Archive

planning

Planning for Change (like sea level rise)

May 1, 2013
Banking industry, Climate, Development loans, Environment, groundwater, infrastructure, Insurance, Leadership, planning, sanitary sewer, sea level rise, stormwater, sustainability, Uncategorized
Leave a comment

After my last post, I was asked about sea level rise and how to get started with the issue in a very “red” area as it was characterized.  I have come to the conclusion that the insurance industry will make sea level rise real for politicians in those places where it is impermissible for bureaucrats to discuss it.  Here’s why.  Say you have a house in a low lying area that is vulnerable to sea level rise and/or storm surge.  One is permanent, the other temporal, but in both cases are potentially catastrophic if you live in this house.  You bought the house, got a loan for 80 or 90% of its value and then got insurance for it.  Now the insurance is there to insure that if your house gets swept away or damaged, there will be enough money to pay off your loan.  That’ s what many people miss.  Insurance is for the bank, no you, which is why your loan documents require that you get and hold insurance while you have the house.  After your loan is paid off, there is no such requirement.

Now let’s say we are out 20 years.   You have enjoyed your house but have decided to sell it.  Now the banks will value it and are willing to loan say 80% of its value.  They of course assume that the house will increase in value with time so even if you make no improvements, if they have to foreclose on it they will get their money back (a major part of the problem with the financial crisis of 2008 was they banks could not get their money out of the properties).   Even if it doesn’t, as your loan is paid down, their risk decreases.   The loan documents require that you get insurance to cover your costs.

So far so good, but what happens when the insurers will not give you insurance for the full value of the property?  In Florida the State creates Citizen’s to deal with the fact that private, commercial insurers saw too much risk in coastal areas and refused to issue policies.  Now the State and Citizen’s have the risk.  Fine, but that isn’t dealing with the same issue – if the insurer think the value of the property will decrease, or the risk increases a lot, they will not issue policies. Or they will revise policies to say they will pay once – but will not insure you for rebuilding.  You may think this will not happen, but Citizen’s is already discussing this option.  Hence if you lose your house, they will pay you (so you can pay the bank, and then you are on your own.  Now the bank may be willing to offer you a distressed property as an options (Welcome to Detroit), but that won’t be in the same risk zone.

Take this further, let’s say Citizen’s for example says we will pay full value if you lose the house but will not insure a rebuild?  That means they probably will not give insurance to the guy who wants to buy our house in 20 years.  How much is your house worth now?  Probably nothing, which means now the bank will be looking at your insurance coverage and say – whoa – if the house is not worth anything on a resale, that means they may not get paid when you sell your house if you sell if before it is paid off (the norm)!!  That is an unacceptable risk, and they need a solution.  Of course if your house suddenly has no value, it means local governments get no revenue for taxes (good for you, but bad for providing essential services like storm water.  You may not believe this discussion is happening, but it is.

So here’s what I think happens.  I think the banks figure this out and start looking at vulnerability as a part of loans.  I think they start thinking about what the value in 20 or 30 years might be and if they can get their loan monies back out of property.  That will slow property values.  I think the insurance industry does the same, and working with banks will further set the prices acceptable for vulnerable property.  They are not good investments. If you own such property, you may get insurance in the short-term, but long-term your house value may decrease.  At some point, your house will have no resale value, unless……

BUT there iis a big caveat to all this.  Coastal areas are high value markets.  Lots of activity and lots of investment opportunities.  It all depends on what is being done to protect those properties, and depending on the federal governments to bail out private property is unrealistic.  It is a local issues, so I also think the banks and insurance industry will start looking at what local governments are doing to protect investments in private property.  Do they have a sea level rise adaptation plan?  Are the storm water systems updated/upgrades/maintained?  Are roads, water supplies and sewer systems capable of functioning under the changed condition?   Is there a 50 or 100 year vision on how the community adapt to nature?  If yes, there is comfort that investments are protected.  If everyone’s head is buried in denial…..Detroit’s calling.  U-haul anyone?

