From the plat I'd probably prorate that one in. The option of a mean bearing will create two E-W center lines that won't meet at the section line. That might be fine, but I would like to know. It sounds like both sections are blank, with no records, no subdivisions ties, no county survey records, two true blank sections from an 1870 era original.
Looking at the plat I agree. There are too many aliquot parts to consider the weighted mean bearing...
I agree with Bionicman's first answer. Both Sections 21 & 22 were/are fractional sections. the lake bed is not part of either section and there never was nor is there now a 1/4 corner common to Sections 21 & 22.
It doesn't matter how many aliquot divisions or Govt Lots exist in the Section, the weighted mean is still the proper method IF none of those section subdivision lines have been established on the ground.
If they have been established, then you need to start asking some questions to determine if they now represent the true boundaries along those aliquot lines. Among those questions are:
1. Who established those lines on the ground?
2. Did that party/those parties have authority to do so? [The landowners, if done collaboratively with other affected landowners and intent to mark the true boundary did have that authority in many, if not most PLSS states.]
3. Did whoever established the lines do so utilizing appropriate controlling corners?
4. Did whoever established the line use some identifiable and reasonable method even if not the method prescribed by the GLO or BLM?
5. Have the lines established on the ground been recognized as the true boundary and relied upon for a period of time in excess of the statutory period of repose?
Often, the answers to many of those and similar questions will have been lost to time, which most often means that the answer to #5 is in the affirmative. That being the case, those established lines and corners (perhaps marked for many years or decades by a fence post) are now the legal aliquot corners, even if several feet from the mathemagically "correct" position.
Remember, boundary surveying is more often an as-built than it is engaging in an engineering mindset of following a description (or protracted lines on a GLO plat) like a plan for a new improvement. One of the bases of boundary law is the stability of boundaries. The courts would rather have a sound basis for accepting existing established lines and corners than to get stuck in a position where they promote controversy.
Before you decide to dismiss existing lines & points of occupation and get all engineery by relying on the "correct" mathmagical methodology, review the guidance of Ch. 3 of the 2009 BLM Manual regarding accepting local points of control.
This question, not assuming any existing lines of occupation or other field evidence other than the SW and NW section corners and the N & S 1/4 corners, with the requirement to establish the E-W Center of Section line is something that well could show up on the exam for any PLSS state or the NCEES PLSS module.
The correct method in that case is the weighted mean bearing with the easterly terminus being at the OHWM, not at the meander line. [review what the BLM Manual has to say about the meaning and significance of meander lines]
I might argue with mean bearing method in this situation if you were someone else, but I know better so I won't. All I will comment on is the phrase IF established. This is the question I have observed that is answered incorrectly most often in a section that has existed for 150 years. Unless the entire section was patented to one person and always held under one ownership for 150 years the assumption that there is no evidence of establishment is way too common. A person who knows the manual as well as anyone taught us recently that the method used must be applied to the situation and may need to vary from time to time based on that situation. Only the surveyor on the ground can make those calls.
I agree Norm. While you need to keep the possibility that there had been no boundary establishment open, in almost all instances, there will be some evidence, often a lot of evidence of establishment. All too often, surveyors (or their unlicensed field crews) will overlook any evidence that doesn't present in the form of a capped iron pipe or rebar.
Fences, hedgerows, stone walls, etc. are evidence as well. How valid it is depends on several different factors, but it cannot be dismissed out of hand as so many do.
In situations where there is valid establishment in one part of the section but not at the lines or corners of the property being surveyed, it may be that the mathemagically prescribed method is the correct method for that parcel while accepting established lines and points is correct in that other part of the section, with neither having an effect on the other.
In other words, as you look at the whole section, your methods may need to vary. So I think we agree.
I agree with the OP that the manual is not clear and actually muddies many subjects. Our own surveyors have issues understanding concepts such as frac sec sub and bona fide rights due to the 2009 manual's "clarity." Clear and concise is not a way I would describe the manual. I guess in reality it is just a guide for Federal Surveyors so no need for clarity...BTW my opinions and responses are not from the manual, they are from my experience/mentoring and my studying of law/case law. The manual is a wonderful guide...
There are definitely 2 boats on this one when it is kept simple as a question (WMB or midpoint bet sec cors). Add in previous surveys and land owner actions then it likely changes from "text book" responses to real world responses, which as we all know tend to vary even more.
In the subject situation I am in the boat of yes that is a fractional section and the 1/4 cor cannot be fixed.
A quote from a previous Cadastral presentation that may help with understanding my position: "To fully understand the 1805 Act dealing with fractional sections, we must keep in mind that in 1805 there were many townships that had been surveyed by running lines across them at one mile intervals, with corners set at half mile intervals on the east-west lines. When running these lines in fractional townships, some of the corners, including half-mile corners on east-west lines, could not be set because they fell in water or on Indian land. These are the corners that the act refers to as “where no such opposite corners have been fixed.” Prior to 1805 no provision was made for the fixing of mid-points on the north-south section lines. In fractional sections some of these corners cannot be fixed physically. Those are referred to in the act as places where “no such opposite corners can be fixed.”
IMO - If the original corner was not monumented with at least a WC due to a lake or other item that causes the fractional section then it cannot be fixed in the future either. I try to keep it simple and use the "physically" set aspect. If it was not physically set in the orig survey due to fractionalization then it is not fixed. If historic context is considered then it is easier to understand what was meant by fixed - physically occupy and monument. A WC physically fixes the corner by B&D from a "near" position, similar concept to a bearing tree.
In the subject situation I would use weighted mean and not fix the 1/4. If the 1/4 never existed then it is not lost. The SMC on the E/W cl of the sec would be at the intersection of the WMB and the adjusted record meanders. Of course ownership is to the actual shore and the meanders are not fixed in this situation but that is the textbook answer.
If the MCs are lost then single prop along sec line. Sometimes current shorelines can be used for latitude or departure (half lost/half obliterated) when restoring MCs, but that is very dependent on the circumstance and details.
As it was said, if there is Federal Interest in the section then it is a good idea to check with the Cadastral Office that covers your state as mileage varies with fractional sections depending on the particular state.
Thanks everyone for the thoughtful responses. For a bit of context, the entire section in question is basically one big corn field, all farmed by the same guy. The section to the east is the same. There are a couple small farmstead tracts in these sections, but their boundaries are not tied to any of the sections' subdivisional lines. The only physical occupation lines on the ground of any kind are lines between fields (in other sections) and gravel roads around the perimeter of each section. There are no records of anyone surveying the interior lines.
Based on my experience surveying in this area, it's extremely unlikely that any further evidence will be found while physically retracing these lines (which I will be doing) so for the sake of discussion here, I'm proceeding under the most likely scenario that the solution will either be WMB or single proportion.
When I review some of the CFedS materials on the subject, Ron and Dennis seem to favor a single proportion solution in similar situations when a distance across the water is shown on the plat (in the absence of any other evidence, of course). If there is no distance tying the whole mile together, then it seems they go with the WMB method.
Even in this discussion, it seems there are two different schools of thought, with no consensus. My initial thought when I reviewed this plat is that the 1/4 corner was never fixed, because I assumed "fixed" to mean either monumented or a distanced called out on the plat (like they would do if they chained across the ice). Many times, I've seen a private surveyor calculate a midpoint split regardless of the what the notes or plat shows. I think their logic would be that's where the 1/4 corner was intended to be if they could have monumented it.