# Water Purveyor Rejects Multipurpose Sprinkler Taps



## forensics (Nov 19, 2011)

Here we go again.....

A local small water system here in South Carolina has ruled that they will not allow a homeowner of a three story beachfront home to combine the domestic water system and the residential sprinkler in a single tap.

The Board of Water would not respond to a request for the logic behind their decision.

Testimony was presented that included the following points;

1) The sprinkler system when connected to the single tap was valued at about $1.90 PSF (heated) and the cost was impacted by more than $6,000 to bring the cost PSF to $2.80

2) The necessity to provide a DC BFP added an additional cost per year (for testing and maintenance) to almost as much as the entire system when considered as impact to the mortgage portion of the house payments

3) The "stand alone" system required annual testing of the system because the domestic water could not be considered to "prove" the system on a daily basis

4) The comparision was made between the impact when thousands of gallons of water are pumped onto a fire as compared to the one hundred of so gallons of water discharged on the fire in its incepient stage

5) The runoff and contamination of the groundwater and the open water bodies from the large scale water flow in a fire

6) The fire water was unmetered as compared to the multipurpose system which utilized the metered connection

7) The homeowner was taking the initiative to provide his first tier of fire protection and therefore lowering the town's exposure and risk

8) Both the homeowner and the firefighters would enjoy a significant reduction in the life safety equation when the sprinklers were employed

Without regard to these issues they elected to force the owner to go the more expensive route even though they were well informed as to the benefits of residential multipurpose sprinkler systems.

Once again here is a prime example of the very agency that is charged with serving and protecting the public placing impediments on the widespread implemintation of these proven life saving systems

----SHEESH

So what is your water departments position on this issue???


----------



## Msradell (Nov 19, 2011)

forensics said:
			
		

> Here we go again.....----SHEESH
> 
> So what is your water departments position on this issue???


It's obvious, they want to make more money!  They will get an additional tap fee and probably a minimum usage fee on that meter.  Points #4-#8 are valid either way and they don't care about additional costs for the homeowner!


----------



## mark handler (Nov 19, 2011)

HOME  FIRE  SPRINKLERS

NFPA  GUIDE  FOR  WATE R  PURVEYORS

http://residentialfiresprinklers.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/Water_Purveyors_Guide.pdf

Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition

http://residentialfiresprinklers.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/water-purveyors-brochure.pdf


----------



## fatboy (Nov 19, 2011)

From a AHJ standpoint, I'd tell them to kiss my grits, and I have. In my neck of the woods, their control stops at the curbstop, period. If it meets the adopted code, and I will take into account the clean water act, then go for it. We have some platted townhouse lots that didn't get completed in the boom, now they are starting to finish out. Rather than making them tear up the street to get a fireline in, we are accepting an engineered design off the domestic. Our water department wanted a dedicated line, I said, sorry, not happening, my call.


----------



## fireguy (Nov 19, 2011)

fatboy said:
			
		

> From a AHJ standpoint, I'd tell them to kiss my grits, and I have. In my neck of the woods, their control stops at the curbstop.  water department wanted a dedicated line, I said, sorry, not happening, my call.


Good on you!


----------



## pyrguy (Nov 19, 2011)

I've heard the arguments from both sides of this issue.

The only thing I can see different is *I**F* the domestic water gets cut off for any reason the sprinkler system should stay active with separate meters.


----------



## fatboy (Nov 19, 2011)

I'd rather take the chance and make it easier to have sprinks in a structure.


----------



## pyrguy (Nov 19, 2011)

Well, that was the rule in a former jurisdiction I worked in. City sprinkler ordinance had been in place for more than 10 years when I started there.


----------



## fireguy (Nov 20, 2011)

pyrguy said:
			
		

> I've heard the arguments from both sides of this issue.The only thing I can see different is *I**F* the domestic water gets cut off for any reason the sprinkler system should stay active with separate meters.


Wouldn't the sprinkler water getting cut-off depend on where the sprinkler tap was made?  Before or after the potable water tap?


