# Do all states have Env. E PEs?



## meg (Dec 28, 2007)

I thought I heard that some states don't recognize the Env E PE. Is this true?

Thanks.


----------



## Desert Engineer (Dec 28, 2007)

California is a state that does not register environmental engineers.


----------



## Tark62 (Dec 28, 2007)

Desert Water said:


> California is a state that does not register environmental engineers.


California does not license Environmental Engineers, or offer the Environmental PE exam.

I don't think Alaska or Hawaii do either.


----------



## meg (Dec 28, 2007)

Tark62 said:


> California does not license Environmental Engineers, or offer the Environmental PE exam. I don't think Alaska or Hawaii do either.


So if you have an Env. PE and want to work in one of those states, do you have to take another PE exam to be considered a PE there?


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2007)

meg said:


> So if you have an Env. PE and want to work in one of those states, do you have to take another PE exam to be considered a PE there?


The issue comes down to what scope of services you are offering as a LICENSED Professional Engineer on a state-by-state basis. Most states license engineers by GENERAL licensure, meaning you are recognized as a Professional Engineer but your licensure does not call out your discipline (Civil, Mechanical, etc.). In the case of general licensure, each state has additional rules that cover practicing engineering within your area of competency. Other states, like California, license by specific discipline (e.g. Civil, Mechanical, Geotechnical, etc.) that require very specific examination requirements and ultimately have a very specific scope of services for which a person licensed in THAT discipline may sign/seal or certify as a professional engineer.

I am an environmental engineer by education and experience but opted to take the civil engineering exam for portability as well as credibility for doing work traditionally associated with civil engineering. Generally speaking, every state recognizes civil engineering and would most likely cover the scope of services offered by an environmental engineer, but I would point out that state rules vary and you would want to consult specific state rules before making any decisions.

Also, there is some good material and discussion in the Environmental Exam Prep Forum that may also be helpful.

Regards,

JR


----------



## Dleg (Dec 30, 2007)

^^ Check this big compilation of info from NCEES regarding different state's licensing requirements:

http://www.ncees.org/licensure/licensing_r.../survey_e.pdf#9

It certainly does appear that aside from California, Alaska, Hawaii, and Guam also do not license Environmental Engineers. However, I know for a fact that at least 2 environmental engineers are licensed in GU as enviros (I took my exam there, in fact), and I remember some conversations over on "the other board" last year where a few people said that CA licensed them by reciprocity as Civil Engineers, with the only requirement being that they had to take the CA seismic and surveying exams. I also think that I might have met a couple of enviro PEs from Hawaii, as well, who said they took the enviro exam as well, but maybe somewhere else first.

I think it's absurd that a few states/territories don't recognize the enviro exam. Must be some civils on their boards with their ... underwear all bunched up about civil tradition or something, or worried that they will somehow lose some of their business if an enviro PE shows up to compete with them. Which is extremely unlikely. But last I checked, only the enviro exam covers air pollution control and a few other enviro subjects such as solid waste, so I think it's pretty foolish that these few states don't recognize it, yet allow licensed civil (?) PEs to practice in areas of expertise they have not been tested in.

I suspect that it's only a matter of time before the remaining 4 states recognize enviro and offer the exam, especially with so much precedent having been set already in recognition by comity (or is it reciprocity?).


----------



## Desert Engineer (Dec 30, 2007)

Dleg,

From what I've heard, the reason we don't have env PEs, is that the Registered Environmental Health Specialists, "REHS", fill that position. Here is the link: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/occupations/Pages/REHS.aspx . It seems in CA, monitoring and compliance is done by a REHS, and design and engineering (or monitoring and compliance) can be done by a RCE.


----------



## Brianne (Jan 8, 2008)

In California we also have Registered Environmental Assessors (REA), a license without an examination that is based solely on experience and recommendations. There are two levels of REA (I (5 years) and II (8 years)) and an REA II can sign and stamp some environmental assessments just like a PE or a PG. It's a pain that I had to take the Civil PE, but I think it will be worth more in the long run. (If/when I pass of course)

I don't think I'll have to pursue the REA II because it's a much longer application, requires lengthier recommendations (including one from an agency), and won't give me any more power than the PE. But REA I can be required by some who follow AAI standards for Phase I work.


