March 4, 2009 Dan Peterson Department of Environmental Protection Drinking Water Section, MS 3520 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 E-mail: Daniel.Peterson@FDEP.state.fl.us Telephone: (850) 245-8623 FAX: (850) 245-8669 Backflow Rule Development Workshop (2/18/2009) Comments and Questions Dan, Thank you all for holding the workshop at Sanford two weeks ago. Based on the material that was presented there, I have a number of questions. Van Hoofnagle requested that we put our follow-up comments and questions in writing by March 4 and send it to you, so that you all would not misinterpret our concerns. My comments and questions are attached.

David Brown 1805 Burlington Circle Sun City Center FL 33573-5219 Phone: 1-813-634-6048 Websites: www.suncitydave.info & www.backflowvideos.org Email: dbrown28@tampabay.rr.com cc: Janet Llewellyn, Director, Division of Water Resource Management

Phil Coram, Assistant Director, Division of Water Resource Management Van Hoffnagle, Drinking Water Section John Sowerby, Drinking Water Section Cynthia Christen, Office of General Counsel Senator Ronda Storms Representative Seth McKeel Representative Ron Reagan

- 1 -

Comments and Questions Arising From The Backflow Rule Development Workshop

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) held a Backflow Rule Development Workshop in Sanford, FL on February 18, 2009. There were over 50 people there. Following a PowerPoint presentation about the proposed rule changes, time was set aside for public comments - but not for questions. Many who spoke complained that the proposed rules requiring backflow devices are an unfunded mandate. Others wanted the compliance time extended to at least 2020-2050. A lot of the utility representatives questioned the need to fill out yet more forms. Several participants suggested that additional public workshops were needed since the rules were unclear and the rules would translate into a cost of billions of dollars for utilities and homeowners. Some questioned the need for backflow devices as utilities move to AMRs. You announced at the workshop that you would not answer questions. That was probably a violation of Chap. 120.54(2)(c) F.S. about responding to questions. But, no problem… I trust that you will now respond to my questions which follow. I tried to phrase most of the questions so that they just require a simple "Yes" or "No". Please excuse any redundancy…

Estimated Regulatory Cost Statement (Economic Impact) questions. FDEP is required by 120.541(2)(c) to provide an Estimated Regulatory Cost Statement with their Notices of Proposed Rule later this year. RPs (RPZs) cost anywhere from $350 to $700 or whatever the market will bear to purchase and install one. The required annual testing and maintenance runs from $50-$100 a year or whatever the market will bear. 1 The proposed rules and regulations are an unfunded mandate.

1 Les O'Brien of the University of Florida's TREEO Center tells the story of one tester in his area who charged an old lady hundreds and hundreds of dollars to test her backflow valve. Because of that, Les now makes it a part of his backflow testing certification that his students must sign a Code of Ethics. However, given the propensity of plumbers and testers to extort money from homeowners, I doubt that his Code of Ethics is worth much more than the paper it's written on.

- 2 -

Although the idea of RPs (RPZs) everywhere no doubt gives a warm fuzzy feeling to some bureaucrats and trade associations, the cost to do this would amount to billions of dollars in Florida. For the various scenarios, here is what I came up with… Pro-rating the Wyoming estimate of $1.3 billion 2 for their backflow prevention program, the rough cost to Florida homeowners would be around $46 billion (8,718,385 3 / 242,332 4 x $1.3 billion 2) 5. That's a bit high because the Wyoming estimate includes "domestic non-residential services" - which I don't believe FDEP's proposed rules include. The cost would actually come in at around $39 billion if RPs (RPZs) and Double-check valves are left in the mix and only for those homes with non-existent cross-connections but that use well water or surface water for lawn irrigation (8,718,385 3 x .01 6 x $450 7). This breaks down to a cost of $300-$700+ 7 per household depending on who does the installation. Plus there would be the annual testing cost of about $6.5 billion (8,718,384 3 x .01 6 x $75 8). This breaks down to a cost of $50-$100 per year per household. 2 "The [Wyoming Environmental Quality] Council has determined that the adoption of this [revision which does away with residential backflow valves] is necessary. The prevention of one death in 143 years at a cost of $1.3 billion dollars does not justify the mandatory installation of back flow devices on residential and domestic non-residential services." View Wyoming's full determination document at www.suncitydave.info/kick-06.pdf. 3 Florida housing units, 2007, U.S. Census Bureau. 4 Wyoming housing units, 2007, U.S. Census Bureau. 5 I choose to use housing units for the pro rating since just about any demographic value can be used. 6 Percent of homes with non-existent cross-connections but that use well water or surface water for lawn irrigation. In my community, the percent is actually 10%, but I decided to be very conservative and use 1% for all of Florida. 7 Average installation cost from FDEP's (Van Hoofnagle's) 12/23/2008 Proposed Revisions letter. Actually, Hoofnagle low-balled the high end of the installation cost at $600. We have one plumber who wants $695 to install an RP (RPZ). And the County is thinking about raising the cost of a plumbing permit. So the installation cost actually ranges from $300 if the County does it to at least $700 if a plumber does it. 8 Average annual testing cost - FDEP's (Van Hoofnagle's) 12/23/2008 Proposed Revisions letter.

- 3 -

If you go with the less expensive but more reliable Dual-check valve attached to the water meter and renewed at meter change-out time every ten years for all homes in Florida, the cost would be about $13 million per year (8,718,384 3 x $15 9 / 10 10). That breaks down to about $1.50 per year per household. If you only target those homes with non-existent cross-connections but that use well water or surface water for lawn irrigation, the cost would drop to $130,000 per year (8,718,384 3 x .01 6 x $15 / 10). This also breaks down to about $1.50 per year per household. The USEPA and FDEP estimate that there is one backflow incident per year in the state of Florida (8,718,384 3 / 127,901,934 11 x 15 12). QUESTION # 1: Does spending $39 billion plus $6.5 billion annually for an average of just one backflow incident per year in Florida just to keep someone from getting diarrhea seem like a bit much? Florida has become a "zero growth" state because of the high cost of living here - property & sales taxes, home insurance, backflow valves, etc. The billions of dollars that homeowners are forced to fork-over for backflow valves and annual inspections with nothing to show for it doesn't bode well for the future of Florida's economy. When I have pointed out the plight of the elderly to pay for these valves, one Hillsborough County official suggested that the elderly should eliminate their auxiliary pump and use potable water from the county - which would cost four times as much. That bureaucratic attitude is akin to Marie Antoinette's attitude of "Let them eat cake!" which got her into so much trouble. QUESTION # 2: Is FDEP concerned at all about the economic impact of their rules on the elderly and on the poor, the sick and the dispossessed?

9 Dual-check valve cost - Hassan Hadjimiry's presentation at the 8/7/2008 West Palm Beach workshop. 10 Average years for meter change-out - Richard Cummings, Hillsborough County Water Resource Services. 11 U.S. housing units, 2007, U.S. Census Bureau. 12 USEPA's data shows 459 backflow incidents over a period of 31 years - Upper part of Sanford PowerPoint Slide #17.

- 4 -

Cost/Benefit Statement questions. Here is what the people in Wyoming determined:

"The [Wyoming Environmental Quality] Council has determined that the adoption of this [revision which does away with residential backflow valves] is necessary. The prevention of one death in 143 years at a cost of $1.3 billion dollars does not justify the mandatory installation of back flow devices on residential and domestic non-residential services." View Wyoming's full determination document at www.suncitydave.info/kick-06.pdf.

As noted further along, there has never been a single recorded death in Florida from a residential backflow incident. The massive imposition of backflow valves is akin to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles' mandating traffic lights and maybe even crossing gates at each and every residential road intersection in Florida because of the potential for automobile accidents. It would also be like forcing homeowners with non-existent guns to buy a gun permit because of the potential that someday they might own one. These are goofy concepts, but exactly what FDEP is proposing. QUESTION # 3: If FDEP were responsible for traffic signals throughout Florida, would you mandate traffic lights and maybe even crossing gates at each and every residential road intersection in Florida because of the potential for automobile accidents? QUESTION # 4: If FDEP were responsible for gun registration throughout Florida, would you mandate that homeowners with non-existent guns had to buy a gun permit because of the potential that someday they might own one? QUESTION # 5: Has FDEP done any sort of Cost/Benefit Study of the current and proposed rules and regulations? If so, where is it?

Environmental Impact Statement questions. I don't recall FDEP's ever expressing any concerns about the environmental impact of backflow valves. You folks maintain a webpage (www.dep.state.fl.us/drought/default.htm) about drought conditions here in Florida that ends with the plea:

- 5 -

"Now is the time to ensure we protect and conserve our water supply." SWFWMD is being asked to go to a Phase IV Emergency for the first time ever. Tampa Bay Water plans to overpump the aquifer within the next month or two, in order to supply potable water to their six member utilities.13 Overpumping the aquifer will allow the further intrusion of salt water into the aquifer. This doesn't seem like a very good idea from an environmental standpoint.

Your website, www.dep.state.fl.us, brags (with emphasis): "The Florida Department of Environmental Protection is the lead agency in state government for environmental management and stewardship and is one of the more diverse agencies in state government, protecting our air, water, and land."