----------



## cheyer (Nov 20, 2011)

No....separate meter, separate feed.....the big problem with a separate service on a residential dwelling is that the monitoring of the tamper off-site just wouldn't happen (or at least be confirmed here in CA.) unless under ordinance.....that's why a combination feed and a main control valve serving both domestic and sprinklers are preferred....if the toilet's don't flush, you know someone shut the valve off


----------



## fatboy (Nov 20, 2011)

You don't have monitoring in a IRC (I know your CA) P2904 system, they are either on, or off.


----------



## cheyer (Nov 20, 2011)

fatboy said:
			
		

> You don't have monitoring in a IRC (I know your CA) P2904 system, they are either on, or off.


FB,....exactly.....either on or off....even if your system is monitored off-site (if required by local ordinance)....a closed tamper being a supervisory signal, may or may not make it back to the owner from the monitoring company....not a good route to take....a main control valve for both systems with a second domestic valve on the domestic leg provides better odds on keeping the water on


----------



## permitguy (Nov 20, 2011)

I think fireguy was pointing out that the sprinkler tap could be made upstream of the meter, without a seperate tap on the main.  This way, shutting the domestic water off at the meter (for non-payment, etc.) would still allow water to reach sprinklers.

I really don't see water purveyors allowing this to happen, and I understand why.  However, the purveyor in the OP is clearly wrong (IMO).


----------



## fireguy (Nov 20, 2011)

Yes permitguy, that was my intent.  Thank you for the claification

Water sellers apparantly do not know that a sprinkler system, metered or not, will use less water than a fire truck.  Are fire hydrants metered anyplace?

The two municiple departments I worked for did not meter the hydrants.  However, one city mgr pushed into place a scheme that charged sprinklered builidngs a "standbye fee".   One building owner removed the sprinkler system and thus avoided the "standby fee".  Now we are going to charge a "put the sprinkler system back fee".


----------



## TheCommish (Nov 20, 2011)

Consider this, if the water purveyor turns off the domestic water to the building and there is a single tap from the water main the building that supplies both domestic water and fire sprinkler water, the building  is now uninhabitable, it lacks water for sanitary and other potable water needs, therefore the occupants should be out of the building. A building without inhabitants does not need a residential sprinkler system.

Residential sprinkler systems are designed to prevent flashover and to allow time for occupants to escape before the environment in the home untenable for life. Secondary benefits of residential sprinklers are reduction in property loss and firefighter safety.

Another way to deal with the cost of second water tapes for fire sprinkler systems is to install a tank and pump for the fire sprinkler system, fill up the tank with a hose, no cross connection problem, no separate fire protect water line needed.

There are also fire sprinkler system that are design to function as potable water supply for the buildings, the heads have multiple taps so there is an interconnect for the  cold water plumbing fixtures in the home, and multiple feeds to the sprinkler heads, this solve the stagnate water problem and many of the water supplier problems.


----------



## permitguy (Nov 20, 2011)

In the real world, people are rarely thrown out of their homes for having their water shut off.  Even in the rare case that the process is initiated, it usually takes weeks to go through the legalities of notifying them of a property maintenance code violation, giving them time to respond, etc.  People don't suddenly pack a bag and leave when they come home to find their water shut off.

If there is a reliable source of water from a local purveyor, there is no need for tanks and pumps.  We can't just give up - we need to continue educating purveyors who are still struggling with the facts.

As for the rest, I think you're preaching to the choir.


----------



## incognito (Nov 21, 2011)

Really not an issue. Most states have been smart enough to amend rfs out of the residential code. And you can plan on more of the same when the 2012 comes up.


----------



## JBI (Nov 21, 2011)

"Now we are going to charge a "put the sprinkler system back fee"."

LMAO, 'put the sprinkler system back fee'. I gotta remember that one.


----------



## forensics (Nov 26, 2011)

"Really not an issue. Most states have been smart enough to amend rfs out of the residential code. And you can plan on more of the same when the 2012 comes up."

REALLY!?!  If every single homebuilder and narrow-minded building official in the country elects to work to kill residential sprinklers that will not keep the really intellegent choice of residential sprinklers from being a good idea.

We are seeing new customers for residential sprinklers every day!

