> Here in Ohio, county and political township boundaries have changed over time, making them not absolutely reliable as descriptors.
>
> I always refer to the original subdivision, as in "section xx Township xx North Range xx East, First Principal Meridian Survey". Of course the First Meridian Survey is one of the easier one's to understand 😀 . I taught "Orginal Ohio Land Subdivisions" for PLSO for several years, so I hope that you have the large copy of Sherman's map for sorting out some of the many idiosyncrasies in these surveys. Also, be aware that different parts of the state have varying traditions in their styles of deed descriptions.
Those of us in Ohio literally spend hours studying the text and map in preparation for the state portion of the professional exam. There are two online maps that will help understand the complexity.
The first is a SIMPLIFIED (PDF) version of Sherman's map. The actual map shows all section numbers and many Virginia Military Survey (VMS) numbers. The VMS was surveyed under the laws of Virginia. Those of you in VA, WV and KY would feel right at home. First come first served and totally random surveys that may not have been referenced to any adjoining claims.
The second map shows all the county and township lines (PDF) and a comparison of the two begins to approach the level of data shown on Sherman's map.
> Question is: when you write legal descriptions in other PLSS states, do you always note the baseline and meridian that the township and range numbers were counted from? Or is it implied because you've already noted the county and can deduce it from that?
>
Regarding "other" states within the PLSS system, each principal point has an official title. That is the title which should be referenced in the description by Section, Township and Range (STR). Stating the STR without reference to the official principal point is NOT good practice. In fact, the description is ambiguous without it. How many Section 26, Township 4 South, Range 1 West's exist throughout the country? Narrowing it down to State and County might help, but you may find instances of duplicate STR's in one county based on two different principal points.
Here's a list of the official titles for each of the principal points of the PLSS taken from the 2009 Manual of Instructions:
One can simply add the term "meridian" to each of the official principal point names to derive the official title of the principal point to be included after the STR description. The titles "Base" or "Baseline" are not part of the official titles. (Don't ask me how the Salt Lake Meridian ever started to be referred to as the Salt Lake Base and Meridian. Just a regional quirk in some counties.) :-S
> Reason I ask, I'd say 75% of new surveys I get submitted to me all list the Twp/Rng numbers but fail to list the Original Land Subdivision (eg. Old Seven Ranges, Connecticut Western Reserve) which in Ohio tell me the baseline and meridian used. I can figure out which subdivision it's in by the county listed, but I believe it's not following the state min standards*.
>
The Ohio surveys, most of which predated the establishment of principal points as eventually utilized in the rest of the PLSS, were a bit unique to the PLSS. Each survey was given an official title, rather than titling the initial point. The official title of the survey should be included with every reference in the same way as the official title of the subdivision is included with a description of "Lot 17." The description is ambiguous without the reference to the official title of the original survey (Original Subdivision).
Why create an ambiguity by omitting the reference to the official title of the survey or principal meridian? The reader must, hopefully, know enough about survey history to be able to derive from extrinsic evidence (i.e. County and State, local maps, assessor data, etc.), which survey or principal point is referenced just to resolve the latent ambiguity.
The official title should be "required" for every description simply to remove the doubt and trouble caused by its omission.
JBS
The meridian for Montana is interesting on that list "Principal".
> The meridian for Montana is interesting on that list "Principal".
Yes. It's the only Initial Point that really never was given a regional title that meant much. It's official title used in descriptions is the "Principal Meridian, Montana," or PMM for short.
You can bet the state exam still asks the question, too. "Montana Principal Meridian" is the wrong answer.
JBS
> Oklahoma requires the distinction in the Minimum Standards
>
> 245:15-13-2. Minimum Standards
>
> d. Minimum Standards for Legal Descriptions.
> 1. Metes and bounds descriptions prepared shall at a minimum contain the following items:
> a. A preamble containing the Quarter Section, Section, Township, Range, Principal Meridian (Indian or Cimarron) and the County and/ or City of the tract of land being described or a preamble containing the Lot and/or Block number, subdivision name and if available, the recording information of the plat and the City, if applicable, and County in which it is filed of record, and
Odd how we've confused the terminology over the years. STR should, more appropriately, be stated as STRM. Without the "Meridian" the STR is meaningless.
