Archive

Tag Archives: infrastructure

Why Build Green?

December 5, 2013
communciations, contractors, economy, Education, graduation, Holistic Water Planning, Marketing water, planning, utilities, water supplies
Leave a comment

In the field of engineering, the concept of sustainability refers to designing and managing to fully contribute to the objectives of society, now and in the future, while maintaining the ecological, environmental, and economic integrity of the system.  Most people would agree that structures such as buildings that have a lifespan measured in decades to centuries would have an important impact on sustainability, and as such, these buildings must be looked at as opportunities for building sustainably. When people think about green buildings, what generally comes to mind is solar panels, high efficiency lighting, green roofs, high performance windows, rainwater harvesting, and reduced water use.  This is true, but building green can be so much more.

The truth is that the built environment provides countless benefits to society; but it has a considerable impact on the natural environment and human health (EPA 2010). U.S. buildings are responsible for more carbon dioxide emissions annually than those of any other countries except China (USGBC 2011). In 2004, the total emissions from residential and commercial buildings were 2,236 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), more than any other sector including the transportation and industrial sectors (USGBC 2011). Buildings represent 38.9% of U.S. primary energy use,72% of U.S electricity consumption (and 10% worldwide), 13.6% of all potable water, and 38% of all CO2 emissions (USGBC 2011).  Most of these emissions come from the combustion of fossil fuels to provide heating, cooling, lighting, and to power appliances and electrical equipment (USGBC 2011). Since buildings have a lifespan of 50 to 100 years during which they continually consume energy and produce carbon dioxide emissions, if half of the new commercial buildings were built to use only 50 percent less energy, it would save over 6 million metric tons of CO2 annually for the life of the buildings. This is the equivalent of taking more than one million cars off the roads each year (USGBC 2011).

The United States Green Building Council (USGBC) expects that the overall green building market (both non-residential and residential) to exceed $100 billion by 2015 (McGraw Hill Construction 2009).  Despite the economic issues post 2008, it is expected that green building will support 7.9 million U.S. jobs and pump over $100 million/year into the American economy (Booz Allen Hamilton, 2009). Local and state governments have taken the lead with respect to green building, although the commercial sector is growing.

Green building or high performance building is the practice of creating structures using processes that are environmentally responsible and resource efficient throughout a building’s life cycle, from site to design, construction, operation, maintenance, renovation, and deconstruction (EPA 2010). High performance building standards expand and complement the conventional building designs to include factors related to: economy, utility, durability, sustainability, and comfort. At the same time, green building practices are designed to reduce the overall impact of the built environment on human health and use natural resources more responsibly by more efficiently using energy, water, and other resources, while protecting occupant health and improving employee productivity.

High Performance Buildings are defined by incorporating all major high performance attributes such as energy efficiency, durability, life-cycle performance, natural lighting, and occupant productivity (EPA 2010). High performance buildings are constructed from green building materials and reduce the carbon footprint that the building leaves on the environment. A LEED-certified green building uses 32% less electricity and saves around 30% of water use annually (USGBC 2011). Building owners know that there is a return on investment of up to 40% by constructing a green building as a result of savings to energy and water (NAU 2012).

The cost per square foot for buildings seeking LEED Certification falls into the existing range of costs for buildings not seeking LEED Certification (Langdon, 2007).  An upfront investment of 2% in green building design, on average, results in life cycle savings of 20% of the total construction costs – more than ten times the initial investment (Kats, 2003), while building sale prices for energy efficient buildings are as much as 10% higher per square foot than conventional buildings (Miller et al., 2007). At the same time, the most difficult barrier to green building that must be overcome includes real estate and construction professionals who still overestimate the costs of building green (World Business Council, 2008).

New data indicates that the initial construction cost of LEED Certified buildings can sometimes cost no more than traditional building practices.  A case study done by the USGBC showed that the average premium for a LEED certified silver building was around 1.9% per square foot more than a conventional building.  The premium for gold is 2.2% and 6.8% for platinum.  These numbers are averaged from all LEED-registered projects, so the data is limited, but demonstrates that in some cases it does not cost much extra to deliver a LEED certified project which greatly improves the value of the building and lowers operating costs (Kuban 2010).  The authors’ experience with the Dania Beach nanofiltration plant indicated the premium was under 3% to achieve LEED-Gold certification compared to standard construction.

