Between the Poles

Monitoring integrity of water networks with satellites

I am at HxGNLive in Las Vegas this week.  One of the several very interesting presentations with important implications for a number of industries is a talk by Massimo Zotti of Planetek.  He described an application called Network Alert that uses satellite observations to monitor ground displacements including subsidence with millimeter precision.  An application of this technology is water utilities who use it to look for subsidence and other ground displacements which are symptoms of water leaks.

Network Alert uses Sentinal-1 satellites whose frequent revisits over the same area allow changes in land cover to be closely monitored.  Sentinel-1’s C-band synthetic aperture radar provides ‘radar interferometry’ by combining two or more radar images over the same area to detect changes occurring between acquisitions. Interferometry allows for the monitoring of even slight ground movement – down to a few millimetres – across wide areas.

Network Alert uses radar interferometry to provide accurate, current information about ground instability and displacements in a water pipeline network that indicate leaking pipes. It alerts the utility to prioritize inspection and maintenance activities.  Monthly updates provide accurate information based on continuous satellite monitoring of ground movement and displacement.  For example, over one and a half years a 3 cm subsidence was evidence of a substantial leak.

2017 ASCE Infrastructure Scorecard reveals slight improvement

The 2017 ASCE Infrastructure Scorecard has been released this morning.  Grades for seven categories of infrastructure – Hazardous Waste, Inland Waterways, Levees, Ports, Rail, Schools, and Wastewater – improved slightly. The grades for three categories – Parks, Solid Waste, and Transit – declined this year.  The overall cumulative GPA remained constant at D+.

2013 and 2017
Water and the environment

    Dams                    D  D
    Drinking Water      D  D
    Hazardous Waste D  D+
    Levees                  D- D
    Solid Waste          B- C+
    Wastewater          D  D+

Transportation

    Aviation                 D  D
    Bridges                 C+ C+
    Inland Waterways D- D
    Ports                     C  C+
    Rail                       C+ B
    Roads                   D  D
    Transit                   D  D-

Public Facilities

    Public Parks & Recreation C- D+
    Schools                 D  D+

Energy

    Energy                  D+ D+

Be Inspired Awards at Year in Infrastructure 2015: Operational analytics reduces water utility power bill by A$3 million

At the Year in Infrastructure conference in London SA Water is one of the finalists for the annual Be Inspired Innovation in Roads Awards. Today Rowan Steele presented an overview of how SA Water, based in Adelaide, South Australia, has applied operation analytics to reduce the water utility's power bill by A$3 million.

South Australia has been suffering from an extended drought for nearly a decade and has just built a desalinization plant to provide more reliable water to their customers. 

About 40% of the South Australian power generation is now renewable.  Most of this is wind (33%) and solar (8%).  Fluctuating sources of power generation means that the price of electricity can range widely from -A$1000 to A$13,000 per megawatt hour (Mwh).

The drought, the new desalinization plant and the fluctuating cost of power introduced complexity into managing what used to be a fairly simple water network.

To address these issues SA Water decided to invest significantly in IT to help manage the water network better.  They acquired a hydraulic model that allowed them to simulate the network under different conditions.  They also invested in an operational analytics tool. 

Together these applications have helped them optimize their network in various ways, such as optimizing chlorine dosing (water from the desal plant has very little organics compared to river water), minimizing electric power costs and reducing water age in some parts of the network.  The benefits have been significant.  They not only have been able to reduce their power bill by A$3 million, but also have cut their network operating costs by nearly a A$ million.  It has also resulted in improved water quality.  For example, they can map water age geographically for their entire service area.  More fundamentally it has given them much greater insight into sources of revenue and the costs of various aspects of operating a water network.

Can alternative business models for water distribution help resolve the water crisis ?

