📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
Calaveras County Grand Jury
• 2004-2005
Calaveras Works and Human Services Agency
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 5 findings
F1
Page 23
There is a lack of consistency in the permit process for septic systems and there may be several reasons why a septic permit may not be granted initially. The process for the on- site inspection is as follows: The landowner contracts with an engineer and requests a permit from the Building Department for a profile inspection by a County onsite sewage inspector. Pursuant to the initial issuing of the inspection permit, the inspector and the engineer conduct a visual inspection of three holes dug on the property to check the strata, soil type, and sewage drainage abilities of the lot. The outcome of the inspection can be one of two scenarios: One - The inspector and the engineer agree that the lot can sustain a standard or engineered sewage system and they agree on the type of system. At this point, the installation portion of the Permit for Individual Sewage Disposal System is completed. The Onsite Sewage Disposal Site Investigation Report is completed by the inspector and placed in the County records. The engineer informs the landowner of the outcome. The landowner is then issued a final permit for a sewage disposal system; or Two - The County inspector determines and indicates on the Onsite Sewage Disposal Site Investigation Report that, “Conditions observed on the parcel do not appear to meet current County regulation for subsurface sewage disposal. Final determination should be provided by a private consultant based upon a more thorough investigation than provided by the department.” This report may be falsely interpreted to mean that the property will never be able to support a sewage disposal system and that the value of the land is adversely affected. The report, however, only states that more work needs to be done before a final determination can be made. A landowner has the option to further employ the septic engineer to do additional tests on the lot and perhaps design an engineered, or an experimental engineered, septic plan that may meet the County regulations. Some landowners do not wish to take on the expense of further 18 investigation, since there is a risk of the property not passing. Additionally, there may be higher costs incurred by the use of engineered or experimental septic systems. Each of these steps, including additional inspections by the Building Department, require further costs. It is often the builders that are financially able to continue the process in the hopes that the lot will eventually obtain a permit for an individual sewage disposal system. Landowners can be left with a devalued piece of property if they choose to walk away.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Page 24
The use of experimental engineered septic systems has become quite extensive in Calaveras County due to the rise in property values which encourages the development of sites that would not otherwise be buildable. The issuing of permits for individual sewage disposal systems is at the sole discretion of the Building Official.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Page 24
Although there are many experimental system manufacturers, one company based out-of-state has planted itself firmly in Calaveras County by setting up training classes locally and maintaining a well-orchestrated marketing campaign.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Page 24
It came to the attention of the Grand Jury that some staff members at the Building Department recommend specific septic engineers and installers. For example, without 19 any investigation or soil report, Building Department staff made statements that an engineered system would be mandatory in the Valley Springs area. The Building Official was made aware of this issue and stated that the staff would be instructed to end any such practice.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Page 25
At the time of the March 2005 interview with the Building Official, the Grand Jury was denied access to the Policies and Procedures Manual; therefore, we were unable to determine whether the Department adheres to their own policies and procedures.
No recommendations for this finding