Frank Willis, post: 434299, member: 472 wrote: John Doe secures a federal patent to Fractional Section 30 in 1906, which borders a 20,000-acre lake, that was meandered by 10 various GLO surveyors between 1806 and 1880, and the meander lines all matched reality very well. All GLO plats were approved by the Surveyor General, and all GLO surveyors were paid. Their meanders matched a contour line very closely. The acreage in the fractional section is 47 acres (very small fractional section). John Doe alleges that the meander lines are actually about 3.2 miles from the real edge of the lake, and he claims the land between the lake and the meander, which would give him more than 3,400 acres over and above his 47 acres.
For purpose of discussion, let's assume that John Doe is correct--that the edge of the lake is in fact 3.2 miles away from the meander of his 47 acres, and that all the GLO surveyors and the Surveyor General were on drugs from 1806 to 1880.
THE QUESTION: Would you think that John Doe should be able to project his property lateral property lines line for 3.2 miles out to the edge of the lake (assuming that the lake is not where GLO said it was, and is in fact 3.2 miles away.)
Shoot. 🙂
Tell them you can't extend the lines, but you can move the entire 47 acres up to "where it should be":)
My thoughts are that if the GLO map mapped conditions that are substantially different to the extent that the patent did not reasonably match what the intended transaction was, that the meander line should hold. If it did match reasonably close, then the natural monument would take priority over the meander. The threshold for determining which should be used depends upon intent, which is the highest priority in the natural hierarchy--even higher than natural monuments. I can't imagine an entity selling 3400 acres but showing it and charging for 47 acres; so the meander ought to rule in this case, in my opinion.
Were any monuments set controlling the corners outside the calls of the meander line that can and have been recovered?
Lakes really don't move that much in my part of NW Louisiana. Almost all of our movement can be attributed to the clearing of the Red River log jam in the mid to lake 1800s, but that's another situation all together. Over 3 miles is a big discrepancy (it must be really flat adjacent terrain). Lower water levels in the summer are common, but that doesn't move the ordinary high water line.
Regardless, owners adjacent to navigable lakes are not entitled to relicted or accreted lands in LA, per state law. Rivers - yes; lakes - no. This effectively makes the GLO's meander line a fixed boundary, even though the GLO never intended it to be. The logic behind this is that the GLO meander is likely the best available evidence of the OHWM in 1812, when LA was admitted into the Union. The state almost always claims ownership of the beds of navigable waterways, i.e. below the meander line.
Personally, I would not extend his lines down to the water just because the client wants you to. The simple answer is that the boundary is the meander line, separating state and private ownership. If the meander can be proven erroneous, the ownership of the 3 mile area gets a lot more complicated, but your client's boundary still remains the same.
Frank Willis, post: 434369, member: 472 wrote: All the GLO surveyors did not meander the lake in same part of the lake. Lake is so big that it occupied parts of 6 townships. The meanders lined up very well at township intersects and contours. Our natural lakes in Louisiana have large natural water level variations, and many of them get very shallow in the summer, causing the edge of the water to change drastically with only a minor change in stage--like 1500 feet per foot of stage change. This post is not intended to be about that but rather the question as to would it be reasonable to extend the lateral lines of a tract of land that to get to a natural monument that far away. The concept probably would have been better portrayed if I used the Great Salt Lake as an example, where I believe a one inch stage change can shift water's edge 12 miles.
Frank Willis, post: 434372, member: 472 wrote: My thoughts are that if the GLO map mapped conditions that are substantially different to the extent that the patent did not reasonably match what the intended transaction was, that the meander line should hold. If it did match reasonably close, then the natural monument would take priority over the meander. The threshold for determining which should be used depends upon intent, which is the highest priority in the natural hierarchy--even higher than natural monuments. I can't imagine an entity selling 3400 acres but showing it and charging for 47 acres; so the meander ought to rule in this case, in my opinion.
You made good points to consider here that bring up new questions.
