Other Considerations
In evidentiary hearings, the parties brought out two additional topics that should be noted.
First, Mark III's witness, who has designed hundreds of fire protection systems in Northern California over the years, testified that alarm-equipped fire protection systems in Sacramento County are flushed and refilled with potable water at least quarterly to meet Sacramento County Fire Department testing requirements. This could lessen or eliminate the concern that water in wet-pipe systems may become stagnant, the major basis for the AWWARF report. Defendant SoCal Water's witness, on the other hand, testified in another context that he might consider water in a fire protection system stagnant even if it were flushed daily. We do not assume here that most systems are flushed regularly, but if even some are, that strengthens the argument for evaluating each installation on its own merits.
Second, there was a specific project location under design on Mercantile Drive in unincorporated Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County, for which SoCal Water was in the process of requiring Mark III to provide backflow protection when the complaint was filed. Mark III objected, and the parties litigated their disagreement in the evidentiary hearing in addition to the more generic issue. Absent this complaint, SoCal Water would routinely have required backflow protection be installed at the Mercantile Drive site without doing a site-specific evaluation. In preparing its defense, SoCal Water did evaluate the specifics of the site, including the piping arrangements on the premises and the intended use of the property. Those were explored on the record, and SoCal Water explained its conclusion that the Mercantile Drive location, home of a future auto-body shop, met three of the four examples of special conditions set forth in the Fire Marshal and DHS February, 1994, Information Bulletin. SoCal Water has in the end fulfilled the requirement that it conduct a site-specific evaluation of the Mercantile Drive location and may now enforce the conclusion it has reached. It should make a similar evaluation of other sites in the future.
In arriving at our result in this proceeding, we do not mean to minimize the need for water utilities to be vigilant in protecting their systems from contaminating cross-connections. The evidence does indicate that backflow, including backflow from premises with fire protection systems, is possible and has happened in other jurisdictions in the past. Instead, we seek to emphasize the need for Defendants to evaluate each situation in light of the tradeoffs between water quality protection and fire protection, as required by law.
1. Defendants' routine practice is to require approved backflow prevention assemblies be installed at the service connections for all new commercial buildings having Class 1 or Class 2 fire sprinkler systems, including at service connections for projects designed by Mark III, without evaluation of the serving arrangements and regardless of the circumstances at the particular location.
2. Sacramento County does not enforce the same high degree of backflow prevention on premises with automatic sprinkler systems that Defendants do.
3. Defendants have not shown that the City of Sacramento's cross-connection policy applies to Defendant's water users within the City of Sacramento.
4. Defendants have not shown that the governing body of any city or county has enacted an ordinance or law imposing restrictions on Defendants' water users greater than those imposed by H&SC Section 13114.7.
5. Section 6.3 of the American Water Works Association Manual M-14 states that Class 1 and Class 2 fire protection systems generally will not require backflow protection at the service connection.
6. The AWWARF report, Impact of Wet-Pipe Fire Sprinkler Systems on Drinking Water Quality,1998, while recommending cross-connection control using approved backflow prevention assemblies for Class 1 and Class 2 wet-pipe fire sprinkler systems in new construction, at the same time acknowledges there are some types of Class 1 and Class 2 systems that are outside the scope of its research and require further investigation to determine their impacts on water quality.
7. There are risks and tradeoffs inherent in specifying backflow prevention assemblies on fire protection systems. Installing backflow prevention devices on the supply lines for sprinklered premises involves drawing a balance between water quality protection requirements and fire protection needs.
8. DHS and the State Fire Marshal have issued a joint Information Bulletin directing water suppliers to investigate and evaluate each new sprinklered user's arrangements before making a determination to require backflow assemblies.
9. SoCal Water has conducted the required site-specific evaluation of Mark III's Mercantile Drive location, including the piping arrangements on the premises and the intended use of the property, and determined that the location includes three of the four example special conditions the Fire Marshal and DHS joint Information Bulletin cites as possibly warranting approved backflow prevention assemblies.
1. Taken together, H&SC Sections 116555(a)(3) and 13114.7(b), and CCR, Title 17, Sections 7685 and 7604, provide that Defendants may not require backflow protection equipment at the service connection for a user's premises with Class 1 and Class 2 automatic fire sprinkler systems absent an evaluation of that user's specific serving arrangements to determine whether there may be conditions present which pose a credible threat of contamination to the distribution system. Any such evaluation must as a minimum consider the factors set forth in CCR, Title 17, Section 7585, and under Section 7604 any backflow protection required must be commensurate with the degree of hazard on the consumer's premises.
2. H&SC Section 13114.5 does not grant Defendants as water suppliers the right to override the requirement of Section 13114.7(b).
3. Defendants' practice requiring approved backflow protection devices at all new water service connections for Class 1 and Class 2 fire protection systems on all projects planned by Mark III in Defendants' service territories is unlawful and a violation of each Defendant's Tariff Rule 16C(2) when applied routinely to Mark III's projects without an evaluation of the conditions specific to each location.
4. Because of the impact of today's decision on current projects and practices, the order should be made effective immediately.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Southern California Water Company and Citizens Utilities Company of California shall cease their practice of routinely requiring Mark III Engineering Contractors to include approved backflow protection devices at all new water service connections for Class 1 and Class 2 fire protection systems on all projects planned by Mark III in their service territories.
2. Southern California Water Company and Citizens Utilities Company of California may still require backflow prevention devices on Mark III Engineering Contractors' projects where conditions warrant, but only after evaluating the specific circumstances applying to each proposed service connection.
3. This proceeding is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated , at San Francisco, California.