At less than $2 PSF (heated) it seems rather stupid NOT to add a few sprinkler heads into the plumbing cold water distribution system!

Residential sprinklers are being installed by the plumbers in SC and the demand is increasing every day .... We saw over a dozen new systems and Retrofits in the month of October alone!

SORRY INCOGNITO the anti-life safety group is WRONG again.

I am betting that the EDUCATED home buyers will opt for the sprinklers the vast majority of the time ... especially when they costabout the same as the BS instant water heaters .... The buyer can always add a renai later but the sprinklers need to go in with the rough plumbing


----------



## incognito (Nov 28, 2011)

forensics, It is always difficult for uninformed zeolots to keep their story straight. First you have numerous retrofits in October alone, then you claim that sprinklers need to go in with the rough plumbing. You need to open your eyes and mind. Those opposed to rfs are not anti-life safety. We just are not ignorant enough to accept at face value the biased pr campaign of NFPA and NFSA that the fire folks blindly accept as factual. And if home buyers want them, I am 110% in favor of them having them. If rfs are such a great thing you will not need to have them required by the IRC. Home buyers will willingly and volutarily insist on them or builders will install them as a marketing tool.


----------



## permitguy (Nov 28, 2011)

Just when I was starting to think someone had finally learned not to take the bait . . .

NEWS FLASH - You're both right, and you're both wrong.  You aren't going to change each other's minds on this.  Get over it.


----------



## pwood (Nov 28, 2011)

forensics said:
			
		

> "Residential sprinklers are being installed by the plumbers in SC and the demand is increasing every day .... We saw over a dozen new systems and Retrofits in the month of October alone!SORRY INCOGNITO the anti-life safety group is WRONG again.
> 
> foresics,
> 
> a whole 12 systems! how can the local installers keep up with the out of control volume? must be a huge waiting list?:mrgreen:. let the market control the sprinkler requirement, not the code.


----------



## incognito (Nov 29, 2011)

Bait!? What bait? I'm just having fun with a zeolot or two who can't stop drinking the NFPA and NFSA Kool-aid.


----------



## gbhammer (Nov 29, 2011)

I am not much of a big government kind of guy, and I would love to enforce less rather than more code. I would however trade in a heart beat the entire energy conservation code for sprinklers in one and two family dwellings.

NFPA or NFSA kool-aid or not, sprinklers save lives, and the extremely rigid green codes will save nothing (not even Solyndra).


----------



## forensics (Nov 29, 2011)

Incog

I appreciate your unwanted and unfounded therapy for a crazed zealot like me

BUT

Before you hijack this thread with some tired old worn old rave that the HBA has schooled you on (You obviously don't think too much on your own) consider please that the entire intent of this post was to raise the question of governmental regulations that hinder a good system that was CHOSEN by the homeowner.

The entire point (for those as slow as ole Incog) is not a mandate (oh GOD I said the M word) but rather the work that must be done to help the purveyors understand that these systems are good for thier communities and their water departments as well.

There is not one word in this post from me indicating that I favor a mandate. I believe a mandate or code requirement is the worst way to bring any product to the market because of the backlash.

I would far rather spend my energy informing and educating the consumer because the homebuilders will never get it ...at least until their home burns

but hopefully it will be someone else to have the misfortune to be impacted by the results of the national bribe and campaign contribution scam that the HBA has perpetrated.

SHEESH


----------



## incognito (Dec 1, 2011)

forensics,

First, NAHB did not "school" me. As soon as I got back from Minneapolis I contacted our local and state organization and let them know how the rfs vote turned out and why(fire service bought votes with funds from NFPA & NFSA). That actually worked to our benefit because virtually all elected officials were appalled by the fact that the fire service would engage in such tactics. Kind of tarnished their white hats a bit. In no way do I consider fire service my "own" and never will. They are just to self serving and do not possess the ability to question policy as set forth by NFPA & NFSA.

