Dave Karoly, post: 390179, member: 94 wrote: Govt agencies don't deal with complex problems without clear answers very well. No one wants to rock the boat too much. Staff can write reports providing reasoning and offering solutions but those in authority easily find ways to avoid the issue. There is little upside and a lot of downside risk to the Chief who makes a difficult judgment call. Most of the upside benefit, if attainable, is generalized to the public at large. No one in govt wants to be labeled a troublemaker.
Couple this with are predilection to overly strict adherence to perceived rules and I wouldn't expect a solid answer. There is a rule that the latest survey controls but it doesn't apply to lands already patented out. Maybe 1899 predates the patents but even then lay patented aren't expected to have high end knowledge that there are two sets of corners especially when the second set doesn't exist. But this takes reasoning and persuasion and the Judge may disagree with me which is his right. The appellate court may disagree with the judge.
They say since the 1950 dependent resurvey (not an independent resurvey) created a plat and all land inside the township transferred since 1950, then the new survey and monuments hold
MightyMoe, post: 390216, member: 700 wrote: They say since the 1950 dependent resurvey (not an independent resurvey) created a plat and all land inside the township transferred since 1950, then the new survey and monuments hold
Makes sense to me.
From U.S. v. Reimann: "the survey last accepted by the government before parting with title is the controlling survey", and "Prior to title passing from the United States, it is undisputed that the Gov't. has the power to survey and resurvey, establish an re-establish boundaries of its own lands".
MightyMoe, post: 390216, member: 700 wrote: They say since the 1950 dependent resurvey (not an independent resurvey) created a plat and all land inside the township transferred since 1950, then the new survey and monuments hold
If they mean patented before 1950 but there have been private transfers since 1950 then they are only correct if the property owners since 1950 have accepted the new corners.
If they mean all patented since 1950 then they are correct.
Dave Karoly, post: 390220, member: 94 wrote: If they mean patented before 1950 but there have been private transfers since 1950 then they are only correct if the property owners since 1950 have accepted the new corners.
If they mean all patented since 1950 then they are correct.
no, all patented prior to 1950
MightyMoe, post: 390227, member: 700 wrote: no, all patented prior to 1950
Then they are misapplying the rule.
Dave Karoly, post: 390232, member: 94 wrote: Then they are misapplying the rule.
they have a different opinion
Ob-VEE-usly (Begeera)
Dave Karoly, post: 390250, member: 94 wrote: Ob-VEE-usly (Begeera)
i think theres a chance they are caught in a box because of that opinion
Didn't mean to turn sideways into BLM stuff.
I wanted to keep discussion on patented lands. Thanks
wfwenzel, post: 390259, member: 7180 wrote: Didn't mean to turn sideways into BLM stuff.
I wanted to keep discussion on patented lands. Thanks
Simply being undiscovered, or stated as lost on a previous survey, does not change the status of an Existing corner. It is still the corner. How surveyors and patentees have conducted occupation and conveyances without the absent corner can be questioned after the corner is discovered.
paden cash, post: 390260, member: 20 wrote: Simply being undiscovered, or stated as lost on a previous survey, does not change the status of an Existing corner. It is still the corner. How surveyors and patentees have conducted occupation and conveyances without the absent corner can be questioned after the corner is discovered.
YUP, got one one these going on right now. Makes for a mess!
wfwenzel, post: 390259, member: 7180 wrote: Didn't mean to turn sideways into BLM stuff.
I wanted to keep discussion on patented lands. Thanks
These are patented lands, 1910's and prior, even Section 36 is private, although that was probably a patent issued from the state.
There is a slim parcel of BLM land along the north township line but all the rest is in private hands.
Because of reservations the BLM had authority to do a dependent resurvey and that's when the originals were missed.
