I attended the LSAW Fall seminar Friday. Bob Dahl and Jerry Broadus presented the 2009 BLM "Manual of Surveying Instructions". Thank you Mike, Desi, Amanda, Tom and all who attended, for making this a great discussion group. I like it when there is a lot of audience participation. It helps to quell the myths and delusion that some create, when the right answer eludes them, myself included.
But I've got to tell you, the more seminars I go to like this, the more confused I get. But with this one, I understand more why. It's because there is no one answer, in the PLSS. Like Bob said, if he was to address every single situation you might run into while doing your survey, he would need a library to hold all of the volumes. That's why I like this profession, it keeps you on your toes. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it.
I learned a couple new terms:
Spurious Corner
Meander Board
Try to use them in a conversation next week 😀
Sorry, I didn't bring my camera. But if you check out Daryl's post below, Another Aviation link (photo blog) and click on the link to a few photos, you can see a couple pics at the end of the after party. In the last picture, the pretty one on the right is Desi, our chapter secretary. She did a great job of putting a lot of this together and is always a big help. Thanks Desi, for selling me a book so I could get Bob to sign it.;-)
Be careful out there my friends. If you are surveying in the PLSS and think you are done, think again. You just might have missed something.
Douglas Casement, PLS
On occasion I ask the question of HOW are we to follow those footstep. To me it seems too heavy handed to require that boundary surveys be recorded with the state.
What if surveyors voluntarily provided copies of their surveys to a public repository? Yea, I know that will never happen since the Title Companies and low ball surveyors would try to use those "free" drawings. Still, HOW do we actualize the concept? What if "good" surveyors could work together making their data available to the other good local surveyors? Not in a public forum but within their society or network?
Radar,
Now I am starting to understand the problems faced by some of my past employees after going to seminars. They came back with the idea that there were so many problems to address that they just kept looking for more issues after all the work was done, the survey was out the door and the budget was gone. It was overwhelming to them.
What I expected them to do was to attend the seminar and come back with more solutions and a broader ability to solve problems!
Interesting.
> Interesting.
Interesting indeed.....
An overwhelming, but underlying theme, was that owners established boundaries. Sometimes by agreement, mostly because of necessity. A surveyor wasn't always available and they needed to get on with their lives. In the beginning, the original surveys were done in 4 square mile blocks, it was up to the entry-men to establish their individual boundaries. That proved to be a little overwhelming, if not expensive so they trimmed it down to miles. Now, you still didn't have the quarter quarters and surveyors were very busy. Making it difficult to meet the needs of new settlers. Plus, how were the settlers to know that the government lots they were purchasing along the water front, would some day be worth millions of dollars.
One thing I wanted to address, but didn't get a chance to, was something Bob Dahl said. He eluded to the puzzlement of his crews, when they would hedge at holding the fence over the location of "by the book". It is my opinion, and probably his crew's, that the "by the book" position of the South Line of Government Lot 7 should be called the South Line of Government Lot 7 and the fence line 93 feet away should be called something else. But, the contrary may be shown and will only be fodder for the lawyers.
In the end, have a good reason for your conclusion and stick to your guns.
Radar
> .... It is my opinion, and probably his crew's, that the "by the book" position of the South Line of Government Lot 7 should be called the South Line of Government Lot 7 and the fence line 93 feet away should be called something else. But, the contrary may be shown and will only be fodder for the lawyers.
>
> In the end, have a good reason for your conclusion and stick to your guns.
Well, that seems to be the question. If it isn't the boundary line just what "else" is it? If it was established in good faith by the owners or their surveyors, exactly what is it if it ISN"T the south line of government Lot 7. I hear this a lot, that if it isn't exactly where a present "by the book" (chapter 3) calculation would put it, it must be something other than what it was intended to be, and has been represented as being for many decades. But still those who say it ISN'T the south line of lot 7, haven't exactly said what it is.
Fodder for lawyers? Well only if surveyors refuse to do the job they are supposed to be doing, then yes, the lawyers must do it and the poor landowners get to pay for it.
> Well, that seems to be the question. If it isn't the boundary line just what "else" is it?
I would call it Government Lot 7, together with the north 93 feet of government lot 8.
That is, if I can't find conclusive evidence to the contrary.
I'm just trying to make an argument here. We can change things around how ever we want, to make one point or another. The point is, somebody else will do exactly that.
> Fodder for lawyers? Well only if surveyors refuse to do the job they are supposed to be doing, then yes, the lawyers must do it and the poor landowners get to pay for it.
I agree, every time there is conflict, I advise my client to leave the lawyers out of it. I tell them to work things out with the neighbor, but that doesn't always work. After all, we are talking about millions of dollars worth of water front property, right? 😉
>
> That is, if I can't find conclusive evidence to the contrary.
