I just heard what I believe to be a crazy point of view today and I wanted to know if there is anyone else out there that agrees. This person inferred that the "...North Half of the Northeast Quarter" of a normal (interior) section means that once the section is broke into quarters one then would find the acreage of the Northeast Quarter and split it exactly in half (the acreage) making the division line parallel with the north line of the Northeast Quarter.
To me the North Half would be the same as the Northeast Quarter and the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter.
What say you?
Here is a diagram that may help answer your question. Why would anyone want to bastardize a PLSS aliquot descriptin with an erroneous interpretation?
It's in the PLSS, it's a description that is just like descriptions in patents. The N1/2 being 80 acres, the S1/2 being 80 acres.?ÿ
The issue some are having is that it's probably a technically incorrect ?ÿdescription. Stretching that to say it means something that is a complete departure from historical practice. Most of us couldn't get there without some high order evidence...
I can assure you it is not technically incorrect. 1/2 descriptions have been used by the BLM/GLO since at the early 19th century. They are explicitly allowed in BLM'S official guidelines for writing land descriptions which are available on the CFedS site.
What is incorrect are descriptions with 1/2 of 1/2. Those kinds of descriptions are ambiguous.?ÿ
A few thoughts on that...
The BLM/GLO practices vary by office and time period. Some shy away from 1/2 descriptions and some dont.
More importantly, we aren't talking about strictly federal policy and law. While CFedS and the IBLA archive are excellent resources they are not the end all on State authority surveys. Even where the Manual is specified you have to switch gears to layer State laws, case law and the various establishment doctrines. Many of these are in conflict with the treatment of federal interest boundaries and some are in fact downright goofy.
The very fact we are having this discussion is evidence of ambiguity. Should it be that way? It doesn't matter. Is it that way? Absolutely.?ÿ
Two weeks ago I staked one, a S1/2S1/2SW1/4, of course the neighbor has the N1/2S1/2SW1/4. Did I run a line parallel with the south line and 1/2 acreage, parallel with the north line and 1/2 acreage? Maybe mean the two bearings, or a true east bearing?
Nope; I staked the 1/64th corners and I will continue to do it that way.
Jefferson is rolling in his grave.
No, Jefferson is not rolling in his grave.?ÿ He was in France and unable to defend his land system.?ÿ If he'd been in Washington and successfully enacted his system, we'd still have to deal with the implementation of his decimalized system.?ÿ
For those unfamiliar with his proposal, sections were 1 nautical mile square and a "township" was called a Jeffersonian Hundred (10 nautical miles square).?ÿ His unit of measure was a reformed chain (1 ref. ch. = 60.864 ft.).?ÿ A regular section contained 1000 reformed acres.
In case anyone thinks that would be a much better system, I suggest that there is a big difference between design and implementation.?ÿ Folks would wring their hands on whether the E-W lines should be latitudinal lines, if those lines should be placed on even 1 arc-minute latitude, how to deal with convergence, should the exterior boundaries of each Jeffersonian Hundred be surveyed first and then the Hundred subdivided (if so, where should the excess/deficiency in the Hundred be placed), what corners should be monumented, what the minimum aliquot part should be, etc.?ÿ
Heck, I can even see some folks jumping up and down that the east-west distances must be 1 arc-minute instead 0f 6086.4 ft., which would eliminate the need for standard parallels to correct for convergence.?ÿ With the corners of each Jeffersonian section being placed on even 1 arc-minute latitude and longitude, protraction diagrams would be easy-peasy.?ÿ Staking the Jeffersonian PLSS would be the work of geodesists!?ÿ ??ÿ
In case any of the replies were directed at this portion of my post, "My convention is to not use 1/2 in aliquot descriptions to avoid ambiguity." my intent is that it reduces ambiguity of property owners.?ÿ Almost all of the property owners I've talked to regard 1/2 as half the acreage.?ÿ I realize that there are many patent descriptions that use 1/2, but just because it is used in practice doesn't mean that it is recognized by statute.?ÿ
As I mentioned earlier, for mineral lands where placer claims could be described by aliquot parts, the statutes were revised to allow the minimum legal subdivision to be 10 acres.?ÿ This may surprise folks here, but there was a time when the mining regulations stated that the division of 40 acre aliquot parts into 10 acre aliquot parts was to wing a 90?ø and by implication set the 1/64 corner at 660 ft.?ÿ I've seen examples where it was misapplied to larger aliquot parts.?ÿ This method didn't last long, but it was still the method employed at the time.?ÿ Paragraphs 22 through 24 of the mining regulations were amended by the Roman Placer Claim Land Decision (34 LD 260); see the bottom of page 3 and page 4 of the attachment.