QUESTION # 6: Have you prepared any sort of Environmental Impact study of the proposed rules? If so, where is it? Leaving expensive RPs (RPZs) and Double-check valves (with expensive periodic inspections) in the mix of devices will cause more "pond pumping" homeowners to switch to utility supplied potable water for lawn watering - as it already has in my community. Based on a very small sample size in our community, roughly 10%-20% of the homeowners who got cited switched to using potable water for lawn irrigation instead of buying and installing an expensive RP (RPZ) valve. QUESTION # 7: What percent of homeowners does FDEP estimate will switch to using potable water for lawn irrigation when faced with the cost of an RP (RPZ) or Double-check valve and the yearly inspections? QUESTION # 8: Will you be publishing your percent estimate of "switchers" in connection with your Notices of Proposed Rule statements? QUESTION # 9: Even though you are the Department of Environment Protection, are you actually concerned at all about the environmental impact of more homeowners' turning to potable water from the aquifer for lawn watering because of the high cost of RPs (RPZs), Double-check valves and inspections?

13 "The 12 month running average permitted withdrawal is capped at 90 mgd. We are expecting to exceed that quantity in the next month or so." David Bracciano, Demand Management Coordinator, Tampa Bay Water, 2/26/2009.

- 6 -

We who pump from ponds are conserving the environmentally sensitive potable water aquifer. The average lawn watering uses about 2,300 gallons of water.14 In Hillsborough County, we are sparing the utility from having to find and supply those 2,300 gallons of precious potable water for our lawn irrigation. If one multiplies that 2,300 by the estimated 10,000 to 20,000 county residents who are pond pumpers, that's around 20,000,000 to 40,000,000 gallons of potable water per week that the utility doesn't have to provide. Those of us who do not use potable water for irrigation should be thanked and held in high esteem. One way of showing appreciation is to not burden us with "Assemblies, Devices and Measures" that would drive us away from reusing 15 our own lake water thereby putting an additional burden on the utilities to come up with more potable water for us. QUESTION # 10: Shouldn't we "pond pumpers" be rewarded by having the total cost of all backflow programs borne by Department of Environmental Protection as part of their mission to be stewards of the environment? QUESTION # 11: On the other hand, if Department of Environmental Protection isn't going to worry about their stewardship of the environment and the environmental impact of their rules and regulations, why shouldn't the agency be downsized or even eliminated?

Vulnerability Assessment statement questions. In response to the 2001 terrorist attacks, Congress passed the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act (Public Law 107-188) in 2002. This law requires utilities to prepare a Vulnerability Assessment (VA) for the USEPA. A VA identifies weaknesses in public water supplies and focuses on the types of possible threats that could keep a utility from providing a safe and reliable supply of water to its customers. Some states have their own VA requirements. For Florida, the USEPA lists "FDEP: Drinking Water Program" as the Safe Drinking Water Act Primacy Agency.

14 "As far as estimating the number of properties that are on existing alternative water supplies, and the potential demand increase if they were all to connect to the County System - - I cannot even begin to imagine the increase in demand, but I know it would be substantial. On an individual basis, we estimate that a typical irrigation cycle uses approximately 2,300 gallons." Norm Davis to David Brown - HC, 6/12/07 15 The personal situation of most users of pond water is that the lawn irrigation starts and within a few minutes the ground is saturated and the water then runs down the gutter, into a storm drain and back into the pond.

- 7 -

QUESTION # 12: Does FDEP have a VA requirement? QUESTION # 13: Has FDEP ever prepared a VA? QUESTION # 14: Has FDEP ever encouraged and/or assisted utilities to prepare VA's? QUESTION # 15: Do any of the Florida VA's ever mention the vulnerability of fire hydrants to backflow, cross-connection and tampering by terrorists/pranksters? QUESTION # 16: If not, should they? QUESTION # 17: Do any of the Florida VA's ever mention the vulnerability of RPs (RPZs) to backflow, cross-connection and tampering by terrorists/pranksters? QUESTION # 18: If not, should they? QUESTION # 19 : Do any of the Florida VA's ever mention the vulnerability of Double-check valves to backflow, cross-connection and tampering by terrorists/pranksters? QUESTION # 20: If not, should they?

AWWA questions. Backflow valves are an unfunded mandate of questionable need being imposed on homeowners. Some have suggested that FDEP is yielding to pressure from the American Water Works Association (AWWA). It is the trade association that represents the plumbing and valve making interests and whose members stand to make huge profits from the installation of backflow valves in residential areas. QUESTION # 21: What contacts have FDEP employees had with AWWA employees within the last five years? QUESTION # 22: Have any items of value, like meals, lodging, gifts, etc., ever passed between FDEP and AWWA employees?

- 8 -

Public Workshops questions. The gathering in Sanford was touted as a "workshop". Several participants suggested that more public workshops were needed since the rules are unclear and the rules would translate into a cost of billions of dollars. 16

A false sense of necessity and urgency has become associated with residential cross-connection and backflow control.

FDEP appears to be trying to rush their proposed rule changes through without adequate public review. Because of the billions of dollars involved, they must slow down in order to allow a careful analysis of what they are proposing by utilities, homeowners and perhaps by a Florida Senate Select Committee. QUESTION # 23: Because of the extensive financial and environmental impact of the current and proposed rules on utilities and homeowners, will FDEP commit to holding an additional six public workshops around the state, instead of just the two that have already taken place? QUESTION # 24: Will FDEP commit to answering questions at remaining workshops like Chap. 120.54(2)(c) F.S. directs? Because of all the loose ends in the current draft, I know there will be a need for many more public workshops. I see by the second sentence in 120.54(2)(c) that an affected person in a region of the state can request a public workshop. I hereby request a workshop in the Tampa area. QUESTION # 25: Is that an adequate request? QUESTION # 26: Would you consider holding a workshop in Sun City Center if we provide the facilities and audience?

16 Wyoming projected their backflow program cost to be $1.3 billion: "The Council has determined that the adoption of this [revision which does away with residential backflow valves] is necessary. The prevention of one death in 143 years at a cost of $1.3 billion dollars does not justify the mandatory installation of back flow devices on residential and domestic non-residential services." (The Wyoming document is available online at www.suncitydave.info/kick-06.pdf.) If one projects that dollar figure to Florida, the cost will be around $46 billion.

- 9 -

QUESTION # 27: Or, how about if the Hillsborough County Water Resource Services would host such a meeting in the County Commissioners' chamber which has projection facilities and comfortable seating that certainly equals what was provided at the Seminole County facilities in Sanford? FDEP's John Sowerby and Van Hoffnagle, who ran the Sanford workshop, hesitated to commit to more public workshops because of FDEP's budget. It's ironic that FDEP worries about their own budget but are not concerned about the budgets of the utilities and homeowners affected by their rule making. I suspect that the cost to send the four FDEP employees to Sanford for the day amounted to less than the cost of a very few RP (RPZ) valves. QUESTION # 28: How much money was spent holding the Sanford workshop? QUESTION # 29: Does FDEP plan to underwrite the cost of any of their employees' going to this year's AWWA's annual convention in San Diego, June 14-18? QUESTION # 30: If so, how much money is budgeted for that soirée?

Florida fatalities questions.

FDEP has created a false sense of necessity and urgency associated with residential cross-connection and backflow control.

In truth, there has never been a single recorded death in Florida from a residential backflow incident. In fact, there has never even been a single recorded incident in Hillsborough County of anyone's getting sick from a residential backflow incident.

The lower part of your Sanford PowerPoint Slide #17 states that:

"In 1988, a city worker in Belle Glade, FL, died of insecticide intoxication after drinking contaminated water from a bottle filled from a faucet at an airstrip. Water from the faucet at the airstrip was often used to dilute pesticides pumped into crop dusting planes and it is likely that insecticide had backflowed into the water system at the airstrip."

The Associated Press news report that was published at the time in "The Gainesville Sun", the "Tampa Tribune" and the "St. Petersburg Times" tells a somewhat expanded and different story.

- 10 -

For example, it noted that the faucet was tested and didn't show any trace of pesticide!

"But 'we took water right out of the faucet and didn't get a trace (of pesticide),' Belle Glade Public Works Director Frank Green said." St. Pete Times, 8/26/1988

In addition, the Chief Medical Examiner's report showed that the worker died of

"complications due to insecticide intoxication and chronic alcoholism"

and that his blood-alcohol level at the time was .23%. That percent is about three times Florida's legal limit of .08%. A blood-alcohol level of .23% is somewhere between:

".20%: You feel confused, dazed, or otherwise disoriented. You need help to stand up or walk. If you hurt yourself at this point, you probably won't realize it because you won't feel pain. If you are aware you've injured yourself, chances are you won't do anything about it. At this point you may experience nausea and/or start vomiting. Your gag reflex is impaired, so you could choke if you do throw up. Since blackouts are likely at this level, you may not remember any of this."

and

.25%: All mental, physical, and sensory functions are severely impaired. You're emotionally numb. There's an increased risk of asphyxiation from choking on vomit and of seriously injuring yourself by falling or other accidents." 17

Given all of the surrounding facts, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a drunk took a swig from a bottle of insecticide and died. And even if one ignores all of the reported circumstances, such an incident would have been prevented by a simple $4 hose-bib valve, not by a $600-$700 RP (RPZ) valve out by the road. QUESTION # 31: In terms of being somewhat more honest, shouldn't FDEP remove Slide #17 from the presentation and instead acknowledge that there has never been a single recorded death in Florida from a residential backflow incident?

