20150821Comments (2 Total).pdf

Jean Jewell
From:secretary
Sent:Thursday,August 20,2015 5:14 PM
To:Jean Jewell;Diane Holt
Subject:FW:Comment Attached,SCH-W-15-01
Attachments:PUC Schweitzer Fire Flow ReporLdocx
From:S.N.-SZFD
Sent:Thursday,August 20,2015 5:13:54 PM (UTC-07:00)Mountain Time (US &Canada)
To:secretary;S.N.-SZFD
Subject:Comment Attached,SCH-W-15-01
Schweitzer Basin Water Company
SCH-W-15-01
Spencer Newton
579 Telemark
Sandpoint,Idaho
208-265-4741
1
Below is a report by an unbiased engineer,essentially stating that the water system is capable of
providing the basic minimum fire flows with minimal modifications in relation to the current
infrastructure.Much of this could have been addressed for pennies on the dollar over the past 25 years
of SBWC ownership.It should also be pointed out that the original owner and builder of the water
system and the community in which it serves,Mr.Fowler,constructed most of the primary
infrastructure of the water system with 6 inch water lines.Six inch water lines,especially in the early
1970s,are the minimum standard and expected size for fire hydrant use.There is no reason for 6 inch
water lines to have been utilized by the original owner down to the farthest ends of the water system
unless he anticipated large amounts of water to be utilized someday,and the only thing that would need
this type of water flow throughout the system is fire fighting.This is particularly true with so much
available vertical drop available within the system to increase water flows and pressures for domestic
use,which could have easily used much smaller water lines for far less initial investment.
Unfortunately,Mr.Fowler is no longer with us and no one can know his exact goals.However,common
sense cannot ignore the obvious intent of Mr.Fowler or anyone else,who would have created this
community and its infrastructure.Mr.Fowler did not own a small lot and build a small cabin and pipe
water from the nearby creek a few feet away that others happen to latch onto and accidently grew into
a mess of only small domestic water lines.Mr.Fowler did however own and start the resort,with
involvement from others,and a community that had hundreds of lots,miles of roads and a 6 inch water
system to supply it with,which is all the water it could ever need.It wasn’t perfectly designed or
implemented,but to believe Mr.Fowler’s intent and ability to create a ski resort,this community and
included 6 inch water lines by accident,when the only purpose for this type of volume is fire fighting,is
nothing less than disingenuous.
There is comment that the water system was never intended for fire flows.This statement is ridiculous.
Granted,it may not have been designed or engineered by Mr Fowler to a “specific fire flow standard”,
but the amount of 6 inch infrastructure proves in itself it was intended for large volumes of use,which
would only be for fire fighting.There has also been duplicitous statements made that “other water
systems don’t meet fire flows”.This is a silly comparison and is simply apples and oranges.We know
that the SBWC system can meet the very basic minimum fire flow standards in most fire hydrants if they
choose to.The comparison of other water systems that don’t or can’t meet fire flows is based on any
number of factors.Most likely this includes:a lack of already available infrastructure that SBWC already
has from the original owner,a lack of available vertical drop that SBWC has more than enough of,a lack
of financial means that SBWC has absolutely no problem with,or a lack of interest,understanding or
moral obligation to address the needs and expectations of the community that is ultimately paying for in
the water system in the first place.
The Schweitzer Fire District has had six fire commissioners in the past several years since this issue of fire
flows on the SBWC came to a head.All six of the fire commissioners past and present have supported
the notice of violation on SBWC due to the reluctance of SBWC to address fire flows to the community it
serves.All six of the fire commissioners,whose primary purpose is to represent the community,are still
to this day,in support of pursuing legal action against SBWC but only because of the reluctance and lack
of cooperation from SBWC.I can also attest that none of these commissioners have ever had a personal
interest in this action regardless what others may want to allude to.As far as I know,SBWC has provided
a good domestic water supply under the supervision of DEQ.At the same time,SBWC has chosen by its
actions,to ignore the needs of the community when it comes to fire protection.Rather than work with
the fire district and the community to address known flow issues and over time enhance the safety of
the public,firefighters and property,that SBWC has had both the financial means and time to address,
(please decipher the SEWC financial statement in the application requested by the PUC)SEWC would
rather make excuses and justify why it legally doesn’t have to address fire flows,not that they can’t or
couldn’t,they just don’t have to.As advocates of this community’s wellbeing,we would disagree.
