While many of us enjoyed being with friends and family, enjoying good food and drink,, how many of us thought about being connected to water and sewer systems that provide safe water supplies and safe wastewater disposal? We should be thankful for this as well. The other option makes life so much harder. We should not water and wastewater for granted, but unfortunately we do.
We hear the moniker about getting the most out of your employees and staff. Business books will talk about accountability, as will politicians, but creating accountability requires a first step on the art of management. In any organization there needs to be a vision of where the organization wants to be in 5, 10 or 20 years. Then there needs to be a team of managers who buy into the vision, and implement it by securing employees who can implement it. But it does not stop there. You need to set expectations. Sounds, easy, but it is one of the issues professional employees especially complain about. Assigning work tasks and saying “get it done” is not an expectation. That’s a command. Commands work in the military, but not so much in private practice. The command and control types are notoriously difficult to work with, especially in professional and/or creative environments. Micro-managers fall into this same mode. The creative/professionals are intelligent and are looking for freedom to solve problems, usually more effectively that they can be told. Instead, what needs to be done is to create a set of expectations of what will be accomplished and timelines. Let the creative types and professionals figure out how. Provide them with the resources they need. If employees understand the expectations, and are given the ability to accomplish the goals, accomplishing them becomes an end in itself – that becomes the goal and their satisfaction. But does it work? Well, yes. I have been in organizations where the stars aligned to have a small group of manager who created and bought into a vision. We set expectations and let people accomplish them. Always faster, always less cost, and always effectively. A degree of recognition follows them. The group was easy to spot because they were accomplishing things (I should note that this does come with the price of jealousy among those who prefer to sit on the sidelines and can create some degree of subterfuge there which requires a strong leader to deal with that problem). Students work the same way – set expectations of the delivery and allow them to develop the methods to solve the problem. It is easy to see who the good engineers are, and who perhaps will be less successful.
Even easier are city and county managers, general managers and the like. New officials come into office and six month later they are complaining that the staff and manager don’t communicate with them. First response is to give them more information, which compounds the problem. Still not communicating. Every manager has one of these stories. The problem is that the new folks never revised the expectations from the past. As a result everyone operates on the last set of expectations, until new ones are established. If that never happens, well, the conflict escalates. Someone has to take the leadership role, which creates a quandary with governing boards like the ones utilities commonly deal with because these folks are generally not educated in the intricacies of the operation of the utility, and rarely have any management experience. They simply do not understand how to set reasonable expectations, to identify what is important to them and what is not, how to delegate, etc. Until a sitdown discussion of expectations of both manager and the board is developed, the potential for friction will exist. Some managers are good at recognizing and making adaptation, but most governing bodies are not. This is why it is important to develop education programs that will encourage the community, which often has better connections to the governing members than staff. So as utilities, our infrastructure is vital to the long-term development of our communities and to the public health and productivity of our residents. So how do we make governing bodies understand the need to invest in utility infrastructure when emergencies are not happening? Realizing we are all busy, we need to keep in mind that outreach is a key to creating that coalition of leadership in the community to advance the utility agenda. Again a leadership issue and the need to engage the community, something we all too often forget to do.
Storms highlight the need to reduce infiltration and inflow into the collection system so as not to overwhelm the piping system causing plant damage or sewage overflows into streets, so much of the focus has been on dealing with removal of infiltration and inflow through televising the sewer system and sealing or lining sections where leaks are noted. However, many miles of videotape show virtually nothing, so significant money is spent to find “nothing.” Part of this is because “infiltration” and “inflow” are not the same, and storm events do not highlight infiltration nearly as much inflow.
The manholes and clean-outs are required for access and removal of material that may build up in the piping system and for changes in direction of the pipe. Manholes are traditionally pre-cast concrete or brick, with brick being the method of choice until the 1960s. Brick manholes suffer from the same problems as vitrified clay sewer lines – the grout is not waterproof so the grout can leak significant amounts of groundwater. The manhole cover may not seal perfectly, becoming another source of infiltration. Pre-cast concrete manholes resolve part this problem, but concrete is not impervious either. While elastomeric or bituminous seals are placed between successive manhole rings, the concrete is still exposed. Many utilities will require the exterior of the manholes to have a coal-tar or epoxy covering the exterior which helps to keep water out.
