Between the Poles

Integrating 3D models and GIS for underground asset management

I had the opportunity to attend the 1Spatial Smarter Data Smarter World conference in London.  A presentation by Seb Lessware, CTO of 1Spatial, of Realworld 4D for BIM and facilities management demonstrated an impressive integration of large volumes of 3D scanned underground data with traditional GIS data streamed across the web for asset management of underground pipe networks.

Earlier this year 1Spatial announced the acquisition of GEOMAP-IMAGIS a geospatial software solutions provider in the areas of utilities/telecom and facilities management, transportation and other sectors. One of GEOMAP-IMAGIS applications is Realworld4D which enables the integration of 3D models including point clouds and meshes from LiDAR scans, BIM models, and high resolution photographic imagery with traditional 2D GIS data.  The application enables streaming access to anyone with a laptop and internet access.

Seb demonstrated an example of a sewer system and showed on a single screen a 2D map of a small part of a city and its sewer system on the left side of the screen, and on the right a 3D mesh derived from a LiDAR scan and high resolution imagery from a photographic record of the same area. The applications makes it possible to simulate walking down the sewer line and follow your progress in all three views. The application also showed the direction of the flow of water.  Seb also demonstrated accurately measuring distances between objects in the sewer line. 

The total volume of data that this represents for all of the city would be calculated in the terabytes.  But users can access small parts of the city infrastructure model without opening the whole model. Seb demonstrated this on a standard notebook with an internet connection showing that this application enables streaming access to huge volumes of data. The application includes a live link to GIS data stored in a traditional GIS and MongoDB for the scanned data.

Furthermore, the application enables showing above-ground and below-ground simultaneously together in a "long profile" view together with a 2D GIS map of a section of the facility. For gravity-fed sewer lines this makes it possible to see the slope in the sewer line and the direction of flow. Clicking on a location on the 2D GIS map instantly shows what the underground and above ground look like along a section of the network.

This was a very impressive integration of 3D scanned data with traditional GIS data to enable streaming access to large volumes of data to anyone with a notebook and internet access. It has application to facilities and asset management of any underground pipe network that can be scanned including gas, water, and wastewater mains. I can also imagine this being to enable creating a network model for underground pipelines from scanned data. 

Seb reported that benefits of this approach are significant.  However, it does require a substantial up-front investment to scan the network, but it is not necessary to capture the entire network before realizing benefits.  Furthermore keeping the scanned data up-to-date does not require recapturing the entire the network.  Only those sections that are changing rapidly or that are of high consequence need to be rescanned.

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+

GITA PNW: Geolocating dangerous underground utility intersections is big business

At the 16th Annual GITA Pacific Northwest Conference at the Boeing Future of Flight Museum in Mukilteo WA, David Steiger gave a fascinating presentation about one of the major problems arising from our poor knowledge about the location of underground infrastructure.  Cross bores are gas, power or telecom cables and pipes that bisect sewer pipes.  Horizontal directional drilling (HDD), percussion moles and plows are trenchless techniques used to install natural gas distribution and other utility lines. These boring drill heads can easily go through sewer pipes without the driller being aware of it.  Since the location of underground sewer pipes, either main line or laterals connecting the main pipes to houses, are only poorly known, cross bores are widespread.  Hydromax USA specializes in detecting and mapping cross bores.  In their experience in high risk, densely populated areas, as many as 3 cross bores per mile of natural gas distribution mainline have been found.  The average is about 0.4 cross bores per mile. 

Cross bores are dangerous.  A typical scenario is that the cross bore leads to an obstruction in a sewer pipe.  If this is a lateral, the house owner calls a plumber.  The plumber bores out the lateral with a sewer cleaning machine that has a head that can cut through tree roots, the typical source of backed up sewers, and telecom or electric power cables or gas pipes with ease.  The first documented case of a gas main being cut happened in 1976 and the resulting gas explosion killed two people and seriously injured four more.  According to Hydromax the highest claim paid for a single cross bore incident was reported at $30,000,000. 

