Here in Oklahoma, as well other States, we are required to file a "Certified Corner Record" for any PLSS corner (that was set in the original survey) used in the course of a survey that is found, established, restored or re-established.
It is not uncommon nowadays to find multiple monuments filed (for the same corner) that are at different locations; usually a few feet apart. Sometimes they can be a few tenths difference, sometimes dozens of feet.
As you would imagine it can become confusing. Although there is verbage on the standard form as to the "Method used to set" a corner; most surveyors just slap a few ambiguous words down like "single-proportioned", etc. without addressing what it was about the existing corner monument that made it necessary to "reset" a corner in a different location.
I'm looking for a question or a statement that could be included on the form that would give the following surveyor insight on "why" it was necessary to establish a monument in a different location.
Any suggestions?
> Here in Oklahoma, as well other States, we are required to file a "Certified Corner Record" for any PLSS corner (that was set in the original survey) used in the course of a survey that is found, established, restored or re-established.
Just out of curiosity, why isn't the focus on filing corner records that perpetuate the positions of corners originally monumented by the government surveys? Those are, one in Texas would think, the critical element of the PLSS, all of the subdivision corners subsequently placed not being properly part of the government survey to which the conveyances out of the United States refer.
It would strike me that more effort spent on documenting the recovery and perpetuation or re-establishment of those fundamental corners would be better than the proliferation of uninformative second-rate efforts for a whole bunch of corners there were merely protracted on the plats of the original surveys, anyway.
Roads. Quite simply. A stake in a raised mound with pits is pretty hard to come by in 2013 when most of those original monuments were either remonumented in some form or completely obliterated by road construction starting about 1868 in my case. In some cases, the stones were lowered prior to road construction. Later, a significant fraction of those were paved over. In the primary area of my practice probably 85 percent of the original monuments were a stake and pits with the other 15 percent being stones. There are a few rare cases of a rock outcropping being marked in some fashion.
The vast majority of monuments we are searching for were set by surveyors years after the GLO work. Normally their work involved only one section. Therefore, most of the quarter corners were established at different times for different reasons. Many years later when we find them and attempt to locate the center of a specific section by "THE BIBLE" method we normally arrive at a location that does not coincide with evidence of possession for the past 150 years.
"If the Position/corner this CCR is purporting to document is in conflict with a position/monument existent or of record, detail the conflict and the basis upon which you are monumenting the location, in the space provided.________________" .
ok. the little short line was Tongue-in-cheek.
Around here- the record is very seldom listed in it's entirety, if at all.
Very good Mr. Cow.
> Roads. Quite simply. A stake in a raised mound with pits is pretty hard to come by in 2013 when most of those original monuments were either remonumented in some form or completely obliterated by road construction starting about 1868 in my case. In some cases, the stones were lowered prior to road construction. Later, a significant fraction of those were paved over. In the primary area of my practice probably 85 percent of the original monuments were a stake and pits with the other 15 percent being stones. There are a few rare cases of a rock outcropping being marked in some fashion.
Yes, but how does that make the perpetuation of the original government survey not the legitimate focus of the work since that is what the patents from the United States were made in reference to? Just because a road exists doesn't mean that the corner doesn't and the fact that some of the original monuments may be difficult to find evidence of would only seem to emphasize the importance of focusing on perpetuating them.
Kent
> > Here in Oklahoma, as well other States, we are required to file a "Certified Corner Record" for any PLSS corner (that was set in the original survey) used in the course of a survey that is found, established, restored or re-established.
>
> Just out of curiosity, why isn't the focus on filing corner records that perpetuate the positions of corners originally monumented by the government surveys? Those are, one in Texas would think, the critical element of the PLSS, all of the subdivision corners subsequently placed not being properly part of the government survey to which the conveyances out of the United States refer.
