[ca-gw] S.F. makes unusual push to undo graywater codes

Tue Oct 27 07:05:04 PDT 2009

Steve.

I look at it as an educational opportunity rather than a war. 

Golden Love

Love's Gardens

"Your neighborhood solar-powered gardener"  (TM)

California Licensed Contractor C27 363672

127 National St.

Santa Cruz, CA 95060-6516

Phone  (831) 471-9100

Fax  ( 831) 471-9200

goldenlove at lovesgardens.com

www.lovesgardens.com

  _____  

From: ca-standard-bounces at graywater.org
[mailto:ca-standard-bounces at graywater.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bilson
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 8:45 AM
To: 'Oasis Design'; ca-standard at graywater.org
Cc: kzito at sfchronicle.com; 'Randy Leach'
Subject: Re: [ca-gw] S.F. makes unusual push to undo graywater codes

Art -

You're totally over-thinking these sporadic actions to restrict the state
code.

It isn't about health and safety.  It's about people with power trying to
prove they're smarter than everyone else when those same people don't have a
freakin clue about what they're talking about.

Until those people are educated, and accept their education, or are removed
from the picture due to incompetence, this war to promote safe water
conservation will go on and on and on and..

Steve 

From: ca-standard-bounces at graywater.org
[mailto:ca-standard-bounces at graywater.org] On Behalf Of Oasis Design
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 10:27 PM
To: ca-standard at graywater.org
Cc: kzito at sfchronicle.com; Randy Leach
Subject: Re: [ca-gw] S.F. makes unusual push to undo graywater codes

Dear All...

Looks like the list has had a busy week while I was gone. Glad to hear that
SF is thinking twice; seems like action spurred on and by this listserv may
have played a substantial role.

A further thought on registration/ permitting follows, below.

...if we want to see continued use and  acceptance of gray water systems
statewide  we should all be willing to have some sort of local over site
(government or private) in dealing with poor design and lack of education of
how a properly designed gray water system should work.

The trick is to attain this objective in reality.

>From a marketing book I read long ago:

The Law of Reality

Reality is not what you wish it to be, or what it appears to be, but what it
actually is.

Colliary to the Law of Reality

If you do not recognize reality, it will automatically work against you.

Every scenario I've heard put forward thus far for permitting/ registering
basic systems aims high...and, in my opinion, would miss the target almost
completely.

Oasis Design, perhaps more than any greywater actor in the world, has had a
grandstand view of both sides of the greywater reality divide.

(We have written codes professionally for regulators, been in daily contact
with thousands of greywater users of all stripes over a nearly twenty year
period, and in close contact with manufacturers and academics as well.)

The key points to understand:

There is essentially ZERO leverage on homeowners for enticing them to get
permits or registration, public or private. We couldn't get Santa Barbarans
to get permits even by giving them away.

So, this form of oversight--in reality--only pertains to professional
installations (and installations where the inspector is on site for another
purpose and can't be dodged conveniently).

Professionals have incentives to make better basic systems with or without
permits. In reality, it is almost inconceivable that any kind of
professional--landscaper, plumber, contractor--would make worse
installations than the unsupported homeowner installations they displace.

However, requiring that professionals get permits on behalf of homeowners
will drastically reduce the number of clients they serve, in many cases
below the threshold where it makes sense for them to deal with greywater
systems at all. (This is because homeowners will elect to make the systems
themselves to avoid an inspection or registration. An unfortunate legacy of
California's past approach to greywater regulation is deep mistrust of
permitted greywater anything, and a deeply ingrained habit of bootlegging
basic greywater systems).

The result would be to continue the situation we have now; 1.7 million
surface discharge greywater systems built by homeowners without government
or professional guidance.

It is hard to imagine a scenario that conforms less to the stated objectives
of people expressing concern about the adequacy of greywater standards.

Opponents of realistic greywater regulation have been startlingly
indifferent to the stark reality that regulation of greywater in California
appears to have hurt more than helped the situation on the ground.

This indifference is most likely because:

1) In reality, despite the worst case scenario, these systems seem to be
causing almost no problems

2) These installations are not the liability of regulators

Given point 1), conserving scarce oversight resources by not registering or
permitting greywater systems makes double sense; first, permits suppress
professional installations, second, it has proven almost impossible to hurt
oneself or anyone else with greywater (again, I'm talking about reality; I
realize that in theory it is possible that it could cause all sorts of
problems, it's just that in 1,000,000,000 system user years of exposure
these problems have not reached the detectability threshold.)

