Archive

funding

WATER PLANTS CAN BECOME LEED CERTIFIED!

August 8, 2012
Environment, funding, infrastructure, sustainability, water sewer management, water supplies
Leave a comment

Faced with continuing growth and re-development, an aging lime softening plant, and regulatory issues with disinfection by-products, the City of Dania Beach, FL pursued the construction of a new 2.0 mgd nanofiltration process to complement the City’s existing 3.0 mgd conventional lime softening water treatment plant. Efforts to develop a plant that would improve water quality, meet long term needs and raise community awareness involved CDM Smith engineering and construction teams, the City and FloridaAtlanticUniversity.  This paper presents the innovative membrane treatment plant design that was developed to maximize system recovery while providing a high degree of operating flexibility.  This design includes a two stage nanofiltration unit followed by a convertible third and fourth stage reverse osmosis unit to provide the City with the flexibility to meet their concentrate discharge limits when operating at recoveries up to 95 percent by operating in a four stage configuration.  Operating at this higher recovery was tested by FloridaAtlanticUniversity faculty and students, and preliminary design concepts were gained from student design projects, including meeting LEED certification goals.  This plant secured enough credits  to become the first LEED Gold certified water plant in the world.

So what does this mean to a community?  Is this work pursuing?  Why is this type of certification useful for local governments?  In  many cases it sets a public policy example.  It may cut long-term costs (something many utilities do not focus on), and it may improve sustainabilitiy?  What are your thoughts?  Read more in an upcoming JAWWA article.

Our Disappearing Groundwater

July 21, 2012
Climate, Environment, finance, funding, groundwater, infrastructure, management, sustainability, water sewer management, water supplies
Leave a comment

The need for more water for urban and agricultural uses has drive even more competition for limited supplies in stressed basins.  The effects of urbanization and agriculture on surface water supplies are obvious to most people.  We have also seemed the ecosystem impacts from surface water diversions and pollution.  As a result, many areas have pursued groundwater, the unseen resource.

I have been touting a USGS report (#1323 by Reilly, et al, 2009) to many in the water industry.  It is an important report that gives us a little insight on state of groundwater supplies in the US.  As we have developed arid regions and developed better pumps to irrigate in dry places, groundwater has been the obvious choice.  And it is not regulated in some states.  However the extensive and in many cases excessive use of groundwater creates the long-term potential for loss of water supplies in many jurisdictions.  Determining groundwater availability involves more than calculating the volume of groundwater within any given aquifer:  it requires a consideration of recharge, water quality, the economics of recovery or of poor quality, interconnectedness with the hydrologic system and ecosystem/user demands.  Rarely is a consultant paid to determine that sustainable water supplies are not available.  The result is the potential for aquifer drawdown that are accompanied by aquifer mining and land subsidence.  The result is declining water levels in aquifers.

Confounding the situation are confined aquifers that are disconnected for localized recharge and often have overestimated recharge.  The common practice to evaluate aquifer productivity is pump wells that have a significant drawdown for only a few hours each day, allowing an extended period for the aquifer to recover.  Reilly et al, 2009 estimates that the pumpage of fresh ground water in the United States is approximately 83 billion gallons per day (Hutson et al, 2004), which is about 8 percent of the estimated 1 trillion gallons per day of natural recharge to the Nation’s ground-water systems (Nace, 1960), which sounds like it is not a serious issue.  However, Reilly et al, 2009 found that the loss of groundwater supplies in many areas will be catastrophic, affecting economic viability of communities and potentially disrupting lives and ecological viability.

Drilling deeper is not a solution.  Deeper waters tend to have poorer water quality as a result of having been in contact with the rock formation longer and dissolving the minerals in the rock into the water. Additional power will be required to further treat limited, lower quality supplies.  Therefore, while some deep aquifers may be prolific, the quality of water obtained from a well may not be desirable or even usable for drinking water without substantial amounts of treatment.  In addition, most deeper aquifers are confined and therefore do not recharge significantly locally.  The withdrawal of water may appear to be a permanent loss of the resource in the long-term. For example, portions of the aquifer in eastern North and South Carolina were virtually denuded in due to pumpage because there is no local recharge.  As a result the aquifer was mined, exceeding its safe yield, and the large utilities converted to surface water. Likewise, most of the aquifer use in the western states of the U.S. are poised similarly since they have minimal potential for recharge.  In parts of the western plains state and Great Basin, the aquifers have dropped hundreds of feet, but with an average of 13-18 inches per year of rainfall, and high evaporation rates throughout the summer, little of this water has potential to recharge the aquifer (Bloetscher and Muniz, 2008).

 

Rarely will permit writers or consultants tell you there is no more water available, but if groundwater levels keep declining, clearly the groundwater is over allocated.  It also appears that we have misjudged recharge to most confined aquifers.  They simply do not recharge at the rates estimated creating a long-term decline.  In some cases, maybe many cases, recapturing the water needed to recharge the aquifer will not happen in our lifetimes without specific capital to do otherwise.  Nature just doesn’t recharge confined aquifers quickly.  One reason we like them for water supply.
So the questions are these:

Are many confined aquifers better suited to be drought protection, backup supplies to surface supplies, as opposed to primary water supplies?

