NGS' response to 4 corners location

[Marti Ikehara]

Hi:
Although it doesn't involve California, you may find interesting NGS' response to the allegation that the Four corners monument is in the 'wrong' place.
It is our top story at the moment...
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/INFO/fourcorners.shtml
Marti Ikehara
NGS CA Advisor

[Lee Hixson]

Marti...

Thanks for the interesting article. What a surprise to learn that the old principle that applies to us peon surveyors locating a private parcel, also applies to the location of 4 state boundaries: namely, that the original monument controls! Never mind that it varies somewhat from where the "intended" location was--it was located as best as can be expected, given the equipment/techniques of the time.

But this raises a question in my mind. Let's suppose that I get a job to locate a private parcel in the state of Utah that abuts the east boundary of the state and lies about a mile or so north of the 4 corners. If the existing SE corner of the state of Utah is marked by a monument that is a perpetuation of the original monument (a 7 foot tall sandstone shaft), and thus fixes the correct position of the corners of the 4 states, but it sits approximately 1,800 feet away from the "intended" position, does this mean that I would "hold" said monument as fixing the southerly terminus of Utah's east line, then be forced to extend my survey 275 miles to the north, to whatever marks the correct position of the most NE'ly corner of the state, before I would be able to establish the "actual" east line of my client?

Stated differently: has anyone--including the NGS--surveyed the "actual" east line of the state of Utah.....not the "intended" one.....but the one that runs directly between found, accepted monuments at the accepted, correct corner positions which fix this line in it's "as-built," legal location?

[Gromatici]

I think this is a good article to keep in mind for those retracing the PLSS system and tempted to call off center of section or other monuments because they are "scientifically" in error. It's true that the LEGAL center of section is the intersection of the corresponding opposite corners, but back in 1950, that's were it was (Legally), to the best of abilities at the time. Should we be coming back and adjusting everything?

This also holds true for "small" differences in deeds and boundaries were we might be temped to call off a monument 0.02' or so. I know of a court case where the judge said "This is the center of section (pointing to the intersection of lines per the recent survey" but this is the center of section for these parcels - pointing to the historical location per an older survey. (The difference was about 50 feet).