Memorandum
TO: WWUC members
FROM: John Kounts, Chair, WWUC Legislative Committee
Noah Reandeau, WWUC Legislative Coordinator
SUBJECT: Review of the 2010 legislative session, and suggestions for the future
This memo offers observations by John Kounts and Noah Reandeau about the outcome of this legislative session, how the WWUC’s coordination process worked during session, and some ideas for future improvements. Water utilities this year marked their 15th consecutive legislative session working together with coordination assistance from the WWUC.
John Kounts’s comments on the 2010 session
Session overview
Coming into the 2010 legislative session, WWUC members had expected a short, 60 day, session, focused mostly on the budget. With yet another financial mess on their hands and elections due in the fall, legislators were rumored to be hesitant to pursue new policy items. As session began, the focus on budget issues was evident in the relatively few bills filed in the Senate, where leadership asked members to keep new bills to a minimum. However, as session wore on, several policy items emerged that both garnered attention and are likely to be taken up by future legislatures.
Water Rights Processing
Of the policy issues that received attention this session, the most significant was water rights processing. Plagued by the budget deficit, the Department of Ecology explained that the fees charged for water right applications had only been increased a couple times since 1917 and didn’t come close to covering application processing costs. Three bills were filed to address this disparity: companion bills HB 2508/SB 6267 and HB 2591.
The first two of these bills, HB 2508/SB 6267, were requested by the Department of Ecology to expand the ecology's water right cost reimbursement agreement program and require the department to establish a list of certified water right examiners. The bill authorized the department to determine that no water remained available for appropriation from a water source and provided for notification to pending applicants of the water source. The bill also allowed the Department to hire contractors to investigate the disposition of a water right application and clarified how a water right claim could be changed or amended.
The other bill, HB 2591, introduced by Representative Jeff Morris, required the Department of Ecology to adjust water right application fees. It created a permit-exempt well registry with a registration fee and provided for recovery of the actual cost of processing applications for water right permits. The bill stopped the subsidization of processing of water right permits out of general tax revenues and aimed to eliminate the backlog of applications within four years of the effective date of the act. It also created the water rights processing and dam safety account.
As the legislative session wore on, the Department’s SB 6267 passed the Senate by a vote of 46-2 and appeared to be the vehicle that would advance. The WWUC’s member lobbyists had been working with legislators on this issue and most agreed that the bill had been amended to a point of being acceptable. However, when the bill went over to the House, the General Government Appropriations Committee combined SB 6267 with Representative Morris’s HB 2591. This created a lot of confusion about what the bill would do and how it would practically work. However, after some quick action by the WWUC’s member lobbyists, the
With the issues in SB 6267 seemingly resolved, another wrinkle emerged. Rather than simply pass SB 6267, the House held the bill and then passed it with an amendment by Representative Morris to increase water rights fees, and with another amendment stating that existing exempt wells could not be metered. The Senate questioned the scope and object of these amendments under the bill’s title. After looking into the matter, Lieutenant Governor Brad Owen ruled that this point was well taken and the Senate refused to concur with the House amendments.
On the last day of the legislative session, the House passed E2SSB 6267 in a form very similar to the version that passed the Senate without the House amendments, which the Senate agreed to. In a concession to the House, the bill includes an in-depth examination of the water rights processing system over the interim, which will include a look at water right fees.
The final version of the bill offers provisions for “coordinated cost reimbursement” for water right applications and “expedited processing” for applications drawing from the same water source. These provisions were crafted with major input from water utility lobbyists, which led many WWUC members to support the bill as passed by the legislature.
Other Bills of interest to WWUC members
Other bills that garnered attention this legislative session include:
HB 2224, HB 6451 regarding residential fire sprinklers. SB 6451 was introduced this session concerning the installation of residential fire sprinklers and was substituted and passed out of committee. When it failed to pass the Senate, HB 2224 was resurrected from the 2009 legislative session (since the session carried over) and passed the House by a vote of 96-0 before failing to pass the Senate.
SB 6402 concerning the consolidation of permit exempt wells passed the Senate 46-2 and made it to the House floor before failing to pass the House. This bill would have enabled local-government water utilities to provide water service in lieu of new exempt wells being drilled within or adjacent to their services areas.
HB 2677 regarding extending the payback period for certain water conservation loans passed the legislature in the first special session. The bill extends the payback period for water conservation loans provided by a municipal distribution utility, a county water distribution utility, or a water and sewer district from 120 months to 240 months. PUDs already have the 240-month payback provision under current statute.
ESB 6261 regarding addressing city utility services collections against residential rental property passed the legislature.
HB 1534 giving Group A water system purveyors the opportunity to be informed before a well driller installs an exempt well for noncommercial irrigation in the purveyor’s service area. This bill was carried over from 2009 and received attention again before failing to pass the House
HB 2468 prohibiting the metering of permit exempt wells was introduced and received a lot of play this session.
HB 2532 creating a pilot project in
Climate for further progress on key issues
As we look ahead and try to predict what will happen this interim and next session, we need to keep several key points in mind:
· Elections will take place this Fall
· Next year will be a long, 120-day legislative session.
· The 2010 legislature continued to utilize federal government subsidies and one-time rainy-day funds to continue state operations. Therefore, another significant deficit is expected the next biennium.
