The widespread failure of water main pipelines in the US continues to make headlines and provide a focal point for worries about the country’s infrastructure problems. After all, how long can a city survive without fresh water?
Of all the incidents that have made the news, one particular event and image skyrocketed to worldwide media coverage. It was the sinking of an entire fire truck in the San Fernando Valley, a suburb of Los Angeles, CA, where firefighters were responding to a 6-inch iron pipe break on beneath a street, in September 2009. Just days earlier, another water main 2 miles away failed and unleashed a torrent that washed cars down streets, flooded a major boulevard, and forced the evacuation of local residents.
“When they fail spectacularly, they tend to get a lot of attention, and what we had in Los Angeles was a case in point,” says Richard G. Little, AICP, director of the Keston Institute for Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy at the University of Southern California. Little manages a program of research and dissemination activities, addressing infrastructure issues critical to California and the nation, and he notes that, aside from the sensational coverage, the incident may have served a good purpose.
“The truth is, water mains break for a variety of reasons all the time, everywhere,” says Little. “We are reaching the end of the useful life of many of these systems, and a lot of utilities haven’t been replacing them. If the proper maintenance isn’t done on a regular basis, it just gets bigger and bigger. Kind of like credit card debt, you start spending and can’t pay it off, and it grows all by itself.”
Prioritizing a Payment Strategy
Paying down the maintenance debt is needed, agrees Gregg Horn, P.E., president of the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association. But like the credit cards with the highest interest rates, prioritizing the costliest debts is a better strategy than just starting with the oldest. “It’s true that much of our infrastructure is dated, but the age of the pipe is not necessarily a determinate of its service life,” explains Horn. “There are over 600 utilities in the United States and Canada that have iron pipe that is over 100 years old. A lot of that pipe is still very sound, but obviously, it just depends on each particular situation as to the ability of a pipe to continue serving adequately.” And therein lies one of the many questions–are there common factors that cause failures?
Finding the answer involves gathering data, and Horn sees some real progress in that area, thanks to the growing use of GIS. “Utilities are using GIS to maintain their systems, and it handles all kinds of information about the class, type, installation dates, repairs, and the status of corrosion protection,” says Horn.
From Turn-of-the-Century to the “War Effort”
Corrosion protection deserves special attention. It is a major issue for iron ductile pipe, and much of the country’s systems were buried underground long before the advent of modern corrosion controls, such a cathodic protection. But the complications don’t end with age. Jeff Schramuk, a corrosion protection specialist and president of CP Solutions in Bartlett, IL, notes that turn-of-the-century water pipes were typically an inch-and-a-quarter thick, and many of those systems are still performing well. But during World War II, pipes were made much thinner because of a shortage of materials. So, utilities that were assuming they could get 75 or 100 years of service are now finding that, in some cases, they’re not even getting 25 years.
“In New York and along the east coast, there is a lot of old cast iron in the ground with thick walls, and people have this mindset that it’s going to last forever, but it doesn’t,” says Schramuk. “There are utilities out there that just wait for the pipe to fail, but that is very costly, considering that a break in the United States averages from about $3,500–$5,000 per incident. And of course, most of the failures occur in the wintertime in the northern climates.”
Schramuk cites utilities such as Louisville, KY, and Des Moines, IA, as having a proactive approach towards installing cathodic protection, along with Canadian utilities such as Toronto and Ontario that have been doing it successfully for over 25 years. “It’s a deceptively simple process,” explains Schramuk. “It’s similar to creating a battery. You are actually putting expendable metal into the ground and connecting it to your water pipe, so it creates an electrical current that nullifies corrosion on the pipe and, instead, concentrates the corrosion on the expendable metal, typically described as a sacrificial anode.”
In the case of ductile iron water mains, this is a passive system and doesn’t require power. When used for large potable water tanks or industrial water storage, active systems with external power sources are needed. Taking a proactive approach like cathodic protection is obviously a good choice to extend the life of pipe, but what about immediate solutions to pipe failures? Happily, much progress has been made in repair technologies.
