Hey, I got an idea
Interesting stuff, isn't it?
Here is the call for the line in question taken from the State Statutes:
"Commencing at a point where the boundary line between Utah and Arizona, being approximately the thirty-seventh parallel of north latitude and the meridian of one hundred ten degrees forty-five minutes west longitude intersect;
Thence south along such line to the Mogollon Rim; ...:
(The Mogollon Rim is essentially a vertical cliff).
So - I guess that Arizona was not quite sure at the time where their northern border was, but that's a different issue. What is important is that the east-west position of this line is one hundred ten degrees forty-five minutes west longitude, and how we are to place that on the ground in 2012. (or whether it is even possible).
This line runs through several subdivisions. The creating surveyors make no mention of the County line and do not depict it at all on the plats. Some lots are assessed in one County, some in the other.
> I wouldn't make that suggestion. There's no reason to show a line on the map where the boundary isn't. That's what the white space on the paper is for. (I would use GPS to publish the location of the line after you've determined it.)
Well, of course you are correct, but as a preventative measure (for those future surveyors that are going to go out there and RTK in the current line of longitude), I'd want to have the difference "on the record".
Here's one just waiting to be staked: question is which NAD83?
What an interesting plat note!
If I remember right, this Crow Indian Reservation line was monumented in Montana and some infinite wisdom decided it was not on the actual longitude line, even though monumented. It was moved to where it "should have been"?
Maybe that is what we should do with all monumented surveyed lines.........even section subdivision lines as surveyed by some in BLM! 😉
If they were surveyed wrong and not within the tolarances of the Texas surveyor, simply do them over and get it right this time 😀
> The period maps are cartoons - they contain no information whatsoever to assist in this task.
>
You've just dismissed all period evidence that will guide you in determining the proper location of the boundary. The Territorial Legislature wasn't pulling numbers out of their hats when they chose the locations for the lines of longitude they chose. They had maps... pretty accurate maps that were laying on the table during the discussions. Those are the maps you need.
They'll be official maps with official designations. We're not talking about the Rand McNally road maps. I've found plenty of the old maps that are highly accurate for their purposes. Just a quick internet search reveals a number of period maps that are available from the Sharlot Hall Museum Archives. Map 792 is an excellent example.
A quick search of the Arizona State Archives shows they have "territorial maps dating from the 1860's, county and city maps dating from the 1890's" among their collection of 32,000 maps. They will, no doubt, have a number of official maps that may provide the specific evidence you're looking for. Just a quick search of their on-line catalog shows an "Official map of Pima County, 1893" and an "Official map of Yuma County, 1900." Based on the descriptions, I would expect these to be the official maps prepared in response to the territorial legislative requirement that just such maps be officially created and adopted by the Supervisors.
Without the evidence shown on those maps, you face an impossible task. Any longitudinal position will be nothing more than a complete guess guaranteed to get you on a line that is not the boundary. If you can't support your line with documentary evidence, it will never survive challenge, and there are lots of parties who will be willing to challenge it (not just the two counties).
Those maps are far from "cartoons." They should never be dismissed off-handedly as they will provide the primary evidence necessary to prove that you're ultimately right (or wrong).
JBS
You've just dismissed all period evidence that will guide you in determining the proper location of the boundary. The Territorial Legislature wasn't pulling numbers out of their hats when they chose the locations for the lines of longitude they chose. They had maps... pretty accurate maps that were laying on the table during the discussions. Those are the maps you need.
They'll be official maps with official designations. We're not talking about the Rand McNally road maps. I've found plenty of the old maps that are highly accurate for their purposes. Just a quick internet search reveals a number of period maps that are available from the Sharlot Hall Museum Archives. Map 792 is an excellent example.
A quick search of the Arizona State Archives shows they have "territorial maps dating from the 1860's, county and city maps dating from the 1890's" among their collection of 32,000 maps. They will, no doubt, have a number of official maps that may provide the specific evidence you're looking for. Just a quick search of their on-line catalog shows an "Official map of Pima County, 1893" and an "Official map of Yuma County, 1900." Based on the descriptions, I would expect these to be the official maps prepared in response to the territorial legislative requirement that just such maps be officially created and adopted by the Supervisors.
