Surveyor to Recorder for Record of Survey?

[David Kendall]

It could happen. You got my vote Danskin

[land butcher]

Govt employees should not be allowed to vote on this.

[David Kendall]

I believe removing the County Surveyor's review from the mapping process would certainly damage the public. The OC-JPPLC routinely sees maps submitted for map checking review that in no way comports with the most basic principles of practice. In fact, I have a growing concern that on the regulators side we have fewer competent county surveyors - if their map endorsements are any measure - to hold the land surveyors to the basic principles of boundary establishment and the corresponding mapping. For instance, I still throw up a little in the back of my mouth, when I think about a recently filed record of survey I found in San Mateo county in which the land surveyor established interior section lines in two different townships by using only two monuments - one standard corner and one quarter corner - found on the township line. For the uninitiated, the monumented quarter corner isn't necessarily common to the quarter corner in the adjacent township. In dismay, I called the county surveyor. His reply "you should have seen what I started with. That map is the best version I was going to get after 5 checks. Initially, there was only one monument on the township line. We went out and recovered the quarter corner and all of the mapping dimensions moved more than 40 feet." However, when he signed off on the map he did not put a note on the map or file a complaint BPELSG. It is a sorry state of affairs. In my 30 years of mapping and map checking I have not seen anything quite like that record of survey. For what it is worth, the land surveyor of record has been licensed for nearly 20 years and has a bachelors degree from Fresno. The county surveyor has a CFeds license.

DWoolley

Woolley I thank you for a prime example in support of my argument that there is little value in our record of survey review protocol. I would love to see the comments (and the bill) from the five mapchecks on that substandard record of survey. I expect that there was the changing of a few linetypes and monument symbols and statements and hopefully for the love of GOD he made them take the B out of the MDB&M but the entire exercise failed miserably in serving the property owners. Probably took six to nine months of hemming and hawing and twenty five draft copies of the map to get it to file. Still garbage. Most of the comments I get are nearly illegible and incoherent scribbles on the map with little explanation (or sense) and typically not based in law. One in ten is worthy of consideration. The standard of care is generally low and costs are high. Please explain how that is protecting the public. From what I know of the San Mateo County Surveyor he is one of the better ones. I believe that some County Surveyors are so intimidated by the threat of lawsuits or board complaints of their own or budget constraints that they are almost completely ineffectual and the entire exercise becomes theoretical, not based in actual practice.

I believe that the original intent of the county surveyor review was to impart local knowledge, wisdom and oversight on the survey mapping process. That is no longer how it works. The current standard for County Surveyor appears to me to be the nearest warm body with a license that couldn't get on with the DOT that is willing to sell their soul for a retirement plan and health benefits and a mandate to "protect the public". Then they hire the first two LSIT in town that no one else has picked up yet and those guys go down the checklist to perform the map reviews. Some counties just subcontract the whole mess out to someone three counties over who may have rolled through on a family vacation 10 years ago but never practiced anywhere near the county that they are lording over. I share your concern about competent county surveyors.

Please excuse the gross generalizations, I know for a fact that there are several exceptions to this description but THEY ARE EXCEPTIONAL, UNCOMMON. I bet this is accurate in at least 20 counties in CA. The system has lost it's way. I'm happy to hear that the OC JPPC is working to educate surveyors in SoCal. I attended the two sessions at the last CLSA conference and I was highly impressed. I don't believe that there is another group in CA that comes close to that standard. I expect that the majority of our PPC are almost completely inactive.

I believe that people will be hurt if county surveyors review is removed. However, if a surveyor records five or ten garbage surveys then the enforcement case will be a slam dunk. Make them clean up their messes or pull the license. Landowners and other surveyors will still complain, not much will change except the reputations of the surveyors who don't care will be on blast in the recorder's office for all to see.

I worked in Texas where nothing is recorded. I assure you that even without an expensive babysitter the standard of care was still high for the conscientious surveyors and maps were still retraceable. It took some diplomacy to get a copy of a plat but it was not uncommon to do. No one called up another surveyor demanding or expecting anything, you go to the landowner or the other surveyor with your hat in hand and ask politely for information. We built relationships, as we should.

I just got my plastic card last week and I don't know much but that's what I see. If i am wrong then I welcome and appreciate correction. I would love to hear from people who are practicing in other states where there is no review process how it is working out there.