----------



## Dleg (Jan 8, 2008)

OK, so CA has REAs and PGs and REHSs and PEs (civil only). Which ones are authorized to design air emissions controls? Which ones are authorized to conduct air emissions testing? Just curious because I know the Env. Eng. PE exam covers those subjects, and I am farily certain the Civil - enviro/WR does not. I don't know about the other titles above, except that RG's don't know anything about air either.

Not trying to be a jerk, just trying to point out how shortsighted it is for a state (CA) to turn a blind eye to a branch of engineering that is NOT covered in whole by other branches.


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2008)

^^^ I was curious about the scope of practice for each of those licensed classifications as well. Do you have a link that spells out duties and responsibilties granted for each?

And Dleg .. don't be hatin' on me because I took the Civil PE exam.  I can run some pretty mean air emissions calcs !! 10940623:

JR


----------



## Desert Engineer (Jan 9, 2008)

I found some info on REAs in CA:

Here is the REA website:

http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/REA/index.cfm

I found this excerpt on the REA website:

The Registered Environmental Assessor Program advises Registered Environmental Assessor I (REA I) and Registered Environmental Assessor II (REA II) holders of the following:

Registration as an REA I or an REA II is not a substitute for licensure as a professional engineer or a professional geologist. The California Department of Consumer Affairs Board for Geologists and Geophysicists and the Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors are authorized to take disciplinary actions for the unlicensed practice of Geology or Engineering and acts of professional negligence, fraud, or other violations of statute. Should either board take actions against an REA I or REA II, the individual shall also be subject to a fact finding review by Registered Environmental Assessor Program staff and be subject to revocation of the REA registration.

I also found this letter from the RG board:

http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/REA/upload/joint.pdf


----------



## Dleg (Jan 9, 2008)

jregieng said:


> ^^^ I was curious about the scope of practice for each of those licensed classifications as well. Do you have a link that spells out duties and responsibilties granted for each?
> And Dleg .. don't be hatin' on me because I took the Civil PE exam.  I can run some pretty mean air emissions calcs !! 10940623:
> 
> JR


I'm just basing it on the exam specs published by NCEES.

I'm not trying to disparage anyone who has a civil PE, because I know there are plenty of people out there working in air with civil (or even ME) PEs, and it's all based on what you learn on the job and in school anyway. But from what I understand, the Civil PE exam(s) don't cover air pollution, while the Enviro exam does (among other things that are left uncovered), and it just seems foolish that the CA Board would let a gap in the testing like that exist.

Like I said, I'm not trying to be a jerk. I just want to point out something that doesn't make sense to me, and also personally affects me because I have an Enviro PE and would probably have to jump through hoops (of fire) to get a CA PE. Which I probably wouldn't, but you never know!


----------



## Dleg (Jan 9, 2008)

jregieng said:


> ^^^ I was curious about the scope of practice for each of those licensed classifications as well. Do you have a link that spells out duties and responsibilties granted for each?
> And Dleg .. don't be hatin' on me because I took the Civil PE exam.  I can run some pretty mean air emissions calcs !! 10940623:
> 
> JR


I'm just basing it on the exam specs published by NCEES.

I'm not trying to disparage anyone who has a civil PE, because I know there are plenty of people out there working in air with civil (or even ME) PEs, and it's all based on what you learn on the job and in school anyway. But from what I understand, the Civil PE exam(s) don't cover air pollution, while the Enviro exam does (among other things that are left uncovered), and it just seems foolish that the CA Board would let a gap in the testing like that exist.

Like I said, I'm not trying to be a jerk. I just want to point out something that doesn't make sense to me, and also personally affects me because I have an Enviro PE and would probably have to jump through hoops (of fire) to get a CA PE. Which I probably wouldn't, but you never know!


----------



## KnowledgeAcquirer (Jul 22, 2008)

jregieng said:


> The issue comes down to what scope of services you are offering as a LICENSED Professional Engineer on a state-by-state basis. Most states license engineers by GENERAL licensure, meaning you are recognized as a Professional Engineer but your licensure does not call out your discipline (Civil, Mechanical, etc.). In the case of general licensure, each state has additional rules that cover practicing engineering within your area of competency. Other states, like California, license by specific discipline (e.g. Civil, Mechanical, Geotechnical, etc.) that require very specific examination requirements and ultimately have a very specific scope of services for which a person licensed in THAT discipline may sign/seal or certify as a professional engineer.
> I am an environmental engineer by education and experience but opted to take the civil engineering exam for portability as well as credibility for doing work traditionally associated with civil engineering. Generally speaking, every state recognizes civil engineering and would most likely cover the scope of services offered by an environmental engineer, but I would point out that state rules vary and you would want to consult specific state rules before making any decisions.
> 
> Also, there is some good material and discussion in the Environmental Exam Prep Forum that may also be helpful.
> ...


