CLSA's Suggestions on handling 8771.6

[Mike Mueller]

The Monument Preservation Committee was charged with creating a first draft of a CLSA authored educational guide on the upcoming new law 8771.6. That guide was submitted to central office and was included in the board packet that was sent out a bit ago. I have attached the report as well as the guide below.

I expect there will be quite a bit of discussion over this guide. I also believe that it is VERY VERY important that CLSA gets out and educates surveyors and map checkers about this new law ASAP. The reasons for our haste are as follows:

1) I have discussed this new law with roughly 20 surveyors and almost universally they at first think it is a bad change. As we discuss it and I ask them how it would change what they do now, most people admit that it probably won't change too much of their practice since most folks will rehab/replace monuments that are not expected to last. As I discussed the law more with these 20 odd surveyors most of them came to consider it a positive change. However almost all of them were worried how it would be implemented by a mapchecker or two that they have experiences with.

2) By establishing some common vocab and some basic tests, we are helping to set a standard for our profession. As all of our debates about standards and such show, there is a WIDE set of views. It is no secret that I am a proponent of the idea that we should have lofty goals, and attainable standards. This guide is quite intentionally aimed at a "common sense" approach that gives deference to local conditions and creates a low to middle ground standard that 80-90% of surveyors should hop over with no issue.

3) Once people make up their minds, getting them to change is tough. 95% of the surveyors I ask about the new law are not aware it will become law in 6 odd weeks. I do not want their first experience with the law to be a negative slap from an overzealous mapchecker. That will make most people just figure out ways to avoid dealing with it. I am very worried that showing ties to found monuments that are not directly needed will be negatively reinforced and start to decline. I think it is very important to create a commonly held understanding of the difference between a controlling monument that is covered by this law and a random tie to something that might be useful to future surveyors.


This guide is aimed at helping all the various locations of our state, with their own conditions related to rot/rust/decay, get a handle on this new state law. Any guide aimed at a statewide audience WILL NOT WORK FOR EVERYONE, and nor should it. Please keep that in mind when thinking through what changes should be made to the guide. This is not a guide for your backyard. If we wait for a few years to publish a guide it will be meaningless. People will have had enough experience with the new law, as interpreted by their local map checker, that the window to create common ground and a better standard of care will likely have closed.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[David Kendall]

My response is that I am indifferent at this time. I do not expect the map review community to compel me to adhere to a 8771.6 standard unless it is in the course of subdivision map review so I expect that this law as written is unenforceable.

I agree that it is a good standard. I appreciate your attempt at creating a guide.

Unfortunately this is all likely a waste of time (the legislation and the guide). We could discuss the philosophy of 'permanent', 'durable' and 'reasonably possible' from a boundary survey perspective for several decades and probably never reach consensus. I pity the licensing board that has to try and make sense of this debacle. You might as well define the legal term 'material discrepancy' in your guide while you're at it

I will say that I do not share your disdain for no-record monuments but I feel that you and I have already had that conversation so I will not revisit it here in detail. My personal opinion is that they could very well be controlling in some circumstances but would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Most of your other attempts at generalization could elicit similar responses.

[Mike Mueller]

I will say that I do not share your disdain for no-record monuments but I feel that you and I have already had that conversation so I will not revisit it here in detail. My personal opinion is that they could very well be controlling in some circumstances but would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Most of your other attempts at generalization could elicit similar responses.

Think of the items listed in the "Not" columns as a similar example to use when discussing a situation. If a surveyor thinks an unrecorded monument is the best evidence and uses it to control a line, then it would need to meet all the criteria of 8771.6. If another surveyor approached that same monument and evaluated it as a metal object that does not control the boundary in question, then they would not be required to ensure its durability or ease of location. Kinda like the difference between manslaughter and murder, its all about what is in the mind of the person doing it.

The min-max saddle point between brevity and usefulness is often tough to find. What areas do you think need more specifics?

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[Chiara]

I do not expect the map review community to compel me to adhere to a 8771.6 standard unless it is in the course of subdivision map review so I expect that this law as written is unenforceable.

I could see it potentially becoming an issue during a Record of Survey review. Let's say the County Surveyor's office directs the surveyor to replace all found & held nails with ______________. What happens if the surveyor refuses? What if there's a good-faith difference of opinion whether or not the monuments are durable (I realize you're speaking to that above)? If the surveyor refuses to set new, 'durable' monuments replacing them, does a complaint go to Ric?

