Recent media attention reported that the Four Corners Monument was "in the wrong place" by 2.5 miles. In fact, the history of the Four Corners Monument, set in 1875 and refurbished in 2010, provides surveyors and GIS with all the legal backing necessary to accept existing monuments instead of setting new multiple monuments. Surveyors are responsible for the curious practice of setting multiple monuments, or "pin gardens". This presentation examines numerous pin gardens and explains how only one constitutes a property corner by using legal rational, not math.

1. The FOUR CORNERS LEGACY
Monuments, Not Math, Define
Property Boundaries
And 1,001 Reasons Why Surveyors
Plant Pin Gardens Anyway
Warren D. Ward, CO PLS 25971
March, 2012

2. A (property) CORNER is a point of
reference determined by the survey
process.
• A monument is the physical object set in the
ground to identify a corner.
• The above concept is stated in the BLM Manual,
and codified by many state statutes.
• End result: When a duly licensed surveyor places
a monument, they have established a legal
property corner. Subsequent surveyors DO NOT
have some mystic right of superior math to discard
previous surveyors’ work. Retracement,
retracement, retracement!

3. - Four Corners
monument
set in 1875.
- 2009 News
report that
the 1875
stone was off
by 2.5 miles!

4. • The true
history is a
good example
of case law
for surveyors
to follow

5. – Some
surveyors
practice the
frustrating
act of setting
multiple
monuments
for one
property
corner, or
“pin
gardens”

6. 1,001 reasons
surveyors
give for
planting pin
gardens,
despite the
legal
precedent that
discourages
such
confusing
practice.

7. Have a nice day! In
other words, may
your monument
prevail over some
other guy’s
touchscreen.

8. Deseret News
Four Corners marker 2 1/2 miles off? Too late
• By Lynn
Arave
• Published:
Monday,
April 20,
2009
• Laypeople
easily use
modern
GPS

9. Laypeople can
easily
research
surveying
history, and
make the
wrong
conclusion

10. Deseret News
Four Corners Monument is indeed off mark
• By Lynn
Arave
• Published:
Thursday,
April 23,
2009
• After
surveyors
call in to
insist that
there is no
error

12. PID: NGS DATA SHEET BBCD57
Desi
gnat FOUR CORNERS 2010
ion:
Sta
mpi COLORADO UTAH ARIZONA NEW MEXICO 1992
ng:
Stab
Monument will probably hold position well
ility:
Setti
Mat foundation or concrete slab other than pavement
ng:
Desc THE STATION IS THE CENTER OF AN 8-INCH DIAMETER BRASS USDOI/BLM DISK MARKING
ripti THE POINT COMMON TO COLORADO, UTAH, ARIZONA, AND NEW MEXICO. IT IS LOCATED
on: AT THE NAVAJO NATION'S FOUR CORNERS MONUMENT, MANAGED BY THE NAVAJO
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, TEL: 928-871-6647. THE FOUR CORNERS
MONUMENT INSTALLED IN 1992 (NGS PID: AD9256, NOW CONSIDERED DESTROYED) WAS
REMOVED AND THE DISK RESET IN 2010 DURING RECONSTRUCTION OF THE MONUMENT
AND VISITOR PLAZA. THE DISK WILL EVENTUALLY BE STAMPED "2010."
Obs
erve 2010-07-07T22:39:00Z
d:
Sour
OPUS - page5 1009.28
ce:

13. REF_FRAME: NAD_83(CORS96 EPOCH: 2002.000 SOURCE: NAVD88 (Computed using UNITS:
SET PROFILE DETAILS
) 0 GEOID09) m
± 0.027
LAT: 36° 59' 56.31568" UTM 12 SPC 3003(NM W )
m
± 0.011
LON: -109° 2' 42.62051" NORTHING: 4096544.982m 666054.142m
m
± 0.003 EASTING: 673944.597m 722137.487m
ELL HT: 1460.802
m
CONVERGENCE: 1.17671173° -0.72935591°
± 0.015
X: -1664599.638 POINT SCALE: 0.99997275 1.00005994
m
COMBINED FACTOR: 0.99974356 0.99983074
± 0.009
Y: -4821995.076
m
± 0.023
Z: 3818181.565
m
± 0.016
ORTHO HT: 1481.544
m

14. Denver Post
Four Corners spot is off the mark
• By The
Associated
Press
• Published:
Monday,
April 20,
2009
• Updated:
Thursday,
April 23,
2009

15. Cortez Journal
On the mark
Four Corners National Monument officials
dedicate completion of $1M plaza work
• By Hope Nealson
• Published: Sunday,
September, 19, 2010
• 18 months after first
report, the monument is
now correct.