Bottom line is:?ÿ 1) if you are retracing, find out and follow the intent and what was done on the ground previously (how and where has it been established).?ÿ?ÿ 2)?ÿ If this is a new boundary, find out the intent, and place the boundary accordingly.?ÿ 3)?ÿ Fully document what you have done.
One of the biggest problems we seem to be having as surveyors, is that we seem to always be looking for the magic "rule" to guide us, and we usually leave the owners (past and present) out of the equation.?ÿ?ÿ
Jefferson deserves credit not for the details of the system, but only the spirit of the system, the idea that the land should be surveyed prior to settlement and that the surveys should simultaneously create all the parcels so there would be no overlaps or gaps.
The details were worked out by others. When the system fails it is usually when the Jeffersonian principles are ignored.
The rules for subdividing sections were not arbitrarily created. They were created in order to preserve the position of the lines as they were originally created.
1/2 descriptions were used almost from the very begining. There is no ambiguity in these descriptions when the are used by the government, except when there is a 1/2 of a 1/2, or lots involved. The Manual method of subdividing a section protects 1/2 by area as?ÿoriginally surveyed.?ÿAny attempt to divide the aliquot part by area based on a new survey defeats the core idea of the PLSS by moving the line and subjecting the line to future moments by surveyors that come up with different measurments.
There are times it is appropriate to deviate from the " technically correct" method of subdivision, but these need to be justified in each particular instance.
Mighty Moe has a point.?ÿ The "legal" size of your aliquot portion is 40 or 160 acres (or whatever even multiple of a square mile).?ÿ It was laid out "square" and your retracement acreage is your as-measured acres, but the 40 acre aliquot section was set out @40 acres.?ÿ I description that means to divide the as-measured acreage in half should be written in different nomenclature than that used by the BLM.?ÿ As Gene pointed out Colorado Revised Statutes require that, and as someone else (aliquot?) pointed out, a lot of other states have similar laws.
Jefferson deserves credit not for the details of the system, but only the spirit of the system, the idea that the land should be surveyed prior to settlement and that the surveys should simultaneously create all the parcels so there would be no overlaps or gaps.
The details were worked out by others. When the system fails it is usually when the Jeffersonian principles are ignored.
The rules for subdividing sections were not arbitrarily created. They were created in order to preserve the position of the lines as they were originally created.
1/2 descriptions were used almost from the very begining. There is no ambiguity in these descriptions when the are used by the government, except when there is a 1/2 of a 1/2, or lots involved. The Manual method of subdividing a section protects 1/2 by area as?ÿoriginally surveyed.?ÿAny attempt to divide the aliquot part by area based on a new survey defeats the core idea of the PLSS by moving the line and subjecting the line to future moments by surveyors that come up with different measurments.
There are times it is appropriate to deviate from the " technically correct" method of subdivision, but these need to be justified in each particular instance.
How can you argue about aliquot parts with a user whose name is aliquot?
Let the record show that aliquot's response is inherently valid for a number of reasons but foremost because he/she IS aliquot!