The fact is,if Mr.Fowler had sold this water system to the community the primary focus would have
been water service of all types including fire flows,not profit.I can all but promise that the various
issues with this system including fire flows would have been easily rectified well over a decade ago and
we would not be here today.
Preliminary Schweitzer Fire Hydrant Flow Report
Upon concerns from the Schweitzer Fire District (SFD)about the flow rates of the hydrants available for
protecting the residents of Schweitzer Mountain in the event of fire,a review has been initiated.
Schweitzer Basin Water Company (SEW)is the provider for the area,thus their flow test calculations
were requested for comparison.As there were several instances of incomplete or inconsistent data
provided,some independent sample testing was completed for comparison as well.According to the
concerns of Schweitzer Fire,while the 200,000 gallon water storage system in use by SEW should be
more than adequate for being able to provide the mandated 1000 gallons per minute (gpm)to be
sustained for 2 hours,the current strictly gravity-fed set up and state of repair of equipment proves that
actual delivery of this flow standard to be unachievable.
In data provided from SEW and SED,the reported static pressures are in agreement,being within 1%of
each data set.However,the figures reported for flow rate and the residual pipe pressure vary
significantly,with SEW reporting flow rates on average of 20%higher than that as calculated by SFD.
Unfortunately,as SEW does not report any of their findings for flow pressure,their calculations to find
the flow rate cannot be replicated,thus it is impossible to verify their accuracy in reporting the flow
rates at 20%higher on average.Additionally,it should be recognized that even with the 20%higher
numbers,SEW’s calculated flow rates fall well below the International Fire Code’s (IFC)expectations of
1000 gallons per minute to be sustained continuously for 2hours.
When testing flow rates,it is the practice of SFD to test not on the initial burst from the hydrant,but
rather to wait a few moments so as to obtain calculations that are based on the standard even flow.If
SEW had taken their test number nearer to the burst upon opening,this could be a factor which led to
their numbers being documented significantly higher.This theory on the discrepancy was first observed
during an independent test of the hydrant located on Stella Lane.Upon being fully opened,the Stella
Lane hydrant had an initial test in excess of 1090 gallons per minute (gpm),a figure only 3%different
than that as reported by SEW.However,this flow could not be maintained and within minutes,when
the flow equalized,the reading had fallen sharply to 750 gpm.
Advantageously,unlike strictly residential systems which have typically smaller pipe sizes,the vast
majority of the piping in use in the SBW system is already currently at standard 6 inch diameter water
mains.Most counties in the nation list 6 inch water mains as the minimal requirement for hydrant
installations as this size will carry the mandated 1000 gpm flow easily.Additionally,the hydrant at UlIr
Rd has been agreed by both parties to be providing sufficient approximate flow rates for the required
2hours in the event of an emergency.This is a great indicator that the SBW system will be capable of
producing what is expected of it,so long as the basic necessary modifications,modest repairs and
upgrades are responsibly undertaken.
One potential solution to provide adequate flow is to decrease system obstructions and redundancies by
linking existing pipe networks to balance the pressure between hydrants.Additionally,maintaining
sufficient pressure to hydrants while effectively utilizing and installing pressure reducing valves to
residential customers,so as to maintain an appropriate service pressure,would ensure an increase in
overall efficiency and fire flow rates.While taking cost into consideration is important,the main concern
is and should be to rectify and optimize a system which is failing mandated standards in order to best
provide for and protect the Schweitzer Mountain community.
Regardless of the significant discrepancies between the sets of testing done by the different parties,
overall the SBW system in its current state has been shown to be inadequate.It should be noted that
upon completion of necessary modest updates,which have already been paid for by customers,the
system is inherently capable of meeting requirements.Having only one hydrant in the entire system that
can be verified to be sufficient according to the standards set in place by the IFC,which has been
adopted by the State of Idaho as law to be enforced by the fire officials for the safety of the public is
unacceptable and deeply concerning.The Schweitzer community deserves proper protections to be put
into place for in the event of an emergency.
