Hubbry Logo
High water markHigh water markMain
Open search
High water mark
Community hub
High water mark
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
High water mark
High water mark
High water mark
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Sign indicating high water marks of different floods in Missouri, U.S.
The strandline at Ringstead Beach, Dorset, UK
High water mark memorial at Lake Missoula, Montana, U.S.
High water mark sign in Bisset Park, Virginia, U.S.
High water marks of Arno river (Florence) floods on August 13, 1547 (left) and November 3, 1844 (metal plate on the right). Photographed in Via delle Casine.

A high water mark is a point that represents the maximum rise of a body of water over land. Such a mark is often the result of a flood, but high water marks may reflect an all-time high, an annual high (highest level to which water rose that year) or the high point for some other division of time. Knowledge of the high water mark for an area is useful in managing the development of that area, particularly in making preparations for flood surges.[1] High water marks from floods have been measured for planning purposes since at least as far back as the civilizations of ancient Egypt.[2] It is a common practice to create a physical marker indicating one or more of the highest water marks for an area, usually with a line at the level to which the water rose, and a notation of the date on which this high water mark was set. This may be a free-standing flood level sign or other marker, or it may be affixed to a building or other structure that was standing at the time of the flood that set the mark.[3]

A high water mark is not necessarily an actual physical mark,[4] but it is possible for water rising to a high point to leave a lasting physical impression such as floodwater staining. A landscape marking left by the high water mark of ordinary tidal action may be called a strandline and is typically composed of debris left by high tide. The area at the top of a beach where debris is deposited is an example of this phenomenon. Where there are tides, this line is formed by the highest position of the tide, and moves up and down the beach on a fortnightly cycle.[5] The debris is chiefly composed of rotting seaweed, but can also include a large amount of litter, either from ships at sea or from sewage outflows.[6]

Ecological significance

[edit]

The strandline is an important habitat for a variety of animals. In parts of the United Kingdom, sandhoppers such as Talitrus saltator and the seaweed fly Coelopa frigida are abundant in the rotting seaweed, and these invertebrates provide food for shore birds such as the rock pipit, turnstone[6] and pied wagtail,[7] and mammals such as brown hares, foxes, voles and mice.[5]

[edit]

One kind of high water mark is the ordinary high water mark or average high water mark, the high water mark that can be expected to be produced by a body of water in non-flood conditions. The ordinary high water mark may have legal significance and is often being used to demarcate property boundaries.[8] The ordinary high water mark has also been used for other legal demarcations. For example, a 1651 analysis of laws passed by the English Parliament notes that for persons granted the title Admiral of the English Seas, "the Admirals power extended even to the high water mark, and into the main streams".[9]

In the United States, the high water mark is also significant because the United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to legislate for waterways, and the high water mark is used to determine the geographic extent of that authority. Federal regulations (33 CFR 328.3(e)) define the "ordinary high water mark" (OHWM) as "that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.[10] For the purposes of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the OHWM defines the lateral limits of federal jurisdiction over non-tidal water bodies in the absence of adjacent wetlands. For the purposes of Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the OHWM defines the lateral limits of federal jurisdiction over traditional navigable waters of the US.[11] The OHWM is used by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies to determine the geographical extent of their regulatory programs. Likewise, many states use similar definitions of the OHWM for the purposes of their own regulatory programs.

In 2016, the Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled that land below the OHWM (as defined by common law) along Lake Michigan is held by the state in trust for public use.[12]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

High water mark

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A high-water mark is the highest elevation reached by floodwaters, , or surges on vertical surfaces such as , trees, or , often indicated by lines, staining, or physical . These marks serve as empirical indicators of past inundation extents, enabling hydrologists to reconstruct flood hydrographs, calibrate predictive models, and assess recurrence intervals without relying solely on instrumental records. In geological contexts, such as the outburst floods from , high-water marks etched into landscapes at elevations up to 4,200 feet reveal cataclysmic prehistoric events that reshaped regional through massive erosional forces. Historically, communities have preserved these marks on monuments or signs to commemorate devastating s, like the 1921 or the 1937 , fostering public awareness of flood risks and aiding in . The U.S. Geological Survey and FEMA emphasize systematic collection of high-water mark data post- for improving flood mapping and mitigation strategies, underscoring their role in causal analysis of water dynamics over narrative-driven interpretations.

