I spent most of the day researching at the recorders office. Started with the GLO patent and worked down through the paper abstracts until 1993 when it went on the computer.
Interesting thing and the reason for the project. Everything about normal until about 1980, descriptions stable. That's when the surveyors showed up. A real mess, multiple section corners set by pro ration and other ingenious means. Stakeout of the record from there. Chains convert in descriptions to feet and hundredths. Bearings to the nearest degree or 30 minutes go to minutes. Boundary lawsuits get going. I even found three boundary line agreements with specific language to keep the boundary along the boundary fence that has always been the boundary since day one. It actually says something to that effect in the agreements. This is one of the ugliest places in the county. When I pulled the book, the recorder saw where I was and said, you don't want to go down there. I'm just getting paid to do the research, I already new from past experience what mess this is.
So why is this?
> When I pulled the book, the recorder saw where I was and said, you don't want to go down there. I'm just getting paid to do the research, I already new from past experience what mess this is.
>
> So why is this?
Could it be that you learned from experience? I can't think of any plausible alternate explanation.
On the other hand, if you're wondering why various surveyors after 1993 declined to do enough research and just viewed their job as marking out the limits of some tract with only one deed in hand, why would that not be a train wreck? Probably the better question is what the underlying irregularities in the original surveys were that the surveyors who didn't do much research failed to deal with.
I have heard that thorough research costs too much; so possibly they felt that it would not be feasible for the project and Utah doesn't have any Minimum Technical Standards that would have required it.
The previous experience was doing the research for the project I did. I found several conflicting dependent resurveys and multiple section corners (three at one of the corners I tied to).
If there was a lack of research by surveyors in this area is was not using the deed records to match the long held boundaries revealed on the ground. Doing that the missing corners (original stones) would have been considered obliterated and replaced from the evidence on the ground and not prorated from the evidence in the record only. Then the re established corners would have been near where the evidence (not the record evidence so much) but the real evidence would have lead. Instead you have every title boundary disturbed in a vast area (a real mess).
Utah doesn't have an MTS (sounds like specifications to overhaul an engine or something all technical)
The Utah Council of Land Surveyors has:
I'm going to guess that the 1980's era corners set by proration were set under the guise of some ill-considered state law making the latest "Manual" from the GLO the state law for resetting corners, particularly those which cannot be found within five minutes of getting out of the truck. Might that be the case? Just a guess.
I am hoping that this tract is not butting up against some never patented federally owned land.:-P
>
> So why is this?
"JBS was still in MT" FTW! 😛
LRDay..
I feel your pain. Working on federal lands in Utah, I would come up against private surveys and lands adjacent to the federal estate. In some instances I was asked to survey private lands due to the landowners frustration on local surveys. Upon a simple review of records it inevitably turned out the landowners didn't have the money to do a proper survey or the cost of the survey was more than the worth of the land. I would hate to live in the area and rely upon the locals as a means to make a living. Don't lower your standards and keep up the good work...Eventually the time will come where the worth of the land can justify the cost of the survey.
Pablo B-)
nah you do not need minimum technical standards, what you need are surveyors who have a common understanding of what their duty to the public is and that those surveyors have a respect for the rights of the public. Gonna pull a Herman Cain here.... I don't have the facts to back this up but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that in states that have codified minimum standards, that the public is not any more or better protected than states that do not have such regulations....
All I can say is that you has better hope that if you are not Kent McMillan, that you do not meet Kent McMillan in court. Because Mr McMillan understands his duty and he will dispatch that duty thoroughly and to the highest professional standard.
