Professional Development Feedback

[Bob Hart (home)]

We are developing a PLS examination guide to provide as much information as legally allowable for the examinees to increase the number of PLS's in California. We are surprised that 243 individuals have downloaded problem 1 and 134 for problem 2 and 73 for problem 3 but only a few have posted comments on the forum regarding this process. It would be helpful to obtain feedback from the participants. Your comments may help shape the content.

We continue asking for more problems and solutions for this forum and those that may be used in the published guide. Please take the time to search your archives for examination material suitable for this purpose and send them to Central Office.

CLSA CENTRAL OFFICE
PO Box 9098
Santa Rosa, CA 95405

Phone: 707-578-6016
Fax: 707-578-4406

Email: clsa@californiasurveyors.org

Bob Hart

[Dane Ince]

This is a worthwhile effort that you are engaged in and I am grateful to see how the problems are solved. For the Aerial problem, I did not attempt to post my solution, because of my lack of access to technology that would have allowed me to scan my target location. Also, I was baffled by the NMAS and NSSDA part of the question. I don't know about others, but I did not have a reference available to turn to in order to ascertain the NSSDA standard. Is there a state requirement to comply with the NSSDA standard? I understand that as a requirement to be licensed in California, I must be knowledgable of Federal and State laws. Some issues I hope could be addressed with problems, would be boundary problems dealing with what happens when conflicts arise between land description systems (mixing of metes and bounds descriptions and PLSS, for example)
The case of Woods VS Mandrilla comes to mind. What is the effect of various types of patents on the configuration of boundaries of lands that were patented via the PLSS to entryman. When and where can mineral surveys be used to retrace other patents?

thanks again

[Bob Hart (home)]

Note from the author Jas Arnold:

"Several of the items within this problem have never been seen on an LS exam. NSSDA standards and digital orthophotos are very important to today's photogrammetry products and should, and may, and will be part of tomorrow's exams. Today's primer is tomorrows question I always say."

Jas

Comment on PLSS V. Metes and Bounds descriptions. Most of the PLSS boundaries a private land surveyor will encounter have passed from federal control, so the Manual of Instruction is a guide to the PLSS portion of the solution, which must be solved prior to applying the metes and bound description solution. Most metes and bounds that I have encountered dealt with lines along the section lines or aliquot portions thereof. So unless the description has fatal errors, most will not contain problems.

Bob Hart

[Dane Ince]

Thanks for your response, I beg to differ with respect mix land system problems. What is a surveyor supposed to do when they know that the California Supreme Court has ruled that "Half" means half by area and they have description of a formerly public lands parcel which is described as being Half. The PLSS has a different definition of "HALF". I think the problem is fairly clear when the patent is from the Govt. to the private owner. When the transfer is from private owner to private owner, this is where the situation can become complex. I have spoken to a number of Licensed Surveyors, who bemoaned that fact that previous surveys ignored government rules or applied government rules in an inappropriate manner.

I believe the problem is a little more conplex that saying" break down the section and then apply your metes and bounds description." Although, I concurr that might be a good solution in some situations.

My previous exam experience has shown me that the Board is more likely to use a problem where there are conflicting prinicipals, rather than a simple let's identify corners or is it single or double proportion?

thanks for your help

[Bob Hart (home)]

Dane Ince said:
"Some issues I hope could be addressed with problems, would be boundary problems dealing with what happens when conflicts arise between land description systems (mixing of metes and bounds descriptions and PLSS, for example)
The case of Woods VS Mandrilla comes to mind. What is the effect of various types of patents on the configuration of boundaries of lands that were patented via the PLSS to entryman. When and where can mineral surveys be used to retrace other patents?"

Please provide the particulars of the citation you suggest. In my experience mineral surveys are tied to the nearest section corners, although in practice only 50 % provided actual information regarding the location of the actual section corner. I am usually not surveying the patent per se, but the sections from which the patent is described. I am sorry that you feel that I haven't responded with sufficient complexity, but each case may be unique with the circumstances. Let's try this again.
Bob Hart

[bruce hall]

The California Supreme Court ruled that the dividing line between the east and west halves of a quarter section shall be established according to the revised statutes of the Congress of the United States of America. In EVERY CASE the dividing line shall run north and south. The north and south terminus of this dividing line shall be midway between the corresponding quarter corners. The resulting halves would be equal in area since the east and west lines were parallel and the north and south lines were parallel. This is pretty close to the wording. I can't find my copy of this case handy.