There are several business models for water distribution including investor owned, coops, regional associations, private-public partnerships and municipal.  In the UK there are a small number of regulated regional investor owned water utilities like Thames Water, Northwest Water and Southern Water each of which serves millions of customers.  But in many parts of the world water and waste water are a municipal responsibility.  In France water and waste water are the responsibility of municipalities, but 75% of water and 50% of waste water services are contacted out to private sector companies like Veolia and Suez.  In the Unites States there are about 54,000 community public water systems, which are either publicly owned, cooperatives or privately owned.  But about 50,000 of these systems provide water in localities with less than 10,000 inhabitants.

Water and waste water funding gap

Only a portion of water infrastructure maintenance and operations costs are covered by rates in the United States, the rest comes from grants from several levels of government.  Both the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has estimated that the water infrastructure funding gap is on the order of $20 billion per year.   As a result most municipalities across North America under-invested in water infrastructure for years and many are now faced with the reality of aging infrastructure with increasing leakage and breakage, competition for more limited (quality and quantity) sources of water, and the increasingly costly impact of regulation from state and Federal regulators.  Assuming every pipe would need to be replaced, the cost over the coming decades could reach more than $1 trillion, according to the American Water Works Association (AWWA).  Capital investment needs for U.S. waste water and storm water systems are estimated to total $298 billion over the next 20 years according to the ASCE.

Municipal water systems are typically departments of the city government and are controlled by the mayor and the city council.  And like public water companies around the world, it has been very difficult to persuade elected officials to raise water rates to cover the funding gap.  From Margaret Catley-Carlson's perspective, the crossover between elected officials and water and water pricing is one of the universals around the world.  She told a story of how even in the great drought of Spain two summers ago Spain was still charging less for water than any of the other European countries.  She talked to people in Spain and they understood that paying more for water was part of the solution, but it was not possible to get elected officials to make the decision to increase water rates.

Utilities that have surmounted the funding gap

At the Canadian Water Network conference we heard about two examples of municipally water companies, both of which are unique  in their own ways, but both have been able to get the needed funding to fill the gap in infrastructure spending.  These companies which may be pointing the way to the future of water delivery. 

The first,  EPCOR Utilities based in Edmonton, Alberta, is run like a private corporation, but is wholly owned by a municipality for which it is a source of revenue, estimated at about $1.5 billion since it was formed.

The second, Greater Victoria Water Services, is structured like a municipal public water company, but because it is a regional water utility it has a board that has an arms length relationship to its constituency.

One important thing that both of them have in common is that they were both able to successfully structure solutions to problems facing their water utility as a result of a major crisis, a financial crisis in the case of EPCOR and a major water main break in the case of Greater Victoria Water Services.

EPCOR Utilities

Don Lowry, past President and CEO of EPCOR Utilities, is a strong believer that the only way to have a functioning water distribution system is that everyone must pay for water.  In his view water is not an entitlement,   it's a hard earned right.  You have to be diligent and work 24x7 on continuously earning that right to have access to water and a sustained, continuous supply of water. 

EPCOR was formed in a crisis.  The city was faced with a significant financial crises during the Canada's National Energy Program.  Facing massive layoffs and job losses, the water system had no choice.  It had to carry its own weight, recover its own costs and start to be a growth engine for the city as opposed to a burden for the city.  As a result EPCOR Utilities is 100% owned by the City of Edmonton, but it is operated completely as aa commercial enterprise.  EPCOR has become the water and waste water provider for a large footprint  of water and waste water utilities in Western Canada. They are also the largest private water supplier in the states of Arizona and New Mexico in the U.S. 

The way that EPCOR is setup is that it is 100% owned by the City but has an independent board of directors under a universal shareholders' agreement that puts it on a standalone basis.   It must finance its operation completely from earnings of the business or what it raises on the capital markets.  It has a BBB+ credit rating.  EPCOR pays its shareholder a dividend.  Since 1998 the dividend was $67 million annually, today it is $144 million.  The company has returned back to the shareholder over $1.5 billion in cash, taxes, fees and dividends and this is growing.  EPCOR pays tax in every jurisdiction in which it does business and it competes in the capital markets.  Most importantly EPCOR fully costs its water, there are no subsidies.  They are able to compete and EPCOR's water utilities are thriving and growing..