Inflow results form a direct connection between the sewer system and the surface. The removal or accidental breaking of a cleanout, unsealed manhole covers, laterals on private property, connected gutters or storm ponds, damaged chimneys from paving roads, or cracking of the pipe may be a significant source of inflow to the system. All are potential sources of inflow which can be identified easily during storm events. The peaking that correlates with the rainfall is inflow, not infiltration since infiltration is part of the base flow that creeps upward with time. When operators see peaks, this is not indicative of infiltration which is groundwater. Think inflow. Inflow causes peaks in run time on lift station pumps, and create potential overflows at the plant. The good news is that simple, low tech methods can be used to detect inflow, which should be the precursor to any infiltration investigation.
The following outlines a basic program for inflow detection and correction for any utility system. The order is important, and pursuing all steps will resolve the majority of issues. The first step is inspection of all sanitary sewer manholes for damage, leakage or other problems, which while seeming obvious, usually surprises. The manhole inspection should include documentation of condition, GPS location, and some form of numbering if not currently available. Most manholes have limited condition issues, but where the bench or walls are in poor conditions, that should be repaired with an impregnating resin.
Next is repair/sealing of chimneys in all manholes to reduce inflow from the street during flooding events. The chimney includes the ring, cement extensions, lift rings, brick or cement used to raise the manhole ring. Manhole covers are often disturbed during paving or as a result of traffic. The crack between the ring and cover can leak a lot of water. The intent of the chimney seal is to prevent inflow from the area beneath the rim of the manhole, but above the cone.
The next step is to put dishes into the manholes. One might think that only manholes in low lying areas get water into them, but surprisingly every manhole dish that is properly installed has water in it. Hence assume that all manholes leak water between the rim and cover. Most collection system workers are familiar with dishes at the bottom of the manhole where they are of limited use. This is because the dish deforms when filled with water or is knocked in when the cover is flipped. The solution is a deeper dish with reinforcing ribs. No ribs, don’t use it. A gasket is required.
Once the manholes are sealed, smoke testing can identify obvious surface connections. The normal notifications, inspection and documentation will identify broken or missing cleanout caps, surface breaks on public and private property, connection of gutters to the sewer system, and stormwater connections. All should be documented via photograph, by associated address and public or private location. The public openings at cleanouts can be corrected immediately. However, if the cleanout is broken, it may indicate mower or vehicle damage, that can occur again. If missing, the resident may be using the cleanout to drain the yard. In either case the collection system needs to be protected. USSI (http://www.elastaseal.com/about_us.html), located in Venice, FL developed a solution, called the LDL plug to correct those commonly broken or commonly opened cleanouts to reduce inflow.
Notices should then be sent to property owners with documentation of the inflow connections to their property. This is sometimes the most difficult part of the program due to political will, but it is necessary. This finishes the inflow correction portion of the project, but one more step will help focus efforts for the second “i”.
The final step is a low flow investigation, which is intended to focus on the infiltration piece of the problem. Such an event will take several days and must be planned to determine priority manhole to start with and sequencing.
Based on a projected plan and route:
Documentation of all problems and corrections in a report to utility that identifies problem, location and recommended repair. Identification of sewer system leaks, including those on private property (via location of smoke on private property).
The example in Dania Beach, FL was that the last step indicated that only 15% of the sewer system needed to be televised. This saved the City almost $1.2 million. Their total costs is under $1.4 million for all parts of the project, spread over several years and contracts. Overall the hope is that the inflow and infiltration programs together will save $400,000/yr, a five year payback. But the key is to insure you get the inflow as well as the infiltration… Otherwise storms will continue to overwhelm plants, creating public health concerns and ruining your reuse program.
I had an interesting email exchange with a guy in north Florida who was trying to educate the Legislature on why planners are always wrong with their projections and their studies should be ignored as a result. His specific issue was water supply, but it could have been any number of issues. His argument was that the projections for water use made in 1976 were incorrect and in fact total water demands in the State had been basically flat over that period. He’d be unhappy to know that Florida mimics the rest of the country.
