Geologists; regulation, licensure, penalty.
HB1835 revises Virginia’s regulation of geologists by converting the existing certification framework into a licensure framework for professional geologists. The bill amends definitions, updates the Board for Professional Soil Scientists, Wetland Professionals, and Geologists, and sets out who may call themselves a Virginia licensed professional geologist. It preserves the ability of people to practice geology without a license in some circumstances, but bars anyone from representing themselves as a licensed professional geologist unless they have been licensed by the Board.
The bill establishes minimum qualifications for licensure, including ethical character, specified education in geology or related fields, at least seven years of geological work, and passage of a Board-approved exam. It also allows the Board to waive the exam for applicants with 12 years of qualifying experience or comparable out-of-state credentials. Existing certificate holders as of July 1, 2025 are grandfathered into licensure, and the bill makes unauthorized representation as a licensed professional geologist a Class 1 misdemeanor. The Board must also adopt a professional ethics code and may suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew a license for fraud, ethics violations, gross negligence, misconduct, or certain felony convictions.
In addition to changing the title and status of geologists from certified to licensed, the bill updates board membership and quorum rules and requires the Board to promulgate implementing regulations within 280 days. It also clarifies that the article does not interfere with other licensed professions, supervised geology work, or the practice of geology by those already certified before the effective date.
The overall sentiment appears strongly favorable. The bill moved through subcommittee, committee, and floor votes with large margins in both chambers, indicating broad bipartisan support for formalizing and strengthening professional standards for geologists. The only notable resistance appears limited, as reflected by a small number of negative votes in the House.
The main point of contention is the shift from a voluntary certification model to a mandatory licensure model for anyone holding themselves out as a professional geologist, along with the new criminal penalty for misrepresentation. Some concern may also exist around grandfathering, exam waivers, and the scope of the Board’s disciplinary authority, but the vote history suggests these issues did not prevent passage.
The bill amends Title 54.1 provisions governing the Board for Professional Soil Scientists, Wetland Professionals, and Geologists and changes the legal status of professional geologists from certification to licensure. It updates statutory definitions, board composition, qualification standards, renewal rules, ethics requirements, disciplinary authority, and enforcement provisions, while grandfathering prior certificate holders and preserving certain exemptions for supervised practice and other professions. It also requires the Board to adopt implementing regulations within 280 days, affecting both the Board’s administrative duties and the practice rights of geologists in Virginia.
The bill’s legislative history shows broad support and little opposition. It passed a House subcommittee unanimously, advanced from committee with only two no votes, and passed the House and Senate by wide margins. That pattern suggests lawmakers generally viewed the measure as a technical but meaningful professional regulation update rather than a controversial policy change.
The primary substantive issue is whether Virginia should move from a certification system to a licensure system for geologists, which increases the regulatory significance of the credential and makes misrepresentation a misdemeanor. Related concerns include the grandfathering of existing certificate holders, the Board’s authority to waive exams or discipline licensees, and whether the new requirements could affect access to practice for experienced but nonlicensed professionals. The limited number of negative votes indicates these concerns were present but not strong enough to derail the bill.