Most states have reciprocity procedures to license surveyors with an existing license. The process normally involves making an application, paying the fees, and, in some states, passing an examination on the state's statutes and rules that regulate surveying. It would be nice to have a 'one size fits all' license but as long as each state has different rules and laws regarding land surveying practice, land ownership, subdivision requirements, etc., I don't expect to see anything happening soon that would change this.

This is certainly one MORE time when bigger does not mean better.

Surveyors are way too stubborn to ever agree on National Licensure. Surveying in Maine is different than surveying in Texas. Some surveyors know PLSS and some know metes and bounds. A surveyor must know the region he's surveying, or else he's rubber-stamping. Not everything should be nationalized.

Ms. Hendrickson is right that surveying can be very different from state to state. But that is not why a National License will never fly. There is no one definition of land surveying. There are significant differences between states. But that is not why a National License will never fly. Why will a National License never fly? Two words, Money and Power. There are a few states that jealously guard the money and power that comes to them because they hold sole authority over various professions in their jurisdiction. Tamper with either the money or the power and you might as well be poking a stick at a bobcat. Do it more than once or twice and you likely will draw back fewer fingers than you had before. Larry P

On the matter of a National License that would allow one to practice in all states, I think the answer is loud a very firm NO. There are too many specifics in each state that an individual must know and operate under to properly work in and still protect the public of that state. Surveyors understand this, that is why we voice are opinion against it. Those whom are non-surveyors may simply think that this idea is an easy way to essentially outsource surveying to a select group to reduce costs, but there are too many variables to consider that affect the profession. Those same individuals don't understand the complexity of our profession and think that anybody who can calculate a closed figure and operate a handheld GPS can perform boundary surveys. If you wrapped up every state specific exam question into one exam and someone passed it, wouldn't this person still be required to maintain the continuing education credits required by most states to be competent? Wouldn't this person have to know and understand every states legislative change that may affect his professional service? How many state laws would have to be changed, removed or added to accommodate a national license? These are just a few simple questions that would have to be answered and addressed and ultimately if they were addressed, how much different would things be from right now with our current comity/reciprocity laws? I think the answer is clear that a national license is just too large of a square block to fit in the round hole. How about a National Geodetic License issued and regulated by NGS? The holder of such license could establish geodetic information on existing points and or establish new control that is not related to or controlling a land boundary. Update benchmarks and other general monuments. This is a more approachable idea, but there would have to be revenue generated somewhere to sustain such a program. Either way I don't feel that our profession is broken and in need of repair, or in need of some National License to save the day.

No. It would cause the lowest ethics and standards of practice to become the national norm. Also this nation is to diverse for a national regulating body for Surveyors to be relevant, nor would it be or advantageous to the general population. Only a very few would gain from such a thing and I would question their motives. jud

But many miss the main point. This country is still governed by the Constitution (for how long is debatible). The individual states are sovereign, and until the Constitution in changed or completely scrapped, there is no authority for the Federal government to issue a national surveying license that would be valid in every state, nor can they dictate land law, that is reserved for the individual sovereign states. I for one, would be very afraid of placing my license and livelihood in the politically influenced hands of congress. Yes, the states are politically influenced, but the influences (for the most part) in each state is local influence, not national.

Mr. Allen is correct in that certain powers are given to the Federal Government and that all powers not so given are reserved to the individual states. I agree that any effort to organize and legislate a national license is doomed if Congress is doing the work. But, the things I've heard call for the states to voluntarily join in this standard. There is nothing in the constitution that would prevent the states from doing that. The states have all agreed to let NCEES organize, prepare and administer the FS and PS exams. This national license effort would almost certainly come from NCEES. Nothing would (or should) prevent the states agreeing to the standard. As I said above, there is too much power and money to be lost for a realistic chance at any such agreement. Larry P

I understand that few western states think the NCEES exam is anything but a hindrance. Respectfully Larry, I believe it is not a money thing... it is a quality thing. Those who should know say the NCEES exam is simply a dubbing down of the PLS exam... and from my end the results of that testing make the point.

The opening paragraph in Cooley's "Judicial Functions of Land Surveyors" says: "When a man has had a training in one of the exact sciences, where every problem within its purview is supposed to be susceptible of accurate solution, he is likely to be not a little impatient when he is told that, under some circumstances, he must recognize inaccuracies, and govern his action by facts which lead him away from the results which theoretically he ought to reach. Observation warrants us in saying that this remark may frequently be made of surveyors. ..." The procedures necessary, when the facts lead one away from the 'technical' solution, are state specific because of the differences in state laws. Surveying is a legal profession that deals with a part of the law that is not within the sphere of attorneys or the courts. Our decisions are reviewed by the courts, but experience has shown that the courts cannot replace the surveyor in recovering and interpreting the on-site physical evidence. Richard Schaut

A resounding yes with some caveats! Too many layers of government is a bad thing. It is ludicrous to me that I need to get another license to survey in a State that is just 40 miles away. If an entity with authority could set up an exam that would generally meet the requirements of all the States I would be all for it.

