Got into a dispute on a survey of a lake property years ago. I found at least a dozen or more corners that checked well with the research, 1950's and newer. All the houses were basically parallel with my lot lines. Everything tied to a non-existent section line that was never run in a state forest. Maybe fence line which seemed to agree. New guy comes in with GPS and runs today's section lines in from over a mile away and creates new lot lines that disagreed by at least 10' at the shore line, but pretty close at the road. When I told him that my lines paralleled at least five houses within tenths, and followed found corners his response was that you can't use houses to establish lot lines. I agreed with him but added that you can use them as darned good evidence that you've put them in the right location and at the correct angle to the road points.
That reminds me of a situation nearly 30 years ago involving a county seat town and a "perfect" surveyor. A significant portion of that town for residential purposes sets on what was a quarter section. Individual tracts are described as being so far south and so far west of the northeast corner of that quarter section or as described similarly commencing from the southeast corner of that quarter section. Just north, south, west, whatever. No parallel with statements. The tracts are where you find them. Mr. Perfect came to town and chose his own definitions of north/south/west to survey a rather oddly shaped tract that abutted something like a dozen other smaller tracts. All H E double hockey sticks broke out.
So, then I come into town to do one simple tract with plenty of nearby survey bars that all agree quite closely and follow those bars to my solution. Then, the neighbors all start to appear and tell me about Mr. Perfect and his folly. They want to know if I am a follower of Mr. Perfect and, if so, how soon I can get out of their neighborhood.
Yup Mr. Cow that is correct. The new guys never learned how things were done years ago before any electronics entered the picture. Way back when in olden days, well not so long ago that I can't remember them, it was common practice to just use fence lines and not even look for the section corners a 1/4 or 1/2 mile away knowing that there was probably nothing there anyway. Chain and transit through the thick woods most likely wouldn't have been that accurate as well.
Just like lot and block subdivisions where the street lines and rear lines were all run separately and prorated. Plat says 90° angles and they just don't exist in the real world.
But coordinate cowboys are here today and wont be going away any time soon I'm afraid.
The City is Oakville Wa., Grays Harbor County. Subdivision is Fitzgerald's Addition
I see indian lands touching Oakville. Possible Fed. resurvey might explain why a monument would move 12 feet. Wouldn't explain why established private boundaries would go with the monument. All just speculation at this point.
@norm , Yes, another complication. I do, for fact know that the North Monument for bearing was moved located on Newton Street. My Grandfather showed it to me daily on our walks. It was moved North from it's previous location.The South Monument has been replaced, as it was a 1 1/2 inch pipe, but unsure if it was moved.
I see indian lands touching Oakville. Possible Fed. resurvey might explain why a monument would move 12 feet. Wouldn't explain why established private boundaries would go with the monument. All just speculation at this point.
There’s 2 dependent resurveys in Section 31 on the south edge of the town. Years 2000 & 2011. The town is mainly in Section 30. See GLORecords.
T16N, R4W, Willamette Meridian.
I have no idea what impact that may have on the town.
The south end of Newton St intersects the North line of the resurvey. The resurvey is entitled Corrective Dependant Resurvey AND Corrective Survey. To answer the original question re boundaries moving my opinion is under these conditions it's possible federal boundaries can move but private boundaries can't. I'm sure there are some possibly including the surveyor who did the private boundaries who would disagree. I still hold the belief that private owners original lines don't move because of a new federal monument. The original monument should still control private ownership.
The biggest concern for me is that in my state federal dependent resurveys don't depend enough on 100 years of settlement. This situation seems a lot like those. Fortunately for our private owners our survey community has continued to honor the traditional monuments.
Thank you for that information. I was able to look it up, and it seems to have made quite an impact, at least in section 31. I found multiple surveys disputing the results from your referenced surveys as they pertain to Hillstroms property.
I am unable to view those dependent resurveys, as I am using a County records site which seemingly doesn't have them. The impact of the South and North monuments being relocated, is evident in my recent survey. It is not localized to my block of the subdivision. All the properties and homes built going from original monuments have now had new boundaries placed going from new monuments. And all new development has went off new monuments, resulting in a non- congruent mess.
glorecords dot blm dot gov
Select search surveys
put in T16N R4W Willamette Meridian
The older dependent resurvey has field notes and the plat. The newer one has just the plat.
BLM plats & notes for Washington & Oregon
American Surveyor Article about the dependent resurveys and IBLA case
BLM plats & notes for Washington & Oregon
American Surveyor Article about the dependent resurveys and IBLA case
That case is on the stricter end of the spectrum.
IBLA is an appellate body and as such will defer to the trial court which in their case is BLM. Appellate Courts only reverse ifthe trial court totally blew the facts or got the law wrong neither of which is the case here.
Even if IBLA secretly disagrees with BLM’s finding of fact they won’t reverse unless BLM is just patently obviously wrong which is not the case here. If BLM says they found the original but don’t like it then IBLA will reverse because BLM got the law wrong but they had to uphold the determination that the corner was lost therefore proportioning was correct legally.
I’m working on a Survey in the San Bernardino Mountains in which a recent Dependent Resurvey accepted all the local monuments although they could’ve rejected them based on this reasoning. Of course no one will protest so IBLA won’t rule in the case. In my opinion it’s a better course of action versus submitting it to Congress for the ultimate solution.
an example:
The case referenced in article is the reason these federal boundary lines have moved. Some very important key points not mentioned in article: Mr Hillstroms property, and the subsequent surveys and resurveys were done for legal purposes concerning where the tribal lands boundaries are. The resurvey put boundary lines through Mr Hillstroms( non tribal member)home. After years of dispute, he lost. His house was demolished, and a tribal housing development now is present in it's place.
The relocation of these federal boundaries, and monuments have now moved boundary lines for a large portion of our city. I am beginning to understand the comment of needing to accept this by my surveyor now.