Aliquot,
I respectfully disagreed with your initial premise that Jefferson would turn over in his grave at a modern "misapplication" of subdividing a regular section.?ÿ Jefferson, et al. are to be commended for coming up with the ideas that the land should be surveyed prior to sale and the protection of the original lines as surveyed to preserve the boundaries.?ÿ Given that, I am certain that Jefferson was less than pleased that his decimal system was discarded during his absence.?ÿ He was keen to create an American decimal system for weights, measures, currency, etc., but Jefferson only succeeded with our currency and the boundaries of some western states.
I do have a question regarding your assertions that a 1/2 of a 1/2 is not an aliquot part.?ÿ I can find nothing that supports this.?ÿ The BLM Glossary of Terms defines "aliquot" and "aliquot parts" which includes subdivision into both halves and quarters.?ÿ I never said that the use of 1/2 was wrong, only that my convention is to avoid it.?ÿ Some can say that it is not ambiguous because descriptions are written so that another surveyor is able to survey the parcel.?ÿ I am not as interested in how the BLM may write a description as I am in making the description easier for the land owner to understand.?ÿ As I said before, most land owners I've talked with seem to think that 1/2 means half of the acreage, so I try and avoid its use whenever possible.
The only thing that I can think of that may support your notion that 1/2 of a 1/2 is not an aliquot part is that the smallest legal subdivision of a section is 40 acres, except for the mineral lands where the smallest legal subdivision is 10 acres.?ÿ During my CFedS training I came across this BLM reference for writing descriptions (later revised in 2013 and 2017):
"Specifications for Descriptions of Land:?ÿ For Use in Land Orders, Executive Orders, Proclamations, Federal Register Documents, and Land Description Databases"
Here is the link to the current revision of 2017
http://cfeds.org/docs/sml/SpecificationsForDescriptionsOfLand.pdf
And the pertinent section starting on page 9 of the PDF:
Under the general land laws, the unit of administration is the quarter-quarter section of nominally 40 acres or the lot, either of which is often referred to as the smallest legal subdivision.?ÿ Under mining and reclamation laws, the smallest legal subdivision is the quarter-quarter-quarter section of 10 acres.?ÿ Some special statutes specified even smaller legal subdivisions.
By the General Plan, the section is subdivided into units of administration, called legal subdivisions. These are of two types, aliquot parts and lots. The section is subdivided into quarter-sections by running straight lines from the established quarter-section corners to the opposite corresponding quarter-section corners. These nominal 160-acre units are designated by symbol in tabular descriptions as NE1/4, NW1/4, SW1/4, and SE1/4.
The quarter-section is subdivided into quarter-quarter sections by running straight lines from the established quarter-quarter section corners to the opposite corresponding quarter-quarter section corners. These nominal 40-acre units are designated by symbol in tabular descriptions as, SW1/4NE1/4. Occasionally the quarter-quarter section is further subdivided into its aliquot parts by connecting opposite corresponding corners. These resulting nominal 10-acre units are designated by symbol as, for example, NW1/4SW1/4NE1/4.
In theory, aliquot parts can be divided ad infinitum. However the lengthy descriptions that result from this practice tend to invite error in the preparation and recordation of documents. Such lengthy descriptions also further complicate the maintenance and interpretation of the land records. As a policy (Survey Manual sections 3-33 and 9-90) land descriptions by aliquot part must not go beyond a four component description. For example, a 5-acre unit described as the S1/2NE1/4NW1/4SE1/4 is acceptable, as is a 2?«-acre unit described as the SE1/4NE1/4NE1/4SW1/4. Aliquot parts of 1?¬-acre or less described with five components or more, e.g., the W1/2SE1/4NE1/4SW1/4SE1/4 are unacceptable.
When subdivision of lands into aliquot parts of less than 2?«-acres is anticipated, an official survey will be conducted or a supplemental plat will be prepared and lot numbers assigned. Exceptions may be granted in cases where the actual on-the-ground location of the division line does not and will not govern. If the originating bureau or office determines there is a need for an exception, requesting a Standards for Boundary Evidence Certificate(s) (SBE) from a Certified Department of the Interior Land Surveyor (CILS) is advised.
