Please let the board know what you think here:
http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/2128742/Rulemaking-comment-form-196-29-Professional-Practices
Thanks for making me aware of this. I've given the proposed changes a quick read, not sure what I should think. I have long believed that the definition of "Practice of Land Surveying" in Washington State can use some punching up.
The link goes to the comment form. I think this is what is being commented upon
http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/engineerslandsurveyors/docs/196-29proposed.pdf
Bill93, post: 322521, member: 87 wrote: The link goes to the comment form. I think this is what is being commented upon
http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/engineerslandsurveyors/docs/196-29proposed.pdf
I like that they divide it into initial and after establishment of boundaries. Don't know if this is a change or not as I'm not from Washington.
I went to the hearing in Kelso last week, so I could ask questions. Seems like they didn't get a lot of pushback from other groups this time around. Perhaps those groups just have other things to do.
In any event, there is some old, dead language in the first paragraph about the County Engineer's right to perform boundary survey within roadways (referenced by statute #). I wish they would have just kept to excluding those exceptions already in state law. I know at some point, county engineers are going to want to get rid of that "right". Most don't use their survey authority now. Also, since the County Engineers office isn't considered an office of public record anymore, they still need to record surveys and ROW takings, which requires a surveyor, since the exception only allows for the CE to file in his office, in order for their documents to be considered public notice, which will bite the one or two still doing their own survey work soon enough. Unfortunately, this is one of those pieces of WA law that has had its foundation eroded away, but is still there to cause lots of confusion.
The rest of it seemed pretty good to me. Especially the part about legal descriptions being a surveyor's responsibility. Finally!
In the end, I decided to send positive feedback about the whole thing, since it works as is. If a County Engineer wants to take his career in his own hands and survey, regardless of the liability it puts on his County (the engineer himself is endemnified from liability for the most part), then it doesn't bother me. I would like to help them see this dfferently, though. Of course, I might be wrong.
There has been some push-back from the "GIS community" on the Washington Geographic Information Council (WAGIC) LISTSERV
Mostly pushed by the guy with this website:
And piled on by some county GIS administrators
Do they have some sort of online presence for this discussion? I didn't see it on his website. I loved the part on his website about his tool being the most accurate thing besides hiring a surveyor. [sarcasm]That isn't going to cause any problems for land owners who rely on it to build fences, etc.[/sarcasm] (which they will, or have already), otherwise, why use his tool?
Here is a link I found regarding the GIS issues. Thanks for the heads up!
http://www.waurisa.org/events_news/URISA_Comments_ProposedWASurveyingRules06172014.pdf