Water purveyors had their rules and operating procedures long before the Minneapolis vote. The sprinkler advocates just were not intelligent enough to do the research. Or more likely, they were so arrogant that they believed that no one would throw up a roadblock to a system that they advocated. News flash--not everyone is as enamored with the fire service as much as the fire service is. In fact, if you bothered to go to Phoenix you may have noticed the only folks lamenting that virtually all jurisdictions have amended the rfs out of the residential code come from the fire side.

But you are 100% correct on educating consumers. If only that was the attitude of the entire fire service instead of just trying to shove it up everyone's ***** with a code requirement.


----------



## Builder Bob (Dec 1, 2011)

OFFICIAL TIMEOUT---

Forensics- go to your corner

Incognito- go to your corner

Gentlemen (used Loosley here) - Please refrain from posting slander against groups

These posts do nothing for furthering the education or providing information that an intelligent person would use ----

This type of behavior will turn people away from this BB ---


----------



## beach (Dec 1, 2011)

Now, now,..let's be fair...



> First, NAHB did not "school" me. As soon as I got back from Minneapolis I contacted our local and state organization and let them know how the rfs vote turned out and why(fire service bought votes with funds from NFPA & NFSA). That actually worked to our benefit because virtually all elected officials were appalled by the fact that the fire service would engage in such tactics.





> [TR]
> 
> [TD]As reported in the March issue of _EOC Perspectives_, NAHB is at a critical point in its campaign to fight fire sprinkler mandates in single family homes in the International Residential Code (IRC). Your help is essential to the success of this effort.
> 
> ...


[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]


----------



## fatboy (Dec 1, 2011)

I agree with Builder Bob, reign it in, this issue has been beat to death. The OP was about a purveyor, not about any of these groups.


----------



## Min&Max (Dec 1, 2011)

beach,

What a great deal that would have been. I could have gone to the code hearings in Rochester and NAHB would have paid my way. Why didn't ICC members get this info out so that more of us could have been there? No one can track how you actually vote at the hearings anyway.


----------



## beach (Dec 1, 2011)

I don't really care that some people have a major H_ _ _ -ON for the fire service, but at least get the facts straight.


----------



## conarb (Dec 1, 2011)

I have repeatedly posted rate charts form my local water supplier showing that a meter large enough for RFSs costs $135,000 in higher income areas and $51,000 in our lower income areas and they don't pay any attention, costs in affluent areas are exponentially higher than in low cost areas, yet they keep repeating the lie that sprinklers only cost $1.99 a square foot, maybe they do in poor areas but that doesn't apply to the entire country.  I've also repeatedly posted information showing that residential fires are 10 times more prevalent in poor areas than they are in higher income areas, since about 60% of home fires are cooking related it appears that the main cause is frying food, it would be better to educate the population as to the health dangers as well as safety of not cooking and eating fried foods.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





View attachment 508


View attachment 508


/monthly_2011_12/ebmud2.jpg.d15123d67e37455cb33e4bf09a920aa1.jpg


----------



## beach (Dec 1, 2011)

Where ya been CONARB?

We can beat this horse a little bit for the newcomers......

Here's some food for thought....just one mans opinion, bring your own popcorn!

Having been involved with the discussion regarding residential sprinklers, I think back to my days in the military. They say that the first thing to die in a war is “the truth.” For that reason, those of us that have supported the mandate of residential sprinklers have tried to get out the truth so everyone can decide.

Let me answer some questions on cost. You will hear all ranges of cost from $0.30 per square foot to $10.50 per square foot. The truth is that most numbers that are quoted have been paid by someone. That doesn’t mean that they are the norm, or the average, or anything. What is the average cost of an automobile? You get the idea.

The lowest cost system that I designed and helped to install cost -$8,000 for a 6,000 square foot home. That translates to -$1.33 per square foot. This was my brother’s home, which could easily be featured in this fine magazine.

How did the cost result in negative numbers? He was planning to install his water piping in copper tube. My other brother the plumbing contractor had already purchased the copper. When I convinced my older brother to sprinkler his home, I told him we were switching to CPVC from copper. The cost of the returned copper tube paid for the cost of the CPVC pipe, including the extra pipe for the multipurpose piping system. It also paid for the sprinklers, and he still pocketed $8,000. Okay, the labor was free, since his brothers installed the sprinkler and plumbing system.

