The sprinkler controversy: Whatever happened to state's rights?

So forget about healthcare, when did it become necessary to establish a national sprinkler mandate? That's what some states are saying about a vote -- perhaps not a mandate, but certainly a super strong suggestion -- by the International Code Council to require sprinklers inside all new homes, which was subsequently written into the International Residential Code.

It's an interesting debate. Certainly, sprinklers make homes more fire safe. But they also add costs -- and those ugly institutional-feeling sprinkler heads, which are hard to camouflage even with the most abundant collection of wind chimes, macrame or Mardi Gras beads.

So far, only a few states have succumbed to the pressure: California, Iowa, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and South Carolina, according to Builder magazine. Several more are in the throes of the great sprinkler debate. Not surprisingly the building industry is apoplectic, estimating the cost of compliance at $8,000 per home. The countervailing forces of fire officials and city planners suggest that cost may be as little as $1 a square foot and can be offset with insurance discounts and increase resale value.