as those findings are inconsistent with the law and in Finding of Fact 14, which is contradicted by the uncontested evidence. CR 1141-1146. Notably, some of these designated “Findings of Fact” are a mix of factual findings and legal conclusions.

In any case, all factual findings challenged other than Finding of Fact 14 are legally defeated by the undisputed evidence that the Lone Oak Bayou does not have the type of banks required to determine the gradient boundary of Lone Oak Bayou in order to establish the width of Lone Oak Bayou in the Barrow Survey and locate the bayou’s submerged bed as required by the Texas Supreme Court.

There is no legally sufficient evidence to support Findings of Fact 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8. All of these findings are based on a false legal premise that the banks and bed of the Lone Oak Bayou can be determined and located in some way other than by the gradient boundary survey methodology required by the Texas Supreme Court. The undisputed evidence is that the Lone Oak Bayou in the Barrow Survey does not have the type of banks necessary to perform a gradient boundary survey and that the low “banks” plotted by the Club’s surveyor do not contain the water which diffuses beyond the identified low banks throughout marsh on a daily basis at high tide. 2 RR 12-13, 16, 18, 37-41, 107, 128, 130, 146, 151-156, 164-165, 188, 208-209, 220-222; 3 RR 7-12, 17-20, 109, 125-226. Therefore, as a matter of law, the Lone Oak Bayou is not a watercourse subject to the Small Bill and its bed cannot be properly located and measured, contrary to these findings.

Finding of Fact 14 incorrectly provides that the Club established a chain of conveyances to the surface estate of the Barrow Survey that totals 160 acres. CR 1144. To the contrary, the Club’s chain of title documents do not show the Club’s title to the interests of Laura Smith in the 14-acre tract of the Barrow Survey described in the title documents. As shown by Plaintiff’s Exhibit 87, Laura Smith inherited an undivided 1/5 interest in a 14-acre tract of the Barrow Survey from her mother, Louise Standley, in 1953. 4 RR Px 87. As shown by Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 97- 104, Laura Smith died without a will leaving seven legal heirs. 4 RR Px 97-104.

There are no chain of title conveyances from six of those seven heirs of their inherited interest in the 14-acre tract previously owned by Laura Smith. These six heirs are Perry Edgar Smith, Elsie Smith Miles, Velma Smith Otter, Mary Smith Perry, Wilma Jean Smith and Patricia Ann Smith Hampton. Therefore, no evidence supports the finding that the entire surface of the Barrow Survey was conveyed to the Club.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF For the reasons stated herein, Commissioner Buckingham asks the Court to reverse the Final Judgment of the trial court and render judgment in Appellant’s favor that the Club take nothing by its ultra vires trespass to try title, and find that the Commissioner did not act ultra vires by claiming that the State owned the submerged bed of the Lone Oak Bayou below mean high tide in the Barrow Survey.

Commissioner Buckingham further seeks such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Respectfully submitted, KEMP SMITH LLP North Kansas, Suite 1700 El Paso, Texas 79901-1441 (915) 533-4424 (915) 546-5360 (FAX)

By: Ken Slavin State Bar No. 18496100 [email protected] Deborah Trejo State Bar No. 24007004 [email protected] KEMP SMITH LLP 1301 Nueces St., Suite 100 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 226-0005 Facsimile: (512) 320-5431

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I certify that this document was produced on a computer using Microsoft Word as part of Microsoft 365 Apps for enterprise with a 14-point font conventional typeface and 12-point font for any footnotes. Excluding the sections of the document listed in Rule 9.4(i)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, this document contains 5,716 words, as determined by the computer software’s word- count function.

_____________________ KEN SLAVIN

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to Rule 9.5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Brief of Appellant was served upon the following counsel of record for Appellee, by electronic mail and/or electronic filing on this the 22nd day of December, 2025.

Edgar R. Norwood The Norwood Law Firm Main St. Liberty, TX 77575-4806 [email protected] _____________________ KEN SLAVIN

c.l,uSn No, cv2z446-A

LONE OAK CLUD, LLC, :$ IN TIIE DISTRICT COURT $ Plaintiff $ $ v. $ $ OF' CHAMBERS COT]NTY, TEXAS DAWN BUCKINGHAM, M.D., as the $ LAND COMMISSIOMR OF THE TEXAS $ GENERAL LAND OI'FICE, s $ Dpfendant $ 253RD JUDTCIAL DISTRICT

FINALJUDGMENT On May 28,2025, the abov0-entitled and numbered cause camg on for trial, without ajury, before the undeisigned judge with E. R. Norwood, appearing as attomey for the Plaintifi Lone Oak Club, LLC, and with Ken Slavin and Deborah C. Trejo, appearing as attorngys for Defendant, Dawn Buckingham, M,D., solely in her capacity as Commissioner of the Texas Geneial l-;and Office. The Corirt, after examining the parties'pl,eadings, hearing thg evidence, and considering the iirgument of cgunsel, is of the opinion that Plaintiffshould recover from De&ndant the lands and premises in controversy, which are defined below.. (

In this Judgment, the following definitio-ns applyr "Barro.w Sqruey" fleans the Sophronia Barrow Survey, Abstract 46, Chamtels County, Texas, which survey was grainted to Sohpronia Barrow in a Patent fiom Edmund J. Davis, Govemor of the State of Texas, dated January 9',1872, recorded at Book L, Page in the Ofiicial Publie Records of Chambers County, Texas, and more partic. utarfy desoribed as follows:

Page 1097 Volume 1 <<0910812025>> One hundred and sixty (160) acres of land situated on the East sidp of Galveston Bay about 15 rrriles South 8o East fiom the town of Wallisville by virtue of her affidavit before the District Clerk in and for said County dated Dec. 20, t87l irr accordance with the provisions of anAct affirmed March 24,lB7I. Beginning on the South boundary line ofJ. S. Roberts League, surveyed 1330 varas East ofhis Southwest corner. Thence Ssuth at 455 varas edge of'marsh 950 varas cornei in said marsh. Therice West 950 varas corner a post. Thence Norttr 950 varas corner stake on the North side of said Bayou. Thqnce East with said R.oberts line at 95 vatas Orr's Bayou 12 varas wide runs Southwest 230 varas same Bayou mns Northwest 950 varas to the Beginning.

"Lone Oak Bayou" mehns the body of water located in Chamters County commonly known as Lone Oak Bayou, being the same bayou referred to in the original Patent for the Barrow survgy as "or's Bayou", identified as "Lone oak Bayou", agd includes the wide portions of the bayou sometimes refened tg as lakes, whieh bayou and lakes are shown onAttachment 1, herqto.