Those good at politics and lobbying could make a killing. Mercenary surveyors need to get on the vacuum line of fed tax dollars. It would do nothing to improve the profession, but at least it would give those surveyors in business for greed something to focus on, so the rest of us could provide better ethical service on a local level, where it's needed.

Land surveying is governed not by federal law, but by state law, which differ somewhat between states. Therefore, a national suveyor licensing law is in step with federal law somehow. Nationalization of the license has nothing to do with land surveying, especially after the federal government quitclaimed their lands to privates, which are governed by their respective states. So what has national surveyor licensing got to do with individual state law?

I see no valid reason for a national land surveyors licence (Boundary). All the states have different rules and case law. The big brokerages's would certainly benefit from having one plan stamper in an office that could stamp stuff across the country. I doubt that would be in the interest of any land owner but would significantly cut their costs since they would be sending out technicians across the country to do these surveys. Sounds like a recipe for a mess to me. Even the BLM, with federal authority, only works in states with the PLSS and even then only when it involves federal holdings in those states. I can see some sort of national permit for geodesy and things that are not local in nature but not for boundary surveying. That's different even within my city and local knowledge is very important. Just look at who is pushing this and follow the money. It's likely the large companies. In our state the NCEE has already taken over a great part of our exam and we are left with little in the way of state specific testing. Our state exam is two hours. Two hours on state law seems frightfully low to me. I would vote against a national boundary license.

I disagree with a national license to a degree. Work such as boundary surveying is very specific from state to state and should therefore remain in the hands of the state. But let me pose this question, how different is mobile laser scanning from state to state? How about establishing a geodetic control network for inclusion with NGS? Is that not already a national standard? Anyone familiar with the mobile scanning technology knows that there are unlicensed individuals providing "survey grade" data. Because of the cost of this equipment, anyone that has it is willing to travel to many states. Should this be a licensed function? I believe so. Should this be regulated on a state level? On that point I'm not so convinced. I believe that technology has fractured the notion of what is surveying and that the licensing needs to be altered to reflect that reality. Does a mobile scanning professional need to know how to perform a boundary? Absolutely not. Does a surveyor that has spent his entire career providing mortgage certification surveys know anything about mobile scanning or establishing geodetic control networks? Doubtful. I propose that surveying licensure be broken into several specific and specialized functions and that some of these areas would fall under a national license and others would be state specific, based on how much local law really reflects that specialty. The amount of continuing education would then be reflective of the number of specific licenses that surveyor chooses. As an example, let say that a surveyor has national licenses for laser scanning, geodetic control, and bathometric surveying, and has state licenses for boundary surveying in Maryland and Pennsylvania. Now lets further assume that each license carries a minimum of 8 continuing education credits every two years. That would mean that surveyor would be required to take 24 nationally approved credits and 8 credits in Maryland and 8 credits in Pennsylvania. This specification would even be beneficial in that the education would be more relevant. Right now in my state credits are required, and some of those must be ethics, but otherwise I could focus on classes that have nothing to do with improving my professional status in my area of expertise. The multiple licenses would force the continuing education to be more focused. I'm very interested in what others think of this.

Lets just say three words...Surveying In Ohio! How would anyone from from Iowa ever understand The Virginia Military Survey Districts as well as the other survey areas of this great state.

James I agree with the majority of your reasoning. I think some fields are national in nature, such as geodesy, photogrammetry, scanning and probably a few others that do not rely specifically on boundary determinations. On these I could see a national certification or licesnse. Each state however seems intent on putting these under their umbrella so that if you were to do a geodetic survey in their state then they expect you to have their state licence. I've never actually heard of a BOR going after someone doing geodetic work without a state license but it is there in their rules. I've only seen a couple of test cases of BORS trying to go after someone doing GIS work but all of these test cases thus far have sided with the GIS folks and not with the BOR's. The ones I've seen have been against municipalities or counties which was probably the wrong place to start if the BOR's did think they could make a case. The states and cities have a lot more stroke at the political level than does a state board. If they did not generate revenue then the states themselves would probably just decide to do away with BOR's altogether. They are not a player in the political scene for the most part. CEU's. Now that is something that bothers me a lot lately. I take things to improve my skills, improve my safety and to learn new skills. I do not need a class on things I already know and I certainly do not need it two or three times over ten years at a convention. I think there has to be a limit on the number of hours though. If you have five state licenses and several other national licenses then you could be in class more than in business and being productive. In Okie we have to have 30 hours every two years. Our convention offers up 15 or more each year so if you make the convention you are done no matter the classes offered or if you benefited with increased skills or knowledge. I'm very pro education but I think we each, as professionals, should be able to choose what would benefit us or our company. Deral

One would ASSUME, being the Professional Land Surveyors that we all are, we would proceed with professionalism no matter what State we entered. I do not believe we need to be tested and licensed in every State. We should be held accountable for the penalties as laid out in the statutes of each State we practice in. If you are going to lay out gas wells in Utah, and you are licensed in Colorado, you had better be aware of Utah laws that apply to your particular surveying product. I wouldn't think that a professional would not proceed any other way? We are all held accountable for anything with our name on it so why would any U.S. State think we would need their individual license to obide by their rules? Isn't it a given? Money is always the issue so charge a fee, hold us accountable!