So the question is, why don’t we see more green buildings?  We know water plants can be green (Dania Beach Nanofiltration Plant), but that was the first nanofiltration plant in the world to be certified Gold.  The SRF programs prioritize green infrastructure – so why do more people not pursue them?  It may be an education process.  Or maybe the market just has not caught up.  CIties and states are leading the way here.  Utilities may want to look at this as well.Image

Engineers are getting hired!

November 25, 2013
communciations, contractors, economy, Education, engineering, local government, utilities
Leave a comment

Graduation is two weeks away for students in the Fall semester.  The good news is that unemployment is down which means more students may find jobs.  We see my students, civil engineers, nearly fully employed for the second straight semester.  That is a good sign that economy is bouncing back. 

Many are being hired by utilities and contractors.  The utilities are starting to spend money after several years of lean revenues.  Unfortunately many of these utilities were lean because their local governments have increased general fund contributions to reduce tax burdens of residents.  Reducing tax burdens by moving more money from utilities to general funds hits the utility twice – infrastructure improvements get delayed and catchup on deferred maintenance mean the hit is double the pay as you go policy.  It is no surprise that our infrastructure condition continues to deteriorate when funds are diverted for other purposes.  Hopefully the trend will reverse, but I am not optimistic. 

Contractor hiring is more interesting.  It seems that contractors are having many of the same issues as utilities have talked about for a number of years:  an aging workforce in the upper levels of the organization.  However the contractors are seeing that young engineers have a skill set not currently existing in many contractor organizations.  Contracting in lean times is a limited profit margin business.  Competing for low bid contracts further limits profits.  However when 40% of the cost for construction is often associated with materials, and 20-25% of materials may be wasted, finding a way to be more efficient can save a lot of money.  Engineers know software and some schools, like FAU, have their students use 3 dimensional (3D) BIM software for their design projects.  The BIM software allows contractors to merge drawings into 3 dimensions, finding conflicts, solving them early and identifying means to reduce materials.  For example, many pieces could be cut out of gypsum board, but often only one is cut.  The rest is tossed.  Saving big on materials creates added profits at the same price.  The benefit is seen as being well worth the cost to contractors.  As more contractors move this direction, more engineers will the hired; a good trend.

The engineering profession should benefit from this change.  As contractors hire engineers, there is the potential for better communication between engineers on contractor teams and design engineers.  The only question is getting the engineering community to adopt the same kind of attitude toward the new software tools like 3D software.  At present, far too many engineers do not believe the risks are reduced sufficiently by the costs of the software.  But adopting new methods for design will help communication with contractors and other engineers.  That communication has a benefit in saving dollars and limiting the potential for claims against design firms when conflicts are found in the design drawings.  We find that establishing a partnering mentality on projects fosters a better working relationship.  Great things can be accomplished. 

Happy BIrthday

October 28, 2013
Climate, Dad, Fall, Holistic Water Planning, infiltration, infiltration gallery, management, Michigan, sea level rise, Sediments in Water, water supplies
Leave a comment

Happy 91st Pop! It’s been 2.5 years since you were last with us, but it’s funny how many things popped (no pun intended) up today that connect to you. Clearly you are still watching what goes on. We had a family summer cottage located 8 miles east of Grayling Michigan. So today I came across an old book entitled the Old AuSable written in 1963 by Hazen Miller, a U of M doctor (you were a U of M aerospace engineer) who wrote about the area back in the day (1870s to 1920s), just before your father purchased property along the AuSable River. It mentions the great grandfather of my dad’s summer playmates, one of whom just died last summer - his obit came up in my email today. Reminded me of many places I went as a kid. Funny it also reminded me of some of the old “names” that are now being lost to time, but created what exists today. It also helped with some perspective on a proposal I have been working on regarding water supplies and quality. The grayling fish disappeared by 1912 as a result of hanged on water quality (warming and silt), human impacts of logging on the fish and the introduction of other species. My proposal looks at impacts of human activity on SE Florida, especially as it relates to sea level rise and the need to capture additional soil storage capacity through infiltration trenches. The water cannot be discharged to tide due to Human-induced nutrient and roadway pollutants of the potential exists to impact fish populations. So we are looking at moving the infiltrated water to water plants in the future. We can treat the water there, cost effectively while solving another problem – diminishing water supplies for urban populations. This would diminish our need to deal with desalination and the disposal of concentrate, another proposal. Funny how sometimes it all comes together….Good times back then and up there. Making progress today. Thanks and keep on watching out for us!!