"The Eed of tone Oafr Bayiiu, Iocateil in the Ba,rrow Survey" means the area betwgen the evident banks of Lone Oak Bayou as i! traver5es thp Barrow Survey, which includes the wide portion of the bayqu Fonetimes referred to as Lcine Oak Lake, which evident banks are natural monuments of the location of Lone Oak Bayqu, and its bed, within the Banow Suivey, which evident banks are shawn onAttachment2, hereto, which is a rnap of a survey oonducted on. thp ground that identifies the evident barilts of Lone Oak Bayou ovprlaid on aq aerial image of the Bariow Survey and surrounding surveys.

Attachment 3, hersto, lists the oooidinates for evident bank points within point numbers through 688 of LonE Oak Bayou that were surveyed within the Barrow Survey and a portion of the evidpnt banks of the bayou immediately south of the Banow Survey.

IT IS, TI{EREFORE, ORDERED, ADruDGED, AND DECREED, that Plaintiff recover from Defendant title to and'possession of The Bed of Lone Oak Bayou loeated ih the Barrow Survey, which is defined above - save and except the following:

.2 Page 1098 Volume I <<0910812025>> 1. The State\ title, right, orinterest, in and to the sand anrl grbvel lying within the bed of Lone Oak Bayou; 2. The mineral estate underlying the bed of Lone Oak Bayou; and 3. The right of the public to navigate and to use the waters of Lone Oak Bayou.

IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED' ADJUDGED, .A.ND DECREED, thst Plaintiffmay have its writ of possession to the bed of Lone Oak Bayou locatpd in thp Banow Survey, which is defined 'above - save and except the following: 1. The State's title right, ot interest, in and to the sand and gravel lying within the bed of Lone Oak Bayou; 2. The mineral estate underlying the bed of Lone Oak Baiou; and 3. The rigtt of the public to navigate and to use the waters of Lone Oak Bayou.

All costs of Court are taxed qgainst the Defendant, wbich, if not timely paid, let executioh issue. All folief nOt expressly granted herein is denied. This Judgment is a final judgment that disposes of all claims and all parties'in the above'captioned action and is eppealable.

SIGNED ON CIrT,u,s Honorqble Ghep B. Cain Judge of the 253rd District Court, Chambers County, Texas APPROV_EDi FILED TsBN LewFlnv By: THI E.R. Norwood A.D State BarNp. 15113500 TEXAS Main Street UTY Liberty, Texas77575 Telephone: (936) 33 6-37 00 Facsimile: (936) 336-7 634 enorwood@ednoEwoodlew. conl ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF, LONE OAK CLUB,LLC

Page 1099 Volume 1 <<0910812025>> NOTAPPROVED AS TO T'ORM OR STJBSTANCE: KeMp Svrrn LLP

By Ken Slavin StateBarNo. 18496100 Ken. [email protected] Debsrah C. Tiejo State BarNo.24007004 2905 San Gabriel St., Suite 205 Austih, Texas 78705 Deborah. Trgj [email protected].

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFEI$DANT, DAWN BUCKINGHAM, M.D., AS COMMISSIONER OF THE TEXAS GENERAL LA}ID OFFICE

Page 1 100 Volume 1 <<0910812025>> TTATil*iF.$T I

lrgord bh* r:a.!00 trcam rrrrEt l- Saa.rAA: Lone Aak Eayou tdhrdx*qttirs t *htd.1rnt.{thw " ldklF ]-_ rraaons 4 W r..?t0 zffi ddk*aweb -txrxFkqe SfFrx @ Chamfurs Caunty *rqbh€ba ATTACHMENT 2

Page 1102 Volume 1 <<0910812025>> 'Sghf'Suruey Monday, July 31, 2023 10;06 AM, pg: 1 Flle Name: S:Voey's COMPUTER\S|9hI Survey Jobs\4666BARROW\4O66BARROW.ss4 ATTACHMENT 3 Polnt Bearing Distance Northlng Easting ElevaUon 80D -3866,43743 {053.71958 13.85 8OD @ BRIDGE 3545.41016 LL369.t9772 3.40 DISK E1139 9934.67904 9859.66299 2.65 DISK 1139 19924.62100 19864.79900 2,69 MIKE #1 10000.01100 10000.02788 4,89 MIKE f2 9473.72346 9633.6s348 3.84 I 1/2" CP 5432.07422 11378,5s388 3.8s MIKE #8 15544,74100 21707.93000 -2.28 EASE 441s.08155 6410.18287 4.68 MIKE #1 10000,00000 10000.00000 3.85 8OD @ BASE 441s.081s5 6410.18287 4,68 MIKE #2 9473.73937 9533.68272 3,85 L4 6355.98819 4805.05327 3.85 FND WELIS CAP 10049.92486 10030.18834 3.05 51S RoW MON 19957,56000 20060.45800 -0,53

53 SWCRTR 3650.63720 -2190.58068 0.00 SET I 1/2' PVC PIPE 371s.51091 638.66541 0.00 1OO BANK 3289.58489 tL245.47437 0.72 TOE 3289.43098 11246.12588 -0.23 CL 3275.88869 11254.02955 -1.14 TOE 3252.62068 11256.23898 -0.66 IO4 EANK 3250.44t79 11256.52415 0.16 GRASS WATER MARK 3283.82007 11237.56702 1.35 CL 324.s8147 11207.95735 0.82 CL 3t47.58256 11176.0s130 1.11 Ct 3103.15579 111s7.65220 1.07 BANK 3105.57516 trt48.rs724 1.04 TOE 3106.23272 11748.31276 0.06 CL 3094.8540s 11156.04264 -0,69 TOE 3088.06163 11169.76293 0.13 BANK 3087.6238s LLL70.2l02i0 0.99 CL 3065.91409 tLL27,0t94t t.2t CL 3002,44tt2 11076.38186 1.14 CL 2904.31s16 11044.68219 1.06 IL7 CL 2859.6s626 11053.81745 1.18 CL 2783.34120 11111.93003 1.15

119 CL 2718.53559 tII79.63227 1.19 CL 2691.26980 11256.45680 t.t2 CL 2628,76Ls9 11306.6128s 0.88 T22 CL 2550.88343 7t322.06894 0.8s CL 2460.46522 1t307.7s751 0.87 CL 2376.87L24 11265.34184 0.81 CL 2304.62042 11242.91037 0.88 CL 2219,L5720 11172.09110 0,86 t27 CL 22L9.55L94 11100.78984 0.84 MC000972 CL 0.83 AM. "Slght" Survey Monday, July 31, 2023 10:06 pgl z File Nams Sr\joey's COMPUTER\S|9ht Suruey Jobs\4666BARROW\46GGBARROW,ss4 Polnt Bearlng Dlstance Northing Easting ElevaUon CL 2169,2L823 11006.93024 0.79 CL 2t64,72092 10942.21209 0.77 CL 2L79.017t3 10841.02813 0.75 BANK 2316,42106 L07tt,74L08 0.91 TOE 2374.79349 10711.14082 -0.39 CL 2287,88916 10718.57101 -1.90 TOE 2256.L7750 10701.71808 -0.38 BANK 2255.35594 70707,42139 0.90 CL 2282,88774 10662.70869 1.01 CL 2284,10s99 10s69.s6562 1.03 CL 2279.39464 t0434.17578 1.03