The three key challenges EPCOR sees facing water today is the scarcity of it, the deterioration of the infrastructure and and most importantly the fragmented approach that we in North America take to its operation, regulation and financing.
 
Scarcity

The increasing scarcity of water is an absolute growing concern.  In southern Alberta it has been fully allocated.   There can be no further development unless there is trading of water rights or the diversion of water from one use to another.  EPCOR is working to make better utilization of the water that they use.  For example, they are capturing the water that we would have previously diverted back into the river after processing it through their waste water treatment plant and are piping 15 million liters per day to a Suncor refienry ro make petrochemical products.  But in the long run the scarcity of water is going to lead to longer pipes, bigger pumps, more chemicals,  more competition for water, higher costs and Don believes that the current service delivery model is not going to make it.

Aging infrastructure

North American infrastructure is getting older.  Most of the infrastructure that was put in Canada and most in the US was put in major chunks.  A lot of it in the 60s and 70s and it is old and deteriorated and needs to be replaced.   On top of that you need to layer the growth requirements and the replacement requirements.  In Canada alone it is estimated to amount to about $80 billion for replacement and to plan for the growth of infrastructure, pumps, pipes, valves, plants, and meters necessary to deliver that essential service.  In the US it's estimated to be over a trillion dollars.  In Edmonton EPCOR has a major program underway to replace the cast iron pipe that was put in shortly after the Second World War, that  has deteriorated dreadfully, causing leaks and water main breaks.  As a result they are starting to see results, fewer leaks and less breakage.  This is an example of a program EPCOR expects that that other municipalities are gong to have start to aggressively implement to replace ageing infrastructure.  \

Fragmentation

North America is backward in terms of how we approach the treatment, the delivery, and the recycling of water across Canada and US in terms of the shear number of companies.  There are over 54 000 water companies in the US, ranging from the local water company in a town of 10 people up to millions of people in New York,  However, 8% of those companies serve 81 % of the entire population.  The other 92% serve 19% of the population.  The story is not much different in Alberta.  Of the over 530 water companies in Alberta, the top 10 water utilities serve 76 % of the population, the other 520 or so  serve 24% of the population.  Don's point is that with such a fragmented structure we can't get the economies of scale that we see in other industries in our society, such as airlines, telephony, wireless, natural gas, and electricity.  The present fragmented state of the industry it brings its own stream of inefficiencies and concerns such as how do you adequately train people in very small water utilities and how do you fund all these water utilities.  Even more critically how do you ensure that what happened in Walkerton and North Battleford (well publicized outbreaks of water borne disease outbreaks in small communities) don't get repeated.

According to Don, the Government of Alberta has taken a first step in this direction and has embarked on a conversation with the regions within the province to look at the watersheds and consider the creation of utilities similar to EPCOR that could achieve an economy of scale for all of the water needs for each region.  This could be a first step toward shrinking the over 530 existing water companies down to perhaps 10 or 12 to begin to achieve some efficiencies of scale.

Water Services, Capital Region District, Greater Victoria, British Columbia

Jack Hull, General Manager of Water Services of the Capital Region District in Victoria, British Columbia, gave an overview of some of the successes Greater Victoria Water Services have had in implementing some of the measures that have been implemented by EPCOR. 

First of all he said categorically that there is no infrastructure deficit in the Greater Victoria water supply system.  It was eliminated over a 15 year period.  Like a lot of municipalities the Greater Victoria Water started off in the early 90s with underinvestment.  “If it breaks, we'll fix it,  but we won't be proactive.”  Greater Victoria Water put a strategic plan in place to address water supply, water quality, and infrastructure and pricing issues.  They moved to a utility model for pricing, which is based on the asset base.   Over the next 15 years with over $200 million in investment Greater Victoria Water eliminated its infrastructure deficit and addressed its water quality and quantity issues. 

All the decision making was ultimately done by a group of politicians who recognized that if they didn't invest,  there was going to be a major negative impact on the quality of life within the capital region.

