Bill Fuels Debate on Building Code

SACRAMENTO — Labor unions that last year helped put Democrats in charge of state government are waging a high-stakes battle with local government officials over legislation that could generate lucrative work for their members.

A bill by Assemblywoman Carole Migden (D-San Francisco), co-sponsored by labor groups, pits plumbers’ unions against local government on the question of who will update the state’s massive building code--which rules every aspect of home or commercial construction in California.

“Building officials throughout California are very concerned about this bill because it is not about good government--it represents a special interest’s efforts to buy public policy,” Signal Hill Mayor Pro Tem Edward H. Wilson wrote in a letter sent to legislators. “The integrity of the model code adoption process . . . must be maintained for the continued health and safety of our citizens.”

The conflict is at the heart of a debate over who should be empowered to write California’s code. Business and labor alike are closely watching this early test of the new governor’s response to top campaign contributors and his pledge to follow a politically moderate course.

California’s building codes, like those of other states, are so technical and complex that government has ceded the task of writing them to industry experts.

The 11 appointed members of the California Building Standards Commission currently select a new state code every three years from a handful of competing alternatives written by professional code writers who market their documents nationwide.

The board has spent much of the last year getting the advice of experts from about 60 public and private organizations--from Realtors and contractors to plumbers and electricians--as it considers proposals for 2000.

That process would be made moot by Migden’s bill.

Her legislation would specify which organizations can write the six separate sections of California’s building code. The fire and electric codes, for example, would be written by the National Fire Protection Assn. and the Western Fire Chiefs Assn.

The most contentious proposed change is that the two codes regulating plumbing and machinery such as heaters and air conditioners would be written by the International Assn. of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, the one group involved whose voting members include the workers with a financial stake in the codes.

In recent years the plumbing group has won the competition to write the state’s plumbing code. Migden’s legislation would weaken or remove the watchdog role the commission plays in ensuring that the code is fair.

Building officials say the greatest concern is that the code could require unnecessary and expensive construction if it is written by groups that could benefit financially from the added work.

Proponents of the legislation say that it is needed to minimize conflicts within the turgid and voluminous state rule book, and to provide stability in the building industry by assuring that the state will not periodically swap one code for another.

“This whole structure is to assure that a uniform set of standards [applies] throughout the state,” said Daniel L. Cardozo, a San Francisco attorney for the plumbers.

Critics say that the experts on the state Building Standards Commission are in the best position to determine what is right for the industry--not the legislators who received considerable campaign contributions from labor groups last year.

Plumbers’ unions gave about $1 million to state Democratic candidates last year, much of it to the party’s top contender, Gov. Gray Davis.

Migden, however, is sharply critical of the Building Standards Commission. She said trade groups have complained that it is not expert enough and have recommended that the Legislature determine who writes the codes.

“This is an issue that came to us from our friends in the trades,” she said in an interview. “In an ideal world, and I mean this with no disrespect to the commission, we [legislators] sometimes find it necessary to intervene. And there have been widespread complaints about inconsistencies.”

Members of the Building Standards Commission, who are appointed by the governor, declined to comment on the bill.

Sacramento observers say that the legislation is the kind that any new administration attracts from its biggest campaign supporters.

One reason in this case is that Davis has a dramatically different view of labor and business issues than did his predecessor, Republican Gov. Pete Wilson. But critics say that the bill looks like political payback.

Passage Likely

Within the Legislature, Migden’s bill is viewed privately as having so much political octane that its passage is all but certain.

Democrats have a comfortable majority in the Legislature and the one committee vote the bill has received so far broke along party lines. The losing Republicans said afterward that its ultimate approval by Davis is such a foregone conclusion that they are uncertain whether this is a battle worth waging.

“They have the power on their side all the way through the governor’s office,” said the committee’s ranking GOP member, Assemblyman George House (R-Hughson).

Davis has not taken a public position on the legislation and his staff has declined to comment on the matter before it reaches his desk.

Whatever the Legislature and the governor decide, the stakes are enormous.

The outcome could have national implications. Building material manufacturers, for example, could be forced to modify their products to meet California laws.

Whichever code writing organization is selected by California also stands to make millions of dollars in revenue from the decision, officials say.

The code writing organizations retain the copyright and keep the proceeds from sales of the volumes, which are essential references for building contractors and government inspectors throughout the state.

The winning code writers also sell their own seals of approval to building material manufacturers. The stickers are affixed to new bathtubs or air conditioners.

“If the plumbing in a building is composed of products which do not bear [plumbing group’s] logo, the building . . . may not pass inspection” in a timely manner, the plumbers organization warns in its literature.

Migden dismissed suggestions that codes written by trade groups who could profit by them present a conflict of interest, saying instead that the trade workers are experts. “They are the professionals that do the job,” she said.

But government building officials disagree. They cite the years-long debate in California about whether builders must use metal pipe, rather than cheaper plastic, for plumbing in new homes.

State code currently allows plastic pipe. But government officials say that California remains the only state in the country that still does not use it because of lawsuits filed by plumbing trade groups that say it is unhealthy for drinking water.

The state recently completed a court-ordered study that concluded there are no health risks posed by the use of plastic plumbing. The matter is still under review.

Building officials estimate metal pipes add as much as $1,000 to the cost of a new home, most of it from hourly labor charges that are not necessary for the easier installation of plastic pipe.

With about 150,000 new homes built in California each year, building officials say that single rule is worth about $130 million in construction work for plumbers. The stakes are even higher when commercial buildings are added.

Plumbing groups say that the cost difference is much less.

There is a similar dispute between trade groups and building officials about whether plastic or metal pipe is appropriate for natural gas lines in new home construction. California currently prohibits plastic for gas lines.

Heavy Lobbying

The high stakes attached to the bill were evident in the long lines of starched-shirt lobbyists who showed up recently to testify at the first hearing on the issue before the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development. More than a dozen labor groups that include some of the state’s biggest Democratic contributors powerfully reminded lawmakers of their support for the legislation by sending personal envoys to appear before the committee.

Lining up against it were city building inspectors, the League of California Cities, the American Institute of Architects and the California Building Industry Assn.

After 20 minutes of testimony, the bill passed the committee on a 7-4 vote, with all the Democrats in support and all the Republicans opposed.

The committee was only the latest forum for an acrimonious battle over the California building code that dates to 1991.

For decades previously, the code was amicably produced in a joint publication written by the plumbers organization and the International Conference of Building Officials.

Both organizations are major institutions with national and international offices that write building codes for governments around the world. Both of their memberships include government officials. But unlike the builders’ group, the plumbers group also includes union workers among its voting members.

Their joint publication was so widely accepted that it was written into state law as the mandated source for the state building code.

But in 1991, the two groups split. And in the first competitive code selection in years, the state Building Standards Commission adopted one written by the building officials--not the plumbers.

The plumbers sued and lost all the way to the state Supreme Court.

Now, they say Migden’s bill is necessary to restore the same kind of code writing monopoly that state law designated previously.

“This is a fundamental policy decision that should be made by the Legislature,” said Cardozo, the plumbers’ attorney.