The only thing in the above quote that stands out is that the BLM adopted a policy of not describing an aliquot part parcel beyond a four-component description and that policy is based on the principle of keeping things simple (i.e. KISS).
P.S.?ÿ I'm curious if you have a reference or statute that authorizes the use of 1/2 in aliquot parts legal descriptions.?ÿ I haven't found anything, yet.?ÿ My notion that the use of 1/2 as a shorthand for two 1/4s is because it was a convention adopted early on by the General Land Office.
Aliquot,
I respectfully disagreed with your initial premise that Jefferson would turn over in his grave at a modern "misapplication" of subdividing a regular section.?ÿ Jefferson, et al. are to be commended for coming up with the ideas that the land should be surveyed prior to sale and the protection of the original lines as surveyed to preserve the boundaries.?ÿ Given that, I am certain that Jefferson was less than pleased that his decimal system was discarded during his absence.?ÿ He was keen to create an American decimal system for weights, measures, currency, etc., but Jefferson only succeeded with our currency and the boundaries of some western states.
I do have a question regarding your assertions that a 1/2 of a 1/2 is not an aliquot part.?ÿ I can find nothing that supports this.?ÿ The BLM Glossary of Terms defines "aliquot" and "aliquot parts" which includes subdivision into both halves and quarters.?ÿ I never said that the use of 1/2 was wrong, only that my convention is to avoid it.?ÿ Some can say that it is not ambiguous because descriptions are written so that another surveyor is able to survey the parcel.?ÿ I am not as interested in how the BLM may write a description as I am in making the description easier for the land owner to understand.?ÿ As I said before, most land owners I've talked with seem to think that 1/2 means half of the acreage, so I try and avoid its use whenever possible.
The only thing that I can think of that may support your notion that 1/2 of a 1/2 is not an aliquot part is that the smallest legal subdivision of a section is 40 acres, except for the mineral lands where the smallest legal subdivision is 10 acres.?ÿ During my CFedS training I came across this BLM reference for writing descriptions (later revised in 2013 and 2017):
"Specifications for Descriptions of Land:?ÿ For Use in Land Orders, Executive Orders, Proclamations, Federal Register Documents, and Land Description Databases"
Here is the link to the current revision of 2017
http://cfeds.org/docs/sml/SpecificationsForDescriptionsOfLand.pdf
And the pertinent section starting on page 9 of the PDF:
Under the general land laws, the unit of administration is the quarter-quarter section of nominally 40 acres or the lot, either of which is often referred to as the smallest legal subdivision.?ÿ Under mining and reclamation laws, the smallest legal subdivision is the quarter-quarter-quarter section of 10 acres.?ÿ Some special statutes specified even smaller legal subdivisions.
By the General Plan, the section is subdivided into units of administration, called legal subdivisions. These are of two types, aliquot parts and lots. The section is subdivided into quarter-sections by running straight lines from the established quarter-section corners to the opposite corresponding quarter-section corners. These nominal 160-acre units are designated by symbol in tabular descriptions as NE1/4, NW1/4, SW1/4, and SE1/4.
The quarter-section is subdivided into quarter-quarter sections by running straight lines from the established quarter-quarter section corners to the opposite corresponding quarter-quarter section corners. These nominal 40-acre units are designated by symbol in tabular descriptions as, SW1/4NE1/4. Occasionally the quarter-quarter section is further subdivided into its aliquot parts by connecting opposite corresponding corners. These resulting nominal 10-acre units are designated by symbol as, for example, NW1/4SW1/4NE1/4.
In theory, aliquot parts can be divided ad infinitum. However the lengthy descriptions that result from this practice tend to invite error in the preparation and recordation of documents. Such lengthy descriptions also further complicate the maintenance and interpretation of the land records. As a policy (Survey Manual sections 3-33 and 9-90) land descriptions by aliquot part must not go beyond a four component description. For example, a 5-acre unit described as the S1/2NE1/4NW1/4SE1/4 is acceptable, as is a 2?«-acre unit described as the SE1/4NE1/4NE1/4SW1/4. Aliquot parts of 1?¬-acre or less described with five components or more, e.g., the W1/2SE1/4NE1/4SW1/4SE1/4 are unacceptable.
