Blackflow plan draws criticism

SANDPOINT — A newly-implemented city program aimed at monitoring backflow prevention units has one local resident questioning the policy and the city’s authority to insist on testing.

Very few people — save plumbers — know about them, but nearly every home in Sandpoint has at least one backflow protection unit. Backflow assemblies and devices are used to protect water supplies from contamination or pollution by eliminating reverse flows of water from individual systems into the public water source.

Because one faulty backflow prevention unit could potentially contaminate an entire water source, federal authorities have stepped up testing requirements for water purveyors throughout the country.

The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality recently conducted a survey of the area and found 14 deficiencies the Sandpoint Public Works Department needed to address, chief among them being the creation of a cross connection control testing program.

The DEQ letter stated that Sandpoint’s “cross connection control for commercial and industrial water users does not adequately track testing of devices used to control backflow and cross connections. A tracking system must be established to assure that all devices are tested annually.”

Assistant City Engineer Matt Mulder, who was tasked with spearheading the new program, developed a database of residents and businesses that either have or should have a testable backflow prevention unit.

The database grew to 475 area units that needed to be tested, with all but 75 of those coming from businesses. In January, Mulder sent letters to everyone in his database stating that by July 15 the backflow unit had to be examined by a licensed tester at a cost of roughly $50.

Sandpoint’s Ken Sanger, who has two testable backflow assemblies on his property, received the letter and immediately questioned the validity of the program.

Sanger is questioning why only 74 residents — out of as many as 4,000 water hookups in the Sandpoint water system — are required to perform the test.

He is also worried that a program ostensibly designed to ensure the safety of the water supply is being implemented by Mulder, who Sanger said is not equipped to handle the job.

“Matt Mulder is too young and inexperienced to have unsupervised authority to author and implement such a program. It is obvious that the program is not ready for prime time, as all the ramifications have not been thought out,” Sanger said in an e-mail.

While he admits the program is not perfect, Mulder said it would not have been in the best interest of the city to wait until a perfect program was available before taking action.

“Over time I’ll track down more and more (residents with testable backflow assemblies), but it’s not something where overnight I’ll be able to look into my crystal ball and figure out where they’re all at,” Mulder said. “If I waited until I tracked everyone down, the program would never get started. DEQ wants us to get started.”

On the question of experience, Mulder said he attended a class on the subject and has spoken with cities that have implemented similar programs to better understand what works and what does not.

Sanger and others have drawn a parallel between the backflow letter and a March 2007 letter the city sent regarding the 2008 Local Improvement District. In that letter, the city advised 260 homeowners to install sidewalks in advance of a vote on the LID. When the LID was voted down months later, a number of the affected residents successfully petitioned the city to reimburse the cost of sidewalks they put in after receiving the letter.

The failed sidewalk LID has been a drain on the city in terms of time and money for months, while putting the city’s letter-writing protocol under a microscope.

Sandpoint Mayor Gretchen Hellar read the backflow letter before it went out and sees no similarities between it and the LID letter.

“This is not a city policy, it’s required by federal regulations. So the city had to say what the regulation is,” said Hellar, who noted that the city could have faced fines if the policy was not enacted. “I’m sorry that Ken is upset, but I think most of the citizens would be upset if the city was fined.”

In Sanger’s eyes, the most egregious problem with the backflow policy is that it does not test the units that are most dangerous to the water supply.

Because only 475 out of a possible 4,000 water hookups are required to be tested, and because the city only knows about units that were installed by licensed plumbers, Sanger believes the most dangerous backflow units are being ignored by the city’s program.

Mulder admits that the majority of his database is comprised of residents and businesses that followed the rules and hired a licensed plumber to install their backflow unit. He also admits that because their integrity cannot be verified, units installed by non-professionals are more dangerous than their legal counterparts.

But again, Mulder falls back on the idea that an imperfect program is better than no program at all. He also refutes Sanger’s assertion that only a tiny percentage of backflow units are required to be tested under the city’s program.

While nearly every water hookup has a backflow prevention unit, Mulder maintains that only a small percentage need to be, or are able to be, tested. There are two specific types of backflow units, devices and assemblies. Mulder uses dishwashers as an example to illustrate his point. Dishwashers contain backflow devices called atmospheric vacuum breakers, which do not contain test ports and, according to Mulder, are not required to undergo annual tests.

Backflow assemblies, needed for such things as irrigation systems, have a test port and are required to undergo annual testing.

Todd Janssen of Sandpoint’s Three Amigos Plumbing and Maintenance is one of only a handful of plumbers licensed to both install and test backflow assemblies and said that while it is possible for non-professionals to install their own backflow units, he does not think it is a prevalent problem in the area.

“It’s a pretty small percentage. Out of all of them, the people that do it themselves represent maybe one or two percent,” Janssen said.

Although still rare, the more likely scenario, according to Janssen, would be for an individual to install a sprinkler system without using any backflow prevention at all. Janssen said most sprinkler systems could be connected directly to a hose bib, but the system’s quality would be so poor that most people would avoid it.

In deciding which backflow units needed to be tested, Mulder took his cues in part from the Idaho Administrative Procedures Act regulations. In its Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems, IDAPA implies that backflow devices, such as the type used in dishwashers, need to be tested annually. This discrepancy between what IDAPA requires and what Sandpoint’s testing program requires further muddied the water, according to Sanger.

Mulder said that the city’s program used IDAPA for a guide, but also used the American Water Works Association cross connection control manual, which he said distinguishes between devices and assemblies.

In order to be crystal clear on the matter, Mulder contacted DEQ about the discrepancy and was given reassurance that the city’s current plan was legal and correct, and that only backflow assemblies needed testing.

According to Public Works Director Kody Van Dyk, all but 70 of the individuals who were sent the backflow letter have complied with the testing. Those who did not comply were given a warning to perform the test or pay the city to do it for them, according to Van Dyk.