Lawmakers debate shifting septic permitting from local health units to plumbing board; installers warn of lost capacity

Senate Bill 2267, which would change who oversees on‑site wastewater treatment (septic) permitting, licensing and inspections, drew lengthy testimony from installers, public health officials and the State Plumbing Board.

Sponsor and supporters

Senator Meerdahl introduced the bill as an effort to address inconsistent local practices and to create a uniform, state‑level structure of standards and appeals. Several licensed installers and industry representatives urged lawmakers to centralize standards, citing uneven county practices, delays and the loss of contractors.

Installer testimony

- Terry Novak, a licensed septic installer and pumper, said the industry is losing contractors because “we need an even playing field” and cited variance fees and inconsistent local responses as reasons some contractors stop offering septic work.

- Bruce Ellingson (Nodawra) said the prior technical committee that attempted a statewide uniform code did not finish its work and told senators the industry needs stable, timely inspections and common standards to preserve a skilled workforce. He said some public health units perform well but others do not, and that inconsistent local practices push contractors away.

Public health and plumbing board testimony (opposition/concern)

- Brenda Stallman (local public health) and Erin Arata (Western Plains Public Health) told the committee that removing local public‑health oversight would disrupt a functioning local inspection and permitting system and reduce protection for drinking water and public health. Arata said her unit covered multiple counties and performed 112 system inspections in 2024, a workload she estimated at roughly 950 hours of staff time.

- Scott Samuelson, plumbing inspector for the State Plumbing Board, opposed the bill on practical grounds: the plumbing board does not currently staff septic inspections, lacks inspectors trained in soil evaluation and drain‑field design, and the board’s current budgetary resources are limited. Samuelson said prior fiscal work estimated a biennial cost in the low millions to create a state inspection operation; he noted the plumbing board’s 2024–25 budget of $848,235 and said the board lacks trained septic inspectors.

Points of disagreement and clarifications

- Supporters argued for a single statewide code and licensure that would reduce local variation and provide consistent appeals/standards. Sponsors noted the plumbing code historically covered on‑site systems but administrative practice and local arrangements shifted responsibility to public health.

- Opponents said local public health units have local soil and watershed knowledge and that travel distances and immediate, timely inspections are best handled locally; they stressed the modest fee income from permitting does not fund a statewide program and that counties subsidize much of the work.

Committee context and next steps

Committee members asked about the plumbing board’s fiscal estimate (the board cited a fiscal note in the millions); supporters said many costs are already borne by county and local permit fees and argued the plumbing board could operate without general fund appropriation because some licensing fees already exist. Public health units urged any change be done via a cooperative, well‑resourced state plan, not a sudden transfer of duties.

Ending

No final committee action was taken. Committee members indicated they would continue to weigh options, including a statewide code overseen by DEQ with inspections done locally under memoranda of understanding, or other hybrid solutions that preserve local inspector capacity while providing consistent statewide standards.