When the moat gets into the castle

Today's item piqued my interest for two reasons: one, it's related to my "real" profession; and two, there's been a little controversy over the subject locally in the last few years. So it was up to the International Code Council to make a decision on the matter for the upcoming release of the 2009 International Residential Code.

Now that I've used my introductory paragraph as a great teaser, the subject at hand is the mandatory installation of residential sprinklers for new home construction. Proponents naturally see this as a life safety issue to prevent additional damage and loss of life in case of fire, while opponents lobbied on the argument of increased cost and maintenance risk. This is from the October 16th AIA Angle internet newsletter:

The actual cost of installing sprinklers varies depending on who you ask. Installation of sprinklers could increase construction costs by as much as $12 per square foot, according to NAHB (the National Association of Home Builders - ed.) In a report published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), which supported the requirement, states the costs are much less, around $1.61 per square foot.

“Architects who focus on the residential side should be aware of this new mandate when they design homes in states that adopt the code. Currently, 46 states use the IRC. This code will greatly affect how architects design a home in those states,” says Paul Mendelsohn, AIA vice president of Government and Community Relations.

Mendelsohn is correct to an extent, as states do have the right to not adopt certain portions of these model building codes. This may be a fight which comes down to the local and state levels as the cost vs. benefit argument is played out on many and varied stages.

With the housing industry already in the tank for the near-term future, this requirement comes at a bad time. Certainly the increased cost will be passed on to the buyer, and depending on whose estimate you trust that translates into anywhere from $3,220 to $24,000 added into home costs for a 2,000 square foot house. Further, I found it intriguing that the insurance industry fought AGAINST the requirement, with the likely contention that possible water damage from leaks would outstrip the costs of the occasional fire.

Being a firm believer in private property rights, I think that the decision should be up to the homeowner and not dictated from on high. Obviously having a sprinkler system can make a difference in the event of a fire; however, the actual preservation of life is already addressed by the codes with a number of other regulations regarding door and window widths, exit access, and the like. Generally a home is of small enough size that escape from it is possible within seconds, so sprinklers tend to be more for the preservation of property.

It also brings up a point about water consumption. Most houses in urban and suburban areas will be tied to a municipal water source, but would that water source be sized to provide enough flow in the case of a fire? Many cities and towns already have difficulties with water pressure and this may worsen that problem. More importantly, is this new code a backhanded way to promote "smart growth"? The question of access to water supplies sufficient to fill a sprinkler system may be a factor in whether to allow homebuilding in certain rural areas like the one I live in, since I indeed have well water.

Naturally this isn't a regulation which creates headlines, nor is it a governmental entity which is proposing it. This example points out that there are a lot of do-gooders who wish to make decisions for you about what's best in your life. Building a new dream house shouldn't necessarily need to include the additional cost and worry about extra water lines. Maybe it can be a selling point and possibly the life it saves could be yours or a loved one's, but the choice should still be yours. There's no need for states or local entities to adopt the 2009 IRC in toto; these new regulations can and should merit more discussion at their level.