PS  No disrespect to Detroit, my father’s hometown and the home to many of my current and departed family.  For those who do not know, Detroit is high, has access to lots of water, sewer, roads, power and lots of land at reasonable cost, along with a jobs and manufacturing history.  Perfect opportunity, one not lost on our ancestors.

How Long should the Leadership vision be?

April 29, 2013
Climate, Environment, finance, groundwater, infrastructure, Leadership, management, planning, sustainability, Uncategorized, water sewer management, water supplies
Leave a comment

We do 5, 10 and 20 year plans for infrastructure.  But how long do we expect to this infrastructure to last?  For example, how many roads only last 10 or 20 years?  Most roads only seem to grow with time.  Ancient Roman roads are the basis for many current roads.  We keep adding roads – few are ever abandoned. They simply do not go away.   So a 5, 10 or 20 year planning period makes little sense.

Roads are not the only limit.  The WPA-era water mains are approaching 80 years old, and still providing good service, and our Clean Water Act-era sewer improvements are approaching 40.  Sewer lines are similarly situated.  Many water plants are over 70; we celebrate 100 years on many.  Again, planning for only 20 years makes little sense in the context of the larger length of time.

More interesting, we rarely borrow money to pay for these projects for less than 20, 30 or 40 years.  So our infrastructure outlives our plans and our borrowing.  Often permits are less that the borrowing for infrastructure, which can cause stranded capacity in plants that may never be used.  Miami-Dade County has such a situation – they are not alone.

Let’s look at this in the context of groundwater withdrawals.  There are areas across the US where groundwater levels have fallen. They have fallen because of human activity to pump them for crops and water use.  Colorado has a 100 year management plan in the Denver basin which is basically make the water last 100 years.  Then what?  Texas has shorter plans.  The eastern Carolina drained parts of the Black Creek already, so this is not a theoretical western state issue only.  How do we address this?

Or let’s go back to Miami-Dade County the outer banks of North Carolina, historical downtown Charleston, SC, and many other venues where sea level rise could impact water, sewer, storm water and roadway infrastructure. As we redevelop those area, should plans look at the true life of those assets (100 years) vs. the 20 year plan?

Both issues involve the sustainability of infrastructure systems, which means the ability to adapt them to changing future conditions.  We have known for 10-15 years that stationarity is no longer accepted for future projections.  But we need leadership to move the infrastructure planning to the future changing conditions.

More on Leadership

April 22, 2013
infrastructure, Leadership, management, planning, sustainability
Leave a comment

In our prior blogs we talked about leaders and who they were.  I got a couple comments about those on the list, and those perhaps not.  So perhaps a little more digging is needed to illustrate the points.  For the purposes of this commentary, let’s focus on the social leaders, often political in nature.   Again, let’s do this based on quick perceptions, as opposed to deeper digging, because perception shapes our reality.  I was asked about George Washington.  In many respects Washington was our first “leader” in the Presidency, but his actions there were mostly non-descript.  He is mostly remembered as a good wartime general.  Even then,  there was really nothing to indicate he was or would be a great leader in government except that everyone respected him because of his accomplishments.  Keep in mind leaders are measured by their followers, so given the amount of respect for his accomplishment she commanded, Washington had many followers.  But perhaps his greatest demonstration of leadership was his refusal to become our king.  He noted that he had led an effort to avoid a monarchy and thought it disrespectful to those that had fallen to recreate one.  He led the revolution for change, but a permanent change.  He was supportive of the crazy radical liberal thinkers who actually had the audacity to think that a democracy by the people could really work.  We have no appreciation of just how crazy this idea was in 1776 because we have lived it as the norm for over 200 years.  But in 1776, it was anything but the norm, and the leadership in creating that democracy should rightfully be laced on James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe, all of whom played major parts in developing the Federalist papers, Constitution and Declaration of Independence.  All had a vision of what the US could be and were able to bring others along to implement it.  Each was perhaps more of a leader as President than Washington.

