Confronting the Challenge
Stephen R. Blankenship, PE
Hamilton Township MUA
Confronting the Challenge
Confronting the Challenge
Confronting the Challenge
Confronting the Challenge
Today’s presentation
• The Buried No Longer Report
• What It Means to Ratepayers
• HTMUA’s Water Infrastructure Story
• The American Water Works Association released this
groundbreaking water infrastructure report in February of
2012.
• The Buried No Longer analysis indicates that waves of
investment will be necessary to maintain the community
water systems throughout the United States.
• Investment Drivers:
– original patterns of pipe investment
– the pipe materials used
– local operating environments.
• What are the reinvestment demands implied by these
drivers?
• What are the future population trends?
• Both need to be considered in order to estimate the capital
required to meet pipe replacement and concurrent growth
demands.
• The report was one of the most thorough analyses ever
undertaken of the U.S. drinking water infrastructure renewal
needs.
• In order to get the estimate, the researchers sought to
understand:
the original timing of the water system development
the various types of pipe materials
likely install date by pipe material & size
the life expectancy of the various types and sizes of pipes (“pipe
cohorts”) in actual operating environments
– the replacement costs for each type and size of pipe
–
–
–
–
• Develop a probability distribution for the wear-out of each
pipe cohort
• Utilize a Nessie curve model to demonstrate how much
capital ($$) will need to be invested between now and 2050
to repair and expand water infrastructure
• The Nessie Curve is an Australian infrastructure asset
management tool developed by Haydn Reynolds, that
graphically depicts the annual replacement needs in a
particular utility, based on when the assets were installed
and how long they are expected to last.
• The rising shape of this graph has caused it to be named a
“Nessie Curve” after the Loch Ness Monster.
Total Investment Needs
Investment needed to replace old pipes
and accommodate growth in U.S.:
o $1 trillion by 2035
o $1.7 trillion by 2050
Key Findings
The needs are large
• Replacement needs account for about
54% of the national total
• The balance, about 46%, is attributable
to population changes over that period
Key Findings
The needs are large
•
The required national-level investment will double
from roughly $13 billion a year today to almost $30
billion annually by the 2040s (in 2010 dollars).
•
This level of investment must then be sustained for
many years, if current levels of water system
performance and service are to be maintained.
Key Findings
Household bills will go up
•
The amount water bills rise will vary depending
on past investment, community size and
geographic region
•
But … in some communities the infrastructure
costs alone could triple the size of a typical
family’s bill
Key Findings
There are important regional differences
•
Pipe replacement expenses account for more than
84% of the $278 billion need in the Northeast and
Midwest regions through 2035.
•
In the rapidly growing South and West, expansion to
meet a growing population amounts to about 62% of
the projected need of $277 billion in that same time
period
Key Findings
There are important differences based on system size
•
Small and/or rural communities may face the biggest
challenges
•
Places with people living far apart have more pipe “miles
per customer” than large, urban systems
•
The most impacted households could see their drinking
water bills increase between $300 and $550 per year
above current levels to address infrastructure needs
Key Findings
The costs keeps coming
•
With pipe replacement, utilities are likely to have to face
these costs year over year for an indefinite period of time
•
That’s because by the time they’re done paying for one
vintage of pipes, it will be time to replace another
•
Paying for this may become a “pay-as-you-go” proposition
Key Findings
Postponing investment is a bad idea
•
The Nessie Model provides some charts that show what
happens to the investment curve if we defer investment
•
But putting things off means higher expenditures down the
line, and maybe more disastrous consequences
•
For water systems, the consequences are leaking and
breaking mains, low pressure for fire flow, etc.
Pipe Replacement Modeling Tool Introduction
This tool was developed using the data collected and the methods used for
the National Mains Replacement Model, utilizing the Nessie ModelTM
approach, as detailed in AWWA’s 2012 report “Buried No Longer”.
This streamlined model allows the user to generate utility-scaled estimates
of possible water main replacement needs, based on the national study.
