Board, educators warn Sonoma State geology cuts could shrink licensure pipeline

The Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists on April 3 discussed the announced elimination of Sonoma State University's geology program and the effect the change could have on producing qualified geologists for licensure and public-safety work in California.

Board Executive Officer Rick (last name not specified in transcript) told members he and staff visited Sonoma State and that the board had already circulated an advocacy letter. "We need to put a letter out before the next board meeting," he said; the board's staff sent the letter on March 18 to the Sonoma State president, the California State University chancellor and the CSU trustees office, and to several professors.

The board and multiple university faculty and professional groups emphasized why the program matters. Maddie Mukherjee, chair of the geology department at Sonoma State University, said the university received a one-year extension of the department's layoff date that will allow the faculty to teach out current students. "Our layoff date was extended by a year so that we can teach out the majors that we have," Mukherjee said, and urged continued advocacy.

Christopher Keane, director of geoscience policy and higher-education initiatives at the American Geosciences Institute, told the board that state and national demand for licensed geoscientists is strong and that delays or program eliminations reduce the throughput to licensure. Carrie Cato, a professor of geology at California State University, San Bernardino, said many geology majors are transfer or first-generation students who discover geology only after arriving on campus; eliminating programs reduces the pool of future licensees for local infrastructure work.

Staff and board members raised several technical barriers created by current education rules. Josh (staff) and Rick described the board's 2018 education regulations, which require specific coursework (notably field geology) for initial licensure; board staff said applicants often cannot count work experience until their education requirements are satisfied. As Rick summarized the problem: if a candidate must return to take a short field course to close an academic gap, years of prior professional experience may not count toward licensure under current law or regulation. Tiffany (enforcement/staff) and others said this creates practical and equity barriers for many applicants.

Board members and university faculty described field geology coursework as costly and resource-intensive: multiple upper-division field classes often require multi-day or multi-week field sessions. Mukherjee said Sonoma State's curriculum includes multiple field classes associated with core major courses and that no other nearby program matches that level of field training.

The board did not take formal disciplinary or legislative action at the meeting, but members directed staff to pursue options. Staff said they would: (1) work with Sonoma State faculty and statewide geoscience organizations to circulate the letter to additional decision-makers, including local legislators and the governor's office; (2) investigate regulatory and legislative approaches that would allow specified professional experience to substitute for a missing field class or other narrowly defined coursework; and (3) return to the board with specific proposal(s for rulemaking or draft language for legislative change. Staff also said they would seek to coordinate with professional groups such as the Association of Engineering Geologists and the Geological Society of America.

Board members and several commenters framed the issue as both a workforce and public-safety concern: Caltrans and local agencies rely on locally trained geologists for infrastructure safety and emergency response. Several public commenters urged expanded outreach to highlight geology as a career and to press universities and CSU leadership to reconsider program eliminations. The board and staff said they would continue outreach and return with options at a future meeting.

No vote or formal policy change was adopted during the April 3 discussion; the board's staff confirmed the March 18 letter had been sent and that staff would return with more detailed recommendations.