Surveyors charged with Tresspassing in Georgia

enquiring minds want to know, does the Engineering & Surveying Firm have a COA in Georgia? Are they licensed in Georgia? Does Georgia have a Right of Entry Law for Surveyors?

If the answer to any of these questions is no, the employees that trespassed may have problems.

> enquiring minds want to know, does the Engineering & Surveying Firm have a COA in Georgia? Are they licensed in Georgia? Does Georgia have a Right of Entry Law for Surveyors?
>
> If the answer to any of these questions is no, the employees that trespassed may have problems.

Georgia does issue Certificates of Authorization. We do not have a Right of Entry Law. The DOT has the right to enter properties for specific purpose and surveying is one of the reasons. When a private land owner will not grant permission for a survey, a Commendation for Access proceeding is required. Obviously, this involves time and money.

A right of entry law which gives Surveyors the ability to access areas in dispute due to a boundary dispute could be helpful. However in over forty years, I found this to be a very rare problem. However, I will not support a law that says anybody can access my property just because they are a surveyor. If someone wants to put a pipeline across my property and I don't want it to happen, they should be required to take it to the courts to prove this action is for the benefit of the public. An individual's property rights should always trump convenience.

I do have sympathy for the field guys that were arrested if it was due to a disregard for their well being by a superior or just a lapse in communication with their organization. If they just thought they could get away with it, they were just mistaken.

Of course, the people that buy ink by the barrel use the ink for their own purposes. Most likely, there is more to story than what we are reading.

A quote from the article:

"At the heart of the dispute is whether the pipeline serves a public need."

Trying to cross property owned by a family that published most of the local newspapers wasn't the sharpest idea, in my opinion. But the pipeline company has deep pockets and I'm sure they'll dig in for a fight

I don't know about Georgia, but in Oklahoma the "big boys" have time and time again prevailed with their "eminent domain" argument that their hydrocarbon transportation somehow improves the quality of life of every quivering heart in our great U.S. of A....they never mention how much the quality of life of their "pockets" improves..

I think it's a crock. Private companies should be limited to routes over property that willing owners can provide. If it's not the shortest route from A to B, then tuff-chit. I would also like to see some precedents in court actions where property owners receive a portion of the profits from the sale of goods being transported over their property. If those profits were to run with the title to the heirs and assigns, more people would be willing to grant R/W. It's all about the bucks.

P.S. - It sounds like the crew left some equipment on site. I bet the batteries are dead by now...:pinch:

SCOTUS gave the blueprint to stop this sort of thing to Congress and the States. At the risk of p and r forget congress. Many States took it to heart, others didn't.
I'm going to sit back with popcorn for this one. I'll be rooting for the landowners. ..

Ontario Surveys Act

Do note the penalty for interfering :

Right to enter land, buildings

(2) Every person who interferes with or obstructs a surveyor or a person in the surveyor’s employ in the exercise of any of the powers conferred by subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $100. R.S.O. 1990, c. S.30, s. 6.

Generally, in over 50 years of practice I've only been pitched three times.

I usually try to get the 'feel' of the property and try my hand at humour so if the resident is an objector and a laugh does not work, rare as it is, then I get the opportunity to enlighten the local constabulary.

I do bear in mind that a very nice surveyor, a man to emulate, in about the 1960s went up to a door to knock and explain why the crew was there next door and the lady dropped dead in front of him.

Cheers,

Derek

> I think it's a crock. Private companies should be limited to routes over property that willing owners can provide. If it's not the shortest route from A to B, then tuff-chit. I would also like to see some precedents in court actions where property owners receive a portion of the profits from the sale of goods being transported over their property. If those profits were to run with the title to the heirs and assigns, more people would be willing to grant R/W. It's all about the bucks.
It was never clear to me why the oil & gas companies needed more right of way when the whole state is gridded off with 66' wide statutory right of way along every section line.

I saw a lot of deeds where blanket easements for right of way across sections were recorded in the 1930's in exchange for $20 or $30, and they went with the right to construct a second pipeline for an equal sum. No time limit on that. It would have been much better for the property owners to have leased the right of way, but I suppose they needed the grocery money pretty bad.

But without the oil & gas biz Okies would be a somewhat rarer, and poorer - in terms of money, anyway- breed. So in a sense there is some public good in showing the oil & gas tycoons the red carpet.

Another thing that varies from State to State. Kansas is loaded with road ROW's along section lines but they are every width imaginable depending on the thinking of those who made the request and the county commissioners at the time of approval. It has been interpreted that those are only for vehicular-type transport and not every kind of transport.