For this particular lake, what is the typical horizontal distance between the low water shore in the dry season compared to the high water shore in the wet season? Is it a few feet, a few dozen, or over 1000'?
Have other bodies of water in the area experienced reliction of about the same water level difference that would have needed to happen to uncover 3000+ feet since the meanders were surveyed?
If you are considering the present shoreline as located at some time when the lake would be some amount below its ordinary high water stage, and the water table has dropped by some amount since the GLO had conducted their surveys, and if the ground is flat enough that the combined effect of receding water table and seasonal variation could reasonably have uncovered the amount of land you're talking about... and that reliction occurred after the 47 acre government lot had been patented, then generally, that would mean that your client's side lines would have extended as the shore receded.
That's a lot of "ifs", but sometimes, everything does line up just right to justify what would seem to be an absurd result under almost any other conditions.
Other things to consider:
Was water removed from this lake for some other natural reason? For example, was there an avulsive event somewhere near or downstream of the lake's outlet that significantly increased the rate of outflow at some time in the past?
Has water been, or is it being removed artificially for use elsewhere?
Put another way, has there been some event or action other than the ground in the immediate region experiencing slow upheaval or the groundwater table receding that would explain a loss of volume in the lake?
When the receding began, and by what amount relative to the patent dates of the lands around it is also important. If there had been enough land uncovered between the meander lines and the actual shoreline to make up additional government lots prior to the adjacent upland having been patented, then, generally, the meander lines become fixed upland boundaries and the land below them and above the actual OHWM are considered unsurveyed public domain.
Take a look at the BLM Dependent Resurvey of T17N R21W GSM (Arizona) of 1963. It can be found on the GLO Records website. Original township survey was in 1905 with meanders of the east bank of the Colorado River creating fractional sections. Other mapping verifies the location as having been at least reasonably correct. By 1963, the river had moved by accretion, in some locations, more than a mile westerly. In this area, there is a checkerboard pattern of sections having been made part of the Mojave Indian Reservation, with the alternate sections being unpatented at that time.
The BLM apportioned the accreted land as parts of the upland fractional sections. They did not extend section lines but appear to have apportioned proportionately (New shoreline distance/old shoreline distance) and created new sidelines from the meander corners on the 1905 meander line to the new the proportionately determined positions on the 1963 bank, creating pretty drastic angle points at the 1905 meander corners and adding all the accreted area to the adjacent fractional sections.
For those sections that were part of the MIR, the area is simply labeled "Accretion" and shown as one large area for each such section. For the accreted areas adjacent to unpatended sections, they divided the areas into new government lots of the adjacent fractional sections.
eapls2708, post: 434426, member: 589 wrote: You made good points to consider here that bring up new questions.
For this particular lake, what is the typical horizontal distance between the low water shore in the dry season compared to the high water shore in the wet season? Is it a few feet, a few dozen, or over 1000'?
Have other bodies of water in the area experienced reliction of about the same water level difference that would have needed to happen to uncover 3000+ feet since the meanders were surveyed?
If you are considering the present shoreline as located at some time when the lake would be some amount below its ordinary high water stage, and the water table has dropped by some amount since the GLO had conducted their surveys, and if the ground is flat enough that the combined effect of receding water table and seasonal variation could reasonably have uncovered the amount of land you're talking about... and that reliction occurred after the 47 acre government lot had been patented, then generally, that would mean that your client's side lines would have extended as the shore receded.
That's a lot of "ifs", but sometimes, everything does line up just right to justify what would seem to be an absurd result under almost any other conditions.
Other things to consider:
Was water removed from this lake for some other natural reason? For example, was there an avulsive event somewhere near or downstream of the lake's outlet that significantly increased the rate of outflow at some time in the past?
Has water been, or is it being removed artificially for use elsewhere?
Put another way, has there been some event or action other than the ground in the immediate region experiencing slow upheaval or the groundwater table receding that would explain a loss of volume in the lake?