140 CL 2297.99088 10372.00617 1,02 CL 23L4.01352 10324.16604 1,07 CL 2347.44750 70228.8t492 1.03

143 CL 2364.9202t L0t62.84464 1.03 t44 CL 2345.23732 10058.25348 1.07 14s CL 2287.35669 9948.02644 L,07

146 CL 2247,84826 9877.25756 0.99 CL 2282.560t2 97s9.76267 1.06 CL 2333,11430 9643.84304 I.O7 Ct 2354,43s92 9576.22663 1.05 CL 2374,76t60 9488.63043 1.00 CL 2382,L6721 9370.s4008 0.98 CL 2381.0343s 9273.38992 0.88 CL 2385,36939 9196.69888 0.93 CL 2?83.25s02 9107.37901 0.89 CL 2339.7t905 8955,86357 0,87 1s6 CL 2333.96s7L 8886.01019 0.85 CL 23rs.89971 8827.84725 0.83 CL 2279,81873 8777.94276 0,92 CL 2225,67723 8751.15995 0.94 CL 21t4.836L7 8751.50117 0.89 Ct 2133,65943 8709,10817 0.90 CL 2r4.6134 8591.18297 0.89 CL 2L93.27498 8s29.95590 0.79 BANK 2337,L9732 8462.00489 0.5s TOE 2330,78?'9 8461.66777 -0.48 CL 231s,30657 84L6.43402 -2.09 TOE 2299.40Ls7 8372.82734 -0,27 BANK 2299.35405 8372.t88L7 0.32 CL 2442.83922 8391.87361 1.01

170 CL 2489.4967t 83+7.49t64 0.92 L7L CL 2s83.0s011 8288.04234 0.93 L72CL 2743,69075 8t42.2024L 0.88 BANK 288r.278t2 8236.75547 0.73 MC000973 t74TOE p't8Jt i$sf98r,'" r .8?68r68Ff,zs" -0.35 AM. "Slght" Suruey Monday, July 31, 2023 10;06 Pgl 3 Flle Name: S;Voey's COMPUTER\S|ghI Survey Jobs\4566BARROW\4666BARROW.ss4 Point Bearlng Dlstance Northlng Easting Elevation CL 2916.08800 8212.s02841 -2,05

176 ToE 2940.96902 8204.7L522 -0.39 BANK 2943.11368 8203,70089 0,93 CL 2796.19578 7911.99484 -0,38

179 CL 2963.23729 7714.24343 .0.41 CL 3109.62610 7487.08198 -0.39 BANK 2494.s9663 7t82.97318 0.40

182 TOE 2494.82L50 7183.35359 -0.52 TOE 3177.95211 770s.65230 -0.L2 BANK 3179.87286 7106.50762 0.76

185 BANK 3304,60562 7317.19t74 0.59 TOE 3304.20831 7316.19405 -0.21 CL 3291.11916 7242.3v3L -2.09

188 TOE 3269,63807 718s.15781 -0.10 BANK 3268.25333 7t84.63745 o.72 CL 3349.92600 7242.84763 -0.42

191 CL 3413.65057 7tLL76234 -0.47 CL 34t4.12219 7039,2r'.27| -0.47 CL 3395.75051 6995.33129 -o.4 CL 3363.09981 6924,5L937 -0.44 CL 3340.41839 6847.69L24 -0.45 CL 3348.4s600 57s2.68738 -0.46

197 CL 3359.94992 6683.19946 -0,44 3414,62L78 6s99.52513 -0.47 CL CL 3453.21383 6s01.23800 -0.47

200 cL 341'7.42759 6414.36091 -0.s0 CL 3428.81253 6360.2597t -0,46 cL 3374.0735L 6341.18596 -0.46

203 CL 3275.88293 63s2.79283 -0.51 CL 3234.35346 6294.14385 -0.44 cL 3231.78t28 6222.9368r -0.4s

206 CL 3183,72039 6173.76585 -0.45 CL 3107,24901 6L47.1L444 -0,44 CL 3027,8t432 6128.10832 -0.47

209 BANK 3022,39671 6186.62205 0.98 TOE 3020.86843 6L55.29576 -0.33 CL 2980.26218 6L76.72471 -5.10

2T2TOE 294s,78962 6169.69964 -0.59 BANK 2943,7t520 5159,86283 0.68 2L4 CL 2882.94817 6290,70194 -0.49

215 CL 2840.4s338 6247.74033 -0.42 CL 2786,82984 6204.6570L -0.4L Cl 2651.39648 6178.80183 -0.46

218 CL 2609.0s966 6139,s4961 -0.41 CL 2629.24519 6085.85542 -0.40 MC000974 CL 268t.82997 6009.87313 Page 1105 Volume 1 <<0910812025>> -0.47 "Sighf'Survey Monday, July 31, 2023 10:06 AM. Pgt 4 File l,lame: S:$oey's COMPUTER\SIghI Survey Jobs\4665BARROW\4656BARROW.ss4 Polnt Bearing Dlstance Northlng Easting Elevation

22LCl 2723,58135 5939.48085 -0.49 222CL 2761.96683 5905.87307 -0.46 x23CL 28L7.72590 s867.70685 -0.43

224 CL 2857,02493 5800,11022 -0.43 CL 2977,n1O7 5723.68934 -0.47 226CL 2969.55358 5714.86374 -0.43

227 CL 3028,33782 s591,03023 -0.43 CL 3033.39182 5505.04052 -0.45 CL 3011,90674 ss29.39607 -0.44

230 CL 3077.42842 5465.7282r -0.48 CL 3057,99926 5402.11690 -0.42 232CL 3137.s0099 5339.77742 -0.48

233 CL 3266.81234 5267.67L52 -0.46 Cl 3395.27L32 5198.66674 -0.44 CL 3481,23836 st52.74333 -0.44

236 CL 3642,63303 5049.68222 -0.44 L37 CL 372L30402 4984,81243 -0,39 CL 3724.70297 4905.607Lr '0.40 CL 3649.28467 4874.36951 -0.41 CL 3576.97220 4879.79750 -0,44 24L CL 3486.678s0 4843.8s789 -0.43

