Keith
Right on Loyal,
Frank's opening post is not clear if he in fact is a surveyor now that is involved in adjacent surveys or that he is witnessing the BLM procedures of what is being cited as "land surveying"?
I am sure you have noticed my past posts on the subject of phony survey procedures being advocated and there has been a reluctance by most to address the problem.
I think it is a major phony procedure and is being displayed now in Frank's area.
Keith
I've encountered it both ways.
I haven't seen enough to notice a pattern.
I am Surveying a Section 5. The original evidence is pretty faint but there is some. The reason is most of the original corners are buried well within SPI lands (a large timber land owner) and preserving the corners is not a big priority. We went to the CS1/16th corner and there is a rough (full-size) 2x4 sticking out of the ground with a K-tag on a stump next to it "CALDOR LUMBER CO." dated 1966. I will probably hold it as the 1/16th corner because you can see it has been used in timber operations for a long time.
Is the government's 20 acre tract still public domain or is it purchased from a private party?
My opinion on this is the government never wanted to pay the expense of setting all of the patent corners so they left many protracted (such as the center 1/4 corner). Property owners set those corners as best they could (what could be better than retaining an LS to do it). Now those monuments are original monuments and should be held as same.
You are right Dave and I actually believe that those who advocate this phony procedure, want it that way, as it then is a black and white mathematical decision and no judgement decision has to be made on the fact if an existing monument or use line is valid?
Think about it.
Keith
Or could it be, that only the government surveyors can establish the PLSS corners?
Think about that one too.
Keith
Is there something in CA. law that defines any monument set by any surveyor is AN ORIGINAL monument and that said monument enjoys the same status as monuments set during the conduct of the original surveys under federal authority. Is there something in CA law where a surveyor's opinion is conclusive on the parties?
Suppose a surveyor is engaged by the owner of the SE 1/4 to survey and stake the SE 1/4. A short time later the owner of the NW 1/4 (unaware of activity in the SE 1/4) engages a surveyor to survey and stake the NW 1/4. So now we have 2 corners marking the center 1/4, is the owner of the NW 1/4 just supposed to accept his property rights being compromised? Imagine that the NE and SW remain Federal interest lands, are the rest of the citizens who still have an interest in those lands just suppose to lump it cuz someone got their first?
I am specifically not addressing situations related to further reliance on these corners or repose or any other doctrines. We all know that the application of these doctrines would change the completion of the situation.
If the government felt so strongly about it they could've paid to have those corners set.
But they wanted to save money so it's a little late to cry now. The government acts on behalf of the public and if the public doesn't want to "lose" its land then it can act to influence the government to pay to have more corners set. Obviously for the most part the cow is already out of the barn as of today.
The presumption is in favor of the first monument but the presumption can be overcome.
where is that presumption stated in Ca Law
Dave can you point me to where that presumption is in Ca law? Can you tell how that presumption defeats the notion that a surveyor's opinion is not conclusive? I am not trying to be augmentative, I just have never seen a discussion the topic in Ca. law.
where is that presumption stated in Ca Law
Dane-original monuments control.
As far as I know that's the law, even in California.
As to your original question you propose a scenario.
First an owner hires a Surveyor to set some monuments. The adjoiner affected by those monuments doubts they are in the correct place (he hasn't accepted them yet). So the adjoiner hires his own Surveyor who sets a second set of monuments. Now there is a problem that needs to be resolved between the two property owners. No boundary has been established yet.
This is not the typical case I encounter. The typical case I encounter is a boundary which, although not perfect, has been in use and undisputed for a long time. I see no good reason to disturb that just because my mathematical sensibilities have been offended.
Fortunately the California Supreme Court has not been able to screw up the doctrine of original boundaries yet but I don't put it past them to do it some day. Essentially the law is you and me and everyone working together to make common sense rules for society that work, rules evolve overtime sometimes due to misguided Surveyor's testimony. When a Surveyor comes along who happens to work for the Bryant family and ignores a long established and obvious boundary, calls it lost by his actions and marks a new location which has never been the boundary in the 80 some year history of the boundary then the Courts get confused and start flailing all over the place. Thank God that disaster only affected Implied Boundary Line Agreements which are now practically impossible to prove. But we still have original monuments; they haven't got that one yet.
where is that presumption stated in Ca Law
Dane, are you being dense on purpose?
Don't make me wake up Keith again.
Don
And another thing
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.
I doubt they would appreciate if I sent in all the surveys that I do that are agaisnt federal interest lands, since I have a hard time think of any that don't involve Federal interest lands.
They already don't like me describing federal interest lands with the original description and not the new lot numbers. Imagine if I sent in all my surveys for comment.
They can go to the courthouse and get them if they want them.
And another thing
BLM couldn't accept them for review anyway!
Good thread. Welcome back keith.
Thanks adam,
I got out of the penalty box some time ago from Wendel, but have refrained from posting.....until this BLM thread come up and I could not refrain any more.
The content of this thread should be taken very serious by land surveyors and maybe come to the conclusion that some of the national propaganda is just that.
Keith
This survey procedure of mathematics only and the heck with existing monumention is the crux of what is wrong about land surveying.
If you don't recognize the problem or believe it to be great.......take another look at what you are doing and think about it.
If you want the surveying profession to become a measurement technical procedure, then you can buy into this nonsense.
If you want the surveying profession to be professional and make judgement decisions on existing monumentation and long established occupation lines, then get with the program and voice your opinion.
I say this with great sincerity and it is higher in the professional ladder of understanding...it is not surveying 101.
Keith
Maybe it should dawn on land surveyors who post here, that after numerous times that I have challenged those responsible for the resurvey of the township in the Rivers v Loseau Court case, to come forward and explain the circumstances that let to the court case.........that nobody wants to defend it, explain it, or tell me that I am wrong.
Why is that?
Keith
Jerry Wahl
You post here so I have to believe that you read my posts on the resurvey in Florida that resulted in the Court case of Rivers v Lozeau.
Any explanations that you may know of from the Eastern States Office that you retired from?
It is a Federal Appeals Court case and should be discussed for all to see the ramifications of it's decision.
Doncha agree?
Keith
If some in BLM are trying to pro-rate sections that have already been subdivided, then there will never ever be a stable section where they work...period.
Right on Frank!
Just maybe, the word can get out on some of the methods that some in BLM actually believe in and let them explain their procedures.
Maybe?