20. New Mexico

21. Utah

22. Arizona

23. Colorado

32. Colorado Case Law:
Monuments, Not Math Define
Property! • All monuments in 10-
Lot subdivision
otherwise set
• Morales v. CAMB, a partnership Colorado Court of Appeals, March 22, 2007 correctly in 1980, and
• 2007 Colo. App. LEXIS 482, 2007 WL 851628 all acreages correct as
• Boundary dispute; subdivision monuments; monuments vs. calls. reported on 1980 plat.
• In this boundary dispute between the owners of adjoining subdivision lots, a simple issue • Two 1980 monuments
was presented. The location of the boundary as described on the metes and bounds were set in error, or
descriptions on the subdivision plat, and as shown on the plat map, favors one lot owner. blunder, by 13’, along
(Note: Monuments set accurately throughout 1980 subdivision, two corners “off” by 13’) a 100’ lot line.
• Both Lots vacant.
• The location of subdivision monuments on the ground, placed pursuant to C.R.S. § 38- • In 2003, surveyor
35-105(1), and approximately 13 feet south of the platted line, favors the other lot owner. during a “replat”
discovered the
discrepancy, set two
• The subdivision plat contains the required surveyor’s certificate attesting that appropriate new monuments in
monuments had been placed on the ground. Applying rules of survey interpretation, the the accurate
latter owner wins. mathematical
location, and filed a
• Monuments prevail over metes and bounds description (sic – see note), even if they are plat that showed the
graphically depicted on a subdivision plat map.(emphasis added)(note: Subdivision discrepancy.
Lots are simultaneous conveyance, not metes and bounds).
• Indeed, in this situation, the monuments are “conclusive.”See Everett v. Lantz, 126 Colo.
504, 514, 252 P. 2d 103 (1952).
• This is the holding even if (as here) the plat’s legal description does not “close” if one
defers to the monuments, implying that the monuments were
misplaced at the outset. (emphasis added)

33. U.S. Supreme Court
Monuments – Not Math Define Property!
• U.S. Supreme Court
• New Mexico v. Colorado, 267 U.S. 30 (1925)
• No. 12 Original
• Decided January 26, 1925
• 267 U.S. 30
• (a) That New Mexico, upon her admission as a state, was bound by the
previous recognition and adoption of the earlier location by the United
States, her predecessor, and could not be heard to disavow the boundary
thus recognized. P. 267 U. S. 41.
• (b) The effect of this recognition of the earlier location by the United • The lengthy, archived
States was not impaired by the temporary recognition of the later one by explanation includes
the General Land Office. Id. recognition of the
many problems that
• (c) After Colorado's admission as a state, her right to rely upon the disrupt an orderly
boundary previously established could not be impaired by any subsequent society when survey
action of the United States. Id. lines and monuments
are changed.
• (d) New Mexico was bound also by her own recognition and adoption of
the earlier line upon and after her admission to statehood. Id. .
• 2. The boundary between the States of Colorado and New Mexico is the
line of the 37th parallel as surveyed and marked by Darling (emphasis
added) from the Macomb monument westwardly to the 109th Meridian,
and as surveyed and marked by Major and Preston from the said Macomb
monument eastwardly to the Preston monument on the 103rd or Cimarron
Meridian. P. 267 U. S. 39
• Page 267 U. S. 31

35. Some of Many Biblical References
• Deuteronomy 19:14: Thou shalt not remove
thy neighbor’s landmark, which they of old
time have set….
– Proverbs 22:28: Remove not the ancient
landmark, Which thy fathers have set
• Deuteronomy 27:17: Cursed be he that
removeth his neighbor’s landmark. And all
the people shall say, Amen.

36. ASKED CREW CHIEF TO FIND ORIGINAL MONUMENT, HE SAID IT
WASN’T THERE. SET NEW PIN. SAME CREW CHIEF 15 YEARS LATER
AS PLS FINDS ORIGINAL MONUMENT, REJECTS NEW PIN ON PLAT.

37. ORIGINAL 1970 REBAR NOT GOOD ENOUGH? GREAT JOB OF
CALCULATING, POOR JOB OF SURVEYING!