But our first great leader was Lincoln, who was not always that popular as President.  Again there was nothing particularly distinguishing about Lincoln that would lead one to think he would be a great leader, but the struggles Lincoln had faced throughout his life had prepared him for the darkest hours of the young USA.  He inherited a situation where half the country had an economy based on slave labor, did not recognize slaves as people but as property, were determined to maintain their way of life and were willing to risk armed conflict to preserve it regardless of the impact on the young union.  Prior presidents and Congresses had refused to alter the status quo to keep the peace, which really festered the issue for many years and hardened positions further.  When the CSA attacked Fort Sumter and Lincoln acted.  Lincoln set a course to protect the union at all costs.  He refused to recognize the CSA as a legitimate nation (which would later make their re-entry to the union easier), instituted marshal law by executive declaration and set about to rework (change) the federal bureaucracy to support the wartime effort.  He recognized that money would be an issue, so he set a competitor, Salmon P. Chase, to create the central banking system, a major change in how a government did business.  Marshal law restricted activity that might be detrimental to the union, a radical departure from the past.  He bided his time before the change to emancipate former slaves by executive proclamation, and allowing them to fight as full members of the army. He updated the military, and despite setbacks with generals, kept changing them until they provided the results he wanted.  He pursued new developments in weaponry, yet made sure he engaged the servicemen with frequent visits to the battlefield and hospitals.  He created a vision, and became the living personification of it.  The citizens of the north bought into his vision and mission and sacrificed significantly.  In the end he preserved the union, and offered the rebels readmission with relatively limited penalty.  He was unfortunately assassinated prior to seeing his full vision.  The ugliness of civil rights that lasted another 100 years likely would not have made Lincoln happy.

Our next leader also inherited a difficult situation – FDR.  The nation was at the depths of the Great Depression caused by banking speculation in real estate, economic collapse in Europe and other factors, creating rampant unemployment, and devolved financial system.  A few starts and stops aside, FDR convinced Congress to borrow and spend money for construction WPA projects that updated or initiated water, sewer, parks, storm water and roadway projects that updated much of the south and rural areas.  He created regulations for banking and securities, including separated banking and investment monies that protected us (until many were repealed in 2000), insured personal banking accounts through the creation of FDIC, created oversight agencies like the SEC, and initiated social security in response to the banking crisis that left many older Americans in poverty, which was the start of the societal social net.  In the second half of his terms, he led a frightened nation to victory in WWII, setting up the greatest economic boom on US history.  He also died before his vision was fully realized, but his successor, led us through to plan to avoid the errors in dealing with the defeated after WWI, developing the Marshal Plan to rebuild the defeated German and Japanese economies and creating a better model for international communication (United Nations).  Both built on changes from past thinking about how to deal with the issues.

The next social leader was never elected:  Martin Luther King led us to the completion of Lincoln’s dream to integrate all Americans into one nation.  He gained champions in Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, who pushed forward civil rights legislation along with major changes in policy in the form of Medicare and Medicaid. Even Johnson acknowledged that signing the Civil Rights legislation would create a backlash among certain Americans who would abandon his party. But he made the hard choice to change.

Arguments could be made for Teddy Roosevelt, who led us to setting aside parks, and Woodrow Wilson in WWI.  It is not a coincidence that President Obama was pursued “Change” as a mantra, although he has yet to be able to institute consensus for a lot of change.  For most of the rest of our political leaders, what leadership did they display?  Harding?  Buchanon?  Grant?  Andrew Johnson?  Taft?  Hoover?  Tyler?  So many others.  Leadership is indeed difficult to come by, but leadership is defined by dealing with an opportunity, and the leaders are agents of change to resolve that issue, not the status quo.  Too many of our political leaders have desperately attempted to maintain the status quo.  As I have mentioned in classes I have taught to elected officials – no one remembers, and no one builds statues to the guy who refused to raise taxes.  We remember and build statues to those who implement change, not those that maintain the status quo.  And while all changes may not be positive, trying to return to the 1890s, is not leadership.

