The Arizona Chapter of the American Institute of Professional Geologists held their annual business meeting in Tucson this morning, with most of the Board of Directors of the national AIPG in attendance. Much of the discussion centered around the proposed legislation to eliminate geologists as a registered profession in Arizona (HB2613). Representatives from other professional associations, industry, and the Association of State Boards of Geology were also present.Arizona was the first state in the country to provide registration of geologists, starting in 1956. Now 32 states offer registration. Proponents of de-registration argue that Arizona is over regulated and eliminating registration for geologists, landscape architects, assayers, and cremationists, is the first step towards eliminating most professional registrations. [Right, geologists examine an earth fissure found during construction of loop 202 in the eastern Phoenix valley. A special flexible liner was laid under the roadway to prevent it from buckling]
The ASBOG folks reported similar efforts to eliminate registration geologists have been proposed in other states over the past decade but all failed after the legislatures reviewed the life-safety implications.
The local geological community is organizing to oppose HB2613, with AIPG offering to play a coordinating role.
A number of people pointed out that numerous state and local agencies require licensed geologists to sign off on technical reports. With Arizona licensing revoked, other professionals such as engineers would be asked to sign such reports. But if they do not have the technical expertise in that area, they could be held liable for subsequent problems. Or geologists licensed in other states could come in to replace Arizona geologists in order to sign professional reports.
this is a really bad idea. If your work depends on geology wouldn't you want a professional working on it? If your livelihood depended on a geological report would you want a professional researching and getting it done right? Just saying.
ReplyDeleteEven without a Professional License a geologist have to be responsible of his acts and reports. A License does not certify that the geologist work will be done correctly.
ReplyDeleteNo, but it does show that the geologist has gone through a review process wherein the geologist has shown that he is adequately competent to practice, and requires him/her to practice only in those areas of geology that they are qualified. By doing so the public has a much greater chance of not being harmed by improper or substandard geological work. Without licensing what is to prevent a guy with a single course in, say, Geology 201 from hanging out his shingle and performing geology? That's what we used to have which is why we now have licensing. It's about protecting the public.
DeleteA license does not guarantee it will be done correctly and that was never the point of the license. The Purpose of licensing is to protect the public's health , safety and welfare. It was to ensure that not only those who are licensed have be screened for education and experience but to ensure they comport themselves appropriately with the public. It was to keep those who are not qualified from endangering the public. IT is no different than licensing for engineers and doctors.
ReplyDeleteThe logic to this eliminates licensing health care professionals in Arizona. The damage quacks cause is reasonably well documented and feared: thus professional qualifications under law.
ReplyDeleteOver regulation is the issue and relates more to the autocratic power and bureaucracies built around mounting frivolous regulations. Action on this front is less appealing to legislators since it means cut backs in government and their budgets.
I am a strong supporter of licensing the work of geologists operatig in the public sphere. In addition to the CPG, I am a licensed geologist and hydrogeologist in Washington State. The thing we need to guard against is having licensed geologists signing off on things that really don’t require this degree of protection for the public. We need to scrutinize what activities are required to be performed by a licensed geologist. As an example, when I lived in Texas, the clay-rich soils of east Texas played havoc with foundations, cracking brickwork, slabs, etc. When I initially lived there in the 1980's, I found a person through word of mouth (this was before the internet, so I didn't have that amazing resource review other people's experience with said person) who put in some footings to stabilize parts of my house slab that were causing my chimney to separate from the rest of the house and the associated brick work to tear apart. I was not required to have a licensed engineer be part of this activity, and the results were quite satisfactory and reasonably priced. Just as I was getting ready to sell the house in 1991, I had a problem with a patio slab that required putting in an expansion joint. A few years earlier, Texas had passed some new laws and I had to hire a licensed structural engineer to design some drawings to put in a new expansion joint on my patio slab. You most certainly don't need a licensed structural engineer to make a drawing of an expansion joint on a patio slab, but I had to hire one and it added about $500 cost to the repair. It was completely needless, but Texas had expanded what needed to be signed off by a licensed engineer. I don't know what the particulars are for having a licensed geologist in Arizona sign off on, but if they licensing has been around for decades, it is quite possible that the activities that "require" a licensed geologist have also expanded such that many of them really aren’t needed to protect the public. It would be worth understanding Arizona’s requirements more to see if there are problems with what currently requires a licensed geologist’s signoff.