17 www.factsontap.org/factsontap/naked_truth/by_the_numbers.htm

- 11 -

Sanford PowerPoint Slide #18 question. I find your slide #18 somewhat disingenuous because of its source and its data. The University of Southern California considers certain brands of toilet tank valves as being cross-connections. There is that one USC study that backflow valve advocates with an agenda love to quote ad infinitum, ad nauseam that over 9% of homes have cross-connections. It's usually quoted to support the contention that 9% of pond pumpers have cross-connections and need to buy RPZ valves, which of course isn't true. There are several brands of toilet tank valves that do allow migration of the toilet tank water with that blue sanitizer chemical into a home's drinking water and back into the street and into the public water supply, and that's not good and that is what USC is reporting. For some reason, your proposed rules specifically exempt that type of potential cross-connection and backflow. It's in the same class with a missing or broken Hose Bibb Vacuum Breakers (HBVB) which, for some strange reason, you also don't seem to be worried about. If your proposed rules are going to ignore certain cross-connection and backflow situations that may account for as many as a million incidents since 1970 according to USC, then that slide doesn't belong in your presentation. On the other hand, if you're truly concerned about those million incidents, then you should change your proposed rules to encompass every home in Florida because of the potential of their toilet tank valves and lack of HBVBs to cross-connect and backflow chemicals, some lethal, into public drinking water supplies. QUESTION # 32: Why is FDEP ignoring cross-connection and backflow potentials that exist for every home in Florida?

Timeline questions.

A number of the public speakers at the Sanford workshop complained about the costs that FDEP's hurry-up rush to force the installation of backflow devices would cause. If FDEP is going to finance all backflow efforts out of their own budget, then well-and-good and God's blessing on FDEP.

In truth, as an unfunded mandate, FDEP's timelines are not justified.

QUESTION # 33: Since the current and proposed rules and regulations are an unfunded mandate - and since there has never been a single recorded death in Florida from a residential backflow incident, what's the damn rush?

Despite your doubts about the honesty of utility workers, they want to do the right thing. But their actions have to be tempered by their revenues.

- 12 -

QUESTION # 34: Since this is a totally unfunded mandate, wouldn't it make more sense to eliminate all timeline mandates in the mark-up and change them to read "whenever it is economically feasible"?

Grandfathering questions.

The state has recently beefed-up its codes regarding roof tie-downs because of the number of actual injuries when roofs shifted or blew off during wind events. Wisely, those new requirements were not made retroactive to older homes because of the massive economic impact that would have been caused.

Many of the irrigation systems in question are also older, particularly where the homeowners are elderly. It seems wrong to now go back and force the installation of backflow valves for those currently living in the home, particularly in view of the fact that there has never been a single recorded death in Florida from a residential backflow incident. QUESTION # 35: Given FDEP's penchant for retroactively requiring backflow valves, is the State's building code in error for not requiring retroactive installation of roof tie-downs for all Florida homes within five years?

Record Keeping Requirement questions.

John Sowerby and Van Hoofnagle made several disparaging remarks at the Sanford workshop about the record-keeping honesty of utilities.

Slide 74 requires utilities, in lieu of actual knowledge to provide the "suspected source & cause" of a possible backflow. If Sowerby and Hoofnagle are correct, the water departments will evade responsibility and wrongly put the blame on homeowners and non-existent cross-connections. This will result in greatly inflated and meaningless data. If the utility can't pin-point the "source & cause", it should not be reported!

QUESTION # 36: Will you modify your reporting requirements, and Slide 74, to eliminate guessing?

If FDEP is correct in its assessment that utility employees are not the epitome of honesty, I believe that all of this fancy reporting that you're proposing ain't worth the squeez'n.

QUESTION # 37: What percent of the reporting do you feel will be dishonest?

- 13 -

QUESTION # 38: In what ways do you expect that the reporting will be dishonest?

QUESTION # 39: If FDEP expects utility workers to be dishonest anyway, why even bother to ask for reports from them?

In these times of declining revenues and government cutbacks and layoffs, utility employees don't really have the time to do a lot of questionable paper-work, whether it's honest or not.

And, so what if it's reported that there was that one cross-connection last year in the state of Florida. Will you do anything differently? All of your reporting proposals strike me as being a little like standing on a street corner and counting all the red cars that drive by. So what?

And once AMRs with Dual-checks are installed across the state, all cross-connections will be identified and eliminated in Florida within one month, anyway.

QUESTION # 40: Is there really any need for fancy reporting when AMRs are pending?

Reclaimed water questions. Reclaimed water doesn't appear to be particularly healthy, even when used for lawn irrigation.18

18 "Recent studies support long standing concerns about possible public health effects of reclaimed water. It has been known for some time that treated waste water effluent, or reclaimed water, contains pathogens that could be transferred to people through contact, including aerosols from sprinklers. Particularly worrisome are high levels of parasites such as giardia and cryptosporidium which are not killed by chlorination. In 1997, the EPA warned, "Viable bacteria from reclaimed water in sprinklers can travel more than 1000 feet in the air." As far back as 1984, researchers concluded that disinfection by chlorination, an important part of wastewater treatment, initially lowers the total number of sewage related bacteria, but may substantially increase the proportions of antibiotic resistant, potentially pathogenic organisms.

"More recently, Chang (2007) reported that Staphyloccus aureus bacteria (responsible for MRSA) become more virulent and drug resistant after chlorination. A large study in 2006 confirms that microbes, inactivated but not killed by treatment, can regrow in retention ponds and pipes, becoming a major source of the spread of multi-drug resistant pathogens in the environment. During the processing of reclaimed water, fragments can be released from microbes when their cell walls are disrupted. These fragments are not alive and not affected by disinfectants like chlorine. This intact genetic

- 14 -

QUESTION # 41: Are there any parts of Footnote 18 that you take issue with? FDEP's 12/23/2008 Proposed Rules: Attachment I divides water systems into an A Group ('closed' reclaimed water) and a B Group ('open' reclaimed water). QUESTION # 42: Does FDEP accept that multi-drug resistant pathogens, giardia and cryptosporidium parasites and Staphyloccus aureus bacteria can end up on homeowners' properties regardless of whether the utility has an "open" or "closed" reclaimed water supply system? QUESTION # 43: Is FDEP concerned about the spread of multi-drug resistant pathogens, giardia and cryptosporidium parasites and Staphyloccus aureus bacteria via reclaimed water? QUESTION # 44: To your knowledge, do any Florida utilities condone the use of reclaimed water as potable water for domestic use? QUESTION # 45: How many of you four that went to Sanford (Hoffnagle, Sowerby, Petersen & Christen) have knowingly drunk over a gallon of reclaimed water in your life? QUESTION # 46: What percent of FDEP employees would you guess would be willing to drink even one glass of reclaimed water per day? Reclaimed water on a property is under pressure - as is the potable water. The pressure of the reclaimed water may be more or less than the potable water, either all the time or when there is a negative pressure event affecting the potable lines. Someone recently told me that reclaimed water systems tend to be run at a higher psi than potable water systems. QUESTION # 47: Are any FDEP employees aware of any general psi differences between potable and reclaimed water systems? QUESTION # 48: If so, why is that done? QUESTION # 49: Does FDEP believe that the fact that reclaimed water may have the potential to reside in an open container or pond for a second or two

material can transfer both virulence and drug resistance to living microorganisms in water or soil."

Source (with emphasis): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wastewater_reuse

- 15 -

before moving on, i.e., an "open" system, would purge it of all the multi-drug resistant pathogens, giardia and cryptosporidium parasites and Staphyloccus aureus bacteria left there by the utility. QUESTION # 50: Does FDEP accept that a cross-connection between a reclaimed water line and a potable line has the potential to introduced multi-drug resistant pathogens, giardia and cryptosporidium parasites and Staphyloccus aureus bacteria into the public's drinking water supply? QUESTION # 51: If so, shouldn't FDEP require utilities to protect a water system against potential cross-connected backflow from a reclaimed water line with the very same vigor and the very same devices that they would apply to an auxiliary water system used for lawn watering from a pond? If you answer no, please explain why. It is unsafe to apply a different standard of backflow control to reclaimed water just because of the way it travels to a homeowner. It must be the multi-drug resistant pathogens, giardia and cryptosporidium parasites and Staphyloccus aureus bacteria that are of the upmost concern when considering reclaimed water and backflow devices and measures. QUESTION # 52: Shouldn't FDEP's 12/23/2008 Proposed Rules: Attachment I eliminate the division of water systems into an A Group ('closed' reclaimed water) and a B Group ('open' reclaimed water)?

Private well questions. FDEP's 12/23/2008 Proposed Rules: Attachment I also divides water systems into those that draw from a Private Well and those that draw from Surface Water. It is unnecessary, and in fact unsafe, to divide the Attachment I alternatives into the A Group (wells) and the B Group (lakes). A private well, particularly one dug for irrigation purposes (and therefore probably shallow) should not be considered inherently safer than Surface Water. MTBE 19 and arsenic 20 routinely find their way into wells. And consider a property that gets its potable water from a utility and irrigation water from a well.

