Archive

communciations

Who are our leaders and why?

February 11, 2013
communciations, infrastructure, Leadership, management, sustainability, water sewer management
Leave a comment

Interestingly I asked this question on a recent on-line in response to a discussion topic.  Interestingly the only comment was about companies, not people.  Who are the people who are our leaders?  We’ve seen some people in the past, but have we forgotten them?  Are we too busy?  And why did we not come up with names today?  Is it that hard?  Do we not take the time?  Because without knowing our leaders, we can’t look for or train our next generation of leaders.  We can’t see the innovative ideas, the understanding of new trends, or the risk issues that we need to overcome.  We see some major issues in the coming years in the industry:  Infrastructure condition, water quality deterioration and supplies are among them.  The question is how to solve them.  It is also what do we leave behind?  If you are a person who wants to be a leader, there are a number of skills you need, and you need to be at the right place, at the right time.  You also need to think about the long-term impacts of your plans/policies and actions.  How will they be perceived 10 or 20 years out.  How will your decisions impact the course of the organization? I remind elected officials that no one remembers the guy who refused to raise water bills (or taxes).  But they do remember when infrastructure fails.  The do recognize when thought was put into securing a water supply, treatment capacity or treatment processes to secure water quality.

The Way of the Wolverine

January 30, 2013
Climate, communciations, Environment, finance, funding, infrastructure, Leadership, management, Marketing water, planning, sustainability, water sewer management
Leave a comment

Last week, the headline in the morning newspaper and on-line news outlets report the most recent suggestions from the House of Representatives to cut the federal budget deficit involves major cuts to domestic programs.  No surprise there.  Among those that are proposed to be cut significantly is infrastructure investments.  Infrastructure is what allows our country to thrive.  Without water, sewer, roads, airports, ports, etc, the economy could not be as robust as it has been, and will not achieve its greatest output.  The fact that our elected leaders don’t see infrastructure investment as a high priority is problematic.  More problematic is that this appears to be an ongoing position of some in Congress, meaning there is likely more of this view at other levels of government.  But it ignores that facts.  This country has always grown after investments in infrastructure, not before.  The federal government has been involved in infrastructure since the beginning of the country, and actually accelerated its involvement after WWII, including water and wastewater upgrades starting immediately after WWII.  The monies to improve water and sewer systems increased after the passage of the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts.  Recall that President Nixon, a conservative republican, sponsored the new federalism concept that greatly expanded the amount of federal block grants to local governments. In part this was due to the perceived need to help local governments catch up with improvements needed in connection with new federal rules, like the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water act.  The high point in federal aid for infrastructure.

The trend was reversed in mid-1980s, when most of the grant programs were converted to loan programs, with the idea that the federal government would wean the utility industry off federal entitlements within 30 years.  The current concern over budget deficits and taxes further weakens the prospects of large scale federal flow –throughs to assist local governments with infrastructure upgrades, water and sewer included.  Given that the current water and sewer needs exceed over $1 billion in the next 30 years, and current funding levels are expected to derive half that amount, the infrastructure needs gaps will continue to widen, with potentially more common failures in piping systems, and impacts to local economies.  It is a viscous circle that needs to end, and one that can only have negative long-term effects for us.   In part the issue is political will, but also the failure of non-elected executives to fully grasp the issue, and adopting the way of the wolverine – to fight and scrap, climb, scramble and investigate new means to defend what is their’s.  The analogy is that utility personnel, and the upper management they report to, need to take “ownership” of their utilities infrastructure, and urge the decision-makers to do the same.  We need to defend our infrastructure, and we have the means to do it.  The time may be right to push this issue locally.  The economy is looking up.  Property values are starting to climb, and commercial activity is slowly creeping back.  The result will be more tax money available to general funds, many of which have been living large off the utility system.  Seems like this would be a good time to reverse that trend.

The failure to do so creates difficulties, not unlike those faced by wolverines today.  The wolverine suffers from effects placed on it by others.  There are only 500-1000 in the United States as opposed to the many that were here before hunting, farming and other development.  A second “way of the wolverine” is decline because they cannot fix the problems caused by others.  Unlike the wolverine, we have the power to prevent our decline.  We need to do so.

Leadership with Water-Energy Nexus?

