Feb
12
Infrastructure Maintenance and Upgrade: The Snakes in the Grass
February 12, 2008 | Posted by Earl Spangenberg
3 Comments
Gerald E. Galloway
While climate change impacts, water supply shortages, and ecosystem restoration challenges will be major areas of concern for the United States in the years ahead, over the next decade, the nation will have to come to grips with the more immediate challenge of maintaining and upgrading its considerable water infrastructure. In 2005 the American Society of Civil Engineers(ASCE), in its biennial report card on the status of the nation’s built environment, issued a grade of D or lower for the condition of all water related systems that it evaluates.
ASCE saw that maintenance of water treatment and wastewater treatment systems was falling behind at a rate of over $10 billion/year in both areas. Many systems put into service in the 1970s are meeting the end of their design life and struggle to cope with 21st Century pollutants. ASCE’s analysis paralleled the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) 2002 gap analysis that pointed out shortfalls in system repairs and upgrades. The last USEPA assessment of water quality (2002) indicates that “about 45% of assessed stream miles, 47% of assessed lake acres, and 32% of assessed bay and estuarine square miles were not clean enough to support uses such as fishing and swimming.” The Natural Resources Defense Council reported that the number of 2006 closing and advisory days at ocean, bay, and Great Lakes beaches topped 25,000.
Many problems can be tied to overtaxed treatment plants and the challenge of dealing with ancient water transmission and sewer systems. Original funding sources for many of these programs have disappeared and Congress is now in search of ways to move the costs of these infrastructure repairs and upgrades from the local level back to the federal level. President Bush’s October 2007 veto of the Water Resources Development Act (which was subsequently overridden by Congress) was in part attributable to the Congress’ inclusion of over $2 billion in authorizations in the legislation for federal support of wastewater and water treatment facilities.
Dams support water supply, hydropower, flood control, recreation, and provide environmental flows. Their efficient operation is key to making the most of the water resources that are stored behind these structures and this efficiency is directly related to the maintenance and safety of the structures. ASCE lists over 3,500 dams as unsafe and even major federal projects have faced demands for significant funding support to remain safe. Since ASCE’s 2005 report was issued, Hurricane Katrina has added the dimension of the extensive problems with levee maintenance across the country that is resulting in numerous decertification of levees in the National Flood Insurance Program. At present, there is no reliable information on the potential costs of levee repairs but it is clear that many of the government entities that operate levees do not have the resources to maintain or upgrade these critical structures.
To remain competitive in international trade and to move bulk commodities such as coal throughout much of the country, the nation relies on an aging waterways infrastructure. In spite of needs for major repairs, nearly 50% of the locks and dams in service today are functionally obsolete and maintenance funds continue to be limited. Funds to maintain both our large and small harbors continue to be insufficient to meet and maintain the depths originally authorized by the Congress.
It has always been tempting for those with responsibility for programming and budgeting the maintenance and upgrade of infrastructure to push such programs off for ‘just a year or two,” and, if nothing goes wrong, to feel justified in delaying this work in favor of “higher priority needs.” Those of us who must deal with infrastructure recognize that chickens do come home to roost. I can hear them clucking now.
Related posts:
- Recovery Act Not Very Stimulating Relative to Water Investments Jerry Sehlke, President AWRA Over the weekend I heard and...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Comments
3 Comments so far
Subscribe
The James Bay Tunnel Project
Some of James Bay’s saved fresh water would be transferred through a tunnel, as needed, to stabilize the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River levels and flows, relieve drought in other areas and lower pollution concentration in both nations.
In short, what are the most important reasons for the James Bay Tunnel Project?
Supply and Demand
· The large supply and high demand of recycled fresh water to areas of water scarcity in the Great Lakes to Canada, United States & Mexico
Profits to Canadians
· This is an economic growth project for Canada. At a profit of $7.7 Billion/year to ALL Canadians controlled by a crown corporation.
The Executive Summary
1. North America is not running out of water, but we are running out of time to tackle critical water stress problems.
2. The Great Lakes are glacial phenomena – not a water basin. Despite all the threats of drought, there will not be one drop available from the Great Lakes to areas of water scarcity.
3. The average daily inflow of 11,000 cubic meters per second (m3s) of fresh water from 11 large rivers is lost to the ocean through James Bay. This is happening while the demand for fresh water in N. America is increasing.
4. The southern part of James Bay will become a self-sustaining fresh water lake behind a sea barrier. Its salt water will be flush through a narrow channel into the ocean over four years.
5. In this channel, a system of Run of the River turbines will be installed to supply sizeable hydroelectric power.
6. A deep-sea port in James Bay could open access from Northern Ontario and Northern Quebec to Europe. In ten years, it could open access from China and India as far as the Midwest US, thereby bypassing the Panama Canal at a savings of 10,000 km.
7. The primary purpose of this project will then be realized: to pump fresh water over the Northern Divide to the Great Lakes and then to areas of water scarcity. The water flow potential is the same as Niagara Falls flow: 2653 m3s.
