Funny thing, when I was helping my uncle with his setup, the inspector barely glanced at the backflow preventer—just ticked a box and moved on. Made me wonder if it’s more about who you get than the actual rules. We used a double check valve, but I’ve heard some cities want the fancier reduced pressure zone ones. Honestly, I’m not convinced the extra cost is always worth it for a closed rainwater system, but maybe I’m missing something. Anyone else notice inspectors being inconsistent?
Title: Rainwater Toilets And Greywater Showers: City Tries New Water-Saving Tricks
“the inspector barely glanced at the backflow preventer—just ticked a box and moved on. Made me wonder if it’s more about who you get than the actual rules.”
That’s been my experience too, honestly. I’ve had one inspector who wanted to see every single connection, flashlight in hand, and another who just asked if I “used the blue glue” and called it a day. It’s a bit of a lottery.
Here’s how I usually handle it:
1. Figure out what the city code actually says (not always easy, but worth it).
2. Install the minimum required—unless I know the inspector is a stickler, then I’ll go a step up just to avoid headaches.
3. Keep receipts and take photos during install, just in case someone questions it later.
About the double check vs RPZ—yeah, for a closed rainwater system, I’m with you. The RPZ seems overkill unless there’s a real risk of cross-connection. But some cities just want to cover their bases, especially if they’ve had issues in the past.
Funny thing is, I’ve had tenants ask why we bother at all when the city water sometimes tastes worse than the rainwater... Go figure.
Yeah, the inspector roulette is real. I had one guy who spent more time talking about his fishing trip than looking at my setup. The next one practically crawled under the house with a magnifying glass. You never know what you’re gonna get.
I totally get the urge to just do the bare minimum, but I’ve started going a little above and beyond, mostly for my own peace of mind. If something ever goes sideways, I’d rather have the extra photos and receipts than try to explain why I skipped a step. Plus, it’s not like the city’s gonna help if there’s a problem down the line.
The RPZ thing cracks me up. I mean, I get that they want to be safe, but for a closed rainwater system? Feels like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I ended up installing one anyway because arguing with the city was just burning daylight. Sometimes you just have to pick your battles.
Funny you mention the water taste. My partner actually prefers the rainwater for the plants and even for rinsing veggies. The city stuff sometimes smells like a swimming pool. I guess we’re all just trying to make the best of what we’ve got.
Honestly, I’m just glad the city’s even allowing these setups now. A few years ago, they would’ve shut it down before you could say “greywater.” Progress, even if it’s a little clunky.
The RPZ thing cracks me up. I mean, I get that they want to be safe, but for a closed rainwater system? Feels like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Couldn’t agree more on the RPZ—overkill for most setups, but it’s just not worth the argument. I’ve found documenting everything (photos, receipts, even inspector comments) is the only way to avoid headaches later. The city’s not going to bail anyone out if something leaks or fails. I do wish they’d standardize inspections a bit more, though. One guy flagged my system for “potential cross-contamination,” while another just shrugged and said it looked fine. Progress is great, but consistency would make life easier for everyone.
Totally get what you mean about the inspection roulette. I had one guy who spent 20 minutes poking around my filter setup, then another who barely glanced at it and just signed off. Honestly, half the time I feel like they’re making it up as they go. I keep a binder with every little detail—probably overkill, but it’s saved me more than once. RPZs for rainwater still seem nuts, but hey, at least my plumber gets a laugh out of it...