Do you Need Sprinklers in Your House? (Part 1)
by Dale Tyler

On December 6, 2010, the Mission Viejo City Council considered a modification to the city's building codes that would require homeowners to install fire sprinklers in their entire home if they make changes to their house, such as a room addition.

The Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) is pushing this change. Although the 2010 edition of the state fire code requires sprinklers for all new housing, it does not have any such requirements for additions to existing housing. Other groups, such as the Building Industry Association (BIA), oppose the OCFA's addition to the 2010 California building code.

One has to wonder what motivates government agencies to add more regulations at any time, but especially now when the housing industry is under such great financial pressure. Although there might be some slight theoretical basis for installing sprinklers in new houses, the cost of retrofitting existing housing, especially single-family homes, far exceeds any benefit. The OCFA will probably cite studies like the 2007 NIST study “Benefit-Cost Analysis of Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems.” This study slants the costs for installation of fire sprinklers to the point of absurdity. They claim that it will cost as little as $829 for a 1,100-square-foot ranch, to $2,075 for a 3,300-square-foot colonial-style house with basement to install fire sprinklers.

These costs are understated by at least a factor of five, even in today's market. I know of one homeowner who paid in excess of $10,000 to add sprinklers to a tear-down remodel. This is for new construction. Imagine what it would cost to rip out all of the ceilings in an existing house, run water pipes though the space and then patch the ceiling back together. Add to that the cost for leaking pipes, mold damage and the mess should someone knock off a sprinkler head and flood the house.

The same study has numbers for the benefits of sprinklers. However, most of those numbers are just as  inflated as the costs are understated, especially for Mission Viejo. We have very few residential fires here and even fewer deaths and injuries because most of us have smoke detectors and our houses are easy to escape from in case of fire. In addition, we have a large number of firehouses nearby that can get to anywhere in the city quickly.

Even if fire sprinklers were free to install, never leaked and never discharged accidentally, there would be some people who would prefer not to have them for aesthetic or other reasons. Why is the government getting involved in what should be an individual right to choose? I am sure that if private  insurance companies found fire sprinklers to be cost-effective in lowering their costs, they would offer significant premium reductions in those houses that were covered by sprinklers, instead of the pittance offered today. Once again, private industry offers common sense instead of our nanny state.

Safety in one's own home is of paramount importance to everyone. If fire sprinklers are such a good idea, why do we need government to mandate their installation? The simple answer is that while sprinklers are a good idea, they fall short on a risk/reward basis for the average person. Those who like them are free to install them. Those who think they have better uses for the money, won't install them. Who do you think knows best how to spend your money - you or some government bureaucrat?

This issue will be decided for us by the Mission Viejo City Council on December 20. Please call the city and let them know you don't need government to force fire sprinklers down our throats.

Editors Note: The City Council will not meet on December 20. The fire sprinklers issue will be decided after a public hearing on January 3, 2011.