The Noyo Harbor District

EHD handling of a complaint about an open septic tank and faulty system was not done in a timely manner. Response (Environmental Health): Environmental Health cannot agree or disagree with this finding. The finding depends on what the Grand Jury considers timely. Many septic system repairs or septic system replacements for single family homes can be very involved and may take considerable time to complete. In difficult cases, the property owner must hire a private consultant. The consultant usually needs 30-60 days before they can schedule the work and another 20-30 days to prepare the report. EHD may need 10-20 days to review the report, visit the site, and prepare the permit. In addition, installing a replacement system should not be completed when the soil is wet during winter. Since most difficult sites have poor soils and most septic failures occur in the winter, most repair work is delayed until summer. Thus, those difficult cases may take a minimum of 4-6 months to finish even when the owner is cooperative. If the owner is uncooperative, EHD may need to intervene with legal action at any step in the process. If the owner does not submit a consultant’s report within the specified time period, EHD will take legal action. If the owner finally submits a report but delays obtaining the permit, EHD will take legal action. If the owner pays for the permit but delays hiring a contractor, EHD will take legal action. If a case requires legal action at some or all of these steps, the final outcome may be delayed for a year or more. If the case goes to court, it may take several additional months. Once a case is referred to legal counsel or the case goes to court, EHD has little control over the length of time to resolve the problem. Fortunately, these protracted cases are very uncommon. Utilizing the average of the last seven quarterly complaint reports submitted to the Board of Supervisors, reveals that 95% of sewage complaints are resolved within one year, 91% are resolved within 9 months, 82% are resolved within 6 months, and 65% are resolved within 3 months. EHD received an average of 105 septic system complaints a year in the past four years. 2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 70 The case investigated by the Grand Jury is not typical of most septic system complaints, as described above. The case involved a relatively simple replacement of a septic tank. EHD received the complaint on February 28, 2000. EHD investigated on March 3, 2000 and discovered that the top of the septic tank had broken across the middle and slipped into the tank. The tank was temporarily covered and was not leaking sewage onto the surface of the ground, so EHD allowed the owner to wait until summer to fix it when the soil was dry. When summer arrived it became apparent that the owner was not willing or able to complete a repair. In October 2000, the owner requested help from EHD to fix the septic tank because the owner had no money to fix it. The owner said if EHD ordered the house to be vacated, the owner and the owner’s children would have no place to go. EHD decided it would be better and quicker if we could find someone to help the owner rather than go through the courts to have the owner’s house vacated. We contacted the Community Development Commission (CDC) to see if they could offer low or no interest loans for home repairs to people with low incomes. CDC said they could probably help the owner. CDC received a bid to replace the tank in November 2000 and, apparently due to delays caused by the weather and the owner seeking a second bid, CDC was not able to complete the repair until four months later in March 2001. Fortunately, the mild weather conditions in March allowed the repair to be completed without any problem. Response ( Mendocino County Public Health Advisory Board (MCPHAB)): MCPHAB disagrees partially with this finding. When considering the totality of the circumstances, MCPHAB believes that the investigation of the complaint and immediate communications with the property owner were done in a timely manner. However, the complainant should have received a written communication regarding the status of his/her complaint in a more timely manner. Complaint resolution deadlines given to the property owner were not adequately enforced and the situation remained unresolved for approximately one year. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response presented by the EHD. In fact, the Board commends the Department for seeking alternative solutions in order to avoid the eviction of the residents. The Board also agrees that the complainant should have been kept informed of the status, as appropriate. a. On February 28, 2000 a problem was first reported to EHD, citing excessive fly and gnat populations and foul odors in the immediate neighborhood. Response (Environmental Health): EHD agrees with most of this finding. The complaint form alleges excessive flies but not gnats or odors. Response (MCPHAB): No separate response received. 2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 71 Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response presented by the EHD. b. March 3, 2000, EHD responded that the top of the tank had collapsed and nothing could be done until the rainy season ended. Response (Environmental Health): EHD agrees with this finding. After the EHD inspector determined that the tank did not pose a health or safety threat, the inspector allowed the owner to install a new tank when the soil conditions were drier and more favorable for installation. Response (MCPHAB): No separate response received. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response presented by the EHD. c. Two months later a complainant contacted EHD and was told that EHD had given the landowner deadlines for repairs. Response (Environmental Health): EHD cannot agree or disagree on what the complainant testified to the Grand Jury. A letter from EHD to the owner dated March 14, 2000 requests the owner to correct the situation before June 2000. Response (MCPHAB): No separate response received. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board was not given enough information to either agree or disagree with this finding. d. The complainant had to contact EHD to receive a response, no written response had been received. Response (Environmental Health): Environmental Health cannot agree or disagree on what the complainant testified to the Grand Jury. A written response dated August 9, 2000 was provided to the complainant. Response (MCPHAB): No separate response received. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response presented by the EHD. e. When nothing was done about the problem by the fall, the complainant again contacted EHD and was told that nothing could be done because the rainy season has started. Response (Environmental Health): EHD cannot agree or disagree on what the complainant testified to the Grand Jury. Response (MCPHAB): No separate response received. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response presented by the EHD. 2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 72 f. EHD reported to the Grand Jury that EHD action resolved the problem around April 12, 2001. Response (Environmental Health): EHD disagrees with this finding. The problem was resolved on March 23, 2001. Response (MCPHAB): No separate response received. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board disagrees with this finding based on the information presented by the EHD.

