Workshop attendees identify homeowner awareness, subcontractor practices and enforcement gaps as root causes of 'no-call' excavation damage

Stakeholders at a California Underground Safety Board education and outreach workshop in Sacramento focused on why excavators fail to notify 811 before digging and cause underground infrastructure damage. The committee, utility operators, contractors and industry groups used a root‑cause analysis exercise and public input to identify actionable drivers of “no‑call” incidents.

The group concluded the strongest proximate causes are (1) homeowners and DIYers who lack awareness that 811 applies to their projects, (2) subcontractors who do not pull their own tickets and instead rely on existing marks or a prime contractor’s ticket, and (3) a breakdown in enforcement or communication of roles and responsibilities from general contractors to subcontractors. The workshop combined facilitated “5 Whys” sessions with public comments and operator data presentations to reach those findings.

Why it matters: failure to notify 811 can lead to service outages, hazardous releases and costly repairs. Utility representatives at the workshop said no‑call damages account for a substantial share of reported incidents; one presenter reported year‑to‑date damage notifications and utilities named high‑damage counties they are targeting for outreach. The board is charged by statute to coordinate education and outreach about safe excavation, and participants framed corrective steps as education, clearer role definitions, and targeted outreach rather than new rulemaking.

Workshop facilitators led participants through two detailed root‑cause analyses. For homeowners, the group noted repeated anecdotal themes: homeowners (and some small, informal contractors) do not see substructure, do not understand how utilities are delivered underground, and therefore do not appreciate how a shallow shovel or small project can strike a line. As one safety consultant, Mike Donlon, said, “there is you know, a lot of people don't even know 8 1 1 exists.” The board’s staff and industry panel agreed this points to a gap in visible, accessible public education that targets nonprofessional diggers.

For subcontractor behavior, the analysis found a different chain: subcontractors frequently do small scopes of work on a site and assume existing marks or a prime contractor’s ticket cover their activity. Panel members tied that assumption to time and cost pressures: crews from out of area incur hotel and equipment costs, and some choose to avoid the additional time and expense of creating a separate ticket. Participants also raised that subcontractors sometimes lack clarity about who is responsible for procuring and verifying positive responses on a per‑work scope basis; in the workshop’s framing, that ambiguity traces back to inconsistent enforcement of roles and responsibilities by general contractors.

Utility operators and trade groups presented their data and outreach practices. One presenter described 1,808 damage notifications year‑to‑date for their system and identified Santa Clara, Sacramento and Fresno among counties with higher counts. Pacific Gas and Electric Company representatives said roughly half of their damages in recent years involved an absent 811 notification, and that homeowners and unlicensed contractors make up a large share of no‑call incidents in their damage investigations. Michael Forrester of the California Regional Common Ground Alliance reported panels of subject matter experts are collecting more granular data to test these impressions.

Participants discussed existing education tools and gaps. The Common Ground Alliance’s free online excavator curriculum (English and Spanish) was highlighted as a resource; board staff noted their YouTube recordings, printed field guides, in‑person trainings and county‑level outreach. Staff emphasized accessibility challenges for audiences with limited internet access and recommended pairing digital materials with in‑person localized outreach. One utility noted that targeted, post‑damage outreach to the excavator and follow‑up training appears to reduce repeat incidents.

Decisions and next steps recorded at the workshop were procedural rather than regulatory: the committee and staff selected a subset of the workshop’s insights for deeper analysis; assigned industry panels “homework” to collect more granular data about no‑call incidents; and planned to use damage data to prioritize counties for focused outreach. The board will post recordings on the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety YouTube channel and expects future meetings, including an annual education and outreach meeting in September and the next board meeting in July.

What was not decided: there were no formal votes or ordinance changes at the session. Participants identified evidence gaps — notably the lack of centralized, standardized records of damages that occur when no 811 ticket was created — and several presenters asked the board to consider opportunities to standardize no‑call reporting so outreach can be better targeted.

The workshop closed with the committee restating its charge under state law and asking industry partners to develop materials and pilots that are accessible to homeowners and small contractors, and to refine mechanisms that ensure subcontractors and general contractors understand and document who holds responsibility for pulling tickets and checking positive responses.

Looking ahead, the board and industry panels said they will combine the insights and follow‑up data into targeted outreach and training, while exploring whether clearer, field‑friendly materials and more localized, proactive engagement can reduce the share of damages linked to failure to notify 811.