he literally asked if it was “legal.” Like, dude, you’re the inspector!
That’s honestly wild. I’ve had similar run-ins—one guy actually told me he’d “never seen a greywater system before” and just sort of shrugged his way through the inspection. It’s frustrating because, in higher-end builds, clients expect these systems to be seamless and code-compliant. A standardized checklist would save everyone time (and headaches). You’re not asking too much—just some baseline competence. Sometimes I wonder if half these folks even read the city guidelines...
WHAT IF YOUR CITY PAID YOU TO USE LESS WATER?
That’s been my experience too—inspectors who seem totally unfamiliar with anything outside the standard plumbing setup. I had one ask if my rainwater catchment was “safe for the neighborhood,” which... not really the point. I get that codes can be confusing, but it’s their job to know them, right? A checklist would help, but honestly, half the time I feel like I’m the one teaching them about the city’s own requirements. It slows everything down and makes you second-guess stuff you already researched.
I had one ask if my rainwater catchment was “safe for the neighborhood,” which... not really the point.
I get where you’re coming from, but I actually think the safety question isn’t totally off-base. Rainwater systems can introduce backflow risks or mosquito breeding if they’re not set up right. That said, inspectors should absolutely know the codes and not just default to “that’s weird, must be unsafe.” Maybe the real issue is that the codes themselves haven’t caught up with newer water-saving tech, so everyone’s kind of winging it.
Maybe the real issue is that the codes themselves haven’t caught up with newer water-saving tech, so everyone’s kind of winging it.
That’s exactly what I’ve been running into since we started building. The inspector seemed genuinely confused by our greywater setup, and I had to walk him through the manufacturer’s manual. It’s not that he was against it—just didn’t have a reference point in the codebook. I get why people worry about safety, especially with stuff like backflow or stagnant water, but it feels like there’s a gap between what’s possible and what’s officially “allowed.”
I’m curious how cities would even structure a program to pay people for using less water if the codes are still so far behind. Would they require specific systems, or just measure usage? And if you’re doing something innovative, do you risk getting flagged just because it’s unfamiliar? I’d love to hear if anyone’s city has actually tried this and how they handled the technical side.
Honestly, I think the bigger challenge is that most cities just look at your total water usage, not how you got there. If you install something like a greywater system, but the inspector isn’t familiar, you might end up spending more time proving it’s safe than actually saving water. I ran into a similar issue with a rainwater catchment setup—had to show them every spec sheet and still got pushback. Until the codes catch up, I’m not sure these incentive programs would be fair for folks trying new tech. Sometimes it feels like you’re penalized for being ahead of the curve.