> Another thing that varies from State to State.
In Oregon and Washington widths also vary. Plus they do not universally follow section lines.

The court may have ruled that the statutory rights of way, as written, were for ingress/egress only but it remains within the power of the legislature to pass new rules. Fact is that they don't because most people welcome the chance to sell right of way to O&G pipeliners.

Ontario Surveys Act

In the case of a condemnation for eminent domain I think the company should have to go through steps and obtain court approval before entering private lands.

In the case of property surveying for the purpose of determining land boundaries I think landowners should not have the right to interfere with surveyors. If implied consent applies to anything it ought to apply to the necessary gathering of evidence by surveyors for the purpose of giving an opinion on land boundary locations. Don't want surveyors on your land? Rent an apartment. There is no right to own land. If you choose to own some, then you subject yourself to the system of your country developed to manage it in order to alleviate the problem of millions of private wars over who owns what.

If a surveyor reasonably suspects there is helpful evidence to search for, they need to search for it and locate it if found, in order to fulfill their statutory duty. This requires not only entering, but also reasonably constrained searching, digging, moving or cutting in order to measure in the evidence. I don't see how you can have a system of private ownership of land without this reasonable infringement on privacy rights.

Ontario Surveys Act

I concur regarding land boundaries. If you come on my land to topo for design of something on my property (and haven't asked) it's a whole different story. You are trespassing and will be dealt with accordingly. At the least expect an escort off of my land...

Ontario Surveys Act

I agree. It is only the land boundary system we consent to. Although we are also subject to codes and taxing inspections, those are municipal functions. Not sure if they are justified under implied consent language statutes. There are of course codes violations and taxing of improvements from aerial inspection, but land boundaries can't be done that way.

Ontario Surveys Act

You can come on my property to located boundary evidence only after you have notified me. The boundary evidence you need tends to be on the edge of my property. Knock yourself out locating it to your heart's content. Getting a little on the other property while performing the survey is one thing. Getting more than 10 feet or so over is a another.

Ontario Surveys Act

What's reasonable varies with location. 10 feet might be too far over and unreasonable in some urban situations, might not be enough in some rural situations. Many of the surveys I deal with the uncertainty of where the boundary is located is much more than 10 feet. So, where does one measure from? My client says boundary is 30 feet further into adjoiner than recent adjoiner survey and I tend to agree so need to go look for evidence in that location. When the court case is over I guess we'll know who went too far, but that could be 10 years away if appealed. Of course you follow whatever the law requires in your jurisdiction, but I would argue that too much restriction on the boundary surveyor only results in missed evidence, evidence hidden by misuse of the law, wrong opinions, and more court battles, which does not serve to protect the health, safety, welfare of the public (although it may be self serving to some individual landowner).

Ontario Surveys Act

Yes 10 feet would not hold up for many situations. Once upon time, surveyors would usually notify adjoining owners as a courtesy. Often times, the schedule does not allow this to happen. A diligent surveyor looking for property evidence should have the right to collect the evidence. If there is a dispute, an expedited process to grant access should be in place. This I can support.

Property rights should always trump convenience. I can not begin to tell you the number of times that I have seen where a surveyor cut the chain on a locked gate to gain access for a picture control point or to cut across an adjoining property because they could get the truck closer to their work. Other times, I have seen where a crew parks the truck in a drive where the property owner can't get by. Surveyors should always act like guest and respect the property owner.

Ontario Surveys Act

Yes, and unfortunately some of the biggest transgressors are the surveyors who have been given special authority to enter private property. Just because one has the right doesn't mean they can toss out respect. I've had clients tell me how they got back at those folks by moving control points and such at night when the surveyors left.

Surveyors don't have right-of-entry

Georgia does not have a right-of-entry. There is an exemption for utility companies needing to survey for the planning of a route that is allowed before proceeding with condemnation. It does get frustrating when you are needing to tie into an adjoiner or a land lot corner and a property owner will not allow you access. Then a problem may arise that doesn't really exist because you couldn't locate corners. A lot of the descriptions down here are meetes and bounds. But this company does not fall under the same exemptions as power companies.

In an ironic twist the governor plans to spend $10 million dollars on better truck enforcement in that area. http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2015/06/11/nathan-deals-plan-to-reduce-highway-accidents-in-georgia/ So this pipeline will take off a lot of trucks off the road but now GA is going to try and say no but spend $10 million on big truck enforcement.