19 Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) is a component of gasoline. The EPA's Office of Water has noted that a growing number of studies have detected MTBE in ground water throughout the country; in some instances these contaminated waters are sources of drinking water. They note that the contamination of drinking water sources can occur

- 16 -

And allow that the property has a septic drain field and also is across the road from a dairy or pig farm. It's almost a given that the sub-surface drainage from the drain field and the warm-blooded animals' pee and poop will make its way into the well. QUESTION # 53: Does FDEP accept that water from a Private Well can contain MTBE, arsenic, E. coli and other harmful substances? QUESTION # 54: If the answer is no, i.e., that well water is always safe, then why bother to periodically test it? QUESTION # 55: Does FDEP accept that water from a Private Well has the potential to be more dangerous than Surface Water? The well water on any property is under pressure - as is the potable water. When there is an actual cross-connection present, the pressure of the well water may be more or less than the potable water, either intermittently as the well pump kicks on to refill the storage tank, all the time (depending on the pressure setting of the well's controls) or when there is a negative pressure event affecting the potable lines. QUESTION # 56: Does FDEP agree that it is unsafe to apply a different standard of backflow control to Private Wells than to Surface Water? QUESTION # 57: Shouldn't FDEP's 12/23/2008 Proposed Rules: Attachment I eliminate the division of water systems into an A Group (Private Wells) and a B Group (Surface Water)?

from leaking underground and above ground fuel storage tanks, pipelines, refueling spills, automobile accidents damaging the fuel tank, consumer disposal of "old" gasoline", etc. Their data supports the conclusion that MTBE is a potential human carcinogen. Source: "Concerns about MTBE" www.epa.gov/mtbe/water.htm

20 Arsenic is a natural element used for a variety of purposes within industry and agriculture. Arsenic can enter the water supply from natural deposits in the earth or from industrial and agricultural pollution. Once released, arsenic remains in the environment for a long time. High arsenic levels may come from certain fertilizers, animal feedlots, and industrial waste. Several studies have shown that inorganic arsenic can increase the risk of lung cancer, skin cancer, bladder cancer, liver cancer, kidney cancer, and prostate cancer. The World Health Organization (WHO), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have determined that inorganic arsenic can cause cancer in humans. Source: "Arsenic and Drinking Water from Private Wells" www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/healthywater/factsheets/arsenic.htm

- 17 -

All service connections questions. FDEP's 12/23/2008 Proposed Rules: Attachment I totally ignores the backflow dangers inherent at all potable water service connections. A publication distributed by, and therefore presumably sanctioned by the Hillsborough County Water Resource Services, states that:

"Ironically, the ordinary garden hose is the most common offender [of a cross connection] as it can be easily connected to the potable water supply and used for a variety of potentially dangerous applications." 21

QUESTION # 58: Does FDEP agree with the above quote from the Watts booklet? QUESTION # 59: If not, does FDEP consider ordinary garden hoses to constitute any sort of potential danger to a potable water supply? It appears that homes with outside potable water faucets and garden hoses actually have a far greater potential for harming a utility's potable water supply. I realize that codes call for Hose Bibb Vacuum Breakers (HBVB) on all sill cocks - just as codes call for no cross-connections. But I also realize that Florida HBVB's fail in about a year because of their exposure to the elements since they are above grade. And I further realize that most homeowners remove them after getting sprayed one time by water after a pressure release. If FDEP is going to mandate rules that worry about the potential of negative pressure events that cause backflow from well water, reclaimed water and surface water, it seems that these same rules should certainly apply to all potable water users because of the potential of negative pressure events and the reality of broken or missing HBVB's. If you're going to go after homeowners who are potentially stupid enough to have cross-connections, then you should go after homeowners who are potentially stupid enough to remove or not maintain HBVB's. In the event of a negative pressure event, I should be as equally protected from their stupidity as they are from mine. QUESTION # 60: Because of ordinary garden hoses' being the most common offender of cross-connection, will FDEP consider their potential to do harm?

21 "50 Cross-Connection Questions, Answers, & Illustrations Relating To Backflow Prevention Products and Protection of Safe Drinking Water Supply" published by the Watts Regulator Company © 2006.

- 18 -

QUESTION # 61: Why shouldn't FDEP modify the proposed rules to include the most common offender of cross-connections, i.e., the ordinary garden hose at any service connection? QUESTION # 62: Could it be considered "profiling" or "discriminatory" for FDEP to go after homeowners with non-existent cross-connections that use well water, reclaimed water or surface water systems while looking the other way for the most common offender of cross-connections, i.e., the ordinary garden hose at all service connections? QUESTION # 63: Will FDEP include all service connections as needing to also have "Alternative Assemblies, Devices, and Measures for Backflow Protection at Potable Water Service Connections to Residential Premises" that are equal to or exceed the lesser offenders of cross-connections like well water, reclaimed water or surface water systems?

Double-check valve questions. FDEP's 12/23/2008 Proposed Rules: Attachment I alternatives include Double-check valves. If all things were equal, I presume they would have the same reliability as Dual-check valves. However, all things are not equal! My understanding is that the presence of the four test cocks causes Double-check valves to have several drawbacks which make them less desirable. Since they are below grade, they're often surrounded by ground water and mud, even if the test cocks are potentially protected. And I would guess, or at least hope, that testers must always sanitize the line (an added expense) when they finish testing, so that nothing from the ground water or mud can potentially get into the homeowner's drinking water. And I would guess further that if the four test cocks aren’t turned-off properly that there is the potential for potable water to intermingle with ground water. QUESTION # 64: Does FDEP agree that the test cocks on a Double-check valve have the potential to introduce foreign bacteria into the service supply? QUESTION # 65: What percent of the time do testers sanitize the lines from a Double-check valve to a home?

- 19 -

QUESTION # 66: How many times have Floridians gotten sick because of the failure of a backflow valve testers to sanitize the lines from a Double-check valve to a home? QUESTION # 67: Does FDEP agree that Dual-check valves, since they lack test cocks, do not allow contamination of the service to a home whereas Double-check valves do allow contamination of the service to a home?

Customer Agreements questions. Footnote 9 of FDEP's 12/23/2008 Proposed Rules: Attachment I about Customer Agreements proposes rules that are incomprehensibly vindictive. QUESTION # 68: Does FDEP agree that the penalties that you propose don't even include the simple remedy of just capping the cross-connection? Consider, if you will, the potential case of a 90-year-old widow who is having to make do on Social Security and is skipping part of her medicines because of their cost. Unbeknownst to her is the fact that forty years ago the previous owner of her home had two valves installed to switch between potable water and lake water for irrigation - and the valves got covered by dirt over the years. And here comes mean old FDEP fining her and/or cutting off her water and/or forcing her to spend $700 for an RP or a DC with additional pricey yearly inspections. And now she can't even afford her life-saving medicines. Geez, even a criminal is given two chances before the "third strike and you're out." QUESTION # 69: Why is FDEP so cruel and heartless to 90-year-old widows? There is no reason or even a need to seek revenge if the homeowner is unaware that a cross-connection exists. We are a law-abiding nation. Homeowners want to do what is right. For that single cross-connection with two ball-valves that was discovered here in Sun City Center, the homeowner was deeply embarrassed and got it fixed within hours. When an actual cross-connection is found, there should be two levels of penalties. The first level would be for when a cross-connection is first found - it just has to be capped-off as soon as possible by the homeowner, the irrigation guy or a plumber. And the second level of penalties would be severe and for that .000001% of homeowners, irrigation guys and plumbers who decide to flaunt the law and intentionally recreate a cross-connection. QUESTION # 70: Would FDEP consider such a two-tier level of penalties more appropriate?

- 20 -

QUESTION # 71: Did I understand from an exchange that took place at the Sanford meeting that once a homeowner installs a backflow device adjacent to the service connection that he is free to have any cross-connections that he wants? Hillsborough County has a curious "double jeopardy" ordinance. A homeowner must first get rid of the cross-connection and then must turn around and also buy a $600-$700 RP (RPZ), to protect against a just confirmed non-existent cross-connection! QUESTION # 72: Will FDEP's rules and regulations make clear that once the public water supply is protected against backflow, the homeowner is free to do his own thing in terms of backflow and cross-connections?

AMR migration questions. Automatic Meter Reading water meters (AMRs) have many desirable features. Except for an air-gap device, an AMR water meter is probably the ultimate backflow prevention device. They record (usually in 15 minute increments) both forward and backward flow for realtime (to an area antenna) or interrogated (by a passing vehicle) radio transmission. An AMRs sensitivity can be set to ignore the normal backflows caused by main breaks, fire trucks' pumping water, hydrant flushing and water expansion from the heating of water in hot water tanks. They can be set to provide an immediate alarm in case of a greater than normal backflow event. They contain a long-life (20+ years) battery. An old fashion water meter costs about $30. AMRs cost about $230. The cost to read an old fashion water meter is over fifty cents per. The cost to read an AMR is about four cents per. Hillsborough County reads over 140,000 water meters each month. An added side benefit of AMRs is that they detect lawn watering outside of the prescribed hours. AMRs detect backflow situations within seconds. 22 And the addition of a Dual-check valve adds all that much more protection. It's kinda like taking birth-control pills and using condoms.

Footnote 8 of FDEP's 12/23/2008 Proposed Rules: Attachment I sets just five years for utilities to install AMRs on existing premises. If FDEP is willing to underwrite the purchase and installation of AMRs, then five years will work -

22 RP (RPZ) and Double-check valves have the potential to go bad the day after their annual inspection thus allowing a backflow situation to occur for 364 days until the next inspection.

- 21 -

and God's blessing on FDEP for their responsible conduct. Actually, with the extravagant budget that FDEP has, it could all be done in one year, couldn't it?

Oops, I forgot - backflow devices are an unfunded mandate, aren't they. Damn!