[Ric7308]

I do not expect the map review community to compel me to adhere to a 8771.6 standard unless it is in the course of subdivision map review so I expect that this law as written is unenforceable.

I could see it potentially becoming an issue during a Record of Survey review. Let's say the County Surveyor's office directs the surveyor to replace all found & held nails with ______________. What happens if the surveyor refuses? What if there's a good-faith difference of opinion whether or not the monuments are durable (I realize you're speaking to that above)? If the surveyor refuses to set new, 'durable' monuments replacing them, does a complaint go to Ric?

Hi Michael, The CS can only recommend/suggest replacement in accordance with 8771(a) and doesn't possess the authority to require replacement monuments in the situation you've described. Anyone, including the CS, can file a complaint against the surveyor for alleged violations of 8771(a) (or possibly 8771.6 in the future).

[Mike Mueller]

I could see it potentially becoming an issue during a Record of Survey review. Let's say the County Surveyor's office directs the surveyor to replace all found & held nails with ______________.

This is exactly the situation the guide was envisioned to help with. Hence the distinction about what material the nail is placed into in. By providing some examples and basic tests it is hoped that it can facilitate a good discussion that would change on the merits of the situation, also it allows both the submitter and the map checker a chance to change their position and save some face by going, "Ahh, yah I see how it could be like that example". Removing some of the pride cost to changing you mind is just one of the hopeful outcomes to the guide :)

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[Chiara]

Thank you, Ric!

[Chiara]

I could see it potentially becoming an issue during a Record of Survey review. Let's say the County Surveyor's office directs the surveyor to replace all found & held nails with ______________.

This is exactly the situation the guide was envisioned to help with. Hence the distinction about what material the nail is placed into in. By providing some examples and basic tests it is hoped that it can facilitate a good discussion that would change on the merits of the situation, also it allows both the submitter and the map checker a chance to change their position and save some face by going, "Ahh, yah I see how it could be like that example". Removing some of the pride cost to changing you mind is just one of the hopeful outcomes to the guide :)

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

I saw and appreciated the differentiation in your draft guide between a PK nail in new asphalt & a PK in failing asphalt. However, being that we're in California, more often than not I'll see a nail in asphalt in worse than questionable condition... There are times when, thinking the last survey was too long ago to expect it to still be there, I'm surprised when I find a nail in asphalt, but I think there's also an argument to be made they aren't durable, or at least as durable as rebar or pipe set in the street. In Roseville we used to be able to set pipes at BCs & ECs along the road centerline in new subdivisions. In the past couple years they started wanting monuments in wells. I remember asking their map checker why they made the change - the answer I received was along the lines of 'because of your colleagues.' Faced with 'what will happen to the monument during road maintenance?', the City decided everything in the street should be in a well, and that was before 8771.6 was a consideration.

All that said, I think it's a good thing for CLSA to take a stab at providing guidelines what constitutes a durable monument.

[DWoolley]

Based the "Action Item" shown on the bottom of page one, is the expectation the Board of Directors will vote to approve the guide as written this coming Saturday?

If so, that won't happen. We have to take it back to our chapters for their review. See you in February with revisions, best case.

DWoolley

[Mike Mueller]

Dave,

Ideally it gets passed so we can get it up and distributed before the law takes effect. As the BoD is a group of directors who are meant to direct the organization to the betterment of the profession, and NOT to represent their particular chapter's interests I could see the motion passing without a return to chapters.

That said, I fully expect there to be a lively discussion and would not be surprised if this is returned to the committee. I know you understand how delay can kill things, so I am hopeful it won't get delayed too much. If we dicker and wordsmith this forever, it won't get published in a timely enough manner to help keep discussions and disagreements at least having a common vocabulary.

/putting on the Devil's Advocate hat for a second:
What is the harm if this was approved and placed on the Mon Pres page of CLSA? I would bet that page has 10's to maybe 100's of unique visitors a year, so it is not like its will be a internet meme that sweeps the surveyors profession and incepts everyone. Even if it did, what is the negative of people thinking they need to think and figure it out for themselves like the guide suggests? Or getting prompted to review the last hundred or two of their local records of surveys to confirm they are practicing in the normal range? Or add more notes on their maps to aid in monument recovery?
/taking off the devil's hat:

There is nothing preventing another guide to be written from a loftier point of view advocating goals rather than minimal compliance. Having a couple viewpoints preparing guides is great. There are basic surveying manuals, and there are loftier publications that go deep and thoroughly through all the finer points of a topic. Both are needed, and support each other. If there is a need for a more thorough examination of the law and how to comply with a goal, another committee can prepare such a guide. Perhaps the PPC?

