Right on Dan
Great post.
Keith
Steve
The C 1/4 sec. cor. is for control of all the subdivisons within the section.
Obviously, that is the concept, but local control trumps math too.
Keith
butch
Do you also use chains in all your survey work as the law says to?
That is what the Manual says.
Keith
Keith
There is only one!
Thanks Evelyn for the cite
If you google this...IBLA decision "Rudy Hillstrom" you will get the decision.
Keith
Mighty Moe
You have posted a real life situation and is off the concept of this thread. However, you have brought to this board a concept that has not been discussed.
I thank you for that.
It should have some explanations to what the survey plat shows and I am not the one to explain it.
This is a new concept and should/could be discussed.
BLMers.............?
Keith
Keith
So you would say that if I was granted the NW1/4 of the NW1/4 50 years ago, somebody stubs in a monument for a C 1/4 that gets accepted by some owners of property in other parts of the section 25 years ago, I am bound by it even though it doesn't touch my property, I didn't even know it was there, and it wasn't set by proper procedures? How can my property be affected so drastically by actions of parties that I have nothing to do with or knowledge of?
Keith
Some questions you would have to answer: What were the boundaries when you bought it? What did the person you bought it from own? What did the neighbors own, and how were their boundaries determined when they acquired their property?
butch
Read 43 USC 752(2). Find out where the language in 3-87 originated. Read section 1-18, pg 6, first column, last paragraph 1973 Manual). "And the boundaries which have not been actually run and marked shall be ascertained by running straight lines ...."
One has to remember that Chapter 3 is for original surveys. Once lines have been run, marked and accepted, they stand. Any resurvey is only to find their original position. Chapter 3 also says that the quarter corners (regular sections) shall be at mid-point and on line between the section corners. Does that mean you move an original 1/4 corner to mid-point when you find it not in the legal position? Obviously not.
Brian and Steve
If in fact there were monuments and or established boundaries for the NW1/4NW1/4 and you can verify that, it is entirely possible that you would not need to go any further to locate the boundaries of your clients land.
Similar to the fact that you would not have to go to the section corners on all sides of your clients land to verify the boundaries.
Keith
Brian
There are many such directions in Chapter 3 that pertain to the survey of the Public Land and the example of using a chain is one.
There has to be very few surveys for the first time now for the subdivision of sections and obviously, the efforts now are retracing and resurveying. Those guidelines are not in Chapter 3, but can be found in other chapters specifically dealing with retracements and resurveys.
Except some who get hung up on one word in the guidelines for surveying the Public Land.
Keith
Keith
That's why I made it part of the premise of my question that the lines of the NW1/4 of the the NW1/4 had never been marked or fenced.
Question
Does it matter if public domain lands (never patented) or federal acquired lands are within the subdivided section? Indian Trust lands?
I don't think this forum is the place to get official BLM input. If an official BLM opinion is required, I suggest that you contact your local BLM office with a specific question that involves a GLO or BLM survey and not just hypothetical situations.
I would never rely on any one text book, court decision or "talking head" to develop my decision, only a combination of them all with pertinent land records.
Question
> Does it matter if public domain lands (never patented) or federal acquired lands are within the subdivided section? Indian Trust lands?
>
> I don't think this forum is the place to get official BLM input. If an official BLM opinion is required, I suggest that you contact your local BLM office with a specific question that involves a GLO or BLM survey and not just hypothetical situations.
>
> I would never rely on any one text book, court decision or "talking head" to develop my decision, only a combination of them all with pertinent land records.
I'm sorry you don't like Keith, although I had to learn to love him myself. He can be a little snippy at times, but he's ours and we value his input on matters related to the BLM.
Mighty Moe
You have posted a real life situation and is off the concept of this thread.
Maybe. But if the concept is how to "breakdown" a section per the manual rules it just might make sense to see how the agency that administrates the manual is doing it. And if the Powder River Basin resurveys are any indication then it is rare indeed that they look at interior established property lines to breakdown a section. I know that the blurb on the plat about "Federal Interest Estates only" makes some think that the private and public are somehow separated geographically; but I for one won't set a 1/16 or C1/4 based on old occupation lines that is in conflict with these new Lottings. My E&O insurance doesn't have that much coverage.
Keith, thank you for the discussion, it is an important one and it's hardly black and white.
Thanks Evelyn for the cite
I had posted the IBLA Hillstrom decision here on BL/SC right after it came out, and we had a little debate over it.
Mighty Moe
You are right that this whole discussion is not black or white.
And also, the new lotting procedure on the plat that you posted needs explanation. I am assuming that the subsurface rights do not follow the surface rights!
That being said, it is a new procedure with an entire township being relotted and apparently will give a more accurate acreage figure for leasing purposes on the sub-surface rights.
I am wondering how BLM will subdivide the surface in this township, in those instances where there is private and public land and there is evidence of established corners at a different location than the new lot boundaries would show?
Good question Mighty Moe and hopefully we can read an explanation from BLM.
Keith
Mighty Moe
That being said, it is a new procedure with an entire township being relotted and apparently will give a more accurate acreage figure for leasing purposes on the sub-surface rights.
Exactly; my understanding was that these new lotting procedures came about after conflicts arose between coal companies that balked at paying anymore for a lease than what they would pay for 40 Acres when the new plats started to be issued in the 80's. These 1980 era plats were blank as far as 1/41/4 goes. Some faction at the BLM came up with the idea of relotting each section and calculating new acreages. However, if the manual is to be followed it could be argued that all interior property/occupation lines should be considered when relotting. This was not done. Now I would say that the BLM is in a corner. You really can't separate the surface and the minerals geographically, particularly when it's strip mined coal. What do they do? Tell a company that yes they had to pay this huge fee for a lease based on the plat but they can't mine the coal because the lots weren't really that size? As an example; I just did a survey that crossed two landowners seperated by a really old straight fence line. There are about 20 acres between this two mile long fence and the new BLM lot lines. That could represent in the ten's of millions of dollars of coal but maybe $10,000 of land. So you won't see me accepting that old fence line as a 1/16 line.
Mighty Moe
I fully understand and we need an explanation!
It seems to me to be more of a legal issue; that the subsurface rights do not follow the surface rights?
Seems like I remember an IBLA case that involved accretion and for leasing purposes, the subsurface rights did not follow the surface accreted land.
Interesting to say the least!
Keith
Mighty Moe
It seems to me to be more of a legal issue; that the subsurface rights do not follow the surface rights?
Yet many of these Lots also pertain to surface Public lands.