Print this worksheet and use the example below as a reference to guide you through the process of finding DEQ answers for your customers: the DEQ Approval Worksheet.
Worked Example — Idaho
A completed worksheet to compare against. Citations point to where each answer lives.
State: Idaho Target market area: statewide
A. The basics
- Agency / division: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
- Governing rule: IDAPA 58.01.16, "Wastewater Rules." Plan review is in Section 400; pumping-station design standards are in Section 440; key definitions (including emergency storage) are in Section 010.
- Statute: Idaho Code § 39-118 — public wastewater systems must be designed to DEQ standards and approved by DEQ.
B. The approval path
- State approval required for lift stations — yes. Idaho's "Qualified Licensed Professional Engineer" (QLPE) program lets a PE approve some simple projects in DEQ's place, but a QLPE may not approve plans that include mechanical systems such as lift stations. So every lift station effectively routes through DEQ.
- Who submits: the design engineer. Plans and specifications must be stamped, signed, and dated by a professional engineer licensed in Idaho.
- Submittal package: PER (preliminary engineering report) / plans and specifications done by the engineering firm. For any project that includes a lift station or treatment works, an O&M manual must also be submitted and approved before startup.
- One step or two: plan-and-spec review and approval before construction; record (as-built) plans submitted to DEQ within 30 days of construction completion.
- Construction before approval: no — construction can't begin until DEQ approval is received.
C. Logistics
- Submittal method: online submittal through DEQ's engineering submittal system (confirmation email follows); hard copy can also go to the appropriate DEQ regional office, but expect a longer review.
- Fees: paid by the engineering firm, not us. Confirm the current DEQ fee schedule.
- Review timeline: DEQ works to a 42-day statutory review deadline for plans and specifications (Idaho Code § 39-118) and holds a 30-day internal review goal. Treat 42 days as the planning number.
- Reviewer contact: the DEQ regional office covering the project location (Boise, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho Falls, Lewiston, Pocatello, Twin Falls). Confirm the current reviewer for the target area.
D. Local layers
- Local role: public sewer lift stations go to state DEQ. Local public health districts handle onsite/septic systems, which is a different track — don't confuse the two.
- Other approvals: confirm building/electrical permits and any floodplain or county siting requirements locally.
E. Design standards that touch our spec
- Reliability — emergency pumping, storage, or proven reliability: Section 440.07.b requires protection against a power or pump failure. New lift stations (built after April 15, 2007) must have emergency pumping capability — met by two independent utility substations, a permanent or portable generator, or portable pumping equipment. For an existing station undergoing a material modification or expansion, that requirement can instead be satisfied by adequate emergency storage capacity, or by proving overall system reliability to DEQ's satisfaction. So there's more than one compliant path — see the DEQ Game Plan section below.
- Physical standards: wet well access at least 24 inches; equipment compartment isolated from the wet well; no cross-connection to any potable supply.
- O&M / startup: O&M manual required and approved before startup for lift-station projects.
- Unusual vs. our spec: flag anything in Section 440 that conflicts with the standard Overwatch configuration so the engineer designs to it up front.
F. The sales takeaway
Overwatch hook: because a lift station always goes through DEQ in Idaho on a 42-day clock, the firm's schedule risk lives in that review. We help them assemble a clean, code-compliant package and answer DEQ's questions, which protects the timeline.
Teaching note: notice which rows came from the code (agency, citation, who approves, design standards, review deadline) and which required confirming with the agency (fees, current reviewer, local permits). Expect that split for every state and never invent the logistics.
Worked Example — Utah (home state)
Use this in the walkthrough so trainees see a completed worksheet on familiar ground. Notice how different the shape is from Idaho even though both are "DEQ" states.
State: Utah Target market area: statewide (home base)
A. The basics
- Agency / division: Utah DEQ, Division of Water Quality (DWQ). Within DWQ, the Engineering Section runs Construction Plan Design Review and Permits and reviews municipal collection systems (where lift stations live), municipal treatment systems, large underground systems, and onsite.
- Governing rule: Utah Administrative Code R317. R317-3, "Design Requirements for Wastewater Collection, Treatment and Disposal Systems," is the design rule; R317-3-2 covers sewers and requires design calculations. General requirements and the construction-permit provision sit in R317-1.
- Statute: Utah Water Quality Act (Utah Code Title 19, Chapter 5), which gives the Water Quality Board its rulemaking authority.
B. The approval path
- State approval for lift stations: plans for municipal collection systems (lift stations included) are reviewed by DWQ's Engineering Section under R317-3. Whether a separate DWQ construction permit is triggered depends on the project — facilities may need a construction permit unless they discharge into a municipal sanitary sewer system. So a lift station feeding an existing municipal system can be handled differently than a standalone treatment facility. Confirm this trigger with DWQ for each project. This is the headline difference from Idaho, where every lift station routes through DEQ no matter what.
- Who submits: the design engineer. Plans and specs are prepared by a professional engineer licensed in Utah.