Based on my admittedly small sample size, most surveyors are not aware of this new law. Getting people aware of it is just as important as getting in on the books in the first place. Lets not prevent progress in the name of perfection.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[David Kendall]

I agree with Mikey on that timing point. The online document could be updated anytime as needed. The content can (and should) be a work in progress.

Even the goofy CEAC map review guide receives occasional updates. Again I don’t agree with the content but at least there is a written standard to consider and rely on as needed.

I trust the committee to create and periodically review the content of the 8771.6 guide in accordance with CLSA opinion.

Unfortunately I am not attending this meeting as a director so good luck Mikey!

[DWoolley]

Dave,

Ideally it gets passed so we can get it up and distributed before the law takes effect. As the BoD is a group of directors who are meant to direct the organization to the betterment of the profession, and NOT to represent their particular chapter's interests I could see the motion passing without a return to chapters.

This is not true for me. We are elected by our chapters. The directors’ numbers are allocated by the number of members in the chapter. In Orange County, I believe, as do my fellow directors, our obligation is to chapter membership and then, the general membership. Equally, as the Director at Large on the Executive Committee my role is to represent my fellow Directors on EC. My obligation is to the Directors.
…

/putting on the Devil's Advocate hat for a second:
What is the harm if this was approved and placed on the Mon Pres page of CLSA?
...
/taking off the devil's hat:

For a historical reference of "the harm" that can be caused, see the single sentence “offering clarification” in a 1968 CLSA newsletter touted about to this very day, by Marin and Sonoma County folks, as a basis for not filing records of survey for the last 50 years. Now ask yourself again, what could go wrong?
…

Based on my admittedly small sample size, most surveyors are not aware of this new law. Getting people aware of it is just as important as getting in on the books in the first place. Lets not prevent progress in the name of perfection.
Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

I suspect my sample size is a little larger, do you think “most surveyors” are aware of the existing laws?

Do you find it peculiar that the surveyors you discussed the law with “almost universally they at first think it is a bad change” even though “most people admit that it probably won’t change too much of their practice”?

DWoolley

[pls5528]

I did not see Lead and Tags as part of the acceptable durable monuments. In Orange and LA County's I have tied hundreds of such monuments, and, in fact one in Manhatten Beach found was perhaps the oldest RE number I have ever seen? I read the above report and guide and although I think it is good, I don't think enforceable. Preserving monuments need to be addressed at the infancy of any development project (whether it be Public Works or Private). Case in point was a huge project in the City/County of Sacramento to put Handicap Ramps in on every intersection. After they were all constructed, they wiped out perhaps 90% of the centerline ties of record on the returns. After the damage was done, the city/county realized that it was one department didn't communicate the the other department internally.

[Mike Mueller]

I did not see Lead and Tags as part of the acceptable durable monuments. In Orange and LA County's I have tied hundreds of such monuments, and, in fact one in Manhatten Beach found was perhaps the oldest RE number I have ever seen?

That is a good one to add if this goes back to another review, and this is exactly why the guide is meant as a general framework. If I were to be attempting to convince an overly literal map checker that somehow latched on to this guide's list of examples without reading the stuff above the examples, I would make the case that "Metal washers epoxied to concrete" is basically the same thing, IE metal attached to a hard surface, just better for the environment :)

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[Ian Wilson]

I believe AB 3253 was signed September 25. There will not be another review.

SEC. 20. Section 8771.6 is added to the Business and Professions Code, to read:

8771.6. (a) In every case where any monument is found with a physical condition that is less than permanent and durable, the licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer using that monument as control in any survey shall reconstruct or rehabilitate the monument so that the same shall be left by them in such physical condition that it remains as permanent a monument as is reasonably possible and so that the same may be reasonably expected to be located with facility at all times in the future.

(b) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2029, and as of that date is repealed.

[Mike Mueller]

This is not true for me. We are elected by our chapters. The directors’ numbers are allocated by the number of members in the chapter. In Orange County, I believe, as do my fellow directors, our obligation is to chapter membership and then, the general membership. Equally, as the Director at Large on the Executive Committee my role is to represent my fellow Directors on EC. My obligation is to the Directors.