SUSTAINABILITY OF UTILITIES – PART 2

October 11, 2013
Environment, finance, funding, infrastructure, Leadership, local government, management, planning, politics, Risk Management, sanitary sewer, sustainability, Uncategorized, water sewer management
Leave a comment

SUSTAINABILITY OF UTILITIES – PART 2

Let’s take a look at some scenarios. Let’s assume you are a utility that serves 20,000 people (8000 customers), with 60 miles of water pipe, 60 miles of sewer pipe, 17 lift stations, and a water and wastewater plant.  Replacing this infrastructure might be valued at $90 million for pipe, $35 million for treatment plants, water supply and pumping equipment (current day dollars).  Let’s also assume that their annual budget is $11 million and the typical demands are 3 MGD yielding a monthly bill of $115/mo (water and sewer).

Let’s make some general assumptions like that the pipe infrastructure might last 100 years, but clearly the treatment and mechanical parts would mot.  They would need ongoing maintenance and replacement.  50 years is probably too long, but let’s go with it.  If the overall costs increase at 3% per year and money is set aside for repair and replacement. The utility will see fairly steady rates if the customer base grows 2-3% per year.  Ten years out, the budget will be $16 million.  Now for the scenarios.

If the customer base has grown at 3% per year, the customers will increase to almost 27,000.  More of an issue is what happens if that increase in demand (from 3 to over 3.4 MGD) needs to come from a new water source and requires new capacity.  Many utilities will use impact fees to offset this cost to current customers so as not to adversely impact current customers too severely .That’s the current assumption.  The result looks like this at 10 and 20 years:

 

Component

  

Value today

10 years

20 years

Customers

  

20000

26878

36122

 

Accounts

  

8000

10751

14449

 

Water  Pipe

60 mi

 $   45,000,000

 $     98,509,418

 $215,646,786

Sewer Pipe

60 mi

 $   45,000,000

 $     98,509,418

 $215,646,786

Treatment Plants and Pumping

3 MGD

 $   35,000,000

 $     76,618,436

 $167,725,278

Operations budget

  

 $     9,000,000

 $     16,255,001

 $  29,358,340

Capital Budget

  

 $     1,600,000

 $       3,502,557

 $    7,667,441

Debt

  

 $        400,000

 $         400,000

 $      400,000

Monthly Amount

  

 $              115

 $                156

 $             216

Increase per year

    

5%

5%

 
         

 

Assume 1% of pipe Replacement Costs +2% Plant

    

 

Assume operating budget inc 3%/yr but construction increases 5%/yr

  

 
                     

 

But what if the new treatment and supply are 50% more costly and impact fees assume the lower investment (typical)?  The cost for the budget and for the infrastructure replacement increases (with the delta from debt).  Cost are 50% higher:

 

Component

  

Value today

10 years

20 years

Customers

  

20000

26878

36122

Accounts

  

8000

10751

14449

Water  Pipe

60 mi

 $   45,000,000

 $     98,509,418

 $215,646,786

Sewer Pipe

60 mi

 $   45,000,000

 $     98,509,418

 $215,646,786

Treatment Plants and Pumping

3 MGD

 $   35,000,000

 $     92,289,117

 $202,029,937

Operations budget

  

 $     9,000,000

 $     23,731,487

 $  42,861,706

Capital Budget

  

 $     1,600,000

 $       3,815,971

 $    8,353,534

Debt

  

 $        400,000

 $       1,325,000

 $    2,825,000

Monthly Amount

  

 $              115

 $                224

 $             312

Increase per year

    

8%

7%

 

The normal assumptions are that growth will continue, but what if it does not?