January 26, 2013
Climate, communciations, Environment, finance, groundwater, infiltration, infrastructure, Leadership, management, power demands, power-water nexus, sanitary sewer, sustainability, water sewer management, water supplies
Leave a comment

In our prior blog discussions the theme has been leadership.  Vision is needed from leaders.  In the water industry that vision has to do with sustainability in light of competing interests for water supplies, completion for funds, maintaining infrastructure and communicating the importance of water to customers.  The need to fully to optimize management of water resources has been identified.  The argument goes like this.  Changes to the terrestrial surface decrease available recharge to groundwater and increase runoff.  Urbanization increases runoff due to imperviousness from buildings, parking lots, and roads and highways that replace forest or grassland cover, leading to runoff at a faster rate (flooding) and the inability to capture the water as easily.  In rural areas, increased evapotranspiration (ET) is observed in areas with large-scale irrigation, which lowers runoff and alters regional precipitation patterns. At the same time there are four competing sectors for water:  agriculture (40% in the US), power (39% in the US), urban uses (12.7%) and other.  Note the ecosystem is not considered.

New water supplies often have lesser quality than existing supplies, simply because users try to pick the best water that minimizes treatment requirements. But where water supplies and/or water quality is limited, energy demands rise, often to treat that water as well as serve new customers. For many non-industrial communities, the local water and wastewater treatment facilities are among the largest power users in a community.  Confounding the situation is trying to site communities where there is not water because the power industry needs water and the residents will need water.  It is a viscous cycle.  When you have limited water supplies, that means your development should be limited.  Your population and commercial growth cannot exceed the carrying capacity of the water supply, or eventually, you will run out.  Drawing water from more distant place can work for a time, but what is the long-term impact.  Remember the Colorado River no longer meets the ocean.  Likewise the Rio Grande is a trickle when it hits the Gulf of Mexico  As engineers, we can be pretty creative in coming up with ways to transfer water, but few ask if it is a good idea.

Likewise we can come up with solutions to treat water that otherwise could not be drunk, but, that may not always be the best of ideas. Adding to the challenge is that planning by drinking water, wastewater, and electric utilities occurs separately and is not integrated. Both sectors need to manage supplies for changes in demands throughout the year, but because they are planned for and managed separately, their production and use are often at the expense of the natural environment.  Conflicts will inevitably occur because separate planning occurs (for a multitude of reasons, including tradition, regulatory limitations, ease, location, limited organizational resources, governance structure, and mandated requirements). However, as demands for limited water resources continue to grow in places that are water limited, and as pressures on financial resources increase, there are benefits and synergies that can be realized from integrated planning for both water and electric utilities and for their respective stakeholders and communities. The link between energy and water is important – water efficiency can provide a large savings for consumers and the utility.   As a result, there is a need to move toward long-term, integrated processes, in which these resources are recognized as all being interconnected .  Only then can the challenges to fully to optimize management of water resources for all purposes be identified.

Anybody have any good examples out there?

Outlook for Utilities is Up, but Leadership needed for Infrastructure Investments

January 13, 2013
communciations, finance, funding, infrastructure, Leadership, management, Marketing water, planning, sustainability, water sewer management, water supplies
1 Comment

The magazine Utility Contractor suggests that 2013 may be much better than 2012 from a utility construction perspective.  In Fact they suggest a 13% increase in utility construction, although the bulk of that is in the power industry, not the water industry.  Their projections are for water utility infrastructure spending to remain roughly constant from 2012, a slight uptick from the recession years.  At the same time, the US water infrastructure bill was suggested by Public Works magazine to exceed $1 trillion over the next 30 years, requiring over $30 billion to be spend annually on upgrades.  This is more than double their estimates of current funding..  Many of these upgrades are pipe.  Much of the piping infrastructure in America is over 50 years old, and the condition may be unclear (unless you dig it up, you don’t know much).  But piping projects are hard to fund, because no one sees the pipe, only the failures.  As time goes on, the condition continues to deteriorate.

Much of the reason that water utility infrastructure is not expected to increase is that revenues are not expected to climb significantly to allow for the expansion of capital funding despite historically low borrowing rates and lowered costs of construction.  The reason:  many public sector utilities, which accounts for many of the larger systems, have been caught in one or more of several traps:  deferring capital to pay current expenses without raising rates, revenue losses from defaults on housing, use of utility fees to overcome ad valorem tax losses in the general fund, or political pressure to reduce rates.  All four cases can be crippling to the utility because it not only removes revenues today, but likely will result in a continuing practice in the future.

The good news in the revenues are rising, and that unemployment is down nationally despite the loss of 276,000 state and local jobs in 2011.  But since governments tend to lag the private sector in recovery, and we now have 34 straight months the private sector adding jobs, governments should start to see improved conditions in 2013.  Salaries are up, revenues are up a little and jobs are being filled, but what does this mean to infrastructure? The question is why the projections are for no increase in spending.  Water and sewer utilities owned by governments, are caught in the middle of the political process which lacks leadership.  These utilities are set up as enterprise funds, whereby revenues are gained from provision of a measurable service.  As a result they are designed to be operated more like a business, than a government.  But if your utility funds are altered through the political process, this can frustrate the efforts to run an efficient and effective business-like organization, which may mean the status quo, which is not investments in infrastructure beyond absolutely essential and emergency measures.  The question is where is the leadership to reverse this trend?  Unfortunately the political leadership focus is on elections, 2 to 4 years out, not the 20 or 30 year life of the utility’s assets.  As a result, short term benefits sacrifice long-term needs.

