Finally, the Smith's first home — a new house being built just for them. They got to choose some finishes and some extras and decided on various optional items. As they found out, costs can add up quickly. They did the best they could, but had to leave out some extra items due to cost. So many competing purchases had to be made, especially with Christmas coming soon.

For Christmas, mom and dad decided to buy a top-of-the-line digital camera. Yes, it was a bit of an expense now that they had purchased a house, but they would be able to take pictures that would bring memories alive for a lifetime.

A beautiful family. A nice house. A great camera. It's too bad that they chose to buy an expensive camera rather than spend that money on the “option” of a residential fire sprinkler system. As everyone in the building industry knows, the cost to sprinkler a home is about $1 to $1.50 per square foot. For an average size house of 1,500-sq.ft., it would cost $1,500 to $2,250 — just about what a top-of-the-line digital SLR camera costs.

In the end, all was lost: the Smiths, the house, and the camera. What a terrible choice to have had made.

But why did they have to make the choice at all? Residential sprinklers should be mandated by code and by state law.

The biggest conundrum is why some in the residential building industry, especially the main association, National Association of Home Builders, are putting so much effort into and are paying so much for political consultants and lobbyists to defeat the requirement to have sprinklers mandated in all residential housing. What is the reason? Studies have shown that new homebuyers would prefer having sprinklers as part of the basic home. Thousands of statistics prove that residential sprinklers save lives. Do homebuilders really believe that requiring sprinklers will reduce home sales? I wonder how many homebuilders do not have sprinklers in their homes. Yes, granite or marble countertops are nice, and perhaps less of them will be sold as an extra because of the already added expense of a sprinkler system. Surely the amount of foregone extra profit is worth the lives of a family?

Biased? Us?

The American Society of Plumbing Engineers has received e-mails and letters from a number of legislators saying that our view is biased — that we have a personal agenda for wanting residential homes to have sprinkler systems. To clarify, the professional members of the American Society of Plumbing Engineers work on large commercial, industrial, institutional, and commercial-residential projects — not individual homes or housing developments. The Society and its members have nothing to do with any part of selling or manufacturing any item of a residential sprinkler system. Our members will not benefit in the least from having them installed in a home since they do not do installations. We are not plumbers. We are plumbing engineers and designers.

It truly can be said that the American Society of Plumbing Engineers is one of the very few supporters of residential fire sprinklers that will receive no benefit from their installation, except for the benefit of knowing that perhaps many lives will be saved.

ASPE is the only professional organization devoted to the training and certification of plumbing engineers and designers, many of whom are involved in the design of life-saving fire protection systems. ASPE and its 7,000 worldwide members are dedicated to protecting the health, welfare, and safety of the public through the dissemination of technical data and information to expand the base of knowledge among plumbing engineers, designers, contractors, code officials, inspectors and manufacturers. Additional information is available at: www.aspe.org.

Julius A. Ballanco, P.E., CPD, FASPE, is president of the American Society of Plumbing Engineers. Stanley Wolfson is executive director of ASPE.