Appeal Process Softens Blow of Water Rationing : Drought: Many districts offer a break from mandatory cutbacks for good reasons. But a brown lawn shows the spirit of sacrifice.

Anticipating his infant son’s next rite of passage--his first steps--a father called the San Francisco Water Department in the middle of the drought last year to request more water. He wanted to replace his concrete back yard with green grass so his son would “have something soft to fall on.”

His appeal, as persuasive as it sounded, was rejected.

“We needed to cut outdoor irrigation by 60%,” said Cheryl Davis, manager for the Water Department. “It’s well known that green grass is a form of vegetation that requires a lot of water for upkeep.”

In San Francisco, where residents and businesses must reduce water use by 10%, and in other parched regions of California where mandatory rationing is a mainstay, the reasons for appeals abound. Surprisingly, only a fraction of requests are flatly rejected.

Of nearly a dozen California water districts surveyed that impose limits on water use, most reported granting the majority of appeals from customers who had legitimate reasons for their excesses. Nearly all handle such requests through a formal process that takes anywhere from three days to two weeks.

Jim Cofer, general manager of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, has heard hundreds, perhaps thousands, of excuses. His customers have little choice; if they use too much water, they are summoned before a panel of their peers. If they cannot justify their consumption, they are fined.

“We’ve heard every excuse there is,” he said. “Generally, people come in and say, ‘We’ve done everything we can. There’s nothing more we can do.’ ”

Among the most common accepted explanations for higher water use are leaky pipes, unexpected visitors or a growing family. Keeping a garden green or sidewalks clean rarely lets a customer off the hook.

“A brown lawn projects a good public image,” said Jerry Koenig, a rationing program manager in Monterey.

Excuses offered for excessive water use range from the ordinary to the outrageous, such as the Monterey man who pleaded for more water to irrigate his personal golf course.

Water districts such as Cofer’s are likely to lift most penalties or fines if users can show receipts, repair bills or birth certificates to back up their stories.

Well represented in that crowd are small business owners, most of them “mom and pop stores that have tried, but can’t cut back,” he said.

Although methods of curbing water use varies among water districts, the appeals processes, where they exist, are similar. Complaints are filed by mail or phone to a water conservation office. The appeals are usually reviewed by a group of conservation officials.

Punishment for violators--or for those who fail to file a successful appeal--can range from fines that often reach thousands of dollars to water bills that are double, triple or even 10 times higher than usual.

In San Luis Obispo, a central California community that has tried to slash water consumption by 35% from its 1987 level since last summer, appeals are channeled through a three-tiered system.

A written request is first filed with the city’s department of water conservation, where it is reviewed by two staff members. If rejected, a face-to-face meeting with a three-member allocation and adjustment board is arranged. If that does not work, a customer can appeal to the city administrator. Most of the 300 monthly appeals never make it that far.

The appeals process in Mariposa, compared to San Luis Obispo’s, is simpler--and stricter. Starting next month, residential customers in this small town 40 miles west of Yosemite National Park will be limited to 100 gallons a day for the first family member, 50 gallons for each additional member.

When users exceed their water allotment, they will be fined $25 for the first violation and $50 for the next one. The third infraction will bring an automatic water shut-off.

“There are no exemptions,” said Susie McGregor, a water treatment official with the Mariposa Public Utility District. “No complaints. If you have a problem, you can talk to the general manager.”

Although other water districts are considerably less rigid, they hit customers more forcefully where it hurts: in the checkbook. If families in the city of Ventura go over their 294-gallon-a-day allowance, their water bill shoots up. A first offense quadruples charges for the extra water used, as does a second infraction. The third consecutive violation lands a bill 10 times higher than usual in the mailbox.

Customers may appeal to the water superintendent and, if that does not work, to the city manager. As of last April, when the rationing started, the district received 4,167 adjustment claims. Of those, 3,510 were granted; 81 were appealed.

“Most people have valid reasons for a higher water bill,” said Carol Green, assistant to the city manager.

But even tried and true grievance procedures show potential for error.

Take the case of Glenn and Lorraine Hillebrand, who returned to their Santa Barbara home from a vacation last October and found a water bill for $1,030.36.

“Our lawn was as dry as toast,” said Glenn Hillebrand. “I just can’t imagine how this could have happened.”

Neither could the city. A repairman arrived within two hours to search for leaks, but to no avail. So Hillebrand wrote a letter to the city staff protesting the bill.

Six weeks later, still waiting for a reply, he called the city and was told that his appeal had been rejected. Hillebrand made an appointment with the water commission.

“They were most sympathetic,” he said. “But they said their hands were tied. They couldn’t do anything unless there was a leak.”

The commission voted 3-1 to defer the decision to the City Council. The family is still waiting, wondering what happened to 55,000 gallons of water they say they never used.