Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Strictly Surveying › What are differences between PLSS and non-PLSS systems?
What are differences between PLSS and non-PLSS systems?
nate-the-surveyor replied 6 years, 8 months ago 42 Members · 238 Replies
The fundamental difference between the PLSS and the colonial system is that the colonial states were occupied before they were surveyed. The PLSS was (mostly) surveyed before settlement.
Conrad, post: 440421, member: 6642 wrote: So is this back-and-forth between some members of the board kinda like a Chevy v Ford argument? No real difference?
No, there is an enormous difference in the levels of complexity of the two systems. The PLSS is about as simple as it gets and a system of metes and bounds land grants such as that followed in Texas is about as complex as it gets.
The simplest demonstration would be to compare the level of effort necessary to research the boundaries of a typical land grant. In the typical PLSS township, there is one map that shows the entire 6-mile by 6-mile township as subdivided in one operation by one surveyor. There are field notes that describe every line and corner established by that survey. That is the basic framework of the system to which all subsequent surveys within the various sections of the township will refer.
The folks in PLSSia can begin knowing from 15 minutes of research that there are no lands in the township that were omitted from the original subdivision. That means it is easy to know with relative certainty that all of the adjoining lands have passed into private hands, with no remnants remaining in federal or state ownership.
By contrast, in a metes and bounds system such as that of Texas, the research required for a resurvey of a typical land grant is much more extensive, being often a matter of days or weeks, rather than minutes. This is because one is dealing with a fabric made of many independent or semi-independent parts, each with its own history and boundary evidence. Because the pattern of the private titles existing in the patchwork of original land grants is incrementally subtractive from the public domain, lands being withdrawn based upon the individual surveys, a very real possibility is that the resulting patchwork does not exactly cover all of the lands that originally belonged to the Republic of Texas and its successor, the State of Texas. Those remnants remain vested in the State of Texas and that title is immune to the operation of statutes of limitation on adverse possession.
So, very complex system with high cost of failure to adequately investigate versus very simple system with very low risk of undisclosed federal or state lands.
sounds ea
Kent McMillan, post: 440454, member: 3 wrote: No, there is an enormous difference in the levels of complexity of the two systems. The PLSS is about as simple as it gets and a system of metes and bounds land grants such as that followed in Texas is about as complex as it gets.
The simplest demonstration would be to compare the level of effort necessary to research the boundaries of a typical land grant. In the typical PLSS township, there is one map that shows the entire 6-mile by 6-mile township as subdivided in one operation by one surveyor. There are field notes that describe every line and corner established by that survey. That is the basic framework of the system to which all subsequent surveys within the various sections of the township will refer.
The folks in PLSSia can begin knowing from 15 minutes of research that there are no lands in the township that were omitted from the original subdivision. That means it is easy to know with relative certainty that all of the adjoining lands have passed into private hands, with no remnants remaining in federal or state ownership.
By contrast, in a metes and bounds system such as that of Texas, the research required for a resurvey of a typical land grant is much more extensive, being often a matter of days or weeks, rather than minutes. This is because one is dealing with a fabric made of many independent or semi-independent parts, each with its own history and boundary evidence. Because the pattern of the private titles existing in the patchwork of original land grants is incrementally subtractive from the public domain, lands being withdrawn based upon the individual surveys, a very real possibility is that the resulting patchwork does not exactly cover all of the lands that originally belonged to the Republic of Texas and its successor, the State of Texas. Those remnants remain vested in the State of Texas and that title is immune to the operation of statutes of limitation on adverse possession.
So, very complex system with high cost of failure to adequately investigate versus very simple system with very low risk of undisclosed federal or state lands.
sounds easy if you never done it
Mark Mayer, post: 440452, member: 424 wrote: The fundamental difference between the PLSS and the colonial system is that the colonial states were occupied before they were surveyed. The PLSS was (mostly) surveyed before settlement.
Occupied areas of California were mostly Ranchos (and therefor metes & bounds) before the PLSS came to town. Think San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles Valley… where the majority of surveyors work.
Here is my take which probably does not answer the question: Metes and Bounds systems – non-PLSS – states grew naturally out of existing English (and other countries) systems brought over the ocean, whereby Farms, Towns and Cities grew by an accepted and known system of written record-keeping which was necessary to comply with the Old Statute of Frauds, it was an “organized” civil system of record keeping used by the public, including the Founding Fathers as colonists.
