January 26, 2001
You have the following question: Is the city legally obligated to install a 1" water meter in a city building, based on the water demand study done by Robert L. Slusher Associates, dated
January 18, 2001?
Your question involves the application of specific provisions of the Standard Plumbing
Code dealing with the load values of particular plumbing fixtures. MTAS has no one on its staff who is an expert in the application of the plumbing code. However, Bill Young, MTAS’s utility consultant wrote to you a letter in which he said:
If you have valid engineering reasons why the meter should not be reduced from 2", I would suggest you include those in a written response to the city and copy to the engineer. If you cannot support engineering reasons why this change should not occur, I don’t know of any compelling legal reasons that would prevent you from accommodating the customers request...
I agree with Mr. Young, but I want to take what he said one step further. While neither he nor I are experts in the application of the Standard Plumbing Code, some applications of the
Code can often be made by non-experts. I cannot dispute Mr. Slusher’s load value calculations upon which his conclusions were based, but I can probably point you to the sources in the
Standard Plumbing Code upon which they were calculated, give you a rough outline of how they are calculated, and point out to you the general legal principles that bear on the conclusions which he draws from them. From all of those it might be possible, in consultation with your plumbing inspector, to determine whether it is necessary for the city to replace the 2" meter with a 1" meter.
The letter from Robert L. Slusher Associates indicates that Mr. Slusher visited the city building and determined that it was equipped with the following fixtures:
5 water closets w/flush valves
7 urinals w/flush valves
7 lavatories
1 kitchen sink
1 drinking fountain
1 laundry sink
Based on that determination, Mr. Slusher employed the Southern Building and Plumbing
Code to conclude that “58 gpm of water demand is required at maximum usage.” The letter further says that:

The range of a 1" water meter is 1 to 50 gpm.
The range of a 1-1/2" water meter is 1-1/2 to 100 gpm.
The existing 2" meter has a range of 2 to 160 gpm. As you can see, the 2" meter is oversized for this building, as well as creating an overcharge on the minimum usage.
Considering diversity, it is my opinion that the 2" meter be replaced with a 1" meter, leaving all 2" piping from the meter to the building in place.
I am not sure what Mr. Slusher means by “diversity,” but I assume it means that the above plumbing fixtures are a mixture of “private” and “public” fixtures.
The City has adopted the 1991 Standard Plumbing Code, with 1992 and 1992-1993 revisions, as prepared and adopted by the Southern Building Code Congress. MTAS does not keep a copy of building and utility codes back that far. The 1997 Standard Plumbing Code is the current version of that code, and is, I suspect, the version Mr. Slusher used. It may be that the
1991 versions used different tables for estimating water demand. I also suspect the tables are the same, and for the purposes of this letter I will assume that is true.
Let me point out here what I understand are the facts behind your question. Barge
Waggoner designed the building, and concluded that a 2" meter was appropriate for its use and plumbing equipment. That conclusion certainly deserves consideration as you decide whether the water meter is oversized. In fact, you may be able to obtain from Barge Waggoner the calculation of the load values that went into its conclusions.
Now let us turn to the 1997 Standard Plumbing Code, Chapter 2 of which contains definitions of “private” and “public” uses, and Appendix E of which contains tables for estimating water demand. The term “private” is defined as:
In the classification of plumbing fixtures, “private” applies to fixtures in residences and apartments, and to fixtures in nonpublic toilet rooms of hotels and motels and similar installations in buildings where the plumbing fixtures are intended for utilization by a family or an individual. [Emphasis is mine.]
The term “Public or public utilizations” is defined as:
In the classification of plumbing fixtures, “public” applies to fixtures in general toilet rooms of schools, gymnasiums, hotels, airports, bus and railroad stations, public buildings , bars, public comfort stations, office buildings, stadiums, stores, restaurants, and other installations where a number of fixtures are installed so that their utilization is similarly unrestricted . [Emphasis is mine.]