Barriers to Public Sector Leaders? Part 3

April 11, 2013
communciations, finance, infrastructure, Leadership, management, planning, sustainability, Uncategorized, water sewer management
Leave a comment

In the last two blogs we discussed the three issues were associated with risk tolerance in the public sector which stifles innovation, application of business principles to public sector efforts, and the lack of vision and understanding of consequences.  In this blog we will explore the third issue – the lack of vision.  This is perhaps the hardest of the three parameters discussed.  One would think that applying private sector business principles would help with the vision process, but it does not because the terms for elected officials are comparatively short term.  In addition, our demands on the private sector are short term profits which has hurt the long-term vision of both public and private sectors.

What is a vision?  It is supposed to be a concept of where you want your organization to be in a longer-term future.  It is an agent for change and those developing the vision are outlining the change they want in the organization.  What services are to be provided, what water sources are to be used, energy self sufficiency, wastewater reuse opportunities, incorporation of storm water to sources waters, etc.? All possible ideas, but they only scratch the surface of the universe of opportunities that might exist.  The key is change, which normally requires thinking outside the proverbial box.  Change rarely comes from doing the same thing over and over.  Change requires innovation. So by its very nature, the status quo is not leadership because no change is required.  Managers who “don’t rock the boat” may be excellent managers, but they are not leaders.  Elected officials who’s mantra is not to raise rates, are not leaders either.

Your customers often are a great source for defining vision.  They will tell you what services they want.  I recall a meeting went to where I was talking about leadership to some elected officials.  The public was present in force.  I brought up the concept of developing a vision.  The public was encouraged.   They spoke out about ideas.  All very good.  Then one of the Board members informed everyone that vision statements were the job of the attorney and he would just write one up.  That did not go over nearly as well as that Board member had hoped.  He was abdicating his roles in overseeing the utility as well as any leadership role he might have hoped to have.  The public knew what they wanted, and it was clearly change, something the Board member clearly did not want.

So the question is “are we that afraid of change that we cannot tolerate leadership?” Are managers and elected officials so concerned about change that they actively suppress it despite public outcry?  I often raise the following question when talking to elected officials – how many statues have been raised for politicians who did not raise rates?  We’ll talk about that next time…

Barriers to Public Sector Leaders? Part 2

April 5, 2013
Environment, infrastructure, innovation, Leadership, management, planning, sustainability, Uncategorized, water sewer management
Leave a comment

In the last blog we discussed the three issues were associated with risk tolerance in the public sector which stifles innovation, application of business principles to public sector efforts, and the lack of vision and understanding of consequences.  In this blog we will explore the second issue – application of business issue into the public sector.  The public and private sectors are different.  We need to recognize this.  For the most part, the public sector does those things that the private sector deems to be averse toward profits.  Clearly everyone needs water, but if you can’t get people to pay for it, you can’t make a business out of it.  Enter government, which has the ability to lein and condemn houses for failure to be connected.  A bit more incentive.

Or take fire service.  Fire service in New York was once a private affair.  You paid and the fire company would respond.  If your house caught fire and you had not paid, then what.  No one shows.  This was illustrated nicely in the movie “Gangs of New York” and was the catalyst for creating the NYC fire department.  And many others.  It simply is not acceptable to have some people but not all, because of the risk to everyone.  Vaccinations are the same way.  Much easier to implement by government.  And historically this is what has happened.

But we often hear the commentary about how we should be “running government like a business.” However I suggest this is an oversimplified argument that ignores true differences in the objectives of the public and private sector.   The two sectors are different and let’s look at an example.  If you were in charge of Ford Motor Company and let’s say you had only two vehicles, the F150 pickup (largest selling vehicle in the US) which has a high profit margin, or a passenger vehicle which does not have a high profit margin and does not sell nearly as well.  If you determine that your revenues are likely to decrease as a result of the economy, where do you make cuts?  There is an easy metric – cutting costs and reducing production of the passenger vehicle might actually maintain or improve your profit margin.  So that manager looks like a brilliant leader.

