add to that the beauty of the BLM not filing anything, plus sitting on the surrveys for 4-10 years before they're approved and notes become available.....:-|
An assignment for Keith
Keith, this is your assignment. Stake the NW1/16, the CN1/16, and the C1/4.
The BLM resurveyed this township in the 1990’s and produced this plat.
The fence/occupation lines are drawn onto the plat and are not a part of the BLM plat.
Payments for the coal lease total $80,000 per acre, value of the coal is $1,000,000 per acre. The oil and gas has been leased at $800 per acre. Value of the land is $600 per acre.
The N, E and W1/4 corners were placed at old fence corners, the S1/4 is a remonumented original stone. The occupation has been in place since homestead times in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. You can trace the fence locations in the Section from photos back to WW2. There is an iron pipe at the NW1/16 that has been there since grandad’s time says the rancher. No other monuments at the fence corners. No recorded or privately found surveys.
At this time the coal is not planned for development. There are a number of oil and gas wells placed in the section based on the 1990 resurvey and spacing orders that used the breakdown for positions. Moving the 1/16 lines could result in shifting the wells out of the spacing window causing the adjoining mineral owner to have a legal action to obtain mineral rights to the well.
The reason you are staking these corners is because the rancher wants to develop a rural subdivision and break the land into 35 ac tracts. At this time there are no roads, railroads, utilities or small tracts in the area.
Where would you stake the corners? At the math position or the long established occupation.
An assignment for Keith
> The N, E and W1/4 corners were placed at old fence corners ...
>
This common procedure shows the lack of logic that is applied to the rest of the survey. They've blindly accepted the location of the fences as a good-faith perpetuation of the original monuments and relied upon them as the best available evidence of the obliterated corner monuments (as they should).
Yet, in the very next step of their procedure, they've rejected the very same fences as having been erected in bad faith and given them no weight as evidence as having established the interior corner monuments they were intended to represent.
They've misunderstood what chapter six is all about by holding a common view that interior subdivisions have been made without "federal authority." That is not true. The federal government relinquished their authority for establishment of the interior boundaries to county and local surveyors and occupying claimants under common law principles which chapter six was designed to exhibit.
They seem to want it both ways.
JBS
An assignment for Keith
Yet, in the very next step of their procedure, they've rejected the very same fences as having been erected in bad faith and given them no weight as evidence as having established the interior corner monuments they were intended to represent.
I think the push for this new system came from outside the survey department in the BLM. But I'm guessing about that.
The early resurvey (1980's) plats don't show these breakdowns.
MightyMoe
Well, I would guess that you have posted a very well described problem with the BLM lotting of private land??
It should be said that BLM, as the nations legal land surveyor, can and should describe the land that the nation owns and of course in high value land (sub-surface), accurate acreage is important. As you have posted the per acre value of the sub-surface is much more than the surface value.
That being said, I think we can agree so far!
But, it does certainly seem to me that with this high value land, whether surface or sub-surface, it should be identified on the ground by survey/resurvey!
And of course, if BLM were to conduct a survey/resurvey of this particular section, they would then have to make the decision if in fact the sub-surface mirrored the surface? If they were to monument the protracted lines and disregard any other evidence of the section subdivision lines, I would have to assume that their survey/resurvey would be officially protested and maybe a court decision up the line would give more guidance.
The BLM has avoided that scenario with this method of identifying the Public Land and it is arguable by the wrong method.
It puts the decision on the coal companies and oil companies to identify the lands that they are leasing and with the amount of money involved, I would assume they would do some surveying. Where would their lines end up?
To answer your question on your assignment to me: I would more than likely accept the fence corners for the section subdivision corners, as well as what was accepted along the section lines before.
I would have to believe that BLM should reconsider the effects of this sort of protracting boundaries, rather then surveying them!
Just my opinion, but seems natural to me.
Keith
MightyMoe
What if we dreamed of a time
...when the Federal Government owned no land?
...when these states achieved actual statehood?
...when western states and their citizens would no longer be vassals to the bureaucracy of DC?
MightyMoe
Thanks, Keith for your response.
I will say it's bold and I would advise you to have very good E&O insurance.
