DBI, SFPUC propose graywater pilot; commissioners ask for more outreach and technical redrafting

Vivian Day, Director of the Department of Building Inspection, and SFPUC staff proposed a pilot program to allow closed‑washer graywater systems in single‑family homes to be installed without a full DBI permit provided the system does not require cutting into existing plumbing and meets specified conditions. The pilot would include free courtesy plan reviews and inspections paid by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) for a limited period to collect data and evaluate safety and performance.

The pilot is intended to support water‑conservation targets adopted at the state level and by the PUC. Bart Broom of the SFPUC said the agency helped push the state legislation and described the proposed local framework as an effort to “allow the installation of simple greywater systems without a permit” while gathering data. Broom told the commission the PUC is prepared to fund inspections for a limited time and that staff are considering a sample of roughly 100–150 systems to document installations and any problems.

DBI Chief Plumbing Inspector Steve Panelli emphasized the department’s priority on public health and tracking systems that could cause neighborhood problems. Panelli warned that some installations could create stagnant water or runoff in steep, densely built parts of the city and said DBI wants a way to track and, if necessary, inspect systems that later prompt complaints. He explained the pilot’s conditions: closed‑washer systems that route washer discharge through a 3‑way valve to landscape (without permanent piping modification) would be eligible for the no‑permit pilot; single‑fixture systems that cut into plumbing would continue to require plan review.

Public comment included a range of views. Environmental and water‑conservation advocates urged easier installations to curb sewage overflows and conserve water: Owen O’Donnell of Baykeeper said the city needs to “fast track this” to reduce flows into the sewer system. Clean Water Action policy analyst Jennifer Clary said the proposal “is not a mature proposal yet” and urged further stakeholder involvement. Practitioners training installers warned that requiring permits for simple laundry‑to‑landscape hookups will push installations underground and out of reach of city guidance; Laura Allen of Greywater Action said people are already installing these systems and that permitting could deter outreach and education.

Commissioners raised technical and program questions: how to monitor systems on steep slopes, how to label systems on change of ownership, whether multi‑unit buildings should be included, and whether the PUC reimbursement arrangement should be documented. Mike Mitchell, senior plumbing inspector, noted why DBI excluded two‑unit buildings from the unloaded single‑fixture provision because combined fixture units can produce large volumes of graywater and cause neighbor impacts.

After debate, Commissioner Lee moved to continue the graywater item for redrafting, additional Code Advisory Committee review, and outreach to stakeholders so that DBI and the PUC can return with more detailed standards, outreach plans and the terms of interdepartmental work orders. Commissioner Levitt seconded and the motion carried on a voice vote. DBI staff will return with revised language, outreach results and details about the PUC cost‑sharing arrangement.