When the receding began, and by what amount relative to the patent dates of the lands around it is also important. If there had been enough land uncovered between the meander lines and the actual shoreline to make up additional government lots prior to the adjacent upland having been patented, then, generally, the meander lines become fixed upland boundaries and the land below them and above the actual OHWM are considered unsurveyed public domain.
Take a look at the BLM Dependent Resurvey of T17N R21W GSM (Arizona) of 1963. It can be found on the GLO Records website. Original township survey was in 1905 with meanders of the east bank of the Colorado River creating fractional sections. Other mapping verifies the location as having been at least reasonably correct. By 1963, the river had moved by accretion, in some locations, more than a mile westerly. In this area, there is a checkerboard pattern of sections having been made part of the Mojave Indian Reservation, with the alternate sections being unpatented at that time.
The BLM apportioned the accreted land as parts of the upland fractional sections. They did not extend section lines but appear to have apportioned proportionately (New shoreline distance/old shoreline distance) and created new sidelines from the meander corners on the 1905 meander line to the new the proportionately determined positions on the 1963 bank, creating pretty drastic angle points at the 1905 meander corners and adding all the accreted area to the adjacent fractional sections.
For those sections that were part of the MIR, the area is simply labeled "Accretion" and shown as one large area for each such section. For the accreted areas adjacent to unpatended sections, they divided the areas into new government lots of the adjacent fractional sections.
In Louisiana, the property owners bounding lakes are not entitled to reliction or accretion. The ordinary high water mark of 1812 delineates the boundary. Even if the lake dries up, the boundary remains the 1812 ordinary high water mark. GLO surveyed that ordinary high water mark. But today, it is being alleged that the ordinary high water mark is out in the lake about 2-3 miles and was out in the lake 2-3 miles in 1812. Even today, the ordinary high water mark is very close to the old meanders, but the parties around the lake say the ordinary high water mark is out in the lake about 2-3 miles, which is where the low water mark is.
i should have simplified this to say that when a meander of a waterbody is 3 miles away from the actual water body, does the patentee gain the land all the way to the water body (3 miles).
Frank Willis, post: 434334, member: 472 wrote: In the particular state, there is no right to reliction or accretion in the lake.
There's a tidbit of information that changes the situation from the typical PLSS grants. In such a case, it would be important to know how they got a "federal patent" for a part of a "fractional section" under a "GLO survey" system. At "20,000 acres" I'd have to presume that we're talking about a navigable body of water, the bed of which would be owned by the State up to the high water mark. I would be very curious how any State Act could have taken the relicted land from the patentee without compensation unless the State Act intervened after statehood and prior to the patent grant (possibly).
Need quite a bit more details in order to consider the impact of the quotation.
Edit: Seems as though you've answered my questions as I was creating my post.
Parts of 6 Townships?
Section Lines and Township Lines are extended along cardinal directions. Once this particular owner reaches township or section lines his claim is dead as far as the US government is concerned, whether or not he has a claim per state law or not.
Paul in PA
Paul in PA, post: 434433, member: 236 wrote: Parts of 6 Townships?
Section Lines and Township Lines are extended along cardinal directions. Once this particular owner reaches township or section lines his claim is dead as far as the US government is concerned, whether or not he has a claim per state law or not.
Paul in PA
Really? I must have missed that in my studies. Can you point to the law or case where this principle comes from?
eapls2708, post: 434464, member: 589 wrote: Really? I must have missed that in my studies. Can you point to the law or case where this principle comes from?
1/ Lines are assumed to be cardinal unless error can otherwise be shown.
2/ Unfinished surveys are to be protracted from monumented lines.
At various places in the Manual from 3-93 to 3-123.
Paul in PA
Section lines are not extended past their terminal post locatons. The land below a section terminal post and meanders is usually considered part of a section unless the water body that was meandered changes by avulsion to encroach into another section or if accretion and erosion cause the water body to move into another section, in which case the other section is shown.
This isn't the case that I was trying to convey though.