Definition and Core Concepts

Ordinary High Water Mark

The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) refers to the boundary line on a non-tidal waterbody's shore established by the typical fluctuations of levels, rather than extreme events like floods. It is indicated by physical characteristics including a clear natural line on the bank, shelving, distinct changes in composition, the uprooting or absence of terrestrial , accumulation of or litter, or other site-specific features reflecting prolonged exposure. This demarcation distinguishes upland from aquatic environments and is not synonymous with the highest water level during floods, which represents an extraordinary high water mark. In federal law, the OHWM delineates the lateral extent of jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act for non-wetland "waters of the ," serving as a proxy for where federal regulatory authority applies absent adjacent wetlands. It also informs state-level riparian rights, where lands below the OHWM are often held in for and , limiting private ownership to areas above this line. For instance, in , the OHWM on shorelines is statutorily fixed at elevations such as 579 feet above mean sea level for , overriding natural indicators where specified by law to provide certainty for property owners. This boundary affects permitting for activities like , filling, or construction, requiring U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approval for impacts below the OHWM under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Determination of the OHWM relies on field-based assessment of multiple indicators rather than a single metric, with federal guidance emphasizing a holistic evaluation tailored to regional and . Key physical signs include benches or scarps on banks, water-stained soils, or bars deposited by regular flows; biological cues involve shifts from hydrophytic to upland or exposure from scouring. The U.S. Corps of Engineers' National Ordinary High Water Mark Field Delineation Manual, finalized in January 2025, standardizes this process across the U.S., incorporating data from over 100 years of observations and promoting consistency in non-perennial , rivers, and lakes. In arid western regions, indicators like disruption or aeolian sand deposition above the mark are prioritized due to infrequent but intense flows. Challenges arise in altered landscapes, such as channelized , where historical data or modeling may supplement field evidence to reconstruct the pre-disturbance OHWM. In non-tidal rivers and streams, the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) delineates the typical boundary of water influence through indicators like bank shelving, soil changes, and vegetation destruction, as codified in U.S. federal regulations under 33 CFR 328.3(e) for establishing jurisdictional limits of waters of the . This contrasts with the flood high water mark, which records the maximum extent of exceptional inundation events, such as those from storms or dam failures, often evidenced by debris lines, sediment deposits, or water stains on structures and vegetation; the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) collects these for hydraulic modeling and flood-frequency analysis, noting their variability by flood type and substrate. In tidal coastal environments, variants include the mean high water (MHW), defined by the (NOAA) as the of all semi-diurnal high water heights over a 19-year National Tidal Datum Epoch, used for nautical charting and property boundaries in states like those along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Additional tidal-specific terms encompass higher high water (HHW), the elevated high tide in mixed semidiurnal regimes where diurnal inequalities produce two unequal highs per tidal day, and mean higher high water (MHHW), averaging the higher of these daily highs, both critical for assessing zones and extents in regions with irregular tides like the U.S. Gulf Coast. Related terms include the strandline, a debris accumulation marking recurrent ordinary tidal highs, distinct from ephemeral flood debris, and the annual high water level, often synonymous with OHWM in stable channels but representing the peak seasonal flow in ephemeral or intermittent streams. Paleohydrologic applications extend to ancient high water marks, such as erosional notches on cliffs from Pleistocene megafloods, preserved in formations like those of , which inform reconstructions of prehistoric flood magnitudes exceeding 1,000 cubic meters per second. These variants underscore context-dependent definitions, with legal applications prioritizing OHWM for non-tidal jurisdiction while scientific uses favor empirical tidal datums for prediction.

Historical and Scientific Foundations

Early Observations and Documentation

In , systematic documentation of high water marks began with the use of nilometers to measure the River's annual flood levels, which were critical for and predicting inundation extents. These devices, often consisting of marked stone columns or graduated wells linked to the river, enabled priests to record peak water heights during the flood season (Akhet), with markings indicating levels relative to fixed benchmarks. Archaeological evidence suggests nilometer-like structures existed as early as (circa 2686–2181 BCE), though formalized records with precise engravings proliferated during the Ptolemaic period (305–30 BCE), where levels were etched to assess whether floods reached optimal heights of 7–8 cubits (approximately 3.7–4.2 meters) above low water for sufficient soil fertilization without widespread destruction. ![FirenzeArno1547.jpg][center] In the Mediterranean region, early European documentation emerged through flood plaques and inscriptions marking Tiber River high water levels in , with surviving artifacts dating to 1277 CE recording a flood that reached 19.6 meters above mean . These stone or marble markers, often placed on building facades or bridges, depicted water heights via symbolic motifs like outstretched hands or boats, serving both commemorative and cautionary purposes for future . Similar practices appeared in other Italian cities, such as , where a 1547 Arno River flood plaque documented a crest at approximately 8.6 meters, highlighting recurrent inundations that prompted communities to inscribe levels on walls to preserve amid frequent devastation. By the medieval period, such markings extended to , with German river towns like Haslach and etching flood heights on buildings as early as the , based on eyewitness accounts and rudimentary leveling techniques. Archaeological and paleoclimatic studies indicate even earlier informal observations of flood high water marks in the fourth millennium BCE, such as sediment layers and erosional scars in Mesopotamian and Chinese river valleys evidencing extreme events like the circa 1920 BCE "Great Flood" of the , though these relied on post-event geological proxies rather than contemporaneous human notations. In contrast, ordinary high water marks—indicative of regular tidal or seasonal maxima—lacked systematic early recording, with initial delineations tied to 19th-century legal surveys rather than ancient practices. These disparate traditions laid groundwork for later scientific scrutiny, transitioning from civic memorials to empirical data collection by the .