To Reline, or Replace?When it comes to pipeline repairs, utilities have a number of methods to reline a pipe’s interior. Proven technologies include: Cured-in-Place-Pipe (CIPP) liners, epoxy coatings, and cement mortar linings. According to Andrew Seidel, CEO and president of Underground Solutions Inc., in Poway, CA, these liners typically rely on the host pipe to achieve their pressure rating and are not structural systems. Another method that is structural uses Fusible PVC. The fusible system offers a structural solution (PVC pipe) that remains independent of the deteriorating host pipe. The material resists chlorine-based disinfectants, gasoline, and gasoline-saturated solutions. Since its introduction in 2004, Fusible PVC pipe has been utilized in over 200 sliplining projects.
“There are a lot of opportunities for utilities to adopt this new technology,” says Seidel. “It’s installed using various types of trenchless installation, and the most prolific is horizontal directional drilling, where the equipment allows crews to drill down a short distance, and then turn the drill horizontally so it can follow the existing pipeline under roads, rivers, buildings, and intersections. It avoids hitting underground infrastructure such as existing fiber-optic, gas, and electricity lines.”
Trenchless technology has been a boon to utilities, because it avoids digging large trenches that have to run the length of the pipe being rehabbed. But assessing the condition of potable water mains and finding the highest priority candidate for rehabbing isn’t quite as easy, says Rob McKim, co-director of the Trenchless Technology Center at Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA.
The High Cost of Finding the Problems
“We are very close to the industry and have some of the largest municipalities on our industrial advisory, and what we’re seeing now is a shift from emergency sewer failures to emergency failures on the pressure side of potable water systems,” says McKim. “But just the problem of access is a huge issue. You have to take the pipe out of service, and at that point you’re not always sure of what instruments you can use to get in there and inspect.”
Further complications arise when utility managers expect fees to be comparable to those for inspecting sewer lines. “With sewers, the technology is mature, and we can do it for a very reasonable price, typically around $1 to $2 a foot,” says McKim. “So, utilities think pressurized water mains will cost the same. But when they hear of prices at $10 to $20 a foot and no promises as to what kind of results they’ll get, they are shocked. At this point, there are very few consultants out there and even fewer contractors that have experience or a track record for assessing pressurized pipe systems.”
Fortunately, there is another approach. McKim advises utilities to start by going back and looking at their records for maintenance, confirmed leaks, repairs, and other data, such as pumping records and pumping pressures. All of these can be analyzed to see trends and patterns. Moreover, statistical analysis of the system can determine where the systemic problems are and where to focus on assessment. As for the current barriers to access and inspection, McKim sees a bright future. “Right now we’re in the same situation we were with sewers about 25 years ago,” notes McKim. “A lot of bright people are tackling this problem, and anytime you have a multi-billion-dollar-per-year industry, there is a market to drive solutions.”
Mining the Data
The market is also driving research, such as a major survey of water utilities being conducted by the Center for Innovative Grouting Materials and Technology (CIGMAT), an affiliate of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Houston, TX. According to Dr. C. Vipulanandan, P.E., director of CIGMAT, the survey includes cities from around the country and an analysis of water pipeline performance. “We are focusing on the pipes that are less than 20 inches in diameter because 95% are that size,” says Vipulanandan. “The study will include performance of these pipes under various soil conditions and weather changes, so we have cities from the North and South, and we’ll see about different environmental conditions and their effects.”
Seven Miles Per Year in the Mile-High City
The city of Denver, CO, contributed their data to the survey, and their track record for repairing and replacing water mains demonstrates a commitment to the public’s welfare. According to Jon Fischer, an engineer at the utility, Denver’s system has about 3,000 miles of pipe, and the rehabilitation program targets the 450 miles of cast iron pipe that isn’t relined yet. Currently, the program rehabs 5–7 miles per year. Most of that cast iron pipe is 16 inches in diameter. “This is seasonal work because of the cold weather,” says Fischer. “Another challenge is the disruption to the public. When we have to access private property, it can be difficult.” Denver’s procedure typically includes shutting down the main and rerouting the water with aboveground hoses connected to fire hydrants.
The city also runs a second program to address replacement. It targets all water mains (lined or not) with histories of leaks and breaks. “We currently replace about an additional six miles of pipe per year,” says Mary Hoddinott, manager of Treated Water Planning. “Both programs will be accelerated in the future. Our goal is to double our efforts in each program over the next 10 years.”
Overall, Denver Water’s 10-year plan includes 300 projects. Along with upgrades to aging infrastructure to prevent risks to reliable water service, the plan calls for expansion of the utility’s system capacity to meet the future needs of its customers. Areas to be addressed include expanding the recycled water system, enlarging the Gross Reservoir by 18,000 acre-feet and developing gravel pits that store reusable water.