The guys who are practicing garbage are still out there either way as your example shows. Thanks again

[Scott]

I agree with Kendall in that, to me, Woollley's comments actually make the case for getting rid of CS review.

Imagine if that map was recorded without the 5 reviews, how good of evidence that would be to take to the Board for discipline and get rid of these people?

Maybe, if one is disciplined or receives an infraction relating to Boundary Res. or RoSs from the Board, then make them pay for CS review, at Expert rates?

I am surprised at the poll results, especially with the loaded question, but I am on the 'no CS review' side just a smidgen more.

When I was young and first heard of the idea (I think it was Utah back then I heard about), I was immediately and emphatically against removing CS review, but as I've gotten older, I have come to understand what might be some of the benefits.

[Jay Wright]

Poll could be written as

Do you believe you are perfect and should not be questioned in any way about your omniscient work?
OR
Do you find it helpful to have your work reviewed before it becomes a permanent record?

The people in my County Surveyor's office do good work and are valued members of the profession and CLSA

[David Kendall]

I'd like to clarify that I have no personal resentment towards any particular county surveyors nor to the institution. I think that officer is as noble as any other public servant and I appreciate the sacrifice they make. I understand that it is a difficult role and professional situation.

I do take offense at overpriced bureaucratic nonsense in the name of protecting the public and I am certainly questioning the value of this process in it's current manifestation.

If our own internal review processes do not suffice then we ought not to be considered professionals and we should hire a government office to double-check our closures and spelling. If I'm going to shell out $100+ per hour for editing and peer review I reckon I'd like some discretion over who I hire to do it.

I say we ought to grow-up and proof-read our own survey plats and file them and suffer the consequences for shoddy work

Now if you'll excuse me I have a date with a mountaintop. When I return Tuesday I hope to see some fire on this discussion and many votes. You guys are boring sometimes

[hellsangle]

First off . . . whomever started this link - thank you!

Second . . . I have NO problem with 99% of the County map reviewers, nor the County Surveyors. If the purpose is to have the County Surveyor "police" the LS Act, etc. then shouldn't this "codified" review also be funded by the State? Then we could go back to $50 or nothing review fee for a Record of Survey. ( . . . and I have no problem with County Surveyor's chiming in here on this topic. Especially the likes of Warren Smith, whom I hold in high regard!)

Mr. Kendall points out a myriad of interesting and provocative debate on this subject. Kendall's response is loaded with "meat 'n potatoes" as is Wooley's. But I favor Kendall's points over Wooley's.

A Record of Survey is an opinion. If the opinion is contrary to law and/or common practice . . . and . . . subsequently The Opinion prevails in the courts - new Law is made. If it fails - as Mr. K points out - the Bad Actors might clean up their act?

Have a nice weekend, all.

Phil - Sonoma

[land butcher]

To me Dave Wooley's statement just adds more credence to eliminating the County Surveyor on Records of Survey.

Of late I have seen govt people dictating how they want the map and the survey done. I remember Gary Shelton looking at a map and saying "This guy did a good survey and made a nice map then the county got ahold of it." In most cases, until maybe the final check if the CS even does one, all the checking is done by unlicensed persons. They have this "This is the way I want it done/drawn" and it when logic and/or proper practice is brought up they get huffy and just nit pick everything right down to measuring the borders to 1/16". Most of my issues are with legal descs but even maps are becoming a headache to get approved.
I think part of the problem is CAD. Before CAD the map was drawn on linen or mylar and changes were hard to make and I think the surveyor was more diligent and the map checkers took into account that innocuous items could be left alone, but with CAD their attitude is; "It's no big deal to make him chance this or that".

[Jay Wright]

If the govt people in your area are dictating how they want the map and survey done, DON'T LET THEM.
I would bet BPELSG would help you out.
I had to have someone from the board call a map checker and his boss. (PM not ROS)

I have had differences of opinion with my county and still got the map filed as I wanted it.

[hellsangle]

Sunday 6 August 2017, 07:30 . . . only 34 responses out of almost two-thousand members?! (At least there are 567 Lookie-Lous! Three of the 567 were me hoping for change. Appears a revolt like SB 2 isn't going to happen unless they speak their mind.)

How 'bout a Battle of the Daves debate in the CalSurveyor?! All licensed surveyors in California would then be able to respond. And Landon might have enough Letters-to-the-Editor-fodder to start a quarterly journal again. LOL

"In this corner - Dave Wooley! In this corner - Dave Kendall!"

