Autofill hooked up to a sprinkler line

[shrid]

I know this has been discussed before. however, this last time i was able to find a thread on this was 2015. so here it goes.

I asked my PB to hook up my autofill to my sprinkler line ( I have a zone valve right next to where the equipment pad site will be). PB told me it was against city code and that the supply line for the sprinkler system is not potable water due to the back-flow prevention valve. this sounds like Horse doo doo to me. anyways long story short I emailed the Chief Building Official and asked this question. he told me that the city does not have a problem with me connecting to the sprinkler system. I am asking that this be done before the zone valve so that is will not be an issue. I also would like to have a box with a shutoff valve burred in the yard near the equipment pad. PB is still pushing back on this. I showed him the email and was told to get keep that handy. I went one step more and spoke with the inspector that will be doing the inspection (The Colony, TX is somewhat small so it is easy to talk to these guys). sent him the same email and he agreed not an issue. So the code part is out of the way and I will get the PB to do the connection as I want it. My question is: does anyone see any reason why i shouldn't connect the autofill to the sprinkler line? I have a back flow double check valve hooked to the main sprinkler system (required by code) so i don't plan to add any other valves other than the shut off.

Thanks in advance.
Shrid

 

[mknauss]

No. If you winterize your sprinkler system you will need to the same to the autofill and manually add water while it is off.

 

[shrid]

No. If you winterize your sprinkler system you will need to the same to the autofill and manually add water while it is off.

Good point i didn't think of that. I didn't last year. It really doesn't get that cold here except for a few days a year. My last house i did. I think i can put up with filling it by hand a few months out of the year. Plus winter there really shouldn't be a ton of loss.

Thanks for the advice mknauss

 

[GregSS]

Shrid

I looked at this issue since I wanted to hook up to my sprinkler system which has an rpz. Texas has a law on the books stating you cannot hook up to irrigation.

TCEQ 344.62
Water contained within the piping of an irrigation system is deemed to be non-potable. No drinking or domestic water usage, such as, but not limited to, filling swimming pools or decorative fountains, shall be connected to an irrigation system.


Greg

 

[shrid]

Shrid

I looked at this issue since I wanted to hook up to my sprinkler system which has an rpz. Texas has a law on the books stating you cannot hook up to irrigation.

TCEQ 344.62
Water contained within the piping of an irrigation system is deemed to be non-potable. No drinking or domestic water usage, such as, but not limited to, filling swimming pools or decorative fountains, shall be connected to an irrigation system.


Greg

Interesting wouldn't you think the city, inspector and PB would know about this? Makes me wonder if this is really a law or just a guide line

 

[mknauss]

Is not your irrigation water potable?

Or is it that once it passes through the isolation valve from the household to the sprinkler line it becomes irrigation water?

 

[shrid]

Is not your irrigation water potable?

Or is it that once it passes through the isolation valve from the household to the sprinkler line it becomes irrigation water?

I can only guess thst they are trying to say that the rpz valve makes the water non potable. My house and sprinkler water comes from the same pipe from the city. I'm still very confused

 

[GregSS]

The water district that I live in follows this rule.

The water is potable until the RPZ. Everything after the RPZ is non potable. The concern is that fertilizer, insecticide, poop can siphon through the sprinkler heads into the water lines.

Interesting wouldn't you think the city, inspector and PB would know about this? Makes me wonder if this is really a law or just a guide line

 

[GregInClaremont]

My configuration is done this way. Line to backyard hose bib has a T, the side of the T leads to the backflow for the Auto fill. The pipe going into the ground leads to my sprinkler valves.

Located in California and not a peep from inspector as we just finaled about 6 months ago.

 

[shrid]

My configuration is done this way. Line to backyard hose bib has a T, the side of the T leads to the backflow for the Auto fill. The pipe going into the ground leads to my sprinkler valves.

Located in California and not a peep from inspector as we just finaled about 6 months ago.

If you can do it in California i don't see why we couldn't in Texas. California is a lot more restrictive on everything. I just don't get this non-potable water bit.

 

[Dirk]

Doesn't really matter whether there is code for it or not, or what the inspector thinks about it (yes, they are supposed to know everything code-related, but rarely do). You want your water system safe. Your autofill should not be connected after the irrigation's back flow preventer. Period.

The autofill should have its own, independent preventer. (I write about this extensively in other threads.) It needs to be a pressure vacuum breaker, and not the kind a lot of PBs use (which looks like a sprinkler valve). This is what you want:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00KI0WORE/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

[shrid]

Doesn't really matter whether there is code for it or not, or what the inspector thinks about it (yes, they are supposed to know everything code-related, but rarely do). You want your water system safe. Your autofill should not be connected after the irrigation's back flow preventer. Period.

