Would someone confirm a rumor that I am hearing?

Keith-

This may or may not be related to your post, but in Colorado the BLM has stated that any reliance on section corners from the PLSS used in oil & gas work (plats, well plat drawings, easement descriptions, etc.) must be properly monumented and field located, and if they are not in, they must be set per the proper procedures in the Manual Of Instructions- could this be what you are referring to?

Chuck

Chuck

No, in fact that sounds like a good idea.

The story I am hearing is that speakers are stating that they would not accept any monument that was not set according to proper procedures. As in previously set C1/4 corners or 16th sec. cors.

In fact it was stated that the Dykes v Arnold Appeals case should have been overturned in the Oregon Supreme Court.

Keith

I don't know the answer as to what was said by whom at those conventions but I suspect it had something to do with the "bona fide rights" and "good faith" principles. I don't have the new Manual yet but 6-16 in the 1973 Manual says "It may be held generally that the entryman has located his lands in good faith if such care was used in determining his boundaries as might be expected by the exercise of ordinary intelligence under existing conditions."

Although it doesn't refer specifically to monuments, I think it applies in that just because somebody drives a monument in the ground by guess or by golly without some good faith effort to locate it in relation to the description of his grant doesn't mean that the BLM surveyor is required to accept it. It doesn't have to be done exactly by the book but the person laying out the parcel has to at least try.

> Apparently in the Utah and the Montana survey conventions, spokesmen for BLM made the statement that they would reject any monument that was not set using proper procedures! Reliance, intent, or acceptance be damned!
>
That's not quite the way I remember the comments presented. The way I recall the presentation, it was inferred that the primary test for acceptance of a center-section corner (or any protracted corner) was whether or not the proper method was used (or at least attempted) when the monument was set.

Therefore, the statement was really made opposite of what Keith stated. The test for "accepting" a monument is whether proper procedures were used. Of course, the inference is that, if the monument was not set by proper procedure, it can be rejected.

(Same thing, only different)

JBS

Steve

You are right about the sec. 6-16 as it lays out the concept of good faith and acceptance of local monuments.

Sec. 6-28 is also the basic tenet of accepting local corners and providing caution to the surveyor to consider all the facts.

You may recall my often stated premise that I would welcome a fight in court where I would bring in the 80 year old landowner that could/would testify to determining his boundaries by running out barb wire that was 1320 feet in length and put that up against the best measuring device available.

But what I am hearing is in direct opposition to the Federal Appeals Court case Dykes v Arnold which specifically accepted a monument that was not in fact placed by exact proper procedures.

That case is the law now and surveyors should be very careful in spouting their views on acceptance of local control as that is not BLM policy.

And of course that should be stated up front that it is not BLM policy.

But of course, I don't speak for BLM anymore.

Keith

JB

It would seem obvious to me that the test is in fact if the local monument was set according to proper procedures and that of course would be contrary to the provisions stated in the Oregon case.

Therefore, the statement was really made opposite of what Keith stated. The test for "accepting" a monument is whether proper procedures were used. Of course, the inference is that, if the monument was not set by proper procedure, it can be rejected.

My example of the landowner pulling out the 1320 ft. roll of barb wire is not exactly by the "proper procedures" but the bigger question is of course; will the resurvey protect those bona fide rights of the landowner?

I am certainly aware that some will look upon my example as pure heretics, but the law on protecting bona fide rights is just that and does not necessarily protect the exact measurements on the ground that rejects anything else.

Was it mentioned in the conventions that this is BLM policy?

Keith

I skipped the Utah convention this year. Hope I didn't miss anything important.

I read some recent BLM resurvey notes last summer. Looked like they where accepting about anything to me.

I have some BLM surveys in my files that do exactly that Keith. These were resurveys of the section lines and breakdowns of certain sections where the BLM has retained some unpatented lands. These surveys were done in the mid to late 80s.

Some of these monuments had been in place for many years (decades in a few cases). The explanation for rejecting them stated in the notes was that the monuments were not placed utilizing proper procedures.

I'll see if I can get the plat and notes scanned and email them to you.

Thanks eapls,

I know that local monuments have been rejected in the past and I am real sure that they are being rejected now for various reasons. There is no policy that a BLM resurvey has to reject or accept a local monument; that is his/her judgement decision.

I personally have rejected local corner monuments that were not set properly and I explained why in the field notes and by the same reasoning, I accepted monuments that were not properly set and I was protecting the bona fide rights.

That is what land surveying is all about and I am only bringing this up now because it sounded like all local corner monuments were being rejected for the simple reason that they were not set exactly by proper procedures.

And here comes the Oregon case......and is controlling law.

If that is not the case, I want to hear it.

And we just might discuss it.

Keith

Isn't "Reliance, intent, or acceptance" included in "using proper procedures"?

I, for one, cannot confirm the rumor that you can hear ...
I can however confirm that you ... are ... an ...active member. 🙂

LR

I can't say for sure, but I have to imagine that BLM is accepting more local control in most circumstances.

Land surveying 101!

Keith

I need to correct this.

That case is the law now and surveyors should be very careful in spouting their views on acceptance of local control as that is not BLM policy.

This should have been ". . . rejection of local control . . ."

Keith

Steve

I think Dykes is an Oregon case (not Federal).

Any Surveyor who thinks it should be overturned is unclear on the concept, in my opinion. Monuments don't exist for the Surveyors; they mainly exist for the property owners to know where their property is located. Maybe some take it personally that a County Surveyor didn't use the correct procedure decades ago but at this point it is too late to fix it.

Dave

I don't view Dykes as some grand change either. It's a landowners acceptance and reliance issue. After a long time the court isn't going to upset the hood.

It's a long established principle of law. The court might have gone an extra mile to try and convince surveyors to look to the law instead of a formula or procedure.

There's a time and place to apply the proper procedure. There's a time and situation to apply other boundary law. You should figure out what the situation is before you go off half cocked. Contemplating the total situation takes a lot more effort than applying the formula. Sometimes the formula is appropriate, then it's easy, just turn the crank.

How's the rabbit?

Evan

Are you saying that BLM rejected some monuments as not controlling federal interests because their belief is that improper methodology was uaed to place said monuments?

Arnold does not apply to other states

Further it does not apply to any other fact set per se. I am not saying to ignore the case.... just saying

shading is the darnest thing

The comment makes perfect sense to me and I believe it is a well understood that there must be some basis for acceptance or rejection of a monument.

Arnold does not apply to other states

It should be noted that the Oregon court looked to case law in other states to help them arrive at their decision.

Dykes may not be the "law of the land", but I wouldn't be surprised if future cases in states other than Oregon begin referencing Dykes.

Just sayin.