 

What can be gleaned as a result of a non-growth or net decrease scenario?  How does sustainability get affected?  Let’s look at the no growth scenario.  In this light, rates will need to increase at least 5% per year to insure that the utility remains rate neutral.  If there is significant deferred maintenance, which is typical of may utilities, that cost will be added to the bill.  There are examples of utilities in Florida who finally caught up with deferred obligations which doubled their customers’ bill.  This scenario is doable, but the only real assumption changes that can be made are related to the lack of growth.  Deferring maintenance will once exacerbate the problem as there is not guarantee that growth will return.  Rate neutrality becomes a public relations issue, but not insurmountable.

 

Component

  

Value today

10 years

20 years

 

Customers

  

20000

20000

20000

Accounts

  

8000

8000

8000

Water  Pipe

60 mi

 $   45,000,000

 $     73,300,258

 $119,398,397

Sewer Pipe

60 mi

 $   45,000,000

 $     73,300,258

 $119,398,397

Treatment Plants and Pumping

3 MGD

 $   35,000,000

 $     57,011,312

 $  92,865,420

Operations budget

  

 $     9,000,000

 $     12,095,247

 $  16,255,001

Capital Budget

  

 $     1,600,000

 $       2,606,231

 $    4,245,276

Debt

  

 $        400,000

 $         400,000

 $      400,000

Monthly Amount

  

 $              115

 $                157

 $             218

Increase per year

    

5%

5%
               

Now let’s look at the decline issue.  If the population decreases by 25% over the ten year horizon, what does this say?  The costs will remain relatively constant, but the number of customers and demands for water will drive the rates up significantly. In ten years the rates could double in a community that is likely economically disadvantaged.  The higher rates may begin to discourage economic development, rate neutrality exacerbate the problem and may increase in costs for regulatory or deferred maintenance obligation becomes a significant issue:

 

Component

  

Value today

10 years

20 years

Customers

  

20000

16341

13352

 

Accounts

  

8000

6537

5341

 

Water  Pipe

60 mi

 $   45,000,000

 $     73,300,258

 $119,398,397

 

Sewer Pipe

60 mi

 $   45,000,000

 $     73,300,258

 $119,398,397

 

Treatment Plants and Pumping

3 MGD

 $   35,000,000

 $     57,011,312

 $  92,865,420

 

Operations budget

  

 $     9,000,000

 $     12,095,247

 $  16,255,001

 

Capital Budget

  

 $     1,600,000

 $       2,606,231

 $    4,245,276

 

Debt

  

 $        400,000

 $         400,000

 $      400,000

 

Monthly Amount

  

 $              115

 $                193

 $             326

 
     

7%

7%

 
         

 

Assume 1% of pipe Replacement Costs +2% Plant

    

 

Assume operating budget inc 3%/yr but construction increases 5%/yr

  

 
                         

 What can we glean from this?  Interestingly the failure to accumulate costs for growth, and the declining rate base end up with similar monthly costs.  Only by the no growth and collecting appropriate impact fees will costs be controlled, and even in that case, costs will double every 20 years or less.  The reality is that the failure to follow proper revenue collection protocols will severely limit the utility in future years.  High capital costs impact rates significantly.  Leaving it to some future commissioner to raise the rates is unfair to both the future decision-makers and customers.  It does not make you a leader either. 

SUSTAINABILITY OF UTILITIES – PART 1

October 8, 2013
engineering, finance, infrastructure, Leadership, local government, management, Marketing water, Risk Management, Uncategorized, water sewer management
Leave a comment

Pipe wears out.  Concrete deteriorates, Steel rusts.  Aluminum pits. Mines play out.  Wells run dry.  But we strive for sustainability.  How do these disparate facts coexist simultaneously?  And if they don’t, how does this impact our long term prospects for our utility systems and communities.  And how do the decisions impact our understanding of sustainability.

An AWWA publication from 2010 was a compendium of thoughts on the meaning of sustainability form the perspective of water utilities.  One of the findings of the publication was that the understanding of sustainability had more to do with the perspective of the person being asked about sustainability than an overall comprehension of the inter-relationships of the concept of sustainability among different sectors.  For water supply entities, the economic sustainability of the community is not really their primary concern.  Instead they focus more on impacts to customers.  But water is a driver for economic development in a community. 