Appendix E, Table E101B contains a table for determining the “Load Values Assigned to
Fixtures”:
Water closets
There are two classifications for water closets with flush valves, with different load values assigned to each: private-6.0; public B 10.0.
Urinals
There is only a public classification for urinals, but with different load values based on flush valve size: 1" B 10.0; 3/4" B 5.0.
Lavatories
There are two classifications for lavatories, with different load values assigned to each, depending upon whether the units supply hot or cold water: Private B 0.5 (cold), 0.5 (hot), and 0.7
(total); public: 1.5 (cold), 1.5 (hot), and 2.0 (total).
Kitchen sink
There are two classifications for kitchen sink, with load levels that depend upon whether the sink supplies hot or cold water: Private B 1.0 (cold), 1.0 (hot), and 1.4 (total); hotel, restaurant B 3.0 (cold), 3.0 (hot), and 4.0 (total)
Drinking fountain
There is only one classification for drinking fountain, one with a 3/4" valve: offices etc.
B 0.25.
Laundry tray
(total)
There is only one classification for laundry tray (1 to 3): Private B 1.0 (cold), 1.0 (hot), 1.4
Appendix E, Table E102 contains a table for estimating demand for two types of systems:
those predominately for flush tanks, and those predominately for flush valves. It appears from
Mr. Slusher’s letter that the building’s system consists of predominately flush valves. But reference to that table points to missing vital information necessary for estimating demand: we do not know what mix between public and private fixtures Mr. Slusher assigned to the plumbing fixtures in the building. We know that he calculated a maximum load of 58 gpm for them collectively.
However, we know that the building has 5 water closets with flush valves. If there are, say, 4 public, and 1 private, water closets, the load value is 45 (4 x 10.0) plus (1 x 5)’ 45. We

know that the building has two urinals, but we do not know whether they have 1' or 3/4 flush valves. If they have 1' flush valves, their load value is 20 (2 x 10)’ 20. We know that the building has 7 lavatories. If there is a mix of, say, 5 public, and 2 private, lavatories, all of them with hot and cold water, their load value is 11.4 (5 x 2.0) plus (2 x 0.7)’11.4. If we assume that the building’s 1 kitchen sink is a “private” sink, and that it supplies both hot and cold water, it has a load value of 1.4. The building’s laundry sink reflects a load value of 1.4. The total load value for that combination of fixtures is 79.2.
Appendix E, Table E102, Table for Estimating Demand, indicates that a load value of 70 reflects 58.0 gpm, and that a load value of 80.0 reflects 61.2 gpm. Obviously, a load value of
79.2 is much closer to a load value of 80 than to a load value of 70. However, I emphasize, that the above analysis is only a sample one; we do not know from the facts the split between public and private fixtures. Mr. Slusher undoubtedly calculated the split, from which he derived his
58.0 gpm. But Barge Waggoner must have also calculated the split when it designed the building. There may simply be an honest difference between them on that point. It does not appear to me that the assignment of some fixtures between public and private is always a clear cut determination.
But even granting that lack of vital information, and the possibility of different calculations of public and private fixtures, Mr. Slusher’s letter clearly indicates that the range of a 1' water meter is 1 to 50 gpm. If Mr. Slusher’s load calculation of 58 gpm is correct, 58 gpm exceeds the range of a 1' meter, which Mr. Slusher’s letter says is 50 gpm. I cannot find any instructions in the 1997 Standard Plumbing Code, or any other literature, cases or statutes, on the question of where the line is for sizing the meter upwards or downwards in such a case.
That brings us to an outline of legal principles involved in a determination of the city’s discretion with respect to meter size. Municipalities usually have considerable discretion with respect to their policies, including utility policies. Generally, the courts will not tell a municipality which of several policies on a particular issue is the best policy; they will only interfere in the city’s exercise of discretion when the discretion has clearly been abused. The weight of authority of case law indicates that municipal plumbing regulations are accorded great deference by the courts. [See 790 ALR3d 716 and 22 ALR26 816]
Frankly, it seems to me that where there is a load calculation of 58 gpm, and the range of a 1" pipe is 50 gpm, it would not be easy to prove an abuse of discretion on the part of the city to require the building to utilize a larger meter. Based on the part of Mr. Slusher’s letter indicating pipe ranges, the proper pipe and meter would actually be 1-1/2". However, it is probably not an abuse of discretion on the part of a utility to limit the size of pipes and meters it uses or permits, as long as the limitation is reasonable. My discussions with you and Bill Young indicate the decision not to use 1-1/2" pipe or meters is connected to reasonable supply and maintenance practices on the part of the utility.
Sincerely,
Sidney D. Hemsley
Senior Law Consultant