>
> It would strike me that more effort spent on documenting the recovery and perpetuation or re-establishment of those fundamental corners would be better than the proliferation of uninformative second-rate efforts for a whole bunch of corners there were merely protracted on the plats of the original surveys, anyway.
That's exactly the focus. Since the Corner Perpetuation Act of 1978 most surveyors have been ardently been locating and perpetuating the original corners. And there are plenty of them out there. The trouble with the system, it seems, that the regs are written so loosely, particularly with lost or obliterated corners.
I can spend three weeks locating everything (monuments and evidence) in a township and determine where I believe a lost corner to located. Joe Compass can come out there, split the fences and drive a pin and file it as a corner, 10' from mine, with little or no explanation. Sadly there is recompence when we don't file a corner, but none when we do it irresponsibly.
Kent
> I can spend three weeks locating everything (monuments and evidence) in a township and determine where I believe a lost corner to located. Joe Compass can come out there, split the fences and drive a pin and file it as a corner, 10' from mine, with little or no explanation. Sadly there is recompence when we don't file a corner, but none when we do it irresponsibly.
Isn't that partly the result of corner records being filed on later subdivision corners? I mean, Joe Compass was out marking originally protracted 1/16 corners the day before and today he's filling out the exact same corner record form for a section corner (I assume).
From Texas, I'd think that the corner records are so important that there should be a handbook, of course a suitable form, and even a grading system to identify substandard submissions immediately.
Kent
Same problem about everywhere. Little cost to pass a law or write regulations, no money to enforce or require compliance.
Its been a long time coming but in Utah we now have this:
But even it is only a guide. The state can pull your license for not filing a record but there's not much they will do about what's in it. At least there is a standard in place to measure against from here on out. I'd think just seeing what you are expected to do from what you have considered "normal" will make a difference. How do you say it's substandard with no standards in place?
We needed this 100 years ago before all the obliteration.
Just out of curiosity. Does Texas have some sort of corner perpetuation/filing/recording requirement? Are there any problems in Texas similar to the PLSS states on perpetuation of corners. Seems to me the same issues would exist just about everywhere concerning boundary upkeep.
Kent
> Just out of curiosity. Does Texas have some sort of corner perpetuation/filing/recording requirement?
This is typically done when land transactions occur since new metes and bounds descriptions from a resurvey are commonly made a part of the conveyance. Under Texas standards of practice, a description of the boundaries of a tract "shall provide a definite and unambiguous identification of the location of such boundaries and shall describe all pertinent monuments found or placed." In the context of the rule, "pertinent monuments" would include the controlling monuments from which the boundary of the tract described was determined.
I'm not going to claim that this always happens, but it is supposed to, and I certainly include all that information in the metes and bounds descriptions I write. In some cases, particularly in West Texas, the controlling monuments may be more than ten miles away from the nearest point on the tract boundary.
Kent
There are certainly different ways to skin a cat. I'm sure it must work in Texas.
As sort of an offshoot. Our corner record system in Utah is starting to feed geographic coordinates directly into the state AGRC (state GIS). There has been grant money to do corner records if the corner records provide solid coordinates. I think the goal is to get the PLSS framework all in the GIS from solid data (might take some time but it will happen). Also, I think there is a push to get all surveys in Utah tied to at least two points with filed geographic corner records (a way to be able to insert a survey into the GIS framework). A great perpetuation of boundary location (if done correctly of course).
Is this happening in Texas and other non PLSS systems. I'm sure the money from the feds must get spread around and the other states get there share. So is there a way that the data in your modern descriptions flows to the GIS. It would seem to me that a lot of very valuable data would be wasted without some way for this to happen. How is the Texas (and other non-PLSS areas) GIS (I'm assuming you have one) populating the GIS with hard geographic corner data?
Kent
> Is this happening in Texas and other non PLSS systems.
State plane coordinates have been used for quite a long time in Texas. Many jurisdictions require SPCS values on new subdivisions. All surveys that are to be filed at the GLO are tied to the Texas Coordinate System. Many private surveyors routinely give the SPCS values of corners found and set in the course of an survey and those appear in the public record.
