AgdaPkt 2013-01-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.A. - Page 3 bring properties with auxiliary water supplies in the City into compliance with long- standing state requirements and the City's 2008 cross-connection control regulations. As part of the plan implementation, the City sent mailings in February 2012 to 855 properties identified as potentially having wells. Wells sites are not well-documented as the County used to issue permits for wells but now the City does it. In March and April 2012, the City held community meetings to educate the public regarding the need for compliance with state and local requirements. The City also sent notices to residents identifying the need for an annual test or in some cases indicating that due to a failure to respond, the City would consider enforcement mechanisms. Following these notices, a number of property owners appeared at various City Council Utility subcommittee meetings. Some residents requested that the City reconsider its requirements as to the type and location of the backflow devices, allow inoperable wells to remain instead of destroying them, and wanted the City to install backflow devices at City expense. In considering these requests, the Subcommittee balanced two important considerations. On the one hand, property owners with auxiliary water supplies are reducing somewhat their reliance on the City's water system and compliance with the City and state requirements have an associated cost to them. On the other hand, those property owners also have the benefit of reduced water charges while their auxiliary water supply, if not properly protected, may put the public water supply and public health at risk. At the direction of the Subcommittee, staff inquired with the State Department of Health (DPH) to determine the level of discretion it would afford to the City. At this time, the State DPH has agreed to flexibility on two items: (1) allowing a below-grade DC in some cases; and (2) allowing routine inspections of unused or abandoned wells instead of well destruction. Accordingly, the City Council Utilities Committee recommended that the City's current Cross Connection ordinance be revised to allow for some flexibility. Property owners need to be aware that when there is a well with an interconnection, an air gap separator or RP at the water meter is still required due to the potential hazard. If there is an irrigation well with no interconnection, a DC (above or below grade) at the water meter may be permitted. If there is an inoperable well, the owner has the option of destroying the well or obtaining an annual City inspection verifying its non-use. In addition, the Subcommittee focused on a plan to encourage compliance with these important requirements. It recommended an amnesty period from the cross-connection control program requirements and waiver of fees for a period of one year. The Subcommittee also recommended a more complete array of remedies and penalties be adopted so that the City can hold accountable those persons who fail to take advantage of the amnesty period and continue to create a potential danger to the public water supply and its consumers. Page 3 of 6