Speak, oh ye masses, speak!

Phil - Sonoma

[DWoolley]

East is west, left is right,
Up is down, and black is white,
Inside-out, wrong is right,
It's back to front and I'm all uptight.

Back to Front, The Kinks (1981) –

I have not heard this song in 30 or more years. This back to front conversation brought it back to me. On some level, thank you.

The issue with the County Surveyor I mentioned, together with licensee that prepared the referenced record of survey, is simply a question of negligence and/or incompetence.

I begin with the citations to authority and background information. I will return to post opinions at a later time.

Negligence and Incompetence Defined

In California, the California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 5 ("CCR"), §400-476 define negligence in connection with the practice of land surveying. Section §404 (dd) states “…”negligence” "...as used in Sections 6775 and 8780 of the Code is defined as the failure of a licensee, in the practice of professional engineering or land surveying, to use the care ordinarily exercised in like cases by duly licensed professional engineers and land surveyors in good standing”. Section 404 (u) states "incompetence" "... is defined as the lack of knowledge or ability in discharging professional obligations as a professional engineer or land surveyor."

According to CCR §415 (2) (4) , failure to file a record of survey or corner record is negligence. Simple enough.

Professional Opinion - Only Non-negligent Opinions Count

Boundary established is governed by the facts determined by the evidence and the proper application of the law to the facts. In short, it is not, nor has it ever been, math on the ground i.e. two found monuments and then, rotating the record deed or map figure onto the ground - ignoring occupation, other existent monuments, senior rights, chains of title, conflicting elements, etc.

The determination of “non-negligent” is of paramount consideration. If the surveyor offers opinions that involve his own negligent survey work or the negligent work of others (as an expert witness), he can rightfully be held liable for damages. Negligence results from a breach of the standard of care (reasonable man doctrine). Arguments for and against negligent performance focus on the duty, skill, and knowledge ordinarily possessed by reputable surveyors currently practicing in a similar locality (for the numbskulls, "similar locality" does not mean if most every licensee in a geographic region breaks the law or practices in a haphazard manner it is the "standard of practice") and under similar circumstances as compared to the surveyor in question. A failure of the surveyor in question to fulfill these duties to the same extent as would be done by a reputable surveyor in a similar locality (see the caveat above) and under similar circumstances is deemed to be negligence.

Phil Danskin stated "A Record of Survey is an opinion. If the opinion is contrary to law and/or common practice . . . and . . . subsequently The Opinion prevails in the courts - new Law is made. If it fails - as Mr. K points out - the Bad Actors might clean up their act?"

Phil, surely you are not suggesting, as it relates to boundary establishment, essentially, "anything goes" as a matter of opinion, are you? When a licensee performs a boundary and offers an opinion it is not the same as offering an opinion as to whether or not the Giants will make the World Series in 2017. Or more preposterously, that members of the public should litigate their unfiled $2000 two monument tango "boundary" to test the surveyor's competence - at a cost of a $100k plus and five calendar years of litigation, are you? Of course not, ridiculous on its face. Please clarify your statement.

When a member of the public hires a licensed professional they are, in theory and by law, assured the licensees have the requisite knowledge and skill to properly perform the job. It is a common misstatement that 10 surveyors presented a boundary will have 12 different opinions. Hogwash. Equally competent surveyors, when presented with the same evidence, will have the same boundary opinion nearly 100% of the time. The differences of opinions by a surveyor usually involves negligence. California land law is old, very stable. The middle ground or gray area is usually nuanced, easily recognized and usually amounts to little more than coffee discussion to pass the time.

CCR, §415 states the land surveyors will "...work only in the field or fields in which he/she is by education and/or experience fully competent and proficient." Yes, this means a new licensee - licensed in the last 6 months - is held to the exact same standard as someone that has been licensed for 30 or more years. There is no grace period or learning time allowed before being held equally accountable.

OC JPPLC - the practice based approach

David Kendell stated "I'm happy to hear that the OC JPPC is working to educate surveyors in SoCal. I attended the two sessions at the last CLSA conference and I was highly impressed. I don't believe that there is another group in CA that comes close to that standard. I expect that the majority of our PPC are almost completely inactive".

