I've found a fantastic pond/lake (~11 acres springfed on approximately 24 acres) for a good price and am about 95% sure I'm going to make a run at it.
There are signs (beer cans) of trespassing, but I believe a large part is due to negligence by the previous landowner. That concern isn't particularly unique to this particular property however.
A bigger concern is that the entire body of water is not contained within the property boundaries.
(approx)
I believe the lower arm may be a water source, with the other two being covered up when the lake was built. So I'm not sure if cutting these arms off is possible/feasible.
I'm not as concerned with these areas being fished, as I like to release most of what I catch and wouldn't really mind should some of the neighbors want to take fish out of the areas that runs through their property. What does concern me is possible tainting of the water due to a variety of possibilities (dumping, intentional damage, etc).
Again, at the price, this is a very attractive property. Assuming all other due diligence is performed (dam checked out, survey, etc), should this be a dealbreaker for me?
Paul,
If I were making the decision, I would be heavily weighted toward a no go decision unless you plan to live 24/7 on the property. My experience with absentee pond ownership shows that it is very difficult, no impossible to control the pond unless it is within your boundaries and you are there on-site. Locals that may have become accustomed to using "your" pond will likely continue to do so, in spite of your best efforts. If you are okay with that up front and okay with not being able to manage your pond, then all other things being okay, go for it.
Well, we intend to be vigilant on restricting unauthorized access (as much as possible, contacting the game warden and sheriff and giving them permission to access the property as they see fit, etc) and plan on using the property for weekend/vacation use.
It's fenced on all sides, and isn't viewable from any major (or even lesser) roads. It's really only the neighbors who are probably aware of it.
Again, it's tough to gague the volume of people who access the property, but we're going to have that problem anywhere.
After viewing the property, the seller left the gate open and let us (myself and a friend who is thinking about going in on it with me) fish as long as we'd like. In one hour, I caught 4 that averaged about 3.4 lbs - all over 3lbs - and my friend lost one at the bank (not real good bank access) that he guesstimated was about 8.
That leads me to believe that it's not overfished, so access is probably limited, and again I believe is due to a negligent landowner.
I guess that in my opinion, priced as it is, it's not going to last. And given the condition of the fishery, it's something that we can use immediately. And priced as it is (as long as there are no major structural problems with the dam, etc), we should be able to get out from it without too much trouble should we encounter serious problems with the neighbors.
Are there any kind of microscreen barriers available that could be used to partition off the arms at the property boundaries? The water doesn't move too much, so I don't think catching debris is too much of an issue.
Again, the pond is supposedly spring-fed. So some of those arms may be the sources of the water, and drawing it down may not have any effect.
I went ahead and put the offer in. Should have something worked out by tomorrow.
PaulR,
Looks like a great pond. Best of luck on it.
Looks to me, that your watershed will be predominantly out of your control, may be of concern or not. While it may be spring fed, the classic shape of this watershed impoundment would lead me to believe that you are catching quite a bit of drainage from high ground around it.
Pond sounds like it is in great shape, just something to think about.
Pedro
PaulR:
This type of thing you are doing here is somthing I have been doing on a regular basis for YEARS now. I am ALWAYS looking and evaluating buying and selling lakes and ponds.. Let me tell you this!! and take it to HEART!! IF! the laws about water are the same as it is in Georgia...then you might want to stay away from this!!
The pond is shared with adjacent land owners BY LAW that adjacent land owner has ALL rights to ALL parts of this pond. Here again this is a Georgia Law. In other words any person can take boat who is adjoin to that body of water and go on ANY part of that lake and fish as well.
Rule I ALWAYS follow, NEVER NEVER buy a shared lake or pond!! Unless of course it is some Huge public named lake...
big_pond ,
The laws for public waters (rivers, etc) in Texas is that the land under the water is private, but that the water itself belongs to the public. So you can swim, boat, etc. but not set foot on the bottom. This applies more to rivers than creeks and the resulting ponds.
