Ring Ring

Color me confused as to why the government survey conflict is such a big issue. Don't the same legal principles apply, such as senior rights? If the later government survey failed to properly survey the existing boundary, so what? Was that land not already conveyed out to private ownership by the time of the 1950 survey?

Posted by: @peter-lothian

↑

Color me confused as to why the government survey conflict is such a big issue. Don't the same legal principles apply, such as senior rights? If the later government survey failed to properly survey the existing boundary, so what? Was that land not already conveyed out to private ownership by the time of the 1950 survey?

Not according to the BLM. Their position is that everything conveyed after the 1950 survey for the north township is controlled by the plat, even though it's widely off the original corners. This property isn't in the 1950 survey boundary, but it does share it's north line with that survey. The official plat for this property is still the 1881 plat. So, since the conflicted area is partly federal surface (and shares the south and west line with this parcel), the BLM decided to do a survey and clean up the issue. 20 years on and still no new BLM plat, but there are BLM brass caps scattered through the township set in 2009. 

The north line of the south township using original monuments is in some locations shifted 1/4 west and 600+ feet south from the 1950 brass caps for the south line of the north township. The property in question is along that line. 

So this 1950 BLM work was an independent resurvey?

Posted by: @bstrand

↑

So this 1950 BLM work was an independent resurvey?

No, dependent.

@mightymoe So it was a dependent resurvey but they rejected a bunch of the original stones?

I see your problem with the parcel boundary, but it seems to me that an access easement could be written that is independent of a precisely known boundary. Of course it follows that the guy who did the boundary work would be best able to write this easement, perhaps without further field work.   

Posted by: @bstrand

↑

@mightymoe So it was a dependent resurvey but they rejected a bunch of the original stones?

They didn't find them.

Posted by: @norman-oklahoma

↑

I see your problem with the parcel boundary, but it seems to me that an access easement could be written that is independent of a precisely known boundary. Of course it follows that the guy who did the boundary work would be best able to write this easement, perhaps without further field work.   

Yep! Let whoever did a survey do the easement. My ROS is on file from twenty years ago, I'm done there until the government releases a plat. 

@mightymoe OK, so there's not 2 sets of monuments.  You made it sound like there are 2 sets of monuments out there.

From what I've seen here if what is being occupied doesn't disagree with the brass caps I might just accept the brass caps and keep it moving.  Maybe that's what the other more recent surveyor did.

Posted by: @bstrand

↑

@mightymoe OK, so there's not 2 sets of monuments.  You made it sound like there are 2 sets of monuments out there.

From what I've seen here if what is being occupied doesn't disagree with the brass caps I might just accept the brass caps and keep it moving.  Maybe that's what the other more recent surveyor did.

There are two sets of monuments, the 1881 survey and the 1950 survey, brass caps in 1950 missing the stones from 1881 by 1500'. The entire township line has two sets without only a couple of the original stones not found. The only ones in agreement are along the line common to Secs36 and 1. From there the north township has BC's heading north of the real stone corners. And in the north township there are marked set stones again missing brass caps by 1500'.

@mightymoe Oh.  So it sounds like maybe the BLM needs to do an independent resurvey, or at reclassify their 1950 survey as that.  Has anyone bothered to tell them there are a bunch of stones out there that they apparently missed?

Posted by: @bstrand

↑

@mightymoe Oh.  So it sounds like maybe the BLM needs to do an independent resurvey, or at reclassify their 1950 survey as that.  Has anyone bothered to tell them there are a bunch of stones out there that they apparently missed?

Yes, but there will not be an independent resurvey. They have been dependently resurveying the south township since at least 2009, still no resolution.