Letters to the Editor Re: De-Licensure of Geologists in Arizona A different Perspective
In response to R. Douglas Bartlett’s article in the recent issue of TPG, Volume 53, No.4, entitled “De-Licensure of Geologists: Coming Soon?”
Mr. Bartlett’s article provides a back- drop of 2016 Arizona legislative efforts to eliminate registration for geologists, efforts that resulted in recent legislation in Arizona that amended the State’s licensure requirements for Geologists. While it did not eliminate the need for professional registration in Arizona for geologists, the existing statues were amended to provide exceptions to reg- istration for a “Trained Geologist”. The resulting amendments to licensure for geologists in Arizona are, in my opinion, an appropriate revision – let me explain.
Registration in Arizona is based on professions and occupations, and includes Geologists with Architects, Engineers, Home Inspectors, Landscape Architects and Surveyors. The Arizona statutes provide the following defini- tions of “purpose”, “geological practice”, and “geologist”:
ARS Title 32 Article 1, 32-101 Purpose; definitions
“A. The purpose of this chapter is to provide for the safety, health and wel- fare of the public through the promul- gation and enforcement of standards of qualification for those individuals who are registered or certified and seeking registration or certification pursuant to this chapter.”
“14. “Geological practice” means any professional service or work requir- ing geological education, training and experience, and the application of special knowledge of the earth sci- ences to such professional services as consultation, evaluation of mining properties, petroleum properties and groundwater resources, professional supervision of exploration for mineral natural resources including metal- lic and nonmetallic ores, petroleum and groundwater, and the geologi- cal phases of engineering investiga- tions.”
15. “ Geologist” means a person, not of necessity an engineer, who by reason of special knowledge of the earth sci- ences and the principles and methods
of search for and appraisal of mineral or other natural resources acquired by professional education and practi- cal experience is qualified to practice geology as attested by registration as a professional geologist. A person employed on a full-time basis as a geologist by an employer engaged in the business of developing, mining or treating ores and other minerals shall not be deemed to be engaged in geological practice for the purposes of this chapter if the person engages in geological practice exclusively for and as an employee of such employer and does not represent that the person is available and is not represented as being available to perform any geological services for persons other than the person’s employer.
I have added the underlining to emphasize the points I present here that: (a) not all geological work has bearing on the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and (b) the existing regulations, prior to the current amendments, were indeed biased or exclusionary and a dis- criminatory burden on some geologists seeking to earn a living in Arizona, spe- cifically consultants and those not full- time employees of a mining company.
I am an Arizona resident, Registered Geologist in Oregon (G-313) and CPG- 9565; I am not a Registered Geologist in Arizona. My entire career has been as a geologist employed in the mineral exploration and metal mining business, both as an employee of major and junior exploration and mining companies, as a member of a mining consulting company, and as an independent geologist consul- tant. Most of my +40 years of geological employment has been involved with min- eral exploration, including some work here in Arizona. None of the mineral exploration I conducted in Arizona, or elsewhere for that matter, had any direct impact on the safety, health, or welfare of the public. I am speaking of exploration activities such as geological mapping, soil and rock sampling, ground geophysi- cal surveys, construction of trenches and drill access roads, and rotary or core drilling activities in search of mineral resources – all conducted in rural non- populated areas. Such work, “evaluation of mineral properties” is part of the definition of “Geological practice” by
Arizona statutes, requiring registration as a geologist.
I would argue two points. The first is that mineral exploration activities as described above do not have direct impact on the public safety, health, and welfare. I am speaking of that work alone, not the downstream development of a mineral property that indeed may impact ground water, infrastructure, etc.; which will require engineering work and permit applications that may require a registered geologist to sign- off, typically work done by someone other than the exploration geologist. Registration still is relevant in Arizona, and required for those geological func- tions that have direct impact on the public welfare, such as public works proj- ects including highways, bridges, dams, environmental remediation, etc. Geology covers a broad spectrum of “geological practice”, much more diverse than the work of Architects, Landscapers, and Home Inspectors, and perhaps should not be lumped with those professions for registration concerns. And not all forms of “geological practice” require the need for registration.
The second point is that the defini- tion of a “Geologist” in Arizona has the exclusion for such mineral exploration as described above, if the geologist is a full- time employee of a company “engaged in the business of developing, mining or treating ores and other minerals”; I presume, an apparent nod to the copper mining companies active in Arizona at the time the statutes were developed. Since the statutes were enacted in 1956, the employment status of many geolo- gists and the types of companies conduct- ing mineral exploration have changed. Currently many geologists in mineral exploration are not full time employees; rather, they are independent consul- tants or contract geologists to junior exploration companies (often Canadian or Australian domiciled) and they would be required to be registered as a geolo- gist if not for the recent amendments. The current amended statues now allow for a consulting geologist who is not a full-time employee of a mining company to conduct mineral exploration evalua- tions without the need for registration, provided the work is done by a “Trained
www.aipg.org
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56