Erik B Ilium
BSME
Fi
w
e
i
t
z
e
r
Fi
r
e
Fl
o
i
.
s
Th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
fi
g
u
r
e
s
re
f
l
e
c
t
th
e
da
t
a
co
i
l
’
St
z
t
i
c
Pr
e
s
s
u
r
e
Re
s
i
d
u
a
l
Fl
o
w
Fl
o
w
@
20
Sc
h
w
e
i
t
z
e
r
Fi
r
e
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
(S
F
D
)
,
th
e
Sc
h
w
e
Pr
e
s
s
u
r
e
at
Fo
w
Pr
e
s
s
u
r
e
(P
S
i
)
tP
S
I
)
tG
P
M
)
PS
co
m
p
a
n
y
(S
B
W
1
an
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
in
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
na
v
e
be
e
n
co
m
p
a
r
e
d
to
th
e
SW
&t
a
ca
l
32
8
47
5
29
5
3
SF
D
ar
i
a
n
c
e
is
sh
o
w
n
.
Un
l
e
s
s
ot
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
no
t
e
32
52
0
9.
5
53
W
ro
m
SF
D
is
fr
o
m
a
91
1
7
/
13
st
u
d
y
an
d
th
0.
0
%
8.
7
%
58
.
4
%
A
10
/
3
0
/
14
Lu
U
y
.
In
us
e
s
wl
i
e
i
e
Il
i
e
rw
c
52
11
55
7
51
5
15
SE
D
:h
e
e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
n
e
x
t
t
a
e
a
c
h
i
n
s
t
a
n
c
e
.
66
65
0
15
53
W
21
.
2
%
14
3
%
0.
0
%
A
55
1?
58
1
.
3
15
2=
2
9
.
8
3
*
C
*
d
t
2
*
s
q
r
t
f
p
)
16
.
7
%
10
6
%
0.
0
%
C
=
0.
9
d
=
2.
5
[i
n
]
65
10
53
1
43
9
1
SF
D
55
60
0
13
S3
W
48
.
2
%
11
5
%
92
.
3
%
A
72
19
73
1
.
4
N/
A
SF
D
Q=
2
9
.
8
3
*
C
*
d
I
2
*
s
q
r
t
(
P
)
68
75
0
20
53
W
C
=
0.
9
d
=
2.
5
[i
n
]
-5
.
9
%
2.
5
%
A
20
2
23
7
N/
A
7
SZ
D
21
41
0
6
53
W
4.
8
%
42
1
%
4b
.
I
%
A
21
3
29
1
70
7
SF
D
20
45
5
7.
5
53
W
A
61
32
94
9
14
9
8
42
SZ
D
63
10
6
0
40
53
W
64
9
49
7
19
SE
D
<-
10
/
1
2
/
1
0
Da
t
a
.
W
65
67
0
15
58
W
du
e
to
a
va
l
v
e
be
i
n
g
1.
5
%
25
.
8
%
-2
6
.
7
%
A
62
12
58
1
56
7
23
SE
D
62
65
0
15
58
W
0.
0
%
10
.
6
%
-8
6
.
7
%
A
ir
k
71
22
78
7
83
2
25
SF
0
67
76
0
22
58
W
-6
.
0
%
-3
.
6
%
-1
3
.
6
%
A
k
36
0
16
8
10
8
0
SE
D
30
52
0
10
58
W
-2
0
.
0
%
67
.
7
%
10
0
.
0
%
A
40
1
16
8
12
2
Ci
SF
D
Re
p
o
r
t
e
d
le
a
k
i
n
g
80
79
0
22
58
W
50
.
0
%
78
.
7
%
10
0
.
0
9
6
A
39
10
53
0
.
6
11
51
.
3
%
32
.
8
%
50
.
