Commenters, and the General Assembly might consider the context of the 2018 JLARC criticism, and determine whether public reliance on a professional soil science title protects public health, welfare and safety. If there is a unique regulatory or compelling risk management role; it should have been explained, specifically how a board which has no history of enforcement actions, protects the public. And how a profession absent accepted standards of practice or ethics, and absent requirement for a regulated work product can be expected to sustain the public’s trust.

In my opinion JLARC was correct in recommending the elimination of the Licensed Professional Soil Science (LPSS) classification through reorganization of DPOR. Indeed the report makes a good case for elimination of each of the cited professions.

The JLARC report identified these license classes as being unsuitable for continuation, due to either a small element of risk, redundancy with other professions, or lack of defined regulatory authority. Several of these professions are languishing, their diminutive populations do not justify expenditure of public funds, and dues or fees are insufficient to sustain staff and programs at DPOR. A small licensed class requires high fees, which become a barrier to entry; which should not be mistaken as justifiable within context of the public’s interest. Another measure is whether the risk of damage to the public welfare through incompetent or malfeasant services are adequately managed through other means.

DPOR has not published meaningful data beyond short-term changes in population numbers. Thus it is impossible for the public to know whether there is a dearth of applicants for examination, an absence of passing scores, or a waning industry due to lack of economic opportunities or other market changes

Although many well-meaning people have stepped forward and submitted their heartfelt comments, the majority do not offer compelling explanation of a legitimate public interest in carrying the PSS license forward. Indeed most seem self-serving endorsements of the commenter’s personal interest, rather than refutation of the issues brought forward through the JLARC study. Not only have comments been cut and pasted, commenters do not seem aware of the nature of the report. Nor has the PSS board taken any notable action to reconcile the license standards with criticisms enumerated in the study.

As one of 92 Virginia licensed professional soil scientists, and having served in a leadership position, and represented VAPSS in various public capacities it gives no pleasure to note that the PSS board despite having opened the regulations did not elevate the license beyond protecting the licensed class from people misrepresenting themselves as being licensed. The association has also not reformed it’s charter to incorporate changes in the code, or standards of practice which regulate soil interpretation. Despite having been put on notice virtually nothing has been proposed to elevate the professional standards of practice, incorporate ethical standards, adjudicate complaints, respond to criticism nor make substantial progress in defining a unique role for soil scientists within the regulatory framework of Virginia.

During my tenure at VAPSS I became aware that there existed a small minority of licensed PSS who have not satisfied the requirements of examination, documented qualifying experience, or training sufficient to qualify for licensure. The fact that only 7 nationally licensed soil scientists are listed at the Soil Science Society of America, while our licensed population peaked at 120, leads me to suspect the Virginia license class is substantially diluted from the national; and does not justify the expense of sustaining a board at public, and license holders expense. It is also my opinion that lobbyists and self serving interests ran away with the goal of obtaining licensure absent standards of practice assigning responsibility to consistent collection of data. For a science discipline not to have technical interaction with other professionals has been a missed opportunity.

Many commenters seem uninformed that the title act establishing LPSS was never meant to limit other professions who work in allied fields. These would include other professionals licensed through DPOR, including: engineers, onsite soil evaluators, landscape architects, photogrammatists, or even unlicensed people having special knowledge of soils, hydrology, engineering properties which are measured in the laboratory or field such as qualified groundwater scientists. The act merely prohibits unlicensed people from utilizing the title. And, in the absence of the title act, these services will continue to be available to citizens with compelling interest in this information.

Reading the comments on this forum causes some chagrin, as it seems some within the association of soils professionals have made a practice of working outside the recognized purview of the sciences. Traditionally we share responsibility with other scientists as describing soil as it is found in place. Geologists, and wetland professionals also serve this function. But we are not authorized to offer interpretation of soil properties for specific construction or engineering uses. These interpretations would include assessment of: shrink-swell potential, load bearing capacity, hydraulic capacity, compaction indexes, assessment and management of acid sulfate soils, even seasonal high water table modeling – when meant to inform a  engineering function in the absence of a licensed engineer.  

Not only are these types of service redundant to other license classes, they are outside the accepted practice of a professional soil scientist. Indeed individuals offering consultation might run afoul of other boards, for example if their consultation could be considered practicing engineering without a license; which is a criminal offense. The JLARC report offered critique of Landscape Architects which is similar, especially as regards Storm Water Management (an engineering practice regulated by Department of Environmental Quality): "individuals in other unregulated occupations, such as landscape designers, are allowed to perform largely the same work and present the same risks. The existence of unregulated occupations performing the same work suggests state regulation of landscape architects does not fully address risks." JLARC

There is no professional restriction against consultation on behalf of clients who are farmers or have agronomic interests in land uses which are not of a constructed nature; for example characterizing a use limiting feature (e.g. water table issues). My experience is that the farmer probably already knows, and is unwilling to pay for this information. Which is the second part of the problem for this license class, the General Assembly has established no specific requirement for regulated work products under jurisdiction of the license. Indeed the marketplace has recognized this, as indicated by the waning numbers of persons applying for PSS licensure, or sustaining the license, since it does not offer substantial economic returns. But for a few counties, which have established ordinances which require PSS services, the majority of Virginians do not seem to be confused about the need for licensed professionals unless a locality has mandated a service, which is inconsistent with the title act. Most citizens seem more confused over the nomenclature, scope of work, and cataloguing of license holders which is a problem throughout DPOR.

It is comical to recognize that some citizens view soil scientists as practicing witchcraft. Why else would some property “perk” yet neighboring parcels be found unsuitable? Yet, those licensed persons who continue to estimate rates; hand draw final work product renderings to “approximate scale;” and, interpret soil properties in the absence of reproducible evidence, should probably be investigated and censured, rather than being allowed to profit through misapplication of the substantial body of knowledge within soil sciences and the framework provided through the compilation of the national soil survey. I think the majority of citizens would question whether an estimated rate, is science, when the technology to measure water gradients and hydraulic conductivity is readily and commercially available.

There have been some commenters who made recommendations toward reorganizing boards at DPOR. This seems a proper forum to suggest that within context of the design practices (certified interior designers & landscape architects) the other design practice their is another license class which should be brought under oversight of the design board (APELSCIDLA).  Onsite Soil Evaluators have been recognized as a soil interpretation and design practice exempt from engineering license.  The merit of shifting the OSE into the design board seems reasonable, and timely. Recognize, the standards of practice incorporate survey and site planning into the work product expectations, along with soil science and wastewater engineering. Indeed in comparison with any other license class, Onsite Soil Evaluators (OSE) demonstrably do protect the public health (i.e. communicable disease), safety (ergo, managing risk of noxious gases, and acutely infectious agents) and welfare (e.g managing the construction and operating cost of improvements to real property).

It is my sincere hope other professionals will recognize the trust that has been placed in our hands as a licensed class, which is commensurate with sustaining a professional practice. The practice is not sustained through protection of a title, it is sustained by investing in professional standards which truly serve the public, and prevent harm by unscrupulous or inept individuals. Unfortunately the PSS community have not demonstrated a compelling public need for a regulated practice.

Jeff T. Walker; LPSS, AOSE

Past President VAPSS