Ok, I admit that in addition to being an engineer, I have a minor in planning and a degree in public administration. I attempted to communicate with him about the purpose of planning, not that it helped. Planners outline projections of what things will likely be IF not changes are made. The reason is to prompt policy or behavioral changes prior to reaching critical tipping points. The argument in 1976 was that Florida would run out of cheap water if current trends continued. In the intervening years, there have been major efforts toward water conservation, low flow bathroom fixture and major changes to irrigation practices. All of which made the water picture far better than the 1976 projection. See the planners were not wrong – the projections indicated the problem if nothing was done, and acted in part as a catalyst for change. This is what planners dealing with water supply needs, sea level rise and a host of other planning issues are supposed to do. If we understand what the potential problems are, maybe we can take action to avoid tipping points. This is not to say all projections are perfect or even correct, but the idea is to avoid reaching a point of no return. Isn’t that what smart people should do? Apparently not to the guy on the other end of the email. Happy Halloween. Er, no this was just scary because it was real!!
The most recent discussions in trade journals, on-line and within the industry is that construction starts have begun to trend upward, a good sign that the economy is moving forward. Since 2008 when the market crashed just after the election as a result of 2005/2006 packaged loan deals (read The Big Short by Michael Lewis if you really want to understand what happened, but be prepared to be irritated that no one has yet to go to jail), the stock market has crept steadily upward. The problem is that the returns on investments have not trickled down to the majority of Americans except in low wage jobs (no wonder people can’t pay their mortgage and the IRS collects no income taxes from so many people). But the tide does seem to be turning according to the construction journals. In part we can thank low interest rates, but more perhaps more importantly it seems that much of the excess housing and commercial space may be decreasing so investors and owners that are looking to a spurt in economic growth in the coming years. We see rising house prices in hard hit areas like south Florida. With luck that will translate to jobs (maybe even decent wage jobs), increased tax revenues for local governments, and increased water revenues form of new or redeveloped users. While the trend may not hold everywhere, the fact that the construction industry is talking about increases in new starts in the coming year, is a clear sign of things to come. But are we ready? That’s the big question.
Down here where I live, the 2007-2009 period was one where utilities ere struggling to find water supplies, with many investing in expensive alternative supplies. Then reality struck and the 2020 demands are more like 2030 or 2040 demands. The impetus for investment went away (it did not help that the burden was on the current ratepayers). Those who invested in the 2008-2011 period got the benefit of much lower construction costs (typically about 70% of 2007 costs), but many sat on the sidelines as a result of political demands not to increase rates on current residents, resulting in lots of deferred maintenance. While few utilities invested on growth related infrastructure, how many invested on replacement and rehabilitation at the lower costs? Unfortunately, catching up on the backlog did not happen for many of us, which is why ASCE’s annual report card for water and sewer infrastructure continues to show very low grades (D- in 2009 for water and wastewater, a grade that has not improved). As a result the legacy of the 2008 recession is that an opportunity to improve the condition of our infrastructure while creating local jobs was lost. Now we will play catch up at higher prices, and higher interest rates (0.25% since June).
So where is the failure? We complain about leadership at the federal level, but leadership starts at home (to use a cliché). Local officials were not persuaded by utility personnel to invest in their future. Aren’t these the same officials that often move to state and then the federal level? Our failure to persuade them is an indication that our marketing approach to built consensus is not working. Our ability to coalesce the community to improve itself is lacking, which readily translate to elected officials. We can cast the blame upon them, but it starts much earlier than the time they make decisions. In difficult economic times, we need a better approach to selling our product and the need to maintain the systems that deliver our product. We need our customer to demand the improvements to protect their health. People just don’t understand the link. Water is there, so all is good. When I flush it goes away. No problem. But what separates the US form the Third World is our infrastructure, especially our water and power infrastructure. Maintaining our place in the world requires that we continuously upgrade and maintain this infrastructure. That means planning ahead, building reserves, and taking advantage of economic conditions favorable to getting the most for our money. How many of us missed this last opportunity? We should be looking in the mirror and asking why…
PS Today would be my Dad’s 90th. We miss you!!
October is the month that brings us the astronomical tides, or locally to the coasts, the annual high, high tide. The position of the moon relative the Earth creates a slight alteration in the gravitational pull of the moon on the oceans so high tide, is, well high! If you lived in a coastal areas, what did you see? Or experience? Southeast Florida was rife with email chatter and photographs of flooded streets, yards, and canals. The City of Fort Lauderdale sent notices to residents warning them about the tides. We had no rain, just the tide coming in. These are low lying areas that 20 years ago did not flood except during storms. This is just a phenomenon that has been monitored in coastal areas over the past 5-10 years, depending on the complaints that have come into local officials.
