Sacramento County Plumbing Code and the City of Sacramento's Cross-Connection Policy

In order to construct a building, one must first obtain a building permit. Depending on building location, that entails review of the proposed design by local county or city officials, in this case Sacramento County or the City of Sacramento.

Citizens' witness produced an excerpt from the Sacramento County Plumbing Code indicating that Sacramento County has within that code adopted and incorporated by reference the California Plumbing Code, which in turn incorporates by reference the Uniform Plumbing Code, 1997 Edition. The single lead page of the Sacramento Plumbing Code admitted into evidence also indicates that there are separately-adopted exceptions to parts of one or both of these codes, although there is no indication on the record whether those exceptions relate to fire sprinkler systems or cross-connection protection requirements. The Uniform Plumbing Code calls for backflow protection on automatic sprinkler systems.

Mark III's witness testified, however, that in his extensive experience Sacramento County does not routinely require the level of backflow prevention on fire systems that Defendants do. He presented as an example of a set of plans he had participated in preparing, and which had been approved by Sacramento County officials without such protection. It included a Sacramento County Public Works Agency standard Fire Protection Detail sheet that called for a "detector check valve," a component which provides some limited backflow protection but would not qualify as an approved backflow prevention assembly. So the evidence does not indicate that Sacramento County requires the same degree of backflow prevention on automatic sprinkler systems that Defendants do. In any case, it is the water supplier or health agency that bears responsibility under Title 17 for protecting the water system from cross-connections. If Sacramento County also has a requirement for backflow protection on all fire systems, it apparently does not follow it in the type of situation at issue here.

Defendants also had admitted into evidence a portion of what was said to be the City of Sacramento's cross-connection policy. It does require Class 1 and Class 2 fire protection systems to have approved backflow prevention assemblies installed. On closer reading, however, it appears to be the cross-connection policy of the City's own water system, and there is no reason to believe that it applies to customers of public utilities operating within the City. Again, it is the water supplier or health agency that bears responsibility under Title 17 for protecting the water system from cross-connections, not the municipal water system of the city within which the public utility water system operates.

In making their argument here, Defendants point to H&SC Section 13114.5, which provides, "The governing body of any city or county may enact ordinances or laws imposing restrictions greater than those imposed by Sections 13113 and 13114," as justification for their own policies requiring backflow prevention assemblies despite Section 13114.7's specific prohibition against requiring them for Class 1 and Class 2 fire protection systems. However, Defendants have not shown that the City of Sacramento or County of Sacramento has effectively enacted such an ordinance or law that either intended to be applied to Defendants' systems. Moreover, Section 13114.5 does not grant Defendants as water suppliers the right to override the very specific requirement of Section 13114.7.