Oxford Village is getting serious about inspecting backflow prevention devices (BPD) on residential and commercial properties because if it doesn’t, the state could come in and take over its water system as a penalty.

“I don’t want another entity in here running our water system,” said village President Sue Bossardet.

In the coming weeks, village water customers will receive a letter in the mail informing them that if they have a BPD, it must be inspected.

“This program is something that’s required by the DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality),” said Jim Wright, of the Northville-based McKenna Associates, the firm contracted to manage the inspection program. “This is not something that is optional . . . This is something that is required by the state of Michigan.”

The issue was discussed at the Jan. 9 council meeting.

Backflow prevention devices protect potable water systems from contamination through cross connections.

According to the DEQ website, a cross connection is an arrangement of piping that could allow undesirable water, sewage or chemical solutions to enter a potable water system as a result of backflow.

Backflow is the reversal of normal flow in a system due to backsiphonage or backpressure.

“Cross connections with potable piping systems have resulted in numerous cases of illness and even death,” the DEQ website states. “Historically, cross connections have been one of the most serious public health threats to a drinking water supply system and many times are present in a residential water system.”

Principle areas of water use in a home that pose a threat because of cross connections include lawn irrigation systems, swimming pools, water softeners, chemically-treated heating systems, water-operated sump drain devices and hose connections to a chemical solution aspirator that feed lawn/shrub herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers.

Water customers with no backflow prevention devices are asked to check that box on the letter and return it to the village within seven days of receiving it.

“If they check the box and say no, it’s not going to be up to us to double-check it . . . We’re not going to question our residents when it comes to that. If they say they don’t have it, they don’t have it,” Wright told council.

However, “as time goes forward,” Wright said they will be “checking” village records to see if any permits for BPDs were issued and use that information to help establish and update a database listing which properties have them.

“So, if we know a backflow device was installed” and the village gets a letter back stating there isn’t one, Wright said the homeowner will be contacted and asked if it was removed because the records say otherwise.

Water customers with a BPD, which is typically mounted on the exterior of a home or building, have two options for inspections.

They can coordinate an inspection using the village contractor and pay a $30 fee.

Or they can, at their own cost, have an individual who holds a valid Michigan plumbing license and has successfully passed an approved backflow testing class perform the inspection.

Even Teich, the former interim village manager, was present at the meeting and told council the $30 fee being charged for the village contractor is minimal compared to the $80 to $90 that a private inspector would charge.

Either way, water customers must notify the village of the inspection option they’ve selected within seven days of receiving the letter.

“If somebody absolutely refuses to do it – it is a state law, it is a state requirement – we could issue civil infractions for noncompliance,” Wright said.

Bossardet was concerned about inspectors having proper identification so as to avoid any confusion, problems or misunderstandings when they encounter water customers.

Wright assured council that they would have identification and stressed that it’s up to water customers to schedule the inspections, so the visits will not be a surprise.

“We’re not doing cold calls,” he said. “We’re not going to show up on people’s property uninvited.”

Wright informed council that “it’s been at least three or four years” since BPD inspections were performed in the village.

Then last year, the previous village manager, Joe Young, contacted McKenna to have the firm compile a report and submit it to the state because “apparently, he was getting a lot of pressure” from the DEQ.

“Although it wasn’t a comprehensive report, it was enough to satisfy them at that time,” he said.

This year, the village is “back in the same position.”

“We have to have the report to them by March 1,” Wright said. “I was able to get an extension.”

Wright noted he’s been trying to get the inspection program up and running, but a combination of “apprehension” about it and turnover in the village administration over the last year resulted in nothing getting done.

“I’ve been pushing for this for months,” he told council.

If the village doesn’t comply, it could face some stiff penalties.

“If it isn’t taken care of, the village could lose its right to supervise its water system . . . You never want another entity coming in and taking over your system,” Wright said.

There’s also the possibility of the village incurring thousands of dollars in fines, according to village attorney Bob Davis.

“The DEQ regs are very strict,” he said.

Councilman Erik Dolan expressed some skepticism about the need for the program.

“I’m kind of getting the impression that while this might be a law, it’s not one that is necessarily considered significant and regularly adhered to,” he said. “I’ve lived in Oakland County my whole life and I’ve never once heard of this program.”

Dolan was concerned about “push back” from water customers. He believes they’re going to question the need for the inspections and view them as an attempt by the village to generate additional revenue.

“I just wonder if this is the right time and if it’s necessary,” he said.

In response, Wright said this is “a very serious program” with “serious ramifications” for noncompliance.

“It does have to be taken care of,” he said.

Davis noted he’s looked at other communities and “everybody has this program.”

“It’s not something the Village of Oxford dreamed up,” Bossardet said. “This is (a mandate from the) state and federal government.”

Wright agreed. “It’s not something we’re just inventing,” he said. “It’s something that was in place years ago that we’re just resurrecting due to pressure from the state.”