Paul Duffau

A primary source of roof leaks doesn't actually invovle the roof covering but the flashing. Unfortunately, flashing is one of the easiest items on the roof to incorrectly install. It's not that the parts are that complex - they're not. The manufacturers have made them easy to install. And, properly installed, the flashing is nearly leak-proof when installed on a simple roof.

However, there are very few simple roofs. Examples of simple roofs are dog houses and small outdoor sheds. Rarely will you find a plumbing vent stack, chimney, fan vent, valley, side wall projecting above the roof, etc. on a dog house. Most of these are common on a typical home.

The easiest way to think of flashings is to consider them the transition from the roofing materials (shingles, for example) and projections (i.e, a chimney.) Many people expect roofs to perform for a minimum of 15 to 20 years. Some roofs can be expected to last 50 to 80 years. This means that the materials which are used for flashings must have the same, or greater, life span as the roofing material itself. Copper, tin coated steel, lead and galvanized steel are examples of traditional flashing materials.

Contrary to popular opinion, we do have pest issues in areas like Pullman and Moscow. Our primary invader is the carpenter ant. The problem that is starting to develop is that while we have a slew licensed inspectors in the area (and the number is growing), only two of us are still licensed as pest inspectors.

The Washington State Standards of Practice for home inspectors is pretty clear. We are required to report any conducive conditions to pest infestation and wood destroying fungus and, if not also licensed as a Structural Pest Inspector, refer our clients to an SPI if we suspect insect damage.

One of the realities of the marketplace is that home inspectors market to Realtors rather than directly to clients. I have my doubts that the referral will consistently take place. There is a great deal of resistence to pest inspections in this area. There is an ecomonic incentive to try to avoid messy areas like termites and carpenter ants and, of course, the liability involved inherent to a pest inspection.

I've elected to keep my pest licensed. I don't make much additional revenue from it but it does leave me in a better position to serve my clients. Fortunately for me, the Realtors that I work with want a good solid inspection and will work with and help their clients when they get the report.

One of the very neat things about living in the southeast part of Washington State is that the weather is truly unique compared to the western half of the state.

For example, Clarkston typically gets less than 13 inches of rain per year effectively making it a desert environment.

Pullman gets about 21 inches per year.

To put it in perspective, Olympia get more than 50 inches per year.

This makes inspecting a home very different for the Eastern Washington inspectors even though we're governed by the same rules.

For example, I've had people say that we don't have termites here. Fortunately, our incidence rate is very low. But we still have termites. I've seen and reported on them in Pullman, Clarkston, Colfax and several of the towns on the Idaho side of the border.

This picture is a recent one of an older home. The mud tube from the termites is clearly visible and is attached to the water heater in addition to the wood post. The water heater gives us the opportunity to determine the approximate age of the infestation. In this case, the heater was less than 8 years old. The agent was understandably upset at the findings and a bit surprised since we don't have a reputation for this sort of problem.



I had a similar experience in Lewiston, ID. In that case, we found anabiod beetles. And I say "we" because my client is an entomologist who works with Sun Pest down in the valley. he was identifying things faster than I was. According to Russ Craber at Sun Pest, we're in the midst of a challenging pest season. They're seeing higher rates of incidence for almost every pest catagory.

Not good news for us. Nobody likes to deliver bad news especially pest infestation news.

Your clients do have some protection: if a Washington licensed inspector suspects insect related damage, they are required to refer your client to a structural pest inspector or pest control operator.

It's not perfect but it is better than nothing.

RE: SSB6433 Con

To the Honorable Rep. Conway,

I wish to thank you for your service to the State of Washington but I would also be remiss if I did state for you the reasons that I oppose the above referenced legislation.

For reference, I am a Licensed Home Inspector (#215) in the state who works and resides within the state. I am also a Structural Pest Inspector (#69702), ASHI and InterNACHI certified and code certified through the International Code Council.

The proposal before your committee will substantially weaken the protections that are the primary reason for the development of the Home Inspector Licensing program. Those protections are three-fold:

•· to develop qualified individuals recognized by impartial standards as competent to perform a home inspection in response to injury, financially, to the consumer;

•· to provide for improving inspector performance through continuing education;

•· and to provide a means short of active litigation to regulate the inspection industry by elevating inspectors into the same category of real estate professional as a Realtor or appraiser.

SSB6433 effectively legitimizes the inspectors that are currently in violation of Washington State law who are actively performing home inspections while not licensed. Indeed, I have several individuals in my area who are operating in this manner. This obviously weakens the consumer protections intended. Granting inspectors who operate outside the existing law immunity will not strengthen the protections but will convey a message that the State is not truly interested in consumer protection when it comes to the largest investment an individual makes in their lifetime. This will lead to consumer injury, both financially and, potentially, personally. A home inspection is first and foremost a safety inspection.

On a personal note, it always conveys a negative message to the inspector who has complied with state law, invested the time and money to successfully become licensed and operated in good faith. Rewarding unethical or incompetent inspectors would be damaging to the consumer and my profession. Undermining the business of the law-abiding inspector does not constitute good representation of the citizenry, the state or ethics.

Likewise, the weakening of the continuing education requirements as proposed in SSB6433 will further increase potential harm to the consumer. The initial training requirements set forth are those necessary to become a beginning inspector. There is still a tremendous amount to learn. Indeed, that process never stops. Allowing an inspector to wait six years to provide for continuing education will make his/her skills obsolete in the first two years. As an example, look at the evolution of the energy code in the past 4 years and the proposals ahead of us - do we willfully want to create inspectors that are ignorant of those changes? Clearly, no. The same applies to the electrical, structural and plumbing systems of the home.

There are reasonable changes that should be made to the existing Home Inspector Licensing laws. Weakening existing law is not one of them and is highly detrimental to protecting the consumer.

Thank you for your consideration of these matters, and I trust you will consider the ramifications of this legislation.

Respectfully,

Paul Duffau