Departments with no hydrants; WHY do we continue to burn buildings down!?

[x129K 1,393]

I would go with 3, and this should have been done as soon as the IC got onscene seeing what you described. Waiting until his equipment got there and well into the initial attack and then realizing that he may need more water is usually the critical mistake and its too late........ Get em going early.

YAYYY!!!!! EXACTLY!

[Guest Photounit]

Tanker Task Force....... or pre-planned tanker responses on structure fire assigments to areas lacking a municipal water supply..... This should be done on the initial dispatch to be effective..... You can always send them home.....

[on the job 68]

First of all I give respect to those departments that use tanker shuttles and drafting just to get water to the scene of a fire, I am spoiled .....I have a tanker every 500' its called a .... hydrant.

Let me bring up a couple things if I may:

1) Why do town planning boards keep allowing these HUGE new developments to be built when there is no water to use to fight these fires ? ( The Fire Dept will just buy a bigger tanker )

2) if you need MORE then 3000 gallons of water to put out an "average" size house fire ....the next company you should call is BTM construction company with a bulldozer.

just my 2 cents

[Guest Photounit]

First of all I give respect to those departments that use tanker shuttles and drafting just to get water to the scene of a fire, I am spoiled .....I have a tanker every 500' its called a .... hydrant.

Let me bring up a couple things if I may:

1) Why do town planning boards keep allowing these HUGE new developments to be built when there is no water to use to fight these fires ? ( The Fire Dept will just buy a bigger tanker )

2) if you need MORE then 3000 gallons of water to put out an "average" size house fire ....the next company you should call is BTM construction company with a bulldozer.

just my 2 cents

To answer your questions.......

Question #1) The town planning boards generally don't care about a water supply if a house/structure burns........ That's our problem..... They mostly look at the potential tax revenue generated if the structure/subdivision goes through...... Also, In many areas that this post applies to, it would be all but impossible to install a municipal water system due to the monetary costs involved and the planning boards don't want that to stop their plans for more revenue........

Question #2) You are 100% correct...... Most likely if you use up your booster tank, it's a done deal........ It's amazing how effective 1000 gallons of water is if its properly applied though......

Edited July 27, 2009 by Photounit

[moggie6 54]

All this talk of calling for MA for the big one is a great idea. But I don't think it answers the question of the topic. Deparments with no hydrants; why do we continue to burn buildings down. Sure, crews can do a lot with 1000 gallons of water, and fire depts xyz rolls out the door with 8000 gallons of water. But often then not the resources we have on paper don't roll out in the time we need them to arrive on the sene.

A few years ago, some of us did the Rural Operations Water Supply class in Unionvale with Larry Davis. If there was ever a man who knew how to move water it was him. We all missed the main message of his class though. The water had to be on the road from the first dispatch. I belive he used the Iowa Fire Flow Formula to figure out how many gallons of water he would need for the average home of the area and then reccomended building your response on that.

We burn down buildings because we fail to start a structure fire off with the worse case scenerio tanker assignment. The plan on paper doesn't go as planned. Now sure, there are fires that we respond to that no matter what we have or call it's not going to make a differece. The fire is too advanced on arrival that not even a city municiple water source will put out the fire. But when we run out of water at a fire scene I think we have no one to blame but ourselves.

[99subi 121]

^^ well put.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Question #1) The town planning boards generally don't care about a water supply if a house/structure burns........ That's our problem..... They mostly look at the potential tax revenue generated if the structure/subdivision goes through......

Yes its our problem....make it theirs.

Show up at the planning board meetings. Make sure everyone knows you don't have the water to protect this project. Make sure they know if they build it without a year round water supply you will buy another tanker and station to put it in and it will cost the tax payers $$$$. Make sure your comments are in the DEIS (draft environmental impact statement0 and in the final...as required by NYS law. If they do not, threaten to stop the project in court....hold them to the impact statement... if you do not then its not the planning boards fault its the FDs fault.