· A decision by the state Supreme Court in the lawsuit challenging the state’s municipal water law is expected later this year. The court’s ruling could have a significant impact on water utilities and state water policy in the next biennium.
Recommendations for interim activities
These points suggest a future of both opportunity and risk for utilities. The clearest recommendation for utilities is that we must prepare for more program cuts and legislative initiatives important to WWUC members in the 2011 legislative session.
Bills introduced but not passed this session are likely to be introduced again, so topics such as fire sprinklers, cluster developments, and consolidation and metering of exempt wells deserve our consideration during the interim.
Several steps will help utilities succeed in legislative negotiations while also improving our position in forums outside the legislature:
· Updating the WWUC’s legislative and administrative priorities.
· Continuing and expanding outreach efforts with other interest groups
· Determining which issues the WWUC should develop official positions on, as we did in 2004 through development and adoption of the WWUC’s principles on instream flow legislation, and again in 2009 through development and adoption of the WWUC’s background and position paper on exempt wells.
· Educating legislators through tours of local utility facilities combined with presentations about local water issues and needs for legislative action to resolve these issues and provide financial assistance.
Member communications this session
Our legislative coordinator, Noah Reandeau, did an excellent job this session preparing and distributing legislative information to WWUC members. As we have done during past sessions, every week he sent out a legislative report, a matrix showing action on bills of interest to WWUC members, and a calendar of the next week’s legislative activities. These materials continue to earn the high regard of WWUC members for their clarity, succinctness, and timeliness.
In addition, Noah was assisted by Megan Schrader (also from Noah’s firm of Gordon Thomas Honeywell), who was very helpful to the WWUC and has shown great promise at understanding key water issues and in assisting the WWUC as needed.
Review of legislation this session
Most bill review and feedback occurred this session through WWUC member organizations that actively lobby, such as the Association of Washington Cities, the Washington PUD Association, and the Washington Association of Sewer and Water Districts. Noah’s primary role in this process was to provide timely and updated information to each member and to coordinate utility responses on important issues. In addition to sending out a weekly report, calendar and bill tracking list, Noah participated in weekly WWUC Executive Committee conference calls and, when merited, facilitated discussions of the WWUC member lobbyists to gather information and coordinate responses to legislation.
This approach to bill review, feedback and lobbying provided an effective forum for WWUC members to discuss pending legislation and coordinate responses. Noah played a central role in maintaining this communication throughout the session.
I hope we can continue using and perfecting this system during the 2010 session. It seemed to work well and does not appear to need major reform, though we are always open to WWUC members’ ideas about opportunities for improvement.
Noah Reandeau’s comments on the 2010 Session
Most of the following comments are drawn from Noah’s observations of the various types of meetings on legislation that the WWUC held this session:
WWUC Position-Taking Processes
The WWUC came into the 2010 legislative session well prepared to address the issues that arose. Having participated in the Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) meetings and discussions at WWUC meetings over the interim, WWUC members were well versed on the issues of the day and the time-tested WWUC legislative coordination process proved valuable when developments broke on issues like water rights procession.
During the session itself, WWUC members responded to several smaller water bills and circled the wagons at key times on the water rights processing legislation. Overall, effective coordination and action throughout the legislative process helped WWUC members to avoid significant policy setbacks. In the current legislative climate this can, once again, be viewed as a tremendous success.
Over the interim, it would continue to benefit WWUC members to stay abreast of major water topics by attending WRAC meetings and any gatherings coordinated by key stakeholders. In addition, the membership would also be well served to review their positions on key water topics and continue to position themselves in a favorable light by highlighting the good things that they are doing with the tools that were given to them in the municipal water law. Legislators love stories that describe how utilities have conserved finite water resources and demonstrated themselves as good stewards of the environment. Efforts to portray utilities in a positive light often pay significant dividends when they are most needed. Finally, it would behoove WWUC members to internally discuss if there is any legislation that they would like to pursue in the 2011 legislative session. If a package of water legislation emerges, there is a chance that the WWUC might be able to get language included. Discussion of this topic over the interim would prepare the WWUC for such an opportunity.
Overall, I would expect a busy 2011 session, with several major water policy bills emerging amongst a backdrop of numerous smaller water bills.
Executive Committee meetings (held every Thursday).
This year’s attendance for Executive Committee conference calls was very good. Attendance was consistent throughout the session, but increased when important issues presented themselves in the legislature. These meetings are important for quick reaction to developments in the legislature and often are useful in providing additional guidance to WWUC member lobbyists. Given the variety of water utilities represented by the Executive Committee, weekly discussions often give a good snap-shot of what opinions would be among the general WWUC membership.
Lobbyist meetings (held as requested).
For seven years now, WWUC member lobbyist discussions have been held on an as-needed basis. This year, many WWUC member lobbyists preferred to discuss issues by email, which seemed to work pretty well. When an important issue came up in discussions among the WWUC or WWUC Executive Committee, I would send out a notice to the WWUC’s member lobbyists to gain their feedback and suggestions. By listening to the WWUC lobbyists and accommodating their schedules by handling most communication through email, participation at WWUC member lobbyist meetings has been pretty good.
Weekly bill tracking lists, calendars and legislative reports
This session, weekly bill tracking lists and calendars were sent out on Thursdays (after the legislature released the following week’s committee hearing schedule) and weekly legislative reports were sent out at the end of the week. I continue to receive positive emails about this process and plan to follow the same process next session.
