CAP is a community-based citizen participation
project focused on sustainable land use planning.
Find out more about us >>
project focused on sustainable land use planning.
Find out more about us >>
CCWD to revisit sprinkler policy
By Stephen Crane | Posted:
Friday, October 11, 2013 8:02 am
Friday, October 11, 2013 8:02 am
The Calaveras County Water District Board met Wednesday morning and discussed the role fire-suppression systems now play in home construction.
“This is about cost,” said Director Jeff Davidson. “It’s an issue before us because it’s too expensive.”
The state’s Building Standards Commission adopted the new regulation in 2010, which requires all new one- and two-family homes constructed in California to have a sprinkler system installed. The law is intended to increase the time occupants have to leave a burning home.
Complaints have surfaced about the costs associated with complying with the new law, which adds about $3,000 to $6,000 to home construction costs per project for the infrastructure alone.
Finding a way to supply water to the sprinkler system has proved to be an additional cost as many water suppliers are still trying to figure out ways to meet the state mandate without burdening homeowners with mounting expenses.
Mark Walker, who is building a home in Arnold , approached the board at its meeting Sept. 25 to complain about the costs the district currently charges to comply with the law, which prompted the board to put the issue on this week’s agenda.
While most residential homes use a 5/8-inch water meter, those meters are not approved to supply the necessary flow to meet fire-suppression requirements. A ¾-inch line is required to hit target flow rates. The issue for Walker is the additional $6,000 price tag for the connection fee for the larger size, as well as the additional service fee associated with that line.
“After our last meeting, I spent a huge amount of time talking to many districts trying to figure out what seems to be working,” said Director Don Stump. “Every district seems to come up with their own answer to this.”
Stump cited the Amador Water Agency as one district that seemed to have come up with a good solution to the problem now confronting water agencies.
“The reality is, (customers) aren’t using the water that a (larger) meter would use. They don’t need those flows,” Stump said. “This is a 1-in-10,000 concept. So any costs associated with going from a 5/8 to a (larger line), the customer pays, but they still pay the 5/8 (monthly) rate.”
The other issue confronting home builders and water districts alike is the official limit placed on meters by manufacturers. In order to reduce liability, manufacturers tend to rate their meters at capacities lower than they can actually accommodate.
“One of the biggest issues is the fact that there’s a stamped number on the side of that meter that states the (maximum flow rating),” said Bill Perley, director of utility services and engineering for CCWD.
Back in 2011 when the issue first arose, Perley sent a memo to the board stating that “the district has sufficient pressure throughout the system so that an increase in connection size would not be necessary.”
While this is true, meter manufacturers have not been willing to adjust their ratings to meet the flow requirements of sprinkler systems as they are designed for each dwelling.
“The meter manufacturer won’t guarantee it,” Davidson said, citing the fear of litigation for many companies. “It seems like this is a state issue here we could use some help with. They created the rule, and they can help with the … unintended consequences.”
The CCWD board decided to take the issue to its engineering committee in search of a solution to the problem. And the finance committee will work on a way to prevent the sprinkler system requirement from becoming onerous to home builders. The process is going to take time, which leaves those with current construction projects out of luck and anchored to the district’s current policies.
“Nobody is going to pay an extra $6,000 for a connection fee,” said Walker, who intends to install a 500-gallon water tank for his sprinkler system if he can’t get the issue resolved. “As far as the requirement to pay an additional monthly service fee, I find it ridiculous. There will be no (increased) usage.”
Regardless of what decisions the board may make in the future to remedy to the problem, the bottom line for General Manager Mitch Dion is maintaining a legal rate structure.
“All I care about is that all your goals and sentiments get achieved while fitting into the rate structure,” Dion said. “I don’t want the unintended consequences to unravel the fabric of a defensible rate structure.”
With the local economy slowly pulling out of the depths of the recession, construction is likely to grow and potential customers are going to increase as well.
“We’re going to start seeing some demand,” Davidson said. “I want to provide as much flexibility for ratepayers as possible. I’d like to be as flexible and affordable as possible.”