Without the evidence shown on those maps, you face an impossible task. Any longitudinal position will be nothing more than a complete guess guaranteed to get you on a line that is not the boundary. If you can't support your line with documentary evidence, it will never survive challenge, and there are lots of parties who will be willing to challenge it (not just the two counties).
Those maps are far from "cartoons." They should never be dismissed off-handedly as they will provide the primary evidence necessary to prove that you're ultimately right (or wrong).
JB: You make some good points, and we have looked at many of these and others, but I have not yet found any that I would not call cartoons. For instance, Map 792 has nothing of value to me related to County lines... some of them (but not all) appear to be located in approximately correct locations, but the lines themselves are probably 20 miles wide. I believe that what I need is something on the ground, not on paper...
> JB: You make some good points, and we have looked at many of these and others, but I have not yet found any that I would not call cartoons. For instance, Map 792 has nothing of value to me related to County lines... some of them (but not all) appear to be located in approximately correct locations, but the lines themselves are probably 20 miles wide. I believe that what I need is something on the ground, not on paper...
Jim,
Map 792 is a state-wide map that will not likely help you too much, other than to indicate which towns might be in or out of a particular county. You will notice, however, that Map 792 is a compilation from "surveys, reconnaissances, and other sources." It's those sources that will give you the information you seek.
More specifically, the official county maps will contain more period information at a greater scale than the state-level maps and will likely give you dates and references to official actions taken to locate the county boundaries. These official actions were mandated in the Territorial statutes. You need to study the statutes to understand the system they had in place at the time the boundaries were determined.
I haven't even mentioned the GLO maps that were prepared with published longitudinal positions, or the historical quad maps which may also reflect the boundary locations, or the reconnaissance surveys that determined latitudinal/longitudinal positions along or near the boundaries. Those are the sources for many of the maps prepared during the period. There are a vast number of resources out there that you should be looking to for answers, yet all I hear are seemingly flippant dismissals of the very evidence that will lead you to the proper conclusion.
I guess I don't understand how you're going to make the determination based upon some mathematical construction using today's technology or methods. Can you clue me in to any better evidence you've discovered?
JBS
JB:
I know this is hard to believe, but there are no "official" maps of the counties in question - in fact, I have been unable to locate any maps with a credible pedigree, and none whatsoever with any useful data. As far as I can tell, the territorial legislature simply declared a longitudinal line as the line between these two counties. This occurred so far before statehood that the description itself indicates that the State boundary line line was not yet agreed upon. The A&P Railroad map shows nothing, nor does the GLO plat. This line happens to be a neat line in the USGS quad map format, and is labelled as the County line in NAD 27, which I believe to be incorrect.
Neither County has been able to provide any information beyond the State statute, and neither has any evidence that ANY portion of the line has ever been surveyed. There are two recorded subdivision plats that seem to straddle the County line, and neither make any mention of it or depict it in any fashion. One plat is recorded in both counties, the other only in one. Some lots are assessed by one county, the others by the other county. Both Assesor's say "its always been that way", and can offer no additional information.
The 1968 DOT ROW plans of an Interstate Highway in the vicinity show that they found their own 1964 monuments, stamped as being on the County line, on the highway ROW line, and we find these in the field. Their comment when questioned regarding how they were set is nonsensical, stating that they do not determine the locations of right-of-way lines or property lines, and that it might be coincidence that these could be on a County line. (I kid you not!)
So, I don't mean to sound flippant at all, its just that I really have done a good amount of research and am not coming up with anything of survey quality value.
I am on the verge of deciding that the cost to determine this lines location is prohibitive to my client (the only city within 50 miles of this line). Neither County has any money or interest in this, so it may go on unresolved. Short of attempting to walk the entire 190 mile long line on the ground and searching for monumentation I am about out of ideas.
This may be the strangest survey situation I have encountered in 40 years.
Jim
Jim,
I'm really not trying to be a PITA here and I'm not dissing any of your work. I'm really trying to help you with some of the discoveries I've made in my own state. We've had a few county boundaries with a little "history" to them as well.
I've got some really good leads for you, but need more specific information. Can I email you or just give you a call. I've got some resources that I've accumulated that I'd like to share with you. Maybe you've already seen them, maybe not. Just offering to help. You can reach me through my email address on my profile link.
JBS