242CL 3516.99369 4777.25392 -0.37 CL 3673.9L07e 4705.53575 -0.45 CL 3797,96177 4667.27139 -0.45

245 CL 3952.60518 4646.16s18 -0.48 CL 4004.35657 4576.34351 -0.43 CL 3977.72055 4419.7L263 -0.47

248 CL 3884.60736 4204.82089 -0.52 CL 3810,46267 4093.02952 -0.48 CL 3732.n$6 4043.38201 -0.44

251 CL 3744.99067 3959.78600 -0.44 252CL 3729.42928 3897.00171 -0.44 CL 3743,79932 3808.90897 -0,47

254 CL 3692,5L704 37s7.L0213 -0.44 CL 3617.14333 3n6.63466 -0.46 CL 3567,64285 3859.62,148 -0.47

257 Cl 3552.66611 3919.69741 -0.50 CL 3472,3rt73 4008.30765 -0.50 CL 340r,42917 3995.64695 -0.45 CL 3321.82830 3951.1398s -0.52 CL 3209,22755 3833.61140 -4.47 262C1 3189,33100 3722.r2sm -4.44

263 CL 3178,24083 3646.49217 -4.44 BANK 3247,090ts 3555..14662 1.00 TOE 3246,37354 3554.93501 -0.50 MC000975 Page 1 106 Volume'1 <<09/08/2025>> "Slghf' Survey Monday, July 31, 2023 10:06 AM. Pg: 5 Flle Name: S: Voey's COMPUTER\S|9hI Survey JobS\4666BARROW\4666BARROW.ss4 Polnt Bearing Distance Northing Easting ElevaUon CL 32L7,6L453 3528,01757 -7.07 rOE 3195.64885 3500.68532 -0.25 BANK 3L94.27376 3499.7997L 0.92 Cr 3261.73953 3471.67976 -a.44 CL 3345.48036 3376.242t6 -0.44 CL 3433.05s95 3372.L5245 -4.44 CL 3512,00629 3403.94228 -0.45 CL 3592.15642 3394.9t997 -0.45 CL 3665,53415 334s.64266 -0.44

275 CL 3718.38832 3326.10933 -0.50 CL 3838.40183 3339.85101 -0.45 CL 3913.74609 332s.s9036 -0.45

278 CL 3990.64564 3377.0tr92 -0.44 CL 3973,97352 3467.92535 -0,46 BANK 3851.42660 3661.22095 1,18 TOE 3851.98830 36s9.86028 -2.92 CL 3896.60319 3530.75366 -12.t3 ToE 3925,11803 3592.95406 -1.04

284 BANK 3924.20915 3587.67975 0.17 CL 4054.49242 3575.69874 -0.38 CL 4138,05379 3539.87381 -0.44

287 CL 42t3.15877 3587.95964 -0.43 CL 4263.97682 3618.16414 -0.46 CL 4378,76t34 3615.84585 -0.42

290 CL 4437.4778s 3s71,03357 -0.43 CL 449634670 3513.7682s -0.45 CL 4539.78244 3453.25168 -0.46

293 CL 4564.30939 3403,29134 -0.46 CL 4555.2L492 3341.46472 -0.43 CL 4506.05857 3269.19{M1 -0.43

296 CL 4476.68153 3243.54A28 -0.44 CL 442s.s2558 3201.43046 -0.43 CL 4380.95235 3L61.54022 -0.40

299 CL 4323.05919 3103.55120 -o.42 cL 4265.31255 3044.66921 -0.43 CL 4761.37798 2985.38964 -0,44

302 CL 4092.45836 3006.48590 -0.46 CL 4019.s0065 3009.00429 -4.47 CL 3970.75658 2979.06772 -0.43

305 CL 4AL2.91977 2858.59946 -0.46 CL 4051,17915 2829.107t7 -o.44 Ct 4120,17220 2765.69293 -0,4,4

308 CL 4234.02464 2658.15597 -0.39 CL 4305.84689 2602,45663 -0.38 CL 4304.66321 2s44.43290 -0.38 MC000976 CL -0,35 p !&J ll3#Va,'" r ?f8&E$lAtrs" AM. "Slght" Survey Monday, July 31, 2023 10;06 Pg; 6 File Name: S:Voey's COMPUTER\S|ghI Survey Jobs\4566BARROW\4665BARROW.ss4 Polnt Bearing Dlsbnce Northlng Easdng Elevation CL 4238,70904 2462.33974 -0.36 CL 4L94.3r452 2424.03702 -0.39

31{ CL 4107.15398 2393,37660 -0.36 CL 3970.37347 2280,83248 .0.37 BANK 3863.30054 2068,62208 0.39

317 TOE 3862.88589 2070.00252 -0.30 CL 3505.97474 2404,40733 -0.97 TOE 3163.20111 28s7.89283 0.36

320 BA|IK 3162.36866 2859.00710 t,t4 CL 3478.33378 2L36.58726 -0.42 322CL 3493,5932t 2088.40659 -0.41

323 CL 3510,97940 2024,L36t5 -0.42 CL 3590,79923 t9L2,34825 -0.46 CL 3634,92880 1844.33069 -o.44

326 CL 3676.20952 t7s9.87t66 -0.q CL 3688.71873 1689.42922 -0.42 CL 3669,72109 1615.57155 -0.44

329 CL 3605,65049 1554.16639 .0.38 CL 3494.34667 1536,56483 .0.39 CL 3375.97563 1506.78822 -0.36

332 CL 3312.69391 t476.74t42 -0.37 CL 3289.83560 t409.7t946 -0,44 CL 3328,t4L47 t362.6?:097 -0.43

335 CL 3380,09440 1317.3914s -0,43 CL 3420,35737 1280.03257 -0.43 CL 3463.90010 1226.44764 -0.41

338 CL 3499.96386 1186.51073 -0.47 CL 3540.22023 7724.47169 -0.47 CL 3554.05691 1070.79065 "o.42

341 CL 3s46.13402 986.9s788 -0,39 CL 3491,15958 9L2,4A24L -0.38 CL 3433.21316 857,41673 -0.39

344 CL 33s9.89764 817,82636 -0,39 CL 3232.28660 747.LL112 "0.43 BANK 3061.,14298 631.57257 0,79

347 TOE 3060.623s5 633,29034 -0,53 CL 3061,74422 676.96528 -6.13 BANK 3057.35394 720.20527 0.76

350 TOE 30s8.97418 7L4.73023 -3.08 CL 29L5.47279 577.65002 -6.50 CL 2961.86s12 ss3.63793 -6.46

3s3 CL 3005.44660 s32.55030 -6.51 3s4 CL 3048.747L8 487.88746 -6.52 CL 3079.42593 438.72579 -6.51

3077.94435 357.54130 -6.46 CL MC000977 -6,49 CL PisoJ?{ffi tAu,". r . ?E$EED& s'' AM. "Sight" Survey Monday, July 31, 2023 10:06 Pgi 7 File Name: S:$oey's COMPUTER\S|9hI Suruey Jobs\4665BARROW\4565BARROW.ss4 Polnt Bearlng Distance Northlng Easting ElevaUon 3s8 CL 2983,34904 232.44848 -6,47