Greater Victoria Water also runs the distribution systems that serves about 60 000 people in five neighbouring  municipalities.  Similarly to EPCOR's cast iron pipes problem in Edmonton, it was necessary to replace asbestos cement pipes.  Greater Victoria Water recommended a 10 year program to address this issue, but the politicians came back and said no we want to do it in five years and they put the money behind it to do it in five years.

Greater Victoria Water has been able to successfully promote water conservation.  A utility model obviously is able to generate revenue.  According to Jack every cent of that revenue goes back into improving the infrastructure and eliminating the deficit.  During the same period, particularly in the last 10 years, Greater Victoria experienced 14 % growth in population, but water demand dropped by 8% during that same period.  In 2001 Greater Victoria Water had a ban on outdoor water use for 9 months of the year.  Last year normal water use was down to that level without anything extraordinary in terms of water restrictions.  

From Jack's perspective, given the right group of politicians and the right group of managers you can achieve much of what EPCOR has done without going to the fully corporatized model.

Jack said that he fully supports what EPCOR has done with small systems because that is where the real issue is.  Small systems do not have the resources to deal with some of these issues and that is where an organization like EPCOR can  provide significant assistance, which a regional government  can't do because of the legislation that controls regional government.
 
With respect to governance the Greater Victoria Water board is one step away from the electorate because they are members of local councils who are appointed to the regional board.  They are elected officials at the local level, but appointed to the regional board and appointed to the water commission so they are one step away from being directly elected to the board.

The other thing that contributed to this achievement was a crisis.  On New Year's Eve in 1992 Victoria had a major water main break.  A 36" water main burst and caused a lot of damage.  So when Greater Victoria Water reviewed its budget that year they had lots of photos of all the damage caused by the water main break.  The fact that it took 18 hours to shut the water off because the valves hadn't been serviced probably since 1915 when they were installed.  There were photos of air release valves that couldn't be recognized as valves, because they were just  clumps of rust.  As a result when at the budget review Water Services asked for some money to do a study on infrastructure, Jack related that this was one of two times in the last 20 years when politicians asked him if he was sure he had enough money in his budget, didn't he need some more ?

Conclusions

The most important conclusion I take from this is that water needs to be fully costed from the water source to treatment and reinjection if we are going to have sustainable water systems that work.  The second is that there are several ways to skin the cat but setting up a governance structure that allows the water utility to be run an arm's length from the elected politicians seems to be key. Thirdly, small water systems are facing a crisis, because it is going to be increasingly difficult and expensive for them to access the resources they need and it may be regional companies based on the EPCOR model that can resolve this problem.  And the moral of the story is don't waste a good crisis.

Does water as a basic human right mean free water ?

Recognizes the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights
and
Calls upon States and international organizations to provide financial resources, capacity-building and technology transfer, through internationalassistance and cooperation, in particular to developing countries, in order to scale up efforts to provide safe, clean, accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation for all.

At the Canadian Water Network conference one topic that came up repeatedly related to pricing water equitably and how to do it in a way that benefits the 780 million people without access to clean and safe water and the 2.5 billion who don't have access to basic sanitation (UN GLAAS 2012 Report).

In response to a question from the audience, Margaret Catley-Carlson rephrased the question like this. 

• First,  is there a consistency between the UN declaration on water as a basic human right with the kind of charging for water that a number of speakers are recommending?
• Secondly, what is the corporate responsibility to the water challenged or to people where there is a resource insufficiency ?

Margaret Catley-Carlson's response is very interesting, especially bearing in mind that her background is government and NGOs, not the private sector.  By way of background she has been active at the board level in the international water sector for over 15 years.

She was very direct, saying that "it has been the cruelest of constructs to equate a human right with free water, because of all those that cannot afford free water the poor are the ones that can least afford it."  She went on to explain why.  In city after city, village after village, systems where water is free or undercharged, particularly those that are run publicly, respond to those that have the most resources.  When there isn't enough to go around, these systems favour more powerful people. You can wish that it weren't so.  Mark Twain said water flows uphill, meaning it moves towards power.  The last person in the irrigation line, the slum dweller, those that depend on water vendors, these are the people who have a theoretical right to water but because the systems don't work or break down they are the ones that are in fact under-served or not served at all.   They are the ones we include in the billion people around the world that don't have access to clean and safe water.  