The SPCS is so useful that no extra money really needs to be pumped in for a surveyor to want to use it.
The whole business of separate corner records is needed in the regressive systems that doesn't ever modify the descriptions by which land is conveyed. Corner records provide a way of backing into that by modernizing the descriptions of the controlling corners themselves in the expectation that someone will figure out how to interpret the descriptions properly.
Kent
So is there a public GIS where I can go and see some boundary data from SPC's taken from the land records. Is that how it's being done? What do the tax assessors use?
Seems as we have a push to get the GIS going for the public. I'd think that is going on everywhere. Google Earth is going to have all parcel data before to long (might be awhile before is clean and accurate but its coming).
I don't care for SPC's my self but they are just fine, a derivative of geographic coordinates, same as UTM's and a thousand others. One drawback is that they are really only 2D. You can get the 2D from the full 3D geographic but not the other way around.
Some Utah counties are also requiring coordinates on sub plats and such. Usually an SPC.
Maybe the PLSS is a poor system compared to yours. I don't know its what I have to work in. There is a lot more that just the land boundaries tied in. Water rights like points of diversion are tied to the corners. All corridors like road, railroad, electric, gas and such are tied to the corners. To a certain respect you can figure out where something is from the township, range and section.
The corner records are being tied in with the GCDB (a BLM database with a least squares behind it). As more and more accurate data is entered it's able to update the predicted location of non found corners from the record data. This will really help in the restoration (hunt) of the obliterated corners and in the end show where the lost corners should be replaced (or technically should have been).
In the end the corner records with be a fairly dense network of ground control points. I would think that would be valuable in any cadastre regardless of the origin of the current title.
Kent
> So is there a public GIS where I can go and see some boundary data from SPC's taken from the land records.
No, you get the coordinate data when you research the chains of title to the tract you're surveying and those adjoining it. Over time, as more surveyors get accustomed to working with the Texas Coordinate System, the public records should fill up with coordinate data. I know I'm doing my part.
If you're dealing with original land grants, you examine the (Texas) GLO files for the land grants involved to see whether corrected field notes have been filed with ties to the Texas Coordinate System and you check the GLO map files.
Kent
You are doing your part and very well. If I was a GIS guy in Texas I'd be all over it. Pop the coordinates into a shapefile and link in a digital copy of the deed. You guys might be on to something.
So who does the work of correcting the field notes and files them? Sounds as if there is a system of public filed survey (current) data in Texas after all. Are the (Texas) GLO map files being entered into a GIS? Sounds like a prefect opportunity to me.
Kent
> So who does the work of correcting the field notes and files them? Sounds as if there is a system of public filed survey (current) data in Texas after all. Are the (Texas) GLO map files being entered into a GIS? Sounds like a prefect opportunity to me.
No, any solution that depends upon a GIS to transfer survey data is at best a kluge since you're at the mercy of whomever is running the GIS. What you want is to keep the data under the control of actual surveyors, not GIS managers or engineers.
In the case of the PLSS states, what probably is needed is a category of surveyor of the Jerry Penry class who are able to actually find and perpetuate the evidence of the original government surveys and leave a record of their work that the surveyors of lesser diligence may use. Shovels are not for everyone, it would appear.
Kent - Texas GLO in Austin
Looks like to me the Texas GLO has a GIS department.
Do you do surveys that are filed with this form:
Seems the Texas GLO has a survey department to survey the gaps and excesses:
I'm curious about the Vacancies and Excesses. If the original grant was for a thousand acres and a modern survey says there is say 1050 do you have to give the 50 back to Texas? Is that what that is all about? Seems like Texas jumped all over surveying errors. Sheds new light for me on how things work in Texas.
Instructions on how to purchase excess land due to surveying error
Form to purchase excess land due to surveying error
Look like the Texas GLO office is right there in Austin.