The autofill should have its own, independent preventer. (I write about this extensively in other threads.) It needs to be a pressure vacuum breaker, and not the kind a lot of PBs use (which looks like a sprinkler valve). This is what you want:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00KI0WORE/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I don't have a way to run a separate line from the main to the backyard without digging up the front yard and from what it sounds like you are saying is that the autofill needs to have its own feed line. that being said i guess it is better to go off the hose bib on the side of the house. please correct me if i am wrong. also i would like to know more for the reasoning behind this. my sprinkler system gets run every few days. This connection would also be on the supply side of all the sprinkler valves. if I get a back flow I think i would have more to worry about than just the pool autofill. I just don't understand why this is such a bad thing. it was done this way for years (maybe this was before the RPZ was required)

 

[PoolguyinCT]

Interesting wouldn't you think the city, inspector and PB would know about this? Makes me wonder if this is really a law or just a guide line

If I had a nickel for every municipal employee who is unaware or misguided, I’d have a mountain of nickels.

When language is published it is codified, not merely a guideline, it is a law or regulation.

 

[Dirk]

Before I lead you down the wrong path, you might post a little schematic sketch of your water system, so I could see what you're trying to do. Your first post makes it sound like there is a back flow preventer (BFP) that feeds your sprinkler valves, and you want to tap in in-between the two. That would be incorrect. If you can tap in before the BFP, or if there is no BFP and the prevention is being done by the sprinkler valves (vacuum breaker type), then I would say that is OK. You'd still need a dedicated BFP (pressure vacuum breaker) between the connection point and the autofill valve.

Taking it off the hose bib is fine. Maybe even preferred. That is a very typical installation for an autofill. Still need a pressure vacuum breaker between the hose bib and the autofill valve.

How's your CH? If your fill water has high CH (hard water), and you have a challenge keeping your CH level from rising, you can solve for that and your original issue by connecting your auto fill valve directly to your water softener (if you have one). I write about that extensively, too, in another thread. You'd still need a pressure vacuum breaker between the water softener and the auto fill valve.

My auto fill is connected, through a set of BFPs and a couple valves, to both my water softener and the high-CH city water. I can dial up either water supply as needed. The city water is about CH350. My soft water has virtually no CH. I've solved for CH creep and will not have to drain my pool some day for sky high CH. The last six months or so my CH has not risen at all. Pretty cool.

Those seem to be your options...

 

[GregSS]

In some jurisdictions a plain breaker is insufficient. My water district requires the much more expensive RPZ (about $200).

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0012880Y2/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_vu6jBbKXCE8GM

 

[Dirk]

In some jurisdictions a plain breaker is insufficient. My water district requires the much more expensive RPZ (about $200).

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0012880Y2/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_vu6jBbKXCE8GM

I'm afraid I don't know the difference between an RPZ and the pressure vacuum breaker I recommended. Certainly one should follow local code in that regard. A "plain breaker," like one used for a sprinkler system, is always insufficient if by that you mean not a pressure vacuum breaker. A "plain breaker" is not designed to have another valve (like an auto fill valve) downstream from it, which would apply constant pressure to the preventer mechanism. Those types of vacuum breaker are usually rated to be under pressure 12 hours or less, which is appropriate for sprinklers, because after the lawn is watered, and the valve is closed, all the pressure drains out through the sprinklers. The auto fill valve never releases the pressure, and that pressure would eventually wear down the lesser preventer. A pressure vacuum breaker is rated to have a valve down stream of it and can withstand the constant pressure. And typically a "plain breaker," those used for sprinklers, don't have any testing ports and can't be tested periodically. The breaker I linked to, and the RPZ Greg linked to, have those test ports. So it only remains if the $60 breaker I linked to satisfies local code, or if you must "upgrade" to the $200 RPZ...

 

[shrid]

Before I lead you down the wrong path, you might post a little schematic sketch of your water system, so I could see what you're trying to do. Your first post makes it sound like there is a back flow preventer (BFP) that feeds your sprinkler valves, and you want to tap in in-between the two. That would be incorrect. If you can tap in before the BFP, or if there is no BFP and the prevention is being done by the sprinkler valves (vacuum breaker type), then I would say that is OK. You'd still need a dedicated BFP (pressure vacuum breaker) between the connection point and the autofill valve.

Taking it off the hose bib is fine. Maybe even preferred. That is a very typical installation for an autofill. Still need a pressure vacuum breaker between the hose bib and the autofill valve.

How's your CH? If your fill water has high CH (hard water), and you have a challenge keeping your CH level from rising, you can solve for that and your original issue by connecting your auto fill valve directly to your water softener (if you have one). I write about that extensively, too, in another thread. You'd still need a pressure vacuum breaker between the water softener and the auto fill valve.

My auto fill is connected, through a set of BFPs and a couple valves, to both my water softener and the high-CH city water. I can dial up either water supply as needed. The city water is about CH350. My soft water has virtually no CH. I've solved for CH creep and will not have to drain my pool some day for sky high CH. The last six months or so my CH has not risen at all. Pretty cool.

Those seem to be your options...

Thank you very much for the info. after speaking with the construction superintendent he voice that it is better to go off the hose bib. he states a lot of what you have stated here as well as the state law. its a bummer as this isn't the ideal way i wanted to see it for my setup but hey it is what it is...