----------



## Dleg (Jul 23, 2008)

^Sounds like HI is a lot like the Northern Marianas used to be. I had that problem, and just kept pestering the board and their legal counsel, and ultimately drafted up this 60-page (plus) "appeal" on their original decision to deny me the ability to take the exam (which was purely because my degree was ME, my supervising PEs were all CE, and I wanted to take the env. PE exam). After five years - no exageration - the licensing statue was finally amended, and the Board adopted as a policy the ability to allow testing and registration in all branches offered by NCEES. And thanks to that, I now have two additional initials after my name.

(actually I am not sure how much my "appeal" influenced that change, and how much was influence by a small number of other local engineers who were having simlar problems being licensed)

Anyway, I recommend that you and every other engineer having problems in HI (or even CA) just continue to hound the Board. The squeeky wheel does indeed sometimes get the grease.


----------



## KnowledgeAcquirer (Jul 25, 2008)

Dleg said:


> ^Sounds like HI is a lot like the Northern Marianas used to be. I had that problem, and just kept pestering the board and their legal counsel, and ultimately drafted up this 60-page (plus) "appeal" on their original decision to deny me the ability to take the exam (which was purely because my degree was ME, my supervising PEs were all CE, and I wanted to take the env. PE exam). After five years - no exageration - the licensing statue was finally amended, and the Board adopted as a policy the ability to allow testing and registration in all branches offered by NCEES. And thanks to that, I now have two additional initials after my name.
> (actually I am not sure how much my "appeal" influenced that change, and how much was influence by a small number of other local engineers who were having simlar problems being licensed)
> 
> Anyway, I recommend that you and every other engineer having problems in HI (or even CA) just continue to hound the Board. The squeeky wheel does indeed sometimes get the grease.


Thanks for the uplift  Between Mary and yourself I have recaptured some of my self-esteem.


----------



## heretic23 (Oct 29, 2021)

Dleg said:


> ^Sounds like HI is a lot like the Northern Marianas used to be. I had that problem, and just kept pestering the board and their legal counsel, and ultimately drafted up this 60-page (plus) "appeal" on their original decision to deny me the ability to take the exam (which was purely because my degree was ME, my supervising PEs were all CE, and I wanted to take the env. PE exam). After five years - no exageration - the licensing statue was finally amended, and the Board adopted as a policy the ability to allow testing and registration in all branches offered by NCEES. And thanks to that, I now have two additional initials after my name.
> 
> (actually I am not sure how much my "appeal" influenced that change, and how much was influence by a small number of other local engineers who were having simlar problems being licensed)
> 
> Anyway, I recommend that you and every other engineer having problems in HI (or even CA) just continue to hound the Board. The squeeky wheel does indeed sometimes get the grease.


I'm in California now but PE would just get me a raise a little bit. I could take Env PE in Virginia but not sure it's worth it. What are some other states that license near me?


----------



## Hockey Eng (Nov 5, 2021)

heretic23 said:


> I'm in California now but PE would just get me a raise a little bit. I could take Env PE in Virginia but not sure it's worth it. What are some other states that license near me?


I took my Enviro PE exam in Arizona and got licensed there. I'm applying for reciprocity as a Civil (WRE) in California, meaning I also have to pass the Seismic and Survey exams. This is the only way I've seen to do it. Actually I'm still waiting for approval to sit for those exams but I'm hopeful that my experience and references are sufficient to grant reciprocity. 

Pretty much every other state near California licenses Enviro PE's but it's meaningless in California unfortunately. Many people including myself have some strong opinions on that but it is what it is and despite some meager efforts, doesn't seem like it's going to change any time soon.


