To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!

Mandatory Water Cutoff Valve?

Signing off

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2022
Messages
111
I believe the high tech remote operated shut offs belong on main lines rather than throwing that responsibility and cost to individual owners.
Wi-Fi should not be mandated for anyone, anywhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Max
To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!

FullRaceMerc

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2015
Messages
3,836
Location
SoCal (SGV)
After the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco the city rebuilt the water system so that the fire hydrants had a dedicated water supply. I understand that no other city in the country has this.
That's cool. I found an article:

So it's been a known issue at least since 1906. San Fransisco took steps to prevent it over 100 years ago. Why haven't other fire prone major cities done the same?
 

finn

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
16,187
Location
The UP, God's country
Around here, if you are on a municipal water supply, they can shut off the home's water at the street because both hydrants and homes are connected. The street valve is to stop your water supply if you need to do work between the street and the meter in your cellar, or if you don't pay your bill. Water bills are quite high per home in the Northeast, and if you have a municipal sewer system, then that is paid by your water usage. If your water bill is $100 a month, then the sewer bill is also $100 a month. Many people don't wash their cars or water their lawns because of the cost of the sewer bill. I know that in the South, some towns have a separate system for watering lawns that uses reclaimed water. Water is one of those commodities you take for granted, until there is a drought.
My only water expense is running my well pump and maintaining that system. On the other hand, you can throw in the cost of the septic system maintenance. Once both are installed, if you take care of them, they can be trouble-free for decades.
I’ve had both municipal water / sewer and well / septic. Give me municipal services any time if they’re available.

Our well is about 25 years old, and has only had one failure, the pressure switch. Other maintenance is mostly restricted to replacing filters every few months, but I’m not naive enough to think the pump has an infinite life. Also, our drilled well is annoyingly low flow, and the local driller willingly will drill a new one, to the tune of $25k, but won’t extend the current one.

Similarly, the septic should really be pumped every few years, although I went seven or eight and it was fine.

If it does fail, though, my simple system will have to be replaced by a modern mound system. The state pretty much won’t grandfather existing systems when (not if) they eventually fail. A mound system with pumps and filters runs $13-24 K last I checked.
 

finn

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
16,187
Location
The UP, God's country
I believe the high tech remote operated shut offs belong on main lines rather than throwing that responsibility and cost to individual owners.
Wi-Fi should not be mandated for anyone, anywhere.
Problem is that doesn’t address the reality that if the fire is a block before or after your house, you might get shut off with no water for protecting your house, so everything you own gets burned to the ground.

The “disconnect” has to be near the location of the “leak” for maximum protection to the community.
 

Junkman

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2006
Messages
6,607
Location
Northeastern CT
It is just the opposite for me. The new well is $10500 to drill 400 feet and the new septic was quoted at $30,000 last year. I don't know what it is going to be when we get around to having it installed. They should be here in 3 weeks to start drilling the well.
 

Stuart in MN

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
23,005
Location
Minneapolis
That's cool. I found an article:

So it's been a known issue at least since 1906. San Fransisco took steps to prevent it over 100 years ago. Why haven't other fire prone major cities done the same?
No other city has had a catastrophe like the San Francisco earthquake and fire. And, as mentioned building an entirely separate water distribution system would be an immense expense.
 

kbuhagiar

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
1,736
Location
Escondido, CA
After the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco the city rebuilt the water system so that the fire hydrants had a dedicated water supply. I understand that no other city in the country has this.
Yes- I worked on that system, the SFFD AWSS (Auxiliary Water Supply System), also known as the HPFS (High Pressure Fire System). Two pump stations located on the edge of San Francisco Bay feed water to three tanks/reservoirs located at high elevations in the city. No engines are required to be connected, as the hydrants are essentially gravity fed, and the force and volume of water they can produce is impressive.
 

CraigStu

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2014
Messages
4,012
Location
Blacksburg, Va
@CraigStu - Where did you get the idea that the state has or needs any involvement? The Moen Flo (and others) connects to your home network. There is no outside visibility. There certainly is no visibility to your phone by any provider or government entity....
I originally got the idea from post #18. As I glance through this now much longer thread, I read many examples of the state water and electricity systems involvement. Apparently there is no connection to one's phone so I am glad to read that.
 

kgkg1

Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2017
Messages
13
Location
Colorado
My insurance company offered a policy discount for installing a leak detector with shutoff. The discount was big enough I decided to have one installed.