The term "Principal" only appears in the official title of some of the Initial Points as does the term "Special". It does not appear in the official titles of the Indian Meridian or the Cimarron Meridian. I wonder why, then, was the term included in the statute? Confusion... :'(
JBS
> I work in Ohio .. do you always note the baseline and meridian ...?
Interesting. The entire states of Oregon and Washington are referenced to a single meridian, and everyone always references the Willamette Meridian (eg/ W.M.) in their descriptions (but never the baseline). Oklahoma has only two meridians, and everyone always references the meridian (typically I.M. or C.M.) Some also reference the baseline(eg/"Indian Base and Meridian")
Ohio has umpteen meridians and surveyors skip it. Go figure.
If I moved to Ohio tomorrow I'd feel compelled to specify the meridian in my descriptions. But as you say, as long as they specify the county their will be no mistake. I think the fight you propose to start is worth it, but it won't make you popular at the next convention.
Oregon DOT has a very specific standard for legal descriptions that everyone must follow. Right down to what font you can use. It's a bit of a pain, but it's well documented, and the quality of the descriptions generated is high.
Your code is clear; reject them without the required information.
Code reading basics:
"Shall" means must, not can if you want.
"original" means first, and in conjunction with "general location" listing large land areas like county and state, is clearly refering to what you think it is. Not peach tree acres.
It's nice to be nice, but some local practices should be corrected when encountered. Not a criticism of local surveyors; you're just helping them improve already quality work. Constructive input should be welcome, but we are a hardheaded bunch.
Norman,
Not meaning to pick on you, but your post provides an excellent example of the way we commonly misuse the terms which leads to confusion. The descriptions don't reference meridians or baselines which were run out on the ground. They reference the Initial Points which have Official Titles, each with the term "Meridian" attached to the title.
Without intending any offense, let me take the statements and clarify them as follows:
> The entire states of Oregon and Washington are referenced to a single meridian Initial Point, and everyone always references the Willamette Meridian (eg/ W.M.) in their descriptions (but never the baseline). Oklahoma has only two meridians Initial Points, and everyone always references the meridian Initial Point by its official title (typically I.M. or C.M.). Some also mistakenly reference the baseline(eg/"Indian Base and Meridian")
>
> Ohio has umpteen meridians Initial Points and umpteen original surveys and surveyors skip it. Go figure.
When we use the "official title" for the "initial point, survey, or subdivision" it all makes sense. It's just like addressing an envelope and leaving off the City or State. Finding the right "123 Main Street" is pretty difficult when we omit essential elements on the address. Legal descriptions are no different.
JBS
Principal Meridian Montana
I've also seen the Montana Principal Meridian used, but I've always used Principal Meridian Montana.
Got into quite an argument with a client who wanted it done the "wrong" way. He was on a local planning commission in Wyoming and I was doing a plat for a job of his in Montana and he just couldn't wrap his brain around the nomenclature. He kept saying "that's just wrong". I couldn't come up with anything more than telling him "that's the way they do it up there".
Guys, this is basic stuff that we should all understand, not only the systems, but how to correctly reference them in legal descriptions.
It is really sad that such simple, basic procedures should have to be codified in state statutes so that us called "professionals" will include them in our routine, everyday work products. Sad, really sad.
I frequently see the idea from surveyors in the more western PLSS states that Ohio is simply a jumble of little pieces of the PLSS, which are all susceptible to some common and uniform statewide approach.
In fact the only area recognizable as somewhat familiar to westerners would be the First Meridian Survey in northwest Ohio. But that is the only original subdivision in Ohio which is known and described by it's meridian. That was the last major survey in Ohio.
For example, I live in the United States Military District, which was created by Congress and described by them using only a point of beginning and a metes and bounds description in the Act of June 1, 1796.