Click the following link or caopy to your browser.
Then click on the approprite link withing the web site to load
the PDF you want to review.
http://www.tpchd.org/page.php?id=493
Gary Porter, R.S.
Environmental Health Specialist III
Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department
3629 South "D" Street, mailstop 312
Tacoma Wa 98418
253-798-6569
e-mail: gporter@tpchd.org
GUIDE FOR WATER UTILITY MANAGERS AND GOVERNING BODIES
ON RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
OCTOBER, 2008
1. Background
The drafting of this guide to addressing residential fire sprinkler
issues for water utilities was initiated in response to State
legislation directing creation of a group to address barriers to the
voluntary use of residential fire sprinkler systems (RFSS).
Recently, it appears that fire sprinklers may become mandatory in
all new residential structures within two years. There are many
more facets to fire safety than this singular issue of setting utility
service policies for installation of fire sprinklers in single-family
and duplex residences; however, they are beyond the intended
scope of this document.
1.1 Legislative Action
After a few years of debate on the issues involved with installation
of RFSS in new single-family and duplex homes, the Washington
State Legislature adopted Substitute House Bill 2575 in the 2008
session; and, it was subsequently signed into law by the Governor.
This legislation directed the State Building Code Council to
convene a technical advisory group (TAG) to examine issues and
report to the legislature at the beginning of the 2009 session on the
barriers to voluntary installation of residential fire sprinklers. This
broad group representing local government, water utilities, building
officials, state agencies, fire protection, insurance companies,
sprinkler installers, architects, and builders was completing its
report in the fall of 2008 when the International Code Council
(ICC) adopted a resolution inserting language in the model code to
make fire sprinklers mandatory in new residential construction.
Thus, while most of the policy and other work on these issues in
installations, it may now be necessary to address these issues with
the assumption that such systems will be mandated in new
construction within the next two years. The typical process for ICC
model code changes to find their way into the State code is through
Building Codes Council rule-making (2009) and delayed adoption
until completion of the next legislative session (2010).
1.2 Barriers Report
The TAG report on barriers to installation of RFSS identified
seven key barriers, five of which include some aspect of the
provision of water service to the systems. These five barriers are:
1) lack of preferred design and installation details and guidelines,
2) cost and cost recovery of a voluntary RFSS, 3) increased cost of
hook-up fees in form of stand-by/system development charges, 4)
shut-off issues, and 5) water use efficiency rule credit for use of
larger meters. Addressing some of these issues will require
legislation or rule-making by the state and others can be addressed
by utilities through their locally adopted policies.
1.3 Significance to Water Utilities
This document is intended to provide a guide to water utility
managers and their governing bodies to help them identify relevant
issues and compare options in addressing these issues as they
establish policies governing the provision of residential fire
sprinkler system (RFSS) service. Key issues identified by the
Washington Water Utilities Council (WWUC) to be addressed in
water utility policies include water quality, type of service to be
provided, customer charges and service issues, liability, and other
utility-specific issues.
Whether mandatory or voluntary, water utilities can expect to see
an increase in demand for RFSS installations and need to have a
policy framework in place for this service. It would be preferable,
though not entirely necessary, for utilities in
reasonably consistent policy approaches. However, because of the
variety of water utilities’ governing bodies’ structures it may not be
possible to achieve a high level of state-wide policy consistency, in
spite of the pressure to do so by builders and sprinkler system
installers. This is an issue for future discussion by the WWUC;
and, if RFSS become mandatory nation-wide, it will eventually lead
to standard-setting on at least some issues by AWWA.
All of the policy choices presented here are interconnected. As a
result, policy options in one area should be examined in light of the
consequences or limitations that would confront a utility in other
areas. This analysis does not readily lend itself to a linear
approach.
2. Water Quality Protection
The most significant concern for many water utilities with regard to
any fire sprinkler system is protection of water quality. Because
dedicated fire-line systems are dead-ends where water can
stagnate, water purveyors have typically required that they be
isolated from the potable water supply with an approved backflow
prevention method (most often a double check-valve assembly –
DCVA) to protect the water system from backflow of this poor-
quality water. For small residential systems, some utilities have
opted for a flow-through system design to eliminate dead-ends and,
potentially, avoid the need to require backflow prevention.
2.1 Flow-through Systems
As depicted in Figure 1, a flow-through system uses the same water
service and household plumbing to supply the fire sprinklers and
the various domestic water uses in a home. Policy examples from
the Mountain View-Edgewood Water Company and the City of
elimination of dead-ends and the cost savings associated with using
a single service line and meter to serve both domestic use and fire
protection.
Key issues to address include whether to require backflow
prevention on flow-through systems (as in
which requires a DCVA on all services to protect their non-
chlorinated supply) or to waive it (as in Tacoma which requires all
in-home fire sprinkler piping to terminate at a fixture getting
regular domestic use to insure flow through all parts of the in-home
system).
Also, in-home plumbing needs to be a larger diameter than
normally used to serve only domestic uses which may mean greater
loss of chlorine residual at points of use due to longer residence
time for the water within the warmth of the home; and, if copper
piping is used, a greater potential for copper corrosion, affecting
Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) compliance.