He (generic) now gets hired to run a City because of his success at Ford.  The City of course has a revenue shortfall, so what does he do? Much more difficult.  He has police, fire, parks and recreation, planning, etc. so where do you cut.  None of them are profit centers; they are all services, the value of which cannot easily be measured.  He could evaluate the risk of higher losses if he cuts the fire department, but that likely has other issues.  Hence there is a distinct different in the metrics between the sectors.  So he cuts all services the same amount – sharing the pain because there is no means to measure the impact of success of cutting costs. Every government employee recognizes this method to reduce the budget.  So how would that have worked at Ford?  Well, cutting back on the F150 and the passenger vehicle the same percent would likely make the overall situation worse, not better.  A Ford executive making that type of decision would be roundly criticized and likely dismissed, but that same person is viewed as a successful manager in the public sector.  Nonesense.  He’s still an idiot and deserves to be fired.  Ditto the other officials that go along with such simplistic decision-making.

The public and private sectors are different, and while there are commonalities, the inability to directly measure impacts on the public sector make private sector applications suspect in many situations.  Curtaining services that have much larger, unanticipated consequences, a risk that dissuades innovation because of the inherent risks and the risk of impacting some powerful constituency. Simplistic solutions that are commonly offered up simply mean that these “leaders” simply do not understand what their “products” are nor which ones are a priority.  And hence they abdicate their decision-making for simplistic solutions that seem “fair.”  Successful leaders in business and government will tell you lesson #1 is life is not fair. We need leadership to help us make better decisions.

Should Coastal Utility Master Plans Include Sea Level Rise?

March 21, 2013
Climate, communciations, Environment, finance, funding, infiltration gallery, infrastructure, innovation, Insurance, Leadership, management, planning, riverbank filtrations, sea level rise, stormwater, sustainability, Uncategorized, water sewer management, water supplies
Leave a comment

Planning is a process utilized by utilities in order to reach a vision of the utility as defined by the customers or the governing board, or to meet certain demands for service projected to be required in the future.  Understanding and managing the utility’s assets provides important information related to the ongoing future direction of the utility system.  However, the only method to develop that future direction is through the planning process.  Planning should be undertaken on a regular basis by all enterprises in an effort to anticipate in to anticipate needs, clarify organizational goals, provide direction for the organization to pursue and to communicate each of these to the public.  With water and wastewater utility systems, it is imperative to have ongoing planning activities, as many necessary improvements and programs take months or years to implement and/or complete.  Without a short and long-term plan to accomplish future needs, the utility will suffer errors in direction, build unnecessary or inadequate infrastructure and pursue programs that later are found to provide the wrong information, level of service or type of treatment.

Planning can provide for a number of long-term benefits – improvements in ISO ratings to lower fire insurance rates, renewal of improvements as monies become available, rate stability and most importantly – a “vision” for the utility.  In creating any plan for a utility system, efforts to understand the operating environment in which the utility operates must be undertaken.  Second, the needs of the utility must be defined – generally from growth projections and analyses of current infrastructure condition from repair records or specific investigations.  By funneling this information into the planning process, the result of the effort should be a set of clear goals and objectives needs to be defined (Figure 8.1).  However, the types of goals and objectives may vary depending on the type of plan developed.  There are 4 types of plans that may result from the planning process.

  • Strategic Plans – action oriented for management level decision-making and direction
  • Integrated Resource Plans – Actions for utility management to tie all parts of the system together
  • Facilities Plans – for SRF loans support
  • Master Plans – to support capital improvement programs

Any utility planning effort should start with a description (and understanding) of the local environment (built and otherwise).  An understanding of the environment from which water is drawn or to be discharged is important.  Both water quality and available quantity, whether surface or ground water, are profoundly affected by demand.  A reduced demand for surface water helps prevent degradation of the quality of the resource in times of low precipitation.  Reduction in the pumping of ground water improves the aquifer’s ability to withstand salt water infiltration, potential surface contamination, upconing of poorer quality water, contamination by septic tank leachate, underground storage tank leakage, and leaching hazardous wastes and other pollutants from the surface.  Over-pumping ground water leads denuding the aquifer or to contamination of large sections of the aquifer.  Planning for is necessary for surface water systems.  Therefore, source water protection must be a part of any water planning efforts, including the appropriate application sites and treatment needs for reuse and residuals.