Hydromax USA uses a robotic device that travels down sewer pipes including laterals and identifies and records the location of cross bores.  Whenever they are found, the responsible utility rolls a truck a fixes them.  Finding these problems is big business.  Hydromax estimates that in the U.S. the total market for identifying and geolocating cross bores is about $1 billion per year.

Increased recognition of the injury, death and damage caused from cross bores has resulted in federal and state regulatory action. For example, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s 2011 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) requirements of Distribution Integrity Management Program (DIMP) is intended to increase the integrity of gas distribution systems.

This problem is so prevalent that the Cross Bore Safety Association has been formed.  The CBSA is a community of industry professional that have joined together to address all aspects of utility cross bores for protection against loss of life, injury and property damage.

SPAR 3D: Virtual reality, scan to BIM, infrastructure models, and mapping indoor spaces

I have just experienced two remarkable days at the Spar 3D Expo and Conference in The Woodlands, Texas, in itself a remarkable location near Houston.  I will blog in more detail in the near future about the things and people I had the opportunity to experience over the past two days.

First of all, virtual reality.  Everyone is aware of the Oculus Rift (see the new review at CNET if you aren't).  There are other technologies that have come or are coming from Samsung, Sony and Google.  But at SPAR 3D the most remarkable VR technology I personally experienced was what David Smith, CTO of Wearaility, talked about and allowed me and others to try - a set of incredibly light-weight glasses with acrylic lenses designed to work with a smartphone that gives you a virtual experience comparable to IMAX without the IMAX theatre.  I tried it and found it an absolutely amazing surround experience.  And if you have wondered where Michael Jones, of Keyhole and Google Maps fame, has landed, he is now CEO of Wearality.

Secondly, my personal passion is the geolocation of underground utilities.  At SPAR 3D Mark Klusza, Founder & CTO, Real-time Metrology, Inc. described a major new advance in ground penetrating radar (GPR) technology he has developed that can detect a 3/4 inch rebar (among other things) four feet below the surface in clay.

For existing buildings creating a BIM model remains an art rather than science.  But at SPAR 3D a number of new technologies were presented that can help automate, improve the quality, and speed the process.  Foremost among them in my mind was presented by Nicolas Arnold, VP of Product Development, at SKUR.  With SKUR's technology, which runs in the cloud, you can compare the 3D model that you have developed with the point cloud you derived the model from and identify all the points of significant variance.  The same technology can also be used during a construction project to compare what has been built to what was designed - even when the building is only partially completed.

Ron Singh, Engineering Automation Manager/Chief of Surveys, Oregon Department of Transportation (DoT) described progress on his remarkable vision of how automation is upending how we design, build and monitor, operate and maintain U.S. highway systems.  Richard Arrowsmith, Asset Information Group Team Leader, Highways England described the digital model of the English highway system.  Stan Burns, President, Integrated Inventory, who has just retired from Utah DoT, described Utah DoT's comprehensive database of every piece of highway furniture and signage in the Utah highway system.  Together these represent the future of the digitalization of national highway systems.

A new company, Indoor Reality, is the third startup of Dr Avideh Zakhor, who is on leave from the University of California Berkeley.  Her new device is a backpack loaded with sensors including lasers and infrared that enables you to map the interior of buildings by simply walking through a multi-floor building, including up and down stairs.  The resulting data can be used to automatically generate floor plans and 3D models and captures everything you need for an Energy Plus analysis.

Mark Shell and Darrell Gadberry, both of the City of Fort Worth Water Department, described a very versatile device with laser and sonar and camera devices on board that can be used for sewer line inspections of small and large diameter sewer pipes.  Fundamentally this device enables condition-based maintenance of municipal sewer systems.  Mark and Darrell reported that it has saved the Fort Worth Water Department $42 million.

