I am putting together a proposal to perform topos on multiple military bases in CA, NV and AZ. Since it is on a military base and for the military, do I need to be licensed in the State I am performing the work in? I keep getting conflicting information.
Thanks for the help!
Military Base Topos
-
LS 4722
- Posts: 479
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:42 am
Charlie
It seems to me that an LS state license is good for that state..only. So my answer would be that you will need a partner for the states you are not licensed in.
Check our licensing rules and regulations (restrictions) and see if a Government facility is exempt from having to be state licensed to perfom land surveys.
Check our licensing rules and regulations (restrictions) and see if a Government facility is exempt from having to be state licensed to perfom land surveys.
-
Ric7308
- Posts: 719
- Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 2:50 pm
Charlie8297,
I can only speak for California so I suggest you check with the NV and AZ boards to compare.
If the client (branch of US military) requires licensure, then yes. Absent that criteria, work performed on a federal military base would be considered exempt from state licensing unless the work performed impacts, or has the potential to impact, adjacent properties / title interest outside of federal title interests.
Example 1: Topographic survey extends beyond the external boundary of federal ownership.
Example 2: (and more engineering related than surveying but may be included) topographic survey related to drainage design and the results of that design may impact title interests downstream and outside of the federal jurisdiction. Water and gravity does not honor property lines.
There may be more examples of exceptions to this rule, but those are the two that I have specifically encountered. While in private practice, it was my experience that most times the requests included performance or oversight by an appropriately licensed individual. If only for the purposes of the client viewing the potential consultants on an even playing field and to ensure quality services.
I can only speak for California so I suggest you check with the NV and AZ boards to compare.
If the client (branch of US military) requires licensure, then yes. Absent that criteria, work performed on a federal military base would be considered exempt from state licensing unless the work performed impacts, or has the potential to impact, adjacent properties / title interest outside of federal title interests.
Example 1: Topographic survey extends beyond the external boundary of federal ownership.
Example 2: (and more engineering related than surveying but may be included) topographic survey related to drainage design and the results of that design may impact title interests downstream and outside of the federal jurisdiction. Water and gravity does not honor property lines.
There may be more examples of exceptions to this rule, but those are the two that I have specifically encountered. While in private practice, it was my experience that most times the requests included performance or oversight by an appropriately licensed individual. If only for the purposes of the client viewing the potential consultants on an even playing field and to ensure quality services.
-
E_Page
- Posts: 2144
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:49 am
- Location: El Dorado County
Ric,
Reread §8730 (a). I read that as applying to federal employeess, not to contractors working for the feds.
On federal property or not, if it's within CA, I read this as licensed required, regardless of what entity otherwise has jurisdiction over the ground.
Reread §8730 (a). I read that as applying to federal employeess, not to contractors working for the feds.
On federal property or not, if it's within CA, I read this as licensed required, regardless of what entity otherwise has jurisdiction over the ground.
Evan Page, PLS
A Visiting Forum Essayist
A Visiting Forum Essayist
-
BoundaryMan
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:44 pm
Temporary Licensed (TL)
Since CA issue TL, you may want to check if other states you are working, issue same TL.
-
Ric7308
- Posts: 719
- Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 2:50 pm
Evan,
However, I believe reading that anyone not specifically mentioned must be licensed in CA (in this case), must also concede that they are saying that state law has jurisdiction over federal law. I don't believe that thinking agrees with the normal hierarchy of laws and government. I also believe that federal agencies recognize the benefit of using competent individuals and employ a standard practice to request state licensing as a contractual requirement for the reasons I mentioned previously.
I can see where you are reading that section in that manner. I agree with you that the section specifically applies to officers or employees of the federal government only.Reread §8730 (a). I read that as applying to federal employeess, not to contractors working for the feds.
On federal property or not, if it's within CA, I read this as licensed required, regardless of what entity otherwise has jurisdiction over the ground.
However, I believe reading that anyone not specifically mentioned must be licensed in CA (in this case), must also concede that they are saying that state law has jurisdiction over federal law. I don't believe that thinking agrees with the normal hierarchy of laws and government. I also believe that federal agencies recognize the benefit of using competent individuals and employ a standard practice to request state licensing as a contractual requirement for the reasons I mentioned previously.
-
E_Page
- Posts: 2144
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:49 am
- Location: El Dorado County
To my knowledge, we do not keep a list of jurisdictional authority as you describe. There may be something up in legal, but I haven't had occasion to be concerned with it. I'm not fully familiar with the precise definitions of those terms, but they seem more or less self-explanatory.
Several years ago, the CSLC went to the SCOTUS over a fight about the location of the coastal 3 mile limit. We have a full set of maps reflecting the final ruling. That may be what you are thinking of. I've been here for over 4 years, but still learn of different types of records we keep every so often. There may be such a listing here, but outside of base title issues, that doesn't seem like it is something that is within the purpose & mission of the CSLC.
We do concern ourselves with base title, and that affects both survey authority and is determinitive of whether state or federal laws apply with respect to the boundaries and other title matters.
For example, undisposed federal public domain is completely federal as to applicable laws (boundary, title, survey authority) while most acquired federal lands (lands once patented to state or to private parties, and subsequently reacquired by purchase, eminent domain, or other method) are subject to state laws for boundary, title, and where the survey of boundaries and other title interests are concerned, survey authority.
As to other civil and criminal laws, I don't know the level of jurisdictional authority of the various types of Federal lands. Boundary laws, being a part of the body of civil laws, are a bit different in that in many cases, the boundary of the federal land is the demarcation of the limits of jurisdiction, but except for undisposed public domain, the State laws apply to the boundary itself.