I too once thought that way. However as I discussed that view with others I came to believe it only leads to sectional issues rather than profession wide goals. What you describe is like the US House of representatives. However the House of Reps was specifically balanced by the Senate and then farther downstream, the Executive and the Courts. CLSA only has the BoD as our President does not have a veto and most of the power of the Executive Committee is soft power exercised through inertia and custom.

This behooves each Director to act like they are all three branches of our government and not place their backyard issues over the good of the profession. Simply put, your view leads to CLSA being wielded like a "commons" akin to what is described in "A Tragedy of Commons" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons where each local faction is attempting to get laws or policies enacted that are tailored to their backyard. As others watch the spoils of power being distributed unequally, they too start to fight over controlling the power to direct the spoils their way. The folks who abstain from such self serving actions are sidelined and become spectators. Sort of like how the unions are currently treating the laws around what is a profession.

In terms of this guide, it will not perfectly dovetail with what Orange County thinks is correct. Nor does it match what Sonoma County thinks is correct. It is aimed at giving logical simple tests to use as a starting point when thinking and discussing what actions we as California surveyors need to do to satisfy the requirements of this new law.

When someone is sent to the Board for failing to comply with this section of the PLSA, how will that play out if we do not have at least some basic ideas to start from?

The new law requires that all monuments used for control are to be easily located AT ALL TIMES in the future. Without the establishment of some customs and common practice, all the iron pipes you set below ground are now cause for a complaint to the board?
Simple Example:A
An overzealous map checker might say that your pipes set 4" below ground to keep animals hooves safe are now too hard to find. You disagree. They send in a complaint. The "expert" decides that it IS hard to find pipes set below ground, and writes up their opinion. How to do defend yourself?

Simple Example:B
Someone finds your topo map and they say, well the random survey control used for this survey is not shown and it is only 60D nails in dirt, so it is not easy to find and not durable. How do you defend yourself from the inevitable complaint about using nails in a forest for a traverse?

(I feel like I should be tagging in Evan to provide an opinion about how common sense may not prevail in a complaint....)

For a historical reference of "the harm" that can be caused, see the single sentence “offering clarification” in a 1968 CLSA newsletter touted about to this very day, by Marin and Sonoma County folks, as a basis for not filing records of survey for the last 50 years. Now ask yourself again, what could go wrong?

I prefer to think about the ways it should go right. I also expect people who are aiming to cheat to find a justification somewhere. If I let the fear of a nefarious bad actor using my work stop me, I would never do anything.

I suspect my sample size is a little larger, do you think “most surveyors” are aware of the existing laws?

Nope. I think that is why most CLSA polls show that our members want education and outreach far more than they want new laws.

Do you find it peculiar that the surveyors you discussed the law with “almost universally they at first think it is a bad change” even though “most people admit that it probably won’t change too much of their practice”?

Nope. People hate losing WAY more than they like gaining. https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/loss-aversion Laws most of the time are impositions that take things from us IE Freedom to use gas leaf blowers, freedom to use dish washers that waste electricity, freedom to drive fast, freedom to pollute etc etc. Our government has trained us to be leery of all new laws, since most of them seem to be factional power grabs as described above that are just one small group imposing their view of whats best on the rest of us.

The BoD is a group of folks who care and spend their own time to help their profession. Regardless of if we all agree on whats best, it is a group that shows up and tries. Any written standard that CLSA wants to have widespread support and adherence to should be aimed not at the wants of CLSA, but at the average of the profession as it is, not as we want it to be. As our practice changes, so too will our standards.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[No_Target]

Mikey, I'd love to be one of the surveyors you convince and get you up to 21. I currently think this law is a frustrating misallocation of our industry's focus.

I am trying to grow my own small business and follow the law but can't compete in an unregulated market. I fear this law will only make the situation worse, as following the law will become more expensive and the bad actors won't change their practices. Any additional requirements on the legally operating surveyor increase our cost, and the disparity between the legal operator and the illegal one becomes larger. The client, not knowing any better, chooses the cheapest option. If I am only a few thousand more I have a chance, trying to inform them of the value of a RS or CR (and the legal requirement for them). I work in the great Sacramento Area, and have yet to win a contract in Sacramento county. Because Sac County Recording fees can easily get to $2000, my bids are 3x more than the illegal operator at minimum. I can work in the other neighboring counties that keep recording costs low because the disparity between my estimates and the illegal operators is less.