One of the more interesting complaints I received in my career was in Hollywood Florida where a resident complained about the “fish in the street.” Sure enough, the storm drain in front of his house was connected directly to the Intracoastal waterway and the October tides had pushed the saltwater up through the catch basin into the street. Now these weren’t snook or redfish, they were little fish escaping the snook and redfish, about 3-5 inches long. Pretty funny stuff if you think about it. Realizing the problem, I called him 3 hours later and asked if the problem had been solved. He said told me I was a genius to fix that so fast. My boss told me to take advantage of luck and drop the explanation, but to design a solution (which we did). My boss was right, but the call made me more cognizant of the issue.
15 years later, I have a student developing models of what happens during the annual high and average tides, especially with respect to the potential for flooding in low lying areas where groundwater is just below the surface. His work is impressive. A lot more land, especially inland, may flood as a result of the annual tides, which are a precursor to the long term trend of rising seas. See the groundwater has a slight upward gradient as you move inland. As a result, you cannot use the tide levels to predict inland flooding, you need to add the tides on top of historical groundwater levels. Of course the wet season is the summer in Florida, so the October tides come just at the time groundwater levels are highest. But at least we can determine where the stormwater pumping improvements need to go.
Determining where stormwater pumping is needed is only part of the problem. As sea levels rise, more stormwater management will be needed and a place to put the water will become a problem. Discharging nutrient laden stormwater to tide is not a good answer when you have fragile reefs offshore. NOAA’s Florida Area Coastal Environment (FACE) Initiative outline this (see intensives study – http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/themes/CoastalRegional/projects/FACE/Publications.htm). Instead, perhaps at some point we may develop infiltration systems to capture this high water table “problem” and convert it to water supplies, solving two issues for southeast Florida. Might be 2030, but we probably should be doing some planning….
Across the United States, we hear the regulatory discussions about managing groundwater supplies. There are 20 year plans (which many think is the long-term perspective), 50 year plans and 100 year plans; no doubt a myriad of others. The concept of managing groundwater seems reasonable, but the query here is whether or not managing for a finite period demonstrates good leadership.
In most cases, the concept of managing aquifers for finite periods is associated with the need or desire by local and state officials to develop a certain region, and obtaining the necessary water to meet development projections. “Sustainability” for elected officials and developers is distinctly different than that of water resource professionals. The whole intent of elected officials and developers is to continue to build more, attract more people and business and, well, to use more water. This is in contrast to the fact that water supplies in most basins is relatively finite or fixed, which means that inevitably the supply will be exceeded by local demands, the opposite of “sustainability” from a water resource perspective. Compounding the problem is that water resource professionals are normally pretty creative in stretching finite supplies with reuse, conservation, use policies, restrictions and augmentation with other supplies, actions and programs which actually may work against their long-term goal of sustainability – there is a finite number of reasonable solutions that may work, each with increasing cost to the customers, which works against the goals for the elected officials to limit costs to customers. As a result, a conflict over the differing views of “sustainability” are inevitable. As solution requires leadership.
Leadership is understanding that there are constraints to the resources. Leadership is understanding that there is a limit to the reasonable solutions and a limit to development, or the type of development that can be accommodated. For example in Colorado, Denver Water, going back 100 years, built tunnels and reservoirs to transfer water from the west side of the Rockies to the east. This worked for 70 years or so, until the Denver area started to explode, exceeding the capacity of those transfer systems. As this occurred, groundwater was far less costly than tunnels, reservoirs and acquiring access to water supplies west of the Rockies (and the downstream water delivery contracts impacted this as well). A 100 year management plan was developed and approved by the State Legislature in 1985 to allow water to be withdrawn from the Denver Basin, despite very limited recharge. This is not to say that the plan for management was not a good leadership start (certainly it is an improvement over doing nothing), but what happens in 70 years? We assume some up with a solution to extend the life of the aquifer, but when will that occur and who will lead that charge? What will be the political backlash when the initial rumblings begin? The good news is that the major users are utilities, which have resources to pay for treatment, aquifer storage, indirect potable reuse, direct potable reuse and a host of other potential options, but not every basin is so lucky. If the major users are agriculture or ecosystems, who pays that bill? If the answer is no one, what happens to the industry? The jobs? Communities? People?
The query begs the question, how do we align competing definitions for sustainability, as defined by local officials, developers, water resource professional and others? And how do we educate the local officials and the populace of the perils of over-allocation of water supplies? This is a legacy leadership issue, and it requires hard and sometimes unpopular decisions that can change the course of history.
