This is probably the toughest issue I can think of I've ever seen in the history of all surveying of private land divided by sectional surveys. I'm hoping some of the most courageous and high integrity surveyors here can not only provide some advice, but also help with letters of opinion to the state licensing board here. The situation is that obviously leading to a degradation of the basic tenets of land surveying and GLO sectional resurvey.
Firstly it deals with a 124 year old fraud, which is never easy. Then it gets MUCH tougher. It appears that there is some very unhealthy collusion between the BLM, the USFS and a California surveyor to cover the fact that the resurvey by a surveyor in 1891, J.K. Harrington was done with seriously botched notes.
From my relationship with an old Santa Barbara surveyor, an R.C.E, M.L. Grant (Les grant), whose father Ulysses S. Grant. worked for another surveyor named Frank Flournoy, who became a Deputy County surveyor, who actually worked for Norway, I learned of some of the practices of Norway and problems related to his surveys.
The botched notes came a service offered in San Francisco after the advent of the telegraph and its coming into common usage. The serve was the idea of found college students who formed a company offering to copy notes, carry them to the southern pacific telegraph office then use mores code to transmit them to wherever the surveyor was and rewrite them. Les Grants father and he had done some research in the 1930's amongst other surveyors to find that numbers of them had seen retraced section lines hundreds of feet from original monuments found. All of these retraced surveys were in the 1880's and 1890's.
Apparently a number of these problems are on USFS boundaries and there is an interest in getting rid of the original lines in favor of those measured in not based on original monuments. Unofficial statements like, "cleaning up the lines" have trickled down from various sources.
The word was that the opportunity for quadruple reading and writing errors in the process of note transcription process caused a number of surveyors to end up in the field looking for monuments with nearly all aspects of the notes erroneous. Finding none, they relied on measurement to distant control and re established corners. The problem was discovered by he GLO and surveyors and the note transcription practice was stopped. However, many surveys were made that suffered to varying degrees from the problems.
That is just the historical technical side of the notes and difficulty with this township, section line, rancho and boundaries,
Norway was coming along to resurvey these section lines on contract only 15 years after Norris had run them. He certainly had retired crew members and many other witnesses to monument and corner as well as line locations to refer to for his survey. One statement in his notes should be a controlling statement by all logic, "Land lies along foot of hills". The USGS line runs along a near cliff like summit or edge.
Les had explained to me that his father and he had retraced some of Norway's work and occasionally had found that monument descriptions were switched between lines of a section or nearby sections. His father attributed this to the fact that Norway kept two sets of notes. One book of notes for monuments set , another for topography.
On the survey in question, the description of the east 1/4 corner was found to be switched with the south for the section west of the parcels that encountered the problem with the resurveys. Evidence of a bearing tree was found as well as a 5 inch diameter pit carved into sandstone was found, with a rock stuffed in it. Using that position, a rock bearing the oriental "W.P." was found, with fresh sledge hammer marks showing where the mantle had been broken off.
Norway was prolific and knew very well that the topography was the key to location of monuments so had copious topo calls for all lines he ran. I've spent days, if not weeks tracing his calls with pieces of paper marked off in chains with topo calls noted at the edge, sliding them back and forth along section lines to find the likely positions to search on the ground to find monuments to begin surveys from.
Your review, advice or involvement will go a long way towards preserving the integrity of land surveying, particularly retracing old GLO lines. Here are the pages I put on my server for one of the owners.
http://algoxy.com/law/blmperpetuationoffraud/t5n.r28w.1873survey.html
Attached is a photo of the rock with the freshly broken mantle where the "W.P." had been and the 1/4 corner pit.
Also scans of the 1891 notes and the 1873 notes are attached.
Hmmm, 10,000 character maximum . . . continued.
For me this situation is fairly devastating because I've been working on location of 1873 monuments set by W.H. Norway since 1978. I've found three monuments, one pristine, to find that it has been destroyed since showing it to the first USFS surveyor in around 1989. Thankfully a geologist, anthropologist with experience in lithics, (stone tools) was willing to photographically document the monument and site location. Surveyors refused! Apparently the location was too far from the section lines drawn by the USGS around the time, 1930's, leases in the forest were granted using the lines to locate housing. None wanted to be a witness called into court within the certain lawsuit to result from attempting to use the original monumented line.
