Committee Backs Extending Supervision Window for On-Site Wastewater Inspectors to Ease Workforce Bottlenecks

Senate Local Government Committee · January 29, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

SB 6,291 would allow non-certified local health jurisdiction staff to perform on-site wastewater reviews under BRPELS-certified supervision for up to four years instead of the current two. Local health officials said the change helps workforce stability given the exam schedule and costs.

The committee heard a staff briefing and testimony on Senate Bill 6,291, which would allow a local board of health to permit non-certified employees to review designs and inspect on-site wastewater treatment systems under the supervision of a Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors (BRPELS)-certified individual for up to four years following hire, an increase from the current two-year limit.

Jacob Ewing, staff to the committee, said the change responds to workforce capacity issues in local health jurisdictions charged with wastewater-system oversight. Jamie Bodden of the State Association of Local Public Health Officials explained that the current two-year window, combined with a certification exam offered twice a year and a one-year experience prerequisite, often leaves staff with effectively a single attempt to secure certification. Extending the window to four years would allow multiple exam attempts and reduce forced turnover.

Erin Hockaday of the Benton-Franklin Health District said the exam can carry a high public cost when employees are forced out because of timing or travel expenses — she cited an illustrative figure of about $6,500 per failed exam attempt when travel and staff time are considered — and that the extension supports workforce stability without removing supervisory requirements.

Supporters called the bill small and budget-neutral; the committee did not record opposition in the hearing but allowed further questions and written follow-ups.