Legacy leadership is defined by what is left behind not by the current condition. It’s how we change our thinking and actions to adapt to the changed conditions. We look back as great water projects of the 20th century – Hoover Dam, the channels carrying water to Los Angeles from the Colorado River and central California that allowed southern California to develop, or the numerous dams across the west that permitted crops to grow in arid regions. You can search out who led those projects. That is their legacy. Those that came afterward reaps the rewards created from the efforts of these leaders. Now we face a changing condition in the 21st century. Who will take the 21st century leadership mantle? And how will we change our viewpoint to protect our resources? We can start by trying to change the perception of deeper groundwater, especially confined systems, as primary water sources, when they may better serve us in the long-term as back-up or emergency sources in many regions, with surface water as the primary sources. Where surface waters and surficial aquifers do not exist, perhaps development as desired by local officials is not the sustainable way to go? So who takes the lead in those areas where there are insufficient resources and tells the developers, no you can’t develop here? That will be leadership….
The demand for more food crops to feed a hungry world has expanded the need for irrigable lands. Few want to risk the 1930s dust bowl or the droughts of the 1950s, especially with ongoing recurrent drought periods across much of North America on a regular basis. The access to electricity and modern submersible pumps over the past 80 years has permitted a huge expansion in the amount of irrigation performed with groundwater. Fly over the western United States and look for “crop-circles” where center wells act as the spoke for rotating irrigation systems. They are obvious. But virtually all of them are located in areas where surface water is not available and groundwater is the only source of water available for irrigation. This might work where the groundwater is surficial, but if the groundwater were surficial and found in large quantities, wouldn’t there be surface waters that intercept the groundwater? The groundwater would feed rivers, lakes and streams. But in most places with center pivot irrigation, the groundwater is located well below the surface, and low rainfall means that recharge to these deeper aquifer systems is limited.
Irrigation use accounts for 40% of total water use in the United States. USGS reports that in Arkansas and Nebraska, 90% of irrigation is groundwater. These states are two largest groundwater users in the country. California and Texas are right behind them in total use, with groundwater accounting for 80% of irrigation use. Idaho, Oregon, South Dakota and Washington are among the states with irrigation accounting for in excess of 90%+ of total groundwater use, although their total use is much less than that of the other four states. The areas irrigating with groundwater in all of these states competes directly with rural potable users, both individual and small cities, and with ecosystems that may support tourism, fishing, hunting and other outdoor activities. Unfortunately USGS also reports that in all of these states, there are areas with severe declines in aquifer levels. For example in South Dakota, USGS estimates that 70% of the water has been withdrawn in 30 years. So the answer in 20 years will be…… There is no answer at the moment. Some think we should just drill deeper, but this normally comes with added costs, assuming aquifers actually exist at these deeper levels. But agriculture can’t afford to pay for treatment, meaning they it will be difficult for them participate in a solution. Too few people in cities means alternative supplies like reclaimed water are not available.
The irrigation from deeper aquifer that do not recharge readily is indicative of a resource management paradigm that suggests we manage water supplies for a certain period of time (usually our lifetime or work period). The consequences beyond that timeline are not considered because it is “beyond our lifetime” or planning periods, or we assume “someone will come up with something…” Non-surficial groundwater supplies throughout the United States and probably the world should be viewed like a scratch-off lottery card. Once in a while you have a winner, but it’s never enough to sustain you for the long-term, let alone pass it to your kids. And once it is spent, it’s gone. Likewise once deeper aquifers are drained…. Bryan Fagan suggests most civilizations ultimately failed as a result of water woes. If we want our civilization to survive well beyond our time, perhaps we should revisit history.
The long-term civilization model suggests we should consider a paradigm shift with respect to non-surficial groundwater. Non-surficial groundwater is a resource that is finite – water that is stored, but once depleted, cannot be readily replaced. That is not a sustainable solution and suggests that these types of groundwater sources should not be looked at as primary water supplies for irrigation, or for power or urban or domestic use for that matter – they should be considered back-up sources to protect us from surficial droughts that occur periodically. The dust bowl impacts would have been lessened if we had back-up irrigation supplies from wells. But in the future, if the aquifers are dry, and surficial droughts occur, the impact directly affects our food supplies and our economy. We are often caught in defining the “long-term” as 20 years, but the US is 235 years old, but still considered young. Our perspective of 20 years as long-term is only a quarter of a lifetime, which clearly falls short of long-term from the perspective of civilization. Something to think about….