So the description of my five mile township is unambiguously described as Township Five, Range Nineteen, United States Military District, Ohio, without reference to any meridian or baseline.
> I frequently see the idea from surveyors in the more western PLSS states that Ohio is simply a jumble of little pieces of the PLSS, which are all susceptible to some common and uniform statewide approach.
>
> In fact the only area recognizable as somewhat familiar to westerners would be the First Meridian Survey in northwest Ohio. But that is the only original subdivision in Ohio which is known and described by it's meridian. That was the last major survey in Ohio.
>
> For example, I live in the United States Military District, which was created by Congress and described by them using only a point of beginning and a metes and bounds description in the Act of June 1, 1796.
>
> So the description of my five mile township is unambiguously described as Township Five, Range Nineteen, United States Military District, Ohio, without reference to any meridian or baseline.
Extending the example above the United States Military District (USMD) five mile townships are quartered. If you read Sherman's report, survbob called "the bible of Ohio surveying." The USMD was ". . . to be divided into townships of five miles square, by running, marking and numbering, the exterior lines of the said townships, and marking corners in the said lines, at the distance of two and one half miles from each other." The 2.5 mile square quarter townships were numbered counter-clockwise beginning with township one (1) in the northeast. This is all very clear in the illustrative plates of the text.
However, common usage prior to Ohio licensing of surveyors (pre 1930s) often referred to the quarter townships as sections. As a result it is still common to find descriptions calling for section one of section one of township xx range xx USMD. While it would be more technically correct to call for section one of quarter township one of township xx range xx USMD, this may not be approved by some county reviewers. The counties are looking for continuity of descriptions over a period of more than 200 years.
Dallas, I think the bonus question for non-Ohio PLSS surveyors would be:
Why was the US Military District in Ohio divided into five mile townships?
Let's see if anyone outside of Ohio knows the answer:-D .
Hit: Politics and math!
Minnesota was surveyed from two initial points:
The 4th PM & Extended Baseline (1831) which is well north of the Baseline of 1815
The 5th PM & Baseline
Both IPs are well south of Minnesota, so all townships are north of their baselines. The 5th PM is east of Minnesota, so all ranges in 5th PM area are west of the PM. The only part of the 4th PM survey area east of the 4th PM is in the Arrowhead Region in Cook County. It goes up (east) to Range 7 East at the easterly island in Minnesota.
Range 1 East closes on the PM, its not a complete range. The surveys there were run north from Lake Superior.
The direction part of townships is almost always omitted from land descriptions, and in most parts of the state the direction part of ranges is also omitted.
In Florida, I have rarely ever seen the meridian called out in a legal description. I myself have never included it to any description I have written. I guess its because we only have one that covers the whole state.
It's common in California to see Mount Diablo Base & Meridian or M.D.B.&M. I don't really know why, maybe 19th century Lawyers increasing their word count. Old habits die hard even though I point out the correct and sufficient form is Mount Diablo Meridian. My favorite joke is, "I think I will do this Survey in the Humboldt Base and Mount Diablo Meridian."
The Plat says "M.D.M., S.B.M or H.M." on it without the B.
Southern CA Surveyor here where 6 of the 8 counties I have surveyed in are entirely in San Bernardino Meridian territory and every description I have seen referring to sections/townships/ranges also mentions the meridian. Meridian areas in CA do not always coincide with county lines.
I believe a portion of San Bernardino County is in the Mt. Diablo Meridian area, or maybe it was a portion of Kern County was in both.
> Hit: Politics and math!
That should have been "Hint" and since no one is responding I'll give a bit more information.
Politics: Government wanted to organize local governments as part of settlement. That is to group new settlers in one area at a time. Original requirement was to combine grants until a total of ???? acres were required. Then subdivide an area equal to that.
Math: Grants to soldiers were in multiples of 50 or 100 acres. Now play with township dimensions and grant acreage until you find the solution. How many acres were to be surveyed with each group of grants?
Additional bonus question: [sarcasm]Why is it that land developers and politicians always play games with survey requirements?[/sarcasm]
Kern County has both.