U.S. - Mexico Border Map

This is a cool link to an interactive U.S. Mexico Border Map. If you click on a cell, it will take you to an orthophoto of that area. The Otrhos are old, but interesting nonetheless.

ALTA Table A Item 11(b)

As a surveyor who performs many surveys that follow the American Land Title Association (ALTA) standards, I need to register my dislike with item 11(b) on Table A - as follows:

Item 11(b) Location of utilities (representative examples of which are shown below) existing on or serving the surveyed property as determined by:Observed evidence together with evidence from plans obtained from utility companies or provided by client, and markings by utility companies and other appropriate sources (with reference as to the source of information)railroad tracks and sidings; manholes, catch basins, valve vaults or other surface indications of subterranean uses; wires and cables (including their function, if readily identifiable) crossing the surveyed premises, all poles on or within ten feet of the surveyed premises, and the dimensions of all crossmembers or overhangs affecting the surveyed premises; and utility company installations on the surveyed premises.

In my opinion, this item is an attempt for the surveyor to take liability for something that is not really the purview of the surveyor. I always cringe when 11(b) is requested because there is a large amount of uncertainty associated with this request. As-builts are generally unreliable, and we really have no way of knowing exactly where the utilities are on site. We typically hire a utility locating company, but there is still a level of uncertainty. I always preface the utility mapping data with a note stating where the data came from, methodology used and limitations. Never will I certify that all utilities are shown (unless the client wants to dig up the entire site to some depth - and then only would I certify to that depth). Typically, this request is made by the Title company and/or finance institutions and it really does not benefit the owner much other than the title and finance institutions have some level of comfort as to where the utilities are. I believe their comfort is misplaced though and I try to sell 11(a) rather than 11(b). The cost difference associated between these two can often times be quite large.


I'm working on an estimate for a very complex and large site where HUD is insisting on 11(b) - I don't think the data will ever be used other than to satisfy a HUD requirement. I tried to convince them that 11(a) would be more appropriate, but no luck. Oh well - I guess the work must be completed, but it's going to be a mess and be quite costly.
I wish 11(b) would go away...

Quite the Busy Week

Sorry - I haven't posted for a few days - it's been quite the busy week. We probably put out about 15 estimates/proposals this week and I was also involved in signing 3 surveys plus dealing with 7 or 8 other projects. There didn't seem to be much time to breathe this week. I shall be posting more frequently next week...

Disciplinary Action

The following is all of public record. I've left the name of the individual but removed the company's name from the documents out of professional courtesy.
I came across the following plat (you need to click on it to see it enlarged) a couple of years ago. Quite interesting when you start looking closely. The short story is that this subdivision plat was stamped and signed by a structural engineer. Something for another post but why do structural engineers think they are something different than civil engineers - I'm not sure the distinction other than it is a speciality of civil engineering.

Anyhow, you need to read the certification he posted on his plat - (by the way - it is against the law for an engineer to perform a boundary survey - in Arizona and most other states that I am aware of).

To Quote:

I, MOHAMMED M. SIDDIQUI, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA THAT THIS MAP, CONSISTING OF 1 SHEET CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A MINOR LAND DIVISION FOR NEW HOMES MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION DURING THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2005. THAT THE SURVEY IS TRUE AND COMPLETE AS SHOWN: THAT ALL MONUMENTS SHOWN ACTUALLY EXIST AS SHOWN, THAT THEIR POSITIONS ARE CORRECTLY SHOWN AND THAT SAID MONUMENTS ARE SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE SURVEY TO BE RETRACED. STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ARE THE MOST EDUCATED CIVIL ENGINEERS. CIVIL ENGINEERS SUPERVISE AND INSTRUCT REGINSTERED LAND SURVEYORS. THIS MAP IS INCIDENTAL TO NEW BUILDING CONSTRUCTION.

What gives??
Let's break it down sentence by sentence. First, he is a professional engineer in Arizona (or was at the time). It seems a bit odd to certify that you are licensed. He is correct in that this plat is one sheet and that it is a minor land division. A surveyor would probably call it a minor subdivision, but close enough. "True and Complete" - that is for the reviewing agency to determine, but let's say it is. Here's one that is not very astute - "that the monuments shown actually exist as shown". What if one is destroyed? What if there was an error or bust in a measurement. It would be safe to say they were found and located as shown, but I wouldn't certify to them being there now and forever. "That they are sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced"?? Says who? Well, he does, but what about latent ambiguities in his survey or the adjoiners? He states the monuments are there, but what if they are destroyed? What then? Is it still sufficient to be retraced??
The last two sentences speak for themselves. I know many structural engineers - some are good friends. The ones I know seem to understand where their expertise exists and that it is illegal for them to perform a boundary survey. That would be like a surveyor designing and stamping and signing a bridge plan set. I'm a Professional Civil Engineer and I would never take it upon myself to certify a structural plan set/design. That is way out of my area of practice. This guy seems to think that he is above the surveyors though and thus, is within his rights to do their work. Not to say engineers and surveyors are on the same playing field as surgeons, but for comparison's sake, I wouldn't want a neurosurgeon to perform an open heart surgery just because he thought he was better educated than the heart surgeon. I would want the expert in his field. Seems that the client here may have been taken for a ride as well - paying for services rendered illegally. All said, a bit of an ethical and technical misstep I'd say.
Needless to say, the board of technical registration made their ruling recently and this gentleman voluntarily relinquished his engineering license.

NSR: PC vs. Mac

This is kind of funny. I'll leave it at that....