A comment I heard recently from an elected official was that it was inappropriate to use public dollars for their water agency to market their water product. Interesting, and it suggests a major barrier to the development of local utility systems. The cell phone companies, cable television, bottled water companies and security agencies all market constantly to our customers. Virtually all of them charge more for their service than we do for water and wastewater. The costs for all have increased faster than water and sewer. But try surviving in the desert with only cable tv and no water.
Utilities compete with every other vendor for the same dollars. They want our customers to value their products more. They want our customers to divert dollars to them, so they need to increase the value of their products in the minds of our customers. This is what marketing is all about. If you cannot show the value of your product, the value diminishes in comparison to other products. So while the needs for water and sewer systems increase, we see more of our customers’ dollars go elsewhere and the accompanying demands to control our rates.
Water and wastewater systems must market their product. Clean healthy water is available to virtually everyone. People expect their faucet will turn on and provide good quality water, and that the toilet will flush. They take it for granted, yet much of the world does not enjoy the same quality of consistency in service. Water service is a commodity, and comes with a cost.
We say we want to operate the utility like a business, and many systems are run this way. Most charge based on usage (or should). But we fail to pursue one of the basic tenets of running a business: marketing our product. The annual CCR is not a marketing tool. Water bills can convey messages, but they do not really function as marketing either. Water conservation programs can help, but here the message is use less, not the benefit of the product. We simply do not market water. It is why the bottle water industry continues to grow, despite the fact that public water systems offer water at least as safe and healthy as bottled water, subject to more regulatory oversight, at a fraction of the cost.
So given that utilities, the majority of which are owned by local governments, are operated like a business, why shouldn’t we spend money on marketing the benefits of clean, safe water? Why not market the benefits of 24/7 service? Why not highlight the efforts of dedicated employees that ensure the system operates 24/7? Why not raise consciousness of the water commodity to increase its value in the public’s eye? The only reason not to market is the benefit competing services. That does not benefit the public good, nor support the need to recover the costs of service and repair and replacement needs of the system.
Creating a marketing plan, or branding program for your utility is a major undertaking. DC Water spent year re-branding their system to raise consciousness. Creating marketing programs to engender success requires multi-media outlets, consistent messages, and vision. It requires that employees and elected officials be on the same page with their customers. We need to understand customer expectations of the service to raise value in their minds. If marketing can sell pet rocks, we can market the value of water. It is in our best interests to do so.
Water management is a fundamental need for the development of civilizations. Always has been. If you have any question about this, ask yourself what differentiates the developed world from the undeveloped. Water supply, sewage management and flood control rank 1-3 among the differences. Safe drinking water and good sanitation go back beyond the Romans, and is a necessity to insure that the populace, and those performing work are productive as opposed to sick all the time. At present there are agencies that operate to manage water supplies and drainage, and a few that do both. Mostly these are regional agencies, which belies the need for local decision making to respond to local conditions.
An example – in 2007/2008 the State of Florida was in the midst of “sever drought.” The water management agencies spent considerable time and political capital working on water conservation strategies, limiting utility withdrawals, cutting permit allocations and demanding conversions to alternative supplies in the future. The southern half of the state was hard hit. Utility customers cut their demands significantly. Unfortunately the customers’ reward was surcharges to make up lost revenues to overcome large operating shortfalls and potential defaults on borrowing documents. The short-term implementation was designed regionally, but had significant local consequences that were not considered.
But more interesting was the actual “drought” conditions. It seems that the hard hit areas were in the central part of the state, not the southeastern coast. The central part of the state, including the Everglades had received about 60% of the average rainfall, but along the coast, the two year shortage averaged less than 10%, and most residents realized that their rainfall accumulations were not as severe as inland. Since most of the southeast coast’s water supplies were local, not based on the central part, the local question rose, “why were the water conservation measures required of these utilities and residents? and Why was this not a locally driven issue?”
The case highlights the fact that while most water resource planning efforts are regional, the impacts occur locally, and often local impacts are not fully considered. Credibility of the utilities is critical for emergencies or difficult situations. During this condition, a survey of coastal utility customers found that the customers were better informed on rainfall totals than the regional information provided, which undercut the credibility the local utilities were trying to build with their customers, which impacts future needs for cooperation at the local level. Something about crying wolf…
publicutilitymanagement 