  • What is the solution for agricultural operations and utilities where groundwater is quickly diminishing?
  • When can we start the dialogue to manage groundwater resources better in the US without all the legal and political constraints that currently work against protecting our nation’s groundwater supplies?

Clearly we won’t make everyone happy, and may make a lot of people very unhappy.  But better to make those decisions now, than in 20 or 30 years when the groundwater runs out?

Changing Attitudes about Government Infrastructure?

July 17, 2012
Environment, finance, funding, infrastructure, management, Uncategorized, water sewer management
Leave a comment

A recent comment on the blog posts reminded me of this discussion of a community on the beach that was populated by mostly retired executives from Chicago, Cleveland, Toronto, Louisville, Indianapolis and Detroit.  This was the 1970s and 1980s.  The community was wealthy, and had very low taxes.  It’s water and sewer rates were similarly low, while the community was starting to grow fairly quickly.    The mayor was on of these retired CEOs.  He was asked what helped his community be so successful.  His answer was simple:  they had a vision for the community that they all agreed on – a retiree utopia of beach, golf and dining.  They wanted to hire the best and brightest younger people to manage their community, hoping they would bring with them new ideas to improve efficiency.  They were willing to pay people at the 25th percentile to bring them to an out-of-the-way community, where medians and yards were heavily landscaped, where beach access was granted to all, where taxes remained low and housing values continued to rise, with the expectation that the community would continue to prosper.  Their experience had taught them to hire the best and brightest to increase their productivity and introduce new ideas.  By all measures, the strategy was successful.

But all good things come to an end.  By the mid 1990s, most of these old CEO had departed, replaced by newer people.  While many were also executives, there were more of them, and their focus was changing.  They were retiring from companies where profits were far more short-term and the politics were different.  They did not have the same experience in hiring people, and they did not see the need to pay higher salaries to attract employees. Unlike the prior generation, they wanted their kids close-by, which meant that there needed to be lower cost housing because most of their children were not making CEO salaries.  This also meant more services, and higher costs.  Cost control because the them, and cuts to government, to keep the low taxes low, became the norm.  So where were all those “best and brightest” hired 10-15 years earlier?  Gone.  When the attack on government workers started, who was the first to leave?  Those who were easiest to employ elsewhere of course, which does not help the professionalism of government.  It’s like another community where the Mayor said that the town was needed to provide employment for the otherwise unemployable!  Really?

This attitude does not help our industry at a time when reinvestment needs are in the hundreds of billions of dollars in the US alone.  Public investment has been billions because government was the solution for many needs of society, because it could not cost effectively or fairly be delivered by the private sector.  It’s like owning a multi-billion house and deciding not to fix the roof!  The leak can only get worse and delay the (much higher) cost of repairs to the next person.  So what about our infrastructure?  Who pays those costs?

And of course thisis all true….

How Come Cable is Valued more than Water?

July 13, 2012
Environment, finance, funding, infrastructure, management, water sewer management
Leave a comment

A question raised on the internet last week was whether our current delay in replacing infrastructure was simply delaying the costs for infrastructure to our children and grandchildren?  The amount of money we spend on infrastructure today, as a component of GNP, has decreased.  That should be troubling for a couple reasons.  Just as the economists will tell you that the economy cannot expand at a greater rate than the population grows, the investment to maintain the infrastructure needed to expand that economy should have some relationship to the growth rate.  If investments in what makes the economy go are half the rate they used to be, clearly our priorities are elsewhere which portends future expenses to catch up.  While it makes a good political sound-bite to cut costs, reduce government, cut funding to infrastructure programs, etc, the reality is that this is akin to the short term profit outlook on Wall Street – it does not plan adequately for the future.

So how does this help utilities?  Well, let’s think about your community’s priorities.  How many of you have compared your customer’s rates to those of cable television?  Or to typical telephone plans?  Rarely are the average costs for our customers, typically in the 5000 to 6000 gallons per month range, exceed the typical costs for a family cable or telephone plan.  And which one is needed to survive?  While the phones are needed for business, and cable is great to have (Game of Thrones is excellent if you have missed it) neither is needed to survive.  This is a missed opportunity for the utility industry.  It is one where we have been out-marketed, with the potential for huge costs to impact out kids and grandkids, just to maintain the current systems.  Many of our central city utility systems were started pre-WWII.  WPA was a 1930s program that constructed piping across the US.  Expansions occurred in the 1950s as people started migrating to the suburbs, and from the 1960s-today, but the reality is that many people reading this were not alive when the bulk of the piping in the US was constructed.  Which makes it “old!”

It is important that the utility industry convey to local officials the need for reinvestment in a system that runs well now, so that it will continue to provide good service.  We need to project the long-term program needs.  Asset management can help, but we need to plan, inform and market our product.  So who out there is doing any of this?  What input have you received and are you getting your needed rate increases?

Why aren’t We Paying the Cost for water and Sewer?

