8771 Update

[CBarrett]

How did Arizona solve the glut of badly done maps?

Having done mapchecking on and off for years, this kind of a proposition makes me very nervous. I only see maybe 15 to 20% of the maps good to go to recording.

Does Arizona have additional standards codified, which worked to improve quality?

[polaris]

We have deviated from what I really think this amendment will do. Let me break it down in an easy readable way for the masses.

1.) Requiring to set monuments will only benefit the public in the long run with costs of retracement surveys becoming less expensive as more corners are set.
2.) This amendment will essentially save our profession. If there is a law that specifically states that only surveyors can set monuments then there is less of an opportunity for de-regulation. What item on the list of the definition of surveying isn't already performed by others, some of which are unlicensed all together and some who are licensed as an RCE? It sure isn't construction staking, legal descriptions, site plans, subdivision maps that us as surveyors can hang our hat on saying that we are the only ones who can do it.
3.) Those surveyors who are complaining that it will cost the property owner too much money shouldn't be advocating for any particular property owner, remember, we have an obligation to the public as a whole, not an individual property owner. Besides, with the cost of land in the State of California, 1% of your property value to get a survey done isn't crazy to think of in my opinion.
4.) Furthermore, as a professional what tangible item do you give to your clients for your service? I would imagine that a monument in the ground would be much more valuable to them then a paper map that has some lines drawn on it that they probably don't even know how to read.
5.) Step up your game as a professional and act like one instead of some hero trying to save some stranger money. You think that the client who appreciates you saving them money respects you as a professional? Nope, their loyalty lies in your price, not the quality of work you do as a professional.

Like Dave mentioned, this is nationally accepted language that was taken from the ALTA/NSPS standards. It has stood the test of time and we need to do something to advance our professional practice and prove our worth to the public.

Bryan

Well thought out.

I work in rural areas and areas that are otherwise challenging to set monuments.But I see much new construction going up and being built with no maps, no mounuments and no other evidence of a boundary survey to perpetuate what the surveyor who did the Site Plan or the ALTA suvey decided was the boundary. Then I have to try to create a boundary when almost no munuments exist anymore due to improvements wiping them out.

And this is in very wealthy areas! The owners could well afford monuments and a Record of Survey.'

So I think requiring monuments to be set when a boundary survey is done, would be a good idea. I do think the language could be modified from "major" to "a minimum or two monuments" to be set. This will trigger the ROS/Corner Record requirement that we are all looking for.

It will avoid the argument that "I was only surveying one line!" (which I don't know how to do)

It will also make the surveyor explain why they decided a monument for a property corner was placed where it is and not somewhere else. This will make it easier for me to agree with them. (Hopefully)

I don't think anyone is saying that all found monuments are good because they exist. Maps showing the retracement of a boundary are good because they show the evidence relied upon.

[bryanmundia]

Mike,

Always great to hear your perspective. Let me elaborate:

I am not advocating for individual owners, I am advocating for judgement to be incorporated so that rural areas are not stuck dealing with laws made to address urban issues. Banning fireplaces? Great in sub/urban areas, I love it. Rural areas where there are too many trees as it is? Plain sillyness. Monumenting all corners? Great on sub/urban lots. Not so great on sprawling thousand acre ranches where they are land rich, cash poor, and only want to know where to put a gate. If the cost goes up, then they will just do it themselves off of images from the County GIS that shows parcel lines and satellite images.

Hence why it says "major corners" and not "every corner" or even "two corners". By using a broad term allows the surveyor some discretion when placing their monuments to both benefit the property owner in regard to cost while still having the surveyor comply with the proposed law. It gives the surveyor the opportunity to expand on their statement of purpose and actually explain what they are doing and why. This proposed law would only pertain to those projects where a record of survey or corner record is required so the argument of cost somewhat goes out the window with the land rich, cash poor owner just wanting to know where to put their gate.