----------



## mattl (Nov 20, 2021)

Hockey Eng said:


> I took my Enviro PE exam in Arizona and got licensed there. I'm applying for reciprocity as a Civil (WRE) in California, meaning I also have to pass the Seismic and Survey exams. This is the only way I've seen to do it. Actually I'm still waiting for approval to sit for those exams but I'm hopeful that my experience and references are sufficient to grant reciprocity.
> 
> Pretty much every other state near California licenses Enviro PE's but it's meaningless in California unfortunately. Many people including myself have some strong opinions on that but it is what it is and despite some meager efforts, doesn't seem like it's going to change any time soon.


I'm not sure if it is in writing anywhere, but my understanding is it is standard practice in CA to accept the NCEES Env exam for Civil Licensure in CA. You do still have to take the additional CA tests for survey and seismic that are required for a Civil PE. So that being said, in 2021 Hawaii is the only state that does not recognize the Env NCEES test in regard to obtaining a PE license.


----------



## heretic23 (Dec 10, 2021)

If you take the CBT Environmental for another state (ie Virginia) the closest reciprocity state would be I assume Arizona. I was always told the Civil PE is more challenging especially from a Environmental background. Civil PE in California features seismic.


----------



## heretic23 (Dec 10, 2021)

heretic23 said:


> I'm in California now but PE would just get me a raise a little bit. I could take Env PE in Virginia but not sure it's worth it. What are some other states that license near me?


Nevermind. I answered my own question. Go for AZ license.


----------



## CAPLS (Dec 13, 2021)

mattl said:


> I'm not sure if it is in writing anywhere, but my understanding is it is standard practice in CA to accept the NCEES Env exam for Civil Licensure in CA. You do still have to take the additional CA tests for survey and seismic that are required for a Civil PE. So that being said, in 2021 Hawaii is the only state that does not recognize the Env NCEES test in regard to obtaining a PE license.


Accept the NCEES PE Env exam for those applying for Comity licensure in CA. Not acceptable for when applying for initial license in CA.


----------



## Hockey Eng (Dec 29, 2021)

heretic23 said:


> Nevermind. I answered my own question. Go for AZ license.


 
You can apply to take the Env. PE exam in any state. I'm not sure why Virginia specifically was an option. If you're in California, Arizona is fine, or Nevada or Oregon. You can take the exam in whatever state you're in so it doesn't really matter. 

The real problem is that your Environmental PE License is worthless in California. The only thing it's good for, as CAPLS notes above, is to apply for comity license as a Civil. If your background is in environmental engineering, then it stands to reason that the Civil PE exam will be much harder than then Environmental. So taking the Env. PE exam and then applying for comity as a Civil is kind of a 'workaround'. Either way you will also have to take the Seismic and Survey exams.


----------



## steel (Dec 30, 2021)

CAPLS said:


> Accept the NCEES PE Env exam for those applying for Comity licensure in CA. Not acceptable for when applying for initial license in CA.


This never made sense to me. 
If you take PE Environmental in Nevada, you're good enough to be a civil in California.
If you take PE Environmental in California, you're not good enough to be a civil in California.

The PE Environmental exam is the exact same whether you take it in Maine, Florida, Alaska, or California. So what's the difference?


----------



## CAPLS (Dec 30, 2021)

steelnole15 said:


> This never made sense to me.
> If you take PE Environmental in Nevada, you're good enough to be a civil in California.
> If you take PE Environmental in California, you're not good enough to be a civil in California.
> 
> The PE Environmental exam is the exact same whether you take it in Maine, Florida, Alaska, or California. So what's the difference?


One big difference is that the PE Environmental exam was never authorized by the California Board to be offered in California since California is discipline specific licensure state and there is no Environmental PE in California. That is not the only NCEES exam not authorized to be offered in California for the same reasons. Its understood the exam is the same regardless of where it is offered. It is about licensure, not exams.


----------



## steel (Dec 30, 2021)

CAPLS said:


> One big difference is that the PE Environmental exam was never authorized by the California Board to be offered in California since California is discipline specific licensure state and there is no Environmental PE in California. That is not the only NCEES exam not authorized to be offered in California for the same reasons. Its understood the exam is the same regardless of where it is offered. It is about licensure, not exams.


Thank you for the clarification. The obvious solution would be for California to recognize environmental engineering as a discipline. 

Just seems kind of backwards that someone can graduate with a Bachelor of Science in Environmental Engineering (from a Cal university), work 4 years as an Environmental Engineer (in California), but be told their exam doesn't exist in the state. 

