Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Backflow Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utilities commission reviews proposed backflow protection ordinance; staff to circulate revised draft
Summary
The Utilities Commission discussed a proposed backflow protection ordinance, debating hazard classifications and whether a certified tester requirement should appear in the text. Staff said device standards and testing frequency will be set by rulemaking and will circulate a revised draft in two weeks for public comment.
The Utilities Commission reviewed a proposed backflow protection ordinance included in its packet and identified several drafting issues that members want addressed before adoption.
The Chair opened the discussion, saying, "We are looking at the backflow ordinance, which is attached or the proposed, I should say, backflow protection ordinance that is attached to your packet," and flagged a missing hazard classification and the need to decide whether to include a certified tester requirement in the ordinance text.
A staff member told the commission that "The device standards will be determined by this group. There's rule making authority. Also, the frequency with which tests that occur will be decided by this group also based on their rulemaking." That description framed staff's view that technical device specifications and test frequency are better set through administrative rules that the commission would adopt rather than fixed in the ordinance itself.
An agency official described how certified testing would work in practice: "The certified tester is going to be the annual requirement. They will have someone who is licensed to the state. It's up to the property owner." The official added that inspectors would look for a stamped tag and that test records could be uploaded by property owners into their OpenGov accounts when that system is activated: "And they'll actually be able to upload that into their account on OpenGov when we get that up and running here in a couple weeks."
Commission members also discussed consistent terminology in the code and the breadth of the department's authority. After discussion, staff said they would let the draft sit for two weeks and circulate another draft "halfway before the next meeting" so members and the public could review and submit comments.
No formal vote was taken on the ordinance at this meeting; staff will circulate a revised draft and the commission will reconsider the item at a future meeting or as otherwise noticed.
Background: Backflow protection ordinances typically set requirements to prevent contamination of the public water supply by requiring inspections and certified testing of backflow prevention devices. This draft discussion addressed where technical standards and testing frequency should be codified — in the ordinance text or in administratively adopted rules.