The cost of repairs and replacements to its aging infrastructure, plus building new supply, will total $1.3 billion over the next 10 years. It’s a lot of money, but Denver Water makes a priority of keeping the public aware of the connection between water and realistic pricing that allows for proper maintenance.
Staying in the Public Eye
In one of the many public news announcements issued from the utility, Brian Good, director of operations and maintenance, says, “We need to be more proactive in our work to repair, maintain, and upgrade our aging water system. Some of our facilities are more than 100 years old.” The statement followed the approval in October 2009, of an adjustment in water rates for 2010 to help fund the utility’s 10-year capital plan. The new rates took effect in February of 2010. Typical Denver residential customers will see increases of about $40 a year–an average of $3.30 per month. Suburban residential customers will pay more, typically about $51 per year–an average of $4.30 per month.
Other utilities should follow Denver’s example, notes Little. “The problem is that when you under price water, you tend to devalue the overall treatment by the public, and they tend to waste it. So, the utility doesn’t get enough revenue to keep the system repaired, and it breaks down. Then people value it even less, and when you get to the end of all this, the whole system can
break down.”
The Trillion-Dollar Mistake
Little sees even further damage to public perception in the sensationalistic headlines about the cost of fixing the nation’s infrastructure. “It needs to be a local issue,” he says. “We made a lot of mistakes by making water a trillion-dollar issue. That may be true, but it is the quickest way to inspire inaction because nobody can deal with a figure like a trillion. If we brought it down to a manageable local level, it would be different.”
However damaging figures in the trillions are to the public, such numbers are common to one group–congress. And according to Tom Curtis, deputy executive director of Government Affairs at the American Water Works Association (AWWA), the congress should create a “water infrastructure bank” to help water utilities that haven’t done as good a job as Denver in connecting rates to water service.
The idea began when the AWWA’s Water Utility Council commissioned a study of various finance tools to assist water utilities and issued its report, “Financing Water Infrastructure: A Water Infrastructure Bank and Other Innovations.” Of all of the possibilities considered, the report concludes that a new federal water infrastructure bank would have the most significant benefits. By functioning as an intermediary federal lending institution, the bank could lower borrowing costs for existing state revolving fund programs, as well as other federal financing programs, such as the Agriculture Department’s Rural Utilities Service.
Going to the Bank
Additionally, such a bank could lend directly to large projects of regional and national importance, which may not be able to obtain low-cost financing through the state revolving fund or other sources. This option could also be expanded from water infrastructure to other infrastructure types, such as solid waste and transportation.
“We think it’s an excellent idea, and it is going to move forward,” says Curtis. “There has been a bill introduced into the house, and the senate banking committee is working on developing it. I think it’s easier to get it done now than it would have been a two years ago, and I am hopeful for next year if we don’t see any finish on it this year.”
Curtis believes that there is a growing awareness of the critical challenges facing our infrastructure, and it’s linked to the need to find ways to invest in America. At the same time, congress has a growing awareness that the country has lived beyond its means with the federal deficit, and that we need ways to address some of the problems, yet refrain from relying on the federal government to just hand out money. “The bank is not a giveaway,” says Curtis. “It is a loan program, and it will have a positive return to the federal treasury. So we think it’s a powerful incentive.”
Additional incentives are needed in the area of the public’s perception of water rates. Curtis and the AWWA want more political courage from officials, because water is under-priced, especially compared to many other services that the public must pay for. “Without water you don’t have a city,” says Curtis. “It’s unacceptable to have a deteriorating level of water service, and it’s a simple fact of life that you have to pay to keep it modern and replace things that wear out.”
Tap Water’s Makeover
To help, the AWWA has launched national programs such as the “Tap Water Delivers” campaign. It provided materials, messages, and graphics for utilities to use on buses and billboards. “It’s all about growing the awareness of how vital the water infrastructure is and that we need to pay for it,” says Curtis. “Then, you have the report card from American Society of Civil Engineers that gave us a D minus on infrastructure, and other groups that I could name have issued similar conclusions. I don’t think we deserved the D minus– it’s a bit too low–but be that as it may, it is a device that brings attention to the issue.”