I was able to interview Dr Avideh Zakhor, Nicolas Arnold, Ron Singh, Larry Kleinkemper of Lanmar Services who specialize in creating BIM models for existing buildings, and Greg Bentley of Bentley who has a broad, forward-looking perspective on the "digitalization" of infrastructure.

Confirmation of drinking water contamination by fracking suggests widespread problem

A new study that confirms drinking water contamination by fracking, something the EPA has been unable to do, signals the beginning of a process to assess the environmental cost of "wildwest" drilling and fracking.  This study relates to drinking water contamination.  The other area where reports are also circulating about the environmental cost of fracking is the release of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere.

The U.S. is predicted to become the biggest oil producer in the world, ahead of Saudi.  This is largely because of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and other well stimulation techniques, both for natural gas and oil.  There are over half a million natural gas wells in the U.S.  There are even wells at the Forth Worth airport to give you a feel for how ubiquitous they are in parts of the U.S. and Alberta.  "Unconventional oil and gas" as fracking is often referred to has become a significant part of the U.S. economy employing millions.

But the environmental cost of fracking remains uncertain.  In 2005 Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which was an omnibus energy bill (that among many other things changed daylight savings time in the US).  Among the provisions of the bill was one (the so-called "Halliburton loophole") that exempted hydraulic fracturing from protections under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act, which means that fracking has never been regulated at the federal level (EPA).

The 2005 bill, which was passed during the GW Bush administration, prevented the EPA from doing any assessment of the environmental impact of "wild west" drilling and fracking.  However, in the last few years so many reports (and a film) have been circulating about water contamination from fracking that Congress authorized the EPA to do a study of the impact of fracking on drinking water quality. 

Needless to say there is a lot of money and jobs involved.  Hence, the study was very controversial and the oil/gas companies did not cooperate.   Based on the limited evidence the EPA was able to collect, the study's draft executive summary said that it had not found evidence of "systemic, widespread effects on drinking water".  But even the study's Science Advisory Board (SAB) disagreed with the conclusion, saying the evidence did suggest a wider problem.

Now a study by academics from Stanford in a peer-reviewed journal (Environ. Sci. Technol.,March 29, 2016, DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b04970) has confirmed that fracking did pollute an aquifer in Pavillion, Wyoming.  The authors state "that they have, for the first time, demonstrated impact to Underground Sources of Drinking Water (USDWs) as a result of hydraulic fracturing."

The study involved a comprehensive analysis of all publicly available data and reports to evaluate the impact to underground drinking water sources as a result of acid stimulation (pumping acids into a well to stimulate the flow of gas or oil) and hydraulic fracturing in the Pavillion, WY, Field.  The study found that the concentrations of major ions such as chloride in samples of water from the geology surrounding wells were outside the expected levels for the aquifer, in other words, injected water and chemicals had leaked into the surrounding rock. They also found direct evidence of  leakoff of stimulation fluids into surrounding rock and inadequate casings during stimulation at several production wells.  The authors concluded that acid stimulation and fracking had impacted (polluted) the aquifer.

 

Furthermore, the authors found evidence of organic chemicals used for well stimulation in samples from two monitoring wells that had been drilled by EPA.  This was interpreted as additional evidence of impact to the aquifer and indicated that the chemicals had migrated upwards into the aquifer used for drinking water.

 

They also compiled well depths at which stimulation and fracking occurred and compared them to to the depths of drinking water wells. They found that well stimulation occurred many times at less than 500 meters from the surface and, in some cases, at or very close to depths of the deepest domestic wells.   This is evidence of shallow hydraulic fracturing, which has been shown to be of higher risk to drinking water sources than deeper hydraulic fracturing,  especially given the issues found and documented in several wells in the Pavillion field.

 

In addition they  found evidence of diesel range and other organic chemicals in domestic wells less than 600 meters from unlined pits that had been used prior to the mid-1990s to dispose of diesel-fuel based drilling mud and production fluids.

