California Surveyors Forums

Mikey,
I agree. The Wooley "Bullseye" isn't true. It wasn't about bad surveying in a certain locale, it was about money fraud, land is money. I have surveyed townships Benson surveyed as well as members of his syndicate. I have had better experience finding Benson corners and other syndicate members near this "valuable land" than out in the sage brush.

Warren Smith, I agree. I have also followed Benson and syndicate surveyed lands described as Swamp and Overflow that are clearly not, nor have been swamp. Rather it is the best grazing land found for miles and miles. My research then found historic County Assessor maps that indicate original ownership to who other than, Benson, S.A. Hanson, & Glover six months after the Plat was approved 1877 (not Federal patents but S & O bought from the State). Imagine that.

100+ years later, these lands mentioned above are some of the only private landholdings surrounded by either National Forest or BLM lands.

Copied from the CA State Lands Commission website:
"On September 28, 1850, the United States enacted the Arkansas Swamp Lands Act. This legislation gave the states, including California, title to all the swamp and overflowed lands. Starting in 1855, the California Legislature authorized the sale of these lands in a series of statutes and the process was overseen by the state Surveyor General, the predecessor agency of the Commission. California received over two million acres of swamp and overflowed lands, which was loosely defined as lands that required drainage or levees in order to be cultivated. Owing to the land rush occurring in California at this time and the lack of a bright line test as to what lands were considered swamp and overflowed lands, these sales were not without disputes.
The first step to acquire swamp and overflowed was to obtain an approved survey..."

John Williams, PLS
Eastern Sierra

Mike Mueller wrote: Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:01 pm ...
I see mostly the same description, all of which used to be protected by technical barriers AND legal barriers. Now because of better tools, it is only protected by legal barriers. I don't know about you, but most people I have experience with do not follow laws since few(if any?) know all the laws that govern them. For most people their decision making generally goes (in order of how common it is) like this:
Do what they were taught
Do what they can get away with
Do what is right morally/ethically
Do what is legal

I know personally that if I have to choose, I will generally choose right over legal. Change what your highest goal is, or what your moral compass deems "good", and an entirely different set of behaviors becomes "correct", regardless of what the law says.
...
Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

Again, my Benson Bullseye is a theory that I proffered to explain the prevalence of certain practices of a geographic region of California. Certainly, the fact Benson lived and worked in the Bay Area could be mere coincidence.

Benson subordinates "[did] not follow laws since few(if any?) [knew] all the laws that govern them" and were quite likely to be doing; "what they were taught" and "what they can get away with", much like today.

I find it remarkable the PLSA is less than 30 pages on 8 1/2 x 11 with about 7 pages of "meat and potatoes" and yet, folks claim not to know these laws.

As a matter of historical record, I have a difficult time believing Benson was a victim of the times, circumstances, big money interest or simply, poor business sense. In Sonoma and Monterey counties the government proved none of the Benson folks ever set foot in the areas platted and submitted. The Benson folks used town maps to identify landmarks and created "surveys" without having ever set foot in the county. In addition to the false surveys submitted he often exceeded the billing rates by 2, 3 and 6x. This was particularly galling in the townships he had never surveyed.

Next, Benson worked out a settlement with the prosecutors that included him finishing some the false work. He never finished any work.

After the land surveying fraud had run its course he transitioned to performing land title fraud with an attorney (I do not recall his name, Hayes?) and another fella named Diamond. As I posted earlier, the day before he died he was released from the Alameda County jail.

I do not see his forty year history, 1870 to 1910, as simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Reasonable people may disagree.

Lastly, I too, unknowingly at the time, have followed Benson surveyors. In San Diego, I was retracing (Washington?) and could not find any original corner monuments in the untouched pristine lands - pristine in the land surveying sense - I started in 36 and worked my way north to 1 without finding a single monument. Next, I worked from 35 north to 2, no monuments. From 34 north to 3 and westerly thereafter, I began finding monuments and the field notes fit existing topography. After completing the township I realized "they" surveyed the township from the west to the east and quit surveying when they got out of the flatland and into the hills (the eastern two tiers of sections). Bud Uzes book, Chaining the Land, called out the surveyor, townships and ranges I was working in.