>
That seems to be in conflict with this:
6-41 (2009 Manual): "In many cases due care has been exercised to place the property fences and other evidence of use or occupancy on the lines of legal subdivision and locate the public on the section or subdivision-of-section lines. These are matters of particular interest to the adjoiners and it is a reasonable presumption that care and good faith would be exercised with regard to the evidence of the original survey in existence at the time. Obviously, the burden of proof to the contrary must be borne by the party claiming differently."
emphasis added.
Thank you Brian, you make a good point.
It surprises me, though, that you are quick to resolve a situation, knowing only a small portion of the entire case.
>
> It surprises me, though, that you are quick to resolve a situation, knowing only a small portion of the entire case.
>
If you wanted to discuss a specific case and specific facts/evidence, you should have presented such at the beginning of the thread. Doing so would prevent any surprises or incorrect assumptions about my posts on your part. No where did I reference any specific situation, I only addressed your comments. In my last post I was addressing your apparent assertion that the present measurements and calculations determine a government lot line unless "conclusive evidence to the contrary" can be found. I was mere pointing out a section of the 2009 Manual that apparently contradicts your assertion of the burden of proof and the "reasonable presumption" to the contrary.
Thanks, however, for providing another interesting case for my reference library.
No, Thank you, I must have misunderstood Bob, I thought I heard him say something about burden of proof was up to you(me). I even wrote it down in my notes.
Thanks again, I just picked up my copy of the manual and plan to read it very closely, when I do any PLSS surveys.
I hope you have a great day, I know I am.
Cheers,
Radar
"Doug
> No, Thank you, I must have misunderstood Bob, I thought I heard him say something about burden of proof was up to you(me). I even wrote it down in my notes.
>
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. I definitely have not said we shouldn't do our job. And yes, if that is what Bob Dahl said, I agree.
I'm not sure why the sarcasm and attempts to put false words in my mouth is necessary, but I assume you are not understanding what I've attempted to say. If I've been less than clear (that would be a first 😉 ) I'm sorry.
Yes, we are the discoverers of the evidence and we should, from the evidence found, in accordance with relevant laws, express our opinion of where the boundary is. That, after all is what we hired to do, isn't it?
What I have said is that the Manual should be read and understood.
What you said was "I would call it Government Lot 7, together with the north 93 feet of government lot 8. That is, if I can't find conclusive evidence to the contrary."
Number 1: Neither the Manual nor the courts have required "conclusive evidence". Substantial evidence is generally the level of evidence required. It is defined in 6-11 (2009). Our job is to find the best available evidence, whether it be substantial or preponderance, etc.
Number 2: When finding evidence that the lines of subdivision have been previously established (in good faith by the landowners or their agents); according to 3-137, 5-7, 5-9, 6-41, and many other sections of the 2009 Manual, the assumption is NOT that the lines are where new measurements and calculations would place them, the "reasonable presumption" is the opposite. One example (3-137): "A decision to set aside previously fixed local survey legal subdivision corners must be supported by evidence that goes beyond mere demonstration of technical error, reasonable discrepancies between former and new measurement, and less than strict adherence to restoration and subdivision rules."
"Brian
> I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. I definitely have not said we shouldn't do our job. And yes, if that is what Bob Dahl said, I agree.
I'm just trying to keep up with the discussion and it might not be what Bob said. Things were moving quite rapidly and I might not have caught his full statement. Reading your response above, I would presume that I did. Although, I think that the burden of proof is the biggest part of all of our surveys.
> I'm not sure why the sarcasm and attempts to put false words in my mouth is necessary, but I assume you are not understanding what I've attempted to say. If I've been less than clear (that would be a first 😉 ) I'm sorry.
I'm sorry that you felt I was being sarcastic, that was definitely not my intention. Although I've been accused more than once. I don't see where I put words into your mouth, all of my posts were meant to be in general. If you feel I was being less than gracious, please forgive me.
I do understand what you are trying to say. Again, I'm just trying to keep up with the discussion.
> What I have said is that the Manual should be read and understood.
I couldn't agree more. Like I said, I just picked up my manual and plan to read it thoroughly, every chance I get.
> Number 1: Neither the Manual nor the courts have required "conclusive evidence". Substantial evidence is generally the level of evidence required. It is defined in 6-11 (2009). Our job is to find the best available evidence, whether it be substantial or preponderance, etc.
I some times type without thinking things through. You are correct, conclusive was not the right word to use there.
> Number 2: When finding evidence that the lines of subdivision have been previously established (in good faith by the landowners or their agents); according to 3-137, 5-7, 5-9, 6-41, and many other sections of the 2009 Manual, the assumption is NOT that the lines are where new measurements and calculations would place them, the "reasonable presumption" is the opposite. One example (3-137): "A decision to set aside previously fixed local survey legal subdivision corners must be supported by evidence that goes beyond mere demonstration of technical error, reasonable discrepancies between former and new measurement, and less than strict adherence to restoration and subdivision rules."