I looked at the Moen but decided to go with a StreamLabs Control bundle. It "requires" WiFi for the setup (and to use the app), but it will still shutoff the water if WiFi isn't available. Seems to work fine. We've had two unexpected shutoffs in ~6 months. One was my daughter taking a shower lasting over 30min :rolleyes: You can use the app or press a button on the unit itself to turn the water back on. My wife had no problem turning the water back on after one of the unexpected shutoffs.

It is expensive compared to some other options. In my case, I think it will take 3 years for the policy discount to pay for it which seemed reasonable.
 

firebirdparts

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
10,584
Location
Kingsport, TN
So it's been a known issue at least since 1906. San Fransisco took steps to prevent it over 100 years ago. Why haven't other fire prone major cities done the same?
They haven't identified themselves as 'fire-prone major cities' and honestly, I agree with them. I think it's reasonable to assert that there's no such thing.
 
To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!

rharman

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
8,740
Location
SoCal
I originally got the idea from post #18. As I glance through this now much longer thread, I read many examples of the state water and electricity systems involvement. Apparently there is no connection to one's phone so I am glad to read that.
I can only speak to my experience but it's not state entities involved. It's our electric provider (So Cal Edison) and various insurance carriers. Not to say there will never be a statewide (government) mandate but I don't see that happening. I can, however, see the water shutoff becoming pretty pervasive. Water damage is the insurance carriers biggest exposure/expense.

In both cases, there's an incentive in the form of discounts if you participate in a *voluntary* program.
 

CraigStu

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2014
Messages
4,012
Location
Blacksburg, Va
Roger maybe 10 yrs ago I was on the phone w/ our car insurance. They asked if I had heard of their discount program. No. Well, if you put our app on your phone, you get a X% discount. What does the app do? It tracks where you go and how fast you go there. That was a very emphatic no thanks.
 

finn

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
16,187
Location
The UP, God's country
It is just the opposite for me. The new well is $10500 to drill 400 feet and the new septic was quoted at $30,000 last year. I don't know what it is going to be when we get around to having it installed. They should be here in 3 weeks to start drilling the well.
That’s cheap. I was quoted $17000-21000 to drill 163 feet, based on neighboring wells at the shop.

Needless to say, I’m still using the existing sand point.

Interesting enough, there’s a fire plug marking the corner of the property, installed in 1921 when the six house neighborhood was constructed as company housing by the explosives company that built the homes as housing for the workers. There was reportedly a community well, but I think the fire suppression water came from a pipeline to the lake a mile away.

I suspect fire suppression was quite important in a dynamite facility, as they had a propensity to blow up and kill the workers.
 

Codyboy

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2019
Messages
1,632
Location
S.E. TEXAS
My insurance company offered a policy discount for installing a leak detector with shutoff. The discount was big enough I decided to have one installed.

I looked at the Moen but decided to go with a StreamLabs Control bundle. It "requires" WiFi for the setup (and to use the app), but it will still shutoff the water if WiFi isn't available. Seems to work fine. We've had two unexpected shutoffs in ~6 months. One was my daughter taking a shower lasting over 30min :rolleyes: You can use the app or press a button on the unit itself to turn the water back on. My wife had no problem turning the water back on after one of the unexpected shutoffs.

It is expensive compared to some other options. In my case, I think it will take 3 years for the policy discount to pay for it which seemed reasonable.
I haven't read up on how the device works or how long it would take to "detect a leak" but if its 30 minutes , then of what use is it really?

If it were a true leak for 30 minutes the damage is already done.
 

kgkg1

Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2017
Messages
13
Location
Colorado
The real use of it is the discount to my policy rate ;) Or in other cases, to be able to keep one's policy.

Not all leaks are full bore out of the incoming supply line. In theory, it will minimize damage from a leak, not eliminate any possibility of damage from a leak. The shutoff valve has a flow sensor in it. It can report volume of water used as well as track the duration of flow. There are some baseline algorithms, and it has a two week training period to determine what "normal" water usage looks like. It will then shutoff on anomalous behaviors.
  • Water running for 30min straight at my house? Shutoff.
  • Run 30-40 gallons 6-9pm (to fill the tub)? Normal.
  • Try to fill the tub at 2am? Guessing it would shutoff after ~10 gallons.
Haven't bothered to stress test it or try to trigger it.