However, this property has fencing across the arms of the pond that follow the property line, so I believe that the fencing supercedes any perceived right to access.
Q: What is a public lake?
A: The typical public lake in Texas was created by building a dam on a navigable stream. When a navigable stream is dammed, the resulting lake is a public lake, and the public may boat and fish on all of the lake's waters, not just that part directly above the streambed. Therefore, a property owner may not fence off any portion of such a lake.7 For other lakes, the test is whether the lake is navigable. Typically, the small natural lakes in Texas are held to be non-navigable, and therefore subject to private ownership and control. Manmade stock tanks and flood control ponds are usually non-navigable as well. The public has no right to boat, fish, or hunt in or on the waters of private lakes,8 and hunting or fishing without landowner consent is a crime.9 In order to encourage outdoor recreation, the legislature has limited the liability of landowners who allow the public to use their property for recreational purposes.10
I'm still thinking about ways to control the fish population, and am considering some sort of natural barrier like rocks that would allow water to flow but would contain fish of a certain size.
From what we saw out of the fish that came out of the lake, the lake looks very healthy.
My offer was accepted, and now come the due diligence. I think for the price (under $100k), there's little risk should I want to sell within a few years. There's just not many private waters this size around...especially at this price...and with an established fish population like this one appears to have.
Well, I now have a signed contract. Overton Fisheries will be doing some water sampling and visual inspection tomorrow and a retired NRCS inspector will be doing a cursory evaluation of the dam and soil on Thursday. If all goes well, I should have a lake in two weeks.
A few more pictures (panoramas):
http://home.earthlink.net/~paul.r/images/lake1.jpg http://home.earthlink.net/~paul.r/images/lake2.jpg
Pedro,
I believe you're correct. I've since found a topo and regardless of springs, it surely gets quite a bit of runoff. So this might open up the possibility of a little redesign of the lake to contain it's waters within the property lines.
Ditto on being jealous, looks nice and teeming with fish!
Bob
Thanks. I'm keeping my fingers cross until the dam is inspected. It has quite a few trees on it, and I know it's bad, but I think if they're to be removed, it's going to be somewhat involved with digging the roots out and repacking.
There is a large gulley on the backside of the dam where some water can go, but about 100 feet or so behind the dam is a county road and a neighbor a few hundred yards to the opposite side.
Needless to say, if a quick break were to happen, there's quite a bit of water that has to find somewhere to go. Insurance will be a must on the property, but hopefully the report from the inspector will come back with good results.
I don't have a survey/plat in front of me, but this is a good approximation.
Yeah. Considering we pulled out (or had on the line at least) 5 fish, none under 3 and one that was at least 6 pounds even at a conservative estimate, I think the fish population is very healthy. The parts of the lake that aren't within the property lines don't touch public property (save a utility easement under the power lines) so the potential for malevolent behavior should be very small.
I wouldn't really mind someone taking out a litte fish, as I'm mainly catch & release but know that some fish must be removed for management purposes.
And I'm still pondering some sort of porous barrier to allow the water to flow but contain the fish population - whether by natural means like dumpung good sized rocks, or man-made with chicken wire or some other screen.
Hopefully the NRCS guy can better evaluate the terrain and give me ideas about possibly reshaping the lake to draw it within the property lines. Or there's always the possibility of purchasing parcels of land and redrawing the property lines. Of course that depends on cooperation from the potential buyers.
I'm encouraged, but trying to not get too excited until the reports come back.
The initial survey by Todd Overton seemed to be very positive.
He said that the PH was at 7.5 and both the Alkalinity and Hardness were right at 50PPM. He thought it was a little clear, but probably due to it being spring-fed.
He didn't have a depth finder on his small boat, but (I believe) used a weighted rope and estimated it to be about 16' at the deepest point he measured.
Lots of bluegill, and vegetation seemed to be in check, so there's a possibility of carp.
I'm thrilled with the results. Now, to wait for the dam inspection.