Four variations on the concept of a dedicated fire sprinkler service
line have been identified: 1) a complete separate service line from
the main, 2) a branch off a single service line before the domestic
meter, 3) a branch off a single service just after the domestic
meter, and 4) a branch off the service line inside the home.
2.2.1 Separate Service (Figure 2)
A separate service from the main is the method favored by
Spanaway,
of piping containing stagnant water, backflow prevention is
required (DCVA is standard but Spanaway may also require a
reduced-pressure principle backflow assembly – RPBA - if there is
potential of a higher hazard use, such as the addition of chemicals
to the fire system). In this configuration, a standard domestic
service is installed for all non-fire uses, providing a normal flow
and water quality scenario.
2.2.2 Fire Line Branch Before Domestic Meter (Figure 3)
This configuration requires a larger service in the street up to the
branch (just before the meter); and, then uses separate service
lines on the customer’s property to supply domestic use and the
fire sprinklers. As for a complete separate service, backflow
prevention is required on the fire supply at the point where it
branches from the single service line (DCVA, typically). There is a
slightly greater potential for water quality degradation compared to
a standard domestic-only service due to the use of a larger service
in the street.
2.2.3 Fire Line Branch After the Meter (Figure 4)
This configuration (not favored, but allowed by
Edgewood) uses a single service in the street and a single meter
with the fire line branching just after the meter and using a
separate service on the customer’s property. A special branch
fitting with a shut-off valve fits in the meter box on the customer’s
side of the meter. As above, backflow prevention is required at the
point where the branch line for the service takes off just past the
meter. Water quality impacts would be minor, the same as for a fire
line branch upstream of the meter. The main advantage of this
configuration is the ability to terminate domestic use without
terminating fire system use, while protecting water quality.
2.2.4 Fire Line Branch Within the Home
A configuration similar to a flow-through system results if the fire
line branches at the service entrance to the home, providing a fire
sprinkler line in the home separate form the domestic water piping.
This is not a flow-through system, though some may describe it that
way. While the amount of piping containing stagnant water is
greatly reduced in this configuration compared to any of the
separate-service options, it still presents the same water quality
concerns. The question for the water supplier is whether to require
premises isolation (typically a DCVA at the meter), backflow
prevention in the home on the fire line, or to waive requiring
backflow prevention due to the decreased risk of contamination to
the water system (though not to the customer). Any potential
savings in the cost of interior piping would likely be lost in the cost
of installing and annual testing of a backflow assembly. Water
quality impacts due to larger piping, if any, would be similar to a
flow-through system. One possible approach to reduce the need for
over-sizing the service piping may be to require installation of a
solenoid actuated valve on the domestic line just past the branch
point that would be activated by flow on the fire line to shut off any
domestic demand if there is a fire demand.
2.3 Backflow Prevention
Current state standards are clear that any configuration employing
a separate fire service line requires an approved backflow
assembly be installed to protect the public water supply. Typically,
for gravity flow systems a DCVA is required. However, if booster
pumping is used to increase pressure above the supply pressure or
if chemicals are added to the fire system (such as corrosion
inhibitors) then an RPBA is required. If backflow assemblies are
routinely installed, is annual testing and maintenance part of the
utility service cost (Mt.
to the customer and an administrative (enforcement) burden on the
utility (typical approach for most utilities today)?
Flow-through systems can be constructed in such a way as to avoid
this requirement by designing them without dead-end pipe runs
serving fire sprinklers.
sprinkler to terminate at a fixture that is expected to get regular
use for domestic purposes and requires that the premises water
piping pass a utility inspection for this purpose. This is an added
step for
inspected interior plumbing, except for commercial and industrial
uses where backflow protection is a consideration. It may be
appropriate in such systems to also limit the length of pipe branch
off a supply line to serve an individual sprinkler head.
3. Service Provision Options
Water utilities use an array of hardware when installing a customer
service connection. This section addresses questions and issues
regarding changes from a utility’s standard approach that could be
needed in providing fire sprinkler service in single-family homes
and duplexes. Service pressure and flow issues are addressed as
well as service line size, meters, and related service provision
features.
3.1 Service Line Size
When providing separate domestic and fire services from the main,
a standard size domestic service is used, and the fire sprinkler
service is sized based on fire-only flow requirements. However,
where a single service tap will supply both domestic and fire
service use, it may be necessary to use a larger service line than
for a domestic-only service, at least up to the point of a branch to a
separate fire service line.
The utility’s decision to install a larger than standard service line
(for example, a one-inch line when three-quarters-inch is the
standard single-family service size), will include consideration of
several factors:
- Fire sprinkler design flow (minimum of 26-30 gpm) at design
pressure (minimum of 20 psi) - Typical range of operating pressures in the water system
- Length of utility service line (and length of service from
meter to house) - Elevation change from street to house
- Potential increase in peak demand (cumulative) on the water
system - Cost of service installation and utility fees
A utility may have high enough service pressures that the minimum
flow and pressure for fire sprinklers can be met through a ¾”
service line. However, most utilities that have addressed policies
for single-line service to both domestic and fire sprinkler use have
determined that they need to use a larger service line, such as a 1”
line. Extenuating circumstances such as low water distribution
pressure, a long distance from the street to the house, or
significant changes in elevation from the street to the house may
require even larger service line sizes to deliver minimum fire flows.