I

If you are a person who wants to be a leader, you also need to think about the long-term impacts of your plans/policies and actions.  How will they be perceived 10 or 20 years out?  How will your decisions impact the course of the organization?  For utilities how has your tenure added value to the utility, whether that value is treatment capacity, public health protection or reliability of the system.  And how is it measure, since monetary value is not the only means to add value. Keep in mind no one remembers the guy who did not raise rates, only the person who did not plan to replace the infrastructure that failed. That’s a legacy leadership issue.  One thing many people do not understand is that while we live in the moment, it is how people view our actions afterwards.  It is why it is so easy to see leadership after the fact, but sometimes very difficult during the event.  The question is, how to we overcome the restrictions caused by the 2008 recession?  That’s where leadership comes to play.

SUSTAINABILITY THROUGHOUT TIME – BUT NOW WHAT?

January 10, 2013
communciations, Environment, finance, groundwater, infrastructure, Leadership, management, Marketing water, planning, sustainability, Uncategorized, water supplies
Leave a comment

I was cruising through Glacier Bay National Park when I wrote this blog.  It was just one of those inspirational momentsl  If you have never seen it, you should, especially as a water professional.  The entire park is a testament to the power of water and the result of changes in climate cycles that affect the hydrologic cycle.  I will post video of the journey separately, but suffice it to say that the inherent beauty of the place is difficult to describe.  Needless to say with a large concentration of glaciers in the area (most retreating), there is copious amounts of water (for now).  The Pacific Glacier has retreated 65 miles, yes MILES, in 300 years in part because of changes in oceanic moisture and evaporation.  The native people, Tlingets, moved and survived based on glacier flows end ebbs.  But that’s not my point.  Seeing this much water leads to an entirely different perspective, one that is helped by Brian Fagan’s book, Elixir which outlines the history of civilizations as they were affected by harnessing of water, or the lack of ability to do so.  Same thing applies to the Tlingets here.

Historically the key was to rely on surface waters where they were consistent, to manage water locally and carefully for the benefit of all, and when surface waters were not consistent enough to be reliable year after year, quanats, shallow wells and other mechanisms were used to extract water from glacial till or adjacent to rivers (riverbank filtration or infiltration galleries in today’s vernacular).  Or people moved or died out. The ancient people did not have the ability to dig too deep, but were creative in means to manage available supplies.

Contrast this to today where over the last 50 years we have been able to extract water from ever expanding, generally deeper sources, but to what end?  Certainly we have “managed “ surface waters, by building dams, diversions and offstream reservoirs.  These supply half the potable water use in the United States and Canada as well as a lot of irrigation.  But groundwater has been an increasing component.  Fagan makes the point that deep groundwater sources are rarely sustainable for any period of time, and that many in the past have recognized this limitation.  But have we?

Maybe not so much.  A couple years ago I was at a conference out west.  The session I was speaking at involved sustainable groundwater, a major issue for AWWA, ASCE, NGWA and the utilities and agricultural folks around the world.  One of the speakers was a geologist with the State of Utah.  Her paper concerned the issues with decreasing groundwater levels in the St. George and Cedar City, areas in southwestern Utah, where population growth is a major issue.  Her point was that despite the State efforts, they had significant drawdowns across the area.  Keep in mind that the USGS (Reilly, et al, 2009) had identified southwestern Utah as one of many areas across the US where long term decreasing groundwater levels.  My paper was a similar issue for Florida, so I stopped partway into my paper and asked her a question:  has any hydrogeologist or engineer trying to permit water in the area ever said the water supply was not sustainable?”  The room got really quiet.  She looked at me and said, “well, no.”  In fact the audience chimed in that they had never heard this from their consultants either.  The discussion was informative and interesting.  Not sure I really finished my presentation because of the discussion.