We are a free market. So we let consumers decide what they think is valuable, right? If my client is only getting the RoS so we can show the lines on a site map for an indoor kitchen remodel, and I offer the additional option of monumenting the lines, and they decline because they are choosing what is valuable to them, how is that wrong? My professional obligation is in educating them enough so they can make an informed decision. It is not forcing them to "to the right thing". I could go in and add some monuments on my own in key spots(and I do sometimes) but then I am spending my money to help the public. Where is that money coming from? We joke in our office that sometimes it feels like we have a boundary problem(think gambling problem) that we pay for with other services.

Do you have the same conversation with a property owner when you find out that there is a material discrepancy and are required to file a Record of Survey? Do you ask the owner if they value that Record of Survey to determine if they will pay for it or not? There are certain costs for entry into the world of the free market. Besides this, how is that Free Market economics doing in regard to supply chains in a post COVID era? Remember the days of seeing people waiting in line to buy essential goods such as toilet paper and cleaning supplies? We are still feeling the effects of a reactionary system of supply and demand.

Actually I do. It is the true sign of competency when I can modify a thing and still have it work. Think chef vs cook. I have clients that are truly appreciative of my efforts to educate them about the situation, provide my views of the pros and cons, and then let them choose their own path, as is there right in our wonderful free market. These same clients are often return clients. When I tell them they really ought to pay more in some cases, they often listen, since I have proven that I am not just trying to take their money. I would say its our professional duty to not waste our clients money on silly rules that make no sense.

I appreciate that you hold yourself to a higher standard, but lets be honest, is your work ethic the same as the vast majority of surveyors or are you in the minority? My guess based on what I have seen is the latter.

I agree, however I think forcing them to do something they clearly don't want to do is a little hard to say its "proving our worth". The fact that we are thinking we need a prescriptive law forcing people to do something is proof that it is not wanted by some of the paying customers. Which is why I am advocating for more judgement in the fix. IE make 8771 part of the RoS review, rather than a black/white rule of monumenting all corners of the property being surveyed.

As proposed, it isn't requiring all corners to be monumented, just the major corners. Those major corners are at your discretion based on the scope of work being performed.

Alternate option, make this a requirement only if there is public money being spent or prevailing wage situations etc. Public benefit paid for by the public.

Most agencies are not the problem in regard to monumentation. These agencies either have their own survey department or have consultants that are selected by qualifications, not low bid, which in turn means that the laws pertaining to surveying are followed (most of the time) in order to set the example and answer to the higher standards that the public is entitled to.

The problems that we are seeing is the fly by night surveyors that are not filing when they should because they are saying "I didn't set any monuments". This law would require you as a surveyor to leave your footprints on projects that require a Record of Survey or Corner Record.

How many reading this forum think that the process for permitting/designing/surveying a bridge, or a house, or a porch, or a driveway lacks common sense and flexibility? Did this process spring like Athena out of the head of some bureaucrat somewhere? No, it was the gradual implementation of more rules and more policies, each one considered an "improvement", or a "save" to some interested party.

Do you not see this as an improvement to benefit both the public and the profession? I can't think of a better way to show our worth than to leave a mark.

[bryanmundia]

Bryan

Well thought out.

I work in rural areas and areas that are otherwise challenging to set monuments.But I see much new construction going up and being built with no maps, no mounuments and no other evidence of a boundary survey to perpetuate what the surveyor who did the Site Plan or the ALTA suvey decided was the boundary. Then I have to try to create a boundary when almost no munuments exist anymore due to improvements wiping them out.

And this is in very wealthy areas! The owners could well afford monuments and a Record of Survey.'

So I think requiring monuments to be set when a boundary survey is done, would be a good idea. I do think the language could be modified from "major" to "a minimum or two monuments" to be set. This will trigger the ROS/Corner Record requirement that we are all looking for.

It will avoid the argument that "I was only surveying one line!" (which I don't know how to do)

It will also make the surveyor explain why they decided a monument for a property corner was placed where it is and not somewhere else. This will make it easier for me to agree with them. (Hopefully)

I don't think anyone is saying that all found monuments are good because they exist. Maps showing the retracement of a boundary are good because they show the evidence relied upon.