And because there is nothing especially unique about the geology and drilling around Pavillion, the study suggested that this is likely evidence of a wider problem, "given the high frequency of injection of stimulation fluids into USDWs..., it is unlikely that impact to USDWs is limited to the Pavillion Field requiring investigation elsewhere."

The problem is likely poor drilling practices and management of "produced water" because of lax or no regulation.  If the drillers neglect to put in concrete casings or if they are insufficient and leak, then the chemicals (including known carcinogens) injected into the well can get into drinking water sources.  If the water returning to the surface containing a variety of chemicals (produced water) is stored in unlined ponds as it used to be, this can also get into drinking water sources.

Smart wastewater system enables city to avoid $100 million sewer expansion

McKinsey&Company has published interesting interviews with mayors of U.S. cities on how open data not only makes for more transparent government, but also improves the effectiveness and efficiency of services. Pete Buttigieg, Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, described how his city is using data to improve the efficiency of wasetwater infrastructure that supports its 100,000 citizens.

Pete Buttigieg's perspective is that all of the data belongs to the people because the City created it while working for them. The City's challenge is to make it available—and not just available but intelligible. It’s not transparent if you just dump a giant pile of data online. The City worked very hard to make the data not only accessible but also usable on their open data portal.

Reducing combined sewer overflows

In the U.S. about 770 cities mostly in the Northeast and Northwest have combined sewers. I've blogged previously about EPA consent decrees designed to reduce the discharge of untreated sewage into surface waters with Cleveland, Akron, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, and Chicago.  These have imposed legally binding investments of between half a billion to multi-billions of dollars on these cities, for many of which this represents a huge financial burden.

About two years ago, the EPA annouced an agreement with the City of South Bend which required the City to make an estimated $509.5 million worth of improvements to its combined sewer system to significantly reduce overflows of raw sewage to the St. Joseph River, which among other things is used for kayaking compeititions.

The City of South Bend ws one of the first cities to move its wastewater management into the cloud.  South Bend has invested $6 million to implement the smart sewer system, but they estimate that it has helped avoid $100 million in capital expense by better using the infrastructure they already have.  It has enabled them to stay ahead of their EPA consent decree and avoid the very expensive capital construction projects that other cities have faced.

Implementing smart sewers in the cloud

South Bend's combined sewer system collects storm water, sanitary sewage, and other pollutants which it conveys to South Bend's wastewater treatment plant (WWTP).  During wet weather events, and during some dry weather time periods, a portion of the sewage that flows through the combined sewers is not conveyed all the way to the WWTP; instead the raw sewage is discharged into the St. Joseph River.  Currently, on average South Bend discharges over 2 billion gallons of untreated sewage resulting from 80 combined sewer overflow (CSO) events annually.

South Bend partnered wit the University of Notre Dame and local technology company EmNet to develop a way to keep sewers from overflowing.  In 2005, EmNet created a system called CSOnet (Combined Sewer Overflow Network) which relies on wireless sensors installed under manhole covers to monitor water levels in sewer pipes. The system consists of 115 sensors that communicate live updates every five minutes wirelessly to a central control center.   Based on the water levels measured by the sensors, "smart" valves can be opened or closed to redirect flow  into pipes where capacity is available.

South Bend is using IBM's Intelligent Operations Center for Smarter Cities software-as-a-service. The cloud service allows public works officials to view aggregated data related to water management in real time, to help predict where incidents will occur.

Benefits

in its first year of operation, the cloud based wastewater management system has practically eliminated dry weather wastewater overflows and reduced wet weather overflows by 23%. If they had done what other cities have and simply expanded the sewer system they estimate it would have cost the city an additional $120 million in capital expenditures.

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.

Wastewater treatment plant or power plant ?

