# Drinking Fountain vs. Water Bottle Filler



## CUBldgOfficial (Apr 27, 2015)

So, I performed a quick search here and found an old thread talking about drinking fountains versus water coolers, which does not help.

I have been tasked to determine whether or not we should allow the new water bottle filling stations to be used in place of the "standing" fountains.  The product proposed comes with the filler station along side the "seated" fountain, thus it meets ADA/accessibility requirements.  The filler itself also complies with the reach requirements within ADA.

It may also help to let you know that this is for a university - they want to retro-fit.

My question is this:  Anyone else ran into this?  Have you allowed them?  Any downside to allowing them?

Thanks!


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 27, 2015)

> I have been tasked to determine whether or not we should allow the new water bottle filling stations to be used in place of the "standing" fountains.


Nope not as far as ADA is concerned


----------



## CUBldgOfficial (Apr 27, 2015)

Thanks for the input mtlogcabin, I appreciate it.

The options you pictured had not been shown to me.  Those would work out perfectly.

Thanks again.


----------



## jdfruit (Apr 27, 2015)

Have dealt with the standalone water container fillers; most did not meet reach range/height/depth and will require corrective work. The Campus Architect (BO) hasn't decided if they are replacement for drinking fountain, I hope he doesn't think equivalent.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 27, 2015)

jdfruit said:
			
		

> Have dealt with the standalone water container fillers; most did not meet reach range/height/depth and will require corrective work. The Campus Architect (BO) hasn't decided if they are replacement for drinking fountain, I hope he doesn't think equivalent.


They are not equivalent.

It's like saying a shower is equivalent to a bath tub.

Serve a similar function but not the same,  said the rubber duck....


----------



## north star (Apr 27, 2015)

*+ + = + +*

CUBldgOffical,

Do you have any pics. of the version of "the water filling stations"
instead of the standing type ADA compliant drinking fountains ?
There is a big difference between them [  i.e. - reach ranges,
...graspability of controls, ...knee & toe clearances, ect.  ].
The pics that ***mtlogcabin*** displayed, naturally, ...are a combo
type fountain. 

*+ + = + +*


----------



## CUBldgOfficial (Apr 28, 2015)

I do not have the picture/spec they submitted, however it looked like the ones mtlogcabin posted - with the exception of the "standing" fountain.  In it's place was the filler station in which the spec claimed it met ADA reach ranges.  However, it did not mention graspability.  I assume it functions with a sensor by simply placing a bottle underneath the spout.

Anyway, I have kicked it back to the designer with the pictures that mtlogcabin provided and asked them to look into that sort of set up.

Thanks!


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 28, 2015)

[h=2]Details[/h]Bottle Filling Station features an electronic sensor and pressure regulator.





> In it's place was the filler station in which the spec claimed it met ADA reach ranges.


How does a bottle filling station meet the requirements for a standing or wheelchair drinking fountain? There is no spout therefore they are non-compliant to be used in lieu of a drinking fountain

602.4 Spout Outlet Height.

Spout outlets of wheelchair accessible drinking fountains shall be 36 inches (915 mm) maximum above the floor. Spout outlets of drinking fountains for standing persons shall be 38 inches (965 mm) minimum and 43 inches (1090 mm) maximum above the floor.

602.5 Spout Location.

The spout shall be located 15 inches (380 mm) minimum from the vertical support and 5 inches (125mm) maximum from the front edge of the drinking fountain, including bumpers. Where only a parallel approach is provided, the spout shall be located 31/2 inches (90 mm) maximum from the front edge of the drinking fountain, including bumpers.


----------



## JBI (Apr 28, 2015)

mtlog's look like they have all 3; high, low AND bottle fillers. Probably more expen$ive though...


----------



## Yikes (Apr 28, 2015)

The way the plumbing codes are currently written, a drinking fountain appears to be required so that a person who has no water container (bottle, cup, etc.) might still be able to get a drink in a place with more than 30 occupants.  Our California Plumbing Code 415.2 allows water stations in lieu of drinking fountains at indoor food consumption locations.

Food consumption brings the likely expectation that glasses or other containers will be available for water service, thus the drinking fountain is not needed, and is not taking away beverage business.

there's definitely been a cultural shift in how we Americans perceive tap water.  Many people carry their own water bottles in lieu of using drinking fountains, just like they carry their own mobile phone in lieu of using a public phone.