359 CL 3049,75763 159.40088 -6.52 CL 3145.50464 123.90226 -6.57 CL 321L.47719 91,13608 -6.s5 CL 3nL34046 46.72548 -6.53 CL 3330.7L240 -38,50258 -5.51 CL 3392.25470 -76,55684 -6.50 CL 3458.12887 -56.70817 -6.47 CL 3497.23674 -12.55058 -6.45 CL 3580,87386 49.7073r {.49 CL 3643.68795 72,80s52 -6.s1 CL 3723,005t7 110,48076 -6.54 CL 3768.79908 132.01388 -5.54 CL 3819.27301 15s.29486 -6.53 CL 3891,78875 t85.92547 -6.55 CL 4067,7732L t7r.7697t -6.s3 Q- 4L29,60787 r91.83444 -6.48 CL 4184.08323 223.63554 -6.51 Ct 4232.38675 25.2.48039 -5.52 3n q_ 43L1.75597 301.10256 -6.46 CL 437t.60399 346.29879 -6.50 CL 4443.67096 391.53107 -5.50 CL 4509,676t7 420.86154 -6.51 CL 4572.77987 428.79250 -6.50 CL 4674.82703 397.27983 -6.51 CL 4814.26551 338.77750 -6.55 CL 4867.10339 314.88128 -6.53 38s CL 4949.09402 255.13015 -6.55 CL 5000.71637 236.65573 -5.51 CL 5067,7786s 254.62603 -6.51 BANK 510L,7s4s7 386,37183 0.86 TOE s106,83893 384.22080 -1.21 CL s195,02054 392,50612 -5,09 TOE s230.22723 384.90780 -7.16 CL 5280,82626 517,327s7 -0.44 CL 5335.38135 513.63913 -0.41 CL 5368.95827 466.12074 -0.50 CL 5382.83849 380.97011 -0,47 CL 5396.7349 320.53468 -0,43 CL 5453.98112 297.35555 -0.41 CL 5508.77647 281.86341 -0.42 Cr 5547.29342 25t.36749 -0.40 ct 5593,64168 168.18333 -0.41 CL s628.14630 115.18900 -0.40 CL s677.s8270 94,7ss00 -0.41 MC000978 CL -0.42 r Jg7"6? iJdlA',." r . l88rBBPfJzs" "Sight" Suwey Monday, July 31, 2023 10:06 AM, pg: 8 File Name: S:poey's COMPI,JTER\S|ghI Survey Jobs\4666BARROW\4666BARReW.ss4 Polnt Bearing Dlstance Northlng Easdng Elevation

404 CL 5840.83839 t27.47796 -0.46 CL 5890.8226s 135.32015 -0.47 CL 59s6.5246s 140.35184 -0.43 CL 6011.96280 103,95594 -0.43 CL 6027.33628 35.39735 -0.41 ,IO9 BANK 6000.16158 -92.09827 1.01

410 TOE 5991.90833 -73.85245 -7.04 CL 5969.32482 -s3.79462 -5.03 TOE 5917.59246 -4L.77039 -3.05

413 BANK 5908.s1961 -32.996s3 0,90 4T4 CL 5881.7n68 -131.38212 0,65 CL s842.77498 -234.39031 0.66 CL 5836.57349 -388.29168 0,68 WATER UNE ON GMSS 5904.95874 -413.18901 1.34 WATER LINE ON GRASS 5947.70482 -477.39630 1.62

419 WATER UNE ON BRIDGE 5947,92485 -s10.36099 1.25 BANK 5950.73022 485,19147 L,42 TOE 5944,16582 -485.08279 -0.65

422 CL 5883.05596 -470.34906 -9.98 BANKNOTOE 5790,73952 -437.98366 0.95 424TOP OFWATER 5947.00359 -510.130s5 0.02 425TOP OFWATER 3607.05433 11356.33092 -0.09 BANK 3808.41491 Lt782.89226 0.63 TOE 3810.10819 11781.55114 -0.24

428 CL 3815.34504 L1778.23320 -1.97 429TOE 3822.68199 11776.746rL -0.49 BANK 3823.4LL7r 71776.6Lt95 1.34 5OO TOP BANK 370L.27576 -112.51400 0.62 TOE 3699.29444 -111.85874 -0.14 TOP BANK 3718.32609 685.13401 0.80 TOE 3718.66183 682,13251 0.04 DrSK @ WHnE HERON 9934.71288 9859.66647 2,72 EDGE BULKHEAD 5820.82639 -563.47904 3.80

506 PI BULKHEAD 5855.86053 -5s8.73208 3.96 PI BULKHEAD 5865.47s81 -558.20554 4.03 PI BULKHEAD 5875,42846 -556.23375 4.03 PI BUI.JfiEAD 5882,27049 -545.56049 5.51 PI BUI.(HEAD s880.24510 -532.3660s 5.60 PI BULKHEAD 5852.30675 -s24.82786 3.86 5I2 PI BULKHEAD 5822.94n6 -527.95182 4.10 END BULKHEAD 5818.53907 -531.58693 4.07 PI BULKHEAD 5966.15359 -s34.73682 5,82 PI BULKHEAD 5943.03947 -540.73603 s,93 PI BULKHEAD 59,10,87852 -537.34555 5,5s PI BULKHEAD 5939,51789 -s24.76468 5.64 MC000979 Page 1 1 10 Volume 1 <<09/08/2025>> 'Slght" Suruey Monday, July 31, 2023 10:06 AM. pg; 9 Flle Name: S:Voey's COMPUTER\S|ghI Survey Jobs\4665BARROW\4666BARROW.ss4 Polnt Bearlng Distance Northlng Easting Elevation PI BULKHEAD 5944.26818 -512.59755 4.38 END BULKHEAD 5948.63106 -511.01023 4.18 PI ERIDGE 5939.23222 -525.20828 5.47 PI BRIDGE 5940.28637 -536.99479 5.48 PI BRIDGE 5882,09908 -544.58740 5.s0 PI BRIDGE 5880.70637 -532.80559 5.64 BANK 5781.56466 -46r.32L70 0.68 TOE 5784,71759 -462.27536 -0.03 BANK 5790.18979 -265.84861 1,18

s27 TOE 5799.52999 -258.18623 -0.33 BANK 5834.t7537 -L41.41347 1.02 TOE s837.03382 -145.14199 -0,73