To be fair, consultants are paid to solve problems, and for water supplies, this means finding groundwater and surface water limited areas like Utah when their clients request it.  So you don’t expect to pay your consultant to find “no water.”  But where does that lead us?  The concept of sustainable yield from confined aquifer systems is based on step drawdown tests.  Ignoring the details, what this constitutes is a series of short term tests of the amount of drawdown that occurs at different pumping levels. AWWA’s manual on Groundwater can give you the details, but the results are short-term and modeling long-term results requires a series of assumptions based on the step drawdown test.  This is that had been submitted in support of permits in Utah (and many other places).  As discussed in the conference session, clearly there is something wrong with this method of modeling and calculation because, well, the results did not match the reality.  The drawdowns increased despite modeling and step drawdown tests showing the demands were sustainable.  Clearly wrong.  Competing interests, the need to cast a wider net, and many other issues are often not considered.  The results play out throughout the world.  Confined aquifers are often not sustainable, a potential problem for much of agriculture in the farm belt of the US.  Are we headed the same direction as ancient people?

The good news is that these same hydrogeologists and engineers have the ability to help solve the sustainability problem.  We need a new definition for “safe yield.”  We need a better means to estimate leakance in aquifers.  A project I did with injection wells indicated that leakance was overestimated by a factor of 1000 to 10,000, which would drastically alter the results of any model.  More work needs to be undertaken here.  The overdraw of confined groundwater is a potential long-term catastrophe waiting to happen.  And the consequences are significant.  The question is can we adapt?

But when we start to look at resource limitations, who stands up and says, this type of withdrawal is not the right answer.  We need another one.  Where is that leadership moment?

Defining Leadership – Who are leaders, and who is not?

January 6, 2013
communciations, Environment, finance, Leadership, management, Uncategorized, water sewer management
Leave a comment

One of the conundrums with leadership is actually trying to define what it is.  An analogy is ethics.  We know when we don’t see it.  The reverse is a little more of a challenge.  But trying to define ethics is quite a challenge.

I teach a class on ethics to professional engineers and to undergraduate students.  One of the more interesting exercises is trying to define ethical behavior.  Ethics is an issue that comes up on an ongoing basis, affecting politicians, engineers, consultants, and utility staff members.  But what are ethics?  To answer this question, or begin to, we can turn to philosophy to attempt to define ethics.  A cursory review indicates three potential definitions of ethical people:

  • A set of values and lives by them.
  • Any set of values which are shared by a group of people.
  • A set of values that are universally accepted.

Let’s take a look at each of these.  First is a person with a set of values and lives by them.  What do we make of this definition?  Do we accept it?  Or a person like this?  The first definition is pretty easy to explain away.  Few people buy into this as an ethical person because the values can vary and may include individuals with individual sets of ideals (Robin Hood) or people with frequently unaccepted behaviors (anti-social, etc.).

So obviously, a person with any set of values which are shared by a group of people set of values and lives by them must be better.  What do we make of this definition?  Do we accept it?  Or a person like this?  Seems ok.  These people share many of the same beliefs and conform to an accepted set of “rules” and acceptable behavior.  Engineers are among the groups with common values.  But alas, this definition is also pretty easy to explain away.  Few people buy into this as an ethical person because the values can vary and may include individuals with individual sets of ideals. Suggestions brought up by class members were:  cult members, terrorists, certain political regimes. etc.

So obviously, a person with a set of values that are universally accepted must be perfect? What do we make of this definition?  Do we accept it?  Or a person like this?  Name one example of a universally accepted value.  There are times when killing is ok.  Honesty sounds great, but honesty isn’t when it hurts someone deeply.  So actually none of these definitions is useful.

Another tactic is to look at professions to see if there are commonalities among our perception of ethical and unethical professions (ignoring whether or not the perception reflects reality or not).  There are some common examples that come up (sorry car salesmen, mechanics, lawyers and politicians).  The commonality with the professions perceived to be unethical is money – they perform a service for someone specific and expect to be paid for it.  There is limited quality control.

On the other hand, those professions viewed as ethical by most are things like public safety, education and technical people.  Generally speaking the perception is that these people serve the public.  There is a clear delineation in people’s minds about professions, money and public service that shape their view about ethics.  That makes it a lot easier to see who is and who is not ethical.

Ethics provides an analogy for leadership.  It is hard to define leadership, because it comes in many forms and is often specific to the approach to a situation.  A quarterback who is a great leader of the field, might not be the best choice to leader the reorganization of a major corporation.  Both positions require leadership, but the skill sets required for the positions is situational.  Because we cannot define the skill set for every situation, we tend to look at examples of people who are leaders or who have exhibited leadership in the past and try to draw from their experience, what made them a leader.

A problem is that we often don’t recognize leadership at the time it is occurring. It is so much easier to identify people who are not exhibiting good leadership, or who’s idea of leadership clearly is self-serving or narrowly focused; people will not follow these types of people for long because there is no shared benefit.  A person is not a leader if they do not display a consistent vision of where they want to take the organization. Changing direction constantly disrupts the efficient flow of work efforts and frustrates followers/employees.  People who do not add value to the organization, can only ”lead” by coercion, which is the antithesis of leadership.  Leadership requires no coercion.  We often come across people who cannot communicate their ideas clearly, another hallmark of a leadership failure. If people do not follow, the leader is failing to lead.