Obviously I'm biased, as I am a structural engineer, but I always thought Civil, Environmental, and Structural should all have separate degrees, exams, and licenses.


----------



## Dleg (Jan 3, 2022)

I hate to see that this is still an issue. I wonder if AAEES has ever taken this up with CA? American Academy of Environmental Engineers and Scientists - they provide the additional "BCEE" board certification credential for enviros. I should check that out since I pay dues! 

At any rate, I am personally done with it. I got licensed as an Enviro in 3 states now and probably won't be looking to get licensed anywhere else.


----------



## CAPLS (Jan 4, 2022)

Its important to understand that the purpose for the boards and licensing in the first place is to protect the public. Not to protect the licensing community. Since CA is a discipline specific state, most everything typically involved in environmental engineering is covered by other licensed professionals (civil engineer, geologist, land surveyor, chemical engineer, mechanical engineer) and this is usually performed as a collaborative team on such projects. In fact those professionals are usually on the project anyways so there is no need for redundant or overlapping licenses. 

A few years ago, there was an effort to implement the Environmental Engineer license and it did not succeed primarily because it would had only been regulated as a title only (actual practice not regulated) and the definition of the practice would had been so narrowly defined that it wouldn't be worthwhile. There was no supporting evidence that the public is not being protected currently.


----------



## Hockey Eng (Jan 26, 2022)

CAPLS said:


> Its important to understand that the purpose for the boards and licensing in the first place is to protect the public. Not to protect the licensing community. Since CA is a discipline specific state, most everything typically involved in environmental engineering is covered by other licensed professionals (civil engineer, geologist, land surveyor, chemical engineer, mechanical engineer) and this is usually performed as a collaborative team on such projects. In fact those professionals are usually on the project anyways so there is no need for redundant or overlapping licenses.
> 
> A few years ago, there was an effort to implement the Environmental Engineer license and it did not succeed primarily because it would had only been regulated as a title only (actual practice not regulated) and the definition of the practice would had been so narrowly defined that it wouldn't be worthwhile. There was no supporting evidence that the public is not being protected currently.


With all due respect, as one of the most esteemed posters on this forum, this doesn't make sense to me. "We already have professional civil and mechanical engineer's, why even bother with Environmental PE's? Who cares, don't need 'em. (But we'll still offer an accredited Env. Eng. curriculum at state schools that essentially teaches to the exam)." In 21 years of California government and private consulting companies small and large, I've never encountered another M.E. on staff at a Civil/Environmental Engineering firm or agency. I don't understand the logic that more people who are verified experts on certain topics is a bad thing.

How does NOT licensing Environmental Engineers protect the public? So there's like, a limit to how much "protection" the public can and should get? "Yes, we've reached maximum public protection, we don't need any more, sorry Env's - you aren't needed here, try one of the other 48 states that for some reason haven't figured out what we have yet."

Let me ask you this: If an environmental engineer can apply for and typically be granted reciprocity as a CA Civil (after passing the CA specific exams), how can one say that the definition of the environmental practice would be so narrow as to not be worthwhile? 

Here's another example I can't get my head around. California has a "Qualified Industrial Stormwater Practitioner (QISP)" certification. To get this cert, you have to take a fairly tedious online course and pass a couple of not easy tests - OR, you can be a licensed PE in civil, industrial, mechanical, or chemical engineer and just self-certify that you know everything about being a QISP and BAM - you're good to go. Anyone actually checking that? Doubtful. Show me on the mechanical or industrial PE exams where hydrology, fate and transport, stormwater management, or microbiology are covered. I doubt those are covered in most civil exams, other than the water resource depth. Yet an Industrial Engineer PE with no background whatsoever can happily sign off on QISP documents, while an Environmental Engineer PE, trained specifically in all those topics, has to sit through another course and pass more exams.

Of course, no engineer who wasn't specifically an expert in industrial stormwater would EVER fraudulently self-certify and practice as a QISP. That's against the rules. It's just too bad there's no way we could make sure those self-certifying engineers actually did have the requisite background, like some kind of test or something. You know, to protect the public.

When I've looked into this overall subject in the past, everything I've come across seems to suggest it's political and more about lobbying by certain special interest groups that has kept the Enviro's locked out. I never saw anything from BPELSG "well we looked into it, and it wasn't worth the time". But I'm well out of the loop on that. Just my own experience cruising the web.