Development of Standardization Methods

Efforts to standardize the identification of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) emerged from the need for consistent regulatory application under the Clean Water Act of , which relies on OHWM to delineate the lateral extent of non-tidal waters subject to federal jurisdiction. Prior to formal protocols, delineations depended on observations of physical features such as shelves, debris lines, and vegetation shifts, rooted in over a century of and riparian boundary practices but lacking uniformity across regions. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) initiated structured guidance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, which incorporated OHWM indicators into boundary assessments but emphasized regional variability without a national framework. By the early 2000s, USACE developed regional supplements, such as the 2008 Field Guide for the Arid West, which formalized geomorphic and hydrologic indicators like bankfull width and sediment deposition for non-perennial streams. These supplements addressed site-specific challenges, including arid climates where indicators like moss growth on boulders or lichen absence signal recurrent inundation. Scientific research accelerated standardization through the (ERDC), synthesizing fluvial literature in a 2016 report that cataloged empirical indicators—physical (e.g., scouring, benches), chemical (e.g., features), and biological (e.g., hydrophytic limits)—validated across U.S. ecoregions. This foundation supported training programs and field validation studies, culminating in the 2023 National Ordinary High Water Mark Field Delineation Manual, a comprehensive protocol integrating multi-indicator assessments with hydrologic modeling to ensure reproducibility and defensibility in regulatory contexts. For event-based flood high water marks, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) advanced protocols in the 2016 Techniques and Methods 3-A24, standardizing post-flood to capture , , and type (e.g., lines, wrack) for model calibration and inundation mapping. These methods emphasize rapid, systematic surveys using GPS and total stations to preserve ephemeral marks, informing FEMA flood risk revisions and hydraulic simulations where high-water data establishes boundary conditions and validates peak discharges. This approach evolved from informal post-event notations to a national database integrating thousands of marks for probabilistic analysis.

Identification and Measurement Techniques

Physical and Biological Indicators

Physical indicators of high water marks encompass observable geomorphic and sedimentary features resulting from recurrent water inundation and flow dynamics. These include linear accumulations of debris, such as twigs, branches, and sediments oriented parallel to flow direction, often forming shelves or lines on banks and obstacles, which demarcate the elevation of peak or ordinary high water. Mud or silt lines, thin deposits of fine sediment on non-porous surfaces like rocks or structures, provide transient evidence of water level, persisting for days to weeks unless disturbed by subsequent precipitation. Erosional features, including scour holes, cut banks, and undercutting, reflect hydraulic forces removing soil or vegetation up to the high water elevation, while depositional benches—flat, elevated platforms of finer sediments—indicate stabilization at ordinary high water stages in low-gradient channels. Changes in sediment texture, such as abrupt shifts from coarse channel gravels to finer overbank soils, further signal the boundary, as coarser materials are mobilized and sorted by frequent flows. Topographic breaks in slope at channel margins, where bank angles steepen, serve as reliable physical signatures of ordinary high water, correlating with the point where overbank flow begins to deposit and erode differently. In contexts, or bars and slack-water deposits in eddies highlight high-energy transport limits, though these require across multiple sites for accuracy. Biological indicators arise from the selective pressures of periodic inundation on and associated organisms. Abrupt transitions in characteristics—such as density, maturity, or composition—mark the ordinary high line, with hydrophytic or hydroriparian (e.g., herbaceous marsh plants, pioneer seedlings) dominating below it and xerophytic or upland above, reflecting tolerance thresholds to submersion duration and frequency. Exposed hairs or wads below intact layers indicate recent high exposure, while tree scarring from impact or eccentric growth rings in cross-sections evidence tilting and recovery. Vertical sprouts on tilted stems and seed lines—deposits of propagules on trunks—further denote biological responses to high , with the latter persisting briefly in low-velocity zones. In practice, delineators integrate multiple indicators for reliability, as single features may reflect atypical events; for instance, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers emphasizes corroborating physical breaks with vegetative shifts in arid non-perennial streams, where soil development and drainage patterns above the mark contrast with channel instability below. These signatures persist variably—physical erosional marks enduring years, biological ones evolving with succession—necessitating site-specific assessment informed by regional hydrology.

