Far too many public water systems delay implementing a complete cross-connection control program until compelled into action by enforcement orders. While backflow preventer test tracking plays a valuable role in protecting water systems, it’s only a single cog in a much larger system. The risks created by unprotected cross-connections go beyond the regulatory. By nature, they are contamination threats when backflow events occur such as water main breaks.
The American Water Works Association (AWWA) M14 Manual of Cross-Connection Control and the U.S. EPA’s Sanitary Survey Training Guide for Public Water Systems provide a clear framework for a fully realized cross-connection control program. And when public water systems align their efforts with these standards, the results reveal an alarming reality: When you look for cross-connections, you find them. In robust programs, water systems discover and resolve a statistically significant number of unprotected cross-connections—often at interconnections that pose a high-hazard contamination risk.
5 Reasons to Act Before Enforcement
1. Backflow Incidents Don’t Wait for Paperwork
Hydraulic conditions can change in an instant. A water main break, fire department draw, or pressure fluctuation is all it takes for a backsiphonage event to reverse the intended flow of water and bring contaminants directly into the potable water system through a faulty cross-connection. The physical laws that govern backflow don’t care if your community is “waiting for enforcement.”
According to AWWA M14, “a single unprotected cross-connection can render the entire distribution system vulnerable.” That reality should motivate immediate action, not administrative delay.
2. Sanitary Surveys Are Intensifying Their Cross-Connection Control Focus
The EPA Training Guide for Conducting Sanitary Surveys of Public Water Systems places increasing emphasis on cross-connection control, and state primacy agencies are expected to ask specific questions on:
- The existence of a written and enforceable cross-connection control program
- Evidence of public education and outreach
- Active field survey records to identify hazards
- Procedures for enforcement of corrective actions
Waiting until your next sanitary survey to “catch up” is risky. Many systems find themselves under significant scrutiny—and at risk of violations—when they cannot produce proof of local hazard assessments, surveys, and enforcement actions.
3. Test Tracking Alone Doesn’t Find the Hidden Hazards
Yes, tracking annual backflow test reports is important. But relying solely on backflow testing of known assemblies ignores a far larger problem: unknown or undocumented cross-connections.
A fully implemented program, per AWWA M14, includes hazard assessments, on-site surveys, and enforcement procedures. Communities that invest in field surveying consistently uncover dozens, and even hundreds, of unprotected or improperly protected cross-connections, including:
- Untested or bypassed backflow preventers
- Plumbing alterations made without permit or review
- Auxiliary water sources tied into sprinkler or irrigation systems
Backflow test tracking doesn’t find these. Field surveys or hazard assessments do.
4. Program Budgeting Reflects Risk Ownership
The absence of a dedicated budget for your cross-connection control program signals a larger issue: the utility not taking ownership of the risks associated with backflow events. Waiting until you’re forced into compliance often results in reactive, inefficient spending, and public backlash and distrust after a contamination scare.
Proactive programs allocate funds annually for:
- Cross-connection survey personnel and training
- Public education materials
- Administrative enforcement and documentation tools
- GIS or schematic updates for piping visibility
This isn’t about regulatory box-checking—it’s about building long-term hydraulic resilience.
5. Enforcement Isn’t the Goal—Protection Is
Too many utilities see cross-connection control enforcement as an “if needed” step rather than a built-in part of the program. The reality? AWWA M14 and EPA guidelines require local enforcement mechanisms for non-compliance. A program with no teeth may look functional on paper but fail when tested by real-world risk.
Communities that succeed in preventing backflow incidents typically:
- Send official notices and deadlines for compliance
- Escalate when non-compliance continues
- Have procedures for shutoff when health threats are identified
This approach ensures backflow isn’t just managed—it’s prevented.
Backflow Is a Community Risk, Not Just a Utility Problem
Every unprotected cross-connection is a doorway through which contaminants can enter your water system. Without a proactive, fully enforced, and locally supported cross-connection control program, you’re gambling with public health.
Don’t wait for enforcement. Align your program with AWWA M14 and EPA sanitary survey expectations now—before the next inspection or, worse, the next backflow incident.
Ready to learn more about how HydroCorp can support your water system’s backflow prevention efforts?
Additional Resources:
- AWWA M14 Manual of Cross-Connection Control, Latest Edition
- U.S. EPA Sanitary Survey Training Guide for Public Water Systems (Surface and Groundwater Systems)
- Guidance Manual for Conducting Sanitary Surveys of Public Water Systems; Surface Water and Ground Water Under the Direct Influence (GWUDI) (PDF)(182 pp, 1.23 MB, April 1999, EPA 815-R-99-016, About PDF)
- Sanitary Survey Guidance Manual for Ground Water Systems (PDF) (154 pp, 2.3 MB, October 2008, EPA 815-R-08-015, About PDF)
