AZ: Cardinal Equivalents for Single and Double Proportion
What is the practice in Arizona for single proportion and DP: 1. straight inverse and then proportion or 2. reduce to cardinal equivalents and then proportion as the Manual stipulates? Some states accept either one since both been in practice.
There are no cardinal equivalents in single proportion.
If you dont use cardinal equivalents for double proportion it's not a double proportion.
As usual the correct method depends on the specific situation. The primary methods in the manual assume the township was subdivided by the standard method given in the manual. For example, double proportion makes no sense if the township was subdivided by GPS survey.
If the township was subdivided by the "standard" method, and the corner is truly lost (no evidence at all) you would have a hard time justifying not using the manual methods in any state.
Jerry Wahl has a paper on it with an illustrated example.
So in CA, the practice was for surveyors to simply inverse their measured data, and not reduce to CE. It seems like the other states I've gotten licensed in, never developed that bad habit! So in CA, there was two ways to do it, one by inversing and comparing it to the record, and one by reducing it to CE and then comparing it to the record. It's been many years since I've studied for that exam, so I don't know what the standard is now. Glad that I don't have to deal with it!
California does not have a code adopting the methods of the manual for subdividing sections. That's why you have to split a section by area if it says "one-half" or the "east half". Like I mentioned before, you can obtain all the old copies of the exams and the "correct" answer was doing it incorrectly until someone called them on it. Anyways, this is ancient history and I wanted to make sure no other state was doing the same thing.