Since service fees (Capacity charges, Memberships, Development
fees, etc) are typically based on service and meter size, keeping
the service size to a minimum may be a goal of the utility and the
customer, in which case the utility may favor allowing or requiring,
if possible, the installation of a larger size service line on the
customer’s side of the meter to make up for the greater friction
loss through a smaller service supplying the meter. For most
utilities the sizing of the standard service line and meter is, in part,
a means to limit peak demands on the system; and, increasing the
size of a single-service configuration to address fire sprinkler flow
allows the potential for a greater peak demand. This potential, or
its cumulative effect, is a key concern for those utilities that have
chosen the two-service configuration, keeping the domestic service
at a smaller size from the main to the house.
3.2 Meter Size and Type
Issues related to meter sizing are similar to those for service lines,
though the role of meters as the means of measuring use for billing
and other purposes makes their accuracy an additional area of
concern. For configurations in which the fire line does not use water
that passes through the domestic meter, the issue of increasing the
domestic meter size does not arise. One question for the utility to
address in these configurations is if a meter will be required on the
fire sprinkler service. While it is common for utilities to install
detector-check type meters on larger fire services, some have
suggested that RFSS service lines not be metered since meters of
this type are not produced in such small sizes and the pressure
drop at high flow through standard small displacement type meters
is significant. In general, utilities have opted to meter the separate
fire service so that any unauthorized use can be detected; however,
see the discussion below on meter types for an explanation of the
importance of this decision. Illegal connections to fire lines are not
uncommon and pose an enforcement problem to water purveyors
who are not also the “authority having jurisdiction”.
For service configurations that serve both the domestic and fire
use through a single meter, it is unlikely that a standard 5/8” X ¾”
meter will pass the fire flow at a reasonable pressure loss;
however, there may be unique local conditions that allow for this
approach. More commonly, utilities install full ¾” or 1” meters in
such configurations, depending on the utility’s evaluation of the
factors presented above under the discussion of service size. Both
combination of a 1” service line and a full ¾” meter as a cost-
effective compromise between instantaneous capacity and ability to
measure low flows.
The advantage to utilities of a smaller domestic meter is the ability
to accurately measure flow through the meter, and to measure at
all, the lowest flows. All meters require a minimum amount of flow
(or water velocity) to make them register flow. In general, as the
size of the meter increases this minimum flow to start the meter
turning also increases. A considerable amount of domestic use is at
low flows; and, the ability to detect leaks is very dependent on the
ability of a meter to detect small flows. High flows are also more
accurately measured by smaller meters than by larger meters. This
becomes an important factor also in reporting system leakage to
the State Dept. of Health under the new Water Use Efficiency
(WUE) Rule, since metering losses are part of the definition of
system leakage and are frequently a large portion of the overall
losses in a water system. Thus, use of larger domestic meters will
lead to increased losses in revenue and a higher reported system
leakage number. These issues are important to examine in
selecting the type of RFSS service provision to provide, especially
with regard to using one or two meters for the two purposes.
The issue of the use of “fire-rated” water service components is
addressed more thoroughly in the later section on liability. With
regard to meters in the size range for RFSS use, only one
manufacturer has been identified so far that is producing a listed
meter that meets the open flow-path requirements of a fire-rated
meter. This is obviously going to be a problem if rated meters are
required when State codes are adopted. So far, however, the use of
standard water service meters has been considered reasonable by
all parties, in spite of concerns about possible plugging of the
displacement-type meters or their built-in screens. A typical fire-
rated meter is a proportional-reading meter that directs a portion
of the flow through the metering chamber while leaving the main
flow path unobstructed. Of course, some metering accuracy and
low-flow capability is typically sacrificed with this approach. The
challenge for utilities is to weigh the small possibility of a meter
plugging or stopping against the relative accuracy of measurement
of the meter types and sizes being considered (perhaps also a small
difference). Most utilities standardize on one or two brands of
meters to keep their stock of spare parts under control, relying on
the large number of suppliers available to keep prices competitive;
if a fire-rating is required and there is no competition in supplying
meters for RFSS service then higher prices should be expected.
Many utilities have converted to Automated Meter Reading
(typically, radio-read meters) technology, which is not offered in
fire-rated styles. Additionally, the fittings used in domestic meter
settings are not fire-rated.
3.3 On-site Storage
In rural areas (where water systems are frequently not designed to
deliver fire flows or to serve fire hydrants) it may not be possible to
serve a RFSS without providing storage on-site. This is the
standard approach for service to homes from individual wells, using
captive-air pressure tanks to provide storage to reduce the cycling
frequency of the well pump and to provide a small reserve in the
event of power failure. On-site storage may also make sense where
an extremely long service line is needed to provide service to the
home from the point of connection to the main as a means to get by
with a smaller service line.
The sizing of the amount of storage presents a trade-off between
providing adequate flow for an adequate period of time to meet the
goal of fire control while keeping the stored water sufficiently
refreshed with regular use to maintain water quality, assuming a
single supply for fire and domestic uses in these situations. If the
storage is provided just on a separate line serving the RFSS then
the water quality issues are moot, provided there is adequate
backflow protection provided.
3.4 Booster Pumps
Hilltop properties have great views and the lowest water pressure.
