PLSS folks (or CFEDS) - Educate me

If I recall, the rule is that a dependent resurvey supercedes the original and becomes the controlling location once approved. I'm interested too. Is the question addressed by statute and have the courts ruled on it specifically?

If a dependent resurvey supersedes the original survey, then what is the difference between a/dependent resurvey and an independent resurvey? I mean doesn't the name of it imply that the corners are dependent on the location of the original monuments?

I would imagine that there are dependent resurveys that do next to nothing
to search for original GLO corners. A major contributor to this board said
he tries to ignore BLM replacement monuments as often as possible.

"Craigin v. Powell, 128 U.S. 691 (1888)"

"Sect. 6-8. In the case of Craigin v. Powell, 128 U.S. 691 (1888), the Supreme Court of the United States cited with favor the following quotation from a letter of the Commissioner of the General Land Office to the surveyor general of Lousiana:

"The making of resurveys or corrective surveys of townships once proclaimed for sale
is always at the hazard of interfering with private rights, and thereby introducing new complications. A resurvey, properly considered is but a retracing, with a view to determine and establish lines and boundaries of an original surveying,... but the priciple of retracing has been frequently departed from, where a resurvey (so called) has been made and new lines and boundaries have often been introduced, mischievously conflicting with the old, and thereby affecting the areas of tracts which the United States had previously sold and otherise disposed of."

If in fact one finds an original corner in addition to a resurveyed corner we must first consider when the land in question left US hands. If all tracts predate the resurvey then it is neccessary to hold the original corner since it is those private rights we are surveying. One must however show and properly reference the government pincushion.

If all tracts were separated after the resurvey then the resurvey corner holds, and one should reference it to the original.

If there are pre and post resurvey parcels it does indeed get complicated. Let me throw out an example: the NW, SW and SE 1/4s predate the resurvey of a center of section. The resurvey places the center North and West of the orginal. The NE 1/4 is then sold. The NE 1/4 owner has no claim to the overlap with the NW 1/4, since you cannot sell what you do not own applies equally to the US. The NE 1/4 owner instead has a claim against the US, not a chance.

As to the gore, reason would say the intent is that the NE 1/4 lies along the SE 1/4 line. The US does not admit to mistakes and will claim that it was their intent all along not to sell the gore and then posthumously give it a Lot number.

Even more complicated is the NW and SE 1/4 per the old and the NE and SW per the new in my above example and the newer being the first to be intently fenced and occupied.

Paul in PA

My understanding was the independent resurvey is not a retracement. It might be used where it is known the original was flawed in some way and nothing has been done that relied on the original, so they create a new original line. Like if I do a subdivision and the lots are never sold, then resubdivide it 20 years later into a new configuration intended for a different market.

A dependent resurvey that proportions is evidence of the lack of evidence at the time. There would be a couple problems with subsequent discovery of "original" evidence. First, it may have been tampered with. Maybe someone removed a monument and then put it in a different location. Second, the retracement has to hold after a reasonable time for the same reason the original has to hold. If a retracement will never have the same dignity as the original, then there is hardly any reason to perform one. We would have to perform a new original or independent resurvey every time one wanted to know the line.

Dave,
The problem can be quite simple and complex. I have found just what you are talking about a few times.

If only federal lands are involved with both surface and mineral estate, depending on the length of time, the federal government can and does at times issue a "corrective dependent resurvey".

Same scenario and after an extensive (50 years +) the BLM said NO. After a certain period of time and patents and the mineral estate leases were issued based upon the Dependent Resurvey, the Resurvey and those monuments will remain in effect.

Remember, the Resurvey only affects those lands involved in the federal estate.

Getting into private lands v federal lands or private lands patented after the
"Dependent Resurvey" your mileage will vary.

Pablo B-)

> Remember, the Resurvey only affects those lands involved in the federal estate.

Wish it was that simple. We've got hundreds of townships in Oklahoma that have superseding "dependent" resurveys, some even called "retracement" surveys that occurred in the 1898 to 1900 time frame. The majority of the land had already been patented.