The OC JPPLC educates by reporting negligent or incompetent work to the licensing board. I believe they have turned in approximately 40 complaints since March, 2017 with a current backlog of another 30-50 to go. In my experience, education, in and of itself, is a non-producer of results.

From my perspective, these dishonest scofflaws and jackleg surveyors put pressure on honest business professional practices. Worse yet, they have created a legion of young and not so young licensed professionals that do not know how to properly perform a boundary survey. Essentially, a legion of incompetent land surveyors. These folks simply do not know how to properly establish and map a boundary. This has to change.

As for the OC JPPLC being in "SoCal", not true. Most of the complaints that have been filed this year appear to center on the bay area - as it turns out, it is like fish in a barrel. Apparently, local practitioners want better practice in the bay area. There appears to be a steady pipeline of work product making its way to the committee. The OC group will process any work product from anywhere. If you have a record boundary slapped onto a topographic map, an ALTA Land Title Survey with 2 monuments and no record of survey, or any other work you would like reported, please send it to the OC JPPLC, they're in the book. All work product submitters are kept confidential. After the work is cataloged by a couple people the folks on the committee never know who sent in the work product. The OC JPPLC no longer bothers with trying to obtain compliance by the surveyor - that is BPELSG job.

If the practice based approach is appealing to any of you please consider joining the Practice Based Chapter headquartered in Orange County. Currently, approximately 15% of our membership is from out of the county. Apparently, these folks support the work of a practice based chapter focused on the issues they hold as important. Equally, they apparently do not want to sit around the campfire singing kumbya and discussing continuing education, for another 40 years, while the profession whittles away.

As to the County Surveyors

Most county surveyors' offices in the state do not have a full cost recovery system for checking records of survey. In most jurisdictions, the surveyor will have the record of survey checked and filed for less than $700 - a bargain in any economy. The County Surveyor's office isn't getting rich or creating job security from the checking of a record of survey. Besides, who cares what they charge? The surveyor isn't paying it. If the proverbial "old lady" wanting to build a fence can't afford a survey, so what? You do not need survey to build a fence - all that is needed is string line and strong back. In the event, at some future date, they want to know where the boundary is located the professional surveyor can show them the established boundary relative to their fence.

David Kendall stated "County Surveyors are so intimidated by the threat of lawsuits or board complaints of their own or budget constraints that they are almost completely ineffectual and the entire exercise becomes theoretical, not based in actual practice".

Nonsense. The County Surveyor, as with most all government employees, has an indemnification from being sued - sans gross negligence. The gross negligence standard protects 99.9% of all public employees. Like private practitioners, the county surveyor cannot be negligent due to budget constraints. Restated, the budget (or lack thereof) cannot have any effect on the professional licensee obligation to perform the services and produce the statutory required record of survey.

The job of a county surveyor is not a training position. Like it or not, the county surveyor serves in a regulatory capacity, by law. If the county surveyor fails to competently perform the duties it is the obligation of the professional community to report this person to the licensing board. Although not recognized separately by the law, in my opinion, an incompetent county surveyor is far worse than an incompetent private licensee.

One Remedy

If the prevailing thought among the professional community is live and let live - turning a blind eye to incompetence and negligence and deregulating the regulators - put your money where your mouth is by deregulating the profession in its entirety. We have had a couple of states take a run at removing the licensing requirement for land surveyors. Collectively, if we think staking out coordinate boundaries from two monuments, not filing records of surveys, not properly documenting evidence, putting squirrel notes on our topographic maps that show a "record boundary" and then, state "This is not a boundary..." (which, thank dog, BPELSG has been cracking down hard with a hit rate similar to that of Zhang Shan shooting sporting clays) then, the honorable thing, the right thing, to do is collapse the corrupt market and deregulate the entire profession. We cannot have it both ways.

For what it is worth,

DWoolley

Again, a later time, I will come back and add more and particularly, add in the issues with the BPELSG enforcement process.

[Lee Hixson]

Thanks, Dave. I'm looking forward to the discussion of the Board's enforcement process. In one case I'm familiar with, their process dumbfounded me and I'd like to know more about it.

[Jim Frame]

I say we ought to grow-up and proof-read our own survey plats and file them and suffer the consequences for shoddy work

I could support this position as long as we go all the way and eliminate licensure entirely. Let the market decide who's a good surveyor and who isn't, no license required. But as long as we enjoy a protected market, I heartily endorse County Surveyor review of Records of Survey. I don't always agree with the revisions suggested by the CS, but when I don't, I state the basis for my disagreement and invite the CS to suggest wording for a note per §8768. No need for anyone's feathers to get ruffled, he gets his note, I get my survey filed, and everybody's happy.

