SPRINKLER TALK FORUM - You Got Questions, We've Got Answers

Just leave the current setup as is, and save your money for when any new plumbing rules are enacted, because there is a good chance that a Double Check Valve Assembly will no longer be permitted.

DCVAs are considered the low-end of backflow protection because of their potential to get fouled and fail.

Basically (as I understand it) "stuff" that can be in the water (even city water) can cause a check valve to get fouled and not seal properly. Of course you've got two of them, so even if one is fouled, the other one will still provide protection. But frequently, when something comes down the water pipe that can foul a check valve, there isn't just one... usually there are many. So there is the potential for both check valves to get fouled up at the same time.

You can learn more details here at the irrigation tutorials where I learned about back flow preventers when I was installing my own irrigation system.

Call your local water district and ask them what codes are to your area regarding proper back flow protection for sprinkler systems.

The DCVA is a great assembly, in my area- 95% of sprinkler systems, and 99% of fire sprinkler systems are DCVA's. Where I live an annual back flow test is required annually. ( My average annual tests are 1,400 back flow devices) . It is true, dcva are rated for low hazard.. However, In MANY area's, irrigation is considered Low Hazard. *This is depended on the department of health and their regulations in your region*

Yes, if you set up a fertigation system... A RPBA ( Reduced pressure back flow assembly) MUST be installed because this assembly is rated for High Hazard protection and has the best protection available.

( As far as the poster who said double checks get fauled up... this is true for any assembly lol)

I disagree with boots and highly recommend you get a backflow preventor into your system , what you choose is your choice and the codes in your area. ( Such as the double check, Reduced pressure back flow, Pressure Vacuum Breaker, Spill Resistant vacuum breaker. Anti-siphon valves are not to code on proper back flow protection. The main reason for this is because they are Non - Testable devices so you never know if it's truly working or not.

Quoted from "Mitchgo"

...........I disagree with boots and highly recommend you get a backflow preventor into your system , what you choose is your choice and the codes in your area. ( Such as the double check, Reduced pressure back flow, Pressure Vacuum Breaker, Spill Resistant vacuum breaker. Anti-siphon valves are not to code on proper back flow protection. The main reason for this is because they are Non - Testable devices so you never know if it's truly working or not.

He already has antisyphon valves, and if they are properly located, he has protection superior to what a DCVA can provide. If you can feed a mortuary table through a vacuum breaker, that speaks well of its ability to protect a water supply. But, since he has changed the story to now want fertilizer injection, nothing less than an RPZ will do. That goes in no matter what the city wants. If the city demands a DCVA, or else, then you give up on fertilizer injection, or go to the extreme of installing both a DCVA and an RPZ.

My only heat with asv's is they are non testable. Other then that I agree