Public commenter says Cal Water's backflow requirement is blocking Stockton housing for former foster youth

Kimberly Graves, a Stockton resident who said she is developing a four-unit housing project for former foster youth, told the State Water Resources Control Board that Cal Water has required an RPZ backflow prevention assembly for the project and withheld meters, a condition she said is unnecessary under the codes and jeopardizes financing.

Graves explained she has designed the building under the 2022 California Plumbing Code with one-inch piping and anti‑siphon fixtures, and she said the property has no auxiliary water source, well or irrigation system that could create a cross-connection. "I will actually literally lose all my financing and default in my loan if they don't let me finish my project," Graves said at the board's public forum.

Family members attending the meeting expanded on Graves's account. Ezra Curry, speaking on Graves's behalf, said the absence of meters is preventing final inspection and completion of sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and that ongoing disputes with Cal Water have delayed the project since January. Kamika Curry described the project as housing specifically designed to support former foster youth ages 18–21, and said Cal Water's withholding of meters and the estimated additional cost to install a backflow device (the family estimated over $25,000) could make the project financially infeasible.

The commenters cited provisions of Cal Water's cross-connection policy and state plumbing code language, arguing a reduced level of backflow protection (or none) is appropriate because no nonpotable source exists on the property and the system includes regular-use points to prevent stagnation. They said they had consulted backflow experts and state agency engineers who agreed a high-degree assembly was unnecessary.

Board response: Chair Joaquin Esquivel acknowledged the complaint and said the board's Division of Drinking Water would follow up with Graves and act as an intermediary with Cal Water. The chair said staff has Graves's contact information and would pursue follow-up.

Why it matters: the family's testimony links a local water utility enforcement decision to the viability of an affordable housing project for a vulnerable population. The board's Division of Drinking Water indicated it would review the dispute and facilitate communication with the utility, but did not make a public determination at the meeting.

No board action was taken during the meeting; staff agreed to follow up directly with Graves and Cal Water.