I have designed many residential systems. The lowest installed cost was around $0.55 per square foot. However, that is not what the builder paid. The builder paid close to $2 per square foot based on what the contractor charged. We call the difference profit and overhead.

When sprinklers are mandated, there are more contractors in the market installing the sprinkler systems. All of a sudden, the price drops. Many times, it drops significantly.

I live in an area where sprinklers are mandated in many wealthy suburbs. The average price of a system for these homes is around $8 per square foot. The reason it is so high is that they don’t install multipurpose piping systems and they add a lot of extras to the sprinkler system. Extra alarms are installed, steel pipe is often used, this requires backflow preventers, etc. Realize that these homes sell in the million dollar range. So, the price is not completely out of line. It is like adding the extras to an automobile. You will pay the price for the extras, however, they are not necessary nor required.

We recently had a demonstration of contractors installing residential sprinkler systems in approximately 1,100 square foot affordable homes. For one home, a two man crew from a top residential sprinkler contractor roughed in the entire residential sprinkler system in 40 minutes. That translates to less than 2 hours of labor. The only thing required after the rough in was to go back and screw in the sprinklers when the home was painted and ready for final installation. Pretty simple, and very inexpensive. This home had 9 sprinklers. So figure the cost of the pipe and sprinklers then add 2 hours of labor and you just determine the cost to install the sprinkler system. It worked out to $0.49 per square foot.

This may seem out of the ordinary, however, this crew does nothing but residential sprinkler installations. They had it down to a science and could beat their competitors in price. Others will figure out how to do it this quickly and easily.

As for all the comments on freezing, we currently install water piping in all homes. Plumbing contractors have to be concerned about frozen pipes. The same is true for residential sprinkler systems. It is matter of proper installation. They install residential sprinkler systems in homes in Barrow, Alaska. If they can address the concern for frozen pipes in Barrow, they can do the same for any other location in the United States.

For those concerned that the government is shoving residential sprinklers down our throats, that is not the case. The ICC is not a part of the government. All of us involved in codes and standards development participate in the ICC process. The ICC publishes the codes which are offered to the public to adopt. States and local jurisdictions than adopt these codes.

The mandate of residential sprinklers is an effort to end one of the major tragedies on the United States, the loss of life in residential fires. If 3,000 people a year died in airplane crashes, we would demand that something be done by the government. When approximately 200 people a year were dying from Ford Pinto’s exploding, we demanded that the government do something, and they did. When 3,000 people die in a terrorist attack, we demanded that the government do something, and they did. So, why are we not demanding that the government do something about 3,000 innocent lives being lost to fire in residential buildings each year?

Some have claimed that people only die in older homes. That is not true. People die in homes of any age, including new homes. In 2007, seven college students died in a North Carolina beach front home fire. That home was new. The lawn sprinkler system, to protect the bushes, cost more than a residential sprinkler system would have for the home. But a residential sprinkler system was not offered to the owners.

In the 1920's, when the codes first started mandating indoor plumbing, there were concerns about cost and that it only applies to new homes. At that time, less than 3 percent of the homes in the United States had indoor plumbing. Out houses worked fine, why increase the cost of a home? Today, nobody complains that indoor plumbing is mandated by the government. In 90 years, the people will laugh that we argued against the mandate of residential sprinklers.


----------



## Msradell (Dec 1, 2011)

conarb said:
			
		

> I have repeatedly posted rate charts form my local water supplier showing that a meter large enough for RFSs costs $135,000 in higher income areas and $51,000 in our lower income areas and they don't pay any attention, costs in affluent areas are exponentially higher than in low cost areas, yet they keep repeating the lie that sprinklers only cost $1.99 a square foot,....


That certainly makes the cost to install residential sprinklers ridiculous in your area.  Even if you use 2500 ft² for the average size house in the lower income area it amounts to $10.00 per square foot just for the meter that including installation.  That's a ridiculous additional charge to allow sufficient water flow for residential sprinklers.



			
				beach said:
			
		

> For those concerned that the government is shoving residential sprinklers down our throats, that is not the case. The ICC is not a part of the government. All of us involved in codes and standards development participate in the ICC process. The ICC publishes the codes which are offered to the public to adopt. States and local jurisdictions than adopt these codes.


