Who's a geologist?

Byline: The Register-Guard

Of all the many pebbles in Eugene Sand & Gravel's shoe, none has caused more discomfort than Mark Reed, a professor of geology at the University of Oregon. He's been a determined opponent of the company's application to mine gravel on 575 acres near River Road. Now Eugene Sand has filed a complaint with the State Board of Geologist Examiners, accusing Reed of practicing geology without a license. The complaint looks like an attempt to silence a critic.

Reed has testified at length in rebuttal to the company's claim that its proposed mining site meets state geological standards. He's challenged experts who support Eugene Sand's application, and criticized public agencies that have based their findings on those experts' opinions. He wrote a strongly worded guest column that appeared in The Register-Guard on Dec. 18, arguing that the newspaper's editorial board, the Lane County staff and others were wrong to conclude that enough gravel lies beneath the River Road site to satisfy state rules.

As a professor in the UO's Department of Geological Sciences - specializing in mineral deposits and aqueous geochemistry, no less - Reed lends credibility to opponents' arguments.

But Reed is not a registered geologist. He doesn't have a license from the State Board of Geologist Examiners that would entitle him to engage in the "public practice" of geology. Any unlicensed person who engages in such practice can face civil fines of up to $1,000 per offense. Eugene Sand's complaint, signed by company President Mike Alltucker and Production Department Manager Dale Fortner, challenges Reed's standing to offer expert opinion on its application.

Suzanna Knight, administrator of the state board, will forward the complaint to the board for its evaluation, which she said might take six to 12 months. It ought to take that many minutes. If Reed is guilty of public practice of geology in the Eugene Sand case, so is everyone else who has offered an opinion on the question of whether the River Road site meets the state's geologic criteria - including this newspaper.

Knight pointed to several "red flags" in Reed's Dec. 18 guest column, including his mention of having "submitted several reports of my findings." If Reed is preparing geologic reports and submitting them as expert opinion, Knight said, the board may need to inquire further.

But Reed has not presented himself to Eugene Sand, the county commissioners, the newspaper's readers or anyone else as a licensed geologist. He has never claimed to be anything more than a knowledgeable critic, and an unpaid one. He teaches geology, and he lives near the proposed gravel mining site - so his interest is in promoting sound science in his field or protecting his neighborhood, take your pick. But just as law professors aren't guilty of practicing without a license when they offer strongly argued opinions of cases in states where they haven't passed the bar exam, Reed has not committed the public practice of geology by getting involved in the Eugene Sand controversy.

The State Board of Geologist Examiners was created to ensure that the people who offer their professional services as geologists know what they're doing. The First Amendment was written to ensure that everyone has a right to offer an opinion on matters of public interest, regardless of whether they know what they're talking about. The board should not allow itself to become an instrument for stifling public debate, and should promptly dismiss the complaint against Reed.