The message is that water utilities may need to look at the broader picture of sustainability in their community and extend the definitions to a wider range because no one else is and the community is looking for leadership.  The first paragraph focuses on infrastructure issues, which are commonly ignored in dealing with the concept of sustainability, but they are the ones traditionally focused on water supply issues.  The utility needs to look at infrastructure and financial outlook as a part of an overall sustainability strategy. 

There are certain assumptions that we make on many of our systems, and perhaps we need to revisit some of these assumptions in light of potential future realities.  For example, what happens to communities that do not grow?  Our current assumptions generally assume that there will be an ongoing increase in population or water use that will drive increases in revenues without specific increases on customers.  However what if you are Detroit where the populations has dropped in half in the past 50 years.  How do we deal with aging infrastructure and demands for increased water quality and reliability while maintaining fees at affordable levels for customers?  This is a particular problem when there are economic disruptions that create a large group of disenfranchised people who become more economically disadvantaged than they might otherwise already be.  The competition for sustaining water rates, infrastructure condition and water supplies can be a difficult conundrum.

WATER SEWER GARBAGE FEES

October 4, 2013
economy, finance, funding, Leadership, local government, management, Uncategorized
2 Comments

A recent article in the South Florida SunSentinel newspaper raised an interesting question.  What they did was line up all the cities in the county and identify the total fees paid to the City by residents.  They took the tax rates, plus water, sewer, storm water, fire, garbage and any other fees.  The article raised an interesting question.  For example, Hollywood, West Park and Lauderdale Lakes had the highest cost per household – in excess of $3500/year.  The other end of the spectrum was Hillsboro Beach, Sea Ranch Lakes and Southwest Ranches, each under $2000/household.  Of note is that Southwest Ranches provides no water or sewer service (all wells and septic tanks on large lots), so a direct comparison is not really appropriate.  Property taxes were low, but fire fees were really high.  Sea Ranch Lakes is a tiny community with no sewer, so again, not really a good comparison.  Hillsboro Beach is among the wealthiest communities, but also tiny. 

 Most communities had total fees between $2100 and 3200/resident.  Why the difference? First, the value of property varies widely.  West Park and Lauderdale lakes have among the lowest values per household, so their taxes must be higher to provide the same level of service.  Hollywood, and Dania Beach (#4 on the list) had higher water, sewer and storm water costs.  While both have recent, ongoing infrastructure programs, both have large transfers from the water and sewer fund to the general fund, and in both cases the water and sewer customer base does not match the property tax base.  In Dania Beach’s case, the service area is half the City, so those residents are supporting the property tax funded services at a higher rate than their neighbors.  Hollywood struggled with major budget issues to used water and sewer funds to balance the budget.

The problem that this article did not address, but should have was that where water, sewer and storm water costs were high, what was driving this? Was in infrastructure investments that others simply have yet to make?  That’s ok and the fact that these utilities invested now may be more timing.  If the result is due to transfers to the general fund, that is an entirely different, and somewhat disconcerting problem.  First since the service areas are not the same. There is a fairness issue.  Some residents pay more for the same services.  It means the water and sewer system is not really an enterprise, with rates based on service costs.  Instead it is being used as a tax source.

RENEWABLE POWER VS THE ESTABLISHMENT (How water and sewer utilities play a part)

September 24, 2013
Climate, economy, engineering, Environment, finance, hydroelectric power, infrastructure, innovation, power demands, power-water nexus, renewable power, solar power, Uncategorized, water sewer management, wind power
1 Comment

In June, President Obama made a speech about the increase in renewable power that the United States had created in the last 4 years, and announced goals to double this amount in the next four.  Virtually all of this power was solar and wind power.  Little mention was made of hydroelectric or onsite sources.  But the latter have been around much longer than the former sources and there may be options to increase their contributions under the right circumstances. 