This is why it says major corners. We were looking at those rural areas and understood that setting every corner would be overburdening on the cost of the survey. The reason it states "major" and not two is because we don't want someone setting just two monuments on a 200+ acre survey where you would have to traverse through half a county to get from the monuments found/set to your subject property. In addition to this we didn't want a survey with 100 angle points to only have two monuments set, how in the world would you be able to retrace that survey unless you just hold record & measured from the two monuments you found on the previous survey.

I agree with everything you have said but I don't think that stating a minimum number makes any difference over using the word "major".

[hellsangle]

Great thread . . .

But . . . "MAJOR" points are subjective. The map reviewer could say . . . "no, we want you to go off a cliff - set one down near the river where the brush is ten feet tall. That's "major" in my (subjective) mind".

Two points work, as you must have based ones survey on something found. Is it retraceable?

Hell! One point and a solar observation and you can retrace the opined survey.

And no, it is not for the benefit of the public or the "public" would be the client.

Crazy Phil Surveyor to Recorder

[Mike Mueller]

Monuments shall be placed, or a reference monument or witness to the corner, at all major
corners of the boundary of the surveyed property,

Bryan:
This is why I am quibbling. As it was written it says I need to monument ALL major corners of the entire boundary of the surveyed property. It has no language limiting it to boundaries surveyed. Thus a client is on the hook for their ENTIRE property to be surveyed, even if all they want is one line, since I would be required by this law to set a monument at every corner....

Even with clarifying language that limited the requirements to what is the subject of the survey, it would likely not accomplish what I think you are hoping for. All it takes is for the Known Bad Actors (KBA) to not show a "subject property" in their legend or their statements. No subject property, no requirement to monument anything. Then it will be a fight over what constitutes "surveyed property". Is that anything with a measured line? If so, we will likely see a decrease in lines being shown and labeled with measured data. I think punishing the inclusion of more information is generally a bad step. As it stands now, I will often show a resolved boundary for many of the neighboring deeds that I had to solve anyways to figure out my subject. Even if I don't monument them myself, I am allowing the next surveyor to review my map, and if they think I did a good enough job they can use the CR method to set monuments at those resolved and "measured" positions, saving those folks money.

The KBA you are trying to get to set more monuments have already demonstrated their proclivity to ignore laws. These folks either ACT ignorant, or ARE ignorant. If they are ignorant, then it is education about existing laws that will succeed in getting them to follow the existing language of 8771, and the triggers of 8762. Passing more laws that they have no knowledge of will accomplish nothing. If they are acting ignorant, then they will continue to find loopholes or assert bogus definitions and ignore the requirements of the law.

It is increased enforcement of the existing rules that will get change out of these folks. That enforcement will not be through BORPELSG, which is set up to get compliance with the laws not punishment of KBA. This means KBA can be bad actors as a successful business model, since the system assumes they are not actively working against the laws. I would suggest that the permitting agencies in your area are the best levers to move the KBA. Get them to check sitemaps for a LS stamp. Or get foundation verification letters for proposed plans that are exactly on a setback. Or something... I don't know since I am not aware of the ins and outs of your area.

If the issue is the word "set" in 8771, would it be better to modify 8771 and remove that word? Or modify 8771 to make it very simple:
(a) After a field survey there shall be sufficient monuments to ensure the facile reestablishment of any point or line of the survey. If there are insufficient existing monuments, monuments shall be set.

This is a first crack at some language, and I haven't really thought through all the loopholes etc. I just figure this is the time for brainstorming and finding areas we can agree on before we get bogged down in trench warfare :)

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

PS I just wanted to re-iterate that I think we as a profession often have lots of areas we agree, but end up fighting over small details since we seem to either attract that sort of personality, or we all get conditioned that way over time because an entire survey can hinge on what a few letters meant on an acronym or some other small detail. Nature vs Nurture, who knows? My bet is a combination of both, since the world is rarely an either or choice.

[bryanmundia]

I guess minimally competent = minimal effort in regard to this is the vast majority's opinion.

