AG Opinion from 1981 or 1982

[Ian Wilson]

I’m looking for the AG opinion from 1981 or 9182 about Alameda refusing a corner record and requiring a record of survey.

I believe it was Deukmejian who wrote the opinion, but I’m not 100% sure.

If you have a copy, can I get one, please? If you just have the info on it, I can grab a copy from the law library.

Thanks!

iwilson@smcgov.com

Ian

[Steve Martin]

If you know someone with a subscription to LexisNexis, it looks like you can look them up there.

[Ian Wilson]

Thanks, Steve. Ray Mathe sent me a copy.

[Steve Martin]

Can you send me a copy?

That sounds interesting.

I've heard stories of the old Ed Boris days.

[Peter Ehlert]

I would like a copy also

[Warren Smith]

How about an AGO number? They are retrievable it from the AG's website.

[Ian Wilson]

Warren...not from 1981. The AG site only goes back to 1986 digitally.

[BrianSpore]

I also would like a copy. Hal Davis has told me many stories with issues while Ed Boris was there.

[Jim Frame]

How about just posting the PDF here?

[btaylor]

How about just posting the PDF here?

Yes.

This happens often. I don't get why people don't just post the requested document.

[Ian Wilson]

Im traveling away rhis moment, but will post when i get home

[PLS7393]

Im traveling away rhis moment, but will post when i get home

Curious minds are still waiting for a copy to review?

[btaylor]

Still curious over here as well ....

[Ian Wilson]

Apologies. I do not visit this site nearly as much as I once did. I didn’t realize that anyone else was interested in this opinion. Thanks to Larry Stevens for texting me. The opinion is on my desktop at the office. I’ll post it tomorrow, when I have access to it.

There is apparently, much discussion about the Corner Record. I admit that I wasn’t completely up on the nuances. I dived into the research in the Annotated Statutes, the Legislative History sites and the back issues of the California Surveyor, when surveyors used the magazine in much the same way that this Forum used to be used a handful of years ago. The following is from that research.

AB 1614 was introduced in 1973 as a response to the new policy from the BLM that would require their Field Crew Chiefs to file “corner records” of any obliterated or damaged BLM corner that was rehabilitated. There was a flurry of legislation across the country to allow these unlicensed BLM Crew Chiefs to file documentation of the monuments that were rebuilt. Note that this did not extend to “lost corners” or corners that were never set, which requires a much more exhaustive process and review at the federal level before the new position is approved.

Doug Dean was involved in the drafting of AB 1614. He wrote a Letter to the Editor of the California Surveyor [Spring 1984] that is a great article on the purpose and efforts to enact §8773 through §8773.4 of the Professional Surveyors’ Act (PLSA).

The bill sponsored by CLSA was carried by Ray Johnson, of Chico, and was meant to permit the unlicensed BLM staff to file the document to provide record pedigree of the corner marker. During the legislative process, a second paragraph was added to allow licensed surveyors in California to use the Corner Record to document replacement or rehabilitation of corner markers that were obliterated or damaged. Because of this second paragraph, CLSA dropped its sponsorship of the bill and did not provide any supporting testimony after the first hearings.

The original Corner Record form prepared by our Board carried the instructions that the document was to be used for a single monument. The instructions carried the heading that “…A CORNER RECORD IS TO BE USED TO PERPETUATE MONUMENTS ONLY…”

In 1983, a bill was introduced to allow for Corner Records to be used to <i>set</i> multiple corners on a simple document rather than the full Record of Survey. Governor Deukmejian voted the bill responding to the legislature that the bill would cheapen the Record of Survey and elevate the Corner Record well above its intended purpose.

Mr. Dean’s letter, mentioned above, was a call to action regarding SB 1837 which added the word “set” to PLSA §8765. The bill was passed and went into effect on January 1985. However, PLSA §8765(d) already carried the requirement that “… sufficient monumentation is found to establish the precise location of property corners…”

In the electronic files of the County of San Mateo DPW, I recently found a written procedure document from ten or twelve years ago that suggested that, in order to determine sufficient monumentation for a Corner Record, the reviewer should check to make sure that the monuments would be no more than one set up, one angle and one distance away from the next one.

That may be a little over simplified. However, there is, or should be, a difference between a Corner Record and a Record of Survey beyond just the cost of filing and the size of the map required.

Again, apologies for not realizing that others would be as interested in the opinion. I’ll post it tomorrow.

[Ian Wilson]

And here it is...

CR v RS - AttGen 81-103.pdf

[LA Stevens]

Thanks Ian!

[hellsangle]

Thanks, Ian!

Learned something: A tax-sale seems to constitute a Cert/Compliance. (If it still holds true.)

Appreciatively,

Phil - Sonoma

[E_Page]

Thanks Ian.

I'm a bit confused why CLSA would not have wanted the CR as a mechanism for CA LSs to perpetuate corners in the same way it was sponsoring the use of the CR by unlicensed BLM deputy surveyors. Anyone know the background on that reasoning?