I believe that the true issue is #2: officially allowing systems that meet
standards without a permit or registration feels like it shifts liability
for existing systems closer to regulators.

While requiring registration would provide some responsibility relief ("that
system was one of the 99% unregistered systems, it's not our fault"), it
would do so at the expense of shutting licensed professionals out of the
business of improving greywater systems.

If your jurisdiction simply can't live without registration, again, I'd
point to our suggested approach for tracking greywater systems when there is
already regulatory oversight of a property for some other purpose. It aims
somewhat lower, but I think it would actually hit the target:

http://www.oasisdesign.net/greywater/law/california/currentcode/#notificatio
n

Respectfully,

Art Ludwig

From: Enright, Michael [mailto:MEnright at srcity.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 8:16 AM
To: James Johnson
Cc: bcmhorse at sonic.net; danielg at beesmartsoftware.com;
drew at drewunderground.com; dust2460 at sonic.net;
ezickler at sherwoodengineers.com; funciano at sonic.net;
jasonroberts53 at gmail.com; jeanclifford at paris.com; Burke, Jennifer; Jim
Soules; jock.smith at co.marin.ca.us; jburroughs at sonomacity.org;
jkagan at ci.cotati.ca.us; joe5alarm at hotmail.com; Keith at sjla.com; Marc Talloen;
Michelle Julene; treinen at sonic.net; Murray, Susie; nick.ely at asm.ca.gov;
nickj at comcast.net; pammyding at gmail.com; ppiazza at Townofwindsor.com; Rebecca
Valentine; Regalia, Chuck; richandwanda at sbcglobal.net; RON at WYATTSUPPLY.COM;
serinac at matala.com.tw; sharina at kw.com; Steve Bilson; info at nodrips.com; Terry
Macute; Tracey Fitzgerald; Jacobi, Veronica; velmer at berkeley.edu; Wiles
Edison; atozen at netzero.net; Allan Darrimon; Allen R Martin; Allen, Blair;
aschutte at hansonbridgett.com; Amy.Bolten at scwa.ca.gov;
alriley at waterboards.ca.gov; oasis at oasisdesign.net; wwilson at carlilemacy.com;
Bob Herr; iws at sonic.net; Bob Swift; brock at oaec.org;
bsarte at sherwoodengineers.com; cameliagp at hotmail.com;
Carrie.Cornwell at SEN.CA.GOV; Carrie Muller; kl at map-ca.com;
singingwater at jps.net; ctoms at swampthing.org; cliffrt at msn.com; Constance
Stavros; conservation at ci.petaluma.ca.us; dspriggs at ci.petaluma.ca.us;
iamhollowreed at yahoo.com; Lane, Debra; DeWayne Starnes;
DVilalta at co.riverside.ca.us; Douglas.Messenger at scwa.ca.gov;
Info at Ushydrotech.com; Ellen Bicheler; Elsa Frick; emoody at pacesupply.com;
etokerud at pacesupply.com; gary at crosbybuilt.com; GeofS at Codding.com;
gtchobanoglous at ucdavis.edu; glenn at ascendinnovations.com;
Glenn.Takeoka at cdph.ca.gov; Golden Love; grant.davis at scwa.ca.gov; Hocheder,
Jason; hlinn at rsacivil.com; irvin at sonic.net; Mackenzie, Jake; James Johnson;
jennyb01 at wLLw.net; xplorbeauty at earthlink.net; jim at weeksdrilling.com; Jim
Tyler; John Haig; Jon Tracy; josiah at designecology.com;
JBernardo at solanocounty.com; junem99 at sonic.net; justin at ccdeh.com;
kgrady at waterboards.ca.gov; kcecil at Lescure-engineers.com;
kirstiem at codding.com; kit at septicguy.com; Koldis, Steve;
lfarwell at earthlink.net; Lisa Owens-Viani; Mark Millan; mcay at sonic.net;
mgorman at agclawfirm.com; MichaelB at wallacegroup.us; Whitaker, Michael;
mmcintyre at pcl.org; 4mischa at comcast.net; Ng, Rebecca; nbeety at netzero.net;
precisionbackhoe at comcast.net; Pete Parkinson; Fulkerson, Peter;
phaase at fallcreekengineering.com; plescure at lescure-engineers.com; Randy
Leach; Reed, Charles; sec-richard at vom.com; richard at summit-sr.com;
rdusenbury at sherwoodengineers.com; Rounds, Zachary (CDPH-DDWEM);
sandrob at stanford.edu; sminick at sfwater.org; McNeil, Sean;
sfarr at sherwoodengineers.com; Shepherd, Heather; Short, John;
ted_walker at comcast.net; tschmidtbauer at solanocounty.com;
tisha.simpson at asm.ca.gov; Tom Banning; rayneofsonoma at sbcglobal.net;
tford at co.riverside.ca.us; trathen at daily-acts.org; Walter Kruse;
yphillips at comcast.net

Subject: S.F. makes unusual push to undo graywater codes

>From today's Chronicle.  City of San Francisco proposing to require permits
for even the clothes washer / single fixture systems.