I believe that Hillsborough County wants to migrate to AMRs with a Dual-check valve as resources permit. The County has estimated that the cost to read a meter will drop from around fifty cents per to about four cents per for an AMR. Given that the County reads over 140,000 meters each month, that will amount to a savings of over $70,000 per month, forever! The Hillsborough County Professional Responsibility Section has initiated an investigation into whether RPs (RPZs) are at the heart of a kickback scheme by one or more County employees. 23 I have great concerns that between now and when the County is all suited-up with AMRs, homeowners who have a non-existent cross-connection but do pump from a pond or well will be forced to buy and install RPs (RPZs) by over-zealous County employees, some of whom may be involved in a kickback scheme. Some sort of provision is needed in the proposed rules to protect homeowners who don't have an actual cross-connection. In our legal system, citizens are presumed innocent until proven guilty. QUESTION # 73: In fairness to homeowners, shouldn't the burden be on the utility to prove that an actual cross-connection exists before forcing a homeowner to buy and install an RP (RPZ) or Double-check valve? QUESTION # 74: What consumer protection clauses will you be including in the proposed rules to protect against over-zealous, and perhaps dishonest, utility employees? QUESTION # 75: So as to not work a needless hardship on utilities and homeowners, and since people don't die or get sick from a lack of backflow devices in residential areas, would it make sense for FDEP to ban RPs (RPZs) and Double-checks in residential areas (except where there is a proven intentional cross-connection) once a utility commits in writing to installing AMRs with Dual-checks by 2025 or 2030?

23 See page 21 of my previously submitted "FDEP Proposal Response" which is also available at www.backflowvideos.org.

- 22 -

At the August 7, 2008, workshop in West Palm Beach, Hassan Hadjimiry gave a compelling presentation on the reliability of Dual-check valves. He noted that Dual-checks continued to function properly for at least ten years. And isn't that what you would expect? After all, Dual-checks are simple and self-cleaning. No wonder they just keep going - and going - and going. During the transition to AMRs, it seems like it would be an elegant, inexpensive and totally transparent to the homeowner to specify that at the next, and thereafter, residential meter change-outs, all utilities that commit to eventually installing ARM's are, in the interim, to install a ($15) Dual-check valve attached to the meter. If backflow/cross-connection control is really all that important, that seems like a small price for utilities in order to "ensure, protect and conserve our water supply". QUESTION # 76: So as to not work a needless hardship on utilities and homeowners, and since people don't die or get sick from a lack of backflow devices in residential areas, would it make sense for FDEP to specify that at the next, and thereafter, residential meter change-outs, all utilities that commit to eventually installing ARM's are, in the interim, to just install a ($15) Dual-check valve attached to the meter? QUESTION # 77: Do you have any thoughts on what can be done with old RPs (RPZs) and Double-check valves as safer, more reliable and less expensive devices take their place? QUESTION # 78: Does a marketing channel exist for selling used RPs (RPZs) to backward states?

AMR timeline questions.

Footnote 8 of FDEP's 12/23/2008 Proposed Rules: Attachment I sets just five years for utilities to install AMRs on existing premises. There's no need to rush. There has never been a single recorded incident in Hillsborough County of anyone's getting sick from a residential backflow incident, nor has there ever been a single recorded death in Florida from a residential backflow incident. Five years puts an undue and unnecessary hardship on utilities who must bear the cost of the meters and of the manpower to install them, since this whole backflow thing is an unfunded mandate.

- 23 -

Lawn irrigation accounts for as much as 50% of some residential water bills. Lawn watering is a discretionary act. According to statements made at the Sanford workshop, all of Florida's utilities' revenues are falling in these tough times from customers' discretionary cutbacks - and non-watering at foreclosed homes.

Hillsborough County tries for a ten-year meter change-out - at which time they could install an AMR with a Dual-check. But with the current economic problems, even the ten year goal may not be realistic.

Why not change the first sentence of Footnote 8 to read:

"The CWS has installed AMR or will do so as resources permit for existing premises and uses AMR for new premises. …"

That way, utilities will not be forced to double their meter installation/change-out crews. Rather, they can continue with their current manning and change-out schedules and stay within their budgets.

PVB questions. FDEP's proposed rules do not address the elimination of Pressure Vacuum Breakers (PVBs) on potable water lines. By having backflow prevention at the service entrance, the addition of a PVB further along the line is an unnecessary repetition and cost. DEP's proposed rules look the other way for cross-connections and backflow from broken or missing Hose Bibb Vacuum Breakers (HBVB) and from faulty toilet tank valves. So, why not do the same PVBs? If a utility feels strongly enough that it is liable for backflow and cross-connection prevention beyond the service connection, then it must be the utility that is mandated to be responsible for the cost, yearly testing, maintenance and replacement of all residential PVBs. My understanding is that most contracts with homeowners give the utility the right to trespass, so servicing a PVB valve, which is normally up near the home, should not be a problem. QUESTION # 79: Will FDEP make it clear in the rules and regulations that once the public water supply is protected against backflow at the service connection, PVBs are not required on the private property?

Notification questions. Bear in mind that there has never been a single recorded death in Florida from a residential backflow incident. Also note that there has never been even a single recorded incident in Hillsborough County (and probably a number of other Florida

- 24 -

counties) of anyone's even getting sick from a residential backflow incident. And in some Florida communities, "snowbirds" constitute over half of the population. I suggest that your proposed rules include language about the delivering of notices concerning cross-connections. If there is not an actual cross-connection on the property, homeowners are not to be cited for a non-existent cross-connection. If there is actual cross-connection plumbing but it does not represent an imminent threat to the public water supply, i.e., the ball valves are turned to prevent a cross-connection between potable and reclaimed, well or surface waters, the citation notice is to be sent via the U.S. Postal Service - instead of being taped to siding, tucked in screen doors, under flower pots, etc. The Hillsborough County Professional Responsibility Section is currently conducting an investigating of a possible kickback scheme involving RPs (RPZs) within the water Department. The scheme may be operating by citing only homeowners in the vicinity of a particular plumber who gets additional backflow valve installation business and then kicks back part of the valve installation fee to a county employee for throwing business his way. I believe that one part of the County's investigation is concerned with this very matter. They are trying to determine if any county employees were trying to avoid possible entanglements of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1341, by hand delivering the notices in violation of the ordinance. The Justice Department's headnotes for 18 U.S.C. 1341 make it quite clear that the scheme of issuing and mailing citations in order to get a kickback amounts to mail fraud. 24

Residential fire hydrant questions. FDEP's proposed rules do not address the statewide lack of backflow protection of potable water on residential fire hydrants. At the same time that FDEP, utilities and trade associations have been aggressively pursuing an agenda of forcing 24 18 U.S.C. Section 1341—Elements of Mail Fraud --"There are two elements in mail fraud: (1) having devised or intending to devise a scheme to defraud (or to perform specified fraudulent acts), and (2) use of the mail for the purpose of executing, or attempting to execute, the scheme (or specified fraudulent acts)." Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 721 n. 10 (1989); see also Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8 (1954) ("The elements of the offense of mail fraud under . . . § 1341 are (1) a scheme to defraud, and (2) the mailing of a letter, etc., for the purpose of executing the scheme."); Laura A. Eilers & Harvey B. Silikovitz, Mail and Wire Fraud, 31 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 703, 704 (1994) (cases cited). Source: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00940.htm

- 25 -

homeowners to install RPs (RPZs), there has been a noticeable silence on the need for backflow protection on fire hydrants. Fire hydrants have already been the culprit in a number of backflow incidents. The typical incident occurred when a fire was in an area where there were both fire hydrants and available water in a pond or river. The pumper truck operator, with his myriad of pumps and valves, got his connections wrong and pumped pond or river water into the potable water lines that also served the neighborhood. QUESTION # 80: Is the silence about fire hydrant backflow valves because the utilities and municipalities would have to foot the bill, instead of some hapless homeowner, and that the utilities and municipalities have quietly brought pressure on FDEP to not open that expensive can of worms? QUESTION # 81: If the answer is no, what is the reason for the lack of concern about the potential of fire hydrants providing backflow, cross-connection and direct access to the public drinking water supply?

The potential for fire hydrants to convey harm is absolutely breathtaking!

RPs (RPZs) give a terrorist/prankster/disgruntled person/teenagers the ability to harm a neighborhood. Fire hydrants operate on a far, far grander scale. Most of the fire hydrants in Florida operate off of the potable water lines. The most obvious scenario is forcing E. coli-ladened "honey" from a stolen septic tank truck back into the drinking water supply via a fire hydrant. This was the plotline for an episode of "Numb3rs" on CBS. Of course, in TV-land, the good guys stopped the bad guys just seconds before the pumps were started. That won't be the case here in Florida. Most of the fire hydrants in Florida are of the "dry" barrel type meaning that the actual valve is three to six feet below grade with an empty space above it. The only equipment needed to access the void between the pumper caps at the top and the valve on the bottom is a fair-sized pipe wrench and a piece of 2" pipe to use as a lever - or you can get fancy and buy a hydrant wrench for $20 online. After pouring a toxic pesticide, like Orthene 25, through the pumper cap opening into the void, a terrorist, vandal, disgruntled person or teenage boys need only replace the

25 www.akaction.org/fact_sheets/Acephate_Orthene_Facts_ACAT.pdf

- 26 -

pumper cap and crack the valve a tiny bit to allow the lethal chemical 26 to be carried along as part of the drinking water supply over the next few hours or days. To see an animated video of just how vulnerable fire hydrants are to backflow and cross-connection and how very easy it is to add Koolaid (a.k.a. bio-toxins and lethal chemicals) to the public drinking water supply, go to:

www.BackflowVideos.org and click on the rainbow colored bar just above the contact information near the bottom of the page. I hid the link from the casual web surfer because fire hydrants are so easy to use to gain direct access to the public drinking water supply. And if you would like to "secretly" view material about how easy it is to tamper with backflow valves, it is at:

www.suncitydave.info/offsite.htm A lethal chemical introduced via a backflow valve will probably only kill a few people in the neighborhood. But lethal chemicals or bio-toxins introduced via a fire hydrant could affect a whole community or military base - like MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa.