You're correct the ICC is not the government but it's also not a representative of consumers.  The majority of its codes and standards are developed by representatives of the building industry and they certainly have a vested interest in raising the price of construction so their profits rise.  There's very little input from the consumer side regarding affordability and maintainability of systems that are installed.

I'm not even going to reopen the discussion regarding freezing of systems in cold weather climates other than to say it certainly is a point of contention by many.


----------



## gbhammer (Dec 1, 2011)

It’s a shame that a water district would take advantage of people in that way. In our area a couple of districts tried to have fees in the 5-10,000 range and they were pretty much made to look like criminals in the community. They backed off, and are not even requiring a new meter where the service does not need to be resized. They admitted that the HBA pulled their strings to get them to announce those kinds of fees.


----------



## beach (Dec 1, 2011)

CONARB, what city is charging those prices? I would like to contact them.

EDIT: Here is the Contra Costa price...... I believe this is the area or close to it? you refer to:

http://www.ccwater.com/files/NewServiceFees.pdf

Make sure you check the asterisk and note #6


----------



## conarb (Dec 1, 2011)

Beach:

The water supplier listed is East Bay Municipal Water District, the major water supplier in the areas I have built within.






​


----------



## incognito (Dec 2, 2011)

Beach your numbers only confirm why NFSA is so determined to sell this BS. Your numbers would seem to indicate that you could install the system, labor and material, for .49-.55 cents a square foot and then charge the customer $2.00 and call the difference profit and overhead. You have only illustrated what many suspected---the sprinkler folks are nothing but a bunch of thieves. With a mark-up of nearly 300% no wonder the NFSA wants this mandated. The example of your brothers house is hilarious. Lets use your numbers of .49 to .55 and since more sq.ft. is usually cheaper per sq.ft. lets use .50. 6,000 sq.ft. x .50 = $3000.00 but profit and overhead would mark it up to $12,000.00. But somehow using your "fuzzy math" that does not add cost to the project because his initial price was much higher and you found a way to do it cheaper. No wonder the state of California is in such a dire financial crisis.You folks think you can spend thousands more on a project than you need to and you think you have saved money because you could have spent more.

Conarb, those numbers are incredible. I am guessing that more than one project has been scuttled because of water fees alone. That is just plain crazy.


----------



## mark handler (Dec 2, 2011)

And some wonder why the ICC shut down the board.


----------



## gbhammer (Dec 2, 2011)

There is "fuzzy" math on both sides of the issue.

There is however no question that Water Purveyor's can make or break the residential sprinkler system that is why Water Purveyor's have been used by those who oppose to residential sprinklers.


----------



## mark handler (Dec 2, 2011)

It's beyond fuzzy math, on both sides. Just like the unemploymemt rate.

For those who remember, there was an uproar by the home builders when Smoke detectors were “required”.


----------



## forensics (Dec 5, 2011)

I'm not even going to reopen the discussion regarding freezing of systems in cold weather climates other than to say it certainly is a point of contention by many. - Msradell

I will address the freezing issue

1) There are approved simple methods to prevent freezing (see NFPA 13D )

2) The IRC requires that speinkler piping be protected from freezing as required for plumbing piping

3) The PEX A type piping can survive freezing without bursting or leaking because of the features of the pipe and fittings

FREEZING IS NOT AN ISSUE ... PERIOD


----------



## forensics (Dec 5, 2011)

It's beyond fuzzy math, on both sides. Just like the unemploymemt rate.

For those who remember, there was an uproar by the home builders when Smoke detectors were “required”.

