Nevermind. I answered my own question. Go for AZ license.
Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:
CAPLS
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
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.
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.
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
Well-known member
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.
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
Well-known member
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.
Last edited:
Hockey Eng
Well-known member
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.
Last edited:
steel
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
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."
Last edited:
CAPLS
Well-known member
well this has turned into an interesting discussion...I'll try and respond to the salient posts separately
CAPLS
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
"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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
