EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MESSAGE
On the Importance of State Geological Surveys
Aaron W. Johnson, MEM-2783
awj@aipg.org
In June, I was fortunate enough to go on a field trip to visit the now revived Phenix Marble Quarry, near Walnut Grove, Missouri, just a stone’s throw from my ancestral home. While there, I learned about the history of the quarry and the use of its flagship product, Napoleon Gray Marble, in the Missouri State Capitol, the Palace of the Legion of Honor in San Francisco and the halls of the New York Stock Exchange. During our field trip, one of our hosts stated that their work to reopen the quarry would have been impossible without the information and support provided by the Missouri Geological Survey. This state- ment stuck in my mind, and is the seed from which this column grew.
The first state geological survey was undertaken by South Carolina, in 1825. (Sorry North Carolina, but your Agricultural Survey led by a geologist just isn’t quite the same.) The survey was overseen by Lardner Vanuxem, a Professor of Geology and Mineralogy at the University of South Carolina. Vanuxem would go on to participate in the founding of the New York State Geological Survey in 1836, where he served as the supervisor of the third geo- logical district and worked until 1841. Later, upon becoming convinced that scientists needed a consistent system of nomenclature he formed a working group that, in 1847, became the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Other early state geologists were equally prominent. Among them were Raphael Pumpelly, a professor of mineralogy at Harvard, and the name- sake of Pumpellyite, who served as the Missouri State Geologist from 1871 to 1873, and Edward Hitchcock who served as state geologist of Massachusetts and Vermont. In addition, Hitchcock is cred- ited with providing the first ‘tree of life’ diagram that incorporated paleonto- logical and geological information, and would go on to become President of Amherst College.
Work Cited
Hansen, G.F., (2008), Historical Directory of State Geological Surveys, in, Association of American State Geologists Centennial History: 1908–2008, Cobb, J.C. ed., Association of American State Geologists, Shepherdstown, WV, 520 pp.
www.aipg.org Jul.Aug.Sep 2017 • TPG 27
The early iterations of state geo- logical surveys often were tasked with a single charge, and would be disbanded once that charge was fulfilled. In the excellent ‘Association of American State Geologists Centennial History: 1908- 2008,’ George F. Hansen noted that, “Around the turn of the [20th] century the need for continuing geological work became evident and geological surveys became permanent units of state govern- ment.” Today each state, save Hawaii, hosts a geological survey or its broad equivalent. The duties of the surveys and their placements within the framework of state governments vary from state to state. Despite these variations, state surveys make important contributions to the broader base of geological knowl- edge, to public safety and health, and in helping public and private industry address complex geological and geomor- phic challenges in order to provide raw materials of great economic value.
Yet, despite these important societal and economic contributions, state geo- logical surveys continue to be under- appreciated. State surveys often are regarded as returning very little on the investment of public funds, or perhaps even worse, are ignored by the state governments that support them. Some surveys have seen their budgets cut by 50% or more. Others find themselves as itinerant agencies, bouncing from location to location, never being certain precisely where they may be housed, how they may be funded and what they can do to fulfill their mandated missions. In some cases, state geological surveys have been targeted for outright elimi- nation, and only through the concerted efforts of the geoscience community, with AIPG members and sections taking a leading role, have those surveys been retained to continue to do the complex and important work necessary to provide the geologic understanding that helps to drive continued societal and economic development.
As professional geoscientists, AIPG members uniquely are able to utilize resources made available through our state geological surveys, and to highlight those contributions to legislators, policy makers, and members of the general public. We use survey maps as baselines for important geotechnical projects, we draw upon survey databases that include well logs, water table maps, and soil characteristics to provide a solid geologic foundation for projects we pursue for clients. We use those resources to con- strain flow rates, to provide boundary conditions for models, and to procure a broad understanding of the Earth mate- rials that may impact our projects. The list of beneficial products and services provided by state surveys is long, and varied, and likely would fill many pages. As we utilize these resources, we also are able to communicate the importance of the work our state surveys do to oth- ers. Many of our members are in posi- tions in which they may interact with legislators and policy makers. Others find themselves in positions of public trust, or using survey data to support academic research projects, or to provide basic geologic knowledge to the general public. In each of these cases, our public recognition of the role state surveys play in our successes is critical. Now, more than ever, taxpayers expect an account- ing for the expenditure of their dollars, and demand that those dollars be spent wisely. As professional geoscientists who utilize the resources provided by state surveys, we are the group that is best able to share the value that state surveys provide to businesses, government, and the public. I believe we have an ethical responsibility to ensure that we give public credit to state surveys when their products provide important support for our work.
I hope that each of you have a great summer. I look forward to seeing many of you at our National Meeting in Nashville, in September.
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 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64