530 BANK 5903.30867 -34.367l.L 0.95 TOE s908.42412 40.63282 -0,49 BANK 5950.38705 59.26855 0.83

533 TOE 595s.9r269 63.2470t -0.90 BANK s932.798/'3 67.24842 L.42 TOE 593L.797L5 72,27680 -1,40

536 BANK 5736.477t1 38.49779 0.90 TOE 5734.06936 42,17848 -0.93 BANK 5600,04876 57.31941 1.19

539 TOE 5602.46785 65.80036 -L.64 BANK 5526.28976 135.782s1 1.38 TOE 5528.98213 13'6.71228 -0.10

542 BANK 5497.2L426 2L5,48576 1.13 s43 TOE 5495.00431 218.3s326 -1.95 BANK 5382.L4271 200.690s8 0.74

545 TOE 5382.7L716 203.05075 0.05 BANK 5294.35231 303.89751 1.58 TOE 5296.58304 303.77583 0.26

548 BANK 5291,43898 432,66782 1.10 TOE 5289.06445 435.61955 -0.92 BANK s154,66485 257.4543L 0.77

5s1 TOE 5153.96031 258.87379 0.04 BANK 5039,752s0 L97,82349 0,77 NW CRN 3650.63690 -2190.68095 4.68

554 NW CRN 3715.5105s 638.66606 0.00 5s5 TOE 5036.64562 204.62106 -0.42 BANK 4918.96039 223,97420 L.43

557 TOE 4919,88999 225.61835 0.19 BANK 4834.61L42 273.7L375 0.03 TOE 4836.65986 280.96941 -L.42

560 BANK 4666,53230 298.01488 1.06 s61 TOE 4663.07005 297.37073 0.03 BANK 4715.5s559 262.93277 0.95 MC000980 TOE 4710,87381 252.66/.09 <<0910812025>> -0.53 Page1111 Volume AM, "Slght" Suruey Monday, July 31, 2023 10:06 Pgl 10 Flle Namq S:Uoey's COMPUTER\S|ght Survey Jobs\4666BARROW\4555BARROW.ss4 Polnt Bearing Distance Northing Easting Elevation BANK 4875,55467 216.29508 1.05 TOE 4863,86071 210.06690 -0.34

565 BANK 4924,23082 L35.787L7 0.90 TOE 4973,58727 t3s,79377 -0.32 BANK 4913.39164 48.11114 1.04

569 TOE 1904,74429 47.00472 -0.31 BANK 4951,74830 -61.9s122 0.89 TOE 4944,08398 -s9.05832 -0.s1 BANK 4894.3834 -274,87392 0.71 TOE 4890,38628 -269.58269 -0.33 BANK 480L.75324 -258.7s906 0.88 TOE 4798,10032 -254.09298 -0.68 BANK 4718.26338 -374.33185 0.99 S77TOE 47t5J7074 -372.32925 -0,24

578 BANK 4576,7626s -465.48418 0.78 TOE 4s75,996t2 460.2792L -0.14 BANK 4250.t4477 -s11,09408 0.95 TOE 4254,05985 -503,94360 -0.56 BANK 4L42.7t905 -476.86232 0.97 TOE 4146.63185 47249241 -0.32

584 BANK 3948.15008 -219.52735 0.n TOE 3950,98073 -214.39932 -0.25 BANK 3825.79695 -173.38L23 0.78

587 TOE 3828.10665 -L7t.71540 -0.31 BANK 372r.62537 -88,83330 1.03 s89 TOE 3718.90573 -83,75305 0.00

590 BANK 3646,80567 '188,73023 1,18 TOE 3643,04858 -r84.49087 -0.31 BANK 3556,32874 -123.18139 1.11

593 TOE 3557,59469 -L23.75L6L 0.03 BANK 3sbs,48743 -50.17415 0.81 TOE 3592,89949 48.72488 -0.68

596 BANK 3545,50214 -21.20836 0,88 TOE 3543.81847 -12.77066 .0.45 BANK 3479.94493 -84.60582 0.79 TOE 3476.46798 -77.71098 -1.13 BANK 3447.04764 -3.26185 0.80 TOE 3454.07734 -6.01866 -1,11

602 BANK 3464.29674 57.80992 0,87 TOE 3469,07049 69.19466 -0.57 BANK 3363.25093 137.88195 0.78

605 TOE 3366.4009s L37.79065 -0.77 BANK 3537,05310 387.40212 0.49 TOE 3542.55131 384.50026 -0.41

608 BANK 3s23.2905s 498.30586 0.83 MC000981 ToE -0.11 p J#?fi tr\91r,''" r ..a83rdEE$1s" AM. 'Sighf'Survey Monday, July 31, 2023 10:06 pg: 11 File Nams S:poey's COMPUTER\S|9hI Suwey Jobs\4OO6BARROW\4656BARROW.ss4 Polnt Bearlng Distance Northlng EasUng Elevation BANK 3645,76160 663.1t777 0.90 TOE 3645,57226 660.27040 0.47 BANK 3703,85657 679,83996 1.19 TOE 3704,88998 678.02046 0.15 BANK 3770.39922 722.40583 t.L2 TOE 3771,13581 719.9420s 0.24 BANK 3814.39831 713.77882 1.13 TOE 3814,54803 711.96390 0.09 BANK 3917.69981 737.43042 7.22 TOE 3915.32679 734.90268 -0.06 BANK 4052.63977 664.93186 0.70 TOE 4051,4165s 663.46377 -0.24 BANK 41s1.70963 663,10512 0.7t TOE 4151.18004 657,97786 -0.27 BANK 4275.61L90 572.3I4t3 0.75 62s TOE 4272.s5068 570.9t622 -0.24

626 BANK 4424.61441 440.47995 0.86 6U TOE 4424.08L32 437.4991s 0.37 BANK 4530.22623 479.83378 0.95

629 TOE 4529.93L42 476,74807 0,22 BANK 4624.s4724 467.44871 2.99 TOE 4623,86426 455.95594 0.30 BANK 47U.t7989 384,27770 0.80 TOE 4783.39608 381.93068 -0.26 BANK 4983.75892 326.29L94 0.82

635 TOE 498t.97239 323.60052 -0.09 BANK 5043.60569 303.02340 t.07 TOE 5044,00644 30t.75224 -0.28 BANK 5220.56614 547.29259 7.Zt TOE 5221.s9549 545.94004 -0.38 BANK 528239442 587.58466 0.98 64r TOE 5282,6847t 584.71922 -0.78 BANK 5338.48377 590.74654 0.95 TOE 5336.42361 586,92918 -L.73

644 BANK 5406.6/.078 525.25954 1.06 TOE 5400,45818 524.78L50 -2.28 BANK 5429.29435 4'48,66735 0.99 TOE 5426.24714 448.69626 -0.68 BANK s431.14r01 383.86452 0.93 TOE 5427.82627 385.00187 -0.54