- Submittal package: engineering report, plans and specifications, and design calculations (R317-3-2 calls out hydraulic and basis-of-design calcs).
- One step or two: plan/design review, plus a construction permit where one is required. Utah construction permits do not expire once issued.
- Construction before approval: no — construction shouldn't begin until the required review/permit is in hand.
C. Logistics
- Submittal method: through DWQ's Engineering Section. A pre-design meeting with DEQ is available and is worth using on bigger or first-time projects.
- Fees: paid by the engineering firm, not us. Confirm the current DEQ fee schedule with DWQ.
- Review timeline: Utah does not publish a single hard statutory review clock for construction plan review the way Idaho's 42-day rule does; DEQ generally cites a 21–180 day window across permit types depending on complexity. Confirm the realistic plan-review time with the Engineering Section.
- Reviewer contact: DWQ Engineering Section — Ken Hoffman, kenhoffman@utah.gov, (385) 622-3002, for municipal collection systems. Verify this is current before relying on it.
D. Local layers
- Local role: for municipal collection systems it's primarily DWQ. Local health departments carry a defined role for onsite and large underground disposal systems — a different track, same as the Idaho split.
- Other approvals: confirm local building/electrical permits, plus any UPDES or stormwater permits if the project disturbs ground or discharges.
E. Design standards that touch our spec
- Emergency storage / reliability: design per R317-3; review the sewers and pumping provisions for storage, redundancy, and overflow protection.
- Design calculations: R317-3-2 requires submitted hydraulic and basis-of-design calcs — make sure the engineer's package includes them.
- Physical standards: follow R317-3 for materials, access, and separation from water lines.
- O&M / startup: confirm operating-permit or O&M expectations with DWQ for the project type.
- Unusual vs. our spec: flag any R317-3 item that conflicts with the standard Overwatch configuration.
F. The sales takeaway
Overwatch hook: in Utah the leverage is the construction-permit-vs-municipal-sewer question — getting that call right early decides whether the firm faces a permit at all and how long the schedule is. We help them frame the project correctly to DWQ and assemble a clean R317-3 package.
Idaho vs Utah — the contrast to teach
- Agency / division: Idaho — DEQ. Utah — DEQ, Division of Water Quality.
- Rule: Idaho — IDAPA 58.01.16. Utah — R317 (R317-3 design; R317-1 general).
- Lift station needs state approval? Idaho — always; a QLPE can't approve mechanical systems. Utah — reviewed by DWQ; a separate construction permit depends on the project.
- Hard review clock? Idaho — yes, 42-day statutory deadline. Utah — no single statutory clock; confirm per project.
- Who stamps: Idaho-licensed PE vs. Utah-licensed PE.
- Lift-station O&M manual before startup: Idaho — required. Utah — confirm per project type.
The lesson: same agency type, very different process. That's exactly why a rep researches each state instead of assuming the last one applies.
DEQ Game Plan — making the case for approval
"Selling the DEQ" doesn't mean dodging the rules. It means knowing that most rules give you more than one compliant path, then helping the engineering firm pick the path that's cheapest and fastest while still meeting the rule's intent — protecting public health and water. A reviewer's job is to say yes when the intent is met; your job is to make that yes easy and well-documented. Done right, this is the support that makes a firm spec Overwatch instead of treating it as a commodity pump.
Step 1 — find the "OR" in the rule
Idaho's reliability requirement is the model example. Section 440.07.b doesn't demand one fixed solution — it accepts emergency pumping capability (two independent utility substations, a generator, or portable pumping), or adequate emergency storage, or (for an existing station being modified) a demonstration of overall system reliability to DEQ. Each path has a different cost and footprint. If a site has no room or budget for storage volume, the reliability or standby-power route may be the better sell — and you're the one who points that out.
Step 2 — talk to DEQ before the design is locked
Use the early touchpoint every state offers: Idaho's regional office, Utah's pre-design meeting. Ask the reviewer which path they prefer to see and what evidence convinces them. A reviewer who has agreed to the approach in a pre-design conversation rarely fights it at formal review. This is where the 42-day clock either runs clean or restarts on a rejection.
Step 3 — hand them an evidence package, not a promise
Whatever path the firm chooses, back it with documentation a reviewer can sign off on: redundancy and standby-power details, alarm and telemetry specs, pump performance and design calcs, and an O&M plan showing response times. For a reliability argument especially, the case is only as strong as the proof that the system won't overflow before someone responds.
Step 4 — position it to the firm as risk and schedule relief
Tie it back to what the firm cares about: "We'll help you build the reliability case so you can right-size or skip the emergency-storage volume and still clear DEQ on the first pass." That's time, cost, and schedule certainty — the reasons to choose Overwatch.
Keep it straight with DEQ. Use the paths the code allows and document them honestly. Overstating reliability or misrepresenting a design to win an approval burns the firm, the project, and our standing with that reviewer on every future deal. The durable advantage is being the partner DEQ trusts, not the one who games them.