So let’s toss sea level rise into the mix.  What happens when sea level rise inundates coastal areas with saltwater and increase freshwater heads inland?  How do we fix that problem and should be plan for it.  Clearly master planning should include this threat (as applicable), just as any regulatory issue, water limitation, disposal limit or change in business practices should be considered.  One means to reduce the impact of sea level induced groundwater levels is infiltration galleries that may operate 24/7.  These systems are commonly used to dispose of storm water (french drains or exfiltration trenches) but what happens if the flow is reversed?  Water will flow easily into the system, just as it does for riverbank filtration. The water must be disposed of, with limited options, but let’s toss a crazy idea out there – could it be your new water supply?  Just asking, but such a system would not be unprecedented worldwide, only in the coastal communities of the US.

When do we get serious about sea level rise?

March 18, 2013
Banking industry, Climate, Development loans, Environment, finance, groundwater, infrastructure, Insurance, Leadership, management, planning, sanitary sewer, sea level rise, stormwater, sustainability, Tidal flooding, Uncategorized, water sewer management, water supplies
Leave a comment

Based on my last blog, his inquiry came to me.  And I think I actually have an answer:  when bakers and insurance companies decide there is real exposure.  Let’s see why it will take these agencies.  There is very little chance, regardless of good faith efforts, significant expertise, or conscientious bureaucrats to stop growth and development.  The lobby is simply too strong and local officials are looking for ways to raise more revenues.  Development is the easiest way to increase your tax base.  As long as there are no limits placed on develop-ability of properties (and I don’t mean like zoning or concurrency), development will continue.  But let’s see how this plays out.  Say you are in an area that is likely to have the street inundated permanently with water as a result of sea level rise (it could be inland groundwater, not just coastal saltwater).  For a time public works infrastructure can deal with the problem, but ultimately the roadways will not be able to be cleared.  Or say you are located on the coast, and repeated storm events have damaged property.  In both cases the insurance companies will do one of three things:  Refuse to insure the property, insure the property (existing) only for replacement value (i.e. you get the value to replace) but no ability to get replacement insurance, or the premiums will be ridiculous.  We partially have this issue in Florida right now.  Citizen’s is the major insurer.  It’s an insurance pool created by the state to deal with the fact that along the coast, you cannot get commercial insurance.  So Citizens steps in.  The state has limited premiums, and while able to meet its obligations, in a catastrophic storm would be underfunded (of course in theory is should have paid out very little since 2006 since no major hurricanes have hit the state, but that’s another story). 

As the risk increases, Citizens and FEMA, the federal insurer, have a decision to make.  Rebuilding where repeated impacts are likely to happen is a poor use of resources and unlikely to continue.  Beaches and barrier islands will be altered as a result.  The need will be to move people out of these areas, so the option above that will be selected will be to pay to replace (move inland or somewhere else).  Then the banks will sit up.  The banks will see that the value of these properties will not increase.  In fact they will decline almost immediately if the insurance agencies say we pay only to relocate.  That means that if the borrowers refuse to pay, the bank may not be able to get its money out of the deal on a resale.  We have seen the impact on banks from the loss of property values as a result of bad loans.  We are unlikely to see banks engage in similar risks in the future and unlikely to see the federal insurers (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac) or commercial re-insurers like AIG be willing to underwrite these risks.   So where insurance is restricted, borrowing will be limited and borrowing time reduced.  That will have a drastic impact on development.  The question is what local officials will do about it?

There are options to adapt to sea level rise, and both banking and insurance industries will be paying close attention in future years.  Local agencies will need a sea level rise adaptation plan, including policies restricting development, a plan to adapt to changing sea and ground water levels including pumping systems to create soil storage capacity, moving water and sewer systems, abandoning roadways, and the like, and hardening vulnerable treatment plants.  Few local agencies have these plans in place.  Many local officials along the Gulf states refuse to acknowledge the risk.  What does that say about their prospects?  Those who plan ahead will benefit.  Southeast Florid a is one of those regions that is planning, but it is slow process and we are only in the early stages.