Please don't take this personal - as you can tell I'm pretty salty about this topic in general, but it has nothing to do with you of course. Your expertise and help on this board is definitely well regarded and most appreciated.


----------



## Hockey Eng (Jan 26, 2022)

Dleg said:


> I hate to see that this is still an issue. I wonder if AAEES has ever taken this up with CA? American Academy of Environmental Engineers and Scientists - they provide the additional "BCEE" board certification credential for enviros. I should check that out since I pay dues!
> 
> At any rate, I am personally done with it. I got licensed as an Enviro in 3 states now and probably won't be looking to get licensed anywhere else.


They probably have, but I think they've run into roadblocks from whatever other Engineering associations and political groups are in the state that for whatever reason DON'T want Enviro's to get stamps *cough* civils *cough*.

As I mentioned above - if you will grant an Env. Eng reciprocity as a Practice Civil, then logically you simply cannot argue against offering Env. Eng. as a Practice. The rest is just semantics. "Oh we haven't gotten around to 'recognizing' Environmental PE's yet." That's just indifference, not a valid argument.

There's more to it than "we already have enough engineers".

I'm with you - I've got my Env. PE in several states, but California still eludes me. Makes me wonder if it's even worth the trouble of getting it, since evidently my services aren't needed anyway. Just get a M.E. to stamp all my monitoring and remediation reports.


----------



## steel (Jan 27, 2022)

Hockey Eng said:


> When I've looked into this overall subject in the past, everything I've come across seems to suggest it's political and more about lobbying by certain special interest groups that has kept the Enviro's locked out.


Structural engineering has the same issues. You see collapses like the surfside condo collapse in Florida, and the pedestrian bridge in Florida several years ago, and still, special interest groups demand more "access" to professions and throw a fit at licensing exams. 

It's almost like other civil engineers feel like structural and environmental aren't actually part of civil engineering (they are and always will be).


----------



## steel (Jan 27, 2022)

CAPLS said:


> Since CA is a discipline specific state, most everything typically involved in environmental engineering is covered by other licensed professionals (civil engineer, geologist, land surveyor, chemical engineer, mechanical engineer) and this is usually performed as a collaborative team on such projects. In fact those professionals are usually on the project anyways so there is no need for redundant or overlapping licenses.


The one thing that also makes this statement confusing/false is structural engineering licensure.

California has a partial practice act for structural engineering. That means that certain structures designated as essential facilities must be designed by a structural engineer that has passed the 16-hour NCEES PE Structural exam (or the old SE I and SE II exams). But most everything typically involved in structural engineering is covered by other licensed professionals (civil engineer, geotechnical engineer, registered architect) and this is usually performed as a collaborative team on such projects.

So how is environmental engineering redundant, but structural engineering isn't? A PE who has passed the California seismic and surveying exams can design a structure just under the threshold for an SE-required seal, but adding 10 ft to the height requires an SE. Yet environmental engineering is just "meh, other people do it, it's fine."


----------



## CAPLS (Jan 27, 2022)

well this has turned into an interesting discussion...I'll try and respond to the salient posts separately


----------



## CAPLS (Jan 27, 2022)

Hockey Eng said:


> With all due respect, as one of the most esteemed posters on this forum, this doesn't make sense to me. "We already have professional civil and mechanical engineer's, why even bother with Environmental PE's? Who cares, don't need 'em. (But we'll still offer an accredited Env. Eng. curriculum at state schools that essentially teaches to the exam)." In 21 years of California government and private consulting companies small and large, I've never encountered another M.E. on staff at a Civil/Environmental Engineering firm or agency. I don't understand the logic that more people who are verified experts on certain topics is a bad thing.
> 
> How does NOT licensing Environmental Engineers protect the public? So there's like, a limit to how much "protection" the public can and should get? "Yes, we've reached maximum public protection, we don't need any more, sorry Env's - you aren't needed here, try one of the other 48 states that for some reason haven't figured out what we have yet."
> 
> ...


