By the time they get to the 1/16 Corner that they NEED (using the magic box), they (maybe) SET a NEW Monument at the mathemagical position, and think that they are doing the world a favor. If there IS a fence corner, old pipe, or even a marked stone in the weeds, they don't know what it may (or may not) mean, because they haven't looked at the OTHER subdivisional corners to see what may be there! They also ASSUME that the extant monuments on the exterior represent the ORIGINAL Corner positions, which in many cases they do NOT. So who are they to say that that fence Corner VERY NEAR their “theoretical” C¼ isn't based on the ORIGINAL 1/4s, before some previous numbnuts proportioned one or more of the exteriors ¼ Corners (or Section Corners) last month (or whenever)?
Loyal; that's what the BLM does on a continual basis. If it's not on the math-throw it out. I'm sure there is a handful of BLM surveys where an off the math interior corner was accepted; but there are thousands of sections that are strictly math breakdown sections.
I would be very careful (particularly in areas with federal interest) accepting anything that isn't an at the math interior position.
And as you know federal interest approaches 100% of the land in many western states.
Loyal; that's what the BLM does on a continual basis. If it's not on the math-throw it out. I'm sure there is a handful of BLM surveys where an off the math interior corner was accepted; but there are thousands of sections that are strictly math breakdown sections.
If in fact that is a true statement, it makes it all the more important that the Director issue and opinion on this bogus theory.
I don't believe that it is the common procedure within the BLM State Offices, but would agree that it is the method in some!
Maybe that is why I am doing this?
Keith
MightyMoe,
I would like to know what States that you are referring to, where BLM is using this bogus theory?
Thanks.
Keith
That's amazing when their own manual says the county surveyor and the private surveyor is fulfilling a function contemplated by law.
Here is the latest plat:
As you may well know there is a statement on the plat that declares that these lots are only for federal estate.
However, if you are surveying a 40 acre tract in this township and find a conflict with one of these lot lines, what will you do?
Without checking I'm really confident that all these lot lines are perfect math breakdowns. Most of the land in this township is fee or state surface. There may be a bit of fed surface also. Some of the land has federal oil and gas. The primary fed interest is coal.
If you find a difference in the interior of a section that has fee oil and gas and fed coal do you set a corner for oil and gas rights and a corner for coal rights? If you are up agaisnt fed surface do you accept an off math breakdown old monument or do you use the math breakdown as shown on the new plat?
These aren't academic questions for anyone working in the western states.
Thanks MightyMoe,
As you know, that plat does not represent what we are talking about in subdividing a section by survey/resurvey.
These are protracted areas for the subsurface and this practice came about after I left BLM and am not real sure if it is a good idea or not??
Keith
No it's not a just pratice for subsurface. It is defining federal estate which includes surface.
Also, what does it matter if it's for subsurface when it's an open pit coal mine? Does the coal mine only effect the subsurface? Does it matter to the land owner when his land is stripped away?
If the manual states that the first entry into a section creates the breakdown, then doesn't it follow that the Federal survey should honor that principal? The 1/16 corner is the 1/16 corner for mineral estate as well as surface estate-Federal and private.
It's just that they didn't want to do all the work necessary to figure it out but they want every dime they can get.
But again-what does the private surveyor do agaisnt these lots? Do you create another corner? Do you say there is a 1/16 for one estate and another 1/16 for another estate? How does the landowner feel as he watches his pasture being hauled away that you told him was on his land. Do you tell him, "well that's just federal estate dirt."
MightyMoe,
Thanks for posting the plat and if you can, please post the plat memo that explains what is going on?
Let's be clear though, that this practice is not what I am talking about when the subdivision lines are surveyed on the ground by Chapter 3 procedures and only using the original protracted lines as evidence of those lines. Other monument or use lines are ignored.
Your concerns and questions on your plat are valid and you have reason to be concerned. I really can't explain or justify the procedure and someone from BLM who is involved in it, could do that.
It is not clear to me, and I thought I knew it all 😉 why the subsurface estate is not the same as the surface estate. I do think this policy came from a decision from IBLA?
I have a difficult time understanding the rationale that land ownership (surface and subsurface) do not have common boundary lines.
Maybe this policy will be the next to consider, if it is valid or not;-)
One way to look at it of course, is, it would be easy to survey on the ground, because all you have to do is place the protracted mathematical lines there by technical methods and by technicians........wait a minute, is that why some advocate doing the same thing with the surface boundary lines?:-/
Keith
Keith:
Go to BLM Wyoming, Plats & Records, Click on Sheridan County and then the Twp & Rge. You can get the plat and the notes.
