I am in the process of requesting an opinion from the Headquarters office of BLM on what I opine is the bogus theory of subdividing sections, using the original protracted subd. of sec. lines as the sole evidence of those lines. Obviously, in so doing, all other evidence is ignored.
My correspondence on this will be made public, once I receive a definite answer from BLM or from the Asst. Sec. of the Interior.
My request has not been answered by the Director of BLM as I requested back in May, so it has been bumped up to the Secretary level.
This issue in my opinion of course, is the most serious of arguments that are going on in the public sector and from what I have read, in the private sector.
I used to be part of the bureaucracy in Washington DC and know how a few things work back there.
Stay tuned.
Keith R. Williams
Chief, Land Surveyor BLM WO (ret)
What is the exact question that you are asking for an Interior opinion on? Did you qualify your questions with a quasi-legal opinion of your own? If so, in succinct terms, what is it? I believe you have stated in past posts, but for new viewers, what is it.
My correspondence will be made public when I receive an answer.
I assume that I had enough background information in my letters.
We all know that it is no secret in BLM; they just need to face it!
Williams D.; do I know you?
Hmmmm
Come to think about it, the number two guy in the House of Respresentatives is my Congressman!
Imagine that?
I am interested in hearing the answer.
Naturally all they have to do is read their own Manual.
Dave,
It seems to me like some have to be reminded in somewhat of a harsh way, that there are more chapters in the Manual that deal with retracements and resurveys and the fact that subdivision of sections is not necessarily done by Chapter 3 (1973) only.
There are examples of this bogus theory; we all know it and I am only attempting to have the BLM headquarters address it.
And maybe it is time to forget about trying to please all Chiefs in the State Offices and explain what the policy is and going to be, on subdividing sections.
And of course, those Chiefs are welcome to address it too!
I may even get some sort of bureaucratic answer that is no answer, and of course will be made public too.
Just simply time to get on with it!
Without details, there's no way to offer any opinion.
Standard procedure says that original monuments hold, even if they're screwed up. One of the things we try to do is to "do no harm", unless it's absolutely necessary. So we hold original monuments whenever possible.
Of course, we've hit circumstances where that doesn't work, usually because a surveyor fails to find an original stone, and sets a new corner, and then a mess ensues as various people plat things from different monuments. It can create a lot of confusion, and date of survey can make a difference. But I guess that's where our expertise comes into play, and why Surveyors are not obsolete yet.
Maybe, maybe not. I worked for the FS for a short time and maybe our paths crossed then.
William D.
As a former FS employee, maybe you know something about the "Positional Tolerance Standards" of the Forest Service?
sinc; I think I agree with all of your post, but wondering how it relates to my premise on the bogus theory of subdividing sections, using only the original protracted lines as evidence?
Keith
I keep reading your "bogus theory" comments but I think I have missed some of your discussion. Could you give a brief rundown on the process you object to?
Tyler
My opening post states most of what I am going for and the following quote from this board probably was the tipping point on which to request an opinion from the Director, BLM:
“BLM Moving Monuments (Land Surveying)
by Frank Willis , Alexandria, LA, Sunday, July 29, 2012, 06:34 (72 days ago)
I recently discussed in detail a scenario that is more common than some might imagine.
A reputable surveyor surveyed the northwest quarter of Section 20 in 1990. He set the center of the section using good technique, and over the years the NW quarter was subdivided into several tracts of land using his center of section as one corner and the two quarter corners as well as the NW cor of section as the outer boundary of the mother tract. No problemo.
Then last month BLM came in doing some survey work to cut out a 20 acre tract within this same quarter of a section for a governmental entity. They set a new center of section about 2.5 feet northeast of the 1990 center of section, and disagreed with every monument of every tract in the NW quarter of the section and set 4 new corners for the 20. The BLM surveyor was from some state more than a thousand miles from here, was not registered, and said he was surveying like his boss told him to do it, and would consider nothing else. He set conc. posts at all his new corners.
I have seen this a number of times in my career. Thoughts?”
