Senate committee approves bill letting utility contractors work within 5 feet of buildings amid safety and permit questions

Senator Logan told the Business and Insurance Committee that Senate Bill 1949 updates the plumbing‑license law to allow utility contractors to perform work on mainline utilities up to within five feet of buildings without a plumber present. "This clarifies in the law that the work utility contractors already do can be done with a without a plumber present," Logan said at the committee meeting.

The bill’s advocates argued the change formalizes existing practice, speeds rural projects and reduces cost by avoiding the need to subcontract licensed plumbers in every instance. An industry witness, Jason Bullard of the National Utility Contractors Association, told the committee his organization supports the targeted exemption: "My name is Jason Bullard and I represent the, National Utility Contractors Association," he said, and explained that utility contractors currently maintain DEQ Class D licensing, continuing education and standard bonds.

Lawmakers pressed the author and witnesses on several operational and safety questions. Senator Brooks asked whether the bill would require utility contractors to pull municipal permits and who would be liable if a private property owner later discovered a defect. The committee received a range of answers: supporters said the bill “does not broadly deregulate the plumbing work and plumbing law” and that municipalities could remain more stringent by ordinance; witnesses said utility contractors would still need DEQ licensing and bonds and, under current practice, often retain a licensed plumber to pull permits where required.

Opponents and some members emphasized unresolved points on cross‑connection prevention, backflow protection, the details of apprenticeship/training requirements, and how liability would be allocated where both a utility contractor and a private plumber had worked on a private line. Senator Guthrie pressed for clarity about which tasks remain within the plumbing contractor’s scope and which would be allowed under the utility‑contractor exemption; Logan and witnesses acknowledged some operational details were set by local practice and could be clarified in statute or local ordinance.

Supporters argued the bill would reduce delays in rural areas where licensed plumbers are scarce and where having two separate crews can slow restoration of service. At least one witness and several committee members said the DEQ licensing and two‑year bond requirement would mitigate risk.

The committee voted to pass SB 1949 by a recorded tally of 8 ayes and 2 nays; the chair declared the bill passed in committee. The author said the language had been tightened to limit the exemption to specific, existing mainline work and tied to bonding and licensing requirements. The committee also agreed to bring up any further technical refinements as amendments if needed.

Next steps: SB 1949 will move forward from committee to the next stage in the legislative process, where members indicated they may propose clarifying language on permits, training and liability allocation.