Backflow hearing draws frustrated water users

The Columbia Falls City Council heard from disgruntled water customers one more time during a Jan. 6 hearing on the city’s backflow prevention program.

City regulations and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality require devices installed on irrigation systems, hot water boilers and other sources of contamination to protect the city’s water system. Chlorination would address bacteriological contamination but not chemical contamination.

The devices need regular inspections, but a shortage of inspectors and the cost of annual inspections has frustrated some water customers, who mostly agree the city water supply needs to be protected.

City manager Susan Nicosia explained that the city’s original backflow regulations came verbatim from Mountain Water Co. in Missoula. But the state updated and simplified its backflow regulations in 2012, and the city should adopt those rules, she said.

Under state rules, water customers must alert the city if they are required to have a backflow prevention device. Nicosia suggested a $100 penalty be levied on property owners who don’t tell the city about devices at their homes.

According to a city list, about 300 water customers have underground irrigation systems. If the city took over the cost of inspecting those systems, it would cost about $15,000 a year. But with so many additional systems not on the city list, the cost could double, Nicosia said.

An alternative would be for the city to administer the annual testing but have individual customers pay for it through their water bills — in a lump sum or spread out over several months.

Cathy Finberg told the council that putting the onus on water customers to tell the city if they need annual testing was not a good way to ensure 100 percent compliance. That was like asking speeders to turn themselves in to the police, she noted.

Finberg expressed frustration that Nicosia’s emphasis was on simplifying city code and not addressing water customers’ needs. She said the city’s effort to keep track of was users was inconsistent. She suggested the city look at other options.

Steve Duffy pointed out to the council that the best line of protection for the city’s water supply was the double check valve installed at every water meter. But how often does the city inspect those, he asked.

No action was taken, and the hearing was continued to the Jan. 21 meeting.