So perhaps, like ethics, we can find leadership by looking at the opposite of what we view as the failure to lead.  That means leaders should be able to communicate clearly, their vision.  And they need that vision or direction that people buy into.  We can evaluate leadership by those who follow, and their willingness to follow.  Leaders must bring value to the organization, as well as skills and knowledge.  Because leaders tend to know their limitations, they will bring in people to fill those gaps.  That means leaders will hire the best people they can, without worrying about whether they are vying for some future position. Leaders have confidence in their abilities, and strive to make everyone better in the organization.  Keep in mind, if you set someone up to fail, they will.  It is a failure of management and leadership to put people in the position to fail.  When provided a challenge, it is how the leader attacks it, and how they marshal resources to succeed.  As a result, leaders may exist at every level of the organization.  The challenge is seeking them out, and putting them in position to succeed.

If all this sound vaguely like football or the battlefield, well it should.  In the NFL, the skill sets are similar, it is the mental aspects, the vision, the ability to work together, the willingness to do the little things that do not always get noticed, and the ability to cover someone’s weaknesses by exploiting your strengths that wins football games.  You need talent, but you need leadership to be successful.  The teams with lots of great players that never win are legion.  Teams change coaches, and players, trying to find that tri9ght mix.  When the team finds the mix, success follows.  Lincoln found this during the Civil War.  He spent time with the troops.  He communicated his vision to them, expressed his appreciation for their efforts, supported them and they were enthusiastic supporters.  HIs generals, well another matter.  So Lincoln kept changing generals until he found Grant who would fight and end the war, his vision of the end game – to win.

Now the question is where are our water leaders.  Who are they and what is their vision…

Leadership Part 4

December 29, 2012
communciations, infrastructure, Leadership, management, Marketing water, sustainability, water sewer management
Leave a comment

In the theme of the past posts, I have two stories about a young man in North Carolina 30 years ago.  He was an engineer by education, but wanted to get into management.  So he got a master‘s degree in public administration and after working for a utility for several years, got an opportunity to manage one of the many very small towns in North Carolina.  Now he, like me, was not from North Carolina, but from a northern state, so imaging the reception 30 years ago in a small eastern North Carolina.  His workforce was not educated, and the town workforce lacked any specific skills according to the mayor, although the field supervisor was a skilled equipment operator and had completed high school.  Now you can imagine the suspicion this “young whipper-snapper” had on a community that did not want all that education and did not “want to become Raleigh,” as if there was some horrible stigma attached to that fine city.  And his assignment – fix the infrastructure.

Now many utility directors reading this post will relate to this issue.  It seems that the town was losing half the water pumped out of the groundwater in the leaking pipelines and over half the water mains were 30+ year old galvanized pipes that were laid near and far to reach specific properties.  All were 2 inches and smaller which obviously did not provide fire protection.  Areas of the town were skipped.  Sewer was lacking in some areas and there were a series of stormwater issues to address.  Of course there was no money as the town’s fiscal condition was poor, so the solution was to train the crew to lay the piping needed.  So the story goes like this.  The crew had never installed push-on PVC piping and did not believe it would stay together under pressure.  They had never installed valves or other appurtenances, not manholes and pipe on grade.  Cement finishing was an issue.  So the day came to start work.

The supervisor dug the trench with a backhoe and the young man joined the crew in the field.  He was trying to instruct them on the specifics of laying pipe from the surface.  After all he was the town manager.  It was a struggle, and conditions in a trench are not the best as working space is limited.  Finally realizing the need to show the crew how the pipe pushed together and sequence of tightening bolts needed to go, he hopped into the trench.  He worked with them for days, and the crew became very effective at installing pipe in all circumstances.  Even after the young man moved to a larger town, the crews finished the pipe replacement effort.  The leadership moment?  As the supervisor noted later, the instant he hopped in the trench.  The struggle wasn’t so much not understanding as not believing.  When the young man showed the crew that what he was telling them worked, that by jumping in the trench and working with them he appreciated and understood their efforts, when he treated them with respect in demonstrating the skills the crew needed, they bought the vision.  It was easy after that and they we successful.  Lesson 1:  Show the crew what you want, and believe in them and they will be successful

