Skeeter1996, post: 456445, member: 9224 wrote: I'd like to see them tell my County Clerk and Recorder to step aside.
In my experience with USPS projects, the Service makes an effort to conform to local practice, but when it presents what they consider an unreasonable burden they proceed without doing so. After completing a purchase that involved dividing a larger parcel (because they only want part of it), if the local Recorder declined to record the documents, they federal agent would likely shrug his shoulders and say, "Suit yourself" and move ahead building their project.
Jim Frame, post: 456474, member: 10 wrote: In my experience with USPS projects, the Service makes an effort to conform to local practice, but when it presents what they consider an unreasonable burden they proceed without doing so. After completing a purchase that involved dividing a larger parcel (because they only want part of it), if the local Recorder declined to record the documents, they federal agent would likely shrug his shoulders and say, "Suit yourself" and move ahead building their project.
How would they ever get through their legal department review doing that.
The Highway Department use to divide property without surveying it. There ended up being two deeds to the same piece of property to two different owners. Both had deeds to the same parcel. The Lawyers are making a ton of money off that. It's just in the last 20 years or so that the Highway Department started using Registered Surveyors. Most of them got grandfathered in to getting licenses and they now makeup the worst Surveyors in the State. I doubt many Highway Department Engineers are licensed.
I should add that my experience with USPS projects is over 20 years out of date, so they may not do things the way they used to.
Jawja, post: 456378, member: 12766 wrote: So, checking something I heard from another surveyor that did not make sense to me:
He said that a surveyor licensed in one stat could do work on base in a different state for DoD contract without being licensed in that state. Is that true or just B'S? Just seems to not make sense to me. But on the other hand, government is involved so logic is not required.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
That is completely true as military facilities fall outside the realm of State control. Qualifying and making the DOD short list as a Contractor is a cumbersome process as well as the process of being an improved Sub contractor.
Post 9/11 I worked for a firm that did allot of military work out of state where I signed and sealed plans.
Joe W. Byrd, post: 456400, member: 10015 wrote: I would say it depends on the individual states' laws. In Mississippi the law states that as long as the person doing the surveying is an employee of the government agency working only on the governments property, then they do not have to be licensed. However, if you are an employee of a contractor that is hired by that government agency to perform surveying services, you must be licensed. If you work for a company hired to perform the work, you are offering professional surveying services, so you need to be licensed and your firm must have a surveying certificate of authority to provide these services. The government agency may tell you that you don't need it, but they also will not help you when the investigator comes calling. Be careful and check into all of the laws and rules before accepting any project. And yes, there has been surveyors disciplined by the MS Licensing Board for this.
This is the most accurate statement on this thread. There is a big difference between a federal employee and a government contractor. Also, any surveying that results in change in grade will effect stormwater discharge from the site. That can effect the public living on private property in the same watershed.
Bottom line, its always better to check with the state board where the work is taking place.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BushAxe, post: 456495, member: 11897 wrote: This is the most accurate statement on this thread. There is a big difference between a federal employee and a government contractor. Also, any surveying that results in change in grade will effect stormwater discharge from the site. That can effect the public living on private property in the same watershed.
Bottom line, its always better to check with the state board where the work is taking place.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I would agree with that. I know that, from a legal sense, the crews on base here can do their work as construction surveying is not regulated by our board (whether I think that is a wise policy is irrelevant). I just do not get why the feds would not have a requirement for an LS in the state where the work takes place.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Jawja, post: 456501, member: 12766 wrote: I just do not get why the feds would not have a requirement for an LS in the state where the work takes place.
"The feds" -- meaning the contracting agency -- may or may not have such a requirement, it depends on the agency and possibly the region. But the overarching concept is that the sovereign isn't subject to the rules of its political subdivisions (states and local agencies). It may choose -- and often does choose -- to comply with those rules as a matter of good will or convenience, but it doesn't have to. So if a federal agency tells someone, licensed or not, that it's okay to conduct work that would otherwise be regulated by the state on land under that agency's control, there's no need to check with the state about it -- the fed's blessing supersedes the state's wishes. Further more, In my opinion the state would not have standing to sanction the practitioner for violating state regulations in connection any actions undertaken on federal land.