ReplyDeleteI am a strong supporter of licensing the work of geologists operatig in the public sphere. In addition to the CPG, I am a licensed geologist and hydrogeologist in Washington State. The thing we need to guard against is having licensed geologists signing off on things that really don’t require this degree of protection for the public. We need to scrutinize what activities are required to be performed by a licensed geologist. As an example, when I lived in Texas, the clay-rich soils of east Texas played havoc with foundations, cracking brickwork, slabs, etc. When I initially lived there in the 1980's, I found a person through word of mouth (this was before the internet, so I didn't have that amazing resource review other people's experience with said person) who put in some footings to stabilize parts of my house slab that were causing my chimney to separate from the rest of the house and the associated brick work to tear apart. I was not required to have a licensed engineer be part of this activity, and the results were quite satisfactory and reasonably priced. Just as I was getting ready to sell the house in 1991, I had a problem with a patio slab that required putting in an expansion joint. A few years earlier, Texas had passed some new laws and I had to hire a licensed structural engineer to design some drawings to put in a new expansion joint on my patio slab. You most certainly don't need a licensed structural engineer to make a drawing of an expansion joint on a patio slab, but I had to hire one and it added about $500 cost to the repair. It was completely needless, but Texas had expanded what needed to be signed off by a licensed engineer. I don't know what the particulars are for having a licensed geologist in Arizona sign off on, but if they licensing has been around for decades, it is quite possible that the activities that "require" a licensed geologist have also expanded such that many of them really aren’t needed to protect the public. It would be worth understanding Arizona’s requirements more to see if there are problems with what currently requires a licensed geologist’s signoff.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam
ReplyDeleteShould be required reading for every legislator in every state where de-licensing of geologists is proposed.
I am very concerned about HB2613 proposing to drop the registration of geologists in the State of Arizona. Professional geologists are critical to providing expert knowledge and scientific expertise for a broad range of geology and water resource issues which have the potential to directly or indirectly impact the health, welfare, and safety of the public, and the environment. It is critical to assure that geological services be conducted by a professional geologist who meets and adheres to the standards of practice as determined by the Arizona Board of Technical Registration (AZBTR). Current registration requirements include educational standards, passage of a national geologic knowledge exam, several years of work under the review of a professional geologist, and knowledge of Arizona regulations and ethics. To drop registration of geologists in Arizona would be to reverse the current trend where 30 States (2 more are pending) require registration of geologists by professional standards to meet the needs of the public and regulators for health and safety. Plus, as with engineers and architects, by having a registration requirement and administering the registration under the AZBTR, there is a clear process and remedy for the public to obtain justice should a registrant not provide services to Arizona citizens in a competent manner, which may include revocation of the individuals registration and ability to practice within the State. Registration through the AZBTR provides a resource for the public should they need the services of a professional geologist. Without registration there would be no process for technical oversight or public recourse except through the judicial system which may be difficult and costly. It is vital to keep geologists registered in Arizona with administration of the program through the AZBTR.
ReplyDeleteGeology licensing is only a way to eliminate competition from other qualified individuals for jobs and business opportunities. If public safety is the goal why is geology the only scientific field licensed? Is geology more critical for public safety than say a chemist or toxicologist who evaluates the significance of environmental contaminants on human health? Many of the sciences overlap in the real world work place so licensing only one of them is inconsistent and results in say a geologist taking resposibility for a chemist's work when the geologist may not even know how to pronounce the names of the chemicals, much less how the chemical properties affect humans and the environment for example. The proof of the true objective of the licensing program is this: it is not the public or regulators who initiate and defend these licensing programs, it is the group who is being licensed. That's because its to their benefit. The geologists just happened to have been a large enough group to lobby effectively to enact this anti-competitive program. There is no public outcry asking for geologists to be regulated to protect the public. There are other layers of regulation and law which accomplish this. This professional licensing program is self-seeking under the guise of public protection.
ReplyDelete