[rmaher]

How 'bout a Battle of the Daves debate in the CalSurveyor?! All licensed surveyors in California would then be able to respond. And Landon might have enough Letters-to-the-Editor-fodder to start a quarterly journal again. LOL
"In this corner - Dave Wooley! In this corner - Dave Kendall!"

I remember in June of 2016 we organized a David Woolley and Evan Page debate over mandating 2-man crews (i.e. not 1-man crews) and we broke the associations webinar system with the number of people trying to log on. Since upgraded, we can handle any crowd now.

If there is a Don King amongst us that would like to arrange this professional debate on the topic(s) the association would be pleased to host it as a webinar for up to an hour of time. We have openings in the schedule starting next year after the conference (April and onward)

[land butcher]

I think the members that work for the govt are slanting the vote. Would you vote to put yourself out of work?

[Jim Frame]

I think the members that work for the govt are slanting the vote.

The poll itself is what's slanting the vote. I declined to cast one because of the nakedly snarky bias in the wording of the choices.

[David Kendall]

The poll itself is what's slanting the vote. I declined to cast one because of the nakedly snarky bias in the wording of the choices.

Write the answer however you like it's a yes or no question. Do you want to get down to business or do you need to be wined and dined?

[Jim Frame]

Do you want to get down to business or do you need to be wined and dined?

If there were any business to get down to I might consider it, if professionally presented. But an online poll seen by a very limited audience isn't going to have any effect, even if it didn't read like it was written by a 5th-grader.

[David Kendall]

I could support this position as long as we go all the way and eliminate licensure entirely. Let the market decide who's a good surveyor and who isn't, no license required. But as long as we enjoy a protected market, I heartily endorse County Surveyor review of Records of Survey.

Please elaborate. What is the value of the CS review?

If the prevailing thought among the professional community is live and let live - turning a blind eye to incompetence and negligence and deregulating the regulators - put your money where your mouth is by deregulating the profession in its entirety.

The issue with the County Surveyor I mentioned, together with licensee that prepared the referenced record of survey, is simply a question of negligence and/or incompetence.

Thank you for the reasoned response. I appreciate a good discussion. Mr. Woolley you haven't really answered any of my questions but you wrote alot about some things which were mostly relevant.

First of all I guess I don't understand the extreme approach where we have to deregulate the entire industry in order to streamline the filing system. I don't believe we should turn a blind eye to negligence and incompetence. I just don't believe that the County Surveyor is the one who is supposed to regulate that. They are not provided that power in the PLS act, what regulatory power are you speaking of?

If a survey is insufficient to determine a boundary, can a County Surveyor require a surveyor to return to the field to collect more data and form a more reasonable solution? No. The only regulatory power they have is to write a note stating their opinion that the survey is insufficient. Anything else is abuse. Maybe the next time I wait 3 months to get a comment out of left field regarding the space between Cal and Trans I will send the whole review packet down to the Practice Based Chapter Headquartered in Orange County and ask them to battle it out for me and file a board complaint against the County Surveyor. From what I've seen, any private surveyor who initiates a Board complaint against a CS may as well pack it up and move to the next county because he'll have hell to pay every time he tries to file a map (especially a subdivision). Even the notes are a last resort. Out of all of the hundreds of records of survey I've researched, reviewed and retraced in six counties in CA not one has contained a CS note. Why is that if negligence and incompetence are so rampant?

The map review process is certainly not a cash cow but it may support a few salaries in the larger counties and I assure you they don't want to lose that income. Just like the recorder selling digital images of deed and map sheets for $5 a page. I also agree that a CS cannot personally get sued (that statement was a stretch on my part and I apologize), by a property owner, surveyor or developer but the threat of lawsuits certainly influences policy at the county and state level.

Budget constraints are always a factor in any organization. That is indisputable. I've personally seen state and county mapping projects languish for years due to no money left in the kitty to finish up the map. It will sit on the back burner until it is forgotten or some creative use of resources can be devised to have it finished (unless someone notices and screams, it's identical to the unfiled map which every surveyor has in some job file from 2009 where the client went bankrupt right after the pipes were set).