650 BANK 5422.33369 338.91676 1.48 TOE 5421.22L56 336.66970 -0.22 BANK s491.68198 351,34560 1.59

653 TOE s49L24379 358.83597 0.19 BANK 5626.23419 23s.98308 0.96 MC000982 TOE paW?fff0flrume r .?t&d$fl&s,, -0.37 lflghf' Suruey Monday, Juty ZL,2023 10106 AM. pg: 12 Flle Name : S: Uoey's COMPUTER\S|9hI Survey Jobs\466GBARROW\46G6BARROW.Ss4 Polnt Bearing Distance Northing Easting Elevation BANK 5654.64443 164,54332 1.10 6'TOE 5654.18523 162.96564 -0.72 BANK 5823.06225 185,80816 1.05 TOE 5823,45516 183,75306 -0.54 BANK 5918.732s8 188,19878 0.85 TOE 5916,8,1540 18s.s4011 -0.38 BANK 6014.14480 155,30469 0.64 TOE 6011,89997 154.60315 -0.82 BANK 6055,54315 82,8s620 0.95 TOE 6052,83697 82.73256 -0,29 BANK 6058,99746 1s.8s373 t.o7 TOE 6057,34591 14.93688 -0.46 BANK 6043,6313s -43.03834 0.95 TOE 6042,81214 -4L.66642 0.27 BANK s937.98753 -170.95521 0.62 TOE 5936.37772 -169.60399 -0.26 BANK 5901,16847 -240,87676 0,93 TOE s898.22853 -240.t481t -0.35 BANK 5876.98226 -308.84004 0.58 TOE 5875.03365 -308.36786 -0.36 BANK 5914.00432 423.00262 0,69 6N TOE 5911.62708 -424.32045 -0.38 BANK 5948.347rs -467.58436 L,L7 TOE 5946.43762 -467.98966 0.1s BANK 5957.87080 -501.89130 1.95 TOE 5954.48426 -501,66461 0.67 BOTTOM 3708.17096 265.82064 -1.31 BOTIOM 4164.s2L22 9.10854 -1.84 BOTTOM 4432.58953 -188.84751 -2.03 BOTTOM 463s,36348 -145.33156 -1.83 BOTTOM 4307.92018 82.18125 -1,96 BOTTOM 4123.7s276 382.62633 -1,39 BOTTOM 3695.34526 42.33172 -1.39 POSI 3071.37921 497,04495 3.85 POST 3072.47448 488.22831 3.84 69r POSr 3028.89190 475.s5065 3.68 POST 3028.45047 479.53039 3.52 POL POSI/BANK 2968,19198 450,50836 0,86 7OO PI BULKHEAD @ BRIDGE 5939.55511 -524.13890 5.63 PI BULKHEAD 5944.25363 -5L2.67281 4.34 END BULKHEAD/BANK s949.87038 -s10.73615 4,29 BANK 5957.60189 -490.120s8 r,26 70,1 BANK 5938.48285 -449,08131 1,09 POL STH BANK 6OFT OS 5793.25407 -535.29431 2.31 END BUI.KHEAD/BANK 5818.68681 -531.66035 4,02 MC000983 Page 1 1 14 Volume 1 <<09i08/2025>> oSlght'Survey AM.

Monday, July 31, 2023 10106 Pg: 13 Flle Name: S:Voey's COMPUIER\S|ghI Survey Jobs\4666BARROW\4666BARROW.ss4 Polnt Bearlng Dlstane Northlng Eastng ElevaUon PI BULKHEAD 5822,90322 -528.11049 4,07 PI BULK}IEAD 5862.32834 -525.04085 3.96 PI BULKHEAD @ BRIDGE 5880.26147 -532.69974 5.68 1349 EtA/ FOR 349 3057.s6806 720.70521 1.04

MC000984 Page 1115 Volume 1 <<09/08/2025>> Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.

The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Envelope lD: 102794522 Filing Code Description: Proposed Order Filing Description: Proposed Final Judgment Status as of 71712025 10:44 AM CST Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Deborah Trejo [email protected] 71712025 9:13:55 AM SENT E RNorwood [email protected] 71712025 9:13:55 AM SENT Greta Duran [email protected] 71712025 9:13:55 AM SENT Ken Slavin [email protected] 71712025 9:13:55 AM SENT Vanessa Lusby AU. Secretary@kempsrnith. com 71712025 9:13:55 AM SENT Valerle R,Auger [email protected] 71712025 9:13:55 AM SENT Sharnezia Mitchell [email protected] 71712025 9:13:55 AM SENT

Page 1116 Volume 1<<0910812025>> t'i

CAUSE NO. CV27446.A LONE OAK CLUB,LLC, $ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff $ $ VS. $ CHAMBERS COUNTY, TEXAS $ DAWN BUCKINGHAM, M.D, $ AS COMMISSIONER OF THE TEXAS 0 GENERAL LAND OFFICE $ Defendant $ 253RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above-captioned cause came on for trial before the Court without a jury on May 28, 2025. Plaintiff, Lone Oak Club, LLC ("LOC"), and Defendant, Dawn Buckingham, M.D., as Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office, and their respective attorneys were present and announced ready for trial. After considering the pleadings, the evidence, and the arguments of counsel, the Court - in response to a request from Defendant, Dawn Buckingham, M.D., as Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office - makes its findings of fact and conclusions of law as follows: FINDINGS OF'F'ACT l. The Sophronia Barrow Survey, Abstract 46, Chambers County, Texas ("Barrow Sunrey"), was granted to Sophronia Barrow in a Patent from Edmund J. Davis, Govemor of the State of Texas, dated January 9,1872, recorded at Book L, Page 299 inthe Offrcial Public Records of Chambers County, Texas ("Patent"); the land conveyed by that patent is more particularly described as follows One hundred and sixty (160) acres of land sitr,rated on the East side of Galveston Bay about 15 miles South 80 East from the town of Wallisville by virtue of her affidavit before the Dishict Clerk in and for said County dated Dec. 20, l87l in accordance with the provisions of an Act affirmed March 24, 1871, Beginning on the South boundary line of J. S. Roberts League, surveyed 1330 varas East of his Southwest corner. Thence South at 455 varas edge of marsh 950 varas corner in

Page 1141 Volume I <<0910812025>> said marsh. Thence West 950 varas corner a post. Thence North 950 varas corner stake on the North side of said Bayou. Thence East with said Roberts line at 95 varas On's Bayou 12 varas wide runs Southwest 230 varas same Bayou runs Northwest 950 varas to the Beginning.

2. Lone Oak Bayou is a body of water located in Chambers County commonly known as Lone Oak Bayou, being the same bayou referred to in the original Patent for the Barrow Survey

as "Orr's Bayou", identified as "Lone Oak Bayou", and includes the wide portions of the bayou sometimes referred to as lakes, which bayou and lakes are shown on Plaintiff's Ex. 3 ("Bayou").

3. The Bayou has defined banks along its course through the Barrow Survey, and those banks are evident and can be located and measured by commonly accepted land suneying methods.

