Picture this:
1867, GLO does original survey of range line.
1940, GLO performs dependant resurvey of range line. Recovers township corners on north and south ends of range line. Finds no evidence of any corners on range line itself. Distance and bearing between township corners is really good, amazingly good really. N0-09-30W, 480.7 chs.
1940 GLO then proportions in the "lost" range line. However, they only monument the northern most 2 miles, as the focus of their work is to survey some federal interests in the lands in the northern sections.
Fast forward to 1965. Private surveyor surveys the southernmost sections abutting the range line (section 36). Accepts a fence corner in a mound of rocks as being the corner common to sections 30,31,25 & 36. Private surveyor makes no mention of the 1940 GLO proportioned (but unmonumented) position for the same point. Fence corner is ~4 chains northerly (and somewhat east) of the 1940. GLO proportioned point.
Multiple subsequent surveys use the fence corner for surveys done in Sections 30 & 36 in the bottom tiers of sections. No other surveys performed along the range line of record.
Fast forward to today. Private owner wants to know where the 1/4 corner common to sections 13 and 18 is. Remember, the 1940 GLO only monumented the corners of the northern 2 miles.
Using this information and assuming that no evidence is found of the 1967 GLO range line.
Would you:
1. Set the 1/4 corner S 13 & 18 at the proportioned position based on the 1940 GLO retracement and ignore the fence corner as having weight in the proportioning.
2. Set the 1/4 corner at the proportioned position based on the 1940 GLO work to the north and the "fence corner" to the south.
3. Something else.
For the sake of brevity in discussion, please consider that there is no evidence discovered other than the facts given.
thanks,
Bearing in mind I have little experience in this, I would go with number 2, mainly because multiple surveys have relied upon that location as being the true corner and to change it would create more problems. I am interested to see what more learned folks have to say though!
If I understand the facts you have presented correctly I would pick #1.
Option 1.
Two wrongs will not make a mess right, but only worse. The GLO essentially established the other corner locations in 1940 with the retracement by proportioning between the township corners even though monuments were not set at all of the locations. A fence post found in a pile of rocks seems to just be a post in a pile of rocks since the GLO resurvey measurement between the township corners was in agreement with the original GLO notes.
Agree with Jerry, option 1. We Nebraska boys have to stick together. How 'bout it Dugger?
I agree with Jerry, I would also look for the orginal controlling corners too, just because the 1940 GLO survey did not find them, doesn't mean they aren't there, I have followed at least one BLM survey where we recovered an orginal set stone within 100 feet of the BLM brass cap, the GLO sometimes wasn't perfect on retracements, just like the rest of us.
SHG
> I agree with Jerry, I would also look for the orginal controlling corners too, just because the 1940 GLO survey did not find them, doesn't mean they aren't there, I have followed at least one BLM survey where we recovered an orginal set stone within 100 feet of the BLM brass cap, the GLO sometimes wasn't perfect on retracements, just like the rest of us.
>
> SHG
Very much agree. The 1940's era GLO generally did great work. They were surveying the lands surrounding the proposed Lake Shasta. As a youngster I spent many years surveying for BLM in this area and we generally were in awe of the work of the 1930-40's GLO.
Can't say the same for the 1860-80's GLO in this area. Tough bunch surveying tough ground. But a lying cheating bunch to be sure.
Anyways, haven't hit the ground on this one yet. Just spent last night pouring over the field notes, plats and private surveys and saw the record posed the situation I presented. Should I be unsuccessful in any further monument recovery, this may well be the question I have to answer.
thanks to all.
If in the end, Option 1 presents itself as the best solution, I will be sure to show the unaccepted fence corner's relationship to the "correct" position as per the 1940's proportioning.
Just to clear up any confusion and all you know. 😉
Today with GPS I would be looking at some E-W lines closing on that range line and the record of those lines, might provide the guidance you need to make a defensible decision.
jud
Range lines will typically be better surveyed than interior lines because someone was going to need the monuments when doing subdivision work on both sides of the range line. Check to see if different original GLO surveyors did the original exterior and interior work.
Also remember that range lines were run in a straight line (for the most part) without having to worry about other corners until reaching the standard parallel. I cringe when there is today a big deflection between the township corners if there were no obstacles in the way.
It wasn't until the 1880's that the rule was changed so that the same deputy surveyor could not do both exterior and interior lines.
:good: :good:
JBS
Number 2. Unless you can prove that the fence corner is not a perpetuation of the original. Notice I didn't say your opinion, I said prove. The fence corner has been used too long to be rejected without some strong evidence. So, if you can't prove it's not the corner, use it in the proportioning.
Option No. 1
Pablo
Agree.
Maybe 1940 GLO didn't find it because they were looking in the wrong place.
Don
I agree with Shelby H, above.
However, I have a comment for ALL the solutions above. WHATEVER you do, DOCUMENT IT, and show RELATIONSHIP to opposing solution, so that the next person following you can see that YOU actually checked and KNOW what you are doing. AND why you did it.
I am quite prone to yield to somebody that DOES their job right, than a slacker that jumps on the 1st solution that presents it's self!
N
> Number 2. Unless you can prove that the fence corner is not a perpetuation of the original. Notice I didn't say your opinion, I said prove. The fence corner has been used too long to be rejected without some strong evidence. So, if you can't prove it's not the corner, use it in the proportioning.
Thanks Evelyn, good point for sure.
This one is turning out to be as messed up as a soup sandwich.
Guess if it was easy, everyone would be doing it.
WWRD
"What Would Richard Do?"
WWKMD (What Would Kent McMillan Do)
I guess that would be Richard Schaut?
I actually called Richard, and talked with him, about his philosophy.
Nate
> Number 2. Unless you can prove that the fence corner is not a perpetuation of the original. Notice I didn't say your opinion, I said prove. The fence corner has been used too long to be rejected without some strong evidence. So, if you can't prove it's not the corner, use it in the proportioning.
Be careful there. Reliance would definitely have to be considered if surveying an aliquot part of a section marked by the post, but a different standard needs to be applied for other sections bordering the range line. You need to come to your own conclusion as to whether the post is evidence of the original corner. The fact the BLM found nothing in the 40's may be a strike against that conclusion. If you decide that that the post was erroneously accepted as the corner you can safely ignore it. Reliance on the post can move the property lines of those parcels that relied on it, but will have no effect on property owners not a party to the reliance. The range line will not be bent by the actions of a few land owners adjacent to it.
For those who chose Option 2, how do you conclude that one corner (fence post in rocks) if off by 4 chains in the first mile on the range line, when the overall distance in six miles is only 0.7 chain long? The original surveyor running the range line must have then made another 4 chain error in the opposite direction in the next five miles?
The NE Corner and N 1/4 corner of Section 36 and the NW Corner and N 1/4 Corner of Section 31 need to be found. If lines run through these sets of corners (if original monuments) do not arrive at the fence post in the rocks, there is a problem.
I still maintain that it is rare to have this type of error on a range line. I would not want to defend the fence post in rocks regardless of who has used it without coming in from the east and west from original corners in adjacent townships.