July 8, 2012
Environment, finance, funding, infrastructure, management, water sewer management
Leave a comment

It is budget season again which means the annual battle for water and sewer rates.  The costs for power and chemicals go up every year, and billions of dollars of deferred maintenance obligations exist.  So why is it that utilities find it so hard to get the revenues needed to update and operate?  The easy answer is politicians, but the issue is more complicated than that.

 

Much of the growth and expansion of the US and Canadian economies can be traced to the development of water, sewer, storm water and transportation infrastructure.  Without water, and associated wastewater disposal, the public health suffers, people get sick, and are less productive than if they are healthy (and you don’t need transportation then).  The lack of clean water is a major barrier to growth and development in many parts of the world.  So going back over 100 years, the federal government saw the benefit of improving drinking water quality.  Utilities responded, building filtration and disinfection facilities which were so successful that we are still reaping the benefits of those improvements.  Many central cities began expanding their systems as a means to provide service to surrounding communities.

Development of regulations relating to metals in water occurred in the 1940s, and developed through the 1962.  The Safe Drinking Water Act reaffirmed many of these standards, and of course added new ones as new constituents.  Over 90 percent of the US population has access to safe, potable drinking water on a 24/7 basis.

Unfortunately we do too good a job and have for 100 years.  People take safe water and sewer for granted.  Regulation or not, people assume it’s all good (the bottled water folks aside (see Peter Gleick’s new book).

 

The solution?  Marketing.  Local governments, their employees, their systems and their solutions are all kept under wraps.  No one actively markets the benefits of utilities?  Why not?  Why don’t we use our CCRs, monthly newsletters, meetings, and community involvement to market ourselves.  True most of us in the industry are not great marketers and we see so many other issues it is not a priority.  The private sector sees the benefits of marketing, but utilities often see the lack of active marketing in the attitudes of our elected officials, who do not often understand the value of the service.  IF people value your product they will pay for it.  The difficulty that many utilities have in getting rate increases to update and improve their inrastructure is an indication of failure to understand the value of the product.  That’s a marketing failure!  I once had an elected official tell me marketing was not something the public sector should do.  I asked why.  There was no answer, but he acknowledged it would help.  So we need to make marketing our efforts, and products.  So who’s got some great ideas out there to market?  Who has some great success stories we can all use?

BLOG 2 Unfunded Mandates or Stuff we should be doing anyway?

June 22, 2012
Environment, finance, funding, infrastructure, management, water sewer management
2 Comments

In the prior blog, the theme of It’s All One Water was discussed.  Our industry has operated with the concept that potable water, wastewater, storm water, runoff, navigable waters, etc are distinct from one another and are somehow different, creating a silo effect. The silo effect obfuscates the current program of drawing water from rivers, streams and lakes, and discharging our wastes to those same rivers, streams and lakes, downstream of our withdrawal point of course.  Our local perceptions generally to not allow us to acknowledge that our uses affect other users, one reason that conflicts occur in water basins.  Instead the focus is “unfunded mandates” from political circles, whereby utilities are required to meet increasing standards for water, wastewater and storm water treatment.  Much of the regulatory focus is on utilities because they are perceived to have deep pockets due to the populations they serve.  If everyone pays a little, then it won’t hurt is much is the philosophy.  But the reality is that treatment of dilute source waters is often made more difficult as a result of upstream releases.  It is easier to treat water before it gets released.  The solution to pollution is apparently not dilution.  So who should treating these waters?

Perhaps the question is better framed a different way.  The concept in the legislation is to have polluters pay the cost for their pollutions, but reality is that the urban users pay the bulk of the costs.  Agriculture may create a downstream impact of nutrients, pesticides and herbicides, but controlling runoff is a difficult issue, especially if there are heavy rains just after application of chemicals.  It is unclear how you cool water for cooling without extensive energy costs, which would increase energy demands further.  And of course rainfall creates runoff as a contribution form the natural system (mostly in the form of turbidity).  There is nothing much that utilities can do to control these issues aside from acquiring large tracts of land to control the source.  But that does not solve the regulatory needs.

So the responsibility for public health falls on us.  As we evaluate regulations, we need to think about responsibility and cause (not costs).  The public health issues is much clearer with wastewater plants, where discharge of wastewater could impact both aquatic species and downstream water users.   In this case, there are no unfunded mandates – it is local responsibility to insure that the public health is protected near and farfield.

With water plants, well it all depends on the raw water.  So cleaner upstream water and less adverse users are better, but most utilities don’t fully control their source basins.  So then the key is whether the regulatory mandates meet the public health tests, which may depend on who you ask.  Ask this question to women with kids:  How much arsenic in your water is ok?  You rarely get any answer other than “none.”  Why?  The public health perception.  Cost is rarely the issue, but public health always is a concern.  The public expects their utility to do what is needed to clean up the water and places that responsibility on us.  Hence there are no real unfunded mandates, although that sounds great to deflect the need for rate increases to other agencies.

So then the question is whether all this discussion of unfounded mandates is an abdication of our public health responsibility.  The perception might be reality.  If your customers think that meeting regulations or treatment upgrades are being forced on you by others, does that create the question “Is the utility is really putting public health first?”  Does it beg the question  “why isn’t our utility already doing this?”  While every region will be different, how your customers may view your responsibilities is good question to ponder….

Thoughts?