I am passionate about surveying but since starting my business I am seeing the future of this industry with increasing negativity. Costs of surveying correctly while following the law are being increased while capitalism encourages the cutting out of surveyors from the process or the hiring of an unlicensed, or non-compliant surveyor. Because of this I am currently (desperately) trying to find clients who see value in surveyors who follow the law or clients who need work that won't require me to compete with illegal operators. My business is on its last leg here and this law is giving it a push.

Sorry for the doom and gloom!

Kyle Brook, PLS 9686
Confluence Land Surveying

[hellsangle]

to Kyle's point . . . the bad actors won't perpetuate monuments as COMMANDED by new law. (Nor will they file a Record of Survey if such is required nor a plethora of tasks to perform a proper boundary. And no one has their licensed jerked for short-cuts or ineptitude.)

Before this law, a PROFESSIONAL surveyor would (and SHOULD) perpetuate evidence in need of saving . . . regardless of if he/she "accepted" the point or disagreed with it. We do it all the time.

Comment: I have a hard time accepting an epoxied tag is as permanent as a drilled point!

Besides all of this is a waste of time/money if improvements are made and nobody searches for monuments . . . like repaving projects wipe out original monuments! This is still happening and there is a "law" to protect them - but not every public agency adheres to the law.

More laws. Less freedoms.

Crazy Phil - Sonoma

[Ric7308]

Before this law, a PROFESSIONAL surveyor would (and SHOULD) perpetuate evidence in need of saving . . . regardless of if he/she "accepted" the point or disagreed with it. We do it all the time.

Crazy Phil - Sonoma

This! In all the states that I performed boundary surveys in, this was never disputed as a basic principle and practice for surveying. Only in California is "monument" a four-letter word to be avoided at all costs like its the plague.

[Ric7308]

I feel a need to repeat this (and probably get flamed for how I'm going to end what I say). There is NOTHING in the PLS Act which authorizes a "mapchecker" (whomever that may be) from REQUIRING compliance with 8771.6 pursuant to any maps being filed or reviewed pursuant to the Act. Nothing.

I know there will be some who will want to talk about maps filed pursuant to SMA and my response is that a field survey performed to support the filing of whatever SMA map is made in conformity with the PLS Act so compliance with 8771.6 is the responsibility of the licensed professional land surveyor REGARDLESS if a "mapchecker" makes comments or not, JUST like it currently is for any other pertinent provision of the PLS Act.

If the Board had viewed the language in this bill as creating situations which would INCREASE the authority of any "mapchecker" in this regard, I would likely expect that the Board would have had a different position on the proposal. I had several conversations with representatives of CLSA, at least once at the request of the Board, to clarify the intent and what was hoped to accomplish. Without putting words into their mouths', all indications from those representatives were that this practice should already be a standard and it was intended to formalize the intent.

After January 1, 2025, if anyone experiences situations where a County Surveyor (because no one else has the authority to review maps pursuant to the PLS Act) tries to ENFORCE compliance with 8771.6, then I would suggest two courses of action: 1) first talk with the CS asking specifics about why he/she believes that the submitted map depicts a failure on the part of the submitting surveyor and 2) ask the CS to provide the written authority for the CS to include 8771.6 as a requirement to file the map.

Bottom line...it is the professional land surveyor's responsibilities to satisfy 8771.6 in ALL cases without anyone else pointing it out to them. It is NOT the responsibility of anyone else to enforce that responsibility. If a professional land surveyor doesn't pay attention to the PLS Act, SMA, and local ordinances pertaining to SMA-related monuments prior to submitting any maps, then that is on that surveyor for failing to comply with their professional responsibilities and they should expect what is coming to them.

I think that the education proposed as Mikey described is a good thing. The fact that this will be beat to death over and over again by surveyors in CA is not a good thing. I would hope that those who have commented that they do not like this new section voiced their concerns at CLSA meetings, locally and state wide, because there certainly were no surveyors attending the 4-5 board meetings voicing any concerns during public comment when this language was being discussed.

[Mike Mueller]

Kyle,

Thank you for posting. I will do my best!

Any additional requirements on the legally operating surveyor increase our cost, and the disparity between the legal operator and the illegal one becomes larger.

That is the exact argument that I use when I am advocating against some of the more far sweeping legislative ideas, and also when I am debating the difference between high standards and high goals. This guide is specifically aimed at helping people in your exact situation understand the new law and ensure compliance in ways that do not destroy your budget.

