I'm involved with a survey of the E/2 of the NW/4 of a std. section. The section (34) was originally a standard section with nothing really remarkable about the original survey.
Nowadays the W/4 Cor., SW Cor. & S/4 Corner are not accessible as they fall in a manmade (1940) lake. Corner Records for these locations, filed by the Highway Department, merely state that the locations are calculated with SPC given. There is a monumented E/4 corner in place.
The E-W 1/4 line is fenced through the section up to the lake boundary on the west. The fence is a well established wooden post & woven field fence with a couple of strands of barb running along the top. It is awfully straight. A 1955 aerial showed no fence.
If I calculate the south line of the NW/4 using the coords from the filed corners the line falls over 30' south of this fence. I'm pretty much of the opinion that the filed "locations" of the corners that fall in the water are BS (meaning they do not reflect any actual monument). I'm trying to "hang my hat" on the location of the fence for the south line of the NW/4.
Does anybody remember, or have any reference material of any case law with similar criteria?
There is no doubt in my mind that the Highway Dept. protracted locations may be closer than the fence to where the line was before the lake was built. The rest of the section fits very well with the GLO's original returns.
How well does the hwy dpt dimensions fit the original dimensions?
That is, is there a shortage, or overage, of the amount in discussion?
Thanks!
Nate
Is there a Center of Section where you could extend the line from the E 1/4 Corner west through the Center?
I have similar situations here with large manmade lakes, but I usually have recorded distances and scratch my head over a foot or two, but nothing in the order of 30'.
You may have to go to the west line of Section 27 and see how proportioning would work to reset a computed W 1/4 corner of Section 34.
If the coordinates have metadata you may be able to generate relationships with other corners and test them. In most States code is clear that coordinates are 'supplementary'.
Before imposing a new breakdown I would investigate the origin of the fence. It would also help to knock on doors and memorialize the comments of owners.
I've never adopted or rejected a substantial fence without other evidence. Good luck..
holding the fence
I guess my "pickle" is I know the fence isn't on THE quarter line. THE quarter line, in my mind, doesn't exist. The entire W/2 of the Section was owned by the municipality (purchased in the 30's) that operates the lake until the late '60s. At that time, what portion of the "NW/4" that wasn't in the lake was sold to a private party. No one can tell me for sure, but I'm guessing that's when the fence was built.
Restoration of the quarter line, as near as may be determined from the Original Survey wouldn't be a problem; I know what the Manual tells us. There are those that will argue with me, but the Manual tends to assume that the end user is dealing with Public Lands. Restoration of corners and lines is far more complex when you throw in a chain of title and occupation of private parties.
The "survey" (construction) of the original (first) fence occurred in the '60s, after the lake inundated the west line of the section. My opinion is that the best available and existing evidence of the quarter line IS the fence, although it doesn't fit well with a pencil whipped boundary. Like I said, the REAL 1/4 corner probably was somewhere close to where the Highway Dept. calculated, but that is merely a calculation.
I'm just trying to come up with some sort of precedence where an occupational line was held BECAUSE it was all that was physically available due to conditions.
Maybe I'm just feeling guilty for charging my client so much money for telling him, "By golly that fence is RIGHT on the line..." :pinch:
> If the coordinates have metadata....
Nice thought. But not likely. This is Oklahoma.
In the late 60's and early 70's the DOT undertook to set brass disks at a great many section corners, mostly in urban areas. They included NAD27 geographic and state plane coordinates on the data sheets, but no metadata regarding how they were placed. This work was done before OKs Corner Recording law was enacted but were recorded when it was. They are always the oldest CCRs available, and when you find one of these brass caps you do the happy dance and accept them without question. Where I have compared the NAD27 values vs. NAD83 ties I have found them to be remarkably good, but those were all in populated areas. In a more rural area, who knows?
There are some highway plans older than that which reference section corners but the quality of the ties, and the annotation of them, is spotty. Then there are old plats in urban areas but they rarely show any corner ties. Other than that there is little other than GLO, if anything, to be had from prior to the 1970's available.
Fences in OK are usually more for convenience and only very generally follow the boundary. Not always, but it's hard to really hang your solutions on fences without something more.
I'd be proportioning the corners in the lake, showing the fences on the CCR sketch, and sleeping well.
> Corner Records for these locations, filed by the Highway Department, merely state that the locations are calculated with SPC given. There is a monumented E/4 corner in place.
Whats the date on those Corner Records?
> Whats the date on those Corner Records?
They are less than ten years old. Prior to our 1978 Corner Perpetuation Act the Highway fellas had an "SD-11" corner record form they kept internally.
Sadly, these 'newer' corner records appear to be merely updated from the older SD-11s.
So neither the DOT coordinates nor the fence can be proven as the absolute, indisputable evidence of the quarter line. I'm thinking I'd go with the fence. If the situation went to court, I would have to believe the judge or jury would go with the fence over a math solution. Just my opinion of course... and I'm assuming there is nothing in Section 33 such as supporting occupation that would help with YOUR decision. 🙂
I should have asked if the old forms are available in order to find a date on them. If the older form pre-dates the fence, that would change my mind on using the fence.
Will the owners agree to resolve the ambiguity?