Sprinkler fight recess makes sense

Now we're down to the wire on one of this legislative session's most volatile issues: Will lawmakers override a decision by a state agency to put into effect a national building code requirement that all new homes be equipped with fire sprinklers beginning next year?

The verdict may well depend on whether both House and Senate are willing to ignore warnings that blocking that mandate is likely to increase insurance costs for all homeowners in more than 40 percent of the state's fire districts.

The fight within the legislative chambers is a mirror image of an intense battle being waged across the country by the powerful home builders' lobby. For decades it successfully fought putting a residential sprinkler requirement in a national building code that sets the minimum standards in 46 states. The opponents finally lost a dramatic floor fight two years ago at an International Code Council convention. Their subsequent national efforts to repeal that have been rebuffed.

But that by no means ended the fight, since ICC code changes also must be approved on a state-by-state basis. The Legislature delegated approval of such revisions to the S.C. Building Code Council, composed mostly of a cross-section of the building industry, along with some local code officials, the state fire marshal and state engineer. In late February, the council approved the sprinkler mandate by a 6-3 vote. Beginning in January, all new homes in this state must have sprinklers unless the Legislature overrules that decision.

No surprise, the home builders' legislative allies moved quickly. Bills to scuttle the sprinkler mandate are now before the House and Senate with showdowns expected this week. While firefighter groups are sprinklers' most vocal advocates, they again are waging an uphill battle. Although home builders have long argued that the cost of sprinklers will negatively impact sales -- a contention sprinkler advocates say is greatly exaggerated -- that argument has gained more traction in the struggling economy.

State Sen. David Thomas of Greenville, long a sprinkler advocate, knows well the cost-vs.-safety arguments. But that isn't his focus these days. As chairman of the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee, he says it's his duty to "throw up the red flag and tell everybody there is going to be an insurance increase even though we don't know how much." It's his fear that in the next six to eight months some very unintended consequences will be attributed to legislative meddling.

And Thomas isn't talking just about an insurance increase on new homes. He says there's good reason to believe that the increase will impact all homeowners in the affected fire districts. It's his contention that failure to adopt the residential sprinkler requirement will open the door to insurance rate increases because the state will no longer be complying with minimum national code standards. According to the senator, an argument could be made that scuttling the sprinkler mandate would justify an insurance hike on new homes, particularly in view of firefighter demonstrations that some construction materials now allowed have a higher flammability. But from an actuarial standpoint, Thomas worries that there is no way to prevent insurance companies from hitting the owners of all homes in certain fire districts with higher rates.

His information comes from the Department of Insurance and other sources, including testimony before his committee. According to the Insurance Department 44 percent of the 244 fire districts in the state could be negatively impacted by a subsequent change in ratings on both homeowners and flood insurance. The department did also note that new homeowners who voluntarily put in sprinklers get an insurance discount that wouldn't be available if the mandate takes effect.

But Thomas contends the failure to enforce the national mandate could have a profound impact on existing homeowners. Unfortunately, he says there isn't sufficient information available to determine the extent of that impact, noting that the industry's internal procedures for making these decisions are proprietary. But, he warns that overruling the Council's decision could provide "a perfect opportunity to gouge the public."

Rep. Harry Ott of St. Matthews shares Thomas' concerns about the potential increase on homeowner premiums but also notes the lack of definitive information. He says he has additional meetings scheduled today that "may or may not shed more light." That's precisely Thomas' point. He describes the insurance issue as highly complicated. What's more, he notes the huge amount of misinformation being disseminated on the impact of the sprinkler mandate.

There is no reason, he argues, to rush into something. Since the residential sprinklers mandate wouldn't take effect until early next year, he points out that the Legislature could still quickly block the law from taking effect when it reconvenes in January. Meanwhile, it's his suggestion that a special commission be named to meet over the summer and provide information that would "cut through the fog."

"We need a definitive analysis," he said, "on what this could do to insurance rates. We need to walk into this with our eyes wide open."

That's what's called a sound argument.

Barbara S. Williams, editor emeritus of The Post and Courier, may be reached at bwilliams@postandcourier.com.