Muddying the water here, it is known that late in Norway's career he was guilty of fraudulent surveys. Apparently just writing up notes and no field work was done whatsoever.
However, there are some accounts of his earlier work from the Bishop California area in steep ground, that show exceptional accuracy consistently, section after section over townships! These were in his younger years. He was not stopped by any except the roughest terrain. I understand the temptation and compromise at an old age to take advantage of a situation in order to gain some income after a life of arduous, meticulous work.
Complicating this entire survey was a survey of a Rancho line that ran south of the Santa Ynez river which was granted by the King of Mexico to a Captain in the Mexican army, Jose Domingues's. That rancho was not granted by the senate following the Guadalupe Hidalgo treaty because pretty much the entire water source for the city of Santa Barbara was within it.
That southern boundary ended up being a division between public land under the control of the USFS and private land. The rancho at the time of Norway's survey was still contentiously not recognized by the US government and it was Domingues's granddaughter that finally got other land in lieu of the land granted by the King. Such trades of public land are not actually allowed by law, but that is what happened after a generation and a half of lawsuits.
Ralph Norris, the Deputy Surveyor of Santa Barbara in 1858 surveyed the township in order to facilitate Domingues's land grant description pursuant to law and GLOW requirements of rectangular division. The south boundary of the rancho was fairly close to the southern line of the top tier of sections in the township. The top tier of sections in a township is where large differences in latitude can be absorbed without perfect proportioning. Accordingly Norris ran the southern section line of the top tier as the southern rancho line for miles south of the river. Of course Norris was working from an original description to the Mexican King which was in Varas. A Vara apparently relates to how far a horse can run in a given period of time, the ground that was originally described was flatter and mostly something that a horse could travel over. "Land lies along the foot of hills".
One of the owners made a page which is pretty contentious, but his setbacks created in 2006 for his structure based on a survey he paid thousands of dollars for has been rendered in violation by the county. The page has all of the survey documentation that is relevant which was included in a complaint to the State Professional Board last year. His web page is based on the complaint. Lots of photos as well as the BLM report of 32 pages which can be downloaded for reading. I was acting as a consultant and crew on the survey because of my extensive experience and history with Norway's work, using his notes and locating monuments.
An adjoiner has lost his potential building site and another further west has the same loss. All of this land is actually too steep to even walk over with any ease at all.
This owner worked very hard with the 2006 surveyor locating monuments out in steep rocky terrain covered with brush and learned a good deal about the notes and monumentation. His complaint was assembled by consulations with the P.L.S. hired by the western most party effected by the USFS resurvey and has a good deal of simple observation that is completely common sense. I contributed the photos of the found section corner in the sections north 1/2 mile east of the 1/4 corner where prima facie evidence of fraud in the 1891 notes is seen.
All this because a Orange county contract surveyor has found a mark on a rock he deems an "+" and claims it to be set by the 1891 surveyor who is shown by his notes and those from 1873 to have committed fraud, which is prima in nature in another section of the same township in the same year. What is outrageous is that neither Norway, 1873 or Harrington, 1891 following him describes an "+", as a point set. Most people that see the supposed "+" cannot state it is a manmade mark at all, being very faint resembling a weathered, natural fracture of the surface more than anything. The 1891 notes describing the particular corner, a witness point, also bear exactly the same kinds of inconsistencies that one would expect with the telegraph transcription issue described above.
Following a fire there was a resurvey by the USFS, and this particular surveyor was brought in. Technically his work is quite good, although the owner has indicated that he ignored the instructions of the manual in proportioning in order to fit in better with BLM approves methods. That was information from the 2006 resurvey in consults relating to moving the lines he had documented with a record of survey.
Your review, advice or involvement will go a long way towards preserving the integrity of land surveying, particularly retracing old GLO lines. Here are the pages I put on my server for one of the owners.