PLSS states came into being not as a continuation of an existing system, but as a method to dispose of a new countries’ lands to the West, when purchased from the Indians, to the private settlers. So the main difference is OLD vs. NEW. The same Founding Fathers who were familiar with the existing system some of whom actually worked as surveyors, in an historical stroke of luck, invented the new system drawing from their applied experience as land owners and land surveyors.Of the many features, these Founding Fathers were inventing a means to dispose of lands to a free society and distinctly meant for the federal government to only retain what was left over after the private sector had their lands surveyed. Men who had been surveyors themselves understood clearly that in order to reduce the phenomenon of pincushions, they wrote into the methods, beginning in 1785 (before we had a constitution) that the procedure of LINES RUN ON THE GROUND actually created property lines. In other words, no where has it ever been contemplated that surveyors with GPS would re-run each section and discard all previous survey work – as settled and enjoyed by the private sector – in the name of upholding “Federal Interest Lands”, an unfortunate practice by a small minority of surveyors today, but which wreaks an unnecessarily great amount of havoc and chaos.
Peter Ehlert, post: 440465, member: 60 wrote: Occupied areas of California were mostly Ranchos (and therefor metes & bounds) before the PLSS came to town.
The Willamette Valley (ie/Portland-Vancouver area and south to Eugene) was another area that was partially settled before the PLSS got here. The answer was “Donation Land Claims”, which from a re-survey perspective, I think, are very much like Ranchos.
A quick read of the thread is more informative in the study of narcissistic personality disorder than anything survey related. Back to the thread.
PLSS versus non-PLSS is only part of the equation. Some PLSS States have vast unsurveyed areas, others are considered complete. Agricultural areas occupied prior to Government Survey are common in some areas and all but absent in others. Some places the mineral rights match the surface, others not so much. The list goes on. Bill did a good job of summarizing the typical differences, but it runs a lot deeper when boots hit the ground.Peter Ehlert, post: 440464, member: 60 wrote: sounds ea
sounds easy if you never done it
Well, in a typical PLSS township, if you wanted to verify whether there was any unsurveyed state or federal land adjoining some section of land that was the object of your survey, what beyond an examination of the township plat and the records of patents issued by reference to it would you feel obliged to do?
Kent McMillan, post: 440454, member: 3 wrote: ..So, very complex system with high cost of failure to adequately investigate versus very simple system with very low risk of undisclosed federal or state lands.
Definition of “complex” in Texas as applied to surveying:
Start “somewhere”…run on a bearing some distance in varas and miss a pile of rocks by 100 varas for line and 50 varas for distance. Set new pile of rocks while convincing yourself the last guy had it all wrong, take pics of windmill, and hit BBQ joint and garage sale on your way home. 😉
That there is some pretty high-pocketed rocket surgery fer sure. 😉
paden cash, post: 440481, member: 20 wrote: Definition of “complex” in Texas as applied to surveying:
Start “somewhere”…run on a bearing some distance in varas and miss a pile of rocks by 100 varas for line and 50 varas for distance. Set new pile of rocks while convincing yourself the last guy had it all wrong, take pics of windmill, and hit BBQ joint and garage sale on your way home.
That there is some pretty high-pocketed rocket surgery fer sure.
Yes, that’s exactly what land surveying amounts to in Texas, aside from a few weeks of other efforts necessary to identify the problem and defend the solution. I doubt very much that there are any good barbecue joints in PLSSia, so that would be another important distinction.
James Fleming, post: 440439, member: 136 wrote: Chicks dig Colonial Surveyors
For those of you too young to get the origin of the “Chicks Dig” meme, I link you the greatest commercial spot of all time.
Mark Mayer, post: 440484, member: 424 wrote: For those of you too young to get the origin of the “Chicks Dig” meme, I link you the greatest commercial spot of all time.
Thanks for the link, that’s funny. I did not remember that commercial.
Kent McMillan, post: 440476, member: 3 wrote: Well, in a typical PLSS township, if you wanted to verify whether there was any unsurveyed state or federal land adjoining some section of land that was the object of your survey, what beyond an examination of the township plat and the records of patents issued by reference to it would you feel obliged to do?
That is one aspect of a survey that we may not have to agonize much over in PLSSia although last year I did survey a riparian lot that has been transferred as private land through banks, municipal and private individuals since 1917 although it never was patented and remains property of the USA.