Military bases have differing rules. There is often state legislation in which they grant the lands of certain bases (some specifically listed bases, other legislation pertains to all military lands existing at the time the legislation passed) back to the federal government as both a title matter and a jurisdictional matter.
I understand Ric's point, and agree as to non-title related surveys completely within the base. In almost all cases, the exterior boundary would be a matter of State jurisdiction (at least in CA) and would require a state-issued license to survey.
I think that at least part of my thinking is with regard to the offering of services within the State, and the possibility of incidental work that is outside of the base boundaries, such as tying to NGS control or tade station benchmarks off-base if on-base control is for whatever reason, insufficient (due to construction, natural earth movement, inadequately maintained monumentation of on-base control, etc.).
If the work doesn't have the potential of an off-base component or boundary work of any kind, I can see that no state-issued license would be required.
Of note is that in one of the pieces of legislation passed, for bases bordering on the ocean of a bay/inlet of the ocean, the State blanket granted a 300 yard strip of tide and submerged lands extending seaward from the upland federal holdings.
Several years ago, the CSLC went to the SCOTUS over a fight about the location of the coastal 3 mile limit. We have a full set of maps reflecting the final ruling. That may be what you are thinking of. I've been here for over 4 years, but still learn of different types of records we keep every so often. There may be such a listing here, but outside of base title issues, that doesn't seem like it is something that is within the purpose & mission of the CSLC.
We do concern ourselves with base title, and that affects both survey authority and is determinitive of whether state or federal laws apply with respect to the boundaries and other title matters.
For example, undisposed federal public domain is completely federal as to applicable laws (boundary, title, survey authority) while most acquired federal lands (lands once patented to state or to private parties, and subsequently reacquired by purchase, eminent domain, or other method) are subject to state laws for boundary, title, and where the survey of boundaries and other title interests are concerned, survey authority.
As to other civil and criminal laws, I don't know the level of jurisdictional authority of the various types of Federal lands. Boundary laws, being a part of the body of civil laws, are a bit different in that in many cases, the boundary of the federal land is the demarcation of the limits of jurisdiction, but except for undisposed public domain, the State laws apply to the boundary itself.
Military bases have differing rules. There is often state legislation in which they grant the lands of certain bases (some specifically listed bases, other legislation pertains to all military lands existing at the time the legislation passed) back to the federal government as both a title matter and a jurisdictional matter.
I understand Ric's point, and agree as to non-title related surveys completely within the base. In almost all cases, the exterior boundary would be a matter of State jurisdiction (at least in CA) and would require a state-issued license to survey.
I think that at least part of my thinking is with regard to the offering of services within the State, and the possibility of incidental work that is outside of the base boundaries, such as tying to NGS control or tade station benchmarks off-base if on-base control is for whatever reason, insufficient (due to construction, natural earth movement, inadequately maintained monumentation of on-base control, etc.).
If the work doesn't have the potential of an off-base component or boundary work of any kind, I can see that no state-issued license would be required.
Of note is that in one of the pieces of legislation passed, for bases bordering on the ocean of a bay/inlet of the ocean, the State blanket granted a 300 yard strip of tide and submerged lands extending seaward from the upland federal holdings.
Evan Page, PLS
A Visiting Forum Essayist
A Visiting Forum Essayist
-
Ric7308
- Posts: 719
- Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 2:50 pm
Woodcutter & Evan,
I am not versed in the "4 levels of jurisdictional authority" mentioned, but I find what both of you have recently posted educational and interesting. Good point Evan on the lands acquired by the Feds that was once owned by state or private interests.
In the early 2000's Dan and I spent time surveying on various military bases for environmental cleanup operations and once we were asked to go to a navy base in Rhode Island. I inquired with the licensing board there and was told that as long as our work remained within the base boundaries, we were okay to proceed.
I am not versed in the "4 levels of jurisdictional authority" mentioned, but I find what both of you have recently posted educational and interesting. Good point Evan on the lands acquired by the Feds that was once owned by state or private interests.
In the early 2000's Dan and I spent time surveying on various military bases for environmental cleanup operations and once we were asked to go to a navy base in Rhode Island. I inquired with the licensing board there and was told that as long as our work remained within the base boundaries, we were okay to proceed.
-
Ric7308
- Posts: 719
- Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 2:50 pm
Temporary License
BoundaryMan mentioned a temporary license in an earlier post in this thread and I thought I would take the opportunity to explain that misnomer as far as California is concerned.
California does not have a temporary license for engineers or surveyors. It is a temporary authorization, limited to 180 days, for one project. And this is only approved by Board action during a regularly scheduled Board meeting when the applicant interviews with the Board.
This is different than some other states.
California does not have a temporary license for engineers or surveyors. It is a temporary authorization, limited to 180 days, for one project. And this is only approved by Board action during a regularly scheduled Board meeting when the applicant interviews with the Board.
This is different than some other states.
-
land butcher
- Posts: 1615
- Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:26 pm
- Location: calif
I have never needed to know, but I would doubt that any State has any authority over someone working on Federal land. The Feds hire engineers and surveyors and for some positions require a license but the job descs never state that the licensee has to be licensed in the State the work is in.
And according to a recent article by Michael Pallamary in American Surveyor the city of San Diego considers themselves outside of State law.
And according to a recent article by Michael Pallamary in American Surveyor the city of San Diego considers themselves outside of State law.