After a review of the proposal, discussion, and follow-up comments related to a new ""V"" horizon I tend to agree that recognition of these special horizons warrants a new master designation. This conclusion is based on the need for:
1) a more expressive set of designations for surface horizons
2) a simple way to communicate vesicular horizons
My recommendation is weighted more by a perceived need to communicate unique soil features than by any meaningful field experience in arid regions. That said, I appreciate Joe Chiaretti's (and other's) concerns about a tendency to inflate our lexicon of horizon designation-- this is a real concern that should not be understated.
On the topic of updating OSDs, NASIS, etc.: this is largely a non-issue in regards to a new master V horizon. There are so many pending updates, corrections, and additions to these databases that one more (minor) change isn't going to gum-up the works. If anything, this is a timely reminder that 1) we should not be constrained by the systems we create (within reason), and, 2) we (NRCS) needs to put our thinking caps on and face the (some would argue exciting) task of taming our databases.