A study of the BLM Cadastral Survey’s “Public Lands Surveying Casebook”, the decisions of the Interior Board of Land Appeals, and the State and Federal Supreme Courts decisions regarding survey issues would indicate that surveying in the PLSS system is not a simple as you wish to portray it. We all have unique challenges in our region of service.KScott, post: 440506, member: 1455 wrote: That is one aspect of a survey that we may not have to agonize much over in PLSSia although last year I did survey a riparian lot that has been transferred as private land through banks, municipal and private individuals since 1917 although it never was patented and remains property of the USA.
A study of the BLM Cadastral Survey’s “Public Lands Surveying Casebook”, the decisions of the Interior Board of Land Appeals, and the State and Federal Supreme Courts decisions regarding survey issues would indicate that surveying in the PLSS system is not a simple as you wish to portray it. We all have unique challenges in our region of service.The test I’d think would mostly tell the story would be if one were to stick a map tack at random in the United States West of the Mississippi river, not including Texas or Louisiana, what is the likelihood that it falls in a typical PLSS township.
I used the element of state and federal interest simply to approximate the complexity inherent in a system of metes and bounds land grants such as exists in Texas where the process is subtractive. That is everything that isn’t specifically covered by a survey remains in State ownership, regardless of use and possession. That is a very different sort of problem from knowing that the entire township was surveyed into pieces that fit together seamlessly.
Kent McMillan, post: 440476, member: 3 wrote: Well, in a typical PLSS township, if you wanted to verify whether there was any unsurveyed state or federal land adjoining some section of land that was the object of your survey, what beyond an examination of the township plat and the records of patents issued by reference to it would you feel obliged to do?
“typical”?
if the subject property is not bordering the boundary of the survey, and original grant is exactly the same as the township plat, then Bob’s Your Uncle.
Completion surveys often make unintended gaps and overlaps… if one is nearby the metes and bounds description you are working with may contain ambiguities.
A review of Record Maps may also disclose faulty procedure.
Sometimes the Plat and the Grant look great but the Monuments On the Ground could look quite different: here is one example from back home… http://www.sdi-baja.com/survey/t9nr11wmdm.htm
But, I guess you have to live it a bit to understand the minimums Surveyors face in that simple and perfect PLSS world.Scott, are you familiar with the rancher vs oil company issue near Rifle? Is it a prescriptive grazing rights vs US mineral rights issue? does it have anything to do with the PLSS? I ask because I have never heard of these types of rights being attached to any colonial state, but I have no business talking about surveying way over there.
Peter Ehlert, post: 440513, member: 60 wrote: “typical”?.
Typical means commonly expected. You could probably assign a chance or frequency of occurence to a typical PLSS township. An easy way to do that would be to randomly sample various states, starting with Iowa and Kansas, and working West to see what the relative frequency of occurrence of standard PLSS townships is.
warren ward PLS CO OK, post: 440514, member: 12536 wrote: Scott, are you familiar with the rancher vs oil company issue near Rifle? Is it a prescriptive grazing rights vs US mineral rights issue? does it have anything to do with the PLSS? I ask because I have never heard of these types of rights being attached to any colonial state, but I have no business talking about surveying way over there.
Warren, I am not familiar with that issue. Is it current? I was involved with the USA v. Exxon and others on the ownership of the islands of the Colorado River through that area in the 80’s.
I disappoint myself rising to the “bait” in these discussions but the “simple” PLSS has kept me awake many nights in my career. I have attended many continuing ed classes to learn the intricacies of dealing with the simple problems. I have worked with great surveyors and teachers like John Stock and Dennis Mouland who never told me how simple it was.I’m confused….whose WHAT is bigger than WHAT now?
Kent McMillan, post: 440519, member: 3 wrote: Typical means commonly expected. You could probably assign a chance or frequency of occurence to a typical PLSS township. An easy way to do that would be to randomly sample various states, starting with Iowa and Kansas, and working West to see what the relative frequency of occurrence of standard PLSS townships is.
well, I am young and I don’t get out much, and I have only worked in the Western states…
One of these days I may see a “Typical as Expected”. Please tell me where to look for one
actually this is not atypical http://www.sdi-baja.com/survey/t9nr11wmdm.htm
Log in to reply.