Field Delineation Protocols

Field delineation protocols for the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) employ a weight-of-evidence (WOE) approach, integrating multiple physical, biological, and geomorphic indicators to establish the boundary with documented confidence levels. This methodology, outlined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Agency (EPA) National Ordinary High Water Mark Field Delineation Manual released on January 8, 2025, prioritizes rapid assessment for non-tidal rivers and streams while ensuring reproducibility across sites. The process begins with site preparation, including review of aerial imagery, topographic maps, and hydrologic data to identify potential stream reaches, followed by field verification to confirm flow characteristics. In the field, delineators systematically evaluate indicators such as patterns, changes in slope or shelving, accumulation of debris or litter lines, shifts in from hydrophytic to upland , and staining or oxidation on profiles. Each indicator is scored for presence, strength, and consistency along a representative reach—typically 100-400 meters long—using a standardized two-page data sheet that assigns qualitative confidence ratings (high, moderate, low) based on empirical thresholds, such as erosion scars extending to a corresponding to frequent inundation. The WOE integrates these scores: a preponderance of high-confidence indicators within a narrow elevational band (e.g., 0.2-0.5 meters vertically) defines the OHWM line, which is then flagged, photographed with scale, and georeferenced using GPS for mapping. Protocols emphasize transect-based sampling perpendicular to the channel at intervals of 10-20 to capture variability, with adjustments for site-specific factors like confinement by valley walls or human alterations. Documentation includes sketches, elevation measurements via rod and level or (aiming for ±0.1-meter precision), and notes on seasonal influences, such as avoiding dry-season assessments that may underestimate the mark. For flood-event high water marks distinct from OHWM, separate USGS protocols focus on preserving ephemeral evidence like mud splatter or wrack lines immediately post-event, using flagging tape, pinned samples, and to record horizontal and vertical positions before degradation. These methods ensure defensibility in regulatory contexts, though regional guides (e.g., Arid West or Western Mountains) adapt national standards for local , such as emphasizing debris ramps in steep terrains. Variations persist due to state interpretations, but federal manuals provide the baseline for consistency in jurisdictional determinations under the Clean Water Act.

Ecological and Environmental Implications

Ecosystem Boundary Dynamics

The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) delineates the interface between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, particularly in riparian zones, where it marks the zone of recurrent inundation influencing , , and structure. Physical indicators such as benches, shelves, and abrupt changes in vegetative cover reflect this boundary's responsiveness to hydrological regimes, with the OHWM typically aligning with the of bankfull flows that mobilize bedload and shape channel morphology. Unlike static demarcations, the OHWM embodies dynamic equilibrium, shifting laterally and vertically through processes like bank scouring during peak discharges and via overbank deposition, which redistribute sediments and alter availability. Erosion at the OHWM erodes riparian soils, expanding channel widths and aquatic extents while exposing mineral substrates for pioneer vegetation colonization, whereas deposition forms benches that stabilize banks and support emergent wetland species. These geomorphic feedbacks, driven by stream power—calculated as shear stress times velocity—interact with riparian vegetation, whose root systems resist erosion but can trap sediments, thereby modulating boundary migration rates. In unregulated rivers, annual high-water events sustain this dynamism, with channel migration rates averaging 0.5–2 meters per year in meandering systems, fostering heterogeneous ecosystems. Anthropogenic factors, including upstream dams, reduce flood variability and sediment supply, stabilizing the OHWM but homogenizing riparian patches and diminishing habitat diversity, as observed in regulated basins where vegetation encroachment narrows channels by up to 20–30% over decades. Riparian functions, such as and , hinge on OHWM position, with the boundary facilitating subsurface flow exchanges that recharge and support hyporheic zones critical for assemblages. Climate-driven increases in extreme , projected to elevate OHWM elevations by 0.1–0.5 meters in temperate regions by 2100, exacerbate erosion and in coastal systems, compressing freshwater riparian habitats and shifting species distributions toward uplands. Conversely, drought-induced channel incision lowers the effective OHWM, promoting terrestrial invasion and reducing aquatic connectivity, underscoring the boundary's role in maintaining resilience amid hydrological variability.

Impacts on Biodiversity and Habitat

The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) delineates the interface between frequently inundated aquatic habitats and periodically dry terrestrial zones, shaping riparian by constraining establishment and zonation. Below the OHWM, recurrent flooding limits communities to hydrophytic tolerant of saturation, such as sedges and willows, fostering specialized aquatic-adjacent ecosystems with high productivity but lower overall diversity compared to upland areas. Above the mark, reduced inundation allows succession to more diverse terrestrial , including shrubs and trees, which support a broader array of ; this gradient often hosts peak in riparian corridors due to resource availability and complexity. Flood events reaching or exceeding the high water mark induce acute habitat alterations through hydraulic scour, sediment deposition, and oxygen depletion, which can devastate terrestrial vegetation and benthic communities while temporarily disrupting food webs. For example, in forested wetlands, prolonged inundation tied to high water extents has reduced snag and tree densities by up to 50% in affected stands, diminished ground vegetation cover, and altered woody debris recruitment, impairing habitat for cavity-nesting birds and amphibians. Such disturbances may eliminate nests or burrows positioned below the mark—estimated at 28% of total avian nests in some systems—exposing species to drowning or displacement. However, empirical studies indicate that moderate floods can reset channel morphology, enhance hyporheic exchange, and increase habitat suitability for fish by redistributing gravels and improving connectivity, as observed after an 18-year return period event where post-flood benthic diversity rose due to fresher substrates. Long-term shifts in OHWM position, driven by erosion, accretion, or flow regulation, exacerbate and in riparian ecosystems. River damming and altered hydrographs advance the OHWM landward, enabling invasive terrestrial to colonize former aquatic margins and homogenizing vegetation structure, which has contributed to global declines in endemic riparian since the mid-20th century. In dynamic systems, natural variability maintains resilience, but anthropogenic stabilization—evident in 70% of large worldwide—reduces pulse benefits, leading to simplified habitats with 20-40% lower invertebrate and diversity compared to unregulated reaches. These changes underscore causal linkages between water level fluctuations and , with peer-reviewed analyses emphasizing that preserving natural OHWM dynamics is essential for sustaining transitional habitats amid pressures like climate-driven , projected to inundate 0.5-2% of coastal riparian areas annually by 2100 in vulnerable regions.

