Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Inflow And Infiltration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates options to reduce sewer inflow from residential sump pumps; tables program for more study
Summary
Board and consultants discussed voluntary and mandatory options to disconnect residential sump pumps, detection methods such as smoke testing and camera inspection, and possible incentives or penalties; the board tabled the proposal pending further tailoring and stakeholder outreach.
The Hoover Sanitary Stormwater District held an extended discussion on developing a program to reduce inflow and infiltration from residential sump pumps, a major source of excess sanitary flow during rain events.
Consultant Mary summarized the scope of services staff requested: policy guidance for where sump pumps should discharge, technical detection options and educational materials to support a voluntary disconnection program. She told the board the study would include policy drafts, guidance for locations when storm systems are absent and public education strategies.
Board members debated detection methods and enforcement options. One board member noted smoke testing is roughly "50% accurate" and recommended a combination of methods — targeted smoke testing, strategic camera inspections from mainlines, and house‑by‑house checks — to locate connected perimeter drains and sump pumps. Several members emphasized the need to identify where to focus efforts rather than a citywide blanket program: "The most important part of it is how do we find out where to put our efforts," the Chair said, urging staff to prioritize high‑impact basins and lift stations.
Members weighed incentive approaches (subsidies or rebates for homeowners) against penalties (billing or license fees for non‑disconnection) and asked staff to develop options for a program that could combine outreach, targeted inspections and financial assistance. Staff and consultants stressed that solutions should be tailored and that a one‑size‑fits‑all approach would not work; they recommended a phased approach beginning with data collection and pilot testing in high‑priority basins.
After discussion, the board moved to table the item and directed staff to convene further stakeholder input and refine the draft scope. Staff was asked to return with a draft policy and cost estimates once methods of detection and a target area are identified.
