BLM Moving Monuments

Any comment I would make about this type of official arrogance would move this thread to P&R.

“He set the center of the section using good technique”

As in finding and verifying all section corners and quarter corners with BLM notes?
I have seen this in Fl where the BLM ruled and it created one hell of a mess still going on today.

Have a great Sunday! B-)

Time to require the BLM to attend continuing education, to maintain their lice.... wait, they don't need no license!

Sompin's wrong wid this picuture!

N

Later, when another surveyor comes along and tries to use exactly this same procedure on the same 20 that this BLM surveyor surveyed, he might try to re-survey the center of the section again and find that instead of 2.5 feet off it is 0.1 ft. off. And they might find that the outer coat of paint on a skyscraper is now encroaching over a line using their surveying procedure. Where does it stop?

Also, I am not convinced that the two quarter corners the BLM surveyor used are in their original position. I did not see where he proved them. My opinion is that unless he proved their original GLO position (and sec cor too), his work is useless even according to his own standards and procedures.

If the work is useless don't use it.

A reputable surveyor surveyed the northwest quarter of Section 20 in 1990. He set the center of the section using good technique

what was the technique?

This has been going on for a long time. In the 1950's-60's there were several irrigation projects in Nebraska covering some large areas. The BLM set brass cap section corner monuments in the eyeballed center of the road intersections. Quarter corners were set in line with any fence or at the halfway point if no fence. A surveyor familiar with the area told me there was no research done at the courthouses and probably less digging. There are many bonafide original section corners and recorded surveys that were completely ignored. Many surveyors refuse to use BLM monuments in parts of Nebraska because the original monuments are still there. You just have to research. I know some very good BLM surveyors who are licensed and do things the right way, so this doesn't fit them all. I am sure they are just as disgusted with some of their own as well.

I've seen too much of this, also. But recently I ran into a 2005 BLM Dependent Resurvey of pt. of T8N, R5W, I.M. performed by a Mark Bush, who is also a Licensed Survey in Oklahoma.

His notes were impeccable:

Some of them do know how to survey.

I think BLM surveyors are generally good about accepting "non-original" section corners and 1/4 corners along the exterior of the section, but things get hairy when the BLM breaks down the section to set interior corners. Once the exterior corners are established, the BLM seems to only believe in a mathematically perfect, and by the book, section break down.

I appears to me that now there are two Center of Section Corners. And it seems as though any private properties set off the first center of section are correct. If the BLM has created an overlap with a previously-staked property, then there is a problem. They claim to recognize "bona-fide" rights. By their rules, I think they need to recognize properties that aren't in their own little aliquot world.

Nothing like the BLM creating conflict where there was none. The surveyor who broke down the section needs to go through his process of getting it sanctioned by the BLM. (However that works) It might be a ripe time to argue the position prior to it becoming a blm-accepted corner.

Typical of the BLM to never budge. All that can be done is show the BLM corners and explain why there position was rejected. Could also hope that the monument gets destroyed so as so often happens a surveyor not familiar with the area will use it only because it is a BLM monument and more boundary's will be compromised. As far as recognizing existing rights, they seldom do, and should never be allowed to work where private lands are adjoiners or to resurvey any lands that have passed out of Government ownership and later re purchased. Private lands and their boundary's require private accountability.
jud

Sounds to me like

The BLM is performing a dependant survey and a subdivision of section. The manual very specifically states that where lands have been patented out to private land owners, that the resurvey CANNOT INTERFERE WITH BONA FIDE RIGHTS.

So to prevail, the private land owners will have to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that a good faith effort was made to locate themselves with respect to the ORIGINAL SURVEY. By a preponderance of the evidence, the patentees will need to demonstration that there monumented locations are not fraudulent nor subject to gross error.

Barring this, the owners will need to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the BLM re-survey was subject to gross error or was fraudulent. The BLM would only have to prove their position by substantial evidence.

It has been my experience that in many cases their seems to be an abuse of discretion, but upon closer review the patentees fail down on their burden of proof.

And another thing

When the BLM insists on maintaining their boundaries in a certain fashion, they do so in order to protect bona fide rights and the FEDERAL INTEREST LANDS. We ALL have a stake in the proper maintenance of the boundaries of FEDERAL INTEREST LANDS. This is not to say that I support government usurpation of private property rights.