The same young man later demonstrated his willingness to protect the crew from interference form outside.  So this story goes that they were installing a water main of a given street.  The mayor called and demand a water break get fixed.  Coincidently it was 20 feet from where they were working.  The town manager said no, they would continue working.  You can imagine the broohah brewing up here.  Especially when two days later another leak occurred, but the new main was nearly complete.  And the fourth day, a third leak.  Conferences with commissioners, phone calls, etc form the fanned flames.  But the crew kept working.  No demands were conveyed to them.  Keep working.  The water main was complete the following Monday, placed into service and all service connected to the new line by 5 pm.  The manager was asked to explain his decision at the Tuesday Commission meeting.  He brought in a four foot piece of service line from where the first leak occurred. It contained 22 clamps, meaning the town personnel had “fixed” the line 22 time, over 80 hours of work, in the past.  The leak actually occurred between two to the clamps and could not have been fixed.  Replacement was the only option.  Leadership moment number 2:  the crew knew they had been shielded from criticism, since the manager took all of it.  All the commissioners decided that in the future, such issues would be left to the purview of the manager.  Not that during the week of construction his life wasn’t miserable.  Lesson 2.  Sometimes leadership is difficult.

Leadership Part 2

December 20, 2012
Climate, communciations, Environment, finance, funding, infrastructure, Leadership, management, Marketing water, planning, sea level rise, stormwater, sustainability, Uncategorized, water sewer management, water supplies
1 Comment

Among the many things I do is work with college seniors as they get ready to graduate and hit the job market.  The changes you use in many of these students over that last year in school is often significant, and in some cases remarkable.  Different students grow differently and the potential starts to appear.  Some gain confidence in their skills and begin to grow into the profession.  Some of these students are likely to make good leaders in the field in the future.  But trying to guess which ones and why it is often a challenge.  However I want them all to have some concept of what leadership is all about.  For many of them, they will end up in the water/wastewater/stormwater field.  They are going to have to deal with tough issues like rebuilding deteriorating infrastructure, sea level rise, climate changes, stressed water supplies, energy demands and a more demanding electorate.  They will recommend increasing water and wastewater fees.  But will they have the skills to encourage decision-makers to move forward with the needs of the system.  You see, that’s where leadership comes into play.  Often it is little things that set things into motion.  Our engineers go into the world with a technical skills et, that ability to learn to solve problems with solutions.  We try to encourage them to be creative.  An assigned reading is “The Cult of the Mouse” by Henry Caroselli, who urges creativity above profits in the workplace.  Mr. Caroselli is right in that it is creativity that allows us to come up with innovative solutions, the ones that change how we live.  It is also where the patents and economic opportunities exist.  America rose to greatness in the 20th century in large part because of automobiles – we figured that out and it made some many things possible.  Computers became common place in the latter part of the century.  We use the technology for both in the water/wastewater/stormwater industry.  In fact they have made us so much more efficient that costs have not climbed as fast as they might have, which is why cable tv is normally more expensive than your water bill.  Which one do you need to live?  My hope is that today’s students figure out energy solutions that will carry us forward as a world leader in the 21st century.  Those alternative energy options, greater efficiency of current technology.  Each will allow the utility industry to improve it’s efficiency further.  The City of Dania Beach built the world’s first LEED Gold water plant.  That took a little vision on the part of the utility director Dominic Orlando.  And a cooperative team of consultants and students.  When we give these projects to young people we can be surprised because they often don’t know that “that’s not the way we do it.”  Well that’s exactly what Mr. Caroselli said.

So we look for leadership.  Creativity, innovation and the “Can-do” mentality are part of leadership, but not all.  There is that ability to set a vision, like Mr. Orlando did in Dania.  There is the ability to convince decision-makers of the wisdom of an idea, as opposed to doing like we always did to make the shareholder happy as Mr. Caroselli noted.   Selling innovation is often the hard part because that’s were the costs are.  But there is more.  Often the selling of a good idea is difficult.  You can be ridicules by the status quo.  Many ideas are just lost in the shuffle because they never receive a voice.

Leadership is often not understood at the time it is occurring.  Ok, maybe we figured this out when Lincoln was President, but if you read accounts of his Presidency, the early years are marked with indecision and backtracking before he got it right.  Most of that is forgotten in lieu of the ultimate results.  Many of the issues we face today need real leadership to create a long-term solution.  The “fiscal cliff” issue is a prime example, as it the long-term need for solutions for social security, Medicare and medical costs in general.  The need to fix the infrastructure that made our economy strong should be among those priorities also.  Remember, we don’t remember the councilman, mayor, legislator. manager, director or President who did not raise taxes or water bills.  They do remember those who solved problems

Defining Leadership Part 1

December 17, 2012
communciations, infrastructure, Leadership, management, sustainability, Uncategorized, water sewer management
Leave a comment