First off, the monuments that are covered by this law are fewer than it might seem at first glance. The only monuments that are included are found, existing monuments used for control of a survey. It does not include random survey control points for your instrument. It does not include section corners that were proportioned in, since there was no monument there to begin with. It does not include random pipes you show as ties. Of those monuments it does include, it has two requirements, durability and ease of location. In regards to durability, the guide is explicitly saying that the various locations around the state will have different standards for what is expected to be durable. I would be willing to bet that you set durable monuments already, and that you have durable monuments sitting in your field rig ready to go when needed.

In regards to durability, when you do find a rotting wooden stake, I believe it was common practice(AKA a GOAL) to set a pipe as a replacement before this law was on the books. Now it is a requirement. The added cost will be the time it takes to put in the pipe and update the documentation. Since this law is on the books, everyone should know its there and keep a pipe in the lathe bag. So 15 minutes to set a pipe in the same spot as the hub and wire the hub to the side of the pipe. Adding notes on the RoS, 10 min. So add an extra 30 minutes in your budget per old rotting stake or nail in failing pavement that you find AND use for control. I know these things add up, but an extra 30 min on some of your surveys will not kill the budget.

Worst case scenario you set that pipe and then the survey does not go to a RoS. Just file a CR (aka cheap cost). I know that it is not a painless cost, but there are not that many times I can think of where this situation would have occurred, and makes good "rainy day" work :)

In regards to ease of recovery, this is the trickiest part of the new law in my opinion. Just what satisfies the "facile recovery" part will probably cause some disagreement. It is one of the reasons I want to get this guide out ASAP so that we can establish a consensus on what is easy enough to be "facile". The guide proposes that the standard should be a licensed surveyor, using their normal "dumb" tools, like a magnetic location, shovel, compass, record maps and other documents spending 10-15 minutes looking in the vicinity of the monument. Not using a total station, not using a survey grade GPS. Not including travel time to the site. If travel was included, then every monument would fail the easy to find test. As only land surveyors are allowed to survey lands they do not own, it should be a land surveyor who is used in the test for ease. The inclusion of the paperwork is key because it allows a note on a RoS to add information that makes it easy to locate. For example add a note that says the pipe is buried 2 feet down, 16 feet S43°E from a joint pole. Voila, that pipe is now pretty darn easy to locate for any surveyor with a compass and a shovel.

Flip it around now, and think of the benefit. Anyone who provides a topo that does not show the monuments used to determine the boundary is open to a much easier to prove complaint. What was a hard to determine grey zone of "does this go far enough over the line to be worth filing a complaint" turns into a simple glance at the map. Are durable monuments shown? If not, they are not showing compliance with 8771.6. Easy to file a complaint and send in that map. Once people start to learn that they need to show monuments on maps, it gets a lot easier to prove the low budget outfits are not doing their job. Bluffs are easy to call when everyone plays with their cards down :)

As long as CLSA and the profession can get behind some low bar, easy to accomplish standards (NOT GOALS) it will be an easier thing to start sweeping up the bottom 5% of bad actors. That will lead to a directly better situation for both licensed folks doing the job correctly, AND the public not getting snake oil.

The client, not knowing any better, chooses the cheapest option. If I am only a few thousand more I have a chance, trying to inform them of the value of a RS or CR (and the legal requirement for them).

I feel your pain with that struggle at least once a week. It is why I am so vehement about not having CLSA conflate standards with goals when we advocate for new laws and preach standards. If you figure that one out let me know too!


Big picture, this is the law now. How we as a profession deal with it is what we are debating/deciding now. We can do nothing, and let a hodgepodge of standards get established following whatever local custom evolves that creates more confusion, or we can agree on some basics as the low bar to get over, and if more is wanted, others can prepare guides or books on how to achieve those higher goals. CLSA needs to lead from the middle, with broad agreement, and start proving our value to the profession.

Long story short, the major change I see from this law is more notes on maps making it easier to find the monuments. Or if I am pessimistic, the reduction in monuments shown on maps if the overzealous map checkers are allowed to go crazy.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

PS My techs love your company's study questions :)

[Mike Mueller]

If the Board had viewed the language in this bill as creating situations which would INCREASE the authority of any "mapchecker" in this regard, I would likely expect that the Board would have had a different position on the proposal. I had several conversations with representatives of CLSA, at least once at the request of the Board, to clarify the intent and what was hoped to accomplish. Without putting words into their mouths', all indications from those representatives were that this practice should already be a standard and it was intended to formalize the intent.