When subdivision of lands into aliquot parts of less than 2?«-acres is anticipated, an official survey will be conducted or a supplemental plat will be prepared and lot numbers assigned. Exceptions may be granted in cases where the actual on-the-ground location of the division line does not and will not govern. If the originating bureau or office determines there is a need for an exception, requesting a Standards for Boundary Evidence Certificate(s) (SBE) from a Certified Department of the Interior Land Surveyor (CILS) is advised.
The only thing in the above quote that stands out is that the BLM adopted a policy of not describing an aliquot part parcel beyond a four-component description and that policy is based on the principle of keeping things simple (i.e. KISS).
P.S.?ÿ I'm curious if you have a reference or statute that authorizes the use of 1/2 in aliquot parts legal descriptions.?ÿ I haven't found anything, yet.?ÿ My notion that the use of 1/2 as a shorthand for two 1/4s is because it was a convention adopted early on by the General Land Office.
Gene,
The official reference that authorizes the use of 1/2 is the same document you quoted, just a few paragraphs down:
Some contiguous units may be combined. For example, if section 10, NW1/4 and
section 10, SW1/4 is included, the resulting 320-acre unit can be designated as ??sec. 10,
W1/2?. Where section 22, NE1/4NW1/4 and SE1/4NW1/4 is included, the resulting 80-
acre unit can be designated as ??sec. 22, E1/2NW1/4?. And where section 22,
NE1/4NW1/4, NW1/4NW1/4, and SE1/4NW1/4 is included, can be designated as ??sec.
22, N1/2NW1/4 and SE1/4NW1/4?. The combination will follow the preferred order of
listing.
One half of a regular section consists of two quarter sections having a common
boundary, and the section divided by a line between opposite quarter section corners.?ÿ
I think you may be attaching to much importance to the statement, "?ÿUnder the general land laws, the unit of administration is the quarter-quarter section of nominally 40 acres or the lot, either of which is often referred to as the smallest
legal subdivision. " There are many land laws that federal government operates under aside from the "general land laws", and may of them allow aliquot divisions down to 5 acres, or even 2.5 acres (see the small tracts act).?ÿ There are plenty of patents that contain aliqout divisions with four, and even five elements.
The reason 1/2 of a 1/2 can not be used is because it is ambiguous.?ÿ A 1/2 or a 1/2 of a 1/4 would be located the same way whether you choose to survey it as the two separate 1/4s or as 1/2 by area based on the original survey. A 1/2 of a 1/2 however, would have two different locations, unless the original survey was perfect. For example, if you were to survey the N1/2 of the N1/2 by the constitute 1/4 methods, there would be an angle point at the north south center line; however, the original area method?ÿ would permit a straight line to be run between the two N1/16th corners.?ÿ?ÿ
The official guidance that disallows using a 1/2 of a 1/2 is again the Specifications for descriptions of land:
Half of a half description should not be used as it could cause ambiguity to the intended
location of the division line. For example if section 10, W1/2NW1/4 and W1/2SW1/4?ÿis included, the symbol ??sec. 10, W1/2W1/2? is not used. The latter description is ambiguous and subject to more than one interpretation. For half of a half description of acquired lands, the prevailing rule does vary from state to state; whether the presumption is to describe half by area or half by government measurement. Half of half descriptions should not be used or with extreme caution and if there is doubt as to the location of the division line further explanation of the intent is required.