Groundwater Accelerates Sea Level Rise

March 14, 2013
Climate, communciations, Development loans, Environment, funding, groundwater, infrastructure, Insurance, Leadership, management, planning, sea level rise, stormwater, sustainability, Tidal flooding, Uncategorized
Leave a comment

Regardless of the causes, southeast Florida, with a population of 5.6 million (one-third of the State’s population), is among the most vulnerable areas in the world for climate change due its coastal proximity and low elevation (OECD, 2008; Murley et al. 2008), so assessing sea level rise (SLR) scenarios is needed to accurately project vulnerable infrastructure (Heimlich and Bloetscher, 2011). We know that sea level has been rising for over 100 years in Florida (Bloetscher, 2010, 2011; IPCC, 2007). Various studies (Bindoff et al., 2007; Domingues et al., 2008; Edwards, 2007; Gregory, 2008; Vermeer and Rahmstorf, 2009; Jevrejeva, Moore and Grinsted, 2010; Heimlich, et al. 2009) indicate large uncertainty in projections of sea level rise by 2100. Gregory et al. (2012) note the last two decades, the global rate of SLR has been larger than the 20th-century time-mean, and Church et al. (2011) suggested further that the cause was increased rates of thermal expansion, glacier mass loss, and ice discharge from both ice-sheets. Gregory et al. (2012) suggested that there may also be increasing contributions to global SLR from the effects of groundwater depletion, reservoir impoundment and loss of storage capacity in surface waters due to siltation. The loss of groundwater, mainly from confined aquifers, is troubling, and currently completely unknown. The contribution of carbon dioxide, commonly occurring in deep groundwater is also unknown. To gauge the risk to property in southeast Florida, Southeast Florida Regional Climate Compact and Florida Atlantic University reviewed twelve different projections of SLR and its timing. The consensus was 3” to 7” by 2030 and 9” to 24” by 2060. From the literature review and analysis, it was concluded that approximately 3 ft. of sea level rise by 2100 would a suitable scenario and time frame to illustrate the methodology presented in this article. To allow flexibility in the analysis due to the range of increases within the different time periods, an approach that uses incremental increases of 1, 2, and 3 feet of SLR was considered for risk scenarios. An issue normally ignored in sea level rise projections is groundwater. The importance of the groundwater table in the model is that it is responsible for determining the soil storage capacity. Soil is composed of solids, water, and air (voids). Soil storage capacity depends on physical and chemical properties, water content of the soil, and depth to the water table or confining unit (Gregory et al 1999). As the rain infiltrates the soil, unsaturated pores quickly fill up, effectively raising the water table (Gregory et al 1999). For example efforts, a groundwater surface elevation map was derived based well site information available from the USGS (http://groundwaterwatch.usgs.gov) that had a minimum of 35 years of continuous data. Using GIS, an inundation model was created in GIS by subtracting the groundwater surface model from the digital elevation model with the difference in elevation being the soil storage capacity. The photo shows the evolution of these features as applied to a section of northwestern Miami-Dade County. What this indicates it that the impact of sea level rise on low-lying inland areas may be far different that the projections using the bathtub models. It also means that wellfields, sewer mains, roadways and storm water systems will be affected far more quickly than projected from bathtub models. The method used here suggested that the estimated may be off by a factor of two of three.

OnSIte Power At Utility Plants?

March 6, 2013
Climate, Leadership, planning, power demands, power-water nexus, sustainability, Uncategorized
Leave a comment