 

Hydroelectric power has been in use in the US for over 100 years.  By the 1930s, 40 percent of the nation’s power came from hydroelectric dams, including some fantastic accomplishments of the time like the Hoover Dam.  Today we have over 100,000 dams in the US, most of which provide power.  Today hydroelectric is only 6 percent of our total.   The reluctance to continue with hydroelectric power involved fisheries, land acquisition costs and legal issues.  Some hydropower options are excellent.  Hurting fisheries (which disrupt local economies dependent on those fisheries) may not be, and therein lies part of the dilemma.

 

But water and wastewater utilities are actively looking for means to reduce power costs.  Depending on the utility, pumping water can account for 80-90 percent of total power consumption, especially with high service pumps on water systems that require high pressures.  More efficient pumps is one obvious answer, but of fairly limited use unless your pumps are really old.  Variable speed drives can increase efficiency, and the cost is dropping.  But note that with all that high pressure, how do utilities recapture the energy?  We often don’t and the question is whether there is a means to do so that can benefit up.  The first step is looking at plant hydraulics.  Is there a way to recapture energy in the form a pressure.  For example of reverse osmosis systems, we can install a turbine to recapture the pressure on the concentrate side.  They are not very efficient at present, but the potential is there.  On long gravity pipe runs for water supply, a means to recapture pressure might also be available. 

 

Of course on-site generation of power is a potential solution. Water and sewer utilities have land, and on the wastewater side, methane, so producing power is possible.  This solution, however, may not be embraced by power utilities due to the potential revenue reduction potential and loss of embedded reserve capacity at water and wastewater plants.  As the water facility takes on on-site generation, their load profile may shift significantly placing them in under a different rate structure. This may greatly reduce the benefit to the facility.  There are, however, approaches to permit win-win solutions. The goal is to put willing power and water utilities together to permit local generation that will benefit both power and water utility systems to encourage public – private partnerships.  A medium to large wastewater plant can generate at least a third of its power needs.  Some even more if they take in grease, oils and other substances that should not be put into the sewer system.  The potential there is significant.  EBMUD has a plant that is a net seller of power.  We should look for opportunities.  But don’t forget, water utilities can create hydropower without impacting fish populations. We just need to seek out the right opportunities.

WATCH WHAT YOU FLUSH

September 20, 2013
engineering, finance, sanitary sewer, toilet flushing, Uncategorized, water sewer management
1 Comment

I love stories about sewage in print.  As a water/wastewater guy, it is amusing to see sewer stories in the local papers and national news when they are about the “oddities” of operations.  One recent article talked about the impact of “flushable items” that should not go down the toilet.  “Flushable” wipes was the offender this time, but past discussion involved tampons, diapers and paper towels.  The reality is that NONE of these items should ever go down the toilet.  Those paper toilet seat covers are questionable as well.  Let’s see why. 

Sewer agencies have a very different view of what is flushable that tampon manufacturers, diaper manufacturers, paper towel and now flushable wipe makers.  Sewer agencies are responsible to insure that waste moves down the gravity pipes and through the lift station pumps without creating backups in the system.  The majority of material in a sewer system is water.  Followed by chopped up solids.  The design of the toilet involved two separate concepts.  One is simply creating the opportunity for a syphon to move waste when flushed but holding water when not.  It is a gravity principle based on partial pressures.  Simple stuff.  But toilets also tend to “chop up” material when the flushing action occurs.  The flush is violent and thin toilet paper and the soft solids in the toilet are easily shredded and blended into the water.  Think about your blender.  Soft stuff gets chopped up.  Enough mixing, it is all liquid.  As a result there is very limited opportunity for either thin toilet paper or most solids to plug up a toilet. 

But people don’t like thin toilet paper.  So we have manufactures making toilet paper with cotton fibers in it to make the paper soft.  And people like the “high quality” paper towels that upscale restaurants use.  Unfortunately too many people use those high end paper towels on the toilet seat, so down they go.  Wipes are reinforced paper also.  Fibers make them strong enough to, well wipe.  Tampons are notorious as absorbant fibers.  The key in each case is the fibers.  Fibers are not chopped up during a flush because the toilet flush is not designed to shed cloth.  As a result two things happen.  First, the fibers then to stay together as a mass.  Grease and other materials in the sewer system will stick to eh fibers making an even larger glob of material.  A recent YouTube photos showed a 15 ton grease ball in a large sewer system.  Grease and fiberous materials in the sewer system – you don’t want that to plug up your interceptor.