I also do not view this as an increase in the authority of a map checker, but it does establish as a law what most previously considered a "should". Since the map checker is one of the few folks that get/have to review a surveyors work, they are often the main source of disagreements about surveying. So I predict we will see their comments about 8771.6 being made in the style of "Perhaps you want to address this issue before you record a document that proves you broke the law" so while they do not have the authority to enforce compliance, their soft power "suggestions" can feel like demands.

Hence why I am using the map check process as a reason to quickly get something out so that people can use it when they are discussing it during the review process.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[David Kendall]

The BoD is a group of folks who care and spend their own time to help their profession. Regardless of if we all agree on whats best, it is a group that shows up and tries. Any written standard that CLSA wants to have widespread support and adherence to should be aimed not at the wants of CLSA, but at the average of the profession as it is, not as we want it to be. As our practice changes, so too will our standards.

Amen.

I do not see how a topo with no monuments shown is a violation of 8771.6. Please elaborate.

What does the guide say about a found bent or leaning pipe? Remove, straighten and reset?

Is setting a reference monument nearby appropriate or does the monument need to be rehabilitated in the same location (aka memorial)?

I agree that this rehabilitation of decrepit monuments a practice that most of us do naturally in the course of a normal day. I can think of one time when I found a severely rusted pipe at the bottom of a deep dark canyon, when I was working alone, late on a Friday evening and I did not climb out to the truck and return to set a memorial. The guilt still haunts me and I might go back one day and reset it

[Mike Mueller]

I do not see how a topo with no monuments shown is a violation of 8771.6. Please elaborate.

Its not a direct violation, however if boundary information is shown on the topo and there was a field survey, then there should be some sort of boundary control that was found. That means that whoever did that topo found monuments that are covered by 8771.6. If those monuments are not shown on that map in a manner that conforms to the requirements of durability and findability it is not an automatic violation of the law, but it makes a complaint really easy to say that the map does not. Then the board sends an email and asks for their work etc, and it will be pretty cut and dry. Either they found solid monuments that are easy to recover, or they did not. Regardless of the outcome of the complaint, it is an easy complaint to make and have the maker of the map prove their innocence.

While I do not feel we should flood the board with complaints, I do feel like those that complain about "low budget competition" should be stepping up and accepting the responsibility of policing their profession with a few more complaints. The CLSA poll shows that people under report. The reasons for that have been discussed before. I personally expect a round of complaints about this new law will occur from a variety of sources.

After those complaints, I think it will become an easy fix to just show the monuments you found and cite a map of record. Or state that the map is not a result of a field survey. Either way, we could help get a change in practice :)

In regards to bent pipes the guide is meant to be a very basic barely minimum sort of thing. I personally feel like it would be up to the judgement of the surveyor who finds it. The bentness of the pipe is not really addressed in the law as I read it, unless someone considers the ambiguity of the POR vs the top of the pipe meaning it is not easy to recover? As in most aspects of this law related to ease of recovery, a note on the map that says "bent pipe, held POR" would resolve that imo.

As I see it, the reference markers would only help with the findability, but not satisfy the durability requirement.

Just my 2 cents.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9086
Sonoma County

[No_Target]

Okay so I haven't figured out how to use the CLSA forum quoting method yet (I don't think) so forgive me (and teach me how to fix this mis-formatting)...

First off, the monuments that are covered by this law are fewer than it might seem at first glance. The only monuments that are included are found, existing monuments used for control of a survey. It does not include random survey control points for your instrument. It does not include section corners that were proportioned in, since there was no monument there to begin with. It does not include random pipes you show as ties. Of those monuments it does include, it has two requirements, durability and ease of location. In regards to durability, the guide is explicitly saying that the various locations around the state will have different standards for what is expected to be durable. I would be willing to bet that you set durable monuments already, and that you have durable monuments sitting in your field rig ready to go when needed.

I frequently show monuments unrelated to my boundary solution to add to their chain of custody. I think this wouldn't be included in the law but am excited to argue with the first map checker who argues otherwise. My fear is related to my current disagreement with a county surveyor who does not interpret the PLS Act in the same way that I do. It adds time arguing, and time is money. This is one more thing for us to argue about. The bad actors don't argue with the county surveyor because they don't file.

