Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Quality topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council delays vote on backflow control ordinance after debate over homeowner costs and enforcement
Summary
Council heard a detailed staff presentation about a state-mandated cross-connection (backflow) control program but continued action to a later meeting for additional analysis on costs, outreach and staffing. Staff said residential properties with fire sprinklers built since roughly 2011 may require backflow assemblies, with a phased compliance timeline through 2034 and beyond.
City staff presented a revised cross-connection control plan on May 5 to bring the municipal code into compliance with California's updated cross-connection policy handbook and related legal changes.
Deputy Utilities Director Josh Reynolds told the council a "cross connection is a connection between our potable water system and any non-potable system" (irrigation, fire sprinkler or industrial systems) and explained that backflow events occur when pressure reversals allow non-potable water into drinking-water mains. The state's new handbook requires utilities to implement a program that includes legal authority, an appointed program coordinator, hazard assessments and an ongoing testing and recordkeeping program.
Residential implications and timeline: Reynolds said residential consequences are significant for some properties: single-family homes with in-house fire sprinkler systems built since about 2011 may now be classified as higher hazard and could require backflow protection devices. He estimated roughly 1,500 homes as an initial cohort and described a multi-year compliance window that phases assessments and testing (high-risk residential by 2034; broader residential roll-out thereafter). Annual testing and periodic repairs would be required for installed assemblies.
Costs and council concerns: Council members asked how much devices and annual testing cost (staff estimated small assemblies could cost several hundred dollars to install and $50-'$200 to test annually, with larger devices substantially more). Concerns centered on the financial burden for homeowners, enforcement mechanisms and whether grants or subsidies exist. Reynolds said initial implementation work can be absorbed by existing water rates and reserve structures, but the long-term program may require additional staffing and user-fee mechanisms; he also reported changes to city engineering standards intended to limit future residential obligations (for example, looped sprinkler systems to avoid requiring assemblies).
Council action: After extended questioning about outreach, budgets and timelines, the council did not take final action on the ordinance and instead continued consideration to a later meeting (council asked staff to return with clarifying cost data, outreach plans and staffing impacts). This postponement gives staff time to quantify expected city costs, the value of vacant positions related to program implementation and a community notification plan.
Representative quote: "A backflow is a reversal of flow typically due to a change in pressure ... water on that non-potable system could come back into the drinking-water system. This is not something we want," Reynolds said.
Ending: Staff will return with additional fiscal details, specifics on outreach (including Spanish-language outreach), and implementation options before the council proceeds to an ordinance vote.