“Given that most if not all airmen … drink water every day, an adversary could functionally destroy or disrupt USAF operations by injecting deadly chemicals or insidious infective agents into an air base water supply.” 27

QUESTION # 82: Does FDEP recognize the vulnerability of fire hydrants? QUESTION # 83: Does FDEP care about the vulnerability of fire hydrants? QUESTION # 84: If so, why are the inherent backflow and cross-connection vulnerabilities of fire hydrants being overlooked while homeowners are being

26 A 12-ounce can of Orthene powder makes 100 gallons of pesticide. But for a terrorist or disgruntled person, it isn't necessary to mix-up all 100 gallons. Just make a slurry out of the can's contents and put that into the drinking water supply. Let the utility's water flow do the additional mixing. 27 1999 Air Force Report on Water Security.

- 27 -

targeted to install expensive backflow valves because of non-existent cross-connections? QUESTION # 85: Shouldn't FDEP be devoting its resources to getting backflow valves on fire hydrants instead of harassing old folks who have done nothing wrong?

RP (RPZ) questions. In the follow comments and questions, it should be noted that many of the problems with RPs (RPZs) also apply to Double-check valves because they too have test cocks that provide direct access to the public drinking water supply. I was surprised and quite disappointed that you included RPs (RPZs) as part of the menu of alternatives. Based on your own internal emails, you already know just how dangerous RP (RPZ) valves are. I am amazed that you would even consider them. Here are some internal emails by state employees 28 about RP (RPZ) valves… Cindy Morris to Bob Vincent, Ed Gettinger - 6/4/07 14:54.

"His web site is pretty accurate."

Bob Vincent to Cindy Morris, Ed Bettinger - 6/4/07 9:51pm. "The problem with this demonstration of his is not for coaching terrorists, as they have no doubt already conceived this procedure, but rather of vandals and disgruntled staff or neighbors that hadn't yet figured out how to harm a few people with water."

Ed Bettinger to Van Hoofnagle, Kenyon Carter 6/5/07 12:01pm. "David Brown is delving into a territory that he shouldn't."

Cindy Morris to Bob Vincent, Ed Bettinger - 6/5/07 9:51am.

28 Even Hillsborough County employees who advocated the installation of backflow valves in residential areas recognize their dangers. For example, here are a couple of typical emails: "Bob DeCecco of Building Services is contacting FDLE and Homeland Security and reporting him to them, because he continues to publish these demonstrations." (Stacy Williams to Lori Hudson, Michelle VanDyke - 7/2/07). And "I asked the Sheriff's Office this weekend to contact Homeland Security regarding Mr. Brown's activities." (Wally Hill to Ken Griffin, Lori Hudson, Edith Stewart - 7/3/07).

- 28 -

"… we will be speaking with this individual [Brown] at the next cross connection control meeting to ensure our concerns are voiced regarding his e-mail & possible FDLE involvement if he should continue this effort."

Van Hoofnagle to Ed Bettinger, Kenyon Carter - 6/5/07 2:49pm. "I would also refer the email to Law Enforcement as I have done by copy of this email to our FDEP contact at Emergency Response. Van [Hoofnagle] - P.S. Phil [Wieczynski] would [you] take a look at this and forward to the appropriate contacts you have in law enforcement?"

Cindy Morris to Van Hoffnagle, Bob Vincent, Ed Bettinger - 6/8/07 11:00am. "Van, I informed them [HCHD: Alfsen, Shiflett, Becken, LaDouceur] your office was going to contact FDLE. Could you please keep me informed if this occurs & the outcome."

Van Hoofnagle to Cindy Morris - 6/8/07 1:29pm. "I did so by copying Phil Wieczynski in our FDEP Division of Law Enforcement and not FDLE. I have attached that email."

Ed Bettinger to Cindy Morris - 6/4/07 3:25pm. "However, what really bothers me are Mr. Brown's questions to Andy Reich concerning the capacity of aquatic toxins to induce damage within the Hillsborough County's water system. It appears he is asking and willing to spread information to others concerning the vulnerability of the Hillsborough County water system."

QUESTION # 86: Does FDEP have any reason to doubt the authenticity of the foregoing eight emails? QUESTION # 87: Does FDEP, and particularly Van Hoffnagle, still stand behind the content of their emails, i.e., that the public knowledge of the vulnerabilities of RPs (RPZs) should be suppressed? You'll note that several of the emails were concerned with trying to intimidate me into not speaking out about the dangers of RP (RPZ) valves. As a result of those efforts, I did indeed get a visit from the FBI who had even consulted with the Federal District Attorney prior to dropping in on me unannounced. However, after I gave the agents my standard demonstration of just how easy it is to backflow Koolaid (a.k.a. bio-toxins and lethal chemicals) via an RP (RPZ) valve into the public water supply, they understood my concerns and left me alone. You all went after me because I was the messenger bearing bad news that questioned the wisdom of your decisions and agenda. However, rather than

- 29 -

intimidating me, your act of setting the law on me officially affirmed my beliefs in the dangers of RPs (RPZs). And it strengthened my resolve to be even more of a messenger and spread the word far-and-wide. QUESTION # 88: How in God's name can civil servants be so ethically challenged and so two-faced as to mandate the installation of thousands of RPs (RPZs) in residential areas and at the same time set the law on a citizen for raising the issue of the valves' vulnerabilities? QUESTION # 89: If you had it to do all over again, would you have set law enforcement on me? Why or why not? QUESTION # 90: Does FDEP accept that based on the candid truths contained in the emails sent between state employees about the dangers of RPs (RPZs), they should not be on the menu of alternatives? QUESTION # 91: Will FDEP remove RPs (RPZs) and Double-check valves from the menu of backflow prevention devices?

RP (RPZ) reliability questions. At the August 7, 2008, workshop in West Palm Beach, Hassan Hadjimiry gave a compelling presentation on the reliability of Dual-check valves compared to RPs (RPZs). He noted that Dual-checks continued to function properly by a factor of 3 or 4 to 1 compared to RPs (RPZs). And isn't that what you would expect? RPs (RPZs) are above grade exposed to the elements and are very complicated devices. Their pistons are easily compromised by acidic water and grains of sand and the O-rings deteriorate over time. A failed RP (RPZ) valve is the same as no valve at all. On the other hand, Dual-checks are simple and self-cleaning. No wonder they just keep going - and going - and going. QUESTION # 92: Because of their unreliability, should RPs (RPZs) even be on the menu of alternatives?

RP (RPZ) theft questions. RPs (RPZs) are made of brass or copper which is worth a lot of money. RPs (RPZs) are mounted above grade on dimly lit residential streets. RPs (RPZs) are connected with two union joints. Put those three facts together and you've created valves that cry out to be stolen and sold as scrap. If you type "stealing backflow valves" into Google, you'll get over 5,000 results.

- 30 -

Somebody even has a website about RP (RPZ) thefts in Florida at

www.backflowtheft.com/news.htm The most creative theft that I've heard of was the stealing of the RP (RPZ) valve from behind the Sheriff's Office in Manatee County. QUESTION # 93: Because they are such tempting targets for thieves, should RPs (RPZs) even be on the menu of alternatives?

Ticking time bomb questions. Bob Vincent wrote:

"The problem with this demonstration of his is not for coaching terrorists, as they have no doubt already conceived this procedure, but rather of vandals and disgruntled staff or neighbors that hadn't yet figured out how to harm a few people with water." 29

The Homeland Security Act seeks to provide "critical infrastructure protection."

QUESTION # 94: Does FDEP accept that instead of providing "critical infrastructure protection", its inclusion of RPs (RPZs) (and Double-check valves) in the choice of alternatives is creating the ideal conditions for members of a terrorist cell, prankster, a disgruntled person or some teenage boys to inject lethal chemicals and bio-toxins into our drinking water supplies?

Imagine the havoc and lingering effects that will be caused by members of a terrorist cell, or some nut-case seeking importance and recognition, driving around the quiet neighborhoods of the state in the middle of the night and randomly introducing lethal chemicals and bio-toxins into drinking water supplies through backflow valves. And they really wouldn't have to kill very many people - just make them sick. It's the fear factor that counts. Remember that it was just that one man that had explosives in his shoe back in 2001 - and since then, billions of air-travelers have had to take off their shoes to pass through airport security. Water utilities' resources are currently secured with high-tech fences, guards and real-time monitoring of the water quality as it leaves the water works. With RP (RPZ) valves, all that security serves no real purpose! Your own internal emails attest to that!

29 Bob Vincent to Cindy Morris, Ed Bettinger - DOH, 6/4/07 9:51pm.

- 31 -

QUESTION # 95: Does FDEP accept that all of the utilities' security of its resources and facilities is for naught, as their resources are going to consist of tens of thousands of facilities, i.e., RP (RPZ) valves in peoples' front yards - vulnerable and waiting to provide a direct and easy way to insert lethal chemicals and bio-toxins into drinking water supplies across Florida?

