The section was subdivided on May 16, 1883 by a very good county surveyor. He set a limestone 16"x12"x3" with limestone pieces underneath.
In 1990, a private surveyor set his own 5/8" rebar at the intersection of the mathematical quarter section lines. No mention of having searched for the stone or even if he was aware it existed. There is no excuse because the 1883 surveyor's work is clearly recorded in Book B, page 245. Other surveyors have since used the rebar in their surveys.
Upon arriving at the location I had the attitude that the area probably had not changed much. (No grading or destructive operations). I knew the stone would be there somewhere. I found the remains of barbed wire buried in the ground coming from two directions to the corner location.
I referenced the limestone and pulled it out. It was set vertically and measured 16"x12"x3". There were broken pieces of limestone underneath.
The rebar is located 3.18' to the southeast.
The problem I often see is that many surveyors have an attitude problem from the very beginning. They see a date of "1883" and figure that there is no way a stone can still be there or they have an attitude that their "modern" survey supersedes that old compass and chain survey.
I lowered the stone and set a capped pipe over it and entered it into the official records as being the true Center of Section.
Ironically, the limestone was only 0.19' north and 0.51' west of the mathematical intersection of the quarter section lines, so much closer than the 1990 surveyor!
I'm still trying to get my head around a 5/8" unmarked rebar as a sectional corner in 1990. Is that/was that allowed there? What a hunk of junk for that kind of corner.
Ok, ignorant question time; what happens to the previous surveys that relied upon the erroneously set rebar? Your remonumentation/rehabilitation is the center as originally set, however the rebar has reliance so?
The minimum standard at that time was a 1/2"x24" rebar. Today you need to add some sort of identification cap.
I would say that the surveys that used the 5/8" rebar are in error and subject to scrutiny when and if the landowners become aware of the problem. Using a wrong position for a corner doesn't make it right no matter how many other surveyors have used it. I've seen this many times when surveyors tend to think that if a certain number of other surveyors have used the wrong corner monument, it somehow justifies them using it was well. I would much rather see a survey that is sloppy in measurement, than one that doesn't use the right monuments.
Another example: A local surveyor went into the woods to find a section corner monument that was established in the 1930's. The notes clearly state the monument was an iron pin and that iron pipes were set 33' north and south. The surveyor used one of the iron pipes for the corner monument. To this day he refuses to change his survey. What monument would you use if you had to retrace his survey?
We've got a saying around here:
"A survey that was wrong when it was issued is still wrong today."
Not trying to argue, I am making no particular point. I would like to further the discussion, and ask a question:
There is a certain camp that holds the following:
1. The center of section is NEVER an original monument. By its very nature, it is evidence of, or a reference to the original monuments (1/4 corners).
2. Therefore, one should never blindly hold a center of section monument, and one would not bend the line to fit what was found.
3. While considering the surveyor within a housing subdivision to be the original surveyor of those lots, the person monumenting PLSS lines are retracing surveyors, and their work is always subordinate to the original.
The other camp:
1. Monuments set in good faith and with reasonable care should be honored as the true corner.
2. The first surveyor to set a corner (center, 1/16, etc) is an original surveyor.
3. Common law, common sense, and good ethics demand that ancient monuments be honored.
I know that this is well plowed ground, so to speak, but this seems to be a major divide within our profession. I have spoken to surveyors that feel compelled to honor previously set center of sections, or 1/16 corners, or any other monument purported to be on a PLSS line. This is not arrogance, but what they feel compelled to do.
I have spoken to others that feel compelled to use only the 1/4 corners to determine the center of section, etc.
Add to this the different state's laws, and a general desire to not have our survey differ from future BLM surveys (done by "surveyors" with absolutely no accountability), and I know a discussion like this is difficult to have.
I am new to my license, and I offer no solution, but it would be my hope that this sort of issue would be one of the reasons that our professional organizations exist. I could even wish that they would publish standards and common practices.
So, perhaps the blood boiling frustration is with the current state of our profession, rather than the 1990 surveyor?
This is a very legitimate problem that is in need of a solution. It may be further complicated by the filing of section corner records. Say 10 such records have been filed for a specific corner as it has been used on ten different surveys by different surveyors. What most people don't catch is that the first recorded says one thing. The second one has a completely different location and monument. Surveyor number three only looked at the record filed by the second surveyor because it was the most recent. Each following surveyor merely looked at the most recent filing before their own work. So surveyors 2 thru 10 all agree, but, only because the second one made up his own solution and ignored the original recording. Plats 3 thru 10 may even include a citation indicating that said monument was found in agreement with Surveyor 2 or 3 or 4 or 9's references, thus making their own work appear to be well-performed. Don't laugh. It happens.