Several years ago I had the opportunity to visit the Southerly wastewater treatment plant in Cleveland, Ohio, where I learned that the plant, which serves a population of more than 601,000 in the Greater Cleveland area, is one of the largest activated sludge plants in the U.S..  Southerly has an average daily flow of 125 million gallons per day (mgd).  The process involves separating the solids from the liquids and using a sequence of tretements to reduce the amount to water in the solids to the point where it can be incinerated.  The fluid effluent is processed and then flows into the river.  The ash from the incineration process goes into ash lagoons. The plant's electricity requirements, mostly for pumping, are about 7.8 million kwh per month which costs $492,000/month.  The natural gas requirements for the incinerators is 37,000 million cubic feet (mcf) per month, which costs them $417,000/month.  That is about $900,000 per month for energy, and this is just one of three plants in the Greater Cleveland area.

I blogged about a research project using microbial reverse-electrodialysis cells (MRC) to digest organic solids to produce electricity that suggested that the energy flow in treating wastewater could be reversed.  It was estimated that with this process there is ~9× more energy available in domestic wastewater than is required to treat it using conventional methods.

Generating power from waste in Milwaukie

So I was really interested today when In his presentation at the Canadian Water Network conference in Ottawa, Kevin Shafer, Executive Director of the Milwaukie Metropolitan Sewerage District(MMSD), said that he thinks of water treatment plants as power plants.

The MMSD has two water reclamation plants, Jones Island and South Shore.

The South Shore Wastewater Treatment Plant first went on line in 1968. At this treatment plant  biosolids are sent to anaerobic digesters where microorganisms convert a large part of the biosolids into methane gas. The gas is collected and burned to produce electricity for the plant.

The Jones Island plant has been in operation for almost 90 years. It is also located on Lake Michigan.  Jones Island is unique because this is where Milorganite, an organic fertilizer, is made.  Wastewater is treated with microbes to digest nutrients. The resulting solid materials are then dried at temperatures ranging from 900⁰-1200⁰F which removes any pathogens.  The treatment plant is designated as a National Historic Civil Engineering Landmark by the American Society of Civil Engineers.  In June the water treatment plant and the Milorganite factory will begin to be powered by electricity generated at the Jones Island plant from methane gas produced at a nearby landfill and piped to Jones Island. 

Kevin thinks of the water treatment plants as energy production plants.  Jones Island will bring three turbines on-line in June with about 9 MW capacity.  After that the plan is to add two more turbines and the plant will be able to export power and actually generate revenue. 

The South Shore plant can generate power directly from biosolids extracted from wastewater so there is a program with a local company Insinkerator that manufactures waste food disposal units to encourage food waste in the home to be ground up in the sink and added to wastewater and ultimately to generate electricity at South Shore or in the case of Jones island to be used to manufacture fertilizer.

Survey reports that Americans support water reuse

GE has releases the results of a consumer survey that asked 3000 consumers in the U.S., China and Singapore what they thought about reusing waste water. 

According to the EPA water recycling is reusing treated wastewater for purposes such as agricultural and landscape irrigation, industrial processes, toilet flushing, and replenishing a ground water basin.  Wastewater treatment can be tailored to meet the water quality requirements of a planned reuse. Recycled water for landscape irrigation requires less treatment than recycled water for drinking water.   A common type of recycled water is water that has been reclaimed from municipal wastewater, or sewage.   Another type of recycled water is "gray water".  Gray water is reusable wastewater from residential, commercial and industrial bathroom sinks, bath tub shower drains, and clothes washing equipment drains.

Accoding to the GE survey 66 percent of the American respondents responded positively to the concept of water reuse.  More than 80 percent of the Americans surveyed said that they support using recycled water for “toilet-to-turf” uses such as agricultural irrigation, power generation, landscaping, industrial processing and manufacturing, toilet flushing and car washing. However, the majority of American respondents were hesitant about “toilet-to-tap” recycling,

The American respondents felt that the largest water users are most responsible for contributing to water scarcity.  The respondents reported that those most responsible for water scarcity are large industries (74 percent), agriculture (69 percent) and utilities and power companies (67 percent).

