An air gap tank used on an industrial site in Portland, Oregon. Courtesy photo
Proposed changes to Corpus Christi’s ordinance regulating back-flow preventers was met with some confusion and opposition by city council members at a recent meeting. The proposal outlined by city staff at the Jan. 10 meeting included requirements for annual testing of equipment for both residential and commercial, using a third-party contractor to fix faulty equipment and requiring regular inspection of wells on sites that also receive city water.
Updating and strengthening the current back-flow ordinance was made a priority after a chemical spill at an asphalt plant in December. The city was put on a no-use notice for four days because officials at the local, state and federal levels feared the city’s water supply might have been tainted.
Several council members seemed displeased with the lack of solid numbers in a presentation made by Gene Delauro, building official for the city’s development services department.
Greg Smith, council member for District 4, immediately asked whether ordinances would have any power in the industrial district, which is outside the city limits and was the source of the contamination that caused the December water crisis.
“Industrial customers have agreements, but they vary from customer to customer,” Delauro said. “One of the recommendations is to strengthen our requirements in those agreements.”
At-large council member Joe McComb and Mayor Dan McQueen raised their eyebrows at the age of some of the data presented.
“I ask you to do more,” McQueen told City Manager Margie Rose and city staff members. “We’re talking about the same presentation you gave us in the three water boils, and we still don’t have the answers. We need you guys to be bringing the answers that will ensure a higher level of safety to the public.”
McQueen was referring to three boil water notices issued to the city during a period of 10 months between July 2015 and May 2016.
Rose pointed out that the current ordinance does not allow for some of the council’s requests, which is why she brought them new recommendations from staff to consider.
“When is the get-well date and when will we have a full comprehensive plan?” McQueen asked Rose. “We are going to have good water for our residents and be sure they are safe.”
Council member Lucy Rubio, District 3, asked that staff look into requiring air gaps for industrial customers. Air gaps are a non-mechanical back-flow prevention arrangement using water fittings and reservoirs or tanks. That would have to come on a case-by-case basis, Delauro said.
“A lot of small companies operate in the industrial district that only use chemicals for cleaning,” he continued. “Requiring them to build an entire structure would not be feasible or reasonable. That would be taking things too far.”
McComb said changing the current three-year inspection requirement for residential to one year was asking too much. The current ordinance already requires commercial customers have annual inspections, which aren’t happening. According to city data, one in three of the more than 12,000 back-flow prevention devices have not been inspected on time. McComb questioned whether residential back-flow protectors were even a problem.
“You want to triple the cost of the residential user to solve a problem you don’t have,” he said. “With a track record of no damages being done by residential customers], I’m trying to think of the rationale of moving it from three years to one year other than it’s a revenue generator and it makes you feel good.”
The new ordinance also suggests using a third-party contractor to inspect back-flow protectors. The city would send one letter to customers out of compliance. If not fixed by the customer, the city would fix it and put the cost on the next water bill. If not paid, water service would be terminated.
“This is a critical change in philosophy,” Assistant City Manager Mark Van Vleck said. “We don’t want to go around fining people. We want compliance. We’ve been sending letters and threatening environmental court fines, but that’s not getting us any closer to repairs.”
Rose promised that the ordinance she will bring to the council at the Jan. 17 meeting would spell out exactly how this would work.
Although the discussion on the topic went on for another few minutes, McQueen soon cut it off to move on to the next agenda item, which was public comment.
Rose said the council would be seeing new water regulations on its agenda for the next few meetings as staff works out details for consideration and votes.