To compound this gnat-fark, it was the USGS that performed these surveys, approved by the GLO...

Some of the notes even plainly state, "Destroyed all evidence of previous survey."
Trouble is, they didn't. Two or three times a year we find original corners from the 1873 GLO, some BTs intact...with no trace of the 1899 "Dependent Resurvey".

The distances between the 1873 and 1898 corners can vary from a few feet to hundreds of feet.

My solution is usually to investigate the long term occupation and chain of title, honoring the bona-fide rights of the entryman. Some lands are clearly fixed to the original (1873) survey. Some fit better with the resurvey (1898)...and of course some are a bastardized mix of both. The only federal presence in these areas are usually old surplus allotments that have been held in trust.

We do a fair amount of work for the Citizen Potawatomi Nation. Richard Widmar of the BLM seems to agree (or least fails to disagree) with our findings.

Here's an example of an 1898 plat:

:good: :good: :good:

Paden,
Some people have all the fun! 🙂 The (dependent resurvey? 1898) plat essentially looks like a independent resurvey. Bogusness of a truly dependent resurvey steps in when the plat indicates no differences in measurements to the 1/4 corners of the previous original survey. From the 1898 plat it appears a "dependent resurvey" was not performed but just a resurvey. What type of evidence you find has to be fun in your situation. Is that why you get the big bucks?

Pablo

> A dependent resurvey that proportions is evidence of the lack of evidence at the time. There would be a couple problems with subsequent discovery of "original" evidence. First, it may have been tampered with. Maybe someone removed a monument and then put it in a different location. Second, the retracement has to hold after a reasonable time for the same reason the original has to hold. If a retracement will never have the same dignity as the original, then there is hardly any reason to perform one. We would have to perform a new original or independent resurvey every time one wanted to know the line.

I don't disagree. However, that sounds like every retracement survey that the private surveyor has to do all the time. Granted, to argue with a federal government "Dependent Resurvey" is much more troublesome than discussing another surveyor's "retracement survey", still, it sure sounds like the same thing to me. Also, if all four quadrants to a new monument is owned by the same agency, that makes it much less complicated. Still, however, it seems like the "dependent resurvey" is an attempt to reset the missing corners in their original relationship ot the found original adjacent corners.

As to knowing whether an "original" monument has been tampered with, don't I have the same issue with knowing whether a 'dependent resurvey' monument has been tampered with?

Pablo

It's interesting...usually not fun. Well, sometimes, maybe..;-)

The screwiest one lately that we found is an existing center of section. Set in 1873. It's still there. Three pull posts for the fences create a 'triangle pigpen' around the stone. The fences and fence lines have been there forever.

USGS came through in 1899 with one of their infamous "resurveys" and remonumented the exterior of the sections only. A bearing-bearing intersect from opposing 1/4 corners places the center of section almost 25' from the stone. Sure enough...there's an iron pin there.

When I called the surveyor (from a State agency that will remain unnamed) that set the pin; his reasoning was that since there had been a resurvey all bets were off on anything that predated said resurvey. Bona fide rights be damned.

Some people are really over impressed with their ability to perform rudimentary geometry with a six buck Wal-mart calculator.....

Pablo

I agree, the calculator and missing the three words in the manual "unless previously marked"B-)

Pablo

I would suggest that you take a close look at the Longview Fibre Co. 135 IBLA 170 case.

This case seems to encompass not only your question, but an answer, and an explanation.

Like so many questions posed and encountered on a daily basis, the answer is:

"It depends."

Geezer

Thanks for the responses!

As I suspected, there is no easy answer.

You know, the more I hear about the PLSS, the more I'm happy that I work in a Colonial Metes and Bounds state!

Metes and Bounds forever!

HEY David

That's Rude!

(OK OK, I am just acting hurt, because I am right now dealing with some of the complexity you are talking about, and I'm just a little sensitive!)

Seriously, it is no different than changing a motor mount on a 1953 Apache truck, vs changing one on a Chevrolet S-10 pickup, with a V-6 The S-10 is infinitely more work!

But, the results are the same.

N