It has been estimated that 20% of the California land "surveyed" in the late 1800s was fraudulent.

I sincerely appreciate the conversation. May 2025 bring good health and fortune to each of you - regardless of which side of the law you chose to rest upon. Thou mayest rule over sin, so it has been said (Steinbeck).

DWoolley

DWoolley wrote: Wed Jan 01, 2025 12:51 pm my Benson Bullseye is a theory that I proffered to explain the prevalence of certain practices of a geographic region of California. Certainly, the fact Benson lived and worked in the Bay Area could be mere coincidence

Not a coincidence but a non sequitor....

The consensus noted in the responses here and what I have found in my personal research is that upon retracement, the actual legitimate Benson surveys were acceptable in quality. No comment on the rest of the surveyors in the syndicate, that is a tale for another time.

What specifically are the certain practices to which you refer?

Unless you are alleging rampant real estate fraud by licensed surveyors in the Bay Area, your theory does not make sense to me. Again, I am unsophisticated and never spent much time in Southern California so it is probably all going over my head.

Or it could be that the stairway up to the top of the tower in your mind is too tall and windy for those of us who are not sipping the sweet tea

Dave,

I am not saying Benson was a good guy, or offering any defense of his actions. I consider Benson to be the same sort of person as whoever invented NFTs. I am attempting to point out that I think actions like his were widespread at that time, perhaps not in surveying specifically, but in society in general.

I bring this up because I consider it a counter point to your theory that the prevalence of unrecorded maps being used in the Bay Area is somehow related to Benson living here. From my experience, the timeline of development of any particular location will have a much larger impact on the percentage of important lines/corners/tracts not being shown on an official record. Topography and climate also contribute. Also the ability/success of the next generation of surveyors to obtain, preserve and distribute the files of the pre WW2 surveyors.

In the North Bay area, many of the current vesting deeds are still calling to lines that were created 100 years ago, when few locations anywhere in the state had many recorded maps. The town of Sonoma is a good example. The town was created by Gen Vallejo, and there are a couple old copies of Vallejo's map floating around, which have different notes added to them ( see attached). All the original measurements are in varas, and the blocks and lots created by Vallejo are often still the controlling call for the vesting deeds of the various properties. Heck there is some debate about the width of the roads, since some folks used the San Fransisco Vara (33 inches) rather than the "True Vara" aka Sonoma Vara ( 33.372 inches) that this version of the map asserts is correct. (reminds me of the international vs survey foot issue). Much of the development and surveying was done before the idea of recordation was common, so we NEED to use those old unrecorded maps, even if its just to confirm that the surveyor in 1930 didn't find the right corner and shouldn't be held. Or perhaps they got it perfect and its the Rosetta Stone of the neighborhood. You never know till you see the old records.

My hunch, (which I would bet a frosty beverage at the next convention/meeting) is that if you took the "unrecorded maps and surveys" sediment layer of Orange County and retraced those lines, most have been developed and monumented with newer surveys and work, much of which is shown on an official record. This means that the older "sediment layer" has been covered over and is less relevant to the modern day Orange County surveyors as they are not often needing to rely on unrecorded maps and notes to find the best available evidence of a boundary line.

How many deeds in Orange County are still relying on a map that was created before we were a state? What is the percent of ownership that is still held with an aliquot description? How many deeds still call to rancho lines and creeks? What percentage of the deeds that you retrace call to lines originally created before 1940? How many mining claims are there in Orange County that complicate the section work?

As always, I enjoy the discussion :)

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

PS edited to try and add attachment. Not seeming to work...

Trying to attach those maps...

