2026-27 Wastewater Operator Certification Program fee schedule draft for public comment
Comment From:
Garrett Gobin
5/02/25 @ 10:34 AM
The ecology Op Cert program is inefficient and negatively impacting operator growth in Washington state. Average turnaround time for an application is 90-120 days, sometimes even 180 days. Fees have increased exponentially, but service is poor. Email...↓s and phone calls often go unanswered. It's difficult to have empathy and understanding for the Op Cert team when we feel excluded mailing in a paper application and waiting months with no response. My job description states that I must be an OIT within 6 months of hire and full certification within one year after that. This is impossible to uphold due to the lengthy turnaround time and an archaic paper application process. I cannot sign an affidavit until I've met the experience requirement, but then I must wait another 4-6 months to hear back? I then stay at a lower grade even though I've passed my test and fulfilled the requirements defined by Washington state legislature. Held back by ecology. Why can't we submit for multiple certifications on one application? (Group 1 upgrade and Group 2 OIT) Why is it a separate fee every time we submit? The Washington state department of health allows their operators to submit up to 3 certifications on the same application for a single fee, it is all done online. Why can't ecology join the year 2025 and do the same? It could be as easy as a carbon copy. Same state. Same goals. I do not support increasing fees without a publicly expressed promise and timeline for an overhaul that both reduces the workload on the Op Cert team and benefits operators with transparency and efficiency. If we are facing an operator shortage and increased permit stringencies in Washington state, why are we not investing in training and creating competent operators? The Op Cert program is the doorway and it's currently broken.↓
The proposed fee schedule looks fair/equitable. Nice to see no increases.
No attachments
Comment From:
Caleb Granados
3/27/25 @ 7:08 AM
I am fine with the fees increasing for obvious reasons of cost of doing business. Although I would like to see the process adapt with not having to send in a physical check and instead have EBT or credit card be used instead. As well as paperless fil...↓ing and submittal of renewal/upgrades to represent the increased cost in billing. This would significantly absorb the burden of any fees increased without complaint.↓
With all the incoming new taxes being implemented by our out of control State government, I think it is unethical to raise our certification fees! We are already being rung out and left to dry with all the existing fees and taxes statewide. Cut...↓ government spending, cut the fat and make people show up to work and be productive. That will open up funds for good use. Some of use don't make 100k a year and have families to feed and support! Our state just seems like they want to make it harder!↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Anonymous
Anonymous
3/26/25 @ 10:53 AM
The price of bureaucracy. I was at a conference recently and an Ecology representative who shall remain nameless gave a talk and said their department was growing, but in the same talk said 20-30% of the Operators were retiring or otherwise going by...↓e-bye. How does that work?
In a bit of good news, Ecology has been hindered in implementing their PSGNP.↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Kathlene Fagan
3/26/25 @ 10:39 AM
As an operator that is planning on retiring within 5 years, along with a lot of colleagues, a fee increase will deter future operator interest. I'm not sure Ecology realizes, but there is and will continue to be a shortage of qualified persons' to f...↓ill upcoming vacant operator positions.
Perhaps, instead of increasing fees, focus on promoting the wastewater industy. More people interested and becoming operators can add more revenue.↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Ed Griffenberg
3/26/25 @ 10:25 AM
Washington has a shortage of certified operators. Finding ways to keep operators engaged with the profession after retirement seems like a good idea to me. Having a reduced fee for retired wastewater operators should be reviewed and implemented. The ...↓$200 fee is a bit high for most retired folks to keep their license current. This cost is added to any fees required to obtain the necessary CEUs per year. Please look into this option in the future.↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Eric Gocke
3/26/25 @ 10:14 AM
I am a Water Treatment Plant Operator for the City of Chelan and my job requires that I have a Waste Water 1. I don't work in any part of sewer and I am not going to transfer from water to waste water, I like working with clean water. A $200 renewal ...↓fee for people not even doing any waste water work is a bit high. I understand for people in waste water at level 2 or 3 paying this price, but it seems a bit excessive for non-sewer employees. Maybe come up with a fee structure for the different levels, starting at OIT through level 4. Just a thought.↓
No attachments
Comment From:
Shawn Avilla
3/26/25 @ 9:45 AM
With how long it takes for application approvals, I think you need to lower application fees.
No attachments
Comment From:
Matt Mottle
3/26/25 @ 9:45 AM
I would be fine with the fees going up if it meant we got responses in a more timely manner. Waiting to hear back 3-4 months on an application seems extensive. Raise the prices and higher more help!
No attachments
Thank you for subscribing to the 2026-27 Wastewater Operator Certification Program fee schedule draft for public comment mailing list.