To me you have a few choices:
1. Stake the 1/16's to the occupation as can be argued per the manual.
2. Stake the 1/16's per the resurvey lots.
3. Get them to hire another surveyor.
To stake the 1/16 corners inside the already determined (even though it's only on paper) Federal line-that I would not do. I can assure you that the local BLM office would not be on board with that.
As far as the NW1/16-there is still plenty of liability you take on by "breaking" the section breakdown already established.
I've been in numerous situations concerning these sections already and so far have been able to resolve the issues with my clients. But, there may come a time when that just won't work and at that point I'm ready to just back away rather that take on liability I just don't want.
The thing for surveyors in areas of federal interest to remember is that just because there aren't new resurveys in your area doesn't mean they won't do them in the future (who knew that energy like coal bed methane even existed 20 years ago) and if you are breaking down a section use caution changing interior lines from math lines just because of a fence.
MightyMoe
You are touching on an argument that may be valid here as well as my bogus theory argument is on ONLY surveying section subdivision lines by exact mathematical and intersect methods.
Think about this way: the original protracted section subdivision lines are straight (actually curved) between the 1/4 corners, but when you go to the field, you cannot see these straight lines on the ground and there is in fact evidence of those lines that have been in existence for 50 years, so you accept those established boundary aliquot part lines and they have bends in them.
The same scenario can be looked at with these new straight protracted lines that BLM has put on paper. When you go to the field, you are not going to see those lines either, same as above. So, do you accept the mathematical position of those lines and ignore existing evidence of those boundary lines as above?
And of course, sitting where I am, it is easy for me to say!
If you can locate a court case that would justify your surveying only those protracted lines as shown by BLM, you will have something to hang your hat on. But if you can't, would you not survey in your normal way and using procedures that will not affect the bona fide rights of the landowners.
If you are surveying/resurveying the sections so that the landowner wants to know where to plow his field, forget those protracted lines that refer to the sub-surface only!
That and $4.50 will maybe buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
Keith
MightyMoe
Think about this way: the original protracted section subdivision lines are straight (actually curved) between the 1/4 corners, but when you go to the field, you cannot see these straight lines on the ground and there is in fact evidence of those lines that have been in existence for 50 years, so you accept those established boundary aliquot part lines and they have bends in them.
The same scenario can be looked at with these new straight protracted lines that BLM has put on paper. When you go to the field, you are not going to see those lines either, same as above. So, do you accept the mathematical position of those lines and ignore existing evidence of those boundary lines as above?
I'm in agreement with you. However, there is only one way to lay out these new lot lines and arrive at the acreages that the BLM has stated on the plat. And that is by the math.
If they would have left them blank (with the exception of the north and west lines of the township) then it still would have been left up to the interior landowners to sort it out.
This was done at the beginning of these resurveys; but later someone came up with the idea to do these new lots. Much like a corner that should have one monument, these lots need to have one line and should conform to the 1/41/4 of the private owner. Otherwise, chaos will prevail.
I think they got caught up with the numbers and the bean counting. And if they wanted to resolve these number issues they should have resurveyed the interiors. It wouldn't have been as bad as it sounds. I know they look at much of the interior as they survey and much of this land is wide open with large ranches so not every 1/16 corner needed to be resolved.
Now here we are at this point where the private surveyor has little latitude. You can accept the resurvey, or you can set corners in conflict with it.
MightyMoe
I'm in agreement with you. However, there is only one way to lay out these new lot lines and arrive at the acreages that the BLM has stated on the plat. And that is by the math.
Not necessarily, you don't look at the original protracted lines on an original GLO survey plat and try to "protect the plat" and it's 160 acres?
Some do in BLM and why I am calling it a bogus theory!
Isn't acreage way down the list on what is acceptable evidence?
Just a thought.
MightyMoe
Some do in BLM and why I am calling it a bogus theory!
Isn't acreage way down the list on what is acceptable evidence?
Just a thought.
Agree again. Acreage is at the bottom. But, in this case they are taking a stand unlike they ever did. Here is an example of an older resurvey-the way they used to do it:
I would much prefer that they continue this procedure.
Here are the same sections from the original:
These are sections with undefined interiors-in my opinion.
MightyMoe
I am well aware of original survey plat protractions and a protraction is a protraction!
They are not on the ground until there are monuments that show where they are.