The other problem is lift stations.  The pumps at lift stations are designed to pass a 2.5 in ball, but not a bunch of strings.  As a result the fibers get stretched out, and wind around the pump impeller rendering it useless.  Or the material may mat in the impeller preventing the pump from pumping water.  One of the most common lift station problems is fiberous material winding around impeller shafts that burn out pumps.  Pumps cost thousands of dollars to repair or replace, so this is money from the ratepayers’ pockets.  One of my clients had the restaurant problem.  The lift station impellers would completely clog every 3 days.  The lift station would nearly overflow before the pumps were removed, the guys would open up the pump, and dig out the material.  Obviously fiberous paper and there were only two connections to the lift station.  The City ended up installing a $160,000 grinder system to grind up this material because the restaurant was unwilling to change their practice.  The major offender was women using the paper towels as seat covers.  The lines inside were a mess as well. 

The moral of the story is that toilet paper, water and body waste goes down the sewer.  Not napkins, feminine hygiene products, baby wipes or any fiberous paper material that feels soft, but won’t deteriorate, regardless what the manufacturer claims on the box.  These material do not degrade, the only create costly repairs, inconvenient and costly backups and a host of other problems for downstream users and the utility.  Put this material in the proper trash can. 

And see where else can you talk about this stuff, except when talking about sewage?

COLORADO IS DRY, WELL NOT ANYMORE

September 16, 2013
Drought, economy, engineering, Flooding, infrastructure, Insurance, Leadership, management, stormwater, sustainability, Uncategorized
Leave a comment

I went to Colorado in July, and it was bone dry like I noted in a prior blog.  The trend was expected to continue, but then something happened.  It rained.  A lot. It’s been raining for almost a month.  Last week it was wet out there, really wet, devastatingly wet on the east side of Rocky Mountain National Park (Boulder, Estes Park, Longmont, Lyons). The rain has not really let up so mountain streams are over-running their banks, flooding streets, washing away bridges, damaging property and businesses.  Helicopter evaluation of the damage indicates that miles of roadways are badly damaged. Route 34/36, the primary eastern entrance to Rocky Mountain National Park may have 17 miles (of 20) damage pavement and foundation needing immediate repair.  Estes Park is cut off from the world and there was mud in the streets.  Rocky Mountain National Park is closed to allow access from Grand Lake for emergency vehicles, residents and supplies.  And eastern emergency route from Nederland is also available.  Tourism has halted in the peak of Fall tourist season.

How fortunes have changed, and continue to change.  Three years ago it was the west side of Colorado with 300 inches of snow that flooded downstream communities.  Three months ago was drought. Are these changes part of a larger issue, or a continuation of the status quo?  Hard to know, but certainly both events were far above any prior events experienced in the area.  The local infrastructure was not constructed to meet these conditions, so either the climate is changing, our models are wrong, or both.  We see the same issue playing out regularly around the world when the 100 year or 500 year storm event occurs and wreaks havoc on a community which does not have infrastructure planned for events like this.

 Expect NE Colorado to be a federal disaster area.  Expect billions to be spent on reconstruction of roadways.   But the larger question is whether the new, replacement infrastructure will survive a similar, or larger climate event in the future.  Will our infrastructure planning be short sighted or will it be adjusted accordingly?  The potential for us to protect infrastructure, and property is completely related to our ability to adjust to infrastructure needs and to minimize exposure to weather events.  Keep in mind our economy and way of life is directly related to our infrastructure condition.  But people want to live near rivers and streams, but rarely consider the real risk and consequences. 

How do we address these risks?  FEMA evaluates the probability of flooding to set flood insurance, but FEMA does not prevent construction in flood zones.  Where construction can occur is a state or local issue.  Of course, few local entities want to limit development in any way, so we keep putting people at risk.  Local officials, like those in Florida, keep pushing FEMA officials to reduce flood risks, despite evidence of increasing rainfall intensity that would increase flooding.  Florida is not alone.  No doubt Colorado officials have the same views.  We need to impress upon local officials the risks and encourage them to reduce risks to citizens.  It’s our tax money and insurance premiums they are raising.  But they are rarely held accountable.  Nor are non-elected officials.  Somehow, this needs to change.  We need leaders to stand up and draw the  line in the sand.