So their decision is that since all lands transferred between 1950 and 2000 the new plat holds and the original corners no longer apply. No landowners in the township wish to contest it (at least yet) so,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The box they are in is that along the south line of the township are also originals with brass caps 1500' to the northeast and the 1881 plat is still the plat of record for the south township (there is a LARGE gap).
So the question; "do originals always holds over newer monuments" is up in the air as far as I'm concerned.
And also which is the section corner, the nice marked 1881 stone or the shiny 1950 brass cap 1500' over there; I can't say it's always the original.
I don't think I intended to argue one way or another, but what I hoped to do is start discussion among the professionals on the board here that have a variety of experiences and practices, as well as different locales and probably court decisions.
It seems as if the foundation of the cadastral system is dependent on first: original monuments set at the same time and by the same persons (like simultaneous conveyances), (2nd) Careful perpetuation of those originals, and (3rd) Careful re-survey work after that. Unfortunately, the last two are where frequent problems have cropped up.
In the early days, there was little money to keep the monumentation up, 10% if we're lucky around here. Along with some outright land piracy and effacement of corners. As far as careful re-survey work is concerned, the disappearance of corners were the first round of challenges. I'm sure we're all familiar with the problems after that: sometimes careless or casual work, winter conditions, changes land uses or features, etc.
If the original monumentation and work is sound, it seems as if that should be our goal to recover to the best of our ability, and recognize that as the foundation of the cadastre.
wfwenzel, post: 391139, member: 7180 wrote: ..If the original monumentation and work is sound, it seems as if that should be our goal to recover to the best of our ability, and recognize that as the foundation of the cadastre.
Well put. And I agree.
One of my pet peeves concerning my contemporaries is a question I ask of them concerning an obliterated or lost PLSS land corner location shown on their survey: "So you're certifying the mag-nail in the asphalt is the most probable location of the original corner?"
Candidly most will reply with some form of, "No. Nobody can certify to that. I'm just using what everybody else has used."
But in reality, whether we like it or not, we ARE certifying, as land surveyors, what is shown on a survey IS the most probable location of the original corner. If it's not, then SAY SO. Who else is responsible for the integrity of the cadaster if not us? When we label a corner as, say the "NW Cor. Sec. 6"...we are implying to the public there is (at least) a reasonable reliability the corner monument shown on our survey is a point that has been professionally determined to be the location of the original monument utilizing all available evidence.
Around here a lot of my colleagues fall well short of that. And it's a shame.
There are a run of tie sheets from around here. They have a "Ties only" notation, as if they want to duck that responsibility and duty. They are typically unsigned and unstamped as well. I'd insert an image, but can't figure out how to do it if they're from my computer.
So, in other words, one guy sticks them in and subsequent surveyors appear to be grateful that they're there, whatever the Basis for Monumentation, which is blank.
Dave Karoly, post: 390179, member: 94 wrote: Govt agencies don't deal with complex problems without clear answers very well. No one wants to rock the boat too much. Staff can write reports providing reasoning and offering solutions but those in authority easily find ways to avoid the issue. There is little upside and a lot of downside risk to the Chief who makes a difficult judgment call. Most of the upside benefit, if attainable, is generalized to the public at large. No one in govt wants to be labeled a troublemaker.
Couple this with are predilection to overly strict adherence to perceived rules and I wouldn't expect a solid answer. There is a rule that the latest survey controls but it doesn't apply to lands already patented out. Maybe 1899 predates the patents but even then lay patented aren't expected to have high end knowledge that there are two sets of corners especially when the second set doesn't exist. But this takes reasoning and persuasion and the Judge may disagree with me which is his right. The appellate court may disagree with the judge.
Well it is BLM's job to deal with complex problems without simple solutions. They do that routinely. In this case a response that was reiteration of well established rules was aopropriate. If there is no federal interest BLM has no authority and the answer to the question lies in state law. If there was federal interest involved you would probably have received a clearer answer. Complex questions require time and effort to answer and I hope the BLM is to busy to spend that time at tax payer's expense on hypothetical questions.
