WATER DEMAND COMMITTEE
ITEM:		DISCUSSION ITEM
5.	REVIEW DISTRICT’S AUTHORITY TO INSPECT SITE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH DISTRICT PERMIT AND CONSERVATION LAWS
Meeting Date:			September 29, 2011	Budgeted:	N/A
From:			David J. Stoldt,	Program/	N/A
			General Manager	Line Item No.:
Prepared By:			Stephanie Pintar	Cost Estimate:	N/A
General Counsel Review: N/A
Committee Recommendation: N/A
CEQA Compliance: N/A

SUMMARY: Director Brower has requested the committee review the District’s authority to inspect all water fixtures when conducting an inspection for compliance with Water Permit conditions.

DISCUSSION: The methodology for determining Water Use Capacity (Rule 24-A-1-c) requires an inspection prior to processing a Water Permit:

Using Table 1: Residential Fixture Unit Count Values, the General Manager shall compare the pre-Project fixture unit count against the fixture unit count shown on the Construction Plans submitted with the Water Release Form and Water Permit application. Pre-Project Estimated Annual Water Use Capacity shall be verified by inspection.

Estimated Annual Water Use Capacity and the term “Estimated Annual Water Use Capacity Adjustment” are defined in Rule 11:

ESTIMATED ANNUAL WATER USE CAPACITY – “Estimated Annual Water Use Capacity” shall mean an amount of water projected to satisfy the maximum annual water demand for a specific type of use.

ESTIMATED ANNUAL WATER USE CAPACITY ADJUSTMENT – “Estimated Annual

Water Use Capacity Adjustment” shall mean the final calculation of Estimated Annual

Water Use Capacity that occurs following a final inspection for a Water Permit.

District Regulation XI speaks to the District’s authority to conduct these inspections and Rule 23 specifies the procedure for enforcement:

Following Project completion, a final inspection of the Project shall be conducted by the District. If the completed Project varies from the permitted project, application for an amended Water Permit is required. When the completed Project has fewer fixture units than the number permitted (Residential Water Permits), or has a smaller Water Use Capacity than permitted (Non-Residential Water Permits), the Applicant shall not be required to secure the signature of the authorized official of the applicable Jurisdiction on the Water Release Form.

Notice by the District to correct any discrepancy shall be provided on the inspection report to the Person contacted at the Site and by regular mail to the owner of record. Notice of violations that may result in a debit to a Jurisdiction’s Allocation shall also be mailed, faxed or emailed to the Jurisdiction. Such notice shall include a date by which any corrections and amendments shall be made. Thereafter, the General Manager may adjust the charge and debit the water from a Jurisdiction’s Allocation or cause a refund of Connection Charges paid and water previously debited from an Allocation to reflect the Project as built rather than the Project as permitted.

Inspections are routinely done by Water Demand Committee staff to verify compliance with Water Permit Conditions and Water Conservation requirements. It has been the District’s practice since 1987 to visit all Bathrooms on a Site to verify compliance with the Conservation Regulation. Beginning in 1992, District staff began documenting all water fixtures on a Site to facilitate implementation of the Water Allocation Program, as amended by the Water Allocation Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in 1990. When the Paralta Well began producing water in the California American Water Company system in 1993, water became available for New Construction and modifications to existing Connections.

The regulations in place at that time, and that continue to govern the Water Permit process, require an accurate accounting of all water fixtures on a Site to process a Water Permit. The process looks at the number of fixture units pre-project and post-project to determine if compliance with the Water Permit conditions have been met. Many Water Permits are conditioned on the installation of high water efficiency appliances. Installation of these devices must also be verified, and over time, this condition must be re-verified to ensure that replacement of an appliance did not result in a higher water use fixture. In addition, specific conservation requirements come into play, such as the requirement to retrofit all toilets, showerheads, and faucets on a Site when a bathroom is added.

District staff analyzed its inspections for August 2011 to determine the number of Sites that had added or removed water fixtures without benefit of a Water Permit amendment. Eleven percent of the Sites inspected in August 2011 were found to have water fixtures that required a Water Permit amendment. If staff did not revisit the entire Site to check for compliance after the pre-inspection, the water use capacity at the Site would not be accurately tracked as required by the Water Allocation EIR. Instead, there could be an increased use that would eventually be detected when the property transferred ownership at some future time. Meanwhile, the water savings that could have been achieved by permitting the added fixtures or by having the fixtures removed is not realized. Without an accurate post-project inspection, future property owners are potentially left with the hassle of correcting the violation.

At the June 18, 2010, Water Demand Committee meeting, the group was apprised of a problem that staff was having with bank owned properties. Staff reported on a situation that had developed due to the high rate of foreclosures. When a property is foreclosed, title is transferred to the foreclosing bank. This transfer of ownership prompts staff to conduct an inspection. Often these inspections uncover unpermitted fixtures that the bank, as the new owner, is responsible to remove or replace. The banks have refused to bring the properties into compliance. The District files a notice of non-compliance on the property, and when it is eventually purchased, the new owner becomes responsible to replace or remove unpermitted fixtures. The committee discussed the situation and directed staff to continue to file notices of non-compliance per District regulations.

In the case of the foreclosed property, the future buyer of that property becomes liable for any violations. Recently, a District employee purchased a property that had an unpermitted Bathroom. The water fixtures had to be permanently removed, as there was insufficient credit available to issue a Water Permit. This is an expense that would not be foreseen without an accurate and thorough inspection.

In another case, a person inquired about a remodel project that increased the number of water fixtures on a Site. The property owner was struggling to find a way to do their project under the current permit regulations. A thorough inspection conducted years ago and with a previous owner provided documentation of several water fixtures that had been removed without contacting the District. The fact that this information was documented during a previous inspection provided the credit needed for the property owner to pursue the project.

RECOMMENDATION: The District has the authority to enforce its Rules and Regulations, including its permitting and conservation requirements. The current process has been successful at documenting water uses on a Site and tracking changes. Very few people are concerned about the inspection process and even fewer have refused to allow an inspector to conduct an inspection. The inspection is not time consuming (most take 15 minutes and the inspector arrives promptly at the appointed time), and the information gathered is important for tracking water conservation program savings which must be reported to state agencies such as the Public Utilities Commission and the California Urban Water Conservation Council. Staff recommends that no further action be taken.

IMPACT ON STAFF/RESOURCES: N/A

EXHIBIT

None

U:\staff\word\committees\waterdemand\2011\20110929\05\item5.docx