Question for you all. How do you interpret the ALTA/NSPS Table A Item #1 then? Do major corners mean all corners to you? What would be your definition of a minor corner? How would you approach Table A Item #1?

I guess that is four minor questions regarding one major topic.

And no, it is not for the benefit of the public or the "public" would be the client.

I think of private landowners as being members of the public. Do you think otherwise?

[Mike Mueller]

Do you have the same conversation with a property owner when you find out that there is a material discrepancy and are required to file a Record of Survey? Do you ask the owner if they value that Record of Survey to determine if they will pay for it or not? There are certain costs for entry into the world of the free market. Besides this, how is that Free Market economics doing in regard to supply chains in a post COVID era? Remember the days of seeing people waiting in line to buy essential goods such as toilet paper and cleaning supplies? We are still feeling the effects of a reactionary system of supply and demand.

Supply chains are mostly irrelevant for us, however as a symptom of the effectiveness of the free market... Well that's complicated, and I would suggest its best debated with a beer at a conference, I will buy the first round :)

Generally if we hit a material discrepancy then we try to get the client to pay for it first, point out that we explained that contingency in our contract, and if they won't pay more money then we eat the cost and file anyways. These cases are fairly rare for us, I believe because we know the area we bid in and explain this contingency ahead of time. Same reason we won't offer retracement surveys in some areas, even though they are a lot and block description from a record map. We know that the original map will not work out and we will almost certainly trigger a RoS once we get in the field.

I think of private landowners as being members of the public. Do you think otherwise?

There is a difference to me. I bet those that are more knowledgeable than I will step in and point out the differences in contract law as well. For me its more of an ethical issue, and I see it as two separate charges that I am satisfying simultanously.

My client is entitled to what we contract for. In spirit, not just in letter. The public's interest is the moral underpinning as to why I accept the laws that govern licensure. IE it is to protect the public that individuals sacrifice their freedom to contract with whoever they want. Our bad actions have ripple effects to everyone if we place a major line wrong. Not sure if you read the thread about what our obligations as a profession were, but my thoughts are explained there.

Mikey Mueller PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[Elias French]

And no, it is not for the benefit of the public or the "public" would be the client.

Do/should surveyors only perform activities that benefit solely the client?

1. A survey is a professional service and opinion rendered for a client.
2. A Record of Survey is required to be filed for certain surveys; the purpose of the law requiring it is to benefit the public by making the surveyor's opinion accessible to the public and other surveyors and thus promote stability of boundaries.
3. A monumentation requirement would be a furtherance of number 2, a benefit to the public by densifying boundary monumentation and making surveyors opinions more accessible to the public and other surveyors.
4. A monumentation requirement would also generally be a benefit to the client as it does seem that surveyed, monumented, mapped lines are more strongly considered and accepted than surveys that are un-monumented and only mapped.

The question is whether this is something we want to do, all factors considered. Again, is anyone familiar with how this works in practice in states where it is in effect?

Also, ironically, is the Record of Survey requirement itself currently discouraging folks from setting mons, to try to avoid filing and the associated costs. This would also definitively eliminate that. Perhaps we would be better off with Surveyor-to-Recorder, together with a monument requirement.

[Mike Mueller]

You can tell this is on my mind, I can't seem to stop posting...

A very important consideration is where this language came from. As was pointed out this is from a national standard. Right above Table A Item 1 it reads:

NOTE: Whether any of the nineteen (19) items of Table A are to be selected, and the exact wording of and fee for any selected item, may be negotiated between the surveyor and client. (https://www.nsps.us.com/page/2021ALTA)

So the national standard explicitly defers to the wishes of the client. Which really makes it standard to let a professional negotiate with their client. I think we would be doing ourselves a harm if we legislatively took out the option to negotiate with our client here in California.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[bryanmundia]

What if there was a language included in the proposed law that read something like this:

"Unless specifically adopted and defined by local ordinance, major corners shall be defined as all corners and angle points of the lot, parcel, line or subdivision being surveyed."

Would that be enough? Then it puts the onus on the local agency to define what the major corners of a property are based upon the geography of the area for which the property is located otherwise you are setting every corner of a parcel or the two end points of a line that is surveyed.