When I posted about the effort to add the Environmental Engineer license a few years, that effort was not made by the CA Board. It originated by a group that very openly stated the reason was to support a few members of their group who did not qualify by education or experience for existing engineer license(s) (primarily civil) and they simply wanted a PE so they could get a higher salary with their employer. There was no supporting testimony on how this would protect the public any better than the current licensed disciplines already do. The CA board was not opposed to adding an additional license...if it made sense. Since the group (and legislative author) only wanted to enact a title act, the CA Board felt this was not in the best interest of public protection because the Board had very little authority to enforce the actual practice in the case of title acts. When asked by the CA Board if they were interested in making this a practice act, the group declined saying that if they did, they would be forced to develop the definition in statute rather than it being a responsibility of the Board to define it in regulation. The CA Board evaluated the NCEES Environmental Engineer exam for possible use if this became law and found that after removing the overlap in testing between that exam and other NCEES and state exams, very little remained that could be considered true environmental content.

Reciprocity is not a correct term in these situations; Comity is. The former refers to granting a license solely based on an applicant holding a license somewhere else without any evaluation of the credentials. Many people, and boards, use the former term when it is more accurate to use the latter.

The QISP reference is an interesting one. When that was being proposed (maybe 8 years ago), the CA Board was not in favor of how that other state agency was framing the qualifications and voiced it more than once. But this agency was hellbent on establishing this program...likely because they envisioned it as another source of revenue...and it moved forward. The reason why there is an exemption for PEs in the final version is due to the CA Board's persistence as well as other professional groups.


----------



## CAPLS (Jan 27, 2022)

Hockey Eng said:


> They probably have, but I think they've run into roadblocks from whatever other Engineering associations and political groups are in the state that for whatever reason DON'T want Enviro's to get stamps *cough* civils *cough*.
> 
> As I mentioned above - if you will grant an Env. Eng reciprocity as a Practice Civil, then logically you simply cannot argue against offering Env. Eng. as a Practice. The rest is just semantics. "Oh we haven't gotten around to 'recognizing' Environmental PE's yet." That's just indifference, not a valid argument.
> 
> ...


The CA Board does participate in ABET visits as 'Board Observers' on an annual basis and that is ONLY when the educational program agrees to allow that. Suffice to say, there are several universities in CA which do not like representatives of the Board in attendance and while I can speculate as to why, I will not because it is only educated speculation.

Key point to this is...that while the CA Board recognizes ABET degrees as 'Board approved', an engineering degree is NOT required in CA. This is important to keep in mind when discussing the CA Board's views on education criteria.


----------



## steel (Jan 27, 2022)

CAPLS said:


> ...an engineering degree is NOT required in CA.


This is interesting. I was not aware that engineering degrees were not required for licensure in California. Professional licensure should require education, experience AND examination. Not just one or two of those.


----------



## CAPLS (Jan 27, 2022)

steelnole15 said:


> The one thing that also makes this statement confusing/false is structural engineering licensure.
> 
> California has a partial practice act for structural engineering. That means that certain structures designated as essential facilities must be designed by a structural engineer that has passed the 16-hour NCEES PE Structural exam (or the old SE I and SE II exams). But most everything typically involved in structural engineering is covered by other licensed professionals (civil engineer, geotechnical engineer, registered architect) and this is usually performed as a collaborative team on such projects.
> 
> So how is environmental engineering redundant, but structural engineering isn't? A PE who has passed the California seismic and surveying exams can design a structure just under the threshold for an SE-required seal, but adding 10 ft to the height requires an SE. Yet environmental engineering is just "meh, other people do it, it's fine."


This is an interesting tangent and one I wouldn't had expected in this line of posts. What a lot of people miss (and I'm not sure if its like this in other states or just CA) is that the reason or purpose behind the SE requirement is due to two other code sections in state law which are NOT part of the Business and Professions Code (like the PE Act) and were enacted under the premise of protecting the public.

I know you all don't want to keep hearing this, but that's the fact. So called "engineers" (and architects) were running around designing/building everything in CA long before licensing was enacted in 1929 and the original Civil Engineers Board was formed due to several very public disasters which killed many people. And PE's were licensed in other states prior to that.

Back to the original tangent...when those code sections were enacted, then that began a long battle over how to handle structural engineering because civil engineers were the ones licensed to perform that engineering. Long story short, the SE license was added as an additional authority to persons that held a CE license. And as explained, the majority of structural engineering in CA is performed by CEs with expertise in the structural sense. Just like the QISP discussion mentioned above, this was not the brainchild of the CA Board.