Property and Riparian Rights

In the context of , the high water mark delineates the boundary between privately owned upland and publicly held submerged or foreshore lands adjacent to water bodies. For tidal coastal areas in most U.S. states, this boundary is established at the mean high tide line, calculated as the average height of high tides over a 19-year tidal epoch, beyond which the state holds title to tidelands under the for navigation, commerce, and fishing. Private ownership generally extends only above this line, with public access rights applying to the wet sand or below it. For non-tidal navigable rivers, lakes, and streams, the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) serves as the analogous legal boundary, marking the point of perceptible water influence through physical indicators such as shelving, destruction of terrestrial , or lines. This demarcation limits riparian owners—those holding land abutting non-tidal waters—to rights over the upland side, while vesting navigable portions and beds below the OHWM in the state or , subject to federal oversight under statutes like the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Riparian rights include reasonable access for domestic use, navigation, and incidental structures like docks extending to the water's edge, but exclude exclusive control over submerged lands. Jurisdictional variations influence application; for instance, states employ multiple OHWM definitions tailored to riparian versus regulatory contexts, with the boundary shifting based on long-term water level averages rather than short-term fluctuations. In , the State Lands Commission may fix the OHWM or mean high tide line through surveys or quiet title actions to resolve ambulatory boundaries affected by or accretion. Disputes often arise over delineation, as imprecise marking can lead to encroachments, with courts relying on field evidence and historical surveys to uphold public dominance below the mark while protecting upland titles.

Federal and State Regulations

Federal regulations on high water marks primarily revolve around the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), which delineates the lateral extent of federal jurisdiction over non-tidal waters under the Clean Water Act. The U.S. Corps of Engineers defines the OHWM in 33 CFR § 328.3 as "that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural vegetational line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas." This demarcation is crucial for determining the boundaries of waters of the , thereby regulating activities like , filling, and discharges that may require permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In January 2025, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released the National Ordinary High Water Mark Field Delineation Manual for Rivers and Streams, a non-mandatory technical resource to standardize OHWM identification nationwide using field indicators such as , deposits, and changes. This manual supports consistent application in regulatory determinations, extending federal authority up to the OHWM in the absence of adjacent wetlands. The (FEMA) incorporates high water marks (HWMs) from flood events into its flood risk mapping under the (NFIP), using them to validate elevations and refine boundaries in Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning (Risk MAP) efforts. FEMA's High Water Mark Initiative, launched to collect post-flood data, encourages communities to document HWMs for improved hazard analysis, though it functions more as a data-gathering tool than a prescriptive . State regulations on high water marks often align with federal OHWM criteria for jurisdictional purposes but diverge in definitions and applications for property boundaries, riparian rights, and shoreline , reflecting local and legal traditions. For instance, Michigan's Part 325 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act sets specific OHWM elevations for the —such as 579 feet above IGLD 1985 for —requiring state permits for activities like filling or structures below this line. Washington's Shoreline Act defines the OHWM biologically as the point where aquatic vegetation ends and upland species predominate, establishing jurisdiction for shoreline master programs that regulate development within 200 feet landward. In , state guidelines emphasize physical indicators like staining and debris shelves for OHWM delineation in streams, treating islands entirely as below the mark for regulatory and ownership purposes, as affirmed by precedents. California's State Lands Commission can formally establish OHWMs through quiet title actions or agreements under Public Resources Code § 6323, influencing tideland boundaries and . These state-specific approaches ensure adaptation to regional conditions but can lead to variances from federal standards, necessitating coordination in joint regulatory reviews.

Disputes and Judicial Interpretations

Disputes over high water marks, particularly the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), commonly involve boundary determinations between and lands, impacting riparian rights, mineral extraction, and development permissions. Courts have ruled that the OHWM demarcates the limit of of submerged beds of navigable waters, with private ownership extending landward from that line, though precise location often hinges on evidence of historical water levels rather than current conditions. In cases where dams or reservoirs alter flows, judicial interpretations distinguish natural OHWM from artificial elevations, holding that states retain rights only to the former unless explicitly conveyed. A foundational U.S. decision, Knight v. United States Land Association (1891), addressed survey-based disputes, admitting testimony on OHWM positions to resolve claims over lands below marked lines, emphasizing empirical evidence like historical flooding over speculative boundaries. Similarly, in Martin v. Busch (1927), courts clarified that upland conveyances, including swamp lands, exclude sovereignty lands below the OHWM of navigable waters, preventing private claims to submerged areas without state grant. These rulings underscore that riparian rights—such as access for boating or wharves—require contiguous ownership to the OHWM, with disputes arising when erosion or accretion shifts the line, triggering doctrines like avulsion (sudden change preserving prior boundaries) versus gradual accretion (favoring boundary adjustment). Public trust doctrine applications have fueled litigation over access below the OHWM. In Michigan's Glass v. Goeckel (2005), effectively the Beach Walker case, the affirmed public pedestrian rights along shorelines up to the OHWM on private land, rooted in common-law , though subject to reasonable restrictions against interference. Indiana's Gunderson v. State (2018) upheld state title to beds to the OHWM, rejecting private challenges to regulatory authority over adjacent wetlands under principles. Idaho's in a 2017 dispute between Hudson and others interpreted OHWM as the natural line, excluding artificial highs from boundary calculations, to protect upland titles from inflated water marks caused by upstream impoundments. Contemporary cases highlight resource extraction conflicts. A 2025 Eighth Circuit affirmation in a dispute over mineral royalties confirmed state ownership below the OHWM for pre-reservoir beds, overriding federal claims where historical evidence supported the boundary, resolving a conflict initiated in 2016. courts, in a 2013 ruling, extended regulation beyond the OHWM to filled lands if originally below it, as in Just v. Marinette County, balancing private development against navigational and ecological preservation. Such interpretations often require multidisciplinary evidence, including hydrological data and vegetation surveys, to adjudicate, with outcomes favoring documented pre-alteration conditions to mitigate biases from modern engineering records.

Practical Applications

Flood Risk and Inundation Mapping

High-water marks (HWMs) provide essential empirical data for delineating extents and assessing inundation risks, serving as physical indicators of maximum water levels during events. Collected through post- field surveys, these marks—often evident as lines, deposits, or water stains on structures—enable the reconstruction of hydrographs and validation of predictive models. Agencies such as the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and (FEMA) prioritize HWM data to refine boundaries, with surveys conducted rapidly after events to capture transient indicators before or human activity obscures them. In hydraulic modeling, HWMs are integrated to calibrate and verify simulations, ensuring model outputs align with observed flood elevations. For instance, one-dimensional and two-dimensional models like require calibration against HWM elevations to adjust parameters such as Manning's roughness coefficients and storage, reducing uncertainties in estimated water surface profiles. FEMA mandates that hydraulic models for mapping match HWMs from historical floods, with discrepancies typically limited to within 1-2 feet for base flood elevations. This process enhances the accuracy of inundation maps, which depict spatial extents and depths of flooding for specific recurrence intervals, such as the 1% annual chance flood. HWM data contributes to probabilistic flood risk assessments by informing and recurrence interval calculations. When combined with stream gage records, HWMs help estimate peak discharges and extend rating curves beyond gauged ranges, as seen in USGS flood studies where marks from events like the 2019 Midwest floods validated models for future . In geographic systems (GIS), digitized HWMs overlay with digital models (DEMs) to generate inundation layers, supporting community-level risk zoning and rating. Challenges include distinguishing true HWMs from secondary indicators like wave splash, addressed through standardized protocols from USGS field manuals emphasizing multiple corroborating lines of evidence. Applications extend to real-time inundation mapping libraries, where USGS tools incorporate HWM-derived extents to produce stage-specific flood maps for rivers, aiding emergency response and long-term planning. For coastal and riverine systems, HWMs refine and backwater effect models, with from events like used to update FEMA's coastal flood maps. Overall, reliance on HWMs promotes data-driven risk mitigation, though limitations arise from sparse historical coverage in ungauged basins, necessitating complementary and paleoflood analyses.

Coastal and Hazard Management

In coastal management, the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) delineates the boundary between upland property and state-owned aquatic lands, particularly along saltwater shorelines where it aligns with the mean higher high tide line, guiding permitting, development setbacks, and measures. For example, in , structures must maintain a 75-foot setback from the OHWM to mitigate and erosion risks unless pre-existing development patterns apply. This demarcation, identified through physical indicators like vegetation changes or soil alterations, informs shoreline master programs under frameworks such as Washington's Shoreline Management Act, ensuring preservation and public access while restricting encroachments that exacerbate coastal vulnerabilities. For hazard assessment, extreme high water marks from storm surges, tidal flooding, and king tides provide empirical data for inundation mapping and model calibration, enabling agencies like the U.S. Geological Survey to forecast recurrence intervals and potential damages in coastal zones. Post-event collection, as during in 2005, involves surveying marks on structures and vegetation to compute elevations relative to benchmarks, refining flood frequency analyses and supporting infrastructure resilience planning. The Federal Emergency Management Agency's High Water Mark Initiative, launched with pilots in 2013, promotes community installation of durable markers to document past events, fostering long-term risk awareness and justifying investments in barriers or elevations; evaluations show these efforts spark local discussions and sustain mitigation advocacy. Integration of high water mark into coastal tools, such as NOAA's inundation dashboards, aids in projecting sea-level rise compounded by extreme events, with marks from flooding—defined as exceeding minor thresholds—informing adaptive strategies like reinforcement to counter overwash risks. In regulatory contexts, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' OHWM delineation protocols, updated in field manuals as recent as 2025, standardize assessments for compliance, linking average and extreme marks to evaluate jurisdictional waters and buffers in tidally influenced areas. This approach prioritizes verifiable field evidence over modeled estimates, reducing disputes in permitting for coastal developments prone to inundation.