My recommendation would by that anytime, one surveys up against Federal interest lands, that the survey, notes and plats be submitted to the appropriate agency for their review and comment.

Sounds to me like

Yep that is what is required and it is wrong, it still would be wrong, but would be more justified if there there were an affordable method of appeal not controlled by government bureaucrats. To disrupt good faith or long term occupation the BLM should be the only one required to justify doing so and required to pay the costs of creating new legal boundary's for each tract that their action disrupts. The BLM should only be allowed to survey new lands, resurvey all interiors of existing surveyed government lands except for the exteriors of those government lands. If they can't limit themselves to that, they need their authority to be reduced and the intrenched leadership replaced from top to bottom.
jud

Hey Frank, been a while!

There are some of us who will continue to point out to the Management of BLM that the procedures that you have posted about, are DEAD WRONG AND NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH ANY SURVEY MANUAL!

Period!

These subdivision of section procedures are outlined in Chapter 3 of the 1973 Manual and are plain to understand in the original survey of section subdivision lines.

But, the teachings of Robillard and Bouman have denigrated these procedures to be all encompassing in the resurvey of section and subdivision of section boundaries.

There are those surveyors within BLM that adhere to this policy of mathematics only when subdividing the PLSS sections and clearly are creating problems where none existed before they entered the land.

This policy was used in the resurvey of sections that ended up in the Court case of Rivers v Loseau in Florida and is an abominable case. It would appear that BLM completely blew out the other side that did not have capable legal advice.

If you really want to know how this policy works, the field notes of that township clearly show that every 1/16th sec. cor. was proportioned and the private survey monument that is close by, was ignored.

For your information, I was in the Washington Office, Division of Cadastral Survey from 1974 to my retirement in 1994 and the last 10 or so years, I was responsible for the final BLM interpretation of the 1973 Survey Manual. The policy that is being used now for the subdivision of sections by mathematical means was not tolerated then.

The policy of protecting bona fide rights is alive and well within the BLM and the surveys with the procedures as stated in your opening post will only give the BLM a black eye.

It is very timely for the BLM Washington Office to address the internal problem that they have!!

This nonsense of ignoring valid private survey monuments and valid existing rights has to stop!

Keith

My experience with BLM Cadastral in recent years has been VERY satisfactory in my opinion (somewhat more so than in years past). I have found that IF you can make a good case for a differing position or interpretation, the BLM will not only listen, but usually bend over backwards to work with you.

IF the BLM Survey in question has NOT been approved yet, then by all means get your evidence and data in front of the BLM Surveyor AND the BLM Branch Chief (or whoever) that will eventually approve said survey... and do it RIGHT AWAY,

If the BLM Survey has already been approved, that's still not the end of the game. Get your data/evidence in front of the BLM official that approved the Survey, and make your case. You might be surprised.

If all else fails, and you REALLY think that the BLM solution is in error, then file a protest to the survey (not sure that is the right term), and get ready for an IBLA hearing.

I'd be pretty surprised if the BLM didn't agree to (at least) take another look, IF you have a good case.

Loyal

Thanks Loyal for your post.

A letter to the BLM Eastern State Office explaining the circumstances in this survey that you do not agree with, would be appropriate and a copy of your letter could be sent to the Director, BLM.

There is a problem with "standing" and a land surveyor who disagrees with the procedures, does not have "standing". The land owner who is seeing his boundaries move with the new monuments does have "standing" and of course can officially protest the survey.

Normally the protest is filed with the appropriate BLM office (Eastern States Office) and they will give an opinion. If that opinion is not satisfactory, the official protest can be filed with the Interior Board of Land Appeals, who act for the Secretary of the Interior. Obviously, Federal Court intervention could follow all of that.

If the Director of BLM does not hear of these problems, no decisions will be made at that level.

All surveyors can make their opinions known about these procedures and hopefully, they will not fall on deft ears?

Keith

Keith

Thanks for pointing out the "standing" issue, it IS a very important facet of the procedure that should NOT be mis-understood. My post above ASSUMED (always a mistake), that the Private Surveyor would be working with one or more of the private landowners.

Getting these kinds of things IN FRONT of the powers to be, is always the first step.

Loyal

Keith

Thanks, all.