Christopher,
I submit that, while this may become a matter for the Board of Registration for licensure proceedings at some point, the landowners' recourse will begin with the IBLA, since the Los Padres National Forest is a party to adjudication. Appeal, if necessary, would be to the U.S. District Court.
I would also suggest a bit of proofreading on your site.
Warren Smith, post: 323325, member: 9900 wrote: Christopher,
I submit that, while this may become a matter for the Board of Registration for licensure proceedings at some point, the landowners' recourse will begin with the IBLA, since the Los Padres National Forest is a party to adjudication. Appeal, if necessary, would be to the U.S. District Court.
I would also suggest a bit of proofreading on your site.
Thank you Warren Smith for looking at the pages and yes, they are pretty rough. Owner made the text and gathered up images dropping them into an wysiwyg html editor. I did my best to refine it before uploading.
One of the things I've noticed is that the tendency with this kind of problem is that such a morass of details is created to document the problem, that very few want to confront it.
But excellent advice, I will pass the information on.
Did you happen to notice in the complaint, the information of the page, that the BLM report omits the 1891 prima facie fraud?
Basically the absence of the fraud made the find of the "+", not set by anyone, seem acceptable. Or that would appear the only reason it could be acceptable. Makes no sense to me. As I said the 32 pages of the BLM report complicate a situation while leaving out vital information that automatically eliminates complexity.
It would be nice to induce the BLM to withdraw their report. Another owner has made an inquiry to Lance J. Bishop, Chief, Branch of Geological Services to see if he was at least informed of the prima facie fraud of the 1891 notes.
Then, at least the surveyor the other neighbor hired when the "+"(?) was found, might feel comfortable filing his map with the findings of original monuments that are documented on the web page linked. As it is now he feels completely outnumbered. This has turned surveying into a social event of approval under a clients influence, rather than one of measurement and findings of original monument evidence.
I've uploaded a picture of the "+" mark(?) which is barely visible.
Warren Smith, post: 323325, member: 9900 wrote: Christopher,
I submit that, while this may become a matter for the Board of Registration for licensure proceedings at some point, the landowners' recourse will begin with the IBLA, since the Los Padres National Forest is a party to adjudication. Appeal, if necessary, would be to the U.S. District Court.
I would also suggest a bit of proofreading on your site.
Warren Smith, I must thank you again for your directions. The IBLA did provide a route to get review and possible revision of this onerous report by the BLM (linked from the page you saw). That report has completely confounded everyone involved who has worked to unravel this 143 year old mystery.
After reviewing/proof reading the owners letter numerous times, along with the report, I decided that the report was intentionally overfilled with such inherently intentional confusion through complication, that an entirely different approach was needed rather than attempting to address the report directly. The fact of the swapped 1/4 notes not spotted by earlier surveyors had multiple retracements on parallel but, offset line by hundreds of feet, making plenty of material for the BLM to use in complicating their investigation and report. In reading the report I realized that the major history of the Townships survey was almost completely neglected.
All things considered I felt that a petition type format that properly began with recognition of the original Township survey and legal environment the surveyor continuing the survey of the Townships sections, Norway, was faced with, was the proper way to look at the resurvey of the sections we are concerned with.
The petition format creates a very comprehensive and organized overview of all of the omissions of the BLM report. Mostly because it leaves out the minutiae used as subterfuge to cover the omissions of the a Townships history while ordering the historical facts with their evidence.
This version online is hyperlinked to make the evidence quite intimate with the history and a few more pieces of evidence are added.
http://algoxy.com/law/blmperpetuationoffraud/petition_to_blm_director.html
Now, unfortunately it appears the owners are so intimidated by the USFS with the implications of the moved line and their needed uses of the land, they may be too afraid to submit the request for review or appeal to its target.
Without digging into everything, here are a few observations.
You have a 1873 original, then a 1891 (dependent?) resurvey?
The 1891 resurvey failed to find the original monumentation.
