Community Forums

Original GLO in AZ  

Page 2 / 2 Prev
  RSS

Keith Williams
(@keith-williams)
5+ posts Member
Joined: 1 month ago
Posts: 13
December 19, 2018 3:08 pm  

Andrew,

Maybe that is the township.....I can't seem to find anything in my current files, but it was a BLM resurvey that did not accept existing monuments, and put some land owners in trespass with the FS.  Ann Kirkpatrick passed a private relief bill which was supposed to fix the problem??

Keith


ReplyQuote
Keith Williams
(@keith-williams)
5+ posts Member
Joined: 1 month ago
Posts: 13
December 19, 2018 3:15 pm  

Was this in Coconino County?

Did Ann Kirkpatrick have a private relief bill to supposedly help the landowners?

This post was modified 1 month ago by Keith Williams

ReplyQuote
Charles L. Dowdell
(@charles-l-dowdell)
500+ posts Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 772
December 19, 2018 4:43 pm  
Posted by: Andrew Clark

What Township & Range was this in? I can't recall running across anything in the areas I've worked in down here. There is one Township just south of Sierra Vista that is kinda messed up, but it wasn't a BLM fiasco, but came about by some corner cutting surveys by some private surveyors that worked in the area. They never found a lot of the original corners that were in place and used monuments that were not a section corner to begin with, were only Highway center line P.O.T.'s near where the section line crossed the highway. The BLM recovered quite a few originals in the course of their resurvey.

 

 

Charles,

Are you talking about the mess in Ramsey Canyon? Because the BLM came into a section or two, ignored existing BLM monuments and reset a bunch of monuments along the national forest boundary. One section in particular is pretty ugly, multiple 1/16th and 1/64th corners within a few feet of other.

I did a boundary project in that area in 2013, it was fairly difficult to resolve the boundary courtesy of the BLM. But we sure labeled and noted the heck out of that map.

Might have been the same township or right close to it. The Township I'm referring to was the use of highway center line monuments used for section corners, which were only P.O.T.'s in the highway and then going out and setting other corners from these. A lot of the originals were still in place and resulted in 16'± to 50'± misplacements of the correct section lines and the subdivisions of these sections. There is one area where all the land owners call it a "No Mans Land" , which is a strip that no one claims as their property.

There is a subdivision in the area of Hereford Road called Nicksville, Units 1 thru 4, that when you use the Section Line distance that had the NW corner of Section 17 and the W¼ and project it South it puts the SW corner within a foot or so of the BLM railroad spike established in the shoulder of the highway. Everyone erroneously used a highway center line P.O.T. about 40' NWly as the section corner. That SW corner should have been ran in using the Nicksville plat record to re-establish it, since it is apparant that the W¼ was established during the Nicksville survey using the original SW and NW corners in existance at that time.  I remember doing a lot of retracement work in Sections 8, 17 & 18 and have a pretty good handle on some of what happened in there. Too many corner cutting surveys were done by others not doing the proper research and just going out and plunking something in the ground. I think I have some of the maps of these retracement surveys in my files somewhere.   


ReplyQuote
Andrew Clark
(@andrew-clark)
20+ posts Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 25
December 20, 2018 6:21 am  

Charles, It seems like we are talking about the 'same-ish' area. Charles, the area you are describing sound like it's only a mile or two away from this particular section. I have no doubt that there were some issues with the FS and private ownership and I'm not overly surprised that there was some needed legislation to deal with the issue.

As an aside, I worked on a project not far down the road from there involving REALLY old mining claims, water rights, the BLM, and the town of Tombstone that ended up in federal court.

Perhaps you will recall the Ramsey Canyon Fire in 2011(?) that ravaged those canyons pretty harshly. The town of Tombstone owns several mining claims and the water rights to those claims, in/near Ramsey Canyon, and had around 23 miles of a naturally-flowing water line that was installed in the late 1800s/early 1900s, and supposedly is the longest water line of that nature in the country (I'm know that I'm forgetting the exact record distance, it might be longer or shorter). Much of that historical water line was damaged in that fire.

After that fire, the town of Tombstone (with a group of Tombstone-resident volunteers) attempted to restore the historical water line that was damaged during the fire. The BLM cited the national forest boundaries and stopped the town's attempts to restore the water line. So, when a localish (albeit a prominent national) PAC caught wind of what was going on with the battle between the town of Tombstone and the BLM, so the PAC helped the town of Tombstone sue the BLM for the rights to maintain that water line, and I'm sure you see where this story is going. I can end it with, after many appeals in federal court, the town of Tombstone no longer has access to that water supply.

Keith, this is all in Cochise County. While I have no doubt there are some GLO problems in Coconino County, as I'm guessing you know, Cochise County is a weird bag of surveying worms, even in the GLO world.

"Knowledge is good."
-Emil Faber


ReplyQuote
Keith Williams
(@keith-williams)
5+ posts Member
Joined: 1 month ago
Posts: 13
December 28, 2018 2:42 pm  

I think the area that I was interested in was T. 20 N., R. 7 East, G&SRM in Coconino County.

The trespass problem that ended up in Congress.

Keith


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 2 Prev
Resolve to Get Licensed - Save 15% on Almost Everything
  
Working

Please Login or Register