[bryanmundia]

You can tell this is on my mind, I can't seem to stop posting...

A very important consideration is where this language came from. As was pointed out this is from a national standard. Right above Table A Item 1 it reads:

NOTE: Whether any of the nineteen (19) items of Table A are to be selected, and the exact wording of and fee for any selected item, may be negotiated between the surveyor and client. (https://www.nsps.us.com/page/2021ALTA)

So the national standard explicitly defers to the wishes of the client. Which really makes it standard to let a professional negotiate with their client. I think we would be doing ourselves a harm if we legislatively took out the option to negotiate with our client here in California.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

Why couldn't you do the same thing in the contract with your client if this law was adopted? I don't quite understand why you couldn't define what "major corners" means in your contract based on the parcel. That way both the client and the surveyor have an understanding of what monuments are going to be set per your contract.

[David Kendall]

What if there was a language included in the proposed law that read something like this:

"Unless specifically adopted and defined by local ordinance, major corners shall be defined as all corners and angle points of the lot, parcel, line or subdivision being surveyed."

Would that be enough?

This is the perfect language for killing the proposed amendment once and for all. Make it read like every corner needs to be set under any circumstances and it will never gain broad support from the surveyor community.

If you actually support this proposal then it is the worst possible language that you could possibly propose.

I suggest that you start from there and work towards a less onerous requirement until you find middle ground.

Phil is correct, it can be done adequately with two reference monuments. I support legislation that prevents the no monument RS but I would never in a million years vote to move this proposal forward, it would be a catastrophe

[hellsangle]

Well said, Kendall . . .

And I totally agree with everything you wrote.

And please . . . show some respect - it's "Crazy Phil" LOL

[Elias French]

Based on this thread it sounds like folks would support this proposal if “major” was replaced with “a minimum of two”. This eliminates the no monument survey, solves the ROS trigger issue, but still leaves much room for discretion.

For those supporting “major” would this be an acceptable option?

Among folks I talk to I suspect it would be whereas many I know are opposed to the language as written due to perceived lack of room for discretion and likely issues with Count vs Private surveyor interpretation of word “major”.

For myself I support a monumentation requirement in theory but appreciate and hear the concerns voiced here. As an urban surveyor there is relatively little difference between setting all major corners and not.

[DWoolley]

This thread is a study as to who we are as a community, the spawn of Benson. Knowing surveyors as we do, setting two unspecific monuments serves several grifting purposes;

1. If surveyors only have to set two monuments, it is easy to explain away "they must have been destroyed" - when they were never set.
2. If one of the two monuments are destroyed, the remaining monument is worthless.
3. "The law doesn't say which two monuments, so I set two monuments five feet apart".

Feet don't fail me now!

DWoolley

[hellsangle]

2. If one of the two monuments are destroyed, the remaining monument is worthless.

Come on, Mr. Wooley . . . You can't figure out a way to retrace a survey that was based upon something(s) and/plus a "set" point or two?

The folks that want ALL or MAJOR (subjective!) appear to have more an interest in profits over ethical consideration of the one who pays for the survey. Setting all the corners will give the adjoiners a free line-survey at the expensive of the one that ordered the survey.

I will say this about Lot Line Adjustments: points should be set! More importantly - the points set should be called out in the deed! (CCP 2077)

Crazy Phil again . . .

[Peter Ehlert]

2. If one of the two monuments are destroyed, the remaining monument is worthless.

Come on, Mr. Wooley . . . You can't figure out a way to retrace a survey that was based upon something(s) and/plus a "set" point or two?

The folks that want ALL or MAJOR (subjective!) appear to have more an interest in profits over ethical consideration of the one who pays for the survey. Setting all the corners will give the adjoiners a free line-survey at the expensive of the one that ordered the survey.

I will say this about Lot Line Adjustments: points should be set! More importantly - the points set should be called out in the deed! (CCP 2077)

Crazy Phil again . . .

