2009 IRC Requires

[Greg Bell]

Fire sprinkler systems in all new one and two family dwellings by 1-1-2011.

[Michael R. Boyett]

Texas and some cities are taking exception to this however, the builder's lobby is hard at work:

Local Legislative efforts against residential fire sprinklers continue, with California and Texas as the latest battlegrounds. In California, the City of Long Beach has exempted older residential high rises and large apartment complexes from a mandate to install fire sprinkler systems. In Texas, Gov. Rick Perry has signed a bill that prohibits municipalities from enacting residential sprinkler ordinances. The Texas law is retroactive to Jan. 1 of this year.

“Notwithstanding any other provision of state law, after Jan. 1, 2009, a municipality may not enact an ordinance, bylaw, order, building code, or rule requiring the installation of a multipurpose residential fire protection sprinkler system or any other fire sprinkler protection system in a new or existing one or two-family dwelling,” the law reads.

But the law, on the other hand, specifically states that it's ok for a contractor to try to sell a multipurpose system to homeowners.

[Richard A. Hetzel]

Sometimes I think that the three-year code cycle sort of encourages code changes whether they are necessary or not. Yeah, I know, "just if only ONE life is saved...", and an emotional argument like that is tough to counter, but what of the billions of dollars that will be spent paying for such things, and what of the hours and hours of peoples' lives spent working to earn those billions of dollars? Of course, the plumbing industry doesn't mind at all, do they? I'm sure there is all kinds of lobbying going on on both sides.

[Richard W. Washington]

Why not just require readily accessible fire extinguishers every so many square feet? Not as safe but definitely safer than none and alot less expensive than sprinkler systems.

[Wayne B. Wilson]

Ah not just one life but a reduction in Man power and equipment required by cities to man fire departments. A few years ago it was chemical trucks the idea was it only took 2 men and a truck to dump dry chemical into a home to snuff a fire and no water damage problem was recharging the truck and cost of the chemical .
One problem sprinklers do need service and maintenance, People can not maintain their furnaces so why do these people think sprinkler maintenance is going to happen.

[Richard A. Hetzel]

So, instead of taxing people as required to maintain fire department manpower at sufficient levels, make people buy sprinkler systems that in the normal life of a typical home will never be used, Just another hidden tax instead of a direct tax, huh? In the case of small suburban volunteer fire departments, I can see more of an issue, because they are having difficulty finding enough volunteers, and can do little about the decline in manpower.

As for the fire extinguisher idea, they won't work when the home is unoccupied, but srpinklers will. The maintenance issue is a good one. No sense having a sprinkler system that will fail if and when it's needed because it was not maintained and serviced.

[Doug Edwards, CMI]

Well, it won't burn up in a fire but will be destroyed by water. Kind of like the patient that dies on the operating table. The surgery was a complete success but unfortunately your husband died. Sorry, Here is your bill, thanks for coming. Hmmm, I wonder if this will be covered by flood insurance?

[Brian C. Hoagland]

Are they also requiring the maintenance of these systems? Seems to me that since everything breaks with time that would be prudent. How in the world are the code officials gonna deal with that. If they don't what good did the code change accomplish. Whole thing seems stupid to me. It would be better if the federal government just made it illegal for anyone to die in an accident.