8. From the Great Lakes, it will be possible to build a distribution network of fresh water to regions of present and future water scarcity to the dry Midwest and to as far south as Mexico. In Canada, there will be a potential for a Canadian Prairie Transfer Canal to the dry prairies.
9. Part of the financing would come from the US Federal Reserve Project Fund. An amount of us$8 Billion is available upon approval to non-US government bodies. These funds will be approved because they will be used to solve a US water crisis. The funds actually are non-repayable so it does not entail any real financial obligation to the Canadian public or government. Also, normal government water subsidies of OECD countries range between 30%-50%.
10. The project is economically feasible: the cost is only $5.55/acre-foot: the present annual national U.S. delivered cost of water is $814/acre-foot.
(Add $1.25 Million/mile or $780,000/km for pipelines from the Great Lakes.)
The estimated auctioned price would be $160/acre-foot compared to the heavily subsidized rate of $50/ acre-foot to agricultural areas.
11. This water supply will remain in public ownership to maintain control of Canada’s natural resources in Canada, but management will be a mix of public and private systems (Public-Private Partnerships). The original partners will be open to new co-owners and invite all water supply and sanitation organizations to become “implementation partners” of the initiative. The private sector involved in the design and construction of the infrastructure usually requires a 10 per cent real pre-tax equity return.
12. Our Next Steps:
a. Select a Management Agency to finalize the 84-page Pre-feasibility Study.
b. Evaluation: an inventory of all factors involved in construction with a computer simulation. Cost estimate: $2 Million in one year.
c. Full implementation of #b: $12 Million over two years.
d. Evaluation of #c and Construction: us$153 Million in 6-7 years.
Canadians can’t wait for the Crisis
A WATER CRISIS is defined as a state of emergency in which populations are at risk of death, disease and panic due to an interruption/contamination of the fresh water supply. The “business as usual” alternative is to tolerate a level of avoidable suffering and loss of human potential. This is ethically indefensible and economically wasteful.
· Canada is not immune: Ontario simply has the most to lose. It is the largest consumer of water in the Great Lakes and also the most densely populated.
· Our Great Lakes water reservoir is emptying – and not replenishing.
· Our USA neighbor is already in a Water Crisis.
Why are the new construction techniques far superior to a 1964 Proposal?
· Non-invasive tunnel boring machines that measure 6 meters diameter that didn’t exist until 1985.
· The hydroelectric potential of Run of the River turbines in a channel at the Sea Barrier and at the tidal flats of James Bay supply 3900 MW of hydroelectricity.
Let us deal with the main objections to this project.
1. Surely we are not going to encourage the blatant disregard for good conservation of water from the largest polluters in the world.
Most of the watercourses have been over dammed in the U. S. and Mexico. This will probably be known as the decade of water conservation in North America.
We are trying to solve the problems of a major water crisis in the next decade when conservation will not suffice.
2. Surely we are not going to ruin a pristine environment in James Bay.
A two-year feasibility study will determine the real environmental impact. We must measure and compare the impact of a more important environmental problem in the Great Lakes. The large Great Lakes wetlands are being decimated.
We are trying to solve the environmental problems of the Great Lakes.
3. Surely we are not going to sell our Canadian resources to the U.S.
Water in excess of Canadian needs has a ready USA Market. The annual projected return on selling our fresh water will be $7.7 Billion. Canada is becoming well known for not following the Kyoto Accord. One of the major problems is that there will be a major “bite” on our well-oiled economic machine.
This money will allow Canada to overcome the high costs of pollution.
4. Multi-jurisdictional cooperation of governments and NGOs is very difficult.
It will take a minor miracle to bring all aboriginal, provincial and federal bodies together. Once the aboriginal nations sign on, the government will take heart.
This is an economic growth project for Canada.
An equitable formula will benefit ALL Canadians.
5. There is a misplaced belief that Canada has an excess of water. This myth is firmly entrenched. This thinking will lead to detrimental decisions.
This is why we will recycle 2653 cubic meters per second into the Great Lakes.
Albert Einstein said, “The problems in the world today are so enormous that they cannot be solved with the level of thinking that created them.”
We must step away from old thinking.
Desalination Plant water costs $3083/acre-foot compared to the present cost of $814/acre-foot. Smart consumers are already willing to pay a 1000% premium for a product that is readily available for free in their own homes.
North America is home to 514 million people. The projections for 2050 are 710 million people (a 38% increase). What do you think will happen when the water availability does not increase by 38% because of global warming?
Dare we predict what the Great Lake and the areas of drought will be like in 50 years? Will it be “Don’t drink from the faucet today”? Or, “Daddy, why is the bath water so dirty?”
This is a problem that needs long term planning. Decisions must be made now.
So, what part do you wish to play in the overall solution?
Note: More information about this brief news release is available from:
Romain Audet roaudet@sympatico.ca
Sounds like the return of NAWAPA!
See my post at WaterWired:
http://aquadoc.typepad.com/waterwired/2008/01/kennedy-to-cana.html
Michael
[...] Many problems can be tied to overtaxed treatment plants and the challenge of dealing with ancient water transmission and sewer systems. [...]