She emphasized that these people [do better] when they live in areas that charge for water, but where there is a subsidy to them personally, not to the water company, for water usage.  This is a very important distinction.  Many cities and countries have a subsidy for the poorest people within the jurisdiction.   This is done in a number of ways.  In South Africa everybody gets a small amount of free water and then the next tranche of water delivery costs more, the next costs even more and at the swimming pool level both the rate and the volume are very high.   In New York it is done by postal code numbers.   In the UK and France it is done in a different way.  In Chile the poor pay their water bill, but if they are receiving social assistance at the end of the year they get a heavy percentage of that water bill returned to them.   They pay, but they get it back.   Margaret applauds those jurisdictions that do have a subsidy for those that can least afford to pay their water bill.  But she fully agrees with everybody being charged for water because that is the only way that you can make the water systems work.  

She also pointed out that there is a right to food, but we all pay for food . Some say there is a right to education, and we certainly pay for education in one way or another through taxes or through direct school fees.  From Margaret's perspective it has been "a cruel juxtaposition of issues to say that if it's a right, it has to be free.  Because the ones that it has penalized are exactly the one billion people that don't  have access to clean and reliable water.  It's when you have a system that functions that the poor have access to clean water."

She added that in many of the countries where these people live there is no tax base and so therefore you cannot rely on the tax base to pay for water for  the poor.  The numbers that are involved are so much larger than any development assistance numbers that it is implausible to have development assistance pay for water for the poor.   In short there are either taxes, tariffs or transfers.  Those are the only things that have ever paid for water anywhere.  You can charge people as taxpayers, but you have to transfer the money from general tax revenues.  Then you'll get distortions in favour of certain neighbourhoods and away from others.  

She sees tariffs as the best alternatve. "Over time the tariff is actually a poverty alleviation mechanism, and as a fulfilment of rights it does the superior job.  So it's a question I like to receive because it think it is a cruel linkage to perpetuate [equating human right and free].  If you really care about poor people,  then you will have a system that charges them slightly for water. "

Her experience supports this.  "By the way poor people agree with me.   When you go out to villages and you ask, if you had reliable water systems would you be willing to pay for it ?  They say yes, absolutely, because they already pay now.   They are paying vendors now and are often paying much more then they would be paying if they had a proper functioning water system."

Don Lowry's view, Don is past President and CEO of EPCOR Utilities, is that water is not an entitlement. It's a hard earned right and you have to be diligent and work 24x7 on continuously earning that right to have access to water and the sustainable, continuous supply of water. If you look at cost and usage of water in the OECD, you see the symmetrical difference.   The highest price for water is in Germany and the cheapest price for water is in Canada. The highest consumption per capita is in Canada, and the absolute lowest consumption per capita is in Germany.   Don's view is that you can't give it away for free, because we don't have it for free in the first place.. And it's proven by the leading countries that by pricing it appropriately it spurs innovation and conservation. 

But for people who can't afford to pay much for water, Don said that EPCOR has what is called a lifeline level, a minimal level that ensures that you have enough water within your home or family for basic needs at an affordable price.  But as you use more water, for example, if you have a swimming pool or if you want to have a jungle in your front yard and it's a desert, you're going to pay a lot for that.   "We are going to reward customers that conserve,  industries that find ways like PepsiCo and Suncor to make maximum use of every drop of water they've got."

USGS confirms EPA's draft report on contamination of ground water in Wyoming

I blogged about a draft EPA report that linked groundwater contamination to fracking.  In response to complaints by domestic well owners regarding objectionable taste and odor problems in wellwater, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) investigated ground water contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming. The objective of the EPA's investigation was to determine the presence of ground water contamination and to differentiate shallow source sources (pits, septic systems, agricultural and domestic practices) from deeper sources (gasproduction wells using fracking).