[firefighter36 52]

BNechis, excellent. I think that by virtue of the fact that a great deal of Fire Departments in NY are their own governmental entities (not specifically a part of town government,) and also that these departments try to remain autonomous from Town government, means that there is little dialogue between the two bodies. Though this may not be the case in villages and cities, Fire Departments in Towns need to advocate for safe construction. Towns also need to be proactive in both enacting safe building codes, and enforcing them.

As for Moggie's post. I too, was at the same class in Unionvale with Mr. Davis. Someone told me last week that "we only get one chance to get there and act quick." If we don't put the appropriate resources on the road immediately, we are doomed from the start. Unfortunately, a lot of agencies are taking longer than just that first dispatch, losing valuable to time to get trained, qualified manpower, equipment, and as we are discussing here, adequate water to a fire scene.

I think that it is time for departments to look at what they need, not what they want. Plan for the worst, hope for the best. And most importantly, get what you need to the fire in a prompt manner, it can make all the difference.

Edited July 27, 2009 by mbendel36

[x129K 1,393]

BNechis, excellent. I think that by virtue of the fact that a great deal of Fire Departments in NY are their own governmental entities (not specifically a part of town government,) and also that these departments try to remain autonomous from Town government, means that there is little dialogue between the two bodies. Though this may not be the case in villages and cities, Fire Departments in Towns need to advocate for safe construction. Towns also need to be proactive in both enacting safe building codes, and enforcing them.

As for Moggie's post. I too, was at the same class in Unionvale with Mr. Davis. Someone told me last week that "we only get one chance to get there and act quick." If we don't put the appropriate resources on the road immediately, we are doomed from the start. Unfortunately, a lot of agencies are taking longer than just that first dispatch, losing valuable to time to get trained, qualified manpower, equipment, and as we are discussing here, adequate water to a fire scene.

I think that it is time for departments to look at what they need, not what they want. Plan for the worst, hope for the best. And most importantly, get what you need to the fire in a prompt manner, it can make all the difference.

Excellent! Sig worthy!

[antiquefirelt 994]

As usual Bnechis is right on the money. We have a large portion of our city that's undeveloped, but is really the only place left to build. Therefore a lot of new subdivisions are popping up. The planning board requires a letter from the Fire Chief stating the water supply is adequate for fire protection for the approval of the Sub-Div. I authored many of these for the previous Chief's signature and they were standard form letters stating that the water supply while adequate still relied on timely notification (alarm system) a timely response (career staff) and the response time (furthermost area from the station). It went on say that no matter how good the water supply and/or the FD is, we cannot be there instantaneously, like a a sprinkler system. This was the strongest wording we could get, and it had zero impact on the buildings as no one installed a residential system.

Now, 5-6 years later a new Chief with previous time serving on the Comp Plan board was able to show the value of sprinklers to the planning commission and City Council, and all new subdivisions with water municipal water get a similar letter, but any without municipal water are required to sprinkler all buildings.

For most the fire prevention part of the job is the least attractive, but being part of community master planning is good for everyone. We like to be able to ensure our apparatus moves through subdivisions, are able to turn around in cu-de-sacs or dead ends and ensure the grade is acceptable for winter operation, especially if we're thinking of tanking water (all M/A tankers for us). Sure your DPW has rules about road widths, turn arounds etc, but almost everything is up for debate or variance, being involved allows you to know what you have in you community not just "think you know".

[x129K 1,393]

Just bumping this topic up - we have a few new members here who have has excellent input on other topics...plus I feel it is a VERY important topic to keep fresh in people's minds...you know...for the "Big One"...

[mfc2257 464]

Just bumping this topic up - we have a few new members here who have has excellent input on other topics...plus I feel it is a VERY important topic to keep fresh in people's minds...you know...for the "Big One"...

sorry thought this was a new topic and replied from my phone.

Disregard

Edited May 23, 2010 by mfc2257

[firefighter36 52]

Just bumping this topic up - we have a few new members here who have has excellent input on other topics...plus I feel it is a VERY important topic to keep fresh in people's minds...you know...for the "Big One"...