+2 Crazy Phil

[bryanmundia]

How about amended language like this:

"Monuments shall be established at not less than seventy percent (70%) of all corners in the boundary which define a deflection angle that exceeds sixty degrees (60), and no point on a boundary shall be located more than five hundred feet (500’) from a monument."

[bryanmundia]

It should be noted that I went through each State in the US and currently there are 25 states which have laws specifically stating that monuments shall be set at ALL boundary corners when performing a boundary survey. There is one additional state that requires monumentation during a boundary survey but they have a different approach (see my post above).

[hellsangle]

I went through each State in the US and currently there are 25 states which have laws specifically stating that monuments shall be set at ALL boundary corners when performing a boundary survey.

"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking" George Patton

[bryanmundia]

"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking" George Patton

Boy there is a quote for everything isn't there. I could cover every wall in my house with the amount of thought-provoking quotes that get placed on this forum.

I'll throw one in for good measure, "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein

Something needs to change folks and we can't keep holding our hats on "that's the way it has always been"

[Mike Mueller]

This thread is a study as to who we are as a community, the spawn of Benson. Knowing surveyors as we do, setting two unspecific monuments serves several grifting purposes;

I am curious why this thread is a bad thing in your mind Dave. I see this thread as a civil, respectful discussion of a proposed change to a law. There are those arguing for and those against. None here are promoting deception or fraud like Benson (for clarification are we the spawn of Benson, or are we spawning a new Benson? I has assumed it was the latter, but think you meant the former?). We are identifying what the problem is, what the proposed law changes, whether the proposed change will actually fix the problem, and is the fix worth it. All very important things to know before enacting a law.

Of course we will have disparate opinions expressed. I generally won't post if I think the salient points are being made, so logically I will mostly post in a manner that is asking a question about something I don't understand or countering a point that I think is incorrect or off base. (case in point)

For those that might be thinking why we are airing our laundry on a public forum like this rather that in a closed door meeting of a committee, I would say it is a positive to air our points and conflicts and create a record of the discussion behind changes to the law. Just like Ian asking for background on that law from 1984? Context lets us implement things better. How many times has a committee started "improving" something before it eventually returns to where it started. If the context for the creation of the original was presented along with the original than it would have saved all that time re-inventing the wheel. For this case, I would love to see the original problem written out that prompted this proposed change.

We are still arguing about topics that drove the original creation of CLSA. I expect our profession will still be arguing about these topics in another 50 years (AI singularity aside). Every profession does this. It is part of how consensus is created, and ideas are spread. Far more important than the enactment of any one change to the law is a good process for consensus building that lets us present a united front to successfully enact effective changes so we don't waste our limited political capital. I would rather have a series of small successful steps than to swing big and lose respect/capital when we fail.

So for this proposed change, I think it is wonderful that we have well presented voices for and against it. One thing to consider is if there is this much consternation over the proposed language here, it might be a sign that we should revise the language. I am curious if the idea was to swing big initially and then "fall back" to a compromise that is actually what was originally wanted? If so I think that approach might be causing harm to the process by causing some to dig their heels in and fight, even past the point where they might be in agreement.

Summary of proposed changes to 8771:
Problem: KBA surveyors are not following existing laws by not setting monuments or filing a RoS for their boundary work.
Solution: More laws
Will it work?: More laws to fight lawbreaking doesn't seem to make sense to me.
Worth it?: No effect on problem, but detrimental effect for those trying to legally survey in same niche. Not worth it to me.

I assume those in favor of the change would disagree with my summary and I would love to see how.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[Mike Mueller]

Something needs to change folks and we can't keep holding our hats on "that's the way it has always been"

That quote is literally on our office's list of bad words that cost a dollar to go in the beer jar :)

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[Mike Mueller]

It should be noted that I went through each State in the US and currently there are 25 states which have laws specifically stating that monuments shall be set at ALL boundary corners when performing a boundary survey. There is one additional state that requires monumentation during a boundary survey but they have a different approach (see my post above).

Which states if you don't mind sharing? Is there a pattern? like PLSS states, or eastern states?

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County