Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Backflow Prevention topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utilities officials urge a stepped plan to raise backflow preventer compliance
Summary
Utility staff said roughly half of required backflow prevention devices lack current test records and presented options — increased public outreach, contractor testing programs and ordinance changes — for raising compliance without immediately imposing fines.
Tequesta — Utilities staff told the Village Council at a March 31 workshop that about half of the town’s required backflow prevention assemblies lack current testing records, and presented a range of options to improve compliance, from education and targeted surveys to third‑party testing programs and possible ordinance changes.
Marjorie Cray, utilities director, said the village’s records show 792 testable backflow devices in the system; 564 are commercial and 228 are residential. Overall compliance has fluctuated around 50 percent, Cray said, and standard practice requires annual testing for most commercial devices and testing every two years for many residential devices.
Why it matters: Backflow prevention devices protect the public water supply from contamination by preventing a downstream pressure event from pushing nonpotable water back into the system. Noncompliance can risk water quality and can trigger water‑use restrictions or boil‑water notices in serious cases.
Cray described three broad options staff considered: (1) bring testing in‑house with village staff performing tests (not recommended due to liability and cost), (2) retain Aqua Backflow for notice and reporting and add fines via ordinance change to encourage compliance, and (3) contract with a testing firm (e.g., HydroCorp) to perform testing for customers and post tests to the village system, with costs passed through to the customer’s water bill. Cray said some municipalities use option 3 for higher compliance and that Pembroke Pines provided a model notification letter in the backup materials.
Council members raised logistical concerns — homeowner awareness of device location, permit fees, the local availability of certified testers and the potential cost impact on residents on fixed incomes. Staff recommended immediate steps to expand public awareness, begin targeted surveys to identify unregistered or untested assemblies, and return with a more detailed plan on contractor usage and any proposed ordinance changes. Utilities staff noted they had not previously turned off water service for noncompliance and that turning off a fire line or potable service is highly disruptive.
Ending: Council asked staff to return with a phased plan that begins with outreach and a property‑level survey before any new fines or automated billing pass‑throughs are implemented.