In most jurisdictions, the surveyor will have the record of survey checked and filed for less than $700 - a bargain in any economy.

Perhaps but what are you getting for the $700? Are you paying the CS to check your work for oversights, errors or omissions (your personal negligence) or are you paying for insurance on the negligence of the other surveyors in your community? Either way, I don't see it as a value. If you turn in a perfect map they don't refund the money, they may as well have a tip jar on their desks. This requirement encourages laziness. "Lets just send the map in and let the CS check it, we have to pay him anyway, why should we bother with in-house review?" As soon as the costs begin to support the county employees pensions and overhead, we are done for. It should be a nominal fee and a cursory review for legibility. Where do you draw the line on that cost? What seems reasonable in Orange County may be outrageous in Siskyou County

I have a soft spot for the old lady trying to build a fence. I suppose that is what we ought to be doing, easily defining the simple lines and documenting the process efficiently. If the string line and the strong back is misaligned then the fenceline becomes errant occupation and after a while the old lady owns some of the neighbor's land because the fence is the only evidence because all of the surveyors were working downtown where the money is. All of the pomp and circumstance of a $700 map review that takes 9 months to complete on a $1500 field survey in order to construct a $400 fence is silliness. Leaving these local boundary establishment processes to chance is not protecting the public. I consider that attitude negligent from a community standpoint. That's like the doctor telling you to go and set your own broken arm.

The job of a county surveyor is not a training position

Of course it is. All of us are learning every day. Show me one county that has the most experienced LS in the region or one that doesn't have a junior surveyor or technician on staff (usually performing the map review duties). Besides that, they turnover every ten to twenty years whenever the retirement kicks in so the new guy has to learn how to login and turn on the copier machine from scratch. A county will hire from the pool of (ideally local) applicants. This is not a coveted position in most places. The pay scale is on the lower side of the market and responsibilities and expectations are high. Are you saying every CS is an expert?

[Jim Frame]

What is the value of the CS review?

Its value lies in the protection it affords the public records. It is the formal and practical mechanism designed to ensure that Records of Survey are in compliance with state law prior to filing. Without it, the public records would be contaminated with (a larger proportion of) incompetent or negligent survey documents.

[Warren Smith]

David Kendall wrote:

"Of course it is. All of us are learning every day. Show me one county that has the most experienced LS in the region or one that doesn't have a junior surveyor or technician on staff (usually performing the map review duties). Besides that, they turnover every ten to twenty years whenever the retirement kicks in so the new guy has to learn how to login and turn on the copier machine from scratch. A county will hire from the pool of (ideally local) applicants. This is not a coveted position in most places. The pay scale is on the lower side of the market and responsibilities and expectations are high. Are you saying every CS is an expert?"

I am not the most experienced LS in my County (See current issue of Cal Surveyor for who that is - Mt. Boardman article). The CS is a position of gatekeeper, among other duties. The bell curve of retraceable maps has moved to the right over the years, and corner records, monument preservation by local agencies and the like has continued to improve. It does take effort and education - largely among our project manager/engineer brethren to have this happen. The focus on mere technical compliance is a bit short sighted.

BTW - our RS review fee is $325, and I check the maps.

[DWoolley]

David Kendall stated "First of all I guess I don't understand the extreme approach where we have to deregulate the entire industry in order to streamline the filing system. I don't believe we should turn a blind eye to negligence and incompetence. I just don't believe that the County Surveyor is the one who is supposed to regulate that. They are not provided that power in the PLS act, what regulatory power are you speaking of?"

David Kendall:

The content rich topics presented require that I address only portions at a time. Land surveyors in California began being licensed by the state in 1891 - being the first state to license surveyors and approximately 40 years before the engineers. Was this because our forefathers were awesome? No, quite the contrary. The surveyors of that time were making money ripping people off by not performing proper boundary and mapping [see the irony?] There was legislative testimony which describes the problem. Keep in mind they position of Surveyor General had been abolished, hence the creation of the County Surveyor - yes, as the regulator. The SMA and the PLSA each provide the authority. Does anyone think the County Surveyor is signing off on map legibility, spelling or lesser items? The County Recorder can and does many of those tasks. No sir, that signature has purpose and more importantly, professional accountability. If the map checking is performed by a technician - how is that different than most field crews or private technicians? It's not. The CS is ultimately responsible and should be held 100% accountable for the signature. The CS job is hardly limited to checking north arrows and 1" margins.

