I am surveying a section line between two adjacent government lots abutting tidal waters. According to the original notes, a meander corner was set at the top of a vertical bluff above the beach for better stability. When I go out there, I didn't find the meander corner, but the existing top of bluff fits pretty well with purported GLO distance and I don't think it has moved. The problem is that the bluff isn't vertical and because the bank is skewed to the section line, it results in a difference of about 200' (along the section line) between the meander corner and mean high tide (which is pretty close to the toe of the bluff).
My question: Would you treat the calculated meander corner as merely a witness point and extend the line to the line of mean high tide, or would you create an angle break at the meander corner by some apportionment method? For what it's worth, there have been no improvements along the boundary.
Thanks in advance!
A meander corner is a just a witness point by definition and controls for line only. In my experience bluffs tend to erode back taking the monument with them. If it's called out as a WCMC, the true corner is the intersection of the section line with the MHWL and thus no bearing break. I would check the original notes for any accessories that might have been set as they would control in the absence of the physical monument.
Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
If the Bluff hasn't moved, why is the corner missing? That would be my first question.
Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. Typing class 9th grade!
Re-establishing the corner position isn't the issue. As you say, the bluff is there and hasn't moved and I feel good with the calculated position. The question is what to do with the ownership between the MC and the water (about 200' further). Here in Washington upland ownership typically goes to MHT. The notes say he set the point at the top of a vertical bluff. In reality, it isn't vertical and don't think it ever was. Areas on the plat were returned based on his staked MC. As I see it, I can either project the line through the MC to MHT or create an angle point at the MC and go perpendicular to MHT. The only reason I would consider the latter is beause areas were returned based on the staked MC and it would be more equitable.
You are on the right track. You need to evaluate which method is reasonable. It could be proportionate frontage or area, regular to tge shore line or a simple extension. It doesn't sound like extension makes sense. I generally draw the cartoon of each method and apply the one best preserves rights. This assumes no record or actions of owners to guide me...
The first step is to reestablish the record meander line. Then you can partition the area between the record meanders and the MHT by the most equitable method, which probably won't be extending the the line through the record meander corner position without bending it.