What exactly is leadership?  How is defined?  How do we find leaders?  What are the skills required to be a leader?  These are tough questions, and the answers are often and murky as the Colorado or Mississippi Rivers in springtime.  If picking leaders was easy, all organizations would be successful.  But they are not.  If leadership skills were easily defined, there would be a lot more schools trying to teach leadership , and they would create generations of leaders.  But they don’t.  It is so much easier to see leadership after the fact, not beforehand, and that is the challenge.  This about our elected officials.  Let’s start with the President and Congress.  We elect these people to lead us.  Periodically we pick one who leads us, often no so much.  No offense intended here, but can we really say that Herbert Hoover, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, or Warren Harding were great leaders/  They rank in US News’s worst 10 presidents of all time.  And our perception is generally the same (assuming you know enough US history to know these characters).   Was it their fault?  Hard to tell.  Circumstances were not in their favor, but what did they do to lead the nation from the difficulties?

Ulysses Grant and Zachary Taylor were great leaders on the battlefield, but they were failures as President.  Why? Different skill sets.  Their best skills were not transferrable to the Presidency.  Interestingly, Lincoln’s forays into combat in 1841, were utterly unsuccessful, he was demoted from Captain to private.  HE took this failure as an opportunity to learn and study, and then find talent to implement the plan (although it could be argued he dallied far to long with various generals in the Army of the Potomac, before promoting Grant). But we see Lincoln very differently than those noted above in part because they were able to lead us through difficult times.  History treats FDR, Teddy Roosevelt and Kennedy similarly.  But how did we pick these leaders in those times?  And how to we find ones for today?

Defining leadership appears o be better defined by identifying what is not leadership.  Scott Adams’ Dilbert comic strip has a book entities “Don’t step in the Leadership.”  The entire comic is focused on the silliness of managers trying to “lead” their charges.  Apparently Mr. Adams has many years worth of stories to tell.  Our reality is similar to Dilbert’s:  we see many examples of people who are not leaders.  Leadership and being the utility director, CEO, mayor, commissioner or any position “in charge” of an organization are often not related.  That is why if you ask, you can find out from the employees who are the “go to” people, the ones they rely on and follow.  Those are the true leaders.  They often outlast the leadership, especially is the positional leadership does not tap into their skill set.

People often desire to be the boss and to lead the organization but many never actually lead just like failed Presidents.  Some may think they are in charge, but if you lead no one, you are not a leader regardless of your title.  A leader is defined by those who follow him/her.  Leaders require no coercion to get people to follow through on their vision.  But a vision is needed.  It may not be a popular vision, and it may not be easy, but your followers must buy into it and be active in pursuing it.  One problem with today’s version of leadership in politics is the fear of tough decisions, or making part of the electorate unhappy.  CEOS often follow the corporate need to make money every quarter, at the expense of the long-term.  How many companies have failed to keep up with technology, upgrade facilities (at a cost), or alter their products to maintain market share?  It took years for the Big Three automakers to figure out that people did not want gas guzzling cars as gas prices increased, at the cost of market share, growth and profits.  The examples are endless.

So what to we look for with potential leaders?  That’s the question.  We want a vision.  We want skills and knowledge about that vision.  We want competency.  People skills.  The ability to take responsibility for the failures, and to share in success with those that supported the effort.  To bring value to the organization.  So next post let’s look at some examples.  In the meantime, post some thoughts on what you think leaders should look like.

How to Keep Federal and State Economic Issues from Trickling Down to Local Funding

December 8, 2012
communciations, funding, infrastructure, Leadership, management, Marketing water, planning, water sewer management
Leave a comment

One of the ongoing discussions at all levels of government is the lack of funding for many programs as a result of economic difficulties in 2008.  Economic difficulties are nothing new.  We had economic downturns in late 1970s/early 1980s, 1991-1992, 1999-2000, and 2008-2009 as examples, and we have often incurred the same issues.  Unfortunately it appears to the general public that we make many of the same mistakes over and over.  From a federal level we hear the argument about the need for tax cuts to spur spending in the private sector, while Keynesian economists who suggest greater expenditures by government to pull us out of economic difficulty.  Both arguments have their points, but how opposites can solve the same problem is difficult for the public to see.  Perhaps a little understanding of the economic sector and analogies to our personal lives and the water industry would help us.

From the perspective of an ongoing growing economy, the goal would be to have the consistently increased gross product, growing at a reasonable rate, just as it seems reasonable for our salaries to rise at or above inflation rates and our ability to “bank” water for those growth spurts are common pursuits.  From a national perspective, you know you are doing well when your economy grows just over the rate of population growth.  When it grows a lot faster, economists worry about overheating.  These high growth rates have occurred as recently as 1996-1999 and 2002-2007, but are often associated with economic “bubbles” which means that a specific sector seems to be growing really faster, creating a demand for investments that further drive up the perceived value.  The benefit to utilities and governments for these growth spurts was that revenues generally grew faster than the costs.