The GE survey also reported that Americans are aware of the connection between energy and water.  86 percent reported that they understood that energy is required to deliver water.   74 percent said they are aware that water is needed to generate energy.  To put this in context, half of all water withdrawals in the U.S. are used for electric power generation and about 3% of total electric power generated in the U.S. is used by the water industry, primarily for pumping.   87 percent of the American respondents said they support using recycled water for power generation, more than any other application of recycled water.

84 percent of the American respondents said that protection of water resources should be a national priority, meaning that the Federal government has a key role to play.  Nearly half of the American respondents said they are williing to pay more, on average 12 percent more, to ensure that future generations will be less vulnerable to water scarcity.

First Canadian infrastructure report card released

I have blogged on several occasions about the ASCE's widely recognized Report Card for American Infrastructure which has highlighted the poor state of American infrastructure by not only assigning a grade but also attempting to estimate the total investment that is required to bring U.S. infrastructure up to an acceptable standard.  The ASCE Report Card for 2009 includes Aviation (D), Bridges (C), Dams (D), Drinking Water (D-), Energy (D+), Hazardous Waste (D), Inland Waterways (D-), Levees (D-),  Public Parks and Recreation (C-), Rail (C-), Roads (D-), Schools (D), Solid Waste (C+), Transit (D),  and Wastewater (D-), for an overall GPA of D and an estimated five year investment requirement of $2.2 trillion.

Other countries have also attempted to do similar report cards for some of their infrastructure, including Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United Kingdom.  At least one city, Hamilton, Ontario has generated an infrastructure report card for its municipal infrastructure.

In 2007 the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) conducted a survey of municipal infrastructure and estimated that the municipal infrastructure deficit in Canada in 2007 was C$123 billion.  The FCM broke this down by key infrastructure categories,

• water and waste water systems - $31 billion
• transportation - $21.7 billion
• transit - $22.8 billion
• waste management - $7.7 billion
• community, recreational, cultural and social infrastructure - $40.2 billion

The first Canadian Infrastructure Report Card was released this month by the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering (CSCE), the Canadian Public Works Association (CPWA), the Canadian Construction Association (CCA) and the FCM.

The Report Card assesses the state of Canada's municipal drinking water, wastewater, storm water and road systems at a national level based on survey results from 123 municipalities representing about two thirds of Canadians.

The Report Card estimates the total value of Canada's municipal water, wastewater, storm water and road systems across the country at $538 billion. Of this

• $50.7 billion is assessed as being in poor or very poor condition.
• $121.1 billion is assessed as being in fair condition.

This is considerably higher for the comparable categories than the FCM estimated in 2007.

Municipal roads (Fair)

More than half the roads surveyed fall below a rating of “good”: 32% are in “fair” condition, and 20.6% are in “poor” to “very poor” condition, for a total of 52.6%. ( A grade of “Fair” means the infrastructure “shows general signs of deterioration and requires attention, with some elements exhibiting significant deficiencies.” ) The estimated replacement cost of the roads in fair to very poor condition is $91.1 billion, nationally.

Wastewater (Good)

40% of wastewater plants, pumping stations and storage tanks in “fair” to “very poor” condition, and 30.1% of pipes are assessed to be in “fair” to “very poor” condition. The replacement cost for the wastewater infrastructure in “fair” to “very poor” condition is $39 billion.  In addition the Federal government has just introduced Canada's first regulations covering wastewater treatment which will require an additional significant level of investment which the FCM has estimated could cost municipalities over $30 billion.

Drinking-water (Good)

15.4% of the systems were ranked “fair” to “very poor” for the condition of their pipes.  14.4% of plants, reservoirs and pumping stations were ranked “fair” to “very poor”.  The replacement cost for the drinking-water infrastructure in “fair” to “very poor” condition is $25.9 billion.

Stormwater (Very good)

12.5% of stormwater installations surveyed fall below “good” condition.   23.4% of stormwater pipes are assessed to be "fair" or "poor". The replacement cost for stormwater infrastructure in “fair” to “very poor” condition is $15.8 billion.