OH NO, SAY IT AINT SO... Smoke detectors are all we need (esp if it might add a few dollars to the price of a house payment)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5Q5GZGWqzc


----------



## pwood (Dec 5, 2011)

forensics said:
			
		

> I'm not even going to reopen the discussion regarding freezing of systems in cold weather climates other than to say it certainly is a point of contention by many. - MsradellI will address the freezing issue
> 
> 3) The PEX A type piping can survive freezing without bursting or leaking because of the features of the pipe and fittings
> 
> FREEZING IS NOT AN ISSUE ... PERIOD


  frozen PEX piping will survive freezing ,but will it put out a fire if it is frozen solid? :mrgreen:


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 5, 2011)

> 1) There are approved simple methods to prevent freezing (see NFPA 13D )


Fiberglass insulation will not protect water pipes from freezing over prolonged periods of cold tempertures (10 degrees or colder)



> 2) The IRC requires that speinkler piping be protected from freezing as required for plumbing piping


I have never seen plumbing supply lines installed in an attic or outside wall in this jusrisdiction. They run through the basement or conditioned crawl space to protect them from freezing.



> 3) The PEX A type piping can survive freezing without bursting or leaking because of the features of the pipe and fittings


PEX-A is the most expensive of all 3 types and each manufacturer typically requires using their own proprietary connection system. Because of that, tools and fittings can also be very costly. Other than slightly greater flexibility than of the other (2) types, there are no significant advantages of this type over the other two. If fact, it has been reported by many contractors that the expansion connection system used with PEX-a may be very inconvenient to use in colder climates.

http://www.pexuniverse.com/content/types-of-pex-tubing


----------



## beach (Dec 5, 2011)

Ummmm......INCOGNITO, I guess I should have put that in quotes.... when I wrote "this is just one mans opinion" it was a man other than myself, who, by the way, I don't believe is from California. Like I said, it's just one man's opinion, but thank you for the rant! Always amusing!!!!


----------



## beach (Dec 5, 2011)

CONARB,

It looks like they lowered their fee a little........ http://www.ebmud.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/C-284_combo_water-fire_residential-web-7-2011.pdf

*S**ample **C**alculation*
​_Example 1_
​The cost to install a 1" meter for Dual Service at a 3/4" domestic demand to servea single-family residence in West Oakland under Paved Conditions would becalculated as follows:
​_Installation fee __$5,378_
​_System Capacity Charge Region 1, 3/4" meter __13,920_
​_Wastewater Capacity Fee __1,235_
​_Account fee __34_
​_Total __$20,567_
​_Example 2_
​The cost to install a 1" meter for Dual Service at a 3/4" domestic demand to servea single-family residence in West Oakland under Unpaved Conditions would becalculated as follows:
​_Installation fee __$2,621_
​_System Capacity Charge Region 1, 3/4" meter __13,920_
​_Wastewater Capacity Fee __1,235_
​_Account fee __34_
​_Total __$17,810_


----------



## conarb (Dec 5, 2011)

Beach:

You wouldn't want to even go into District 1, there were 6 people shot to death there the other day.  In the areas that I build in, Districts 3 and 3C, the surcharge is:



> *Installation Fee for Lateral Oversizing for Fire Flow Capacity*The installation fee covers the cost of installing a standard 1-1/2" service lateral and is based upon the meter size of the water meter.
> 
> Size Paved Cost............    Unpaved Cost
> 
> ...


I've never installed a service with less than 1-½" water main, in fact have installed several 2" and even one 3", the costs there have really gone up:



> *Single-Family Residential Accounts in Additional Regions*Meter Size Additional Regions (inches) 3-C...................                              3-D
> 
> 3⁄4"................................................                                                $74,040............                        $82,230
> 
> ...


So I guess in 3-D I'd add $5,378 to $274,000 to get a total meter cost of $279,478, I guess I'm lucky that I'm now building in an area on a well, if I had to have installed sprinklers the $200,000 cost would have been cheaper than on public water.  I did run the water service 278' in 1-½" to the well, the copper alone complete with fittings cost over $6,000.  No plastic allowed here, in fact there was an old inactive PVC yard sprinkler line that was buried in a footing, the only comment that the field inspector had when inspecting the footings was what the PCV was doing down in there, when I told him that it was an old sprinkler line he said get it out of there, no PVC allowed here, I had a guy grab a sawzall and cut it out and he signed me off to pour.


----------