 

[GregSS]

I'm afraid I don't know the difference between an RPZ and the pressure vacuum breaker I recommended. Certainly one should follow local code in that regard. A "plain breaker," like one used for a sprinkler system, is always insufficient if by that you mean not a pressure vacuum breaker. A "plain breaker" is not designed to have another valve (like an auto fill valve) downstream from it, which would apply constant pressure to the preventer mechanism. Those types of vacuum breaker are usually rated to be under pressure 12 hours or less, which is appropriate for sprinklers, because after the lawn is watered, and the valve is closed, all the pressure drains out through the sprinklers. The auto fill valve never releases the pressure, and that pressure would eventually wear down the lesser preventer. A pressure vacuum breaker is rated to have a valve down stream of it and can withstand the constant pressure. And typically a "plain breaker," those used for sprinklers, don't have any testing ports and can't be tested periodically. The breaker I linked to, and the RPZ Greg linked to, have those test ports. So it only remains if the $60 breaker I linked to satisfies local code, or if you must "upgrade" to the $200 RPZ...

I also do not know the difference. I only know that I am required to have an RPZ. My irrigation system also has an RPZ. So, I will have two of these devices on my property. And, they do freeze (even in central Texas)--I had that happen at a previous house with an RPZ--I am now more careful about draining water and putting a cover over mine. I guess my point was to make sure you get the correct device if your jurisdiction has rules dealing with this.

At first I was irritated that I had to install one of the these devices, but after reading what could get into the pool water I was okay. I would rather spend extra $$$$ to make sure that my swimming pool water is safe, than to skimp out on it.

 

[Dirk]

I also do not know the difference. I only know that I am required to have an RPZ. My irrigation system also has an RPZ. So, I will have two of these devices on my property. And, they do freeze (even in central Texas)--I had that happen at a previous house with an RPZ--I am now more careful about draining water and putting a cover over mine. I guess my point was to make sure you get the correct device if your jurisdiction has rules dealing with this.

At first I was irritated that I had to install one of the these devices, but after reading what could get into the pool water I was okay. I would rather spend extra $$$$ to make sure that my swimming pool water is safe, than to skimp out on it.

Again, not sure of all the functions of RPZ, but typically back flow prevention devices do not protect the water downstream of them. Not by themselves. They are meant to protect the water source upstream of them, which is why the codes call for them. Picture this: a water main breaks somewhere down the street. The city shuts off the water main, but the break continues to drain water. Whatever is uphill of the break is now subjected to the vacuum created by the weight of the water being pulled out through the break. Now picture someone's hose in their pool, left running to fill the pool, or in a bucket of god-knows-what chemical. Or an autofill valve open because the pool level has dropped. Without a BFP device, that sucking water main break is going to suck water out of all those sources, and drag that water into the street's water main system. Meanwhile, the city gets the leak fixed, turns back on the pressure, and all is well. NOT. Now the neighborhood's water system is full of your pool water, and the neighbor's bucket of filth, etc. All happily being pumped back into your and your neighbor's houses!!! So your BFP would allow that yuck to pass, right into your pool. How BFPs protect the water source for your neighborhood is if everyone has them. A BFP prevents water from being drawn from your pool back into the water main system should that system fail. So your BFP isn't protecting your pool, or your house, it's protecting everyone else's. Just as theirs is protecting your house and pool. Which is why the use of them needs to be required by code, so that everyone does this for everyone else.

So that begs the question, why are BFPs required of pools and not of houses too? Good question. In a lot of municipalities, BFPs are required of businesses, but not residences. Two reasons. They figure business are more likely to have things about them that could be harmful to the city water: chemicals, contaminants, etc. And residences, while not required to have proper BFPs between them and the street, do have "hidden" BFPs built in! Huh? Toilets have anti-siphon valves built in. That little black tube pumping water into the pipe that leads to the bowl is suspended above it. That is an air gap and a rudimentary BFP. Dishwashers are also required to have air gaps installed (that gizmo that sticks up out of your sink, next to our faucet, is an air gap. Water softeners are also required to be installed so that their drain tubes are mounted with an air gap above the drain that sticks out of the wall. That little brass gizmo you find on hose bibs of newer houses? Another type of BFP device. Irrigation systems use vacuum breaker valves. All built-in BFP devices. My buddy, a major Bay Area city water company employee (who taught me all of this) thinks that municipalities will eventually require proper, testable BFPs be part of every residence. They'll probably start with new construction. Then maybe work there way to retrofitting older homes someday. In the meantime, it's up to us, especially pool owners, to provide BFP devices "voluntarily," to do our part in protecting the neighborhood's, and city's, water supply.

There you go, more than you ever wanted to know about back flow prevention!

 

[kingstar]

Would the air gap that is built into the Pentair T40 with the Fluidmaster valve cover the backflow prevention needs? This is also assuming that the overflow is properly installed.