Well, the dam inspection didn't turn out quite as well as I had hoped. The former NRCS guy pulled some old photographs and found one dated 1960 with the lake there, so it's at least 44 years old.
He said that the dam wasn't going to break tomorrow, but there were some issues that need to be addressed down the road. There are a few seepages through the dam, one being somewhat concerning due to a fox/armadillo hole.
He also said that the trees on the dam should be removed and the dam re-worked a bit to take care of the cavities from the tree roots.
To do all this, he thought the lake would need to be drawn down approximately 10'.
As this is all visual inspection, it's going to be tough to get even a ballpark cost so that I can determine if it's something that I'm willing to tackle, and he wasn't too keen on even picking a number, but when I asked "Are we looking at $10k...$50k...what?", he responded with "Probably more than $10k but not $50k".
That doesn't help.
Would a permanent drawdown of 10 ft. bring it all within your boundaries? It might be worth it. Fix the dam and get it all contained.
Dave,
My concern is that 10' at the dam would significantly reduce the size of the lake...and as it's over 40 years old, the silt and lakebed wouldn't offer much alternative use.
I'm not opposed to pulling the size down somewhat, but don't want to do too much, as if the lake is shrunk down much, the attractiveness of the property begins to quickly drop.
If we go forward with the purchase, I'll do so with the intention of addressing the issues with the dam. Of course, the estimated cost will play a big part in it. $15k is palatable, especially given the relative low cost of the land itself (with an established lake and fish population), but if it's closer to the $50k side, then that's definitely going to have me seriously considering cutting my losses and moving on.
There's already a little bit of work (putting a gate in one fence and removing a gate from another) and improving the road access, but other than that (and the purchase of a small boat, trolling motor and battery) the land doesn't really need any work to use as is.
I'd like to camp on the property (or sleep in the motel with my wife and 9 month old) for a while while we work on the land and then start thinking about some sort of dwelling. So we're planning for the future, and any work to the dam will increase the cost somewhat...I'm just trying to get a handle on how much before the end of my option period.
I'll post the report once I get it and hope to get some input from the kind folks here.
Thanks.
They are older Cypress on the lake side. Probably about 14 or so inches in circumference. There's more on the back side...assorted...mainly the same size and smaller.
I'm not sure about how much water, but you can see it pooled up on the back side gulley. But again, it's spring-fed so there's constantly water moving (spillways).
I'm waiting to get the report tomorrow. I'll be sure to post it here.
I've heard the same about trees, but assume that's kind of the easy way out, and that if you remove the trees, and the root system and re-pack, it's the best (and most expensive) course of action.
Well, after further thought (and the fact that the seller wasn't at all open to work on the price considering these new developments), we've decided to terminate the contract and continue our search for property elsewhere and cut my losses at $586.
I'm very disappointed, but know it's the best thing to do in the long-run.
I do appreciate the suggestion, but the fact of the matter is that I think this additional cost would turn this from a fair decision to a bad decision.
The only good thing about the property was the lake. I didn't care for the location (both the geographic location and the distance from my house), the land was a little close to neighbors (potential liability from dam breakage), there are restriction against hunting (I want to dove and duck hunt), etc.
The price per acre for the area is under $2k. I would have purchased this piece for over $4k/acre. Fixing the dam to safe standards would have increased the cost to me greatly, but would add little or no value to the property.
I'm well aware that I'll probably not come across a lake as nice as this one for anywhere near the price - especially with a mature fish population, but feel that I'll probably pay more down the road for a property with a smaller pond/lake (or even none existing), but that the property will be better for me and my family in the long-run.
I'm disappointed that this one didn't work out, but this extra cost (and ever present liability with neighboring properties) were sufficient to break the deal for me.
Paul - in what county is this property located?
W. Robinson ,
It's not as much a factor as not being able to afford it, as not being able to justify the purchase with the new information that just surfaced. I'd gladly spend that same money on a new pond to a piece of property that will add to the value of the land. That wasn't the case with this one.
