This white paper makes the case for treating backflow devices as managed utility assets, not just compliance records. The annual test cycle is necessary, but it is not the full lifecycle. When a device fails, the work moves into inspections, repairs, replacement, parts, crew coordination, retesting, and long-term planning.
What the paper covers
Compliance-only gaps
Where dedicated backflow systems perform well, and where operational follow-up begins to fall outside the record.
Backflow as asset lifecycle
Why device identity, condition, history, deficiencies, repairs, replacement decisions, and GIS context belong together.
A path beyond one program
How starting with backflow can expand into work orders, inspections, inventory, capital planning, and other asset programs.
Why it matters
At utility scale, failed tests create a real operating backlog. Devices need field follow-up, parts availability, repair documentation, retesting, and management visibility. When the compliance system and the operations system are separate, that coordination often moves into spreadsheets, inboxes, or informal handoffs.
The paper frames backflow as an entry point into broader EAM: a visible, regulatory-driven program that can mature into a connected operating model instead of becoming another standalone system.
Best fit
- Water utilities running backflow prevention programs with growing operational follow-up.
- Teams evaluating whether a compliance-only tool can support repair and replacement workflows.
- Utility leaders who want backflow records connected to work orders, field crews, inventory, and planning.