EPA delayed convening the peer review panel on the draft Pavillion report until a report containing USGS data collected from the EPA's two wells is publicly available.  The USGS report is now available, but the USGS provided only the raw data and no interpretation. However, according to a preliminary analysisby the EPA,  the results are consistent with the EPA's draft report.  An analysis of the USGS data commissioned by the Sierra Club also concluded that "the organic chemistry at MW01 [one of the EPA's wells] has not changed substantially since the EPA sampled the well. The chemistry of MW01 found by the USGS is similar to that found by the EPA."

The EPA plans to complete its own analysis of the water samples and then turn over all of the data for an independent peer review later this year.

Proving that ground water is contaminated is one thing.  Proving that fracking is the cause is another.  A major review of hydraulic fracturing by the University of Texas, Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development, found "no direct evidence that fracking itself has contaminated groundwater."  But it did find that contamination of groundwater can happen when chemicals used in the fracking process escape into the water table closer to the surface from poor well-bore casings and inadequately lined storage ponds.  However, there is now some question about the objectivity of the University of Texas report.

New XML-based standard for exchanging information about water sources

The WaterML 2.0 Part 1: Time Series Encoding Standard has been adopted by the Open Geospatial Consortium as an OGC standard.  OGC WaterML 2.0 is XML-based and supports encoding and exchanging hydrological data describing the state and location of water resources, both surface water and ground water. 

WaterML 2.0 is designed to provide a standard for national reporting of water resources as well as for operational echange of data on the state of infrastructure such as water supply systems.  Much of the work was done as part of a joint program between the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM). 

The standard is important in Australia because it will be used in the development of the second version of the Water Data Transfer Format (WDTF) which mandates the techniques to be used by the Australian water industry to deliver water data measurements to the Bureau of Meteorology as required under the Water Regulations of 2008. 

The Australian effort was supported by the Consortium of Universities for the Advancement of Hydrologic Science Hydrologic Information System (CUAHSI), which developed WaterML 1.0, and other organizations in the Netherlands, Germany, Canada, France, and the U.S including NOAA and USGS.

Clean water trust fund bill gets mixed reactions

I blogged recently about the Water Protection and Reinvestment Act (HR 3202) which proposes a trust fund for water and wastewater infrastructure similar to the Highway Trust Fund.  In June there was a Congressional hearing on the bill before the Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.  At that hearing the American Society of Civil Engineers, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies and the Associated General Contractors of America spoke in favour of the bill.

But Chips Barry, representing the American Water Works Association (AWWA), said AWWA was "not prepared…at this time" to support HR 3202. Mr Barry said that the AWWA would prefer that "funds raised locally be retained and spent locally, rather than being sent to Washington, D.C., first, and that communities that have adopted adequate rates not be asked to subsidize those that have not."  AWWA believes that a federal water infrastructure bank would provide a better way of achieving funding for water and wastewater infrastructure.  Late last year, the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and the Water Environment Federation (WEF) proposed the creation of a Water Infrastructure Finance Innovations Authority (WIFIA), whose purpose would be to lower the cost of infrastructure investments by increasing access to low-cost capital.   WIFIA would be modeled on the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovations Authority (TIFIA). AWWA/WEF argue that WIFIA could lower the cost of capital for water utilities while having negligible effect on the federal budget.  WIFIA would offer low interest loans and guarantees for large water infrastructure projects and those with national or regional importance.  Since water utilities providers are among the most fiscally responsible borrowers in the United States, with a tiny default rate of  0.04 percent, AWWA/WEF argue that WIFIA involves minimal risks and minimal long-term costs to the federal government.

Mr Barry also said that another problem with trust funds is that "federal trust funds routinely collect more in revenue than they are allowed to spend by congressional appropriation".  Excess revenue is often redirected by Congress to other spending.

Ohio bill requires limited disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing

A shale-gas boom is expected in northeastern Ohio as energy companies begin to exploit the Marcellus and Utica shale deposits.  But there are concerns about the effect of hydraulic fracturing on aquifers and on seismic activity.

