Excellent point. Things keep changing. What was accepted at one point in time may not hold water today. We must keep up with the changes.
Heck, I get to play with two sets of GLO instructions by reaching out no more than six miles from where I sit right now.
I was told by one guy that the reason he farted pincushions all over 30 to 40 year old recorded, private monuments was due to federal interest lands. That's just another reason to use 'math precision' instead of legal principal. I would argue that the PLSS was enacted soley to lay out private interests, not to wipe out private interests with the excuse of federal superiority
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
What gets me, is when the BLM can't agree with itself and has set multiple 16th corners, 5 to 10 feet apart (then not bother to record anything about how they reached their conclusion, then they get mad with us for recording the stupidity). Each different corner ends up conflicting with settled lines of occupation, that include a national park boundary and associated fencing.
I've got the NE1/16th that will be 60' from the breakdown. It is a longtime property corner between three landowners and is now monumented with a subdivision filling in the SW4NE4. I'm not going to put the math 1/16th in the yard of the lot owner. From there it's going to get even more interesting. I'm waiting on a survey done for the adjoiner and see what they did. The Subdivision has no Federal interest, my client is completely covered by Federal interest. The last local fed survey was started about ten years ago, still waiting on the plat, its a couple of townships north of this one.
The Federal Government is supposed to follow State Law of boundaries, not saying they will but they are supposed to.
I have one where I disagree with their Dependent Resurvey which in my opinion disagrees with their own Manual. My Record of Survey is in for filing right now. They set a post at their solution for the CE 1/16th corner; the County Surveyor had set a pipe 20 years before that. The CS pipe is shown on a Mineral Survey accepted by the Cadastral Engineer 15 years or so before the Dependent Resurvey.
It is an almost forgotten remnant of Public Domain. The only reason they did a dependent resurvey in this particular section was to write some metes and bounds descriptions for a couple of small lots Congress granted to a few private owners, these are not near our State Forest. On his way by our Southwest Corner he set the post in conflict with our corner which was already there. There is no conflict in latitude, only departure. Our monument is 20 feet west of the "new" post. The Plat shows the north-south centerline of the NE 1/4 dashed meaning they didn't survey it. The monument at the East 1/16th corner on the north line of the Section is in the Dependent Resurvey notes as on-line at the exact midpoint but they don't call it the 1/16th corner because it is surrounded by private lands. So if they were to survey the north-south 1/16th line would they use the existing monument on the north end? No one knows. It is only Federal interest on the south half of that 1/16th line; the north half is the boundary between State Forest and private lands (which have been surveyed in accordance with the County Surveyor's monuments).
BLM's current practice here is they are much more likely to accept local monuments than they were in the era of the Dependent Resurvey. It is not likely they will ever Survey in that Section again.
And therein lies the rub. Those who toss the Manual because of privately established lines do so at thier own peril, the same as those who think the manual was written by Betty Crocker.
And therein lies the rub. Those who toss the Manual because of privately established lines do so at thier own peril, the same as those who think the manual was written by Betty Crocker.
?ÿ
Well stated!
I agree the BLM should pay more attention to the manual, particularly the part about established patented lands.