Wood owned the fractional quarter section and sold Mandrilla the east half of the quarter section. Wood wanted the dividing line between the east and west halves to be the line that was shown on the plat, which divided the two "halves" into the east half containing 80 acres, and the west half containing 96 acres. Mandrilla wanted the dividing line ascertained using the revised statutes mentioned above. This was the question before the court, near as I can tell from my reading of this case.

The move in this case was not a few tenths or a few feet but a strip of land 160 feet wide by a half a mile long. It was about a 9 acre move on 80 acres.

So if a surveyor were to survey the east half of the sw 1/4 of a regular section, I would think that he would use the revised statutes of the Congress of the USA, at least according to our Supreme Court. I have never seen a section broken down in halves or quarters using area, but using midpoints or half the distance.

The result was equal area, the method used was the statutes.

Bruce Hall

[Dane Ince]

I am a baby in the woods ,but my understanding of the WOODS case is that if you have a fraction quarter section that was say 39.5 chains the dividing line under the rules of WOOD is going to be set at 19.75 chains and not 20 chains and 19.5 chains. I think the confusion arises in a fractional section when the call is for the east half of the southwest quarter of section 6. There really is no east half, as there would be in a regular section. On the original plat one will see that the east half and the west half are not equal as they are in a regular section by the platted lotting along the west edge of the section. The eastern portion is called half to indicate it is treated as an aliquot part. As I say, I am trying to learn this stuff, so if I am off base please feel free to correct my misunderstandings.

So, what I am getting at is, what is the correct procedure to follow? If the government patent reads the east half of the southwest quarter and the patent was issued prior to the WOODS case and the land was conveyed several times before the WOODS case and has since been conveyed using the same description as the original patent. Am I under any obligation to put that dividing line at 20 chains proportionate measure?

I will look again at the revised statues to see what they say with respect to FRACTIONAL SECTIONS. I trhink we have a similiar understanding of what the case means with respect to a regular section.

Thanks for your help

[bruce hall]

I have'nt really had time to respond to your question Dance. The Woods case concerned a transfer from Wood to Mandrilla, while the description you site seems to indicate that the Feds gave a patent to somebody reading the east half of the sw quarter of section 6 according to the US gov't plat, or something to that effect. It should be noted that the legal description in the Woods case did not mention the plat or the gov't survey except in reference to the section, township, range and meridian. I would think that somebody in a County surveyor's office who checks this type of work would be all over my comments regarding Woods vs. Mandrilla and also provide the answers to your question. I've stated this in a previous post regarding this same case, so this is nothing new.

Are there fences or improvements along the west line of the east half. Has it been surveyed before? If every one of the previous owners of this particular east half has accepted the fence or the survey, why change now, whatever method was used (although I'm sure that someone will come up with a good reason to change). Most of my sectional work was done at Fred Crowe's office in Lake Elsinore and as I remember (this is 30 years ago) proportionate measure,not area, was used to establish the lines in the closing quarter sections. Also, all of the lands had left the ownership of the Feds many years previous and was in private hands. Now maybe Fred will read this and clarify what he did. As I remember, he filed maps on all that sectionial work, and the Riverside County Surveyor would have all that information.(see my comment in the previous paragraph).

My best advice is to stay out of the sections that run along the north and western tiers of the township. But that's kinda chicken.

Anyway, let's see who reads this stuff, Let's hope you will get a better answer than I have for you. Bruce Hall

[Dane Ince]

Maybe, I am missing something, but my understanding is that the conveyance of half by government patent is different than half by area as in a private conveyance. I was trying to get a more in depth understanding of the ramifications of these principals. I don't want to mis-apply them. I can see from the discussion we have had that it is fairly easy to get things messed up. I do appreciate your time and thoughfulness to respond to my questions.