 <mailto:kzito at sfchronicle.com>  Kelly Zito, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

  _____  

Despite its image as a wellspring of eco-friendly practices such as a
mandatory composting program and the use of alternative energy, San
Francisco is seeking to brand-new state codes that make it easier for
homeowners to recycle water from their clothes washers and showers to
irrigate lawns and trees.

When enacted in August as part of an emergency response to California's
water crisis, the graywater codes drew praise from environmentalists, water
managers and others who say do-it-yourself "laundry to landscaping" systems
could reduce a typical household's water consumption by thousands of gallons
a year.

Because the California Department of Housing and Community Development codes
also eliminated the need for permits for basic graywater systems, it also
meant potential cost savings of thousands.

San Francisco, however, is the first municipality in the state to try to
undo those rules by requiring homeowners to submit detailed plans and to
obtain construction permits - the red tape in place before the state's
August change that some observers say stifled broader graywater adoption.

The city's Building Inspection Commission is scheduled to vote on the code
changes at its regular meeting today; if approved, the measure would head to
the Board of Supervisors.

Graywater proponents, who have recently barraged the commission and Mayor
Gavin Newsom with letters lambasting the code change, say the proposal
represents a curious step backward for a city known for embracing all manner
of greenness.

"It's a big mistake," said Laura Allen, co-founder of Greywater Action, a
10-year-old Oakland group that has advised homeowners on reusing water.

Others worry that cities across California will follow San Francisco's lead.

"If San Francisco is the most environmentally progressive city in the state
and they're going to restrict a brand-new law, people may think, 'Why don't
we do that in Bakersfield?' " said Elizabeth Dougherty, director of
WhollyH20, a water reuse information Web site in San Francisco.

But San Francisco's top plumbing inspector, who proposed the code change,
said the state's regulations open the door to poorly designed systems,
faulty installation, and the risk of water contamination and erosion. What's
more, he said the permit costs only $160 and covers two inspections - before
and after installation.

"I don't care about what they're doing in other cities or in other states,"
said Steven Panelli. "I don't want these systems done incorrectly. These
systems have to be inspected."

The simplest graywater systems route water from showers, bathroom sinks and
washing machines to outdoor use for flowers, lawns and even fruit trees.
Under the old state codes, California property owners essentially had to
install costly leach fields and apply for permits - driving the total for a
graywater project as high as $10,000.

The new regulations allow property owners to set up systems for as little as
$200.

To ensure public safety, the state codes stipulated that water cannot
stagnate, run into a neighbor's yard or directly touch fruits or vegetables.
Pipes must also be several inches underground or under mulch.

Most experts agree that water conservation, capturing storm water and
recycling are important tactics toward stretching California's water supply
at a time of ongoing drought, widespread water rationing, a booming
population and climate change.

By some estimates, there are already more than 1 million graywater systems
at work in California, but virtually all of them without permits.

In rewriting state codes, state officials hoped to provide guidelines for
new and existing systems.

"We'd like the codes to be consistent throughout the state," said Doug
Hensel, deputy director of codes and standards for the Department of Housing
and Community Development. "But cities can modify the codes we adopt. Each
jurisdiction knows what works better in their area."

Meeting

What: The San Francisco Building Inspection Commission will consider a
graywater ordinance that would require homeowners to get permits and hire
contractors to install systems that help conserve water.

When: 2 p.m. today

Where: Room 416, City Hall, San Francisco.

E-mail Kelly Zito at kzito at sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page A - 8 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Read more:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/21/MNF31A8ATN.DTL#i
xzz0UaEoxU7D

-- 

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-
Art Ludwig
Oasis Design
Ecological Design publishing & consulting

Santa Barbara, CA

Fax: 805 967-3229  Phone: 967-9956

http://www.oasisdesign.net       
-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.graywater.org/pipermail/ca-standard/attachments/20091027/bc0420bd/attachment.html 