A lot of it comes down to who is responsible for water service in the jurisdiction. If I remember correctly, Cities and Villages have to provide water to their residents. Towns do not. As BNechis has said in a different post, plenty of jurisdictions pays billions to maintain water systems worth millions.

I think that the infrastructure of a town reflects how seriously they take fire protection, and how much pride they town has in itself and its people. There are plenty of places around here that have million dollar homes with million dollar views, and there is no municipal water or fire rated hydrant system to protect them. It is ludacris and irresponsible for a town to allow such growth and development without the infrastructure to support it. Furthermore, the fact that developers cut corners and pinch pennies in just about every facet of their operation just makes a recipe for disaster.

This is no fault of the fire district, as fire districts are not directly responsible for municipal water. (There is only 1 fire and water charter district in NYS) I do however, wonder how many fire districts advocate for the need for municipal water and fire-rated hydrants in their areas. I know this isn't possible everywhere, but there are plenty of places where it is.

[Bnechis 3,961]

A lot of it comes down to who is responsible for water service in the jurisdiction. If I remember correctly, Cities and Villages have to provide water to their residents. Towns do not.

Cities & villages are not required to provide water. We do not, even though its been proven to be a money maker for those cities that do.

I think that the infrastructure of a town reflects how seriously they take fire protection, and how much pride they town has in itself and its people. There are plenty of places around here that have million dollar homes with million dollar views, and there is no municipal water or fire rated hydrant system to protect them. It is ludacris and irresponsible for a town to allow such growth and development without the infrastructure to support it. Furthermore, the fact that developers cut corners and pinch pennies in just about every facet of their operation just makes a recipe for disaster.

Agreed.

This is no fault of the fire district, as fire districts are not directly responsible for municipal water. (There is only 1 fire and water charter district in NYS) I do however, wonder how many fire districts advocate for the need for municipal water and fire-rated hydrants in their areas. I know this isn't possible everywhere, but there are plenty of places where it is.

While fire districts do not have a legal responsability, they have a moral one, see my response below from this thread.

1) Why do town planning boards keep allowing these HUGE new developments to be built when there is no water to use to fight these fires ? quote]

<!--quoteo(post=188294:date=Jul 26 2009, 11:46 PM:name=Photounit)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Photounit @ Jul 26 2009, 11:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=188294"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Question #1) The town planning boards generally don't care about a water supply if a house/structure burns........ That's our problem..... They mostly look at the potential tax revenue generated if the structure/subdivision goes through......<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Yes its our problem....make it theirs.

Show up at the planning board meetings. Make sure everyone knows you don't have the water to protect this project. Make sure they know if they build it without a year round water supply you will buy another tanker and station to put it in and it will cost the tax payers $$$$. Make sure your comments are in the DEIS (draft environmental impact statement0 and in the final...as required by NYS law. If they do not, threaten to stop the project in court....hold them to the impact statement... if you do not then its not the planning boards fault its the FDs fault.

[wraftery 1,275]

Excellent dissertation, Barry.

The conlusion?

Same as always:"You get what you pay for"

[Bnechis 3,961]

Excellent dissertation, Barry.

The conlusion?

Same as always:"You get what you pay for"

Thanks

Thats part of the conclusion, but how many departments actually participate in community planning? Does your community have a master plan that includes the fire department (and its needs),what about the water supply (and not just for firefighting) at some point your development will not be substainable with just well water.

Do you have a requirement in zoning for driveways (long ones) that are wide enough for fire trucks? What about pillars? If you do not own a ladder and no tall buildings, does zoning limit the height of buildings (if you have 5 over 35' then ISO says get a truck).

When a developer wants to put 40 story buildings in your district do you state (in the DEIS & FEIS) that you do not have the ability to fight this type of fire (equipment &/or manpower) or that it will hurt other areas of fire protection?

Fire Departments need to be involved in the planning of the community or play catch-up for at least the next 100 years

[x129K 1,393]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.................................you guys are advocating being PROACTIVE instead of REACTIVE......

WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT!? (Or how many leaders would take the steps mentioned above...?)