1. Was there a plat issued based on the 1891 survey?
2. Were there patents issued between 1873 and 1891?
3. Were the patents transfered after 1891 from the original owner (I assume all patents were).
4. The BLM's position will probably be that; after the 1891 plat all new patents and transfers will have to conform to the new plat.
5. The IBLA is the place to take this, they will come down hard on the BLM sometimes.
6. You have no standing to enter into this, only a landowner, and probably only one that had title to lands issued prior to the 1891 survey.
7. This isn't all that unusual, missed monuments happen, not the first or last time it's going to, I would document everything I could but without landowners wanting to get involved you are simple tilting at windmills and if that's the case I would just let it go. As a surveyor you have some interest for sure, but you have little authority. Trust me on this, I've been down this road also.................
RE: 1 though 4, the patent dates will determine which survey controls which properties. See USA v. Reimann 504 F.2d 135. I'm not sure what Moe means by #3.
BajaOR, post: 360179, member: 9139 wrote: RE: 1 though 4, the patent dates will determine which survey controls which properties. See USA v. Reimann 504 F.2d 135. I'm not sure what Moe means by #3.
What I've been told on my little situation is because all the property in the new 1950 dependent resurvey plat was transferred after the plat, then the 1950 plat holds, even though the patents were issued long before 1950.......at least that is the BLM's position.
MightyMoe, post: 360159, member: 700 wrote:
7. This isn't all that unusual, missed monuments happen, not the first or last time it's going to, I would document everything I could but without landowners wanting to get involved you are simple tilting at windmills and if that's the case I would just let it go. As a surveyor you have some interest for sure, but you have little authority. Trust me on this, I've been down this road also.................
Thank you for that evaluation MightyMoe. I'll be taking it to owners and seeking answers to the queries.
Missed monuments are one thing, but surveys based on bogus notes while the originals have swapped corner descriptions seems a bit more. And, the 1891 resurvey did commit prima facie fraud in the notes created.
There was a compiled platt by the surveyor general, I'll have to check to date. The 1891 survey did not make one.
No owners now are original. Seems like an ethics issue with that "+" "found" that no previous surveyor found or set. I'll be passing your evaluation on to the one holding records to see about patents.
One owner really needs to follow through, so that petition for review may get submitted after all.
What an irksome experience; I start searching for monuments in 1978, find three by 2011, two show signs of intentional obliteration and the first found in 1987 is completely destroyed. Ugh! Well at least it is all documented.
Thanks again!
Don't get too worked up over all this. There are other original monuments that have been recovered which were missed during a government resurvey and may never actually be used.
It's not unprecedented..............
You are a gatherer of facts, that's important, documenting what you found. Sounds like you took care of that.
MightyMoe, post: 360600, member: 700 wrote: Don't get too worked up over all this. There are other original monuments that have been recovered which were missed during a government resurvey and may never actually be used.
It's not unprecedented..............
You are a gatherer of facts, that's important, documenting what you found. Sounds like you took care of that.
"It's not unprecedented.............."
In the 1980's I had the need to determine if a circa 1915 subdivision was actually located in the proper aliquot part of a Section. GLO was there in the 1880's, BLM in the 1940's and again in the 1960's. During the retracement we walked into a 1940's quarter corner monument. The 1960's field notes stated that the 1940's monument had not been found, and that a new monument head been set. We continued on, and found the 1960's monument a considerable distance away. After running through all the scenarios of what might have happened and not understanding what we were seeing I contacted our State BLM office. I was told in no uncertain terms that the 1960's monument controlled because when the 1960's plat was accepted anything not accepted "did not exist." I offered to send a photograph but was told that the approval of the 1960's plat "extinguished" the existence of the 1940's monument!
After much loss of sleep and lengthy consideration I accepted the 1940's monument - all of the "junior" monumentation corroborated its location. A very odd situation - the 1940's monument was clearly undisturbed in the median of an Interstate Highway, the 1960's monument was outside of the Highway corridor. I sent a copy of my Record of Survey map to the BLM - I believe both monuments are still in place...