The issue is clear enough and we all know about the procedure of subdividing sections using ONLY the protracted subd. lines as the sole evidence.
If you really want to get into it, review the plat and field notes that were the BLM resurvey in Florida that ended up in the case of Rivers v Lozeau.
It will open you eyes!
Thanks for asking!
I am sure that you have a compelling case. It would be helpful and educational for some of us to hear your full case. While I am also sure that you have posted all of your letters and case somewhere in the past, it would do no harm to post those again so that a full and thoughful discussion can take place. Yes, I am sure the legacy conventional wisdom of the BLM on the purported primacy of pure subdivisionover all other evidence is "bogus" in some manner but a full case would need to be made. Please reveal what you have presented to the BLM to support this worthy pursuit.
KEITH
Thanks.
Farsites,
I will in due time; right now I think it best just to wait and see what kind of answer I receive!
The issue is not new and if you are in Virginia, you don't have the PLSS and the problem that I am bringing up.
Stay tuned.
I will go public with a full explanation and might not be this board?
Keith
Farsites,
I do appreciate your interest!
Keith,
my interest is a bit more than just academic. We do a lot of work int he midwest and out west, even in your neck of the woods so I need to learn more about the PLSS. Any good reading suggestions would also be greatly appreciated.
BLM bogusness?
Hi Keith,
Just having fun here but it seems you are teasing us a bit. Please tell what case you made to the BLM in advance of thier response, that way we can have a nice educational discussion.
It would be like someone going on a palaentology forum and posting "I hold that current thoeirs about bronosauruses are bogus" but not explaining thier own counter theory.
There should be plenty of time to write that up now other distractions are temporarily off the table.
No teasing now 🙂
Tyler
Keith,
where can we find the notes and the resurvey?
Farsites
I have posted many times in the past about this bogus theory and even to the point of being accused of beating a dead horse. You may have seen the post with that horse beating!
It is the bogus theory that is being promoted by Bouman-Robillard in their Clarks book and simply is the concept that only the protracted original lines within the PLSS sections, can be used for evidence of the subdivision of sections. Consequently all other evidence is ignored.
Maybe what finally brought this to a head...so to speak...was the following post on this board:
“BLM Moving Monuments (Land Surveying)
by Frank Willis , Alexandria, LA, Sunday, July 29, 2012, 06:34 (72 days ago)
I recently discussed in detail a scenario that is more common than some might imagine.
A reputable surveyor surveyed the northwest quarter of Section 20 in 1990. He set the center of the section using good technique, and over the years the NW quarter was subdivided into several tracts of land using his center of section as one corner and the two quarter corners as well as the NW cor of section as the outer boundary of the mother tract. No problemo.
Then last month BLM came in doing some survey work to cut out a 20 acre tract within this same quarter of a section for a governmental entity. They set a new center of section about 2.5 feet northeast of the 1990 center of section, and disagreed with every monument of every tract in the NW quarter of the section and set 4 new corners for the 20. The BLM surveyor was from some state more than a thousand miles from here, was not registered, and said he was surveying like his boss told him to do it, and would consider nothing else. He set conc. posts at all his new corners.
I have seen this a number of times in my career.
Thoughts?”
If you or anyone really wants to understand the consequences of this bogus theory, they should get the survey plat and field notes for the BLM resurvey that ended up in the court case of Rivers v Lozeau in Florida. I have repeatedly requested any surveyor from BLM to come on here and explain this case, as they should be proud of it, since they won the case.
My own opinion of that case was that BLM and their witness Robillard, blew the other side away as if the other side did not even show up. (my opinion since I was not in the court room)
The bottom line is the fact that BLM land surveyors know of this bogus theory that is being practiced by a few and I believe that it will take a written opinion from the Director, BLM or from the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary has the statute authority to survey/resurvey the Public Lands and the Director, BLM has that authority delegated to that office and to the Chief Cadastral Surveyors in each BLM State Office.
It would seem obvious to me that when a problem like this bogus theory is presented to the powers to be, they should "take a look at it"?
We shall see and stay tuned.
Keith