WHY ARE HEALTH CARE COSTS SO HIGH?

September 8, 2013
communciations, Congress, economy, finance, funding, infrastructure, innovation, Insurance, Leadership, management, politics, Revenues, Uncategorized, Water Funding, water sewer management, water supplies
1 Comment

Why are health care costs increasing so fast?  Did you ever wonder about that?  We keep hearing about how health care costs, Medicare, Medicare, Obamacare are going to bankrupt us, but why is that?  Why are the cots going up so fast?  It is an important challenge for local officials and utilities who generally pay the health insurance costs for their workers.  There is more to the story that we are not being told.

One problem that get identified quickly is that only 80% of the population is included in the health care system.  Many who are not are “healthy” young people who don’t demand the services.  The concept of the health care bill was to solve this problem by spreading the costs of health care across the entire population using private and public providers.  First, I think there are way more unhealthy  people included in the 20% than we realize because the political dialogue keeps focusing on the few that want to live off the grid – I feel great so I don’t need insurance.  That guy is part of the problem.  That guy gets into a car accident, gets taken to a public hospital, gets treated, gets a bill for $26,000 to fix his broken leg, refuses to pay anything, and the taxpayers get stuck with the bill.  My solution to that guy is if you don’t want to pay for health insurance, bring cash.  Otherwise, “no soup for you!” to paraphrase a famous Seinfeld episode.  Of course my doctor, nurse and therapy friends think that’s a little cold hearted. 

The next argument is the cost of doctors, therapists and nurses.  Okay, I know a bunch of them, and that’s not where the money goes.  These people have lost money in the past 10 years.  Many are going form full-time to part-time employments as Medicare, Medicaid and health insurance bureaucrats decide services are no longer needed.  They will tell you the major change in their lives is paperwork….hold that thought for a moment.

The cost of drugs comes up.  Medicare and Medicare are the largest purchasers of pharmaceuticals in the world.  So in other works, they set the lowest price by supposedly bidding the “contracts” for services. Only there is often only one provider, so exactly how does that work?   Sounds like we don’t get a good deal there, which is why the arguments for importing Canadian drugs or drugs from Mexico keeps popping up.  They get a better deal than we do and most of these are supposedly AMERICAN companies.  No home town discount (I guess I know where free agent baseball players get the idea).   And my medical friends confirm this as an issue.  Check out the comments from Mr. Falloon at Life Extension (www.lef.org) for discussion. 

So let’s go back to the paperwork discussion.  Once upon a time doctors simply sent a little paperwork to the health insurance company or the federal government and said you needed some service.  And the insurance company processed the bill for the services.  The cost was paid by insurance premiums collected by the insurance company.  Everyone was happy.  But then someone at an insurance company said, “wait we could make more money if we asked more questions and paid less for these services.  It would help our bottom line.”  So you hear the complaint that the folks at the insurance companies are deciding whether you need that procedure or not.  And contractors decide if someone needs Medicare or Medicaid services, not the government, not your doctor, your nurse or your therapist.  Not any person that knows you, but some unseen, private sector bureaucrat who’s goal is to minimize the amount of your premium spent on services so they can enhance their bottom line.  And apparently they are very effective because the health insurance industry is very lucrative.  So maybe we have stumbled onto something here.  Maybe the cost of medical coverage is more related to drugs and bureaucracy (and it is not government bureaucracy!!) than the actual cost of services.  Maybe the old system, even if there was some fraud in it, wasn’t nearly as bad as it was made out to be.  It reminds me of one of the 4 laws of City management I developed years ago:  Never give elected officials a bad alternative – it becomes a magnet.  It always worked (hence a law).  I didn’t learn why until years later when I realized, that the worst option was the one all the lobbyists lobbied for even at the local level.  It was the option where they could make the most money “fixing