The model asks for a variety of user-specific data to develop the estimates,
which includes:
•
•
•
•
Distribution system commencement date (i.e. founding date)
Population served
Expected growth rate
Pipe costs, materials & sizes
This model generates a view of how a cap (deferral) on replacement expenditures
in the short term may act future replacement requirements.
Pipe Replacement Modeling Tool Introduction
Pipe Replacement Modeling Tool Introduction
The model is a compendium of
results from 12 sub-models:
• Regions:
― Northeast
― Midwest
― South
― West
• Size:
― Large
― Medium & Small
― Very-Small
Large
Region
Medium
& Small
Very
Small
Pipe Replacement Modeling Tool Introduction
Users should choose the most relevant Region/Size combination.
However, choice of the most suitable sub-model for a particular utility may
also be influenced by the closest historical installation pattern (for
surviving mains), which cannot be varied with a sub-model.
Wherever practical, the user should also consider the most appropriate
growth profile, A to L, as shown in slides to follow. Through “Input 7”, the
model recasts the overall profiles to show those portions that are relevant
for utilities with commencement dates after 1870. Adding this profile is an
optional approach to selecting a reference model based on a combination
of utility region and size.
Inputs
7. The approximate cumulative percentage of the network at
the end of each decade since commencement .
(Optional, but recommended)
Note: Allowance for major Clean & Line/ Rehabilitation
Programs. Where a utility has undertaken a major clean &
line or rehabilitation program, the assumed installation
date for the purposes of the following array should be the
replacement period, not the original installation period.
Inputs
The profile constructed form this data is plotted on the
following Chart in bold red to assist in choosing a suitable
Reference Model (A though L)
Inputs
8. Reference model selection.
Select a letter code to select a region and utility size
combination that best matches your utility’s growth pattern
entered under input 7. Refer to the Glossary to see how
letters correspond to utility region and size.
Inputs
Inputs
9. The percentage mix of pipe materials comprising the
network.
Where no user input selections are made, the model
defaults to the distribution identified in the base case for
the Region/Size combination.
Our Own Water Infrastructure Story
•
It’s clear that we’re not alone in our water infrastructure
challenge.
•
Many communities nationwide are facing a similar
situation.
•
Using the Buried No Longer Pipe Replacement Modeling
Tool you can …..
― Calculate your own utility’s water replacement needs
― Look at the cost to your utility if investment is delayed
HTMUA’S Challenge
HTMUA’S Challenge
HTMUA’S Challenge
HTMUA’S Challenge
HTMUA’S Challenge
HTMUA’S Challenge
HTMUA’S Challenge
Base Case
HTMUA’S Challenge
Deferred Case
HTMUA’S Challenge
HTMUA’S Challenge
HTMUA’S Challenge
HTMUA’S Challenge
HTMUA’S Challenge
HTMUA’S Challenge
HTMUA’S Challenge
HTMUA’S Challenge
HTMUA’S Challenge
Per the “Base” profile, the HTMUA should
have/be spending ~ $450,000 to $500,000/year
between 2010 and 2015
Between 2006 and 2014, the HTMUA has spent
$5,200,000 and its water distribution system, for
a yearly average of ~$578,000.
INFRASTRUCTURE
SEVERE RISK OF A MAJOR FAILURE OF
WATER UTILITY INFRASTRUCUTRE
HIGH RISK OF A MAJOR FAILURE OF
WATER UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
ELEVATED RISK OF A MAJOR FAILURE OF
WATER UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
GUARDED RISK OF A MAJOR FAILURE OF
WATER UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
LOW RISK OF A MAJOR FAILURE OF
WATER UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
Confronting the Challenge
What’s your utility’s plan to
confront the challenge?
http://www.awwa.org/Portals/0/files/legreg/documents/BuriedNoLonger.pdf
Thank you!
Stephen R. Blankenship, P.E.
Executive Director/Chief Engineer
Phone: (609) 625-1872 x 205
Email: [email protected]