Archive

management

Defining Leadership

October 4, 2012
communciations, Leadership, management, Marketing water, sustainability
Leave a comment

Defining leadership is like identifying ethics – it is easier to identify what is not leadership than what is.  In fact Scott Adams titled one of his Dilbert books “Don’t Step in the Leadership,” as a quip to indicate the difficulty in defining what is leadership.  One of the problems is that leadership cannot exist if there are no people following the direction.  Hence a leader of one is not a leader.

 

There is good and bad leadership.  Lemmings are an example of the bad leadership.  That’s what your mother was talking about when she asked you if you’d jump off a bridge to be like the other kids.  No, what we want is positive direction, with a long-term improvement to conditions or reduction is the severity of a risk or problem.  As a result is if often easier to measure results after the fact – it’s what we leave behind that defines leadership.  Hard to tell when leadership is happening now.

Elected officials are often pointed to as leaders, but we could spend pages discussing the fallacy of that argument.  For elected officials it is often circumstances that define their leadership skills:  Lincoln in the Civil War, FDR with the Great Depression and World War II, Washington refusing to be named king are examples of leadership.  Congress today, not so much.

Likewise we have business leaders, but mostly they are making money for their stockholders; few are making a big difference to use today.  The latter is why we all know Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Mark Zuckerberg, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison and Harvey Firestone – they all made a difference in our lives and how we live.  But who is the CEO of Goldman Sachs?  See you probably don’t know and that’s the problem.  The impact on your life is missing.

Hollywood puts up leaders.  Ok I like Clint Eastwood, but aside from some great movies he’s made or directed, I don’t really have much reason to follow him personally.  Mostly we know a lot about what we don’t want, see the  Kardashians.  Music is similar – not much leadership there despite some great, and potentially insightful tunes (thanks Ronnie van Zant, Hughie Thomasson and Danny Joe Brown, RIP all).  No, leadership is not defined in the entertainment industry.

Leadership is defined by leaders, which is the problem since leadership it is how leaders approach situations.  It is what leaders envision that causes others to buy into their vision and cooperate toward achieving their goals.  It is how they approach a challenge and coalesce resources to resolve it, regardless how big the issue may be.  It is how they carry the torch, while supporting their staff which does the work.  It is how they guide as opposed to direct employees.  It is how they share accolades with the staff and accept the blame for failure, as opposed to the opposite.  All good, but most times leadership is hard to see when it is happening.  Ultimately, leaders are defined by what they leave behind – does the organization or product survive their departure, or not?  The goals of Lincoln and FDR survived their passing.

So what is leadership and how do we apply it to the water industry?  Well I’m not sure we are any closer to a definition of leadership, but maybe we have a better idea what to look for.  Clearly leaders in the water industry will be the ones trying to create a long-term vision that will be expected to survive their time in the field.  They will argue for sustainable use of water and the necessity to cooperate and communicate with other users to reach optimal solutions to over-allocation issues.  They will test new technologies as solutions to old problems.  They will implement “outrageous” concepts like indirect potable reuse and develop cooperative efforts with other industries to get to solutions like using water and wastewater sites to generate distributed power,  things most don’t consider cost effective or proper today.  They will participate in research efforts and outreach to the public and the youth.  And they will empower and train their staff.  Ok, maybe not all these things, but look around, where are the leaders in your utility?

We need to talk more about this subject….

 

 

If You Manage An Aquifer To Last 100 Years, Does This Demonstrate Good Leadership?

September 29, 2012
communciations, groundwater, infrastructure, Leadership, management, sustainability, water sewer management, water supplies
Leave a comment

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….

 

What is the Risk of Expanding Groundwater Irrigation?

September 26, 2012
Climate, Environment, groundwater, infrastructure, management, sustainability, water supplies
Leave a comment

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….

 

 

Marketing Water – Why Don’t we do this?!

September 12, 2012
communciations, finance, funding, infrastructure, management, Marketing water, sustainability, water sewer management, water supplies
Leave a comment

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.

Communication, like water is a need

September 9, 2012
communciations, Environment, finance, funding, infrastructure, management, Marketing water, sustainability, water sewer management, water supplies
Leave a comment

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…

SUSTAINABILITY THROUGHOUT TIME – BUT NOW WHAT?

September 6, 2012
Climate, Environment, groundwater, infrastructure, management, sustainability, water supplies
Leave a comment

I was cruising through Glacier Bay National Park when I wrote this.  Just an inspirational moment.  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?

Interesting…for those of you who are interested in climate change, either side, read this

August 2, 2012
Climate, Environment, management, sustainability
Leave a comment

2012-07-28 conversion-of-climate-change-skeptic  from the New York Times

July 28, 2012
The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
By RICHARD A. MULLER
Berkeley, Calif.
CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the
very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global
warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost
entirely the cause.
My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature
project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two
and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years.
Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the
scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the
prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before
1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.
Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which
allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from
urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the
available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor
ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we
demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.
The historic temperature pattern we observed has abrupt dips that match the emissions of known explosive volcanic eruptions; the
particulates from such events reflect sunlight, make for beautiful sunsets and cool the earth’s surface for a few years. There are small,
rapid variations attributable to El Niño and other ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream; because of such oscillations, the “flattening”
of the recent temperature rise that some people claim is not, in our view, statistically significant. What has caused the gradual but
systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar
activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide,
measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.
Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record of
sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the
“Little Ice Age,” a period of cooling from the 14th century to about 1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past
250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes. This conclusion is, in retrospect, not too surprising; we’ve learned from satellite
measurements that solar activity changes the brightness of the sun very little.
How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude
is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and
they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least
as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our
analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden
assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed
temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.
It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative,
exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed.
Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down,
not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by
2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or
“Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent
warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is
weaker than tenuous.
The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of
temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that
matches solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with
the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart
of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis.
What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise. I expect the rate of warming to
proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China
continues its rapid economic growth (it has averaged 10 percent per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically adds
one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years.
Science is that narrow realm of knowledge that, in principle, is universally accepted. I embarked on this analysis to answer questions
that, to my mind, had not been answered. I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global
warming and its human causes. Then comes the difficult part: agreeing across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and
should be done.
Richard A. Muller, a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former MacArthur Foundation fellow, is the
author, most recently, of “Energy for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines.”

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?