I work in the building industry as a civil and structural engineer. I became aware that as part of the new 2009 International Fire Code, we were soon to have a requirement that all new dwellings built in the state of Idaho were to have a fire sprinkler system installed. When I would ask fire professionals if there had been any global cost / benefit studies done on the issue, I always got a deer in the headlights look.

I searched for such a study and found none. Nor did I find any analysis as to how much such a requirement would drive up the cost of living for an average family. So I did my own rough Net Present Value analysis and discovered that a landlord would have to charge $125 to $150 more per month to rent an average apartment that had a sprinkler system installed. This money would be used for monthly maintenance and for the amortization of the sprinkler system over the life of the building. Additionally, there are no studies that address the downside of having an accidental discharge or a broken or frozen pipe.

What would likely happen is that many low income people would not be able to afford to live in a new sprinklered apartment building, and instead would be at greater risk from injury from a fire living in an older structure. Why not allow individual building owners choose whether or not they want to sprinkler their buildings?

So in 2009 I ran House Bill 218, a bill to exempt homes and duplexes from the mandatory fire sprinkler requirement. Originally I had also included three and four unit buildings, but these were removed from the bill by the Senate.

We did get an amended bill done, and it was signed by the governor. In doing do, we prevented the cost of housing from going up, and according to the Idaho Association of Realtors, we prevented about 5,000 Idaho families from being priced out of the housing market.