I like the idea of sensing slow leaks--in walls, crawl spaces, attics, or even a toilet that is stuck open--stopping those after 30 or even 60 min seems worthwhile. Locating those types of leaks is a separate issue... The bundle I bought also includes sensors to place behind a washing machine or in sink cabinets which will generate alerts and shutoff the water probably before I would notice otherwise.
 

rharman

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
8,740
Location
SoCal
Roger maybe 10 yrs ago I was on the phone w/ our car insurance. They asked if I had heard of their discount program. No. Well, if you put our app on your phone, you get a X% discount. What does the app do? It tracks where you go and how fast you go there. That was a very emphatic no thanks.

Agreed. That's really intrusive.

Even worse with the dongles some insurance companies offer. Plugs into the OBD-II port. They get everything.

What data does an insurance company collect with OBD-II tracker?
 

eviltwin

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2019
Messages
92
Location
Norcal
I am right next door to you in Petaluma and a lot of companies required these valves when I was shopping for insurance.
 

FullRaceMerc

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2015
Messages
3,836
Location
SoCal (SGV)
It takes a huge investment in infrastructure, essentially duplicating the supply mains.

No other city has had a catastrophe like the San Francisco earthquake and fire. And, as mentioned building an entirely separate water distribution system would be an immense expense.
I get that it would be installing a duplicate system & the expense would be great. Too bad they didn't learn from S.F. & build it that way as they went along. Or started running the second piping as original sections have been replaced over the years. We've had over 100 years.

S.F. lost 28,000 buildings in 1906. L.A. County "only" lost 16,000 in 2025. Not as much, but still enough to take steps to prevent a repeat.

At this point individual automatic cutoffs that protect the hydrant water supply would be cheaper than the parallel system. And if they could be added at the curb with the meter, then the variations in homes would less of an issue. And coud be installed by the water co. Maybe they would be triggered by temperature, sort of a reverse to the fire sprinklers used inside of buildings. Heat expansion breaking a bulb or melting a soft metal. The street was awful hot that day in the Palisades. Trash cans left at the curb looked like melted pizza boxes. Even so, it woud take some work to design a heat triggered valve that would work below ground level in a meter box.

Or maybe it should be tripped by extreme wide open water flow. Or some sort of wireless signal that the fire dept. controls, since the meter readers already use that type of signal to read the meters.


They haven't identified themselves as 'fire-prone major cities' and honestly, I agree with them. I think it's reasonable to assert that there's no such thing.
Isn't the first step to recovery admitting you have a problem?

It probably stands out more to me because we're surrounded by it. The Jan 7, 2025 Altadena fire stopped about 4 blocks from home. Multiple friends lost homes. Long time businesses on major streets are gone. No damage at home, but lots of soot, ash, & charred foam. Lots & lots of neighborhoods were toast.
20250126_141910.jpg

20250126_132857.jpg

And I do work in the Palisades. Much of it was destroyed. I shot this about 3 weeks later.
20250131_150106.jpg

I wouldn't consider all of L.A. to be fire prone, but the some areas seem to be. And our periodic heavy winds make that much worse.

We have what they call Santa Ana winds several times per year. 35-70 mph dry winds coming down from the high desert. Most of the time my neighborhood is somewhat protected by the mountains to the North. But every 10 to 20 years the winds come down through a different path & we get hit pretty hard. Like they're being compressed coming through a canyon & aimed at us. 2025 was one of those bad years.

This was only a small part of that 2025 fire, but it was intense to see it with the wild wind blowing at you. As the night went on the smoke was so thick that you couldn't see any of this.
20250107_221700.jpg


2011 was another extreme wind year. No fires that time, but we lost many trees within 1/2 mile of home. If there had been fire, it would have been tough to contain in those conditions. Especially without water.
113-1.jpg

133-1.jpg

136.jpg

142.jpg

158.jpg

166.jpg

In 1993 the Kinneloa fire took almost 200 buildings. That was a regular Santa Ana wind, not one of those extreme years. One guy died. A.V. Wagner, who was 98. I knew him & went by to check on him because he was the stubborn type & would stay to defend his place. He was, with a garden hose. He had already been taken to the hospital by the time I got there. The footprint of this fire is essentially where the 2025 Altadena fire first hit homes. Hydrant water pressure was also an issue, but caused by lost power to the pumps.

In the 80s those extra strong winds blew open all & tore off half of the 2nd story windows at my house. Only 1 house that I know of was lost to fire that year, but the FD had water to work with. Thankfully it did not get away. But the embers driven from it were wild & showering the house next door. I woke up my neighbors in the middle of the night because they needed to be aware that their house was under that threat.