Jim in AZ, post: 360601, member: 249 wrote: "It's not unprecedented.............."
In the 1980's I had the need to determine if a circa 1915 subdivision was actually located in the proper aliquot part of a Section. GLO was there in the 1880's, BLM in the 1940's and again in the 1960's. During the retracement we walked into a 1940's quarter corner monument. The 1960's field notes stated that the 1940's monument had not been found, and that a new monument head been set. We continued on, and found the 1960's monument a considerable distance away. After running through all the scenarios of what might have happened and not understanding what we were seeing I contacted our State BLM office. I was told in no uncertain terms that the 1960's monument controlled because when the 1960's plat was accepted anything not accepted "did not exist." I offered to send a photograph but was told that the approval of the 1960's plat "extinguished" the existence of the 1940's monument!
After much loss of sleep and lengthy consideration I accepted the 1940's monument - all of the "junior" monumentation corroborated its location. A very odd situation - the 1940's monument was clearly undisturbed in the median of an Interstate Highway, the 1960's monument was outside of the Highway corridor. I sent a copy of my Record of Survey map to the BLM - I believe both monuments are still in place...
Then someone goes out and finds the 1880 monument 🙁
Jim in AZ, post: 360601, member: 249 wrote: "It's not unprecedented.............."
In the 1980's I had the need to determine if a circa 1915 subdivision was actually located in the proper aliquot part of a Section. GLO was there in the 1880's, BLM in the 1940's and again in the 1960's. During the retracement we walked into a 1940's quarter corner monument. The 1960's field notes stated that the 1940's monument had not been found, and that a new monument head been set. We continued on, and found the 1960's monument a considerable distance away. After running through all the scenarios of what might have happened and not understanding what we were seeing I contacted our State BLM office. I was told in no uncertain terms that the 1960's monument controlled because when the 1960's plat was accepted anything not accepted "did not exist." I offered to send a photograph but was told that the approval of the 1960's plat "extinguished" the existence of the 1940's monument!
After much loss of sleep and lengthy consideration I accepted the 1940's monument - all of the "junior" monumentation corroborated its location. A very odd situation - the 1940's monument was clearly undisturbed in the median of an Interstate Highway, the 1960's monument was outside of the Highway corridor. I sent a copy of my Record of Survey map to the BLM - I believe both monuments are still in place...
Seems you did the right thing to me. When the weight of original notes are supportive, it seems wrong to ignore it based on an arbitrary statement by authority only seeking to maintain its authority.
I've been under the impression for years that an official use such as permitting which references a recorded survey, fixes that position pursuant to that survey. In this case a 2007 survey was used for a 2009 building permit, and the fact was ignored by all authority. Strictly confounding performance.
I can't help thinking that the telegraphed transcriptions were more common than is known and a number of lines were moved along forest boundaries, meaning there could be a motive to avoid a precedence based in exposed fraudulent beginning points.
About 20 years ago I received a phone call one evening from a DOT surveyor to let me know that a survey I had done about five years earlier had relied on a found bar that he had just discovered was in the wrong place (a section corner no less). I was thrilled to have found the iron bar. He wasn't. He shut down the highway, brought in a backhoe and excavated over seven feet deep through pavement, base and subbase that had first been placed in the 1930's and discovered the monument that had been in place at that time.
Private surveyors seldom have such luxuries available to them. I'm sure the surveyor who had set the bar I found had done the best he could to replicate the original location without tearing up a major highway. Fortunately, there had been no subdivisions or other complex property alterations made that relied on the bar that was off something like two feet one way and one or two feet the other.
Many here should remember the great Pipe vs Stone thread several years ago courtesy of Deral Paulk in Oklahoma.
Holy Cow, post: 361406, member: 50 wrote: Many here should remember the great Pipe vs Stone thread several years ago courtesy of Deral Paulk in Oklahoma.
That old thread was titled "Who want's to be a Surveyor?" It started 10/19/2007 and lasted until 10/30/2007. Copied and pasted to MS Word, it created 758 pages.
I go back and study it from time to time:
DDSM:beer: