Talk:High water mark

=Old=

Comments
The photo is not correct. Ordinary High Water (OHW) is the line between terrestrial and in-water vegetation. Trees, such as those shown in the photo are terrestrial vegetation, even if they flood each year. Marks on trees would only be relevant if it is a tree that can grow in the water such as cypress. The trees in the photo would be dead if they were below OHW.

Helpful court cases for determination of OHW are U.S. v. Harrell, 926 F.2d.1036 (1991) in Alabama, and Sun Dial Ranch v. May Land Co., 119 Pac. 758 (1912) at the mouth of the Sandy River in Oregon. This type of boundary is centuries old, but there are a lot of people who do not understand how to determine it. "River and Lake Boundaries" by Simpson has excellent information on the subject.

147.182.5.50 20:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be worth adding a section or a stub for the term 'high water mark' in financial lexicon. This is where performance based compensation is subject to a 'high water mark clause'. For example, if a CEO is compensated according to rise in stock price, they are only compensated for risess which have not been previously compensated. ie: they are only compensated when the price reaches a certain level for the forst time, not if it is continuously rising and falling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

RE: the previous comment. The OHWM is not by definition (Federally) the line between terrestrial and in-water vegetation. There are many physical indicators that can be used to identify the OHWM and a degree of subjectivity is inherent in any OHWM delineation. There are many tree species that are classified as upland but can withstand relatively short periods of inundation, and thus trees can be found below the OHWM. You are correct, however, that the photo is inaccurate (if you mean the tree stand with a high water stain on the trunks), as this picture illustrates a high water mark (likely from a single large flood event) but not the "ordinary" high water mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkmersel (talk • contribs) 20:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Per discussion, instead of moving the existing page, the page will merely be de-disambiguated by addition of the draft written on this page, and the existing material incorporated into the new article. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

High water mark → High water mark (disambiguation) – I propose that the primary topic of this term is Ordinary high water mark, the only term actually addressing the height of a mark left by water. All other terms are metaphors alluding to this literal meaning, and incoming links to the page tend to refer to the literal meaning only. This page should be moved, and the title should be redirected to the draft below should be used as the basis of a new article on the primary topic. bd2412 T 03:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have amended my proposal in light of the discussion below. bd2412  T 03:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment that's appears to be a US federal regulation term so, would not be the normal meaning. We appear to be lacking the normal meaning as an article. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As an alternative, an article could be written on the concept of a high water mark. Given the lack of material on that topic at the moment, the brief article on the regulatory definition could be merged into such an article. bd2412  T 17:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If the disambiguation page is displaced, then we could write a new article at "high water mark" (or high-water mark as wiktionary calls it). That sounds like a plan. Merging the regulatory article to the new article to be placed here would probably work if we have enough material to offset the effect of merging the existing article into the new article without making it look unbalanced. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be relatively easy to find materials on the basic proposition of a "high water mark". bd2412  T 18:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. The Ordinary high water mark is the likely article readers would expect for high water mark. Why should the first part of the article names High-water mark of the Confederacy or High Water Mark of the Rebellion Monument be a likely target? They're not known by the name High water mark, this seems to be a common problem on disambiguation pages. Zarcadia (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose any of these things might be what a person is looking for. Readers are better served by an ambiguous term having a disambiguation page then by us assuming what they will be looking for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not the policy of this project, and therefore not the question under discussion here. George Washington is an ambiguous term, as it can refer to the president, the university, the bridge, and so forth. Any of those things might be what a person is looking for when they go to George Washington. Does your position mean that George Washington should be a disambiguation page? The question here is whether there is a primary topic of the term, not whether other meanings exist. If you wish to change the policy that titles should reflect the primary topic if one exists, that is a discussion to be had elsewhere. bd2412  T 18:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Have you actually looked at Ordinary high water mark? It's a mess of a legalistic stub very unlikely to help any readers. I suspect the Wiktionary definition is more along the lines of what most of them are looking for, but at any rate, it isn't even the most popular page on the dab, so WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is out of the question. (It received 868 views last month compared to 2060 for High-water mark of the Confederacy. The dab itself only received 1459.) I don't endorse John's position above, and I generally want to avoid readers finding themselves at a dab when that's practical. But in this case, I'd much rather they look at a dab than an arcane legal definition of one country. If the page views indicated they actually wanted that page, fine, but that's not the case. --BDD (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Look at the incoming links for this page, though. All relate either to a generic sense of the mark where water reached its apex, or to a metaphorical sense other than those for the Confederacy and the like. An article is indeed called for, as these links can not be fixed at all under our current offerings. bd2412  T 05:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, and support the move if it's done in order to create an article on the concept. I'm just not happy with the OHWM article; a soft redirect to Wiktionary would probably be better for readers. --BDD (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's use this opportunity to figure out what should be in an article on the general concept. I will begin drafting a proposal below. bd2412  T 21:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. --BDD (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, I will close this move request in favor of de-disambiguating the existing page and incorporating all of this into the new article. Cheers! bd2412  T 02:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

=Draft= A high water mark is a point that represents the maximum rise of a body of water over land. Such a mark is generally the result of a flood. 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. High water marks from floods have been measured for planning purposes since at least as far back as the civilizations of ancient Egypt. A high water mark is not necessarily an actual physical mark, although it is possible for water rising to a high point to leave a lasting physical impression.

It is a common practice to create a physical marker indicating the high water mark 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.

High water marks may reflect an all-time high, an annual high (i.e., highest level to which water rose that year), or the high point for some other division of time. One kind of high water mark is the ordinary high water mark or average high water mark, which is 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, often being used to demarcate property boundaries. 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".

[At this point, I would merge in the content presently at Ordinary high water mark, which is not about the general proposition, but a specific application in the U.S.]

Metaphorical usage
The term, "high water mark" has been used as a metaphor for the maximum extent of geographic control of an occupier of territory, and later for the maximum level of power, popularity, or some other characteristic, enjoyed by an entity.

=New comments=

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on High water mark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018204101/http://www.ncdc.gov.uk/media/adobe/7/k/Strandline.pdf to http://www.ncdc.gov.uk/media/adobe/7/k/Strandline.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)