In regards to durability, when you do find a rotting wooden stake, I believe it was common practice(AKA a GOAL) to set a pipe as a replacement before this law was on the books. Now it is a requirement. The added cost will be the time it takes to put in the pipe and update the documentation. Since this law is on the books, everyone should know its there and keep a pipe in the lathe bag. So 15 minutes to set a pipe in the same spot as the hub and wire the hub to the side of the pipe. Adding notes on the RoS, 10 min. So add an extra 30 minutes in your budget per old rotting stake or nail in failing pavement that you find AND use for control. I know these things add up, but an extra 30 min on some of your surveys will not kill the budget.

Pipe and monuments cost money, and I go on mile plus hikes where no vehicle can travel (I want a pack mule). Hucking a bag with several pipes and a sledge along while myself or my crew hack through brush etc. is more time consuming and a legitimate PITA. I try to travel light and with no bag so less brush snags slow me down. Setting my own monument in these cases could take hours. Let alone if you go to reset a monument with a pipe to find out that a boulder lies 6" under the surface. How do I reset this efficiently? Witness monuments? Add a pipe or 3 to that bag.

Worst case scenario you set that pipe and then the survey does not go to a RoS. Just file a CR (aka cheap cost). I know that it is not a painless cost, but there are not that many times I can think of where this situation would have occurred, and makes good "rainy day" work :)

Everything that takes time costs money. I am trying to operate on a knifes edge and currently am failing at it. Even filing a simple CR can take time, printing and packeting and submitting means cost. My crew, and myself, are probably going to be working for other surveyors on rainy days because I can't find enough clients that want to allow me to pay all the associated payroll, insurance, and general business costs that are required. The weekend warrior uses their kid as field crew or no joke, has the client help them hold the rod or pound the pipe in. I cannot compete with that already and am now supposed to add it to my budget or overhead?

Flip it around now, and think of the benefit. Anyone who provides a topo that does not show the monuments used to determine the boundary is open to a much easier to prove complaint. What was a hard to determine grey zone of "does this go far enough over the line to be worth filing a complaint" turns into a simple glance at the map. Are durable monuments shown? If not, they are not showing compliance with 8771.6. Easy to file a complaint and send in that map. Once people start to learn that they need to show monuments on maps, it gets a lot easier to prove the low budget outfits are not doing their job. Bluffs are easy to call when everyone plays with their cards down :)

8772 already requires line points be set with licensing information... the problem is NO ONE else in my neck of the woods does this. Even those who preach 8762 from the mountain tops set wood lath on the line when they are coming back down the mountain. I set monuments on the line as required, but I might be the only one doing this out here. It gets ignored, like I am sure this new law will as well. I can either be compliant and charge more or ignore the law like everyone else. It's a sad decision to have to make. Reporting surveyors spend hours and hours providing documentation only for nothing to happen.

I feel your pain with that struggle at least once a week. It is why I am so vehement about not having CLSA conflate standards with goals when we advocate for new laws and preach standards. If you figure that one out let me know too!

Cap RS Fees. Police bad actors. See my recent article (attached) on how surveyors need to report bad surveyors more often. I struggle to do it but it is for the good of the profession. I am just a little tired of competing with bad actors.

Don't get me wrong. I really appreciate your guide and will be using it to argue that the 60D Nail and Tag with epoxy in fresh asphalt is plenty durable (current argument holding up a RS). I think it's a helpful thing to come from all of this. I also really appreciate you taking the time to get back to me and try to convince me. I am in a difficult to sway position as I try and fail to get people to pay for a recorded map, or even see the value. Capitalism and the PLS Act don't mesh well in many ways, and unregulated surveying is making it worse.

PS My techs love your company's study questions :)

I'm glad they like them! I should be writing one right now. If I re-use an old question tomorrow this is why. I really enjoy teaching and helping other surveyors, but am worried we are getting people into an industry that isn't friendly to legal operators. I am very passionate about surveying but am finding more and more that a job done right doesn't make it to contract.

One positive note from this is that it gives me a better argument for setting more monuments. I already set a lot (ask my county surveyors).

If I leave the industry or stop being a compliancy zealot I won't be able to use my favorite quote:

Si Monumentum Requiris, Circumspice
"If you seek his monument, look around you"

Thanks again for the conversation.

Kyle Brook, PLS 9686
Confluence Land Surveying