Subject: Dec 9, 2025 City Council Meeting Item 8.E Cross-Connection Control Plan.
Dear Mayor Ford, Vice Mayor Lemus, and Councilmembers Harvey, Savage, and Sparks, This item seems to outline a plan, addressing aspects of customer water connections that may require costly upgrades (up to $5,000 per connection) over a ten-year time horizon..
Having this technical agenda item with only Friday and the weekend to read and understand implies the city is not really looking for public input on it. Other cities like Petaluma create tentative agendas for items coming up, allowing for an easier analysis by interested members of the public.
Can Cotati’s “real-time” water meters detect and report backflow conditions? I’m curious is it likely that it will apply to all the household water connections? Or only those buildings that have been required to implement internal fire suppression sprinklers? The real-world knock-on effects of these fire alert/suppression systems do seem crazy.
For any new external back flow valves, I have two observations or suggestions:
1) If there is visible infrastructure to be spread throughout the community, could it potentially have an artistic component or suggested option for artistic component by property owners. It might incentivize some in the community to create a curbside feature 2) If there is infrastructure requiring regular standardized testing, could there be a Water Billing software option investigated/developed for the property owner to request the City manage the testing as part of a bulk process. The feasibility of offering this service could be decided at a later time.
As outlined in the staff report, this is primarily to plan for a possibility of the Cotati main water system having a pressure loss, and thereby creating the conditions for a backflow from a customer premise. It seems like it is related to other disaster planning for the water system that Cotati has ably implemented.
From past presentations of Cotati Water System, if I understand them correctly, the City implemented a sophisticated main waterline break monitoring so there can be fast response to any water break – and it would seem likely that this creates conditions for Low Hazard for backflow. The loss of pressure system seemed to be pretty amazing, and I wonder if it is still in operation and is working as well as was planned.?
In a past presentation at the SCWA monthly meeting by City of Napa, they described reacting to the earthquake they had there some years ago with multiple city water line breaks. A core part of the intent was to not have a pressure loss likely to cause backflow – and they succeeded in doing that.
The Napa engineering presentation observed that if there had been a possible backflow they would have had to issue a boil water alert and require a flush of the system.
It seems if there is likely to be connections to low hazard connections, it might mean adding something like this to the property owner’s side of the water meter connection.
If this is the case and the infrastructure is easily accessible, it would seem it will need winterizing and possibly an enclosure.
1) Request for any standard enclosure include the potential for an artistic covering option to be suggested.
For an item that might be widespread in the community, with a low likelihood of failing but still needing an annual test – it would benefit the community if the City organized a contractor do all the testing on the valves
2) Ensure any associated software development includes an option for the property owner to designate the device be tested as part of a City-Wide program, and corresponding be billed for it on the water bill.
Sincerely
Neil Hancock, Cotati