[wraftery 1,275]

HOW 'BOUT THIS:

An unnamed city has a hydrant system but it is getting old and needs upgrade to support the hi rises that a couple of hypothetical developers (let's call them Cappelli and Trump) want to build. They feel that the United Water customers (who are exactly the same people as the taxpayers)

should foot the bill for upgrades. The developers get what they want, but the FD should really double in size to protect these buildings. Amazingly, the hypothetical developers got a big tax break to build these buildings in the first place. The FD was part of the planning process, but more or less ignored.

Are you confused yet?? Maybe the unnamed City Council got confused too.. What's why they voted for it. Believe it or not, it happened in another unnamed city nearby, too.

Now both unnamed cities are talking Layoffs!

I said "you get what you pay for" but I will take that back. Sometimes you pay dearly and get nothing.

Oh...PS...Trump and Cappelli are doing OK...Thanks for asking

Edited May 23, 2010 by wraftery

[Bnechis 3,961]

HOW 'BOUT THIS: An unnamed city has a hydrant system but it is getting old and needs upgrade to support the hi rises that a couple of hypothetical developers (let's call them Cappelli and Trump) want to build. They feel that the United Water customers (who are exactly the same people as the taxpayers)should foot the bill for upgrades.

In this case I will defend the developer because United Water submitted an affidavid under the DEIS & FEIS that the system did not require any upgrade and the system would see no impact from the development. Then after the building was built United water sent Cappelli a bill for $1m to replace over 1 mile of water main. Cappelli had a legal document saying it was not needed.

The developers get what they want, but the FD should really double in size to protect these buildings. Amazingly, the hypothetical developers got a big tax break to build these buildings in the first place. The FD was part of the planning process, but more or less ignored.

Are you confused yet?? Maybe the unnamed City Council got confused too.. What's why they voted for it. Believe it or not, it happened in another unnamed city nearby, too. Now both unnamed cities are talking Layoffs!

One City the DEIS/FEIS said they did not need additional personnel. The other documented a need for an additional 45 ffs/off. The 2nd was involved and the City Council was advised in a legal document what was needed and they chose to ignor it. In the 1st city if something ever happens (in any building, not just the developments) there is no legal recourse (since the FD said we are fine) In the other if anything happens anywhere in the city, the lawyers will have documents showing the city decided to take a chance.

Oh...PS...Trump and Cappelli are doing OK...Thanks for asking

Actually at least one may go under, since he stopped paying the bills on his future plans in Orange County.

[wraftery 1,275]

So he sells the corporate helo, declares bankruptcy, forms a new corp under a new name and never loses a nickle out-of-pocket.

[Remember585 815]

Here's a question that I have heard debated many times.

What's the best supply hose(s) for a rural fire? Should we drop the 4" or 5" - or should we drop a double lay of 2.5" or 3"?

I've heard some say that we waste too much water "filling" the LDH supply line, and I have heard others say it takes 6 lengths of 3" to equal the amount of water in 1 length of LDH.

Opinions?

[firefighter36 52]

Here's a question that I have heard debated many times.

What's the best supply hose(s) for a rural fire? Should we drop the 4" or 5" - or should we drop a double lay of 2.5" or 3"?

I've heard some say that we waste too much water "filling" the LDH supply line, and I have heard others say it takes 6 lengths of 3" to equal the amount of water in 1 length of LDH.

Opinions?

Great question! To be honest, that is something I feel changes based on the situation. I took the rural water supply class a few years ago, and it was an eye opener coming from a place that is mostly hydrants. Anyhow, in our evolutions, there didn't seem to be as much of a distance of supply line as there was an emphasis for the proper number of tankers to keep an uninterrupted supply of water showing up to the attack rig from the various water sources. As a matter of fact, the instructor showed over time into the final exercise that we were 1 tanker short of keeping a constant attack. (We ran multiple master streams, hand lines, etc.)

