# From the California State Fire Marshal



## beach (Feb 16, 2012)

Tonya sent this out:

Over the past thirty years, selected municipal water authorities have implemented strategies, including stand by fees and other policies, to recover costs for water consumed in fires in sprinklered buildings. Typically these fees are not directly related to sprinkler fire flows but rather are recognition of the fact that these flows are not metered and thus not accounted for in conventional water cost recovery mechanisms. In contrast, water consumption at fires at unsprinklered properties is typically not subject to fees nor metered at the hydrant. With the growing adoption of residential sprinkler ordinances in communities across the country, the National Fire Protection Association commissioned this study  to assess the relative community impacts of water consumption in sprinklered and unsprinklered properties. 

The study considered the water used in various building types with and without automatic sprinkler protection during a fire condition and estimated the water used per year for commissioning, inspection, testing and maintenance of buildings with systems for each building type. The anticipated water used for fire protection was compared with fees in sample jurisdictions; methods were developed to calculate fire water fees that are proportional to the anticipated volume of fire water used.  Follow the link below for the document.



http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=260&URL=Research/Fire%20Protection%20Research%20Foundation/Reports%20and%20proceedings


----------



## pwood (Feb 16, 2012)

nfpa did another study "Integration of residential sprinklers with water supply systems"  A survey of 20 u.s. communities in september of 2009 that covers much of the same stuff.  I used this article and several others to help my jurisdiction develop a metering and billing policy for homes with sprinklers under the new code requirements. It also helped in addressing developer impact fees and the need for a larger meter due to the sprinkler demand.


----------



## Keystone (Feb 16, 2012)

Since the owner must pay for all incidental use, do the neighboring owners recieve a check when the water authority has a break in the system or conducts annual flushing for thier maintenance?


----------



## Msradell (Feb 16, 2012)

The entire concept doesn't make any sense.  One of the big arguments in favor of sprinkler systems (especially residential) is that they reduce the size of the fire and thus reduce the bulk of water required to extinguish it.  But charging for the water used by sprinkler systems and not the water used by fire departments the system of charging for water usage penalizes those who implement sprinkler systems for fire protection!  It's another negative that will further reduce residential acceptance of sprinklers.


----------

