Archive

Tag Archives: finance

Are Pensions Really Broke?

May 28, 2013
funding, Leadership, management, Uncategorized
Leave a comment

Are Pensions Really Broke?

Nearly 10 years ago it was predicted that the water industry would experience a large exodus of experienced workers.  It did not happen; likely it was only delayed by the 2008 financial crisis.  If that is the case, will there be an acceleration of retirements in the next few years?  If so, what are the plans the plans for knowledge capture? GIS, work orders, MMIS, and other programs will help, but capture is important as the next “generation” of employees will not have the advantage of years of experience in finding valves, and pipes, etc.  We need to plan ahead for the knowledge capture issue, develop training for newer employees and figure a means to access lost knowledge in the future.  Capture is a big issue, but what we hear more of is the potential for a drain on our resources for funding these retirements?  The news is full of stories of dire consequences of retirement defaults coming for the public sector.  Keep in mind many utilities are publically owned and these employees are part of the public retirement systems.  Is this real or a political position for another agenda?  Do we need to be worried?

Interestingly it depends on whether you were looking before 2008 or after.  This picture was very different.  Even in my state of Florida, the pension system was fully funded before 2008, dropped just after, but has returned to near full funding as a result of the improvement in investment returns.  Most of these systems rely on investment returns so changes can cause the system solvency to change rapidly over short periods of time.  Looking only at a short instant in time belies the long-term truth and  it is the longer view we need to look at.  Good thing Wall Street normally goes up, but the impact of poor investment strategies by a limited few (2008) has significant impacts across society in everyone’s pension programs.  Look at all the 401k programs – those incurred crushing blows just as pension programs did.  So yes there may be problems, but many of these pension systems are not nearly as strapped as you would be led to believe in part because they have always relied on people continuing to pay into the system.  Hence they always have cash flow, unlike personal accounts.

The long-term view or the impact on personal accounts doesn’t faze the “fixers” who have many ideas to “fix” the pension problem.  One of the concepts championed is to change enrollment to a 401k vs a fixed benefit system.  Another camp suggests privatizing.  But both radically change the long-term solvency of vested employees and here’s why.  Under the current concept for public retirement systems, your employer and often you, pay matching amounts into the system.  According to a study done some years back in Florida, over 80% of people who get public sector jobs do not stay long enough to become vested in the system.  That means that while they get their contributions back, the retirement system keeps the match, reducing long term costs to the public.  All full time employees pay into the system. Retirement systems rely on cash flow from current employees for payouts to retirees, thereby protecting the invested funds and allowing the system to “weather” periodic financial difficulties.  That’s why the system solvency will based on what is happening on the stock market.  The system is designed to grow at a given rate, so if you reduce the people paying in, you accelerate the use of invested dollars because the cash flow diminishes.  In many respects that is what happened to some of the industrial pension systems –automation and outsourcing jobs overseas cut down the payees so much that the pension system could not sustain itself.  So it’s relatively easy to demonstrate that both cutting jobs through privatizing and 401k type programs accelerate the crisis and will create future burdens on the taxpaying public.  These two solutions sound great, but are simply unsound.

There are other ways to mess up retirement systems.  The federal workforce has decreased from 6.6 million in the late 1960s to 4.5 million today.  Clearly the reduction in employees contributing will have an impact on significant federal pensions.  Florida and many other states, with the windfalls on the late 1990s, reduced vesting from 10 years to 5 or 6.  That means that a greater percent of people will become vested, which means more future obligations.  That’s not a solution for solvency.  Florida’s legislature changed the contributions from only the government entity paying (a total of 10.4%) and required employees to contribute.  The employee match is their money and they get it back with interest, meaning only 7./4% remains in the system.  If experience with social security and other states is an indication, both shares will have to increase so that their combined total will be in the 13-14% range.  How did hat save anyone money?

So what’s the solution?  Two things.  First, the initial way these pension plans were set up were actuarially sound.  They should be revisited for contribution amounts, vesting period and expected return rates on investments (one of social security’s issues is that they own so many Treasury bonds that pay under 2% that it is hard to get a valuable rate of return).  This is a project for experts, not policians to consider and evaluate.  The big issue though is age for retirement. I know this is not popular, but let’s talk social security here as an example.   The text of the 1935 Social Security Act says that benefits were to be granted at age 65 (Section 202).  However the average age that people live to was 60 for men and 64 for women, meaning the average person NEVER collected social security.  Now it is 76 and 81, which means they collect for 12 to 15 years, tremendous difference in the obligations.  We all appreciate good medicine and most look forward to retirement, but keep in mind it comes with a price.  Since 50 is the new 30, we probably will all probably can be working longer.