Since Richard Nixon was President, the federal government has been talking about reducing our reliance of foreign oil.  Since 2008, our dependence has dropped from 57 to 42 percent.  The foreign oil has been replaced by domestic oil and gas, conversion of power plants to natural gas, and investments in renewable power like wind (4% US production and) and solar power.  Coal has remained a constant, although future regulations of coal plant emission may alter this.  Federal loans from DOE have included $13 billion for solar energy, 1.7 billion for wind and 10 billion for nuclear power.  All other renewables account for 1.2 billion.  Power companies have invested in the renewable technologies in part because of low loan rates from the federal government, and partly due to tax credits (2.2 cents/kW-hr), but power entities like NextEra Energy have made cleaner power a basis of their future.  So what does this have to do with water utilities?  First, water and wastewater plant are often the largest users on the power grind in communities.  This is why they are able to get load control agreements.  The peak demands are the load control agreements, which means power providers can construct fewer plants, and keep rates down.  At the same time water and wastewater utilities benefit fro reduced rates, but have construct backup systems (which are needed if the power grid fails anyway.  Benefit to both parties.  But as the demands for power on the grid increase, and as regional demands in areas that are substantially constructed already, locating new power is difficult.  Transmission losses are 6 or more percent, and involve complicated federal FERC regulations.  So the SMART grid issue is distributed power, and finding sites for distributed power might be tough.  Or maybe not.  Water and wastewater plants have land, so there is an obvious fit.  But the rub is that if the water and wastewater people own the facilities, it decreases the peak capacity, meaning the power entities must build more capacity.  So perhaps there is a means to get revenues (leases) to water folks, while helping the smart grid.  I am thinking about developing a project proposal for this.  Let me know if you are interested.  Meanwhile if you have a success story, I’d love to hear it.

Planning the Future or Not?

March 2, 2013
Climate, communciations, finance, funding, groundwater, infrastructure, Leadership, management, planning, power demands, power-water nexus, sustainability, Uncategorized
Leave a comment

Many of you will remember in the 1980s there was a book called Megatrends by John Naisbett, and a later update called Megatrends 2000 and a host of other megatrend documents.  The concept was to look for global or national trends that might impact out future.  I recalled this while I was reading an article from Forbes and Public Works magazines recently talking about the future, and development of megaregions.  They project 11 megaregions in the US that will develop by 2050.  Most are in process already and are familiar:  1) Pacific Northwest (Vancouver to Portland), 2) Bay Delta, 3) Southern California, 4) Front range (Cheyenne to Albuquerque, 5) Phoenix/Tucson, 6) Texas Triangle (Houston-Dallas-San Antonio, 7)  Gulf Coast (Houston to Mobile), 8)  Florida (I-4/I95), 9)  Piedmont (Atlanta to Raleigh), 10)  Northeast (Washington DC to Boston), and 11) southern Great Lakes (the old “Rust Belt”).  If you are looking for economic growth, all signs point to these 11 region.  Most are located along interstates which makes transportation by truck easier.  Several have port access and most rail.  The projection is for more people to move from the rural areas to these regions, and for the influx of immigrants to likewise migrate here.  But an issue not noted as a part of these projection is that only three of them are not water limited, and those three include the two oldest regions:  Rust Belt stats and the northeast where there is water.  In addition, three of these areas are characterized by potential adverse climate impacts (Pacific Northwest, Texas, and Front Range) that will adversely impact their future water availability.  In all but the historical cases, embedded power availability is lacking, creating competing interests with the water industry.  So where is the planning and forecasting models for 2050 and beyond for these regions?  Some jurisdictions have seen attacks on traditional planning activities as unduly limiting development, implement specific agendas, and other nefarious reasons.  Florida scrapped most of its growth management/concurrency requirements in this vein.  After all, why should you insure there is water in order to issue development permits right?  That might limit development! Why not manage an aquifer for 100 years, to insure a 100 year supply, not to insure the supply remains available indefinitely.  Both short term goals conflict with the theory of constraints which says that any system is limited in achieving its goals by a very small number of constraints; kinda the old idiom “a chain is no stronger than its weakest link.”  The concept requires the application and investigation of the situation in enough detail to gain an understanding of the constraints and to construct an optimized solution.  Keep in mind that often maximizing certain goals, will cause others to suffer.  A familiar example, you can have construction occur fast and with high value, but not at a low price.  You can achieve certain reliability of water supplies, and improve economics, but you need to understand other impacts.  Too often planners focus on meeting the goals of the client, while ignoring competing goals, which ultimately leads to greater costs down the line.  As these megaregions are well on their way to development, we need to begin the process (a bit late, but better late than never) to understand the limitations each region will face with respect to water supplies and how those water supplies impact competing economies.  Failure to do so could create constraints within the regions that restrict their growth and economic potential.