Again, I do plan to read the manual thoroughly, every chance I get. It is difficult, sometimes, to realign your thinking to a new, refined set of rules...
Douglas Casement, PLS
BLM presentation
Dugger,
Bob posts all of the 2009 Manual Presentations out for people to review after the conferences. I just checked and this recent LSAW presentation is not out there, but Bob is very dilegent in doing so, so I imagine after he returns to Washington he will get it posted. There are variations in all of the presentation as he works with the local State Office Chief Cadastral Surveyor(s) to develop the presentation to be State-specific as possible. Here is the link, you may want to check back in a short time and download it for your reference. Cheers
BLM presentation
Thanks Mike, looks like some good information.
Cheers,
"To me it seems too heavy handed to require that boundary surveys be recorded with the state. "
Surely you jest?...
My Concerns
I can see the reasoning behind the notion that property owners create boundaries. After all, that's most likely where the boundary will end up anyway. A surveyor comes in and says no, the true boundary is 93 feet away and after thousands and thousands of dollars, a judge says no, it's right where everyone else always thought it was.
My concern is; that it opens the door for every jack-leg surveyor out there to buy off on every fence, pipe and goat stake that they find and no one will be the wiser. It is our job to protect the public, how can we protect the public when this kind of surveying is allowed to take place?
My other concern is that if property owners can create boundaries, why do they need a surveyor? Wasn't it just a few months ago that Florida and Texas were talking about doing away with licensure?
I'm sorry that this turned into a pissing match, I was hoping we could exchange some meaningful dialog. I suppose that deep down, most surveyors love to compete. Not to be first, but to just be able to say that they competed. I least I do.
Douglas Casement, PLS
My Concerns
Valid concerns, Radar, but it's a two-edged sword.
> I can see the reasoning behind the notion that property owners create boundaries. After all, that's most likely where the boundary will end up anyway. A surveyor comes in and says no, the true boundary is 93 feet away and after thousands and thousands of dollars, a judge says no, it's right where everyone else always thought it was.
Technically, the owners don't "create" the boundary. Their actions "establish" the location of the existing boundary. It takes a written conveyance which separates an estate to "create" the boundary. Once created, it's always up to the landowners to "establish" the location of the boundary.
> My concern is; that it opens the door for every jack-leg surveyor out there to buy off on every fence, pipe and goat stake that they find and no one will be the wiser. It is our job to protect the public, how can we protect the public when this kind of surveying is allowed to take place?
This is the double-edged sword part. When we condone the "mathematical" approach to surveying boundaries where they've never existed, we are condoning a jack-legged surveyor who stakes the numbers "by the book" and declares how far "off" the world is from where it "should be." That's never the question for a retracing surveyor. The real jack-leg will stake the numbers while ignoring or failing to gather the real evidence which will be used to prove the boundary location. The failure is equally bad with the "fence-line" surveyor who ignores the math, the monuments, the true history of a property, and blindly accepts the fence as the "best available" evidence. Both are a travesty. Sometimes the record controls the boundary; sometimes the occupation controls the boundary; sometimes the survey monuments control the boundary. Our job is to gather the evidence and determine which controls "this" boundary at "this" time.
>
> My other concern is that if property owners can create boundaries, why do they need a surveyor? Wasn't it just a few months ago that Florida and Texas were talking about doing away with licensure?
The reason the landowners have always needed surveyors is to "document" their actions and their agreements which establish their boundaries. The surveyor's monuments and documents will be relied upon for generations to stabilize their boundary location as they've established it. I have to say that the overwhelmingly primary reason I discover for boundary disputes I'm involved with is that the owners are unfamiliar with their boundaries, have lost track of their monuments or the evidence of the past which established its location, and have little or no documentation by the surveyors who assisted their great grand-parents when the line was established. I see that as a failure of our profession. We're the profession charged with "protecting the public." I find it a sad state of affairs that our profession hasn't maintained the records as we should. Now we're left with the problems.
JBS
My Concerns
Thank you John, you've eased my weary mind, somewhat....;-)
> I find it a sad state of affairs that our profession hasn't maintained the records as we should. Now we're left with the problems.
>
> JBS
Now the problem is we need to fix it?
I watched the 60 Minutes interview last night, with Jack Abramoff. I see this as a similar problem. We've been doing things the same way for so long that change will be difficult. But if we don't change, we will be doomed to suffer the mistakes of the past until we do..... That sounds a little harsh, but I can't think of a better way to put it right now.
I'm sure that some think that we are doing the right thing, just as Jack thought. Reality is; we are not protecting the public, as Jack wasn't and we need reform.
Douglas Casement, PLS