The Ohio legislature has passed a bill (SB 315) setting new rules for hydraulic fracturing in Ohio.  The bill requires limited disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic frracturing.  The bill also requires water sampling within 1,500 feet of proposed wells. It mandates that oil and gas wells be tracked between the time they are drilled and the time they are capped. Waste fluids from other states must be disclosed before they can be injected into wells in Ohio.  The legislation requires increased inspection of wells, and requires well owners to hold liability insurance coverage.

With regards to injected chemicals the bill requires that (emphasis mine)

(10)(b) If applicable, the trade name and the total volume of all products, fluids, and substances, and the supplier of each product, fluid, or substance used to stimulate the well. The owner shall identify each additive used, provide a brief description of the purpose for which the additive is used, and include the maximum concentration of the additive used. In addition, the owner shall include a list of all chemicals, not including any information that is designated as a trade secret pursuant to division (I)(1) of this section, intentionally added to all products, fluids, or substances and include each chemical's corresponding chemical abstracts service number and the maximum concentration of each chemical. The owner shall obtain the chemical information, not including any information that is designated as a trade secret pursuant to division (I)(1) of this section, from the company that stimulated the well or supplied the chemicals. If the company that stimulated the well or supplied the chemicals provides incomplete or inaccurate chemical information, the owner shall make reasonable efforts to obtain the required information from the company or supplier.

and it goes on to say that if the chemical involved has not been disclosed because it is a trade secret, a medical professional can request the exact chemical composition, which he or she must keep confidential.

H)(1) If a medical professional, in order to assist in the diagnosis or treatment of an individual who was affected by an incident associated with the production operations of a well, requests the exact chemical composition of each product, fluid, or substance and of each chemical component in a product, fluid, or substance that is designated as a trade secret pursuant to division (I) of this section, the person claiming the trade secret protection pursuant to that division shall provide to the medical professional the exact chemical composition of the product, fluid, or substance and of the chemical component in a product, fluid, or substance that is requested.

According to the Marietta Times, the bill allows people to sue to learn what chemicals energy companies use in their hydraulic fracturing operations, but people who believe a chemical sickened them or polluted their land, would have to prove that a specific chemical compound, many of which are typically not divulged by drillers because they are claimed to be trade secrets, made them sick or polluted their land.

Chicago Infrastructure Trust intended to attract private funds for infrastructure

At a recent conference in London, the National Infrastructure Plan for the UK was outlined.  This is a plan to invest £ 400 billion over 10 yrs in UK infrastructure including high speed rail, energy (especially nuclear and wind), aviation, water and wastewater, roads and highways, and high speed broadband.  Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this plan is the intention that 70% of the funding will come from the private sector.

The Mayor of Chicago has just outlined a $7 billion infrastructure development plan for Chicago.  An important participant in this plan is the Chicago Infrastructure Trust, an initiative announced by Mayor Emanuel and former President Bill Clinton.  The fund is a nonprofit corporation that collects private investment which is then applied to infrastructure development.

The Mayor specifically mentioned several major projects including

• $1 billion for the Chicago Transit Authority to renovate more than 100 stations and eliminate “slow zones”
• $1.4 billion for O’Hare International Airport for two new runways by 2015 and other expansion.
• $290 million for new parkland, playgrounds, basketball courts, sports fields, nature trails and bike and running paths.
• $1.4 billion to fix Chicago's water system (3,800 leaks last year), including the replacement of 900 miles of century-old water pipe, the repair of 750 miles of sewer line, and the reconstruction of 160,000 catch-basins.
• A $660 million investment in Chicago Public Schools, and a $479 million investment in the City Colleges of Chicago
• “Retrofit Chicago,” a $225 million dollar effort to retrofit City buildings, reducing their energy consumption by 25 percent - the first project funded by the Chicago Infrastructure Trust.

Presumably this is in addition to the consent decree that Chicago agreed to in December of last year to address the issue of combined sewer overflows that it is estimated will cost the city about $3 billion.