Bruce Bateman, a private contractor, examines a backflow pump system this morning during a routine check at a home along Talent Avenue. Ashland Daily Tidings/DENISE BARATTA

Backflow dispute raises questions in Talent

By Maggie McGehee

Ashland Daily Tidings

TALENT - City water users could be paying for the installation and inspection of backflow prevention devices which state and local officials say are unnecessary.

Backflow prevention devices, which use a series of valves to prevent water from returning into the city water system after it has been pumped onto private property, are at the center of the dispute between the city's plumbing inspector - Mike Broomfield - and the contractor - Bruce Bateman - hired to evaluate the need for the devices.

"So much of this right now is subjective," Broomfield said. "I am very concerned that we are regulating this in a less than judicious manner."

Backflow devices vary in cost, but officials say that it would cost a homeowner about $500 to install one. That price does not include the $25 needed to obtain a plumbing permit through Broomfield, a building official with the City of Ashland who also has a contract as plumbing inspector for Talent. Also not included in the price is another $25 for testing the device once it is installed.

When Public Works Director Tim Dedrick sent out a letter this winter informing 280 city water users who also receive water from TID that they must install backflow devices on their property, Broomfield stepped in.

He refused to issue permits for the installation of more than 100 devices because he disagrees with Bateman, the owner of Southern Oregon Backflow in Medford who contracts with the city to evaluate the need for the devices and test them after they are installed.

The two differ on the interpretation of state law regarding where backflow prevention devices should be installed.

Oregon law reads: "Backflow prevention assemblies for protecting community water systems shall be installed at the service connection (water meter) to premises where ... there is an auxiliary water supply which is, or can be, connected to the potable water piping. ... The type of backflow prevention required ... shall be at least commensurate with the degree of hazard which exists ..."

Bateman said that the law requires backflow devices anywhere a city water user has access to a second water source. Broomfield, however, contends the devices are only required if there is a "potential hazard" that contaminated water will seep into the city system.

"Say somebody has TID water, a sprinkler system and city water," Bateman said. "They use a pump to bring TID water in that goes into their lawn sprinkler system. But they also have city water hooked up to that pump for times when TID is not available. That pump has a valve to switch between the two systems. But if that valve has a leak or is stuck open, TID water could be going into the city water lines."

If that were to happen, anyone who lives near that house could end up drinking TID water out of a city tap. So in order to prevent that from happening, he is requiring anyone who has access to both water systems to install a backflow prevention device, he said.

Broomfield, on the other hand, says that Bateman's blanketing approach is not fair. He said the city should require the backflow devices on a case-by-case basis, as it is done in Ashland.

"It's not how the law is written in our point of view. The issue here is getting confused and being construed to mean that all people with two water sources have to have a backflow device," Broomfield said. "We're having a struggle understanding why we are forcing that down the throats of people who live in a poor community and can't afford to do this unless it's absolutely necessary."

It is necessary, Bateman said.

"The problem is, say I go out today and say, `You don't have to have a device,' and go to your neighbor and say, `You do,'" he said. "And half of the people do and half don't. Then an incident occurs and somebody gets sick. Where did the contamination come from? And who do you think the victims are going to sue? They pay for city water in the belief that it is clean and safe to drink."

David Leland, section manager for the Oregon Health Department's Clean Water Division in Salem, said that it is up to individual communities to determine where backflow devices should be installed.

"The city assesses the hazard," Leland said. "The hazard has to be there for a backflow device to be required by law. Two sources of water on the property does not mean there is a hazard. The local people have to decide if a hazard exists. It's up to whoever is running the local program."

In response to Leland's comments and Broomfield's decision to halt plumbing permits, Bateman said he just doing his job.

"Somebody's got to stick their neck out and somebody has to take the responsibility," he said. "You're not dealing with an inconvenience (if the water is contaminated). You're dealing with a life-or-death situation ... Somebody's going to have to take responsibility and is going to be liable if something happens. And it's not going to be me.

"It's better to err on the safe side than the alternative. The possibilities of contamination are fairly remote, but they're there," Bateman said.

In an attempt to quell the situation, Broomfield is awaiting an official interpretation of the law from the state attorney general, which is expected next month.

Ashland Daily Tidings
1661 Siskiyou Blvd.
Ashland, OR 97520
Telephone 541-482-3456

© Copyright 2000
Lee Northwest Publishing