Loyal:
The running of the lines per the Instructions works fine out in the middle of the sagebrush patches where nothing has ever been established and nothing is there, but not the way to do it in developed areas other than maybe for position check purposes only.
I have commented on the Surface v Mineral estate issue many times before, and it IS a significant issue here in the West. There is something like 58 Million acres (>90 Thousand square miles) of “Federal” Mineral Rights UNDER Private lands just counting the Stock-Raising Homestead Act of 1916 alone!!!
There are also millions of acres of severed surface/mineral estates in addition to that, which were created privately or by the States.
The plat that Mighty posted, may be the result of the BLM trying to use a “one-size-fits-all” approach (rule), in order to simply things. Now whether this “rule” emerged from the interpretation of an IBLA Ruling, Solicitor's Opinion, Federal Court Case, whatever.... I don't think that “one-size-fits-all” rules are a good thing.
I'll bet that the rational behind what Mighty posted (assuming the worst), is that the owner of the Mineral Estate (the People of the United States), were NOT bound by the actions of the surface owners (a Public Domain issue), and were NOT parties to whatever the surface owners did, agreed to, or accepted to begin with.
I do believe that there is (from time to time), scenarios where 2 Corners (Surface & Subsurface) might be in order, but I also believe that such a scenario would (or should) be VERY RARE, and NOT based solely on math.
Last but not least, just about anytime that anyone gets excited about the Mineral Rights, you can bet that the Mineral Estate is WORTH A LOT MORE than the surface estate! Whith big money involved, let the games begin...
Loyal
Loyal:
One way to look at this is that the "Feds" (which is us :>}) are also a bona fide claimant, with senior rights involving the mineral estate over surface.
Charles
Right on!
And for that reason, Land Surveyors NEED to pay attention to severed Mineral Rights, regardless of "who" owns them. In nearly all cases, the Mineral Estate is senior to the surface estate, and the boundaries of the two estates are not always coincident.
Loyal
I'll bet that the rational behind what Mighty posted (assuming the worst), is that the owner of the Mineral Estate (the People of the United States), were NOT bound by the actions of the surface owners (a Public Domain issue), and were NOT parties to whatever the surface owners did, agreed to, or accepted to begin with.
Hey, ya know something........this may be the same rationale that some BLM surveyors believe so that they subdivide the section from the original protracted lines and for the reason that the Federal owner (Public Land) did not have say in accepting that private survey monuments or the occupation lines that have been used for many years by the private land owners.....hence can ignore them?
I have never heard that argument used in subdividing sections on the ground, but maybe that is the real reason?
I ain't buying that argument!
Gonna have to do more research on that premise, but I repeat, it is not the same as the bogus theory that I have been posting about.
I do know that in my time with BLM we did talk about the need to accurately post the acreage of the Public Land, as we know that in some cases of extreme distortions, the acreage was off considerably.
But, of course, the same is true of the private land that was patented. I hear that some of these aliquot parts were not 40 acres?;-)
Keith
Maybe some other BLM surveyors could give us some rationale for the concept two boundary lines within the section.
I wonder if there is any case law regarding the theory that surface 1/16th monuments after the original survey control the surface estate but not the mineral estate.
I think that would be problematic for a Court to buy into, at best.
Dave,
Good question and I do not know of any court case or treatise that would advocate two corners for the surface and the sub-surface.
But I do recall some sort of IBLA case on water boundaries, whereas they ruled that the sub-surface did not move as the surface moved?
Keith
That would cause a lot of unnecessary problems if the Courts and IBLA start endorsing a bifurcated system of boundaries like that.
At least in the case of bona fide monument set by a county surveyor or licensed private surveyor the original monuments they set should be honored to avoid chaos. If we are talking about an acquiesced boundary such as a fence line then a separate boundary for the mineral estate might make more sense.
Dave,
At least in the case of bona fide monument set by a county surveyor or licensed private surveyor the original monuments they set should be honored to avoid chaos. If we are talking about an acquiesced boundary such as a fence line then a separate boundary for the mineral estate might make more sense.
I am beginning to think that is the reasoning of those in BLM that will only accept the boundaries of the protracted original section subdivision lines, since (we the people) did not have a say in the previous setting of monuments that were not on those protracted lines?
Still a bogus theory!
Keith
Right on Charles, and that is the best way of doing the original subdivision of a section, where all there is, is sagebrush and jack rabbits.
There seems to be a hang-up on the mineral ownership. That is only part of what these plats are meant to control.
They also control surface ownership. Many of these townships have extensive Fed surface. That means that where they abut private lands these subdivisions of sections effect private lands. Also many of these lots abut private minerals or have private minerals mixed with federal minerals.