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

Mike Mueller wrote: Thu Jan 02, 2025 11:30 am Dave,
...
My hunch, (which I would bet a frosty beverage at the next convention/meeting) is that if you took the "unrecorded maps and surveys" sediment layer of Orange County and retraced those lines, most have been developed and monumented with newer surveys and work, much of which is shown on an official record. This means that the older "sediment layer" has been covered over and is less relevant to the modern day Orange County surveyors as they are not often needing to rely on unrecorded maps and notes to find the best available evidence of a boundary line.
...
As always, I enjoy the discussion :)

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

PS edited to try and add attachment. Not seeming to work...

Relying on unrecorded maps would seem prudent - although several local surveyors in your neck of the woods do not bother with those maps. That discussion fails under its own weight.

As I see it, the use of old private records is not the issue. How is it the unfiled map practice carries on today? The proverbial "they" knew something was amiss when the locals began talking it over in the 1960's. Rather than clean it up, they decided to write and hang their hat on a sentence in a newsletter and ignore the clear blackletter law that had been in place for nearly 70 years at the time.

There were guidance letters circulated by BORPELS (BPELSG today), signed by Nance, in the early 1970s that restated records of survey were required and found accepted monuments must be tagged. These letters were presented and discussed at CLSA - these CLSA folks were the same people creating private records (unfiled records of survey).

Interestingly, in the late 1980s the Orange County Surveyor's office occasionally required land surveyors to tag untagged monuments accepted as control. More specifically, because I was there, a PLS held a concrete nail as a centerline intersection and it was requested that he prove the concrete nail by tying in addition monuments, he refused. As a compromise, he was asked to replace the concrete nail with a tagged durable monument, he refused. Side note, this fella had his license revoked years later for reasons unknown to me. What do you think happened next? The licensed land surveyors, particularly those from CELSOC (now ACEC), went berserk at the idea of setting tags. Why? Because if the land surveyors were required to set tagged durable monuments they would be required to file maps. There was a similar repeat in the mid/late 1990s - and again in 2014 - when land surveyors fought to be able to set monuments on easements without filing a map. The primary oppostion came from...wait for it...the Bullseye. That brings us to real time. Separately, compliance with the 30 year old sections of the California Public Resource Code governing the use of GPS? Nope.

Again, it is just a theory, maybe it wasn't a Benson legacy, simply a coincidence those practices continue today. However, it is not a coincidence that licensed land surveyor are outnumbered by professional engineers 17:1 and yet, the land surveyors make up more than 50% of the complaints. Readers might find it less offensive to replace the "Benson Bullseye", my personal favorite, with Convict Blood Line or Lawfully Challenged or ?.

Mikey, I am not judging (not so much as a side-eye), even you stated lawfulness was on the bottom of your considerations when performing a survey in 2024.

The portion of a recent hearing transcript posted earlier clearly demonstrates any property in one Bay Area county can be surveyed from any two monuments in the county and, by God, he will fight any man or licensing board that says differently. In fact, he will line up several of his local pals that practice the same way to attest this is the "local standard of care". Note how closely the testimony follows the 1905 Benson testimony, coincidence? This particular guy is a second generation licensee that has been licensed for almost 30 years. Point of observation, in the thirty years of copies of the California licensing exam problems - a test for minimum competence - there has never been a boundary solution that didn't require recognition of junior/senior rights and/or a solution that included setting everything in record without examining all of the adjacent properties, improvements and monuments in the block.

In the last 15 years, the former JPPC Chairman from the Bay Area lost his license for performing two monument tangos. I have found few folks of our ilk to be more belligerent when I questioned him establishing section corners from two interior monuments in the adjacent township. He was quick to point out his CV and the fact he was the former JPPC Chairman. Like a modern day Boss Tweed as part of the Big Four in Tammany Hall. I have had discussions with many straight land surveyors that have no awareness of size and scope of their brethren misdeeds - they cannot imagine the world I have seen outside of their professional world. That was me the first 15 years of my career.