QUESTION # 96: Does FDEP accept that instead of residential RPs (RPZs) protecting us, they expose us to even more danger - as your own emails indicate?

USEPA statistics questions.

According to your Sanford Slide 17, the USEPA has determined that over a period of 31 years, there has been an average of just fifteen incidents per year for all of the United States.

QUESTION # 97: What is the source document for that statistic?

QUESTION # 98: What percent of those fifteen incidents per year were industrial?

QUESTION # 99: Do you have a contact name and number for those statistics?

Given that there are about 128 million homes in the U.S. and about 8.7 million homes in Florida, fifteen incidents per year for the U.S. works out to just one backflow incident per year in Florida. And it is unknown if that one incident per year is industrial or residential. No wonder there has never been a single recorded incident in Hillsborough County of anyone's getting sick from a residential backflow incident, nor has there ever been a single recorded death in Florida from a residential backflow incident. But if hundreds of thousands of RPs (RPZs) line the residential streets of Florida, it becomes a ticking time bomb of when, not if, they will be used to harm the innocent. And I would be willing to wager that much more harm will be done by pranksters who backfeed lethal chemicals and bio-toxins via an RP (RPZ) than by homeowners with an accidental cross-connection that backflows.

Remembering that backflow valves in residential areas are a dream come true for terrorists, vandals, disgruntled people - and teenage boys…

Can you imagine the immense personal satisfaction that Florida teenagers will get by injecting a slurry of their own E. coli ladened poo into the backflow valves in front of their principals' home. And imagine the media coverage - especially the jokes on the late-night comedy shows.

- 32 -

QUESTION # 100: Does FDEP accept that RPs (RPZs) provide direct and easy access to the public drinking water supply - as evidenced by your internal emails? QUESTION # 101: Does FDEP accept that RPs (RPZs) (and Double-check valves) should not be on the menu of alternatives because they provide direct access to the public drinking water supply?

RPs (RPZs) damage & accident questions. RPs (RPZs) must be above grade to allow for the dumping of the water. And they are normally located out in the open near the front of the lawn or else between the sidewalk and the roadway in the utility's easement.

Because of their height and location:

RPs (RPZs) can be easily damaged by careless drivers who run over them with their vehicles.

RPs (RPZs) can be easily damaged by lawn-care crews who drive over them with their mowers.

RPs (RPZs) can be easily sheared off by air-borne debris during hurricanes.

RPs (RPZs) can be easily damaged by freezing temperatures in our more northern counties.

RPs (RPZs) can easily cause injury to walkers and joggers, particularly when the valves are located between the sidewalk and street.

RPs (RPZs) are in plain view and aesthetically out-of-place.

QUESTION # 102: Does FDEP accept that because RPs (RPZs) are easy damaged and can cause accidents, RPs (RPZs) should not be on the menu of alternatives?

Wyoming decision questions.

There are a number of states like Arizona, Mississippi, Missouri, Utah and Wyoming that don't require backflow prevention devices in residential areas. The Wyoming decision is very succinct:

- 33 -

"The prevention of one death in 143 years at a cost of $1.3 billion dollars does not justify mandatory installation of back flow devices on residential and domestic non-residential services." 30

QUESTION # 103: Since there has never been a single recorded incident in Hillsborough County of anyone's getting sick from residential backflow incident, nor has there ever been a single recorded death in Florida from a residential backflow incident, is there any reason why the Wyoming decision wouldn't be entirely appropriate and applicable to Florida?

Legal questions. It seems that everybody who advocates backflow prevention in residential areas sort of tip-toes around the questions of who's responsible for what and which entities are to be sued when the bad things happen - as they surely will. Here are some entities that I thought of, but you probably know a lot more:

American Water Works Association, Backflow valve testers, Community Water Service, i.e., the local water department, Community Water Service consortiums, County in which the incident will happen, Fire Department, Florida, State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida (County) Department of Health, Homeowner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, UF / TREEO, Water Management District.

Following are several scenarios. Which entities do you think should be held responsible and sued when the bad things happen. QUESTION # 104: Who's responsible for providing potable water, i.e., safe for drinking, to a neighborhood? QUESTION # 105: Who's responsible for the equipment to make sure that the water is potable?

30 The Wyoming document is available online at www.suncitydave.info/kick-06.pdf.

- 34 -

QUESTION # 106: Who's responsible for making sure that the Vulnerability Assessments (VAs) and Emergency Response Plans (ERPs) are adequate?

A rather humorous exchange took place here in Hillsborough County about who's responsible for the safety of the public water supply. Some of those water Department employees who favor making homeowners pay for backflow devices said that it is the homeowner that is responsible for the safety of the water. I figured that if I'm going to be held responsible for the safety of the public water supply, I had better also make damn sure that the water Department's VA and ERP procedures are adequate so that my responsibility for the safety of the public water supply doesn't come back to haunt me if they are inadequate. So I made a public records request for their emergency procedures and explained my reason for the request. They wouldn't provide the document. How's that for hypocrisy? It seems that sometimes I'm responsible for the safety of the water supply - and sometimes I'm not!

QUESTION # 107: If a homeowner is going to be held responsible for the safety of the public drinking water in any manner (like by being forced to buy and maintain a backflow valve), then shouldn't part of his safety responsibility also extend to include his making sure that the VA and ERP are correct? QUESTION # 108: A homeowner uses potable water for lawn irrigation. The Hose Bibb Vacuum Breaker (HBVB) on his outside faucet is missing or no longer works. He's mixing-up a deadly pesticide when there is a negative pressure event down the street cause by a fire truck's putting out a fire using hydrant water which draws off of the potable water line. There is no backflow valve at the homeowner's service connection because it's not required by FDEP. The CWS and county have followed FDEP's rules and regulations so that there is no requirement in the ordinance for a backflow valve. The event sucks the deadly mixture into the public water supply thereby contaminating it. A neighbor dies from drinking the contaminated water which she trusted, and paid for, to be potable. Who is responsible for supplying the dead neighbor with the contaminated water? QUESTION # 109: Who's responsible for environment damage to the aquifer when it is overpumped by the CWS or CWSC (like Tampa Bay Water) if the WMD and FDEP are aware that it is being overpumped.

- 35 -

QUESTION # 110: Who's responsible for environment damage to the aquifer when it is overpumped in order to supply additional lawn water to homeowners who have decided to use potable water instead of pumping from a lake because of the high costs of a backflow valve and the yearly inspections?

QUESTION # 111: Who's responsible for insuring the security of a public water system from terrorists, vandals, disgruntled people or teenage boys?

QUESTION # 112: With foreknowledge by FDEP and CWS that RP (RPZ) and Double-check valves provide direct access to the public drinking water supply, who would be responsible if a terrorist, vandal, disgruntled person or teenage boys used my FDEP and CWS mandated RP (RPZ) or Double-check valve to contaminate the public drinking water supply which then killed a number of people in my neighborhood?

QUESTION # 113: With foreknowledge by FDEP and CWS that fire hydrants provide exceptional direct access to the public drinking water supply, who would be responsible if a terrorist, vandal, disgruntled person or teenage boys used a fire hydrant that lacked a backflow valve to contaminate the public drinking water supply which then killed a number of people in the community or on a military base?

QUESTION # 114: One of the public speakers at the Sanford workshop stated that his legal counsel had advised him that Consumer Agreements concerning backflow valves were unenforceable. What might have caused his legal counsel to be concerned?

QUESTION # 115: Have there ever been any lawsuits brought concerning the mandating, installation, testing of backflow valves, etc.?

QUESTION # 116: Does FDEP fear any lawsuits concerning backflow valves?

QUESTION # 117: What would be the anticipated nature of those lawsuits?

QUESTION # 118: Since the state of Florida is targeting homeowners with non-existent cross-connections to buy and install backflow valves, would it be appropriate for the state of Florida to also target homeowners with non-existent guns to buy a gun permit?

Let's say that the state set forth bridge building standards and it was known that those standards could result in the bridge's collapse and indeed as a school bus was passing over the bridge, it did collapse and all of those innocent children on the bus were killed.

- 36 -

QUESTION # 119: If it could be shown that the state engineers knew ahead-of-time that the bridge was an accident waiting to happen, would the state be liable? You have included RPs (RPZs) in your menu of alternatives. And based on the emails that I cited earlier, many of you and your colleagues are already very much aware of just how dangerous RPs (RPZs) are and of their potential use to inflict great harm. QUESTION # 120: When RPs (RPZs) do get used to do harm, about how many minutes do you think the jury will deliberate before finding FDEP and the State of Florida guilty of negligence because you and your colleagues repeatedly and unequivocally expressed knowledge in your emails that RPs (RPZs) are dangerous?

The New York Port Authority owned the Twin Towers. And after 9/11, they were one of the defendants in the lawsuit by the victims that was eventually settled for over 7 billion dollars. And their only involvement was that they owned the Towers, just like we pond pumpers with non-existent cross-connections may be forced to buy, install and own RPs (RPZs) or Double-check valves.

QUESTION # 121: When some disgruntled person or prankster puts a lethal chemical (like Orthene 6, 7 pesticide) directly into the drinking water supply through the above-the-ground RP (RPZ) valve in my front yard (or through the Double-check valve under my vault cover), that FDEP has forced me to install, do I suddenly become liable as a defendant because of the location and ownership of the valve, just like the New York Port Authority did?