Integration with Climate and Geological Studies

High water marks serve as critical empirical indicators in geological studies for reconstructing the magnitude and frequency of past flood events, particularly through analysis of erosional features, slackwater deposits, and sediment layers preserved in landscapes. These markers enable geologists to estimate minimum flood discharges in constrained terrains like gorges or canyons, where deposit elevations directly correspond to peak water levels, facilitating the dating of cataclysmic events such as megafloods from glacial outbursts. For instance, ancient high water marks etched into cliffs at elevations up to 4,200 feet provide evidence of repeated outbursts from during the Pleistocene, informing models of scabland and outburst dynamics in the . In climate studies, high water marks integrate with proxy data to assess historical variability in extreme , surges, and relative s, offering ground-truthed validation for paleoclimate reconstructions and future projections. By combining these marks with dendrochronological evidence, such as tree scars from submersion, researchers have reconstructed chronologies extending back centuries, revealing shifts in event frequency attributable to climatic oscillations rather than solely anthropogenic influences. Geological proxies incorporating high water indicators, including salt-marsh and overwash deposits, contribute to meta-analyses showing relative stability over millennia until recent accelerations, challenging narratives of unprecedented changes without instrumental corroboration. This integration enhances inundation modeling under varying climate scenarios, where historical high water data calibrates hydrodynamic simulations to predict extents with greater fidelity, as demonstrated in global 30-meter resolution models incorporating marks from diverse events. In coastal contexts, these markers delineate baseline high water lines used in cadastral and hazard assessments, linking geological records to projections by distinguishing tidal, storm-induced, and eustatic components through and stratigraphic correlation. Such multidisciplinary approaches underscore the primacy of direct over modeled extrapolations, mitigating uncertainties in attributing trends to specific causal drivers like natural variability versus forcing.