The History of Section 8762 - History of the Development of the California “Record of Survey” Law

PRIOR to the Act of the 1891 Legislature, approved March 31, 1891, to define the duties of and to license Land Surveyors, there was a great deal of confusion in departments of the State of California which dealt with land surveyors because of lack of standards and surveying technology among deputy surveyors [not County Surveyors] throughout the state.

The following excerpts are taken from various reports to the Legislature:

“Nor has our State been the only sufferer by fraudulent or imperfect surveys, as will be seen by the following extracts of Prof. Lesley’s preface to the Second Pennsylvania Geological Survey, Vol. Q, by Prof. I.C. White, 1878. Prof. Lesley writes: ‘It (Geological Survey) must, therefore, use the almost worthless maps, county maps, and township maps, which exist, rudely run as their lines have been by irresponsible men, on cheap money contracts, rapidly and carelessly platted afterwards, and finally forced together recklessly and without judgment, so as to come within county lines, which are themselves utterly false and oftentimes half a mile away from their true places.’

There are no words which can more truthfully portray the condition of California than the above by Professor Lesley as applied to Pennsylvania…

“At the time this work was commenced, not more than half the countries in the State had county maps; a number of these were old compilations, known to be radically defective and incomplete.

“They were not on uniform scales, and would not fit together. During this four years, a number of new county maps have come out, but although these are comparatively full and correct, there is a want of uniformity of scale, faults of omission are often glaring, and errors in construction almost always to be detected.”

“These atlas sheets were compiled from public surveys of the U.S. Gov. in as careful and correct a manner as the frequent discrepancies in those surveys allowed. These discrepancies are due partly to bad surveying, caused not always by bad intentions, but frequently by employing indifferently trained deputy surveyors.”

“But there is scarcely a county in the State whose boundaries as described in the statutes can be laid down correctly on any map, as many descriptions are faulty and incorrect, a matter which ought to be remedied as soon as possible; and the Legislature should take action in these premises, that serious complications may be avoided.”

Report of The State Mineralogist, Wm. Irelan, Jr., October 1, 1890, page 14. Appendix to Journals, Vol. V, 29th Session (1891).

Good Guy'd Ourselves to Death

The basis for licensure was to regulate and correct the poor practice of the day. The law at the time required all surveys, from 1891 to 1939, to be filed as a record of survey. After 1939, they decided that nearly 50 years of mapping over the shoddy work completed the previous 50 years allowed for the Legislature to relax the requirements to exclude "lines previous shown on a map", sound familiar?

The point being, the historical testimony of the practice described in 1889 sounds an awful lot like the prevailing practice today. As Jim Frame stated, we cannot use our license to capture the public only to practice negligently or to tolerate incompetence. I regularly review work product throughout the state and I see unfiled work product, boundaries based on two monuments, boundaries shown with no monuments, poor monument descriptions i.e. "Fd. Mon.", senior lines which are not established or recognized, RTK/RTN used to measure certifications which cannot be achieved with the tool etc.. Today I had a discussion with a County Surveyor staff member. He was describing the work product coming in and the responses from the surveyors when questioned. It is remarkable the lowest levels of practice being submitted.

I am partially responsible by having listened to my mentors at the time that believed we need to educate and cooperate in a professional manner with the wayward - essentially, live and let live. The maps reviewed and ultimately, filed were of a high quality, however, instead of coaching them through we should have been turning them into the licensing board, wholesale. The same can be said about the JPPCs. Now we are couple more generations into it and we have reaped that which we have sewn. We have good guy'd ourselves into being primed for deregulation due to incompetence.

Again, I will be back with more later.

DWoolley

Hat tip to Lee Hixon, I will get to BPELSG before we are done.

[Gary Schenk]

I think the members that work for the govt are slanting the vote. Would you vote to put yourself out of work?

People vote Republican don't they?

[David Kendall]

As Jim Frame stated, we cannot use our license to capture the public only to practice negligently or to tolerate incompetence.

This makes sense to me now. Thank you for taking the time to educate me.

Danskin, the votes tell the tale here. We'll just have to whoop em next time

[Scott]

Would anybody have filed more Record of Surveys throughout their career if the recording fee was the only fee to do so (no checking fee)?

I know I would have...