Frank Willis, post: 434509, member: 472 wrote: Section lines are not extended past their terminal post locatons. The land below a section terminal post and meanders is usually considered part of a section unless the water body that was meandered changes by avulsion to encroach into another section or if accretion and erosion cause the water body to move into another section, in which case the other section is shown.
This isn't the case that I was trying to convey though.
For a 47 acre fractional section to exist it is most likely near a corner so first assumption is 2 lines were run partially and possibly 2 lines not run at all. The section survey has to be completed limiting the claim to 640 acres and anything beyond would be unsurveyed lands of the US or subsequently granted to the state.
Paul in PA
Paul in PA, post: 434513, member: 236 wrote: For a 47 acre fractional section to exist it is most likely near a corner so first assumption is 2 lines were run partially and possibly 2 lines not run at all. The section survey has to be completed limiting the claim to 640 acres and anything beyond would be unsurveyed lands of the US or subsequently granted to the state.
Paul in PA
Interesting.
eapls2708, post: 434464, member: 589 wrote: Really? I must have missed that in my studies. Can you point to the law or case where this principle comes from?
I have learned from this site never take legal advice from the following:
Anyone that is not licensed in the State where the question is asked,
From someone who is not registered,
From someone who was gifted their Surveyor Licensed,
Frank Willis, post: 434372, member: 472 wrote: My thoughts are that if the GLO map mapped conditions that are substantially different to the extent that the patent did not reasonably match what the intended transaction was, that the meander line should hold. If it did match reasonably close, then the natural monument would take priority over the meander. The threshold for determining which should be used depends upon intent, which is the highest priority in the natural hierarchy--even higher than natural monuments. I can't imagine an entity selling 3400 acres but showing it and charging for 47 acres; so the meander ought to rule in this case, in my opinion.
I gave testimony in federal court recently on this very issue. Anxiously awaiting the decision.
Frank Willis, post: 434430, member: 472 wrote: In Louisiana, the property owners bounding lakes are not entitled to reliction or accretion. The ordinary high water mark of 1812 delineates the boundary. Even if the lake dries up, the boundary remains the 1812 ordinary high water mark. GLO surveyed that ordinary high water mark. But today, it is being alleged that the ordinary high water mark is out in the lake about 2-3 miles and was out in the lake 2-3 miles in 1812. Even today, the ordinary high water mark is very close to the old meanders, but the parties around the lake say the ordinary high water mark is out in the lake about 2-3 miles, which is where the low water mark is.
i should have simplified this to say that when a meander of a waterbody is 3 miles away from the actual water body, does the patentee gain the land all the way to the water body (3 miles).
I completely read over your post earlier. So the current OHWM is still close within reason to the original meander(s), and the adjacent "lakefront" owners are trying to claim to the low water mark? And they want you to survey their few thousand acre "claim" area? Haha this is a good one. I would advise them against staying their current course, and maybe refer them to someone at the Office of State Lands if they need further direction.
I guess you could prepare some form of map showing their claimed area, but it would most likely be a waste of everyone's time. I can't imagine a scenario where that would fly, but I learn new things every day.
Frank Willis, post: 434522, member: 472 wrote: Interesting.
I believe Scott Ellis is also questioning my point.
Let us look at comments on "Ferry Lake" in the Manual at 7-91:
from the Attorney General of the US to the Secretary of the Interior, September 11, 1916.
"...However, in so far as concerns the land lying between the old meander lines and the waters of the lake, I entirely agree with you that it constitutes unsurveyed public land of the United States..."
confirmed by the SCOTUS January 2, 1923.
Question is why should I be reading the Manual of Surveying Instructions to PLSS surveyors?
Paul in PA
Sorry for the diversion off the main topic Frank.
Paul in PA, post: 434507, member: 236 wrote: 1/ Lines are assumed to be cardinal unless error can otherwise be shown.
2/ Unfinished surveys are to be protracted from monumented lines.
At various places in the Manual from 3-93 to 3-123.
Paul in PA
Your contention falls apart on #2.
