California Surveyors Forums

... of occupation.
What is your opinion

http://news.yahoo.com/nc-sc-state-line-isnt-where-folks-thought-183850866.html

Who is doing the resurvey?

I don't know that they are actually moving it as opposed to just determining where it was originally run according to the evidence that still exists of that survey. Might have, but I read an earlier story that gave no indication of that and only skimmed this story. To affected residents the distinction would be lost and the technical truths immaterial to the reality of which state they've called home up to this point. Whether the surveyor found the location of the original line by use of all available evidence, or recreated it by applying modern math and measurements to centuries old record directions and distances, it looks the same to the currently affected resident - "they moved the line!"

Hopefully the surveyor(s) did a thorough and diligent job of locating the original line as closely as existing evidence indicates, and hopefully the states will then consider the effect on their residents' lives when they move to the next step of creating the political boundary and relating it to the surveyed boundary.

Remember that many of the private grants existed prior to the state (or colonial) lines having been run, and the surveyors of the stae line most likely did not, and perhaps were not authorized to create jogs in the line to accommodate properties which straddled the line. The subsequent property records in many cases were probably recorded only in the jurisdiction where the majority of the parcel lie, or where the grantor thought of as his home state/county, and so subsequent grantees, regardless of what side of the state line as established then thought of their parcels as being in the same state as the grantor thought of his holdings as being in.

Kind of like in Mike Turnrose's BLA thread, locating the originally established line, if it can be done, may only be a first step in arriving at whatever line the states wish to recognize now. They might now enter into a complex BLA between the states that makes accommodation to include certain properties/subdivisions/portions of established communities in one state or the other, adding hundreds of courses to the state "line". Or they may just decide to leave the line where it is and upend the lives of several residents by demanding taxes to different jurisdictions, kids sent to different schools, etc.

What they do with it after they've determined where the line was originally established is the rest of the story.

"The U.S. Congress set the boundary as the instructions given out by the king, not the line on subsequent maps."

I have no idea what this is, but is it simply a more accurate determination of where it was supposed to be, rather than where it is?

Keithwill wrote:"The U.S. Congress set the boundary as the instructions given out by the king, not the line on subsequent maps."

I have no idea what this is, but is it simply a more accurate determination of where it was supposed to be, rather than where it is?

I think one would have to look at the actual legislation enacted to establish the line, look at the records of any surveys performed under authority of that legislation, and then look at the research and methodology behind the recent survey to determine that.

Did you have any occasion to retrace or oversee the retracement of any of the lines of the original 13 when you were working back that way?

Evan,

My field experience was in Montana and South Dakota and of course was not in the field when in the BLM Washington Office.

There has to be more to the story than we are reading here.

I did however, retrace a portion of the State Boundary between Montana and Wyoming and the part that I was on, was not on the latitude line like it was supposed to be....but ya know, monuments mean things.