As mentioned earlier, my boss lost his home in the 1980 Bradbury fire. That one was also a wind event & ran out of water to the hydrants due to burned homes with wide open leaks. 60ish homes were lost in that small community.

I think there are steps that could be taken.
-Protect fire hydrant water supplies. Burned home leaks, water storage, pressure even if power is cut. We've known about this one long enough to quit pretending that it is a surprise. We have brave people out there to fight these fires. We need to give them the tools.
-Require class A fire rated roofing materials in fire prone areas. Should it be every house or only when re-roofing? Tax incentives? Cheaper than flying planes.
-Require fire hardening of homes in fire prone areas.
-Better enforcement of brush clearance of private property.
-Better brush clearance of public lands near communities. Restore our old firebreaks that were abandoned. Currently fire crews try to hand cut fire breaks as the fire is moving.
-Phos-chek type dispensing sprinkler systems in certain locations. Expensive? Not compared to flying planes. And those work when planes can't fly due to winds.
 
Last edited:

72Anthony

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
294
Location
Houston, TX
That's cool. I found an article:

So it's been a known issue at least since 1906. San Fransisco took steps to prevent it over 100 years ago. Why haven't other fire prone major cities done the same?
It's not necessarily 'fire prone', it's areas that are subject to earth quakes. As in the 1906 San Fran quake damaged the underground lines.

New York City did have a high pressure hydrant system. I recall 250 psi and hydrants with four 2-1/2" outlets to supply high rises or allow operation without a fire engine. That system is no longer in use.

There are high capacity hose systems that use 12" hose and 5,000 to 10,000 gpm pumps. It is a modular system that is able to be deployed for large fires or outages. Several cities in California have them and there is a system in NJ. They can also be found at some large refineries or chemical plants.

One of the problems with a dedicated fire main system is maintenance and knowing if the system is ready to perform. In most cities the water department is responsible for the whole system, including fire hydrants, and they don't always have a stellar record of keeping on top of things.

In a combined system, if water service is lost to a street or neighborhood, the water company will hear about it immediately and hopefully get crews out for repair.

In a dedicated fire system, how do you know if the system is broken or impaired? They may only do insepections/flow tests quarterly, if that.
 

Aaron_W

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Messages
2,892
Location
Northern California
That's cool. I found an article:

So it's been a known issue at least since 1906. San Fransisco took steps to prevent it over 100 years ago. Why haven't other fire prone major cities done the same?

Lots of cities had these kinds of dual systems in the late 19th century until about 1950. Citywide conflagrations were fairly common prior to the 20th century. Everybody knows about the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, but New York, Charleston (SC), Pittsburgh (PA), St Louis (MO), San Francisco (CA), Portland (ME) Boston (MA), Seattle (WA), along with many other US cities had similar events (some more than once).

Building codes, and improved firefighting saw a drastic decline by the 20th century, particularly after WW1 so in most cases the cost to maintain such systems was considered unnecessary and the systems were phased out. If you dig into local history urban lakes were often maintained / created as part of a backup firefighting system.

The city of Oakland, across the bay from San Francisco had a similar pumping system in operation from 1909-1955 based around a large pump system which drew water from Lake Merritt. The cost of maintenance and needed upgrades by the 1950s was felt to outweigh the benefits.

The other issue is lack of use causes people to forget about redundant systems. Oakland built a redundant system for supporting fire hydrants in the hills after the Oakland / Berkeley hills fire of 1970. Unfortunately 21 years later it had been forgotten about when the hills burned again and water supply became a major issue.


San Francisco is something of an outlier, an older earthquake prone city and relatively isolated from neighboring cities. They have quadruple redundancy, the municipal water system, a separate high pressure system, a series of cisterns buried under major intersections and the ability to pump water from the bay with their fire boats.

In many cases large trailer mounted pumps and hose tenders or hose trailers have replaced duplicate systems. Oakland no longer operates the big pump house at Lake Merritt, but the fire department does have large pumps which can pull water from the lake or the nearby SF Bay. Trailer mounted pumps are not as cool as an old Art Deco pump house but they are practical and more cost effective for (hopefully) once in a lifetime events. Trailer mounted systems are also mobile.
 
Last edited:

liliysdad

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
5,378
This is all very interesting. I’ve spent a lot of time over the years dealing with very large wildfires, but always in very rural areas. I’d never considered the loss of pressure due to leaks from burnt homes, etc.
 
To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!
Top Bottom