Yeah, I really wish this would have worked out and that I had this lake, but given time, I'll find the right property for me.
Kelly,
Leon.
Since you probably know the area, I'd rather spend $200k on a piece of property with a decent lake in Washington county than $160 for one in Leon County. For what it was, $95k was stretching the value for this property being in Leon County.
Any additional money put into repairing the dam would have added minimal value to the property, and most likely a loss should the property be sold within 10 years or so.
To everyone reading this thread...this is one of the best examples of due diligence I have seen. Well thought out, prudent decisions based on solid facts.
Well done.
I wish more people would do it this way.
Thanks Bob.
It was very difficult to walk away from this property, but know it was the best decision for me in the long run. It's going to give someone a very nice fishing spot, just not me.
The search continues...
Paul R., I know you seem to have made your desision some time ago, but I thought I would add some information that could help others in a similar situation. I have lived on a 27 acre lake for about 23 years. The lake is about 35 years old and there is a homeowners association there. I have served on the board of directors on and off over 2 decades.
We find that the state inspectors tend to go overboard and overstate what needs to be done on our dam. We do keep the trees off of the dam, and watch erosion, but we don't go overboard in responding to their demands. Every few years a new state person comes on board and "recommends" we spend alot of money to bring our dam up to current standards. They recommend we hire an engineering firm to formally design their proposed changes. Some officers have naively gone to engineering firms and have paid dearly for opinions that only restated what the state person said. (what else would you expect? a licensed engineering firm is NEVER!!! going to recommend less than what the state person said!)
Coincidentally, I work for the federal government and work with state and federal regulators from many agencies. It is my experience that most bureaucrats who regulate public activities tend to "cover their b--ts" by overstating what we/you "should do" to meet their interpretation of what is required by the law. You have to understand that there is no downside for a bureaucrat to recommend more than is required by the law. If you follow their recommendations freely, they get "credit" for "improving the states waters", for "protecting the public", and generally for "doing their jobs wonderfully" by getting you/we to make repairs without making them follow the letter of the law! The downside for them is to recommend too little and then in the extremely rare case that a damn fails, they can say "well we recommended such and such, but they failed to follow our recommendations."
First I recommend getting copies of the statutes and carefully read them yourself. Second, read the regulations put out by the state regarding what you "are and are not" required to do and carefully read how the state is supposed to notify you of what you MUST do. We find the state inspectors are quick to verbally tell us what we should do and are also quick to make written recommendations, but, they have never sent the required certified demands for us to do anything other than monitor the conditions they say are unacceptable.
I'm not advocating anyone ignore the law or get into a feud with a state regulator. I'm saying simply that everyone should know what the law is and is not. At our lake, we try to stay calm and courteous to the state, and make the repairs and changes that WE believe are warranted and make sense. We do most of the work ourselves rather than paying an engineering firm, and so far it has worked.
Please don't let an overzealous bureaucrat scare you away from something as wonderful as a great pond with great fish in a great place! Regards!
Oh yes, you are so right about government agencies that interface with the public. I
dealt indirectly with government inspectors and
auditors for many years, and I can unequivocally
state that the over zealous mindset you describe
transcends all areas of government dealings with
not only private contractors but the general public as well.
Kansas Ed,
Thanks for the information, and I agree that what I was told was a "worst-case" scenario. But with a property such as this, I only wanted to go forward if I was prepared for the worst case. If something were to happen to the dam, the property would be essentially worthless and you'd have to spend quite a bit to rebuild the dam and get the fishery back to where it was. That's not even taking into consideration any potential liability.
But as an update, my friend who had been looking at property with me decided to go ahead and purchase this piece. He's not as concerned with location as I am, and as the property had been sitting for two months with little interest, he was able to get it for about 8% less than my contract was written for. The appraisal should be done shortly and he'll progress from there.
Which is good for me. I plan on helping out with some of the costs and work, while I continue to take my time and try and find a property I'll be happy with in the long run more towards the NW of Houston.