Water and sewer workers like police and fire, are vital to thriving communities. So, let’s act with caution when looking at fiscal impacts that may come to utilities in the future. Since many of these folks have, and have worked hard to secure a retirement package, it will need to be funded.  But we must act judiciously when making changes to the current program.  Cut off payees – and ratepayers will make up the difference.  Change the type of program, and the potential for major losses occurs.

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?

April 1, 2013
infrastructure, innovation, Leadership, management, Uncategorized, water sewer management
Leave a comment

One of the issues that arises in the public water utility sector is where are the leaders?  A recent online discussion of the issue identified a number of barriers to public sector leadership, which differentiates the public sector from the private sector.  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.  Related to the latter is the understanding of the various types and perspectives of expertise within the industry.  Over the next three blogs, we will talk about each.  Comments welcome of course.

So the first one.  For the most part, public officials, city managers, finance directors and elected officials, are particularly risk averse individuals as a group.  For one thing, their tenure in any given job is relatively short (city manager are aground 2-3 years).  Elected officials spend much of their time trying to stay in office, so clearly their leadership is guided by public opinion, never a strong point for leadership. Regulatory agencies can only be criticized, so why be innovative? For all three, plus the employees working beneath these folks, their performance is in the public eye and the public is rarely forgiving of continued or significant failures.  However, innovation is often correlated with risk, which suggests that the risk associated with failure may limit the pursuit or acceptance of innovation – instead keep doing what you have been doing because that creates no waves.  Nevermind that the same old way may be inefficient or outdated, the concern is the risk if a new idea fails.  The reality is to “stick with what works,” a mantra that has existed in the industry for many yeas, does not accept innovation easily.  Particularly of issue is organizations where many mid- and often upper division managers avoid decision-making, but may be particularly poignant in pointing out decision failures of others as a means to improve their own stock – “I’ve never made a bad decision.”  But as in baseball, sitting on the bench 0 for 0, means you have never had an at bat, so you have accomplished nothing, while the person who is 6/10 may have accomplished a lot.  It is successful risk taking that may lead to changes in the organization, changes in doing business, improvements in efficiency and new means to accomplish tasks or deliver services.  You need to think “outside the box,” to use an overused euphemism.

So the question is how do we get the public and the public officials to accept risk taking, and to relax their risk averseness?  For innovation to grow, we need leadership, which means risk tolerance.  After all doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results is the definition of insanity isn’t it?

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.

Market or be Outmarketed

March 10, 2013
communciations, finance, funding, Leadership, Marketing water, sustainability, Uncategorized, water supplies
Leave a comment

Municipal drinking water is strictly regulated by the USEPA.  We spend a lot of time testing our water, producing reports, and providing our customers with information on our results.  The results show it works, because the number of incidents of contaminated water are few, and rarely affect larger utility systems.  We are so good at providing water that the public expects their water to be safe, yet the buy bottled water?  Wait, huh?  Bottled water? Bottled water is not regulated by the USEPA and is not subject to the same requirements as potable water.  There are less than three full time people at FDA inspecting bottled water facilities, versus thousands reviewing public water supplies.  Water utilities run millions of analyses per year and must publish the results.  So why do they buy bottled water when our water is safe?

Keep in mind that in many areas of the world, the bottled water industries move in and compete for the same supplies as we currently use.  North Florida is rife with arguments over flows to springs as are other areas.  Some of the water is simply repackaged tap water.  So in addition to competing for our customers, they are competing with the sustainability of our drinking water supplies.  Then there are the hundreds of thousands of bottles that end up in landfills.  More impact on sustainability.  At the same time, bottled water is more costly that gasoline, which everyone complains about, but that does not stop the purchases?  So what’s up?

Marketing that’s what.  We don’t market water.  I noted in an earlier blog that we simply don’t market our product, which has allowed others to compete for the same dollars.  Customers complain about rate hikes, (averaging about 5% per year for the past 10 years according to the new AWWA study), yet they happily pay over $4/gallons for many of the popular bottled waters, more and more cable channels, fancy phones, etc.  Not that any of these commercial products are per se bad, but none are required for survival like water.

Interestingly when we do market, it reaps positive results.  New York and San Francisco have seen the wisdom of marketing for year.  They ship New York tap water to Florida to make Brooklyn style bagel because Florida Water doesn’t taste the same.  DC Water changed its name, and began a marketing campaign that changed public perception of the utility and has allowed it to start dealing with its infrastructure backlog.  Some of their ideas include branding the water, and having restaurants serve it in marked glasses, paid for by the utility.  Signs on drinking fountains, in schools and even sales of tap water in stores are options some utilities have started.  But the key is started.  Marketing takes dollars, to reap benefits.  Who knows, maybe tap water is the next bottled water….