QUESTION # 122: Does FDEP accept that based on your pre-knowledge of the dangers of RPs (RPZs), as evidenced by the content of your emails, and because of the resulting liability, RPs (RPZs) should not be on the menu of alternatives? QUESTION # 123: Does FDEP accept that M-14's recommendations are in direct conflict with the sentiments expressed in your various emails about the dangers of particular backflow valves? QUESTION # 124: Should M-14's recommendations be taken with a grain of salt?

- 37 -

Proposed rules markup questions.

With reference to the full mark-up document of Chapters 62-550 and 62-555 that was provided at the Sanford workshop: CHAPTER 62-550 Page 1, line 14 — re-defines CROSS CONNECTION — takes out the words “physical arrangement where public water supply is connected, directly or indirectly” and replaces them with “an actual or potential connection between public water system and any other environment…”. The word “potential” means something that has not come into being and may never come into being. How is a "potential" connection going to be interpreted by those with an agenda? Keep this new definition in mind as you go through the rest of the rules—when the rules say “cross-connection”, substitute the words “potential connection” and you will see the rules do not make sense. CHAPTER 62-555 For instance, look at page 2 of Chapter 62-555, line 1and substitute “potential connection” for the words “cross connection”. It would then read: “Potential connections, as defined in Rule 62-550.200 are prohibited except where an appropriate type of backflow preventer is installed to control and prevent backflow through the potential cross connection.” It appears that backflow preventers are needed in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE WHERE THERE IS NOT CURRENTLY AN ACTUAL CROSS CONNECTION because there is always the POTENTIAL for a connection. In other words, backflow preventers are needed for all non-existent cross-connections. QUESTION # 125: Did you mean that every home must have a backflow valve? QUESTION # 126: Or did you mean that only homes with ACTUAL cross-connections need a backflow valve? Page 4, line 22 — CWS may, if they choose, ensure a backflow preventer is installed where there is an UNDEVELOPED auxiliary water supply or source. This would include our lakes and ponds — so just living on a lake, even with no piping system, is enough that CWS can make one buy a backflow valve. And since everyone lives over the aquifer, even with no piping system at the moment, that is enough that CWS can make one buy a backflow valve.

- 38 -

As noted back under the topic "All service connections questions.", I documented that every service connection has the potential to cross-connect and backflow, and therefore, every home in Florida must have a backflow valve. What you have written says the same thing, though in a bit more round-about way. However, it should not be left to the CWS to decide. After all, you know how dishonest they are - as you so elegantly noted at the Sanford workshop. QUESTION # 127: Wouldn't it be much easier to interpret the rules and regulations if you just wrote that every home in Florida must have a backflow valve, instead of saying that every homeowner that lives above the aquifer must have a backflow valve? Page 6, line 9 — Specifies that the AMRs are ADDITIONAL backflow measures—over and above the BP that is already supposed to be on the premises to begin with. As noted earlier, except for air-gap devices, AMRs are the ultimate backflow prevention device. QUESTION # 128: Does this mean that you have no intention of allowing AMRs to be substituted for BPs?

Options The most responsible option is for FDEP to stop forcing backflow prevention devices on homeowners who have non-existent cross-connections. A second option is to keep your residential moratorium in place until all fire hydrants in Florida have been equipped with backflow prevention devices - which will be many years from now. But in the interim, do require a Customer Agreement and better monitoring of broken or missing HBVB's. By the time that all the fire hydrants are protected, most, if not all, of the utilities will have switched to AMRs. AMRs rank right up there with sliced bread because of their cost/benefit for meter reading, tracking lawn watering usage and their 15-minute readouts of forward and backward flow that provide almost instant notice of any backflow situation within the system. And AMRs eliminate the need for expensive and complicated backflow valves. Many homeowners view your current rules with great suspicion, considering them to simply be a ploy to financially help the plumbers and trade associations who have lobbied you. Your failure to move aggressively to force utilities and municipalities to equip fire hydrants with backflow devices heightens that

- 39 -

suspicion. Directing your enforcement efforts to fire hydrants before going after homeowners would prove that your intentions are honorable. Are they? The third option is to modify your current proposal to make it slightly more palatable:

FDEP must propose rules and timelines to absolutely force utilities and municipalities to move much more aggressively to equip fire hydrants with backflow valves.

Rewrite your proposed rules to remove the segregations of Groups A and B.

Rewrite your proposed rules to remove RPs (RPZs) and Double-check valves from the menu because of their dangerous vulnerabilities as you noted in your internal emails.

Rewrite your proposed rules to also include all potable water users in Florida because of the potential of broken and missing HBVB's and because of toilet tank valves that allow the potential cross-connected comingling of toilet tank chemicals with the public drinking water supply.

Rewrite your proposed rules to mandate that the very same Backflow

Protection rules are to apply equally to each and every residential property in the state of Florida. 31

Rewrite your proposed rules to specify that a water meter with an

attached Dual-check valve is the only allowed residential backflow prevention device.

Rewrite your proposed rules to specify that once a water meter/Dual-check valve is installed, further backflow devices, such as PVBs, are no longer required on the premises.

Rewrite your proposed rules for a Customer Agreement 32 to set two levels of penalties.

31 Any options that involve a homeowner's money and leaves it up to a local utility opens up a Pandora's Box of corruption, such as may be occurring here in Hillsborough County. 32 The Customer Agreement should require that homeowners, irrigation guys and plumbers are not to establish cross-connections. And if one is discovered, it's to be eliminated as soon as possible.

- 40 -

The first level would be for when a cross-connection is first found - in which case it just has to be capped-off as soon as possible by either the homeowner, the irrigation guy or a plumber. And the second level of penalties would be for those homeowners, irrigation guys and plumbers who decide to flaunt the law and intentionally recreate a cross-connection. For them, the penalties should be severe because malice and forethought are involved. If the second level of penalties is against the homeowner, they are to be forgiven when the home is sold.

Rewrite your proposed rules to do away with specific timelines and

instead implement changes to occur "as resources permit."

Rewrite your proposed rules to eliminate Premises Inspections. If every home is equipped with a water meter/Dual-check valve, there is no need for inspections. The utility workers could better spend their time installing backflow devices on fire hydrants.

Rewrite your proposed rules so that Dual-check valves do not require inspection but are to be replaced every time the meter is changed out.

Rewrite your proposed rules to specify that a utility may require less backflow protection (like if they go to AMRs), but never more!

If you do it right, the Customer Agreement could be a wonderful public relations tool to get your message across about Hose bibb vacuum breakers (HBVB's) and cross-connections. It should not be written in legalese or government-speak. It could contain cartoon type drawings to illustrate points. An excellent example of what you could do is the "50 Cross-Connection Questions, Answers, & Illustrations Relating To Backflow Prevention Products and Protection of Safe Drinking Water Supply" published by the Watts Regulator Company. Of course, you could add a signature block on the front cover along with a notice that it should be kept among the homeowner's important papers. The front cover could be a two-carbon set, with the original going to the utility and the second being the card-stock front cover of the agreement booklet with a carbon of the signature to remind the homeowner that they did sign something important.

- 41 -

Finally, rewrite your proposed rules and make the safety, cost and maintenance of all backflow protection 33 of the residential potable water supply the absolute responsibility of the utility, just like the chlorination process is. And also include the stipulation that the implementation of all safety and backflow practices which protect the residential public water supply are to be spread across the utility's customer base.

The above suggestions are easily and economically accomplished and would be transparent to the homeowner, particularly the elderly, by simply specifying that at the next, and thereafter, residential meter change-outs, all utilities are to install a ($15) Dual-check valve attached to the meter and that homeowners are to sign a user-friendly Customer Agreement. That's all it takes! It's that simple! And please consider the spectacular cost/benefit ratio of such a rule for all the homes that now lack valves. If backflow control is really all that important, then within just ten to twelve years every public water utility in the state could responsibly provide a safe product fully protected at a cost of just $1.50 per home per year. If backflow control is really all that important to a utility and the bureaucracy, that's a small price to pay to "ensure we protect and conserve our water supply". If backflow control is not all that important, why bother with any rules? And it seems like utilities would really embrace the idea of just adding a Dual-check to the water meters at change-out time until they migrate to AMRs - as they surely will. It would give them a chance to catch their breath during these hard economic times. And there's no great hurry! Given the progress to date, ten to twelve years for complete Dual-check coverage is a quite reasonable timeframe and solution, given that there has never been a single recorded incident in Hillsborough County of anyone's getting sick from residential backflow and that there has never been a single recorded death in Florida from a residential backflow incident.

33 If you eliminate RPs (RPZs) and Double-check valves from your residential menu, that would leave Dual-check valves, PVBs and HBVB's as the responsibility of the utility.

- 42 -

Conclusion The very best solution of all is to simply ban backflow valves from residential areas as is done in Wyoming.

"The prevention of one death in 143 years at a cost of $1.3 billion dollars does not justify mandatory installation of back flow devices on residential and domestic non-residential services." 2

Thank you for answering my questions and I'm look forward to the next workshop.

David Brown 1805 Burlington Circle Sun City Center FL 33573-5219 Phone: 1-813-634-6048 Websites: www.suncitydave.info & www.backflowvideos.org Email: dbrown28@tampabay.rr.com

- 43 -