If the number of customers on a particular hilltop is small, utilities
frequently opt to allow service at lower than usual pressure, subject
to the customer (or utility) installing a booster pump to provide
adequate pressure to the home. If this same service connection and
booster pump is also serving the RFSS then it needs to be sized to
serve the required fire flow also.
In some cases the service pressure may be adequate to serve the
domestic uses but not adequate to meet the minimum pressure
requirements (or flow) for the RFSS, in which case a booster pump
may be installed on only the fire service (where they are separate)
or on the whole house service but only called to run when pressure
drops below a minimum level. If a booster pump is used in such a
standby situation, routine testing would be needed to insure it is
operating properly when needed. Utilities may find that booster
pumping is needed, as a retrofit, when sprinkler systems are
designed and installed assuming that distribution system pressures
are greater than actually occur during periods of high demand.
3.5 Pressure Reducing Valves
Where service pressures are higher than recommended for
domestic service it is common to install a pressure reducing valve
(PRV) on the domestic service at the entry to the home to protect
in-home plumbing fixtures and appliances. In flow-through systems
a PRV can represent a flow restriction significant enough to limit
the delivery of adequate flow to the RFSS sprinkler heads. This is
especially a concern when the PRV (as is often the case) is fitted
with a strainer which would be subject to plugging with debris over
time. In situations where service pressures are high enough to
normally call for installation of a PRV on the domestic service a
separate fire service may be preferred or installation of a
branching system where the fire line branches before the PRV. The
branched line in a configuration where the branching is after the
domestic meter can be required to terminate in a fixture with
regular use that is individually protected by a PRV at the point of
use to insure flow through the fire line (
3.6 Significant Increase In
If major additions are made to the customer’s plumbing to supply
added uses after the service for a flow-through or branching RFSS
configuration has been installed, especially a large-demand use
such as an automatic irrigation system, it may limit available flow
to the fire sprinkler heads. This factor may favor consideration of
further service line and meter size increase in flow-through or
branching systems or favor consideration of separate service
systems. This is another potential impact on utility liability defense,
even though it is not likely that the utility would be made aware of
the modification to the customer-side plumbing and resulting
demand increase.
4 Customer Service Issues
Customer service issues include up-front fees, monthly service
rates, routine service interruptions, shut-offs for non-payment,
backflow device annual testing and maintenance, customer
notifications, and utility regulations.
4.1 Development Charges, Capacity Fees, and Membership
Fees
Most utilities have some kind of fee that a new customer pays that
is based on obtaining equity in the system relative to existing
customers. They are called System Development Charges,
Connection Fees, Membership Fees, Capacity Charges, etc. and
are distinct from the service installation charge that is generally
based on the cost of the actual construction of the new service
connection. Sometimes the fees, or portions of them, are based on
property frontage; but, most often, they are based on the service
and meter size or anticipated customer use (impact on the system).
A key question for utilities regarding application of such fees is
whether they see the additional capacity required to serve the
RFSS as imposing an additional demand on the system for which an
increased or additional fee should be charged. In some cases the
over-sizing to serve the RFSS (Lacey) or the additional service for
a separate RFSS service is charged the standard fee based on
service size. Some other utilities have adopted an incremental
increase in the standard single-family capacity fee (Kitsap PUD)
when the service provision also includes a RFSS. Some utilities
have also waived any increase in fees associated with over-sizing
for the RFSS (
required by the City) or even for a second service if it is only for
the RFSS (Spanaway and
domestic service. Some utilities have expressed concerns that
when some portion of the service uses a common service line and
there is an automatic irrigation system installed on the property,
the over-sized portion of the service line may allow a higher peak
irrigation use than would normally be possible, resulting in a
greater potential peak demand on the water system for which a
higher system capacity fee may be appropriate. Some mutual water
companies (
every service connection, including separate fire service
connections to the main.
4.2 Service Installation Fees
The issues around application of service installation fees are
whether to charge the full additional service installation fee for a
second service when a dedicated fire service line is installed
(Lacey) or a reduced fee (Lakewood, Covington) when they are
installed at the same time. Similarly, when a common service
connection and line (up to some point) is serving both domestic and
fire use is the installation charge based on the larger connection
(Lacey), at some incremental increase over the normal domestic
service charge (Mt. View-Edgewood – at $450), or at no increase
over the standard domestic service installation cost (Camas, when
RFSS required by City)? While capacity charges are somewhat
subject to assumptions about usage patterns for the residential
customer, the service installation fees are typically based on actual
costs experienced by the utility for such installations; so, where
over-sizing or additional service lines are involved it would seem
appropriate to consider whether to recover these costs from the
new customer or to absorb them into the rate base.
4.3 Monthly Rates
With multiple service lines from the main to serve domestic and
RFSS use separately, it may be necessary to set up two customer
accounts (Spanaway and
monthly charges for service to each.
incremental fee to the standard domestic bill for the separate fire
service (currently $25 per month). With a branching service or
flow-through system some utilities apply an additional incremental
fixed monthly service charge (Kitsap) or at the higher rate
associated with the larger meter installed (
One major concern for water utilities is the possibility of a
customer making a connection to the fire service line in a two-
service configuration or a branching configuration, either by
mistake or intentionally, and taking water from the fire service. As
a result, penalties may be considered (Spanaway at 12X normal
commodity charge when domestic service is shut-off for non-
payment), in addition to normal fees for water use. It appears that
the standard for separate service to a fire line of all utilities
responding to the survey is to install a meter on the dedicated fire
line to detect any unauthorized flow, unless the branching line
comes off the single service after the meter. The trade-off for
utilities on this issue is the cost of two meters and services (with a
separate fire line) and the cost of enforcement actions, compared
to the cost of a larger meter and service up to the point of
branching, and the potential for greater under-registering of low
flows by the larger meter.