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.

What do you believe are the three biggest water challenges in the U.S.? Part 2

February 20, 2013
Climate, Environment, finance, funding, groundwater, infrastructure, Leadership, management, Marketing water, sustainability, Uncategorized, water sewer management, water supplies
Leave a comment

This question has been asked a couple times on on-line discussion groups.  It usually results in a short list of answers.  In the last post, I outlined the number one answer –  getting a handle on failing infrastructure.  The next issue has to do with water supplies.  You hear the argument that we need to get people to respect that drinking water as a limited resource, develop where water supplies are plentiful as opposed to arid regions that are water poor and protecting water sources instead of rendering it unusable in the process of using it. People (and their jobs) are moving to “more favorable” (read: warmer, more arid) climates, so people are now actually trying to grow rice and develop golf courses in the deserts of the Southwest US and complaining about “drought” conditions. The sustainability of groundwater supplies is often noted as a problem because much of the west relies on groundwater for agricultural irrigation. Having a 50 or 100 year management plan for an aquifer, which is how to insure there is water to last 50 or 100 years, is shortsighted, even though it doesn’t sound like it. Long term these areas could run out of water which will create significant economic impacts to these communities. More professionals should be involved in this discussion: regional growth planners; federal and state funders that offer ‘incentives’ to businesses to relocate their workers; city and county governments that accept these ‘incentives’ to beef up their budgets.

But just as cities market their community to developers and industry, it is interesting that marketing services is another issue.  I had a conversation where an elected official said it was inappropriate for government to market. Yet the bottled water industry does, power companies do, and cell phone companies do. Utilities ignore the people that put fliers on houses asking our residents to take a sample of their water, and then attacking the quality of our drinking water by explaining that having calcium and chlorine in the water is bad, should have been addressed long ago. Of course calcium and chlorine are in the water! Chlorine disinfects the water and then keeps the distribution system clean (especially an issue in warmer climates with TOC in the water). Our public is uneducated and we have been out-marketed for scare dollars for 40 years. That is an elected official, but also a water official problem.

What do you believe are the three biggest water challenges in the U.S.?

February 15, 2013
Climate, communciations, Environment, finance, funding, infrastructure, Leadership, management, Marketing water, planning, Uncategorized, water sewer management, water supplies
Leave a comment

This question has been asked a couple times on on-line discussion groups.  It usually results in a short list of answers.  The number one answer is usually getting a handle on failing infrastructure.  The US built fantastic infrastructure systems that allowed our economy to grow and use to be productive, but like all tools and equipment, it degrades, or wears out with time.  In addition, newer infrastructure is more efficient and works better. In many ways we are victims of our own success. People have grown used to the fact that water is abundant, cheap, and safe. Open the tap and here it comes. Flush the toilet and there it goes, without a thought as to what is involved to produce, treat and distribute potable water as well as to collect, treat, and discharge wastewater. Looking to the future, we should take education as one of our challenges.  Our economy and out way of life requires access to high quality water and waste water. So this will continue to be critical.  But utilities have not been proactive in explaining the condition of buried infrastructure in particular, and need more data. The same goes for roadways and many buildings.

Cities are sitting on crumbling systems that have suffered from lack of adequate funding to consistently maintain and upgrade.  In part this is because some believe that clean drinking water is a right instead of a privilege to be paid for. We gladly pay hundreds of dollars per month for cable television and cell phones, but scream at the costs for water delivered to out tap. The discussion usually continues along the lines of utilities are funding at less than half the level needed to meet the 30 year demands while relying on the federal government, which is trying to get out of funding for infrastructure for local utilities. Utilities are a local issue which is some ways makes this easier. Our local leaders to send help with the education (after we educate them), send less money going to the general funds and more retained by utilities.

Perhaps where we have failed is in educating the public. Public agencies are almost always reactive, as opposed to pro-active, which is why we continuously end up in defensive positions and at the lower end of the spending priorities. So we keep deferring needed maintenance. The life cycle analysis concepts used in business would help. A 20 year old truck, pump, backhoe, etc just aren’t cost effective to operate and maintain. We are not very successful at getting this point across.

Money is an issue, and will always be, but the fact that local officials are not stressed about infrastructure is in part because utility personnel are very good at our jobs, minimizing disruptions and keeping the public safe. We are not “squeaky wheels” and we don’t market our product at all. Afterall, is cable or your phone really more valuable that water and sewer?

The Way of the Wolverine

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

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

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

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