Snapshot– Many public water supply systems and utilities believe their systems are compliant simply because they track backflow prevention assemblies required tested annually. However, without additional and thorough cross-connection control program activities in place, the result is an illusion of safety and compliance that may fail when contamination occurs.
For example, a hospital in Michigan discovered during an inspection that multiple backflow devices hadn’t been tested in over a year. The devices appeared to be in place and intact, but several were no longer functioning properly. In addition, the facility was never surveyed internally for cross-connections since there were two backflow preventers at the main water service supply connections from the city. This gap in testing and true records of isolated cross-connections put patients at risk, illustrating that “checked” boxes on a compliance list do not always equate to real-world safety. A proactive cross-connection control process, rather than assumptions of compliance, is critical to ensuring these whole system and facility safety from unprotected backflow hazards.
Undetected Cross-Connections – The Elimination Process
Many cross-connections are hidden, especially in complex piping systems like those in large manufacturing plants or older buildings. Identifying these potential hazards requires more than just a surface-level inspection—it calls for a systematic, comprehensive approach, centered around detecting and eliminating unprotected cross-connections.
In one case, a beverage processing facility in the Midwest conducted a thorough visual survey and discovered an unmarked cross-connection between the facility’s potable water system and its cleaning chemical lines. Although the backflow prevention devices were functioning, this undetected connection was a high-risk hazard, as chemical residues could have leached into the water supply if a backflow incident occurred. This example highlights the importance of regular, comprehensive inspections to detect and eliminate cross-connections that could compromise water safety.
The Role of Backflow Software
Many water utilities rely on backflow software to track compliance, manage testing schedules, and store device data. While software can help with organization and documentation, it cannot replace certain physical activities necessary in an effective cross-connection control program.
A study conducted by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) revealed that while 78% of surveyed utilities used software for backflow management, only 42% combined software use with regular, field-based compliance audits. This imbalance means that, despite having digital tracking systems, more than half of these utilities may be missing essential physical verification steps. For true compliance, software must be viewed as a tool rather than a solution.
Non-Compliance – Backflow Testing
A common challenge in cross-connection control is enforcing compliance for refusal to provide backflow test records when required. Regulations often mandate annual testing of backflow prevention devices, but non-compliance status often lingers without the enforcement structure and locally supported cross-connection control program policies in place.
For example, a city water system in California faced fines after a routine audit uncovered that only 60% of their backflow devices had been tested in the previous year, despite state regulations requiring annual checks. Several untested devices were subsequently found to be non-functional, putting the entire distribution system at risk. This case underscores the need for water systems to prioritize testing as a compliance foundation.
Non-Compliance – Cross-Connection Hazards
When identified cross-connections go unaddressed, they can become severe hazards, especially in high-risk environments like healthcare, food processing, and manufacturing facilities. Cross-connection hazards, such as back siphonage or backpressure, can cause contaminants to enter the water system and pose serious health risks. Unprotected cross-connections should be treated as a direct hazard to the public water system and corrective action should be clearly communicated to responsible parties as soon as possible. Failure to comply should result in discontinuance of water supply to the facility.
A national case involved a school in New York where a cross-connection allowed boiler chemicals to backflow into the drinking water supply. Due to insufficient testing and inspection, the issue went unnoticed until students reported health symptoms. This scenario emphasizes how hazardous undetected cross-connections can be, especially when testing and compliance measures are lax.
Water Customer Engagement – Compliance
Engaging water customers, including residents, business owners, and facility managers, can significantly improve compliance efforts. By educating customers on cross-connection hazards and encouraging them to report suspicious plumbing issues, water systems can harness a broader base of vigilance.
One successful model comes from a rural water district in Florida, which began hosting quarterly workshops for commercial property owners on backflow and cross-connection control. These sessions encouraged customers to stay vigilant, report potential issues, and participate in keeping their water safe. This program led to a measurable increase in reported hazards and a reduction in compliance violations.
Conclusion
A false sense of compliance from undetected cross-connections is a persistent issue in the public water industry. Relying on software alone, performing minimal testing, and assuming devices function properly without verification can create an illusion of safety that puts public health at risk. True cross-connection control requires an active approach that includes regular inspections, robust testing, accurate data, and community involvement.
By taking a proactive stance on compliance, water systems can move beyond superficial measures and foster genuine protection for their customers and communities. The examples provided demonstrate that while many facilities believe they are protected from backflow risks, only consistent effort and thorough oversight can eliminate these dangerous blind spots.