----------



## CAPLS (Jan 27, 2022)

steelnole15 said:


> This is interesting. I was not aware that engineering degrees were not required for licensure in California. Professional licensure should require education, experience AND examination. Not just one or two of those.


Try telling that to the other licensing jurisdictions (some VERY close to CA) who issue a PE license to those applicants who have NO actual work experience in engineering but TONS of education.

Realistically speaking, even though it is not a requirements, the majority of the engineer applicants in CA have an engineering degree because they are under the impression that it is required everywhere.


----------



## Hockey Eng (Jan 27, 2022)

CAPLS said:


> well this has turned into an interesting discussion...I'll try and respond to the salient posts separately


I admit I'm probably a bit more worked up about it than I should be.

That said your perspective and input is definitely appreciated. And thanks for the clarification on reciprocity vs. comity. I always wondered about that.


----------



## steel (Jan 27, 2022)

CAPLS said:


> Try telling that to the other licensing jurisdictions (some VERY close to CA) who issue a PE license to those applicants who have NO actual work experience in engineering but TONS of education.


"I may be wrong, but that other person is more wrong!" is a weird hill to die on. Just because someone does something wrong doesn't mean you should.



CAPLS said:


> Long story short, the SE license was added as an additional authority to persons that held a CE license.


The SE license is not an "additional" authority. It is a professional license that can and does stand on its own. It is possible, and done by some, to hold an SE license without a PE license. In full practice act states, such as Illinois, I imagine many structural engineers obtain only the SE license without getting the PE license first, since for structures the PE license is as useful as a bookmark.



CAPLS said:


> This is an interesting tangent and one I wouldn't had expected in this line of posts. What a lot of people miss (and I'm not sure if its like this in other states or just CA) is that the reason or purpose behind the SE requirement is due to two other code sections in state law which are NOT part of the Business and Professions Code (like the PE Act) and were enacted under the premise of protecting the public.


I'm saying that Environmental Engineering is exactly the same as Structural Engineering in that it needs to require a professional license that can be obtained from _adequate_ testing. One of the reasons for the SE license and the corresponding NCEES PE Structural exam is because the PE Civil: Structural exam does not adequately test structural engineers. You can see that same discrepancy when comparing the exam specifications for PE Civil: Water Resources & Environmental and PE Environmental. The obvious solution to this would be for all states to recognize the PE Environmental Examination and grant a PE license to those that pass the exam.


----------



## Edgy Cheesy Graphite PE (Jan 27, 2022)

This is an interesting conversation. I'm enjoying following along.
I will add: I respect how open @CAPLS is in discussing this.


----------



## CAPLS (Jan 28, 2022)

steelnole15 said:


> The SE license is not an "additional" authority. *It is a professional license that can and does stand on its own*. It is possible, and done by some, to hold an SE license without a PE license. In full practice act states, such as Illinois, I imagine many structural engineers obtain only the SE license without getting the PE license first, since for structures the PE license is as useful as a bookmark.


Not in all licensing jurisdictions. About 10 jurisdictions consider SE as "additional authority" requiring a PE (in some for or other first) while the majority of others mix in SE licenses with the generically issued PE licenses. And Illinois is simply an outlier. I'm not saying one form or other is better or worse. I'm just stating facts.

WHY an SE license is issued is generally more universally consistent than HOW an SE license is issued.


----------



## steel (Jan 28, 2022)

CAPLS said:


> Not in all licensing jurisdictions. About 10 jurisdictions consider SE as "additional authority" requiring a PE (in some for or other first) while the majority of others mix in SE licenses with the generically issued PE licenses. And Illinois is simply an outlier. I'm not saying one form or other is better or worse. I'm just stating facts.
> 
> WHY an SE license is issued is generally more universally consistent than HOW an SE license is issued.


You are correct. In states with no structural licensure regulation at all, passing the 16-hour exam would not get an examinee any license in that state. 

States that do not have a practice act, but do have a title or roster designation, would probably grant an examinee who passes the 16-hour exam an ordinary PE license the same as someone that passed the 8-hour exam.

But, my point was that states with practice acts, either full (Illinois/Hawaii) or partial (Georgia/Oklahoma as two examples) will grant you an SE License for passing the 16-hour exam _*regardless of whether you hold a PE license or not*_. 

Source: I sit on several professional/structural licensure committees.


----------



## CAPLS (Jan 28, 2022)

I believe we're pretty much saying similar things.


----------