Kent - Texas GLO in Austin
> Looks like to me the Texas GLO has a GIS department.
Yes, that GIS is not particularly accurate. Its purpose is merely to show in a general way where land grants are located. In PLSSia, of course, the lines of the government subdivision are probably plotted on USGS quads, so you wouldn't need a GIS to see generally where some section within a township was situated. The State of Texas still has an interest, if only a mineral estate, in a considerable number of tracts across the patchwork of metes and bounds land grants and this is the main purpose of the GIS, to show where approximately those tracts are.
> Do you do surveys that are filed with this form:
No, that's for surveys of lands in which the Permanent School Fund has an interest that are to be filed at the GLO, not for the surveys of private lands which comprise almost all of the surveying work in Texas.
> Seems the Texas GLO has a survey department to survey the gaps and excesses:
It may seem that way, but it doesn't work that way to any significant extent for various reasons, not the least of which is the economics of such an effort and the politics of the Commissioner of the GLO, an elected official, sending his staff out to "find" problems that landowners are unaware of. Typically, when an unsurveyed scrap (it usually is a scrap) of State land is found, the procedure is that the applicant to purchase the scrap pays a licensee known as a "Licensed State Land Surveyor" to make a survey to (a) demonstrate to the satisfaction of GLO staff that the unsurveyed scrap or "vacancy" exists, (b) follow the instructions of the GLO staff in various surveying decisions that need to be made, and (c) prepare a map and field notes describing the scrap. It usually costs as much or more to make the survey as the land is actually worth and the whole process from application to purchase to patent is years.
> I'm curious about the Vacancies and Excesses. If the original grant was for a thousand acres and a modern survey says there is say 1050 do you have to give the 50 back to Texas?
It depends upon the laws under which the grant was made and under which sovereign it was. Most of the land grants made by the Republic and State of Texas were to lands surveyed by virtue of a land certificate of some sort that entitled the grantee to a specific quantity of land. The quantity was provided by statute with no provision for the grant to exceed the quantity authorized.
The acreage above the quantity described in a patent to which the original grantee was legally entitled is known as "unpatented excess acreage" and represents an undivided interest in the tract that the State still owns. This is typically a matter of interest mainly when oil and gas is being produced in paying quantities or when the ownership of the bed of a navigable stream crossing a land grant is at issue. There are procedures by which a landowner may purchase the unpatented excess acreage from the State. Those require a survey and are not quite as carefully scrutinized or as slow to process.
> Look like the Texas GLO office is right there in Austin.
Yes, I'm there quite frequently. Many of the important files are being scanned and are available on line to surveyors who aren't ten minutes away from Archives and Records where the originals are kept.
Kent - Texas GLO in Austin
Thanks for the info. It really shows some of the differences in the Texas and PLSS survey systems.
Yeah, this online availability of survey records is amazing. In Utah all of the GLO plats are available and most of the notes (volumes 200 to 1000 and above). They started with the most recent and are working backwards towards the beginning. I'm still in need of much of the early stuff so it still requires a trip to the offices to get them. Some of the counties do have the survey plats available online also. Its a great resource and hopefully the poor counties will go online some day also. All the corner records are being sent to the state GIS (AGRC) and available online also. We just need to get records done on a lot of corners. The urban areas a pretty good and the rural areas are pretty thin.
Do you have both kinds of licenses in Texas?
Kent
I think the goal is to get the PLSS framework all in the GIS from solid data (might take some time but it will happen).
That's what I was looking for back in the 80's. Fed defines datum for the nation, states fill it in as needed. Instead of a coordinated foundation, we go every planning dept and assessor wanting there own proprietory computer maps based upon the same no real data maps drawn for years by hand.
Took 3 decades so far to get back to the idea of a foundation of real world confirmations of facts which now has to be merged with the variances of handheld GPS in everyones hands working it's way into titles.