0
%
78
10
6
0
40
58
W
In
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
af
t
e
r
SF
D
te
st
78
‘1
2
.
5
10
9
3
.
9
Va
r
i
e
d
Q=
2
9
.
8
3
*
C
*
d
N
2
*
s
q
w
78
20
75
0
.
4
Va
r
i
e
d
C
=
0.
9
d
=
2.
5
[i
r
Th
e
in
i
t
i
a
l
fi
r
e
fl
o
w
wa
s
ad
e
q
u
a
t
e
,
ho
w
e
v
e
r
af
t
e
r
a
fe
w
sh
o
r
t
mi
n
u
t
e
s
th
e
fl
e
w
de
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
.
n
Ca
r
i
b
o
u
95
15
67
1
12
SF
D
<-
10
/
1
2
)
1
0
Da
t
a
55
90
0
29
SE
W
-7
2
.
7
%
25
.
4
%
37
.
9
%
A
ac
k
Di
a
m
o
n
d
80
17
69
2
69
8
21
SF
0
60
80
0
29
SE
W
0.
0
%
13
.
5
%
27
.
6
%
A
it
Sn
o
w
p
l
o
w
62
10
53
1
54
5
22
SF
D
55
20
0
23
SE
W
-1
2
.
7
%
33
.
6
%
43
%
A
i
El
k
h
o
m
60
7
41
7
0
SF
D
<-
10
/
1
2
)
1
0
Da
t
a
.
Wa
s
no
t
t
62
55
4
11
SE
W
du
e
to
th
e
pr
e
s
e
n
c
e
of
a
Ia
r
g
3.
2
%
24
.
7
%
10
3
.
0
%
A
ic
k
e
t
91
10
53
1
51
9
17
SF
0
94
84
0
25
SE
W
3.
2
%
36
.
8
%
32
.
0
%
A
3I
i
o
s
I
60
22
78
7
91
9
30
SF
0
60
10
3
0
37
SE
W
0.
0
%
23
.
6
%
18
.
9
9
6
A
it
t
e
r
l
i
n
g
42
2
17
5
3&
i
SF
0
42
49
0
8
SE
W
0.
0
%
3.
1
%
as
s
a
g
e
45
5
41
1
31
9
6
SF
D
45
45
0
7
SE
W
0.
0
%
8.
7
%
1’
.
J
%
A
5T
e
s
t
44
7
44
3
.
9
10
Q2
9
.
8
3
K
C
d
I
2
*
s
q
r
t
f
P
)
2.
2
%
1.
3
%
-4
2
.
9
%
C
=
0.
9
U
=
2.
5
[i
i
i
]
NW
Pa
s
s
a
g
e
68
12
58
1
58
1
20
SF
0
62
80
0
21
SE
W
-9
.
7
9
6
27
.
4
%
4,
8
%
A
Jean Jewell
From:[e-mail]
Sent:Thursday,August 20,2015 4:40 PM
To:Beverly Barker;Jean Jewell;Gene Fadness
Cc:[e-mail]
Subject:Case Comment Form:Richard Baroni
Name:Richard Baroni
Case Number:SCH-W-15-O1
Email:db125O(yahoo.com
Telephone:
Address:231 Carr Creek Road
Sandpoint Idaho,83864
Name of Utility Company:Schweizer Basin Water Company Acknowledge public record:False
Comment:In the past I lived as a lull time resident at Schweitzer,and my water service was
provided by Schweitzer Basin Water Company.During my time using the system,approximately 6
years,the service was adequate in terms of domestic use.
Recently,I have again hooked up to the system,and it has been brought to my attention that
the current water system may not have water flows at some hydrants to be able to provide
adequate lire protection from the water provided by these hydrants.
As a resident hooked up to this system,if there is not adequate water flows at various
hydrants to provide expected and required protection in the event of a lire,it should be
made known to the users of the system.
From a common sense standpoint,most reasonable people assume that if there is a fire hydrant
in their location,it will provide adequate water for fire protection.If this isnt the
case,it should be either corrected pursuant to the law,or at least made public.
Unique Identifier:208.81.157.18
1