Another obvious issue is the perfect math versus any other solution. Finding something in existence, but not where the computer said it should be, may cause extra work and time, thus delaying completion of the job. Some well-meaning underling may never report said find to the signing surveyor because he wants to help the company to be profitable and known for fast completion of projects.
> 1. The center of section is NEVER an original monument...
Never say never. There were plenty of C/4 corners that were set in the original survey.
One of the other things I hear is how far out of position that Center of Section stone is that was placed in the 1800's. Well, today, we have three of the four 1/4 corners being reestablished (probably by proportion), whereas that Center was placed when all four 1/4 corners were originals.
We will use the old Center or 1/16 corners when reestablishing 1/4 corner positions instead of just proportioning on line between two section corners. You have to look at the big picture.
:good:
Agreed. A person might even consider using an old found center-of-section to help him look for an original controlling 1/4 corner that isn't accounted for.
I once argued with a former boss about the location of the old fence line (really old) versus setting the proportioned 1/4 corner 10 feet to the north on the north-south road. The section had been subdivided in the 1880's, but the surveyor only used the 1/4 corners with no record distances north or south to the section corners. The GLO distances of course showed them to be equal at 40 chains.
On the old plats from the 1880's, the county surveyor often wrote in the names of the land owners in each quadrant. He also often wrote why the survey was being done and for whom. Often all landowners involved paid an equal share to subdivide the section. I asked my boss why Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith would agree to have the fence placed 10' to one side in 1883 when they equally paid to have the survey done? No answer...
Good arguement but possibly rebuttable in some jurisdictions. I have often found fences which do not follow section lines and/or terminate at original corners. Perhaps in some locales such as Nebraska the case can be made that fences most always follow lines once surveyed. I have retraced too many GLO surveys in my area wheras I feel qualified to make the statement that fences here often do not follow boundaries even where proven to have been established by field survey.
In this case the fence made a straight line between the road and the four-way fence corner at the Center. The N 1/4 and S 1/4, as well as the E 1/4 were in line with the fences.
I've heard surveyors state that they will need to "defend" their survey, so setting the monument at the proportional distance, despite existing fences, is the safest route.
I would not consider myself a fence line surveyor, but I also do not like to just play with numbers.
> Not trying to argue, I am making no particular point. I would like to further the discussion, and ask a question:
>
> There is a certain camp that holds the following:
> 1. The center of section is NEVER an original monument. By its very nature, it is evidence of, or a reference to the original monuments (1/4 corners).
I agree with that "certain camp" in general EXCEPT the one quoted above.
While the vast majority of the time it might be correct, it is not always correct. I am aware of center of sections set by the original subdividing surveyor at the time of subdivision.
Blanket statements are rarely correct.
SJ
B-)
Fences are another piece of the evidence. You absolutely must look at fences and consider their implication, just as you look at the numbers, the original survey monuments, the secondary (uncalled for) survey monuments, and all other evidence.
Yes, sometimes a fence is just a fence, but sometimes a fence is a section line.
There is a certain camp that holds the following:
1. The center of section is NEVER an original monument. By its very nature, it is evidence of, or a reference to the original monuments (1/4 corners).
2. Therefore, one should never blindly hold a center of section monument, and one would not bend the line to fit what was found.
3. While considering the surveyor within a housing subdivision to be the original surveyor of those lots, the person monumenting PLSS lines are retracing surveyors, and their work is always subordinate to the original.
That's about as good an explanation of Keith's bogus theory as I have seen.
I agree research would solve many of these issues. Sometimes extensive research is needed to fully understand what is really going on.
I do know of one instance where a certain Section 2 has two monuments at the "middle" of the section. This is an instance where research takes us back to the county surveyor who originally subdivided the section. First, he split out the northeast quarter by starting at the existing east 1/4 corner, setting a post for the southwest corner of the northeast quarter, 40 chains west, thence north 40 chains to the existing north 1/4 corner.
About a year later, the SAME surveyor split the south half of the section in two. Starting at the existing south 1/4 corner, thence north 40 chains to a set post for the center of section. The properties in the area are no longer aliquot parts. Now a description reads.....xxx feet to the center of section; thence west, 59.89 feet to the southwest corner of the northeast quarter....:-S
Both corners were set originally and perpetuated to this day. Sometimes the center of section is not a quarter corner. Uggghh...I love this job.
> In this case the fence made a straight line between the road and the four-way fence corner at the Center. The N 1/4 and S 1/4, as well as the E 1/4 were in line with the fences.
> .....
Sounds like you have good supporting evidence, particularly if you can support the suggestion that those other fence portions are likely by the same builder, or at least one with the same M.O.
Jeez, the answer is so simple!
Do the frickin' research necessary to establish what the original monuments are (were) and then go find them!
