A thread below started me wondering whether any state in the US prevents the use of dowsing to determine uncertain boundaries. Dowsing would surely be much less expensive than surveys and might provide a great benefit to the public in areas where boundaries were objectively uncertain. Could a state statute create a new category of boundary corner known as the "Dowsed Corner"? I'm thinking "yes".
Of course, just as soon as some good Dowsed Corners got located, you'd have less expensive Dowsing Professionals willing to locate the Approximate Dowsed Corners, so it all might not really be that much of a benefit to the public in the end. :>
Here is an excellent example of the unlicensed practice of dowsing mentioned in a recent California case, that of Martin v. Van Bergen, 209 Cal.App.4th 84 (2012):
> Ruth Scovell testified she moved with her family onto Van Bergen's parcel in 1945, when she was 15 years old. In 1947, her family planted the almond orchard that exists today. Her family was assisted by Martin's predecessor-in-interest, who reportedly performed survey work for the Army and possessed some survey equipment.
It would probably be informative to review all of the agreed boundary cases for similar instances of unlicensed dowsing. The architect and his string line? Dowsing without a license, obviously.
Dowsing Should Work
If an electric dog fence was installed.
Dowsing would definitely be more accurate than One Call.
Paul in PA
I can see it now. Found two bit rebar .143 northeast of dowsed corner!
Find that pot of gold for me while yor're at it.
Kent, if by Dowsing you mean the magical locating of an unknown by use of a medium, then I think the CA legislature is way ahead of you. The complete exception of any testimony regarding boundaries from the rule against hearsay (mentioned in the Kliban case) would seem to legislate the judge or jury into the position of a Dowser, with the witness as the forked stick.
Of course there are all kinds of exceptions to the hearsay rule. They also mention the other part of the rule that many forget; testimony is allowed if it goes to what someone might be thinking rather than to prove the truth of the statement. But legislated Dowsing is more in line with the exception of a whole category of subject matter. The justification mentioned was something like "there is no reason to suspect the testimony regarding boundaries".
There may even be a Canadian somewhere that is offering a reward if one can show that throughout history there has never been a person testifying about a boundary that was mistaken, remembered wrong after 50 years, or lied to promote a line in their favor. If the CA legislature is so sure about this, maybe they should go after the award.
> Of course there are all kinds of exceptions to the hearsay rule. They also mention the other part of the rule that many forget; testimony is allowed if it goes to what someone might be thinking rather than to prove the truth of the statement. But legislated Dowsing is more in line with the exception of a whole category of subject matter. The justification mentioned was something like "there is no reason to suspect the testimony regarding boundaries".
Absolutely correct, Duane. The passage of time strips away all the confusing details from what a person might have testified at the time of the original "agreement" and decades later, after a conversation with a skilled attorney, leaves the mind with a vivid recollection of the essentials. :>
I didn't know that might be unique.
EC1323: “Evidence of a statement concerning the boundary of land is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness and had sufficient knowledge of the subject, but evidence of a statement is not admissible under this section if the statement was made under circumstances such as to indicate its lack of trustworthiness.”
I will look up the Annotations for that one. It may have been declaring existing Common Law, much of the Evidence Code was in 1967.
USACE "dowsing"
On reading your subject line, my thoughts went to the US Army Corps of Engineers Manual EM1110-1-1005 Control and Topographic Surveying dated 01 January 2007.
Chapter 2-6 - Utility Surveys:
(3) The location of underground utilities by digging, drilling, or probing should be undertaken only as a last resort, and then only with the approval and supervision of the company involved. Some techniques that work are the use of a magnetic locator, ground penetrating radar, a dip needle, or even “witching” for pipes or lines underground. (italics mine)
