1909 County Surveys did not split a 1/4 section evenly to establish a 1/4 1/4 line.

[Scott]

I am surveying a deed that describes the west 15 acres of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 14. I have 2 county surveys from 1909 that reference a third that I don't have yet, and when I get the third it might shed some light on why they did it the way they did, but the 2 surveys show an uneven split of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 14 to establish the east to west 1/4 1/4 line (my south line, however also affects my east line to obtain the 10 acres). 4x4's were set at the two 1/4 1/4 cors (on the east and west lines of the NE 1/4 Sec. 14). One of the county surveys is laying out the west 10 acres and the east 30 acres of the west 40 acres of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec.14 (the north line of wich is my south line) with 4x4's set at all corners. This survey was run on the ground and fully monumented. I don't have the deed yet for this adjoiner but have ordered it.
In 1933 a Rec. of Survey was filed using those 1/4 1/4 line monuments from the county survey to establish the parcel whose west line is common with the east line of my adjoiner east of me. The adjioner east of me is described as the east 10 acres of the west 25 acres of the N 1/2 of the NE 1/4 Sec.14. I have the deed for my adjioner, but not for the ROS parcel(have ordered it). This survey was run on the ground and fully monumented.
In 2001 a Parcel Map was filed splitting the most eastern parcel in the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 14 (whose west line is common with the east line of the 1933 ROS parcel). In 2001 they did not find the 4x4's from 1909, but did find the IP's set on the 1933 survey. The 2001 PM split the 1/4 section evenly and therefore called the original monuments from 1933 off (2.75' North).
Yesterday we found some of the 2001 monuments, one of the 1933 monuments and none of the 1909 4x4's.
My questions:
1) What could be the reason the county did not split evenly and where could I find more info? I am going to meet with the current county surveyor to try to obtain the original field notes for those surveys and I still need to obtain some deeds.
2) Am I bound to accept the layout by the county (with the 1/4 1/4 line wrongly established and used by the 1933 survey)?
I can reestablish the county layout from the 1933 monument we found that was placed using the original county 4x4's.
If I do that, my clients parcel also includes the east 20' of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Sec.14. The NW 1/4 was always layed out correctly on all the maps I have, so I would have two 1/4 1/4 cors. south of the N 1/4 cor of the section. And that would mean a 2.75' jog north to south on the 1/4 section line in my clients property. What a mess huh!!!
3) If surveying a property is also surveying the adjioners then one must also be surveying the adjioners of the adjoiners of the adjoiners...
How far am I to go. Do I have to do every parcel over to the east line of the section to make sure everybody gets what they have coming? The client hired us to do a LLA to follow with a ROS, and I am already past the estimate.
4) On a seperate note on the same project Hetch Hetchy runs through it and I found a bunch of concrete monuments (stamped HHWS and some stations) to establish the alignment and they fit record decently. One of those monuments was used by the 2001 PM but he chose not to use or show on his map another one, instead set his own monument within a foot of the 2.5' tall 6"x6" concrete monument.
Who can I contact at the city of San Francisco to obtain records on how these CM's were set, and to obtain something I can reference besides the deeds?

I know this is a long and involved posting, any help at all would be greatly appreciated.

[Bob Hart]

This is indeed a mess. Talk to the County Surveyor and any firm with records for this area. Carefully evaluate the evidence. Your search for records must now begin in earnest.

Do Not make a hasty decision.

Bob Hart

[pls7809]

You may want to locate lines of occupation prior to making a decision also. Old fence lines may help with the decision. Interesting survey though.

[Scott]

There are no definite occupation lines. It is all orchards with no fences. There are small berms and banks between the various orchards and a new irrigation line on the 1/4 1/4 line in question that took out the westerly 1/4 1/4 set on an even split by the 2001 PM, and it also took out one of the IP's from the 1933 ROS.

[MDL]

Scott,

Information regarding the Hetch Hechy monuments can be directed to their offices in Moccasin. The surveyor is named Buck.. he may have retired though. Towill has also has completed a lot of work for the San Francisco PUC. There is also a Engineer named Steve Thomanzin (SP?) @ Moccasin.
I will look in my archive for phone numbers.
Mike

[Dane Ince]

Interesting problem, I am glad I don't have to figure it out. Has all of the land been patented out to private parties? Are you dealing with lines which bound lands still owned by the federal or State Governments? Private parties may subdivide their lands according to methods of their choosing. Calls for adjoiners will defeat the mean of a seemingly aliquot part description and this may explain why the 1909 survey does not divided the land evenly. thanks for your post.

[Scott]

I obtained a county survey that layed out section 14 and he said he set the 1/4 1/4 cor. on an even split. A month later the county survey I already have also set the same 1/4 1/4 cor. on record distance (of the previous months survey)from the east 1/4 cor to the south and checked into the sec. cor to the north and it wasn't an even split. He only shows the N 1/2 of the NE 1/4 on his map, but in his notes he says he started at the east 1/4 cor thence north on the section line. No where in his notes does he say he checked into the NE cor of section 14 but the distance shows up on his map.
They both said they set a 4x4 (within a month of each other).
All the parcels have been patented.
THANK YOU for the info on Hetch Hetchy records, I will contact the Moccasin office.