Why would it change? Availability of manpower, tankers, and location of static water sources. The lay of the land is an important factor, how far down a long driveway, up or down hill, etc. The impression I got from the class was that departments need to have the right equipment and the right plan. Unfortunately, there are departments out there that think an engine with a larger booster tank is sufficient. Is that really the case? or are Tankers not as near and dear to member's hearts as an engine or truck?

Also, food for thought, at a relatively large fire, in a hydranted area, we laid 1000 ft of 5" along with a dual lay of 3" and 2.5" not because of any kind of friction loss formula, but because we needed to hit a 2nd hydrant and quick to maintain water supply based on a change in water pressure from a main.

[antiquefirelt 994]

Here's a question that I have heard debated many times.

What's the best supply hose(s) for a rural fire? Should we drop the 4" or 5" - or should we drop a double lay of 2.5" or 3"?

I've heard some say that we waste too much water "filling" the LDH supply line, and I have heard others say it takes 6 lengths of 3" to equal the amount of water in 1 length of LDH.

Opinions?

Interesting issue as two things seem to be significant factors. One the available water to fill the LDH is a concern if you're trying to get water to the scene engine who's tank is emptying. But once the tankers start supplying the supply engine, the friction loss is far less in LDH. We can send more water further with LDH. Knowing your system's limitations would be the key.

[x129K 1,393]

But once the tankers start supplying the supply engine, the friction loss is far less in LDH. We can send more water further with LDH. Knowing your system's limitations would be the key.

Which is why I am a huge advocate of alarm assignments, intial and extra, and getting adequate water to the scene for the initial attack!

I challenge all departments out there to re-evaluate their current assignments.....do you have enough water on the road on a first alarm to keep a fire with "a few rooms off' from being a future parking lot?

And dont kid yourselves - having two 1000 pumpers, and a 2000 gallon tanker doesn't mean squat if they can't get off the floor in time.......

[Remember585 815]

Which is why I am a huge advocate of alarm assignments, intial and extra, and getting adequate water to the scene for the initial attack!

I challenge all departments out there to re-evaluate their current assignments.....do you have enough water on the road on a first alarm to keep a fire with "a few rooms off' from being a future parking lot?

And dont kid yourselves - having two 1000 pumpers, and a 2000 gallon tanker doesn't mean squat if they can't get off the floor in time.......

We bring a total of over 6,000 gallons of water with our own apparatus (assuming nothing is OOS or delayed) plus we get an additional 2 Tankers initially with 6,000 gallons on any repoted structure fire / smoke in a house. Once it is confirmed (or the IC wants to get them moving sooner) we get 2 more Tankers with 6,000 gallons. On a 2nd Alarm we get 2 more Tankers and on a 3rd Alarm, another two.

Since the majority of our Tanker responses are within the first due area of E118, they will drop a 3" and a 5" supply line as they go into a driveway, so we can keep a constant supply of water going. (Hopefully) Drilling, preplanning and prior experiences have helped us better prepare for fires in no man's land.

[chris 31 2]

What about in the ground water tanks, we have two in our district 30,000 gallons each. These were put in by the home owner because we told them there is not sufficent water supply to build that mansion style house.

[x129K 1,393]

What about in the ground water tanks, we have two in our district 30,000 gallons each. These were put in by the home owner because we told them there is not sufficent water supply to build that mansion style house.

Really?

THAT is what I am talking about!

[chris 31 2]

yeah smithfield area, not much water up there

[antiquefirelt 994]

What about in the ground water tanks, we have two in our district 30,000 gallons each. These were put in by the home owner because we told them there is not sufficent water supply to build that mansion style house.

Cisterns are a great option as often fire ponds are hard (read expensive) to insure for private owners. In may area if you want a subdivision where there's no city water the three options are: fire pond, cistern or sprinklers. In our City the only option is sprinklers as we passed full adoption of the current Life Safety Code requiring new one and two family dwellings be sprinklered.

[Bnechis 3,961]

What about in the ground water tanks, we have two in our district 30,000 gallons each. These were put in by the home owner because we told them there is not sufficent water supply to build that mansion style house.

30,000 is the minimum size that ISO will consider as a source (cisturn or pond) and it must be rated for all weather.