With all the hullabaloo surrounding the Navy document, I went searching for industry wide assessments of water industries. This one of the ones I found. I don't know if it has been posted here before, but I might as well post it. It was pretty limited in scope (only 614 responses out of >3500 utilities) and only gives preliminary aggregate results. The results given are somewhat reassuring, though. Take it as you will. Read through it and please post your comments.

Because I am somewhat link challenged, I can only give you the URLs:

AWWA Y2K site: http://www.awwa.org/Y2K.HTM

Survey Report: http://www.awwa.org/y2k07.htm

So it goes.

-- Mr. Details (Details@detail.com), August 20, 1999

Answers

If you will recall - one of the reasons the Navy report cannot be discounted is that it simply and directly said "these bases are AT significant RISK (the utilities have not failed yet!) in these locations.

One criteria for being at significant risk is if the local commander (actually his Public Works Officer - almost always a Professional Civil Engineer in the CB's assigned to the base, thus NOT a politician) cannot determine what the status of his local utilities is. Thus, you have confirmed that with only 614/3500 - 17% - even responding to a self-reported survey that carries no penalty for false or incoorect reports, the water systems are in fact in VERY DEEP trouble.

This is NOT reassuring, rather it confirms the root source of the problem: the industry does not appear to be ready for anything. If, and only if, you can get 85 - 90% REPORTING, and of those reporting and audtied you get 80-95% reporting "complete" - then you can begin assuming that the industry (whatever it is) has a chance of the majority of its members able to "fix-on-failure" whatever things they overlooked.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), August 20, 1999.

AWWA Y2K site

Survey Report


-- Jim (x@x.x), August 20, 1999.

Okay, the GAO conducts a survey in Feb or March or even earlier and publishes it in April and gets 725 respondents.

The AWWA conducts a survey in June and reports in July that they got 614 respondents.

Tell me how this is good news?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), August 20, 1999.

Robert:

That was my reading as well. I was just stating that, according to the numbers here, 17% look good. That is a lot better than 17% looking horrible, as were the results of the last survey, done in late 1998 that stated the average completion of the assessment phase was just over 51%.

-- Mr. Details (Details@detail.com), August 20, 1999.

We should expect progress - but by now, not only should 85-90% be reporting that they are compliant, they should be saying that they have completed testing, and have "tried/tested/dry-run" their contingency plans, and are "continuing to look for problems and validate their venders."

You now the routine by now.

instead - the utilities are "beginning" to NOT RESPOND to the same surveys that only a few were giving positive answers to earlier.

Thus, one can legitimately conclude that not only are utilities NOT ready, but they realize that fact and don't want to go on record saying so.

After all, the real news from the Lord report was that it named a large number of CITIES who could not provide information about their services, rather than Nebulous "percentages" of water and nat gas utilities who were not ready to say they have completed fixing their programs.

Do you see the difference the "label" of the city makes?

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), August 20, 1999.

"After all, the real news from the Lord report was that it named a large number of CITIES who could not provide information about their services, rather than Nebulous "percentages" of water and nat gas utilities who were not ready to say they have completed fixing their programs. Do you see the difference the "label" of the city makes?"

Robert, that is how I viewed it...actual cities named who could not/would not provide feedback or any assurance real or imagined regarding their readiness.

"Aggregate results" serve no purpose when problems are local.

-- Shelia (Shelia@active-stream.com), August 20, 1999.