Maybe Benson had nothing to do with it, but these are unexplained contemporary issues that pique my curiosity. There may be no more explaination beyond poor recruiting standards, a lack of enforcement and culture of dishonesty. At a 50% BPELSG complaint ratio it is not the suggested Benson-esk wrong place, wrong time, for 40 years.

I believe the California land surveyors' professional proclivities are not in alignment with polite society. I am not passing any judgment or looking down my nose at the practice, I am well past the point of having druthers either way. I count a few land surveying scoundrels among my friends and enjoy their company. Pass the sweet tea.

DWoolley

DWoolley wrote: Fri Jan 03, 2025 2:17 pm Mikey, I am not judging (not so much as a side-eye), even you stated lawfulness was on the bottom of your considerations when performing a survey in 2024.

Not quite....

Mike Mueller wrote: Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:01 pm ... I don't know about you, but most people I have experience with do not follow laws since few(if any?) know all the laws that govern them. For most people their decision making generally goes (in order of how common it is) like this:
Do what they were taught
Do what they can get away with
Do what is right morally/ethically
Do what is legal

I know personally that if I have to choose, I will generally choose right over legal. Change what your highest goal is, or what your moral compass deems "good", and an entirely different set of behaviors becomes "correct", regardless of what the law says.

I assumed my original post would be understood in a certain light. This reference to it and the context that somehow my behavior is a legacy of illegal activity going back to the 1800's inspired me to clarify a little and provide a simple example that I hope exemplifies my point from the post that you are referencing. I was pointing out that changing a law rarely translates into different behaviors. Most folks I know break laws all the time because 1) there are too many laws, 2) few know all the laws, and 3) some laws are silly.

When it comes to surveying, if someone employs a grant boundary adjustment in CA, on something other than an actual Grant Boundary, then they are likely breaking the law. State law says that we are to hold distance over angles when dealing with conflicts in a deed description.
(CCCP 2077)
Three--Between different measurements which are inconsistent with each other, that of angles is paramount to that of surfaces, and that of lines paramount to both.

However when I am retracing certain eras of work and or certain surveyors, it seems that they were better at measuring angles rather than distances. Sometimes I have chosen to use a bearing bearing intersection, or a grant boundary adjustment approach and pin a few courses to found monuments and hold all the interior angles between them. Or a variety of solutions that are not holding distances over angles.

I could follow state law and hold all the distances and break the angles to shorten or lengthen the overall line, but that approach, while lawful, does not seem very "good" most of the time. So I will not follow the dictates of state law in those cases, as I have determined that achieving the "good" outcome of placing a line where it was originally laid out is more important than being "correct" and "legal" and in compliance with an outdated law. I also believe/hope that when I choose to break the law, my solution will be more defendable in court if it comes to that.

I do not think Benson believed he was doing "good", or that his actions would hold up in court...

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

Mike Mueller wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2025 1:52 pm When it comes to surveying, if someone employs a grant boundary adjustment in CA, on something other than an actual Grant Boundary, then they are likely breaking the law. State law says that we are to hold distance over angles when dealing with conflicts in a deed description.
(CCCP 2077)
Three--Between different measurements which are inconsistent with each other, that of angles is paramount to that of surfaces, and that of lines paramount to both.

Mikey, I know this is not the main point of your post, but your interpretation of the CCCP is interesting to me. Do you take "lines" to mean "distances"? I don't find the wording of this particular section very clear at all. Please elaborate.

Derek_9672 wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2025 9:12 am Do you take "lines" to mean "distances"? I don't find the wording of this particular section very clear at all. Please elaborate.