Unfortunately there was a period of time that GLO did utilize 1/2 of 1/2 descriptions.?ÿ ?ÿ
Especially after reading this thread I understand why you prefer writing out the the separate 1/4s. There certainty is nothing wrong with doing it that way. The only reason I like to use 1/2s is to keep the descriptions shorter and create less risk for scrivener's errors.?ÿ
I think you may be attaching to much importance to the statement, "?ÿUnder the general land laws, the unit of administration is the quarter-quarter section of nominally 40 acres or the lot, either of which is often referred to as the smallest
legal subdivision. " There are many land laws that federal government operates under aside from the "general land laws", and may of them allow aliquot divisions down to 5 acres, or even 2.5 acres (see the small tracts act).?ÿ There are plenty of patents that contain aliqout divisions with four, and even five elements.
Since my survey practice consists of the retracement/resurvey of mineral surveys I don't normally deal with the rectangular PLSS system.?ÿ The exceptions are when the BLM creates a supplementary plat (subdivided into quarter-quarter sections) that describes lots between existing mineral surveys and when I need to retrace/resurvey a placer claim described by aliquot parts.?ÿ That is why my concentration is on 40-acre and 10-acre aliquot parts.?ÿ As an example, I found 6 rectangular PLSS corners in a resurvey of 10 mineral surveys and not one of them was a controlling corner of my resurvey.
The reason 1/2 of a 1/2 can not be used is because it is ambiguous.?ÿ A 1/2 or a 1/2 of a 1/4 would be located the same way whether you choose to survey it as the two separate 1/4s or as 1/2 by area based on the original survey. A 1/2 of a 1/2 however, would have two different locations, unless the original survey was perfect. For example, if you were to survey the N1/2 of the N1/2 by the constitute 1/4 methods, there would be an angle point at the north south center line; however, the original area method?ÿ would permit a straight line to be run between the two N1/16th corners.?ÿ?ÿ
The official guidance that disallows using a 1/2 of a 1/2 is again the Specifications for descriptions of land:
Half of a half description should not be used as it could cause ambiguity to the intended
location of the division line. For example if section 10, W1/2NW1/4 and W1/2SW1/4?ÿis included, the symbol ??sec. 10, W1/2W1/2? is not used. The latter description is ambiguous and subject to more than one interpretation. For half of a half description of acquired lands, the prevailing rule does vary from state to state; whether the presumption is to describe half by area or half by government measurement. Half of half descriptions should not be used or with extreme caution and if there is doubt as to the location of the division line further explanation of the intent is required.Unfortunately there was a period of time that GLO did utilize 1/2 of 1/2 descriptions.?ÿ ?ÿ
Especially after reading this thread I understand why you prefer writing out the the separate 1/4s. There certainty is nothing wrong with doing it that way. The only reason I like to use 1/2s is to keep the descriptions shorter and create less risk for scrivener's errors.?ÿ
We are in general agreement with a 1/2 of a 1/2.?ÿ I just wanted to point out that a 1/2 of a 1/2 is an aliquot part, but only if the subdivision is done according to the BLM rules.?ÿ In other words, there will likely be an angle point.?ÿ Footnote 20 on page 11 makes this clear.
In the rare instance where half (1/2) of a half (1/2) is used in a land description, a statement at the end of the description, after the area statement, similar to ??Any area described as a half (1/2) of a half (1/2) is based on the proper subdivision of section in accordance with the Manual of Surveying Instructions ? will be included.
This is the same reason that I generally avoid the use of 1/2 in descriptions.?ÿ In the rare instance that I would find myself needing to subdivide a section, it would be extremely rare that none of the section had been previously subdivided.?ÿ By that, I wouldn't be surprised if I needed to survey the S1/2SE1/4NW1/4 that an earlier surveyor had already surveyed the NE1/4NE1/4SW1/4.?ÿ I doubt that the 1/64 corner would be exactly halfway between and on line with the west center 1/16 and the C1/4.
My convention has one possible drawback.?ÿ If a title company is involved, I'm sure that their title examiner would tell me that my property description requires correction as the patent explicitly states the S1/2SE1/4NW1/4 and I have the SE1/4SE1/4NW1/4 and SW1/4SE1/4NW1/4.?ÿ ??ÿ