I know that BLM is fully intending to show these protraction lines by mathematical projections to give accurate acreage figures, but I doubt if you could get anyone in BLM (well maybe a few) to categorically state that those protracted lines are fixed boundaries and can only be surveyed by mathematical means and ignore all other survey/procedures.
Ain't gonna happen.
Keith
MightyMoe
I would advise though, that you write a letter to BLM in Wyoming and ask them for an opinion on what you have been posting.
They should be able to explain what their procedures are and how you should treat them.
Tell John Lee that I advised that. He is the Chief Land Surveyor in Wyoming and remind him that I put him there. 😉
Just a thought.
Keith
This is a very interesting and complex subject and I am going to probably wander a little farther afield with it... sorry if this possibly hijacks your topic Keith, but I am with you that it is poor practice to ignore bonafide rights when attempting to break a section which has previous surveys/landowner actions, but as Loyal stated, split estates can become very messy (and like it or not, when value goes up exponentially due to mineral value, the potential for litigation follows hand in glove with that). We have a similar situation where I currently practice in NE Wyoming in that the BLM rejected local sectional control which had been in place for approximately 25 years and had been relied on to subdivide a good deal of property. The BLM stated in no uncertain terms that their survey was intended to control the mineral estate only and it was not intended to hold sway on surface ownership. Unfortunately, not everyone got that memo - so we now have a situation where some surveyors use the latest BLM survey as controlling, while others hold the "erroneous" private corners as controlling surface rights... to say nothing of how one subdivides an adjoining section where an owner was not a party to the older "erroneous" survey. To say the least, this is an extremely expensive and time consuming process to perform boundary work in this area and I am quite certain that regardless of the position a surveyor finally takes when he forms his opinion on a given boundary, the risk of being found to be in error by the court is a very real possibility. My experience with the courts leads me to believe that it very rarely tries to reach "justice", particularly when the lawyers and judge may have very limited knowledge - it is a crapshoot best avoided by the prudent surveyor. So the qualified and diligent surveyor forsakes these areas to the lowballer, which in turn makes a bad situation into a nightmare!
Thumbs up to Mr. Dowdell
As an aside, Charles Dowdell had done some survey work in an area which adjoins this problem area and I just wanted to state on this forum that your Record of Survey was a great benefit for what I was working on - in particular your extensive notes on what was found and the documentation of your research made it a real pleasure to retrace your work... :good:
MightyMoe
I've surveyed a lot of BLM 1/16 corners-I've never surveyed one that wasn't a prorate.
They all, as far as I can remember, have been strictly math positions regardless of old occupation at the corner.
I've heard of few exceptions, but haven't experienced one. And as far as the new surveys go, all 1/16th's that I see are prorates.
MightyMoe
Arizona was just smart enough to defeat the proposition to enact State control over all federal lands within Arizona. Can you imagine this state in control of the Grand Canyon, or Saguaro National Parks? Most voting citizens couldn't either.
there are just some things you can't trust a state to control properly I think.
imho.
MightyMoe
I have just talked with John Lee, Chief Land Surveyor, BLM in Wyoming and has assured me that they believe the sub-surface lines are identical with the surface lines and on only very rare occasions, that may be different.
They have been using this procedure of identifying the sub-surface accurate acreage since the 80's and are not having difficulty with surveyors understanding what it is all about.
John said, they did not change the rules on subdividing sections and the procedures used to subdivide the sections that have protracted center lines on the GLO survey plats are the same procedures as used now on the resurveyed section lines with protracted aliquot part lines. In other words and to the point, subdivide these sections the same as any other section. If you find valid corner evidence at the aliquot part corners, use it.
Some of this confusion may well be my own as I was beginning to think that BLM did in fact believe that the sub-surface lines were not mirrors of the surface lines and that is wrong.
John was upfront with all this, has had no problems from private surveyors knowing how to handle these resurveyed townships and in only rare instances, there might be different conclusions.
End of story.
Keith
MightyMoe
I have just talked with John Lee, Chief Land Surveyor, BLM in Wyoming and has assured me that they believe the sub-surface lines are identical with the surface lines and on only very rare occasions, that may be different
Which is what I've been saying.
MightyMoe
So what is your problem?