California Surveyors Forums

http://www.acsm.net/index.cfm?fuseactio ... PageID=636

The price is now $75 on the ACSM site.

And here I was thinking that I got a great deal for a new one at the conference scholarship auction at $115.

That sucks. I bought mine last week from ACSM for $135.

At least I have the satisfaction of knowing that what I paid is helping someone pay the expenses of college.

I wonder, Lee, if you called ACSM, whether they would send you the difference or apply it to another publication. Not likely, but may be worth a try.

Thanks, Evan, for the suggestion. $50 refund on the way!

CLSA central office has them again for $55.

I rarely make entries here but have to comment on the BLM manual in general. This goes for prior manuals as well. Unless you are a federal govt. employee,working on undisposed federal lands, this book is NOT your bible.
Yes, it is helpful to understand the historical process of how public land was parted off, as background for our profession. But,let's be clear that once lands have passed into private ownership, look to state case law, local statute law and regulations, and our understanding of boundary law principles.
The "Bible" or "Manual" calls for the federal surveyor to split a section into quarters by connecting the four midpoints of the sides of the section when he/she is surveying FEDERAL lands. It does NOT tell you, the private land surveyor to practice this. First we are obligated to evaluate any long-used,relied-upon,recorded,or accepted evidence of the original corner.That evidence does not have to be at the midpoint or prorated location between the two section corners,when we are working in privately held lands. The glaring example would be the CLSA's gigantic and historical mistake of jumping into the case of California vs.Thompson,22 Cal. App.3d, 1971. The CLSA lawyers lost because they tried to use concepts of surveying methodology (setting a pipe at a midpoint,or prorated location per the Manual) instead of considering long-standing private property rights,as called for by CA court cases. The court went on to say,"a survey from the nearest established corner is least liable to error." So,more important than manual rules, the private surveyor must know the laws of equity in his state,and how they are applied to everyday practice, or he will end up in court for having violated private property rights.

True, unless a state has adopted the manual IN ITS ENTIRETY, as has Oklahoma. But you had still better study case law and bona fide rights.

If one never gets beyond the chapter on the subdivision of sections, I can see why one would think the Manual is of no or very limited use outside of current federal lands. In many parts of the State, there isn't much subdividing of sections left to do, although in other parts there is quite a bit. If all your work is in an urban environment and/or in areas where the existing boundaries are several generations of conveyances since being based upon federally surveyed lines, then the Manual is of very little use to you.

But for those of us who also work outside of the highly metropolized areas, the chapters on resurvey are quite relevant. Even the chapter on subdivision of sections comes in handy once in a while. The resurvey chapters, like the standard most of us practice to, and most of the case law in CA, instruct the surveyor to gather and weigh all relevant evidence in retracements and resurveys. It is clear that the circumstances under which a prior survey should be "corrected" to reflect the rules for a new section subdivision are quite limited.

Another common misuse of the Manual, which is more likely actually a non-use is the propensity of many surveyors to resort to proportionate measure to re-establish aliquot and other PLSS corners once they don't find evidence of the monument on their first search for it. If one feels that the Manual is not relevant because they think that it instructs the surveyor to re-establish missing corners by proportionate measure, probably is not very familiar with it. The Manual is quite clear that proportionate method is the method of last resort. The Manual instructs the surveyor in methods the BLM considers preferable. The courts, even the CA courts are, in most cases in agreement with the methodology propounded by the Manual.

Unfortunately, many surveyors, even some with a great deal of experience and well thought of are afraid to adhere to some of the less mathmatical methods prescribed by the Manual and the courts to be used before resorting to proportionate measure and other mathmagical methods. Many surveyors, if asked whether certain methods represent the proper standard of care or proper methods would opine quite differently than what the courts have repeatedly told us should be representative of our practice. Most of those surveyors are also unaware that the Manual more closely represents the standards the courts have given us than the ones many practice by, and sometimes testify to.


IMO, anyone surveying in the PLSS or surveying boundaries which were at one time based upon federal patents is treading on thin ice by ignoring a vital resource.

Evan,
You gave a more thorough rebuttal than I did. It explains much more.

An all-around thoughtful response by E Page. But still,the manual is written for the federal employee to survey undisposed govt. land, which is a rare situation. Again, the CA appeals court mentioned above, ruled against the surveyor who "followed in the footsteps" per the BLM Manual. For every rule there is an exception; Our state laws of equity trumped the "bible."

There is a lot of good information in the NEW 2009 manual (now only $55 for CLSA members!) on things like Bona Fide Rights that you will not find discussed anywhere else. The new chapter on Water Boundaries, all 100 pages of it, is worth the price of the Manual all by itself.

The Tompson case you cite, and the Hanes v Hollow Tree Lumber Co 191 Cal App 2d 658 (1961), cited in Thompson, both rejected a proportional method of reestablishing of a corner and note that the Manual itself places limitations on the use of proportionate measures in sections: 355; 360; and 378 of the 1947 Manual (sections 5-9 thru 5-14; 5-20 &21; and 5-42 of the 1973 Manual). The court wasnt saying the Manual's methods were incorrect, they were saying that the surveyors had misapplied those methods.

California law does not require that a lost PLSS corner be reset according to the Manual's methodology. It also does not say you cant.

desert turtoise wrote:An all-around thoughtful response by E Page. But still,the manual is written for the federal employee to survey undisposed govt. land, which is a rare situation. Again, the CA appeals court mentioned above, ruled against the surveyor who "followed in the footsteps" per the BLM Manual. For every rule there is an exception; Our state laws of equity trumped the "bible."

Tom answered this pretty well, but I'll add that the court didn't rule against the surveyor for "following in the footsteps", but rather ruled against him because he did not exhaust his efforts to follow in the footsteps before resorting to proportionate measure.

The Manual itself does not describe the use of proportionate measure as following the footsteps, but presents it as a method of evenly distributing discrepancies when no evidence of the footsteps can be found.

The Manual is not only for the surveying of undisposed federal lands, but for surveying any federal lands which may fall under the BLM's authority to survey. That includes acquired lands. A far greater portion of the Manual is doevoted to resurveying, or following the footsteps of previous surveyors than is devoted to original surveys. That makes it fully relevant to any surveyor who would retrace similar lands.

Most of what is in the Manual is in agreement with CA law.

This is from Clark's:
"Thus, while the 1973 edition represents the latest advance in engineering thinking, it is still not to be considered as a 'Bible' of surveying, for the surveyor in making use of it, must bear in mind at all times that a particular tract of land may have been surveyed under instructions set out in an earlier edition or even before a manual even existed. There have been numerous changes over the years in the federal procedure of subdividing townships and, once the technique in effect at the time was put into operation and surveys were made in accordance therewith, these lines become forever fixed when the tracts are sold. Hence, the current edition of the 'The Manual' must always be used with an eye toward the earlier editions and the instructions contained therein. An example of this is the subdivision of townships."
(Fifth and Seventh Editions Section 9.01; Fourth edition Section 163)