Obviously, the plumbing code has not yet changed to address this cultural shift, and until it does, it makes no sense to change the accessibility requirements.

Therefore, if you want water bottle fillers in lieu of drinking fountains, then don't change the accessibility code; instead, either (a) change the plumbing code or (b) have the AHJ make a case-by-case determination when the occupants will be consuming food indoors.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 29, 2015)

A drinking fountain is designed for a person with one stump for an arm can get a drink. A water filling station does not provide the same access.

 Two different code. Two different issues

Our state eliminated the requirement for drinking fountains in a "B" occupancy and only require one per floor in an "E" occupancy

 and then there is this option

r. On an individual case-by-case basis the building official may approve an alternative source of potable drinking water, such as, but not limited to, a bottled water cooler, in lieu of a drinking fountain.

We have a lot of private wells around the state in very rural areas that a bottled water source would be better for the user then an untested water well.


----------



## CUBldgOfficial (Apr 30, 2015)

Well, thanks to everyone for the discussion and information.  I've decided that they can ADD the bottle fillers next to or near the DF's, but the DF's must stay.

Colorado has not eliminated the requirement for DF's in B occupancies, and since this is a university - B, not E - they get to keep them.

Thanks again!


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 30, 2015)

I believe you made the correct call


----------



## ADAguy (May 5, 2015)

CU, thank you for this thread.

It supports my contention that the Metroploitan Water District HQ at Union Staion improperly replaced their existing Hi-lo DF with a WC height DF with an intergal bottle filler and no regualr height DF.

Imagine that?


----------



## JBI (May 5, 2015)

At 6'3" and with a bad back, I appreciate the standard height fountains...


----------



## steveray (May 5, 2015)

JBI said:
			
		

> At 6'3" and with a bad back, I appreciate the standard height fountains...


And I believe that is what the ANSI commentary speaks to....."We" too often think of "accessible to those in a wheelchair" as accessible, but it is not the only piece of the disability puzzle.....But on a different note, I went to a house for a service inspection and the homeowner using a wheelchair made it up a 8" single step into the house....


----------



## mark handler (May 5, 2015)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> CU, thank you for this thread. It supports my contention that the Metroploitan Water District HQ at Union Staion improperly replaced their existing Hi-lo DF with a WC height DF with an intergal bottle filler and no regualr height DF.
> 
> Imagine that?


You expect different


----------



## ADAguy (May 5, 2015)

Thems that should do often don't

and often those that don't then complain because they didn't and were "caught" (smiling)


----------



## mark handler (May 5, 2015)

I was at a project for a final

Restroom previously inspected and passed.

Between inspections the owner had the contactor rip out the complying restroom and install non complaint fixtures and built in cabinets

Compliant restroom did not meet the interior designers vision


----------



## jdfruit (May 5, 2015)

tunnel vision, didn't see that coming


----------



## Mech (May 5, 2015)

> I was at a project for a finalRestroom previously inspected and passed.
> 
> Between inspections the owner had the contactor rip out the complying  restroom and install non complaint fixtures and built in cabinets
> 
> Compliant restroom did not meet the interior designers vision


Did you ask to see permits for the additional work?


----------



## mark handler (May 5, 2015)

Mech said:
			
		

> Did you ask to see permits for the additional work?


Not Permitable


----------



## Msradell (May 5, 2015)

mark handler said:
			
		

> I was at a project for a finalRestroom previously inspected and passed.
> 
> Between inspections the owner had the contactor rip out the complying restroom and install non complaint fixtures and built in cabinets
> 
> Compliant restroom did not meet the interior designers vision


I'm assuming that before it passed the final they ended up redoing it for a third time, putting it back to how it was supposed to be.


----------



## mark handler (May 6, 2015)

Msradell said:
			
		

> I'm assuming that before it passed the final they ended up redoing it for a third time, putting it back to how it was supposed to be.


They have not called back for a final

they do not have a occupancy certificate or business license

I won't let them move in


----------



## tmurray (May 6, 2015)

I had a similar thing happen, but it was the contractor who advised me of the change. This actually happens quite a bit here, an owner or owner's representative will ask the contractor to do something they know is illegal. They inform the owner that it is a code violation and are told to do it anyway and they do, then call my office to ask for a "progress inspection" on the item or area in question and then get payed to fix it when I write it up as a deficiency. Contractors love this because we end up proving them right and they get payed to do something twice.


----------

