[post_thumbnail]Rep. Brandon Hixon listens to testimony in the House Business Committee.

Will plumbers in Idaho soon be prohibited from performing tasks that they have previously done? And will property owners soon discover that they are being forced to hire a “licensed plumber,” even if they’re capable of taking care of their own plumbing needs?

“That is not the way I read the bill,” Rep. John Rusche, D-Lewiston, told IdahoReporter.com. “There are exceptions written into this bill that allow for sufficient flexibilities for property owners.”

“I initially thought that I would vote in favor of this,” Rep. Gayle Batt, R-Wilder, noted to Steve Keys, from the Idaho Department of Building Safety, who testified in favor of the bill. “It appears at first glance that the bill allows for exceptions for privately owned property, yet reading it in greater detail it appears you’ve created an exception within the exception, and you’re seeking to restrict private business owners from performing certain plumbing tasks, even if they are quite capable of doing so.”

“You could interpret it that way,” Keys replied. “From our vantage point, this is a public safety issue. What you do in your own house potentially puts you and your family at risk, but what you do in a place of business potentially puts other people at risk.”

Keys presented House Bill 27 to members of the House Business Committee Thursday. The bill seeks to restrict the scope of work that can be performed by unlicensed, so-called “construction plumbers,” and it even proposes to eliminate that category of plumber altogether. Instead of allowing these individuals to perform “alterations, extensions, repairs and new construction,” the bill would restrict unlicensed plumbers to only doing “repairs and replacements.”

“Are we trying to remedy an actual problem?” Rep. Vito Barbieri, R-Dalton Gardens, asked Keys. “Has there been some sort of cataclysmic accident with an unlicensed plumber?”

Keys referenced to “an incident” involving an unlicensed plumber, and work that was done on commercial business property.

“Why are we seeking this licensure requirement if you can only account for one problematic incident with an unlicensed plumber?” asked Batt.

“Traditionally it has been the case that unlicensed plumbers only do maintenance work,” Keys replied.

Rep. Brandon Hixon, R-Caldwell, asked Keys what the consequences would be for somebody who was caught violating the law for performing certain types of plumbing tasks without a license.

Keys noted that such violations full under the misdemeanor category, and can also be subject to civil penalties.

“I think I see what they’re (Department of Building Safety) trying to do here,” said Rep. Joe Palmer, R-Meridian. “They’re just trying to clarify things and make things easier for owners of buildings. They’re drawing a line in the sand, and the sand is movin’ around.”

A majority of the committee members voted to send HB 27 to the full House for a vote, with Batt and Barbieri voting “no.”

“We should not be crafting new bills based on one single incident of a problem,” Batt told IdahoReporter.com after the hearing. “I support licensed plumbers, and I have worked with them to support many of their issues. But this bill places an unnecessary restriction on private business property owners.”

Join the discussion


About The Author


  1. I am opposed to occupational licensing. It is expensive, time consuming, destruction of freedom, fraught with corruption to reduce competition, and doesn’t serve the public. Also it is another ineffective bureaucracy. There are just as many crooks with licenses as there are without licenses.

  2. First of all if someone had done there do diligence they would have found that this simply was a way to set limits on unlicensed people. We in the plumbing industry have given away our trade. If someone wants to be a plumber do what we all has had to do go to school for four years, on the job as an apprentice for four years then take a written exam to be come a journeyman plumber, then after 2.5 years as a journeyman then test to become a master plumber.
    We are charged with the health of the nation, if we were to allow unlicensed people to perform the same task as licensed plumbers, what cross connection may occur from this. Then and only then would someone revisit the license issue, by then it would be too late. So I agree with this bill…..

  3. Seems like every politician has to have his own piece of restrictive regulation further prohibiting free enterprise. Hey politician how about trying to figure out how to do more with less. Less government always means more prosperity for we the consumer. Smaller government,fewer gov. agencies, means lower taxes, less spending and more prosperity in the private sector.

  4. As far as I’m concerned there is no such thing as a unlicensed plumber. You have either a handyman doing plumbing or you have a licensed plumber. I’m aware of the problems that exist that has caused this bill to be written. Far to many times handymen or maintenance men have taken a shot at dong plumbing work and through lack of training and experience have caused problems with plumbing systems. This bill does allow for a home owner to do what he wants with his own plumbing as long as it is done by code.

Comments are closed.