[Warren Smith]

I wonder too about who in Deukmejian's office was savvy enough to determine that the Bill would 'cheapen the record of survey and elevate the corner record''. That's an astute observation from a political standpoint. That comment may have originated from CLSA itself.

[E_Page]

If a corner is lost, as opposed to obliterated, re-establishing the position will almost certainly trip one or more 8762 trigger. If used for rehabilitating damaged or obliterated corners (a valid and common use of CRs), how does that cheapen the value of an RS?

Confused minds want to know.

[Ian Wilson]

Wow! I’m just checking in to see if others have looked at the opinion.

Evan – you’re singing my song. When the Corner Record was first contemplated, it was to be a simple document to memorialize the efforts of the BLM crews in restoring and rehabilitating PLSS corners. The crew chiefs weren’t license and this simple document would give them a way to file a sketch even though they weren’t licensed, as long as they were a BLM crew chief.

Anyone else could file a Record of Survey.

The idea was that it wouldn’t be long before every rehabbed PLSS corner in the state would be covered by a Corner Record.

When the word “set” slipped into PLS Act §8765, anyone with a license could set any corner on any map at any time, or so some thinking goes. Not all corners were set with monuments on the older maps. Only controlling corners or road centerline corners were set.

[btaylor]

Thanks for posting Ian.

I assumed the person who sent the document to you could have just posted it in the first place.

[mpallamary]

The original goal was to permit BLM employees and other non-licensed individuals to file a "Corner Record" to document whatever they found, whether an actual corner monument or not. The thinking was folks like forest service employees, park rangers, fire fighters, and others, who had been in the field, recognized what a monument was supposed to look like or may look like. The original intent was to merely flag the marker/monument to put everyone on notice that there was something out there.

*****************************************************************************************************
5509.11,14-18
Page 1 of 2

FSH 5509.11 - TITLE CLAIMS, SALES, AND GRANTS HANDBOOK
WO AMENDMENT 5509.11-92-4
EFFECTIVE 8/3/92

15 - PROPERTY BOUNDARIES.

15.1 - Program. Establish an aggressive landline location program for each forest. Immediately follow the locating of any
property boundary with marking and posting to Forest Service standards. Implement a planned program for periodic maintenance
of such lines. Locate all property lines by legally acceptable methods and, once located, keep lines visible. Ensure that no
management activity near or adjacent to a property line creates a false or misleading boundary line.


15.12 - Cooperation With Adjoining Landowners. Forest officers shall make personal or written contacts with adjoining
landowners, particularly those who are developing their lands, to remind them of their responsibility and accountability for
boundary line surveys on their lands that adjoin National Forest System lands. Inform them and their surveyors that Forest
Service records concerning the location of lines or corners, such as the corner search record file maintained on each District on
Form FS-7100-52, Corner Record (Search)/Corner Reward (Perpetuation), are available. Also, inform landowners that they
may use Forest Service brass capped iron pipe or aluminum monuments on Federal property corners provided that the Forest
Service reviews and approves the surveys which establishes these corners. Ensure that the landowners are aware that the United
States is not bound by, and courts probably would not recognize, any previous unofficial surveys and verbal boundary agreements.
Refer questions concerning the legality of a survey to the Regional Forester for any necessary coordination with the
Regional Attorney.

[mpallamary]

It is to be remembered that many federal "surveyors" are not licensed and are merely government employees. That has always been a problem as they often had more political influence than licensed land surveyors. There was considerable confusion back then as to who was a "surveyor" and what qualifications one needed to be a "surveyor." Many of us fought to assure that all federal surveyors in California were licensed. Here are the current requirements as I understand them:

Classification & Qualifications
GENERAL SCHEDULE QUALIFICATION STANDARDS
Land Surveying Series, 1373
Individual Occupational Requirements
Basic Requirements:

Degree: land surveying; or civil engineering with a surveying option/emphasis. The civil engineering major must have included at least 6 semester hours of surveying, 3 semester hours of land law, and 21 additional semester hours in any combination of the following: surveying, photogrammetry, geodetic surveying, geodesy, route surveying, remote sensing, cartography, survey astronomy, land information systems, computer-aided mapping, aerial photo interpretation, and survey analysis and adjustments.

OR

Combination of education and experience -- courses equivalent to a major in land surveying or civil engineering as described in paragraph A, plus appropriate experience or additional education.

OR

The basic requirements for this series may be fully satisfied by a current registration as a land surveyor in a State, territory, or the District of Columbia obtained by written examination. Such registration must have been obtained under conditions outlined in the National Council of Engineering Examiners (NCEE) Unified Model Law for Registration of Surveyors. Applicants wishing to be considered under this provision must show evidence of registration based on successful completion of the written examinations. Registrations granted prior to adoption of a registration law with qualification requirements equivalent to the NCEE Model Law by the State, territory, or District of Columbia are not acceptable under this option. To be considered equivalent to the NCEE Model law, registration laws must include the four options listed within the NCEE Unified Model Law in the section specifying "General Requirements for Registration" as a Professional Land Surveyor.