The EHD is addressing inadequacies in complaint processing with the implementation of the EHD complaint policy and procedures dated November 8, 2000, which responded to the audit committee “Audit Report on the Complaint Process” recommendations. Response (Environmental Health): EHD agrees with the first part of this finding. EHD strives to improve all aspects of EHD’s programs. EHD disagrees, in part, with the second part of this finding. The Grand Jury indicates that EHD complaint policies dated November 8, 2000 were implemented as a response to an audit committee’s report. The policies were modified and expanded to address a new standardized complaint form adopted by the County and to include recommendations from the 1998-1999 Grand Jury Report. The audit committee reviewed the policies and made recommendations to EHD. Response (MCPHAB): MCPHAB agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response presented by the EHD.

The November 8, 2000, policies have specific timelines for initiating investigation of a complaint, but there are no timelines for responding to complainants or timelines or guidelines for resolving problem situations. Response (Environmental Health): EHD disagrees, in part, with this finding. EHD does have guidelines for resolving problem situations. EHD has an enforcement manual dated 1983, which was updated in May 2001. Response (MCPHAB): MCPHAB agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board disagrees with this finding based on the information presented by the EHD.

The EHD Director acknowledged problems still exist with timely implementation of complaint processing and resolution because of inadequate staffing and lack of funds for a computer tracking system. Response (Environmental Health): EHD disagrees, in part, with this finding. The EHD director advised the Grand Jury that we inquired about a prepackaged system specific to EHD. We found the cost prohibitive and the 2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 73 system was not considered better than our existing system, which was working satisfactorily. In regards to the staffing shortage, EHD agrees with the finding. At the time of the Grand Jury interview, the EHD director testified to the Grand Jury that we were short two positions – one person accepted a position in Napa County and the other was on medical leave. The director also advised the Grand Jury that EHD was completing a workload assessment to determine needed staffing levels. At this time, EHD is trying to fill two new vacancies. Response (MCPHAB): MCPHAB agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board disagrees in part with this finding based on the information presented by the EHD.

The EHD and BOS responses to the 1998-99 Grand Jury report acknowledged that there were long-term unresolved complaints in the County. The EHD Director stated this year that long-term unresolved complaints still exist. Response (Environmental Health): EHD agrees with this finding. As noted in the introduction, EHD resolves 95% of septic system complaints within a year, thus 5% take longer than a year. The small percentage of unresolved complaints are usually tied up in court or delayed due to some other legal reason. Response (MCPHAB): MCPHAB agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding based on the information presented by the EHD.

Recommendations of the 1998-99 Grand Jury and the audit committee regarding communication, timely response, and resolution of complaints have not been implemented. Response (Environmental Health): EHD disagrees, in part, with this finding. EHD routinely advises complainants of the status of pending complaint investigations when appropriate. In addition, EHD notifies the complainant upon receipt of a complaint and upon final disposition. The receipt and final disposition notifications were adopted as policy in November 2000 which was just two months before the Grand Jury investigation. The recommendation regarding resolution of complaints appears to refer to the 98/99 Grand Jury