Ok, I will post the 2009 Manual, section 8-136
Can't copy and paste yet.
Manual section 8-136:
"8-136. In the event that a dependent resurvey of intermingled ownership of river front property encounters additional accretions that have occurred to a prior approved resurvey, the waterward endpoint of the last partition line will become the starting point for the new division of accretions by a new partition line (figures 8-31 and 8-32). The prior approved resurvey MC or SMC is thus treated as the ancient bank."
This is now the policy of BLM.
Keith
Maybe I can scan the Manual page with the figures to show the concept?
Good questions!
I don't see this example as bending through a junior corner that was established on a senior line, as it really is just a junior corner that was established to extend the ownership of the accreted land. Not like my example of a senior line bending through a junior 1/16 sec. cor. that was set on the senior line (section line).
The land that accreted to lot 1 of sec. 36 would be identified as a new lot containing so many acres and would be a lot 3 of sec. 36. The accreted land is still identified as land in sec. 36 even though it may be geographically within the original area of section 31.
Keith
Ok, I will post the 2009 Manual, section 8-136
Hmmmm, not very good?
Maybe somebody can scan and post Manual page 212 better than this?
Ok, I will post the 2009 Manual, section 8-136
Thanks, Keith
This will have to wait until tomorrow as I only have one copy of the 2009 Manual (and it is at the 'office'). I will compare the 2009 Manual with Simpson's "River and Lake Boundaries" and will have more questions for you.
I am interested in POST patent movement...whether a Section 36 in one TWP can be extinguished...and after the river migrates back to near the original GLO location...whether said Section 36 're-emerges' or if the accreted land is described as part of Section 31 of the TWP to the east...
Sorry for being unprepared...but I try not to carry work home.
DDSM
DDSM
> Sorry for being unprepared...but I try not to carry work home.>
> DDSM
This isn't work, it's PDH"s;-)
Always Learnin'
Dugger
Dan
When you get out Jim Simpson's book, go to page 219 for the discussion on this concept.
I am a "Breaker", as defined by Jim.
I go with the concept that once you set a monument, the boundary is thus established and the land owner can use the land up to that monument and be satisfied that someone will not come along later and say oops, should not have set it there.
Sorta like junior corner monuments!
Keith
DDSM
LOL...
But don't ya hate it when you don't have a marker for the napkin...and all you can do is make curves with the beer mug?
DDSM
(I left my book in the truck)
Hey Dan
That re-emergence concept is more controversial and I am not real sure where I am on it?
From what I remember, the courts have went back and forth on it too. Really depends on the circumstances, the area, the river, the politics, the Judge and how smart the lawyers are.
Keith
DDSM
Talk about napkins.....I have had the experience before on going through a pad of yellow legal size paper and a jug of gin with a fellow surveyor and might last til midnight or later!!
Lines in the Sand
Or lines on the bar made with the sweat off your beer, it's all good.....;-)
> LOL...
>
> But don't ya hate it when you don't have a marker for the napkin...and all you can do is make curves with the beer mug?
>
> DDSM
> (I left my book in the truck)
Over come, adapt, improvise. LOL
😀 :beer:
Cheers,
Radar
Hey Dan
You can always appeal.