Got a situation in section one where the whole section wasn't surveyed by the original GLO survey. Here is the plat from 1856:
I'm trying to survey the interior boundary for the area shown by the 1856 plat. The area was patented in 1899 and 1905. The east boundary of section 1 (range line) was surveyed in 1874. The south boundary of section 1 was surveyed in 1913.
There is a very straight and very old fence that starts at the north quarter corner of section 1, goes south ¾ mile and then goes west to the section line (the patented area boundary from the 1856 GLO plat). The fence doesn't conform to a section breakdown using the south (1913) and east (1874) quarter corners. It appears a survey was done where they turned a 90 off the north section line, chained south ¾ mile, turned a 90 and went west to the west section line. I haven't been able to date the fence (yet) but it is at least 70 years old, probably older.
The north/south fence doesn't line up with the south quarter corner corner set by the 1913 survey, misses more than 50 feet.
I've came to the conclusion that the south quarter corner set in 1913 doesn't control the line in question. Probably the patent lines should be parallel with the 1856 lines surveyed on the west and north sides of section one. The fences don't exactly fit that, but the fences probably represent the original survey of these lines (no survey record, only evidence is the long standing and accepted fence as the boundary).
So what would you do?
What is with the "83" chains along the Twp line?
Yes, the 1913 S1/4 cor. cannot control the lines of the 1856 survey. What controls is, was there a good faith effort in locating the 1856 lines upon the ground? If not, then the reasonable approach is paralleling the west line of sec 1.
I'd start by looking at pg.156 in the 2009 manual.;-)
Punt, man, punt!
Seriously, that's a dandy problem. The way I read it, the patent recipient prior to finalization of the entire section could only do the best they could do because there was no way to locate a precise boundary. My thought is to search out when the adjoining portions of the section were patented to see if this would influence my approach. If it's still in US possession, that's a whole different can of worms.
I think the 83 is a 53.
It's all private land. East half of section patented 1928, S1/2 of SW1/4 patented 1956.
> I think the 83 is a 53.
Not to get too far off topic, but...
So the distance from the NW cor of 1 to the N1/4 of 1 is 53 chains? It would seem that doesn't jive with the acreages shown. Does that agree with the notes?
Unbelievable
Land so worthless that no one wanted it until 1956. Around here that kind of ground was awarded to the original inhabitants for reservations so that they could discover oil on it today.
The 1856 surveyor was coming from the west in the valley along the township line, set a post at forty chains (1/4), continued east for 13 chains, hit the junipers (tough going), set a post at line termination (53 chains) and went on his way. Did this all the way along 3 townships. This was only the beginning of huge mess built upon for the next 160 years. What else is new?
Nice neat little squares, yeah right! Still the fight to make the world square goes on as the paper boundaries would indicate.
Unbelievable
The 1956 patent was a PX Patent (Patent Exchange). The BLM traded the land with a rancher for some other land under some law from 1934 that allowed this to prevent damage from over grazing. 30 years later the State Division of Wildlife Resources bought the land for a hunting area. This ain't like the native short grass land in Kansas (Flint Hills).
I would consult your local BLM office.
Worthless land
A good part of Blaine County, Oklahoma was originally part of a "lottery" for 1/4 sections. No one signed up. It's an arid "no man's land" with no water, no ground cover and blowouts a mile deep. A few years later they tried again. This time the lottery was for an entire section. The U.S. finally got it all given away.
Every time I go up there I scrounge a pickup load of mesquite for my outdoor cooking activities. As far as I can tell, that's all it's good for. You might let 5 or 6 head graze on an entire 640 acres up there...as long as you didn't mind losing half of them.
But, as always, there's a twist. It's one of the best gas producing regions around. Whoodathunk all that wasteland was worth so much $ ?...
Hey, I'll answer the question, use the fence.
It appears a survey was done where they turned a 90 off the north section line, chained south ¾ mile, turned a 90 and went west to the west section line. I haven't been able to date the fence (yet) but it is at least 70 years old, probably older.
Quite an assumption by the existence of the fence. If the fence is 100 years old, it was constructed during or near the time of the 1913 survey. I think the fence was built for the purpose of it's useage.... i.e. cattle/sheep grazing and not intended to be a boundary survey. You have a little more diggin to do.
Pablo B-)
It is sort of an assumption but based upon my measurements (90's at the corners). But even so can a 1913 survey corner control a 1905 patent? If it were an open section (no fences or occupation) would the patents control where the lines are or would subsequent survey corners make the section be subdivided as normal?
Just to remove all doubt we are probably going to do boundary line adjustments to make the record math fit the reality on the ground. The landowners are OK with that.
> It is sort of an assumption but based upon my measurements (90's at the corners). But even so can a 1913 survey corner control a 1905 patent? If it were an open section (no fences or occupation) would the patents control where the lines are or would subsequent survey corners make the section be subdivided as normal?
>
No. The 1856 plat and corners must stand on their own because that is what the land was patented under. The later (1874 and 1913) corners would only control the parts of the section that was patented under those surveys. The 1913 and 1874 section and 1/4 corners should not be used to determine/find the boundaries of the 1856 survey.
Just to remove all doubt we are probably going to do boundary line adjustments to make the record math fit the reality on the ground. The landowners are OK with that.
Accepting the established boundaries as interior lines would preclude any boundary line adjustment. I wouldn't do one if that's your decision.
The landowner established his lines as the first entryman, and the interior 1/16 is then an original and needs to be honored.
How was that done?
Even turning a 90 would be a valid way to survey so his corner become the 1/16th, maybe. I'm not saying to accept it, but I would lean that way and if you do, then doing a boundary line adjustment would be the wrong thing to do. Adjusting what? To what?
If they were patented that late then only half of the estate is fee, just the surface, the feds are still involved and the manuals are even more in force.
Yeah, the 1956 patent reserves all the mineral estate for the US. It's not the line with the problem for the most part with the owners I'm dealing with and my survey though. I'm sure if minerals are discovered the US will get their due.
Adjusting what? To what?
Adjusting the established line by common law that the Utah Title industry won't accept to a conveyed boundary that they will accept. A powerful legislator, who owns and operates a title company, got a statute tweaked a few years ago. Pretty much end of story. Other than that. I'm with you all the way!