Yes. Priority of calls is laid out in quite a few books and such. My understanding is that some states are bearing over distance, while others are distance over bearing. CA establishes our state priority of calls in CCP 2077, quoted entire below:

https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/code-of-ci ... sect-2077/
The following are the rules for construing the descriptive part of a conveyance of real property, when the construction is doubtful and there are no other sufficient circumstances to determine it:

One--Where there are certain definite and ascertained particulars in the description, the addition of others which are indefinite, unknown, or false, does not frustrate the conveyance, but it is to be construed by the first mentioned particulars.

Two--When permanent and visible or ascertained boundaries or monuments are inconsistent with the measurement, either of lines, angles, or surfaces, the boundaries or monuments are paramount.

Three--Between different measurements which are inconsistent with each other, that of angles is paramount to that of surfaces, and that of lines paramount to both.

Four--When a road, or stream of water not navigable, is the boundary, the rights of the grantor to the middle of the road or the thread of the stream are included in the conveyance, except where the road or thread of the stream is held under another title.

Five--When tide water is the boundary, the rights of the grantor to ordinary high-water mark are included in the conveyance. When a navigable lake, where there is no tide, is the boundary, the rights of the grantor to low-water mark are included in the conveyance.

Six--When the description refers to a map, and that reference is inconsistent with other particulars, it controls them if it appear  1 that the parties acted with reference to the map; otherwise the map is subordinate to other definite and ascertained particulars.

Two makes it clear that measurements relate to 1)lines, 2) angles 3) surfaces, and all of those measurements are inferior to monuments. So the following section, three, is clearly considering "line" to be a measurement. Considering the way in which we survey, IE measure an interior angle, measure a distance along a line, and then do trig, I consider "line" to be a measurement. It is also why "surface" which I understand to be area, is subordinate to everything, as it is a product of many calculations using the multiple measurements, so if there is an error anywhere in the work, it will be represented in the area calc.

My understanding of the reasoning is that it basically follows Occam's Razor, so whatever is simpler and more direct is likley to be correct. I bring this up, because it goes back to why I will use bearings over distances when I consider it the best way to achieve my goal of placing a boundary correctly. When I am 98% certain that the bearings are more likely to be correct, then I will give them priority over distances.

The distinction between "boundary" and "line" in item two makes it clear to me that this law does not consider "line" to be a "line of occupation" or a "boundary line" as it is clearly in the measurement category.

Question for the forum:
Anyone know when this law was placed on the books and when it was last changed? Based on the word choice I have always assumed it was old, but you know what they say about assumptions :)

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

This is a good resource for me to make some quiz questions off of. Here is what ChatGPT says about the writing of CCP 2077

California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) § 2077 is a provision focused on resolving ambiguities in the description of real property in legal conveyances. The section was first codified in the California Code Amendments of 1873-74, making it over 150 years old.

Mike Mueller wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2025 1:52 pm ...
When it comes to surveying, if someone employs a grant boundary adjustment in CA, on something other than an actual Grant Boundary, then they are likely breaking the law. State law says that we are to hold distance over angles when dealing with conflicts in a deed description.
...
Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

To be clear, based on the quote above and the subsequent post, your position is CCP2077 is a law to be applied like a recipe in a cookbook? Anything less or variation is a violation of law? No different than or similar to failing to file a record of survey?

Hint: The law states "The following are the rules for construing the descriptive part of the conveyance of real property, when the construction is doubtful and there is no other sufficient circumstances to determine it:".

Notice that 2077 doesn't say anything about junior and senior rights? That's because the California Civil Code defines the interpretation of contracts, this includes deeds. The BAJI/CACI law provides the rules for the rare instances to allow for extrinsic evidence to interpret deeds.

The application of 2077 does not prohibit the use of the grant boundary method or compass rule or most anything else or I have been doing it wrong, er, breaking the law, the entire time.

Again, please clarify.

DWoolley

Kris Kline has a quick little article on standard of practice, negligence, etc..........

https://www.2point.net/post/negligence- ... o-remember

I am not so quick to believe the Bullseye is limited to the Bay Area. Rather, it is the State of California as a whole.