References

  1. https://www.usgs.gov/water-science-school/science/high-water-marks-and-flooding
  2. https://www.historycolorado.org/exhibit/high-water-marks
  3. https://bullittcountyhistory.org/memories/flood37.html
  4. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2017/1105/ofr20171105.pdf
  5. https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps/products-tools/high-water-mark-initiative
  6. https://www.erdc.usace.army.mil/Media/Fact-Sheets/Fact-Sheet-Article-View/Article/486085/ordinary-high-water-mark-ohwm-research-development-and-training/
  7. https://ecology.wa.gov/water-shorelines/shoreline-coastal-management/shoreline-coastal-planning/shoreline-management-act-sma/shoreline-management-act-jurisdiction/ordinary-high-water-mark
  8. https://www.epa.gov/wotus/implementation-tools-and-methods
  9. https://www.michigan.gov/egle/about/organization/water-resources/submerged-lands/ordinary-high-water-mark-ohwm
  10. https://www.varnumlaw.com/insights/the-great-lakes-have-two-ordinary-high-water-marks-an-important-legal-distinction-for-those-who-own-property-on-the-great-lakes/
  11. https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/publications/documents/1606029.pdf
  12. https://swampschool.org/wetlands/the-final-national-ordinary-high-water-mark-ohwm-field-delineation-manual-a-key-resource-for-wotus-determinations/
  13. https://cawaterlibrary.net/document/a-field-guide-to-the-identification-of-the-ordinary-high-water-mark-ohwm-in-the-arid-west-region-of-the-western-united-states-a-delineation-manual/
  14. https://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Portals/12/documents/regulatory/pdf/Ordinary_High_Watermark_Manual_Aug_2008.pdf
  15. https://learncst.com/high-water-definitions/
  16. https://streamhandbook.org/commonly-used-terms/
  17. https://archaeology.org/issues/march-april-2023/collection/egypt-thmuis-nilometer/the-ancient-promise-of-water/
  18. https://www.thearchaeologist.org/blog/the-ingenious-nilometer-measuring-the-niles-waters-in-ancient-egypt
  19. https://waters.iath.virginia.edu/flood_markers.html
  20. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Historical-documentation-of-flood-marks-modified-from-CMH-1908-in-Haslacha-and_fig3_363384243
  21. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/6/1211
  22. https://www.aaas.org/news/first-geological-evidence-chinas-great-flood-uncovered
  23. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD1025116.pdf
  24. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1025116.pdf
  25. https://www.erdc.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Stories/Article/3280392/erdc-releases-new-data-sheet-for-identifying-ordinary-high-watermarks/
  26. https://www.nawm.org/pdf_lib/hot_topics/ordinary_high_water_mark_032923_david.pdf
  27. https://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/03/a24/tm3a24.pdf
  28. https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps/products-tools/numerical-models/hydraulic
  29. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/tm3A24
  30. https://cawaterlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Mersel-and-Lichvar.pdf
  31. https://www.erdc.usace.army.mil/Media/Publication-Notices/Article/4026117/national-ordinary-high-water-mark-field-delineation-manual-for-rivers-and-strea/
  32. https://www.usace.army.mil/Media/Announcements/Article/4024232/8-january-2025-the-us-army-corps-of-engineers-and-the-us-environmental-protecti/
  33. https://erdc-library.erdc.dren.mil/items/76c61f8f-6d75-4a35-aaf3-39aa64918afb/full
  34. https://www.swc.nd.gov/pdfs/ordinary_high_water.pdf
  35. https://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Jurisdictional-Determination/OHWM-Delineations/
  36. https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p266001coll1/id/3691/
  37. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365964797_National_Ordinary_High_Water_Mark_Field_Delineation_Manual_for_Rivers_and_Streams_-_Interim_Version
  38. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1752-1688.13226
  39. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005JG000073
  40. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/50/9/783/269505
  41. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/10327/chapter/2
  42. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/66888/noaa_66888_DS1.pdf
  43. https://proprights.org/PDFs/workshop_2011/References/Manuals/OHWM/Draft%2520OHWM%2520-%2520Ecology.pdf
  44. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X25002699
  45. https://www.glc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/GLC-Ecological-Impacts-of-Water-Use-and-Changes-in-Levels-and-Flows-20020613-1.pdf
  46. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969724008568
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6404734/
  48. https://theconversation.com/who-owns-the-beach-it-depends-on-state-law-and-tide-lines-163405
  49. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2021-07-19/who-owns-the-beach-it-depends-on-state-law-and-tide-lines
  50. https://www.mass.gov/info-details/public-rights-along-the-shoreline
  51. https://www.panix.com/~kabesq/webdoc2.htg/water.pdf
  52. https://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Portals/12/documents/regulatory/Reg_workshop/2016-02-16-Durango/OHWM.pdf
  53. https://www.farrellfritz.com/insights/legal-insights/an-overview-of-riparian-rights-and-access-disputes/
  54. https://www.michiganseagrant.org/blog/2025/03/11/did-you-know-the-great-lakes-have-three-different-ordinary-high-water-marks/
  55. https://www.slc.ca.gov/water-boundaries/
  56. https://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/publications/docs/shore-and-sea-boundaries/volume-1/cs3-library-shalowitz-vol1-ch6.pdf
  57. https://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Portals/39/docs/regulatory/regs/33cfr328.pdf
  58. https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps
  59. https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/did-you-know-that-the-great-lakes-have-three-different-ordinary-high-water-marks
  60. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/142/161/
  61. https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3471&context=flr
  62. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/324/499/
  63. https://callidusai.com/wp/ai/cases/3403886/martin-v-busch
  64. https://www.sgrlaw.com/articles/accretion-avulsion-the-legal-littoral-divide/
  65. https://mymlsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/TheBeachWalkerCase.pdf
  66. https://www.michiganlcv.org/case/beach-walking-great-lakes-shoreline/
  67. https://fedsoc.org/scdw/gunderson-v-state-of-indiana
  68. https://isc.idaho.gov/opinions/44418.pdf
  69. https://attorneygeneral.nd.gov/attorney-general-wrigley-announces-that-the-eighth-circuit-court-of-appeals-has-affirmed-a-victory-for-the-state/
  70. https://www.ndcourts.gov/news/federal-courts/related-courts/8th-circuit-opinions/8th-circuit-decides-n-d-case-144
  71. https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=99472
  72. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2137&context=facpub
  73. https://iowafloodcenter.uiowa.edu/sites/iowafloodcenter.uiowa.edu/files/2025-01/Hydraulic_Memo_Rock_Valley_Iowa_Flood_Center_20150609.pdf
  74. https://dnr.nebraska.gov/high-water-mark-data-gathered
  75. https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/flood-inundation-mapping-science
  76. https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/?tags=high-water-marks
  77. https://floodsciencecenter.org/products/holistic-approach-coastal-flood-risk-management/state-case-studies/wisconsin/
  78. https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/publications/summarypages/1606029.html
  79. https://www.fema.gov/pdf/hazard/flood/recoverydata/katrina/katrina_ms_hwm_public.pdf
  80. https://www.fema.gov/fil/node/612408
  81. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/inundationdb_info.html
  82. https://www.noaa.gov/media-release/noaa-nuisance-flooding-increasing-problem-as-coastal-sea-levels-rise
  83. https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wat2.1318
  84. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969723017576
  85. https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/21380/1/Gehrels%2520Woodworth%2520postprint%2520author.pdf
  86. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09600-z
  87. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023WR036460
  88. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0964569114003081
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.