California Surveyors Forums

I have observed some recent dialogue about Justice Cooley. I would note that his work was a prime motivator for Curt Brown. I have been working ob this article for some time. I hope you folks enjoy it. If you are inclined to provide any feedback, pro or com, the magazine would be pleased to consider publishing it.

As to my motivation, I have seen a steady decline in the quality of boundary surveying and when I raise Cooley, I am inevitably chastised because I have been informed that the only answer is proration and of course, if it isn't measured with GPS, it can't be right.

http://amerisurv.com/emag/2015/vol12no8/index.html

Michael...

A timely read, and well written. And kudos to American Surveyor for choosing your article for the cover. It's hard to stomach all the incompetency that abounds among surveyors. Trouble is, for the most part, you're preaching to the choir. CEU hours should be mandatory and should include at least one boundary seminar during each licensing period, of the type you and Lucas conduct. The offenders never show up. They should be forced to.

Well said, Michael,

I had a recent boundary where adjoining development accepted a "could-have-done-better" surveys and neighbors did not question the boundaries. However, there is about a two-foot discrepancy from long ago survey, (who's evidence is questionable).

That said, I felt I had to listen to Cooley, Lucas' "Pincushion Effect", actions of the adjoiners and a lis pendens which was resolved employing the "could-have-done-better" surveys. Harmony in the neighborhood. (A Boundary Line Agreement would help fix in the future. And we all know that's not air-tight.)

As you pointed out - computers are a tool. And surveying is more 'art' than science. Unfortunately, the computer has, for some, made the surveyor think like an engineer - number crunching without considering long established occupation.

Best,

Phil - Sonoma

Has anyone actually found that CEU increases competence in the survey industry.
I have worked for LARGE companies that did gray area work so it's not only the sole practitioner only that is the issue.

I can pretty much guarantee that CEU will increase competency. I spend a considerable amount of time working with insurance companies up and down the state both reviewing and defending the work of other surveyors who get sued or are involved in a conflict. In simplest terms, the only solution is proration. It never ceases to amaze me at the antiquated views so many surveyors have relative to what they are doing versus what they should be doing. As an example, how many classes are taught on satellite orientation and post processing of data versus things like Cooley? In the case of satellites, etc., there are vendors everywhere who are delighted to offer classes on the latest technologies, all of which is very important; they are selling equipment and we are buying. It is my belief and opinion that if not for the fact that many surveyors need to know how to run a new piece of equipment, they would not spend the time learning how to do that. This paradigm, of course, is based upon an economic incentive to be competitive, not necessarily to improve their skills.

Every day we see more and more court decisions related to boundary law, easements, and the rules of evidence but because there is really no economic incentives, little attention is paid to real property law. Time and time again, we, as a profession lament the decisions we see flow from the courts, defying our logical understanding of boundary surveying. That is a paradox as the courts rely on the opinion of "experts" involved in the case. Thus, if you have two equally unqualified experts offering their nonsensical opinions in a court of law, one of these "experts" will prevail, i.e . one plus one equals three.

By and large, most surveyor's understanding of boundary law is predicated on the law as it existed at the time they got their license, 10, 20, or 30 years ago. What is most troubling is the fact that competency in boundary surveying is the one element that should distinguish Land Surveyors from civil engineers, GIS people, GPS people and everyone else capable of pushing a button.

Although Jeff Lucas may be overly harsh with regards to some of Curt Brown's writings and opinions, Curt would be the first one to acknowledge his earlier work cannot and will not stand the test of time. That is even more confounding because Curt's work is not, nor was it ever intended to be biblical. Many of his primary postulates are based on 50 and 60 year old laws. Over the years I spent a considerable amount of time discussing this with him and he was troubled by this problem, one in which he recognized and was concerned with. Unfortunately, too many surveyors rely on static Brown opinions. His was not dicta; his was intended to be dynamic.

mpallamary wrote:That is a paradox as the courts rely on the opinion of "experts" involved in the case. Thus, if you have two equally unqualified experts offering their nonsensical opinions in a court of law, one of these "experts" will prevail, i.e . one plus one equals three.

That right there is a problem I have come across too. The blind leading the blind.

No kidding Dave. And they don't read Braille.

Call me one of those fools that drank the Cooley Cool-Aid.

"When a man has had a training in one of the exact sciences, where every problem within its purview is supposed to be susceptible of accurate solution, he is likely to be not a little impatient when he is told that, under some circumstances, he must recognize inaccuracies, and govern his action by facts which lead him away from the results which theoretically he ought to reach. Observation warrants us in saying that this remark may frequently be made of surveyors." -Justice Cooley