4.4 Service Interruptions
A significant concern of utilities is how to handle service
interruptions, planned or otherwise, when the homeowner is
assuming and depending on continuous water service to provide
fire protection to the premises. Liability issues will be addressed
later; the focus here is on customer notification and related
obligations, if any, of the utility. Three general categories of
system service interruptions include: 1) emergencies such as main
breaks or other major system component failures, 2) construction
of system extensions, replacements, or improvements that may
require shutdowns to make connections or such, and 3) routine
system maintenance activities, such as flushing, that impact service
to the customers. Clearly, there are rarely opportunities to
anticipate and notify customers of system failures or other
emergencies; so, there is not likely to be any way to provide any
additional notice to fire service customers. With regard to notice of
planned shutdowns for construction or system maintenance,
however, it may be necessary for the utility to consider establishing
procedures to insure notice of these shutdowns to fire service
customers and to encourage them, in such notices, to flush their
fire sprinkler supply lines when there may have been a possibility
of sediment accumulation as a result of the system repairs,
flushing, or other maintenance activity. Since all RFSS installations
are associated with a domestic service, it may be sufficient to
provide the normal notice of planned interruptions (as for Tacoma
flow-through systems), adding any appropriate fire-system specific
suggestions for the customer.
4.5 Shut-off For Non-payment
Shutting off the water service to enforce payment of past-due
billings is the preferred method of most water utilities; and, many
consider it the only effective way to get the attention of some
customers. Some utilities believe they should attempt to provide
uninterrupted service to the RFSS, even in the event of failure to
pay for the service. When a single water service supplies both the
RFSS and domestic uses, a non-pay shut-off could affect the RFSS
as well as the household uses. This concern is a factor in the
selection by some utilities (Spanaway and
configuration employing a separate fire service from the main. It is
also a consideration favoring the branching configurations where
the fire line branches at the meter, as long as a separate shut-off
valve is provided on the domestic service line. Utilities may want to
consider simultaneous notice of shut-off that affects the RFSS as
well as the domestic service to the local fire department.
Flow-through systems and those that branch off a fire line inside
the home do not allow for keeping the RFSS supplied while
shutting-down the domestic supply. Utilities that have adopted the
flow-through configuration (
off of the domestic supply gets a quick response, making any
shutdown of the RFSS also brief. There is also the concern that a
separate fire line, if that service was shut down for lack of
payment, may not generate the sense of urgency to get the service
reinstated that the loss of the domestic supply achieves. Another
concern with a dual service approach is the potential for a customer
with the domestic supply shut off to tap the fire supply line to
obtain domestic water (until discovered by the utility, note
Spanaway’s 12X use penalty). Non-municipal utilities may not have
the legal authority or the resources to routinely inspect for illegal
connections; and, once an illegal connection is discovered they may
not have the authority or desire to take legal action.
4.6 RFSS Design Requirements
Larger fire sprinkler systems in commercial and industrial
applications and larger multi-family residential applications are
required to be designed by a licensed fire system designer and
installed under a licensed installer’s supervision. Since RFSS
installations are currently voluntary, there is no corresponding
licensing requirement for system designers and installers of these
small residential systems. As a result, it may be appropriate for
utilities to consider if they should require design by licensed
designers (as in Spanaway). Utilities also may want to develop
standard details, as for current residential water service
installations, for the service configuration chosen as the utility’s
standard, including the materials to be used in the installation. To
the extent that additional unique service line materials will be
employed, the utility may want to limit the options to keep down the
array of spare parts that it will need to stock. Given that the
plumbing code is the responsibility of general-purpose local
governments, utilities that are not part of such a local government
entity will need to rely on their water quality protection mandate to
allow them to regulate the design and installation of in-home fire
sprinkler systems.
4.7 RFSS Required by Utility (or General-purpose Government in Service Area)
Some utilities (or more specifically, the general purpose
government in their service area) have required the installation of
an RFSS (Camas) in situations where access by fire fighting
equipment is limited. These may include homes on very small lots
(small side-yard setbacks), homes on “flag” lots where the access
is a long narrow driveway, homes on very narrow streets, and
homes on mains or in areas served by mains that are too small to
serve fire hydrants.
5 Liability
Many water purveyors have expressed concern that the
installation of fire sprinklers in single-family and duplex residences
presents unique challenges compared to provision of fire service in
larger commercial, industrial, and multi-family installations where
there is typically someone responsible for maintenance who is
familiar with the fire sprinkler system. Large fire system
installations are equipped with alarms that indicate if there has
been a pressure drop, for example. Household systems are at risk
of modification over time by the homeowner, inadvertent valve
closures, and changes in utility service pressure and capacity as
the area develops over time. With concerns about the expectation
of continuous service to the RFSS, utilities have many questions
about their liability with regard to RFSS installations. While there
is asserted to be general protection in State law for utilities
providing fire sprinkler service, the committee that drafted the
report on barriers to RFSS installation concluded that specific
language in State law protecting utilities under normal conditions of
service interruption and disconnects for non-payment would be
beneficial to prevent frivolous lawsuits and ease utility concerns.