A fractional section is not necessarily considered to be an incomplete survey. If the survey was completed and accepted and land patented according to the survey, then absent gross error or fraud, whatever caused that section to be fractional is a natural boundary. Where the natural boundary is ambulatory, such as the shoreline of a body of water, the rules for extending sidelines to the boundary as it moves away are very different than they are for a completion survey.
Sometimes the section and aliquot division lines will be extended. Some states (OR as example) prescribe that method by statute. Often, the line will be extended at a direction determined entirely independently of the direction of the section or aliquot lines. Generally, it will depend not only on state law, but the date and source of original patent, whether or not some of the land remains in the public domain, and if any, how much and in what configuration relative to patented parcels, the general direction and/or configuration of the original shore to the upland properties, the general direction of that shore now and the general direction of the shore movement since the original meanders. In most circumstances, and I believe in most jurisdictions, it can properly be said that there is no particular prescribed or correct method of how to extend those lines, but it can be said that the general principle is to employ a method that would most equitably divide the accreted area among the parcels that were waterfront according to the original meanders.
If you want to see an example of this reflected on a Federal Government (BLM) survey, look up the plat I mentioned a few posts back.
Where there had been significant accretions adjacent to a fractional section in which none of the riparian government lots had been patented, then the BLM would be very likely to extend the lines of the fractional section, much as they would for a completion survey. That does not mean that the previous survey showing the fractional sections was unfinished. I'd have to hunt it down, but I have recently seen such a survey. The government lots of the previous survey remained in the same configuration and new government lots were created on the other side of the old meander line with some standard divisions beyond that.
Again, I have heard of no set rule, except in the provisions of at least one state law, that the apportionment of accretions cannot extend beyond a line which was never established simply because the extension of that line would have cut off a portion of the accretions had it been established by the government survey.
Pointing to a general portion of the Manual isn't helpful because it says "I'm sure the principle is somewhere in this area but I didn't take the time to verify it."
Chapter 3 is about original surveys. A completion survey, although abutting one or more previously surveyed areas and dependent on those surveys to supply perimeter lines and corners, is still considered an original survey of public domain lands. In other words, except for those of us working for the BLM, it doesn't directly pertain to what we will ever do but is informative of the methods that would have been used in a completion survey we may be retracing.
Chapter 8, Resurveys and Water Boundaries, is where we find guidance for this type of work. Beginning with ??8-132, they talk about partitioning accretions and give several hypothetical examples over the next several pages. Extending section and aliquot lines is but one of several possibilities.
The most basic principles are stated in 8-132: "Partition lines for accreted or relicted areas are established in accordance with the same principles for both rivers and lakes. Some variation is necessary in adapting the methods to particular cases. Care will be taken to award each basic holding on the shore the part of the bed in front of it. If one method fails to do this, another method, or a combination of methods, will be used." ...
... and in 8-133(5): "Because nearly all the precedent litigation on these subjects has centered on the requirement of an equitable division of the accretions, the rigid rules above are subject to modification on a case-by-case basis. For a division of accretion to be equitable, each owner must be allotted a fair share of the accretions."
This portion of Chapter 8 provides good descriptions and figures of several different methods which are useful and acceptable under various circumstances. some of the figures show significant changes in direction between the upland, aliquot partition lines and the partition lines of the accretions. There are also some that show partition lines of the accretions being made which clearly cross where section and township lines would have been if extended. The partition lines have no relationship to the upland lines except sharing a point on the previously surveyed line (typically the original MC) as an angle point in the sidelines of the riparian parcel.
Again, except where there exists specific State laws prescribing the extension method, and where no remaining public domain lands are affected and the affected private lands originated by State patent, there is no set, prescribed method for establishing the sidelines between the old and new shorelines and no set principle save that which says to use the solution which is most equitable.
Paul in PA, post: 434565, member: 236 wrote:
Question is why should I be reading the Manual of Surveying Instructions to PLSS surveyors?Paul in PA
I have the same question.
