An Act to create 101.14 (5) of the statutes; Relating to: exempting certain agricultural warehouses from automatic fire sprinkler requirements.
Summary
AB956 creates a new exemption in Wisconsin building and fire safety law for certain agricultural warehouses. The bill defines a “specified agricultural warehouse” as a building primarily used to store agricultural fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, rodenticides, insecticides, and similar crop protection products for distribution to agricultural producers. For qualifying warehouses, the Department of Safety and Professional Services and local governments may not require installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system if the warehouse is used to store dry bulk fertilizer or pesticide, or liquid bulk fertilizer or pesticide stored in a secondary containment structure approved under Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection rules.
The exemption is limited by several conditions. It does not apply to office areas, attached offices or stores, warehouses with office egress that passes through hazardous storage areas, warehouses that store ammonium nitrate or anhydrous ammonia, or warehouses that later change use so they no longer fit the definition. Owners must also notify the local fire chief that water should not be used to suppress a fire at the warehouse and must disclose the chemicals stored there, updating that information when it changes. The bill also preserves authority for other fire detection, prevention, or suppression requirements, so long as they are not automatic sprinkler mandates.
Impact
AB956 amends Wisconsin Statutes by creating s. 101.14 (5), limiting state and local authority to require automatic fire sprinkler systems in a narrow class of agricultural warehouses. It affects the Department of Safety and Professional Services, local governments, warehouse owners, and operators handling crop input chemicals, while leaving other fire code requirements intact. The practical effect is to reduce construction and compliance costs for qualifying facilities while imposing notification and use-based restrictions tied to fire safety and chemical storage.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote details, but the bill’s final status indicates it was controversial enough to be vetoed and then fail to pass over the Governor’s objections under Joint Rule 82. That suggests the measure had legislative support but also significant executive opposition. Based on the text, the bill appears aimed at balancing agricultural industry concerns about sprinkler compatibility with chemical storage against fire safety concerns.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely the removal of mandatory sprinkler requirements and the safety implications of storing fertilizers and pesticides without water-based suppression systems. Supporters would likely emphasize cost savings, operational practicality, and the specialized nature of agricultural chemical storage, especially where secondary containment is already required. Opponents would likely focus on fire risk, the need for automatic suppression in large storage facilities, and the potential danger of exempting warehouses that handle hazardous materials. The bill addresses some of those concerns by excluding ammonium nitrate and anhydrous ammonia and requiring notice to local fire officials, but those safeguards may not have been enough to resolve broader safety objections.
Crossfiled
An Act to create 101.14 (5) of the statutes; Relating to: exempting certain agricultural warehouses from automatic fire sprinkler requirements.