 

Of course bubbles are speculative, and at some point investors realize the value is not there and stop investing.  The sector collapses wreaking havoc on the economy, resulting in the economy not growing at a rate exceeding the population growth.  In these cases, the revenues to fund those services people expect, grow slower than population or may even decline as they did in 2008-2009.  Government has not been able to deal with these changes well, but from a personal perspective, these ups and downs are common in peoples’ lives, and we try to deal with them by putting money away in the proverbial “savings for a rainy day.”  Businesses have historically tried to do this as well and utilities try to secure water sources for the same reasons.  However, many governments have not, and it is worth trying to understand why not, the impact it has today and how to resolve the issue going forward.

Two things appear to drive the issue, and they are related to the two schools of thoughts on economics.  First there is a tendency to spend at the level of your revenues.  People, companies and governments all do this.  So in good times, our expenses often rise to match revenues, partly for catch-up purposes, but partly simply because there is more disposable income.  When revenues greatly exceed expenditures, there can be a tendency by utilities and governments to reduce their revenues by cutting rates reducing taxes and the proverbial thought that “people can better manage money than government.” We saw this in 2001 after the federal government finally balanced the budget and started creating surpluses (that could have been used to pay off some of the accumulated debt, but that’s an entirely different story).  Many states saw the same phenomenon (Florida is an excellent example).  However this thought process is akin to a person who goes to his or her boss and asks them to reduce their salary because they are accumulating too much money.  No person ever does this.  Instead we bank that money for the “rainy” day.   So does it make sense for government to cut their revenues in the surplus times?

Consider that down times follow surplus times.  If revenues are reduced during times of plenty, there is no savings for that “rainy” day.  As a result the current path leads to a tendency to suggest cuts in expenses in down times, but this actually exacerbates the economic problem.  Income decreases and because demand is down, prices fall (basic supply and demand).  As expenses decrease, the economy contracts, which means even more people are affected – it can be a vicious circle.  Economic disruption creates a negative impact on government revenues, sometimes disproportionately.  So by reducing revenues in the surplus times, actually compounds the impact of economic downturns, by eliminating the potential for expenditures from savings, requiring spending from borrowing.

At the federal level, we hear the tax cuts versus more spending argument, but neither addresses what individuals have long known – we need to bank surpluses, not ask for pay cuts or extensively borrow in lean times.  The concept of Keynesians is that government should make up the difference between the private and public sector spending to maintain the level of spending in the total economy, but Keynes did not say that is should all come from borrowing.  There is an implicit assumption that some of this should come from savings, just like it does for individuals.  Heavy borrowing can complicate future revenues by increasing future revenues needs, the other side of the argument.  Trying to make up for revenue shortfalls increasing rates and fees when the funds of people and corporations are limited, compounds their problem.  The economy may grow to make up for those cuts, but that is a speculative argument.  The results of austerity is evident in Spain, Greece, Italy and Ireland where their economies continue to contract, not improve.  That solution clearly does not work.  That’s like asking for a pay cut and reducing your expenses significantly – you don’t live better and those depending on you  don’t either. Cutting revenues while increasing expenses creates the worst of both worlds and makes future concerns even more of a problem.  The federal conundrum is, well, a conundrum.  Not sure what the solutions are there, but there are no easy choices and few of us have much control of input.

But locally ourselves and our utility systems, are completely under our control.  A modification to the paradigm of economic needs or our utilities for the future of our system is needed.  We should rethink our economic vision for the next cycle to mimic what many people attempt to do.  We need to figure out what our revenues need to be, and plan long-term for maintaining a given revenue flow.  There will be up and down times, but we can plan for these.  We should create policies that denote that revenues in excess of expenditures should be banked for that “rainy day.”  We should control the urge to expand expenses in the good times.  We should then use those banked revenues for the future.  Then when the next economic downturn hits, we have banked revenues that can be used to maintain the level of service to our customers.  We should have a policy on this as well.   The benefit to utilities is that the investment in lean times often comes at a reduced cost (demand is down so prices fall), while providing an economic stimulus locally (more jobs).  The City of Dania Beach’s nanofiltration plant had this benefit – 70 cents on the dollar costs, plus a grant.  100 jobs created.  Policies on generating surpluses and spending them in lean times on projects like this would seem to make things easier for everyone in the future, but to follow such a trek requires leadership, policies, and self control within the organization.

The question is where is that leadership coming from to make these decisions and to resist political expediency?