Some utilities have opted to address liability issues in the drafting
of their policies and in their implementation, through the choice of
RFSS service configuration. Others (Spanaway) have required the
customer sign a waiver when obtaining a new service that includes
a RFSS, which is subsequently recorded with the County property
records. One question for utilities to consider if they obtain waivers
is whether they feel they need to obtain them from each
subsequent customer as the property is sold or rented.
At least two utilities have obtained opinions of their legal counsel
regarding any special liability or duties imposed on them as a result
of providing residential fires service connections and the
consequences of service interruptions, whether for utility
operations and maintenance or for enforcement of collection of
bills. Unfortunately, or fortunately, RFSS duty issues have not
been addressed by specific cases in
utilities should seek the opinions of their own counsel), the opinions
have stressed the need to carefully follow the utility’s established
shut-off notice procedures, perhaps supplemented by obtaining a
customer waiver (which may or may not be of significant value),
and providing notice where possible of routine maintenance shut-
downs. However, there is caution expressed at the uncertainty of
case law since there are no specific precedents and there is caution
advised to follow established utility policies, especially given that
utilities operate under a variety of enabling statutes.
6 Other Issues
A few additional questions have been raised by utilities during the
course of discussions about service to RFSS installations. This is
not a complete list of such questions; but, an attempt to collect
those identified so far.
Does the installation of RFSS impact the sizing of water mains or
other water system facilities, particularly if they will be mandated
and new subdivisions will be constructed with all homes having a
RFSS? Where urban and suburban utilities have typically designed
systems to provide sufficient flows to serve fire hydrants for fire
fighting, some have suggested that with universal use of RFSS it
may be possible to forego the installation of fire hydrants in such
neighborhoods, resulting in smaller mains, pump stations, storage
tanks, etc. In rural areas where systems are frequently designed to
only provide domestic supplies, the opposite situation may result
from the need to provide a higher peak capacity (though smaller
than needed to serve fire hydrants) for the instantaneous demand
of a RFSS, causing the installation of larger mains, storage tanks,
and pumps. In some fire jurisdictions (
County Fire District 8) the Fire Marshall is requiring hydrants be
installed within 600 feet of a new home as a building permit
condition. Alternatively, the builder is given the option of installing
a RFSS in lieu of the hydrant installation. The unintended
consequence is that as a water system develops, new areas may
not have hydrants to use for fighting vehicle fires, brush fires, or
fires at homes without fire sprinklers, among others.
Another area of concern is the potential for a RFSS to need a
greater minimum operating pressure than is currently available in
some parts of utilities’ service areas. This could lead to installation
of small booster pumps by utilities and the creation of new hilltop
pressure zones at a considerable expense. It could, alternatively
lead to numerous individual booster pumps installed on services,
whether treated as a part of the utility service or as a part of the
homeowner’s service, with the additional O&M cost that the
booster pump implies.
In the opposite case, where system pressures are high enough to
require installation of pressure-reducing valves (PRV) on
individual services, it will be necessary to insure that the RFSS is
served upstream of the PRV or that the PRV will not restrict the
flow below the design flow of the RFSS.
7 Comparison of RFSS Service Options
The summary table below is an attempt to capture the main points
of comparison and key issues presented in the preceding
discussion. It is, of necessity, an oversimplification so is intended
more as a guide to the text sections for the issues of most
importance or causing the greatest confusion to a particular utility
as it sets policy. The relative weighting or significance of each
issue will likely vary from utility to utility.
Comparison of Residential Fire Sprinkler System Service |
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Flow- | Dedicated | Service | Service | Service |
| Through | Service | Branch | Branch | Branch |
| System | From | Before | After | In Home |
|
| Meter | Meter |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of Installation - Utility Side | Lowest | Highest | Middle | Middle | Lowest |
Cost of Installation - Total | Lowest | Highest | High | High | Lowest |
Magnitude of Fees | Middle | High-Mid. | Middle | Middle | Middle |
Backflow Prevention Required? | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Maybe |
Stagnant Water in Service in Street | No | Yes | No | No | No |
Stagnant Water in Service on Premises | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Risk of Freezing | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
Ability to Shut-off Domestic Only | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
Number of Facilities in R/W | Lowest | Highest | High | High | Lowest |
Ability to Detect Use on Fire Line | Yes | If Metered | If Metered | Yes | Yes |
Ability to Meter Low Flows | Worst | Best | Best | Worst | Worst |
Monthly Charges to Customer | Moderate | Highest | High | High | Moderate |
On-going Maintenance by Utility | Moderate | Highest | High | High | Moderate |
On-going Maintenance by Customer | Lowest | High | High | High | Moderate |
Shut-off Waiver Recommended? | Yes | No | No | No | Yes |
Additional demand issues? | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Appendices
- Draft Report of RFSS TAG (September, 2008)
- Spanaway Water Company RFSS Policy (with Waiver Form)
- Lakewood Water District RFSS Policy
Tacoma Water Division RFSS Policy