4. The Bayou has a defined bed along its course through the Barrow Survey, which bed is the area located between the evident banks of that bayou through the Barrow Survey, which bed can be located and measured by commonly accepted land surveying methods, 5. The bed of the Bayou, located in the Barrow Survey is the area between the evident banks of the Bayou as it traverses the Barrow Survey, which includes the wide portion of the Bayou sometimes referred to as Lone Oak Lake. Those evident banks are natural monuments of the location of the Bayou and its bed within the Barrow Survey, which evident banks are shown on Plaintiff's Ex. 13, which is a map of a survey conducted on the ground that identifies the evident banks of the Bayou overlaid on an aerial image of the Barrow Survey and surrounding surveys.

The coordinates showing the location of the evident banks of the Bayou within the Barrow Survey are listed within point numbers 524 through 688 of the Bayou, which points were established by an actual survey of the Bayou within the Barrow Survey and a portion of the evident banks of the Bayou immediately south of the Barrow Survey ("Bed of the Bayou").

Page 1142 Volume 1 <<0910812025>> 6. The Bayou has a cunent of water along its course through the Barrow Survey, and it has a permanent source of water supply.

7. The average width between the evident banks of the Bayou along its coune througb the Barrow Survey is 30 feet or more.

8. Along a portion of its course through the Barrow Survey, the Bayou widens out forming what is known as Lone Oak Lake. That lake has banks that are evident and that can be located and measured by commonly accepted land surveying methods, and the average width between those evident banks is 30 feet or more. That lake has a bed that can be located and measured by oommonly accepted land surveying methods; it has a current of water and has a permanent source of water supply.

9. The Bayou is tidally influenced.

10. ln Chambers County, as a result of its very flat topography and the ebb and flow of the tides, it is physically impossible to perform a gradient boundary survey of the banks of the rivers, bayous, and streams, including the Trinity River, on a significant portion of their final course into Trinity Bay, including the course of the Bayou through the Barrow Survey. Namely, the flow of those rivers, bayous and streams is of such a nahre that it does not create the type banks, known as qualiffing banks, necessary to survey those banks by the gradient boundary method.

I l. Even though the banks of the Trinty River, the Bayou, and the other rivers, bayous, and streams - on their course through Chambers County - cannot be located and measured by the gradient boundary surveying method, they do not cease to be natural streams, and if they are wider than 30 feet, they do not cease to be statutory navigable sheams - just because their banks cannot be located and measured by the gradient boundary suweying method.

Page 1143 Volume 1 <<0910812025>> 12. In the summary judgment record upon which the trial court granted summary judgment that the Bayou was a navigable stream, there was (a) no evidence that it was physically impossible to locate and measure the banks of the Bayou by the gradient boundary surveying method, or (b) that the gradient boundary surveying method is not the proper method to locate and measure the banks of the Bayou.

13. To the extent that the Supreme Court's Opinion in Bush v. Lone Oak Club,60l S.W.3d 639 (Tex. 2020) rnandates that the only method by which the banks of the Bayou can be located and measured, that mandate is clearly effoneous. Under that mandate, even the Trinity River would not be a statutory navigable stream on its final course through Chambers County, because its banks cannot be located and measured using the gradient boundary surveying method. lt is physically impossible to perform a gradient boundary survey on those portions of the Bayou and the Trinity River because, by the nature of their flow, they do not create the type banks, known as qualiffing banks, that are necessary to perform a gradient boundary suwey of those banks.

14. Plaintiff, Lone Oak Club, LLC ("LOC"), proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, a regular chain of conveyances emanating from the sovereign, the State of Texas, into LOC for the surface estate of the Barrow Survey. (Plaintiff s Exs. 39-104).

I5 . The Defendant did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that EAI's r/tra vires trespass to try title action is baned by any statute of limitation.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW l. This is an ultra virer trespass to try title action by LOC against Defendant, in her capacity as the Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office ("GLO"), involving rival claims between the Defendant and LOC as to the ownership of the surface estate of the Bed of the Bayou located in the Barrow Survey. The State is not a party to this action. Defendant, in her capacity

Page 1144 Volume 1 <<0910812025>> as a government official, by and through employees of the GLO, claims that the State owns the Bed of the Bayou located in the Banow Survey, 2. Pursuant to State v. Lain,349 S,W.2d 579 (Tex. l96l ), the Defendant does not have sovereign immunity from LOC's claims in this action.

3. Due to the parties' conflicting claims of title, this controversy is ripe.

4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

5, The Bayou - including the portion of the Bayou that broadens out into what is known as Lone Oak Lake - located within the Banow Survey is a statutory navigable stream and its conveyance via the Patent was validated by the Small Bill, Tpx. REv. Cry. Srar. art.54l4a, 6. LOC's ultra vires trespass to try title action was not barred, in whole or part, by any statute of limitation, , LOC has superior title to the Defendant in the surface estate only of the Bed of the Bayou.

8, LOC is entitled to recover from Defendant title to, and possession of, the Bed of the Bayou which is located in the Barrow Survey - save and except the following: a. The State's title, right, or interest, in and to the sand and gravel lying within the Bed of the Bayou; b. The mineral estate underlying the Bed of the Bayou; and c. The right of the public to navigate and to use the waters of the Bayou.

9, LOC is entitled to its writ of possession to the Bed of Bayou which is located in the Barrow Survey - save and except the following: a. The State's title, right, or interest, in and to the sand and gravel lying within the Bed of the Bayou;

Page 1 145 Volume 1 <<0910812025>> b. The mineral estate underlying the Bed of the Bayou; and c. The right of the public to navigate and to use the waters of the Bayou.

SIGNED this L*o* of August,2025 Chap B. Cain Judge of the 253rd District Court, Chambers Coulty, Texas

LED THIS THE OF A.D.

PA L, HENRY TY, TEMS BY FUTY

Page 1146 Volume I <<AXXXXXXXX>> Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.

The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Greta Duran on behalf of Ken Slavin Bar No. 18496100 [email protected] Envelope ID: 109363837 Filing Code Description: Brief Requesting Oral Argument Filing Description: Brief of Appellant Status as of 12/22/2025 12:21 PM CST Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Deborah Trejo [email protected] 12/22/2025 12:10:50 PM SENT Rachel Moreno [email protected] 12/22/2025 12:10:50 PM SENT Greta Duran [email protected] 12/22/2025 12:10:50 PM SENT Sharnezia Mitchell [email protected] 12/22/2025 12:10:50 PM SENT Terry Castillo [email protected] 12/22/2025 12:10:50 PM SENT Ken Slavin [email protected] 12/22/2025 12:10:50 PM SENT Ed Norwood [email protected] 12/22/2025 12:10:50 PM SENT Michael Sanders [email protected] 12/22/2025 12:10:50 PM SENT