Since the AWWA was the source of the scare story about only 14% of water/wastewater treatment facilities being ready, here is an updated story. (I wonder why our resident researchers never seem to find these things?)

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

Here is a salient quote from this site:

"Analysis of the surveys indicate that water utilities are currently much better prepared for the new millennium than they were only 10 months ago. The Survey shows that overall, 92 % of all systems have gone through the inventory, assessment, remediation or replacement, and testing required to become completely Y2K compliant. This breaks down to 92.5% for the very large systems, 88.7 % for large, 90 % for medium, and 93.6 % for small systems. In 1998, only 51 % of all systems had even completed their assessment, although 81 % expressed confidence that they would be ready before December 31, 1999. In general, it appears that utilities will be prepared to handle the issues confronting them when the new year begins. In addition, very few systems still require remediation or replacement"

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 12, 1999

Answers

Thanks Flint,

I'm relieved to read that. Unfortunately for me, my relations in the southland refuse to prep for natural disasters, or take out goofball insurance. Que sera, sera...

-- flora (***@__._), December 12, 1999.

Hogwash Flint, if you think that paragraph is salient I have that special "Bridge in Brooklyn" at a fire sale price.

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), December 12, 1999.

Gee, Flint, with less than THREE FRIGGING WEEKS TO GO, I was hoping more for something like, "All the water utilities are Y2K compliant and will have clean water for everyone to drink in the year 2000!". But, no, instead we just get a bunch of crap about where things were in 1997 ad nausem.

But hey, it's just water, for crying out loud. No biggie.

BTW, Flint, Lane Core pretty much refuted your "year of testing was just a myth, ha-ha" crap in the thread you started yesterday. We are all waiting with baited breath for your response.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), December 12, 1999.

LOL KOS.

-- Hokie (nn@va.com), December 12, 1999.

Uh huh. Third-hand reports from AWWA filtered through "advocacy groups" is accepted as the Whole Truth. The word from the primary source is rejected! Can't you SEE how stupid you look?

KOS: I already agreed on that thread that those who predicted all remediation would be complete by the end of 1999 were either lying or absurdly optimistic. But I am amused that Lane Core, who is so freewheeling with his pessimistic interpretations, sticks so closely to the precise letter of the law (and ignores the thrust of the post) when things go against him. At least he's slippery. You're just foolish.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 12, 1999.

While I'm hopeful about the water and glad to hear reassuring news I still find it prudent to drink from my supply for a while after rollover for a while.I'd just rather not get dysentery.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), December 12, 1999.

Flint

Good catch but wrong fish.

 Utilities 100 Day Senate report
 

This is the quote from the Senate report you are getting the 14% from

""The results of the July 1999 survey conducted by the
       Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
       (AMSA) paint a portrait of readiness in the wastewater
       sector that is greatly at odds with the positive
       assessment we have made about the water and
       wastewater industry as a whole. The survey showed
       that only 14 percent of respondents were reporting
       readiness as of June 1999. ""

As you will note it is a survey of waste water.

And here is a quote from the same Senate report on the survey you mention on the Water industry. You will note that they are two different surveys.

""In June 1999, the AWWA, the AMWA, and the
       NAWC conducted their second joint survey on Y2K
       preparedness in the water industry. The results show
       significant improvement over their first survey,
       conducted in August 1998. Of 614 responses, 92%
       report they have completed all phases of their Y2K
       work, including testing. The results were further
       broken down to reflect readiness by size of the
       systems, as follows:

       92% for very large systems (greater than 1,000,001 in
       the population);

       88.7% for large systems (100,000 to 1,000,000 in the
       population);

       90% for medium systems (10,000 to 100,000 in the
       population); and

       93.6% for small systems (less than 10,000 in the
   population). ""
 

And you will note that I mentioned this in my comments on this link that was the first thread on the subject (I believe)

 Water supplies in question

""Well the assumptions are made from old data and in the
       Senate report said that drinking water wasn't near the risk as
       the waste water side of things.""
 

Flint?

-- Brian (imager@home.com), December 12, 1999.

Oops, I meant 1998.

zoobie: Wise decision (I know it's wise, because I plan to do the exact same thing). I don't expect anything to go wrong with the water, but I'll let my neighbors be "royal tasters" just the same.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 12, 1999.

Please respond to these 309 questions Flint!

Well maybe just one at a time...

1. What is so difficult to understand about Link for you Flint.

OR>>>>

http://www.awwa.org/y2k08.htm

http://www.awwa.org/y2k.htm

Straight from the horses mouth. Notice the Tag "NEW"?

Notice the word contigency over and over and over here. What does this mean to you? Oops that's two, so just one at a time huh?

-- Michael (mikeymac@uswest.net), December 12, 1999.

These darn computers are just so exacting. Can't miss a space, comma, etc or the cotton pickin thing won't understand....hey that could be a problem huh?

Let's try again, Abbra ka Link.

-- Michael (mikeymac@uswest.net), December 12, 1999.

Brian:

Sorry, you're right. These are different surveys. I guess you get what you pay for, as always, with surveys. There do seem to be some very large differences of opinion, definition, scope, etc.

Mike:

Your link doesn't work.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 12, 1999.

link.

-- UDOTOO (IIIIIII@GGGG.III), December 12, 1999.

Flint

Thanks, I am out of touch. Haven't been doing much research lately. Shame on me eh?

But folks might want to consider the survey of the Water Industry that the Senate based its optimism on.

The survey results are based on a slim portion of the Water Industry at a time when it is critical to get accurate information.

Results of a Survey by AWWA, AMWA,NAWC 
Preliminary Report
July 16, 1999

Snip

Readers should be aware that in April 1999, the General Accounting Office (GAO) of the United States issued a report entitled Year 2000 Computing Crisis, Status of the Water Industry. This report was critical of the depth of knowledge of the readiness of water utilities, particularly when compared to electric and gas utilities. The report identified several key shortfalls, including a limited response to the industry association survey (725 out of 3500 faxed surveys), lack of regulatory authority to mandate Y2K readiness reporting, and lack of time to prepare such authority. While it can be debated that a response of 20 % is inadequate, it is actually a very high response rate for a voluntary survey, delivered by fax, to a group of organizations being bombarded with surveys and questionnaires from vendors, customers, regulators, and other interested parties.

It is in this light that the three associations have attempted to fill in some of the data gaps. For the June 1999 survey, follow-up phone calls to non-respondents will be made, attempting to solicit additional response. However, since this is a voluntary survey of many large and small water utilities, it is not sensible to anticipate anything close to 100 % participation. When compared to a small collection of very large utilities, such as those that exist in the railroad, electric and gas areas, greater response may be expected. For many smaller utilities, responding to surveys is not viewed as a priority item among all the competing demands for the time and resources of the limited staff available. In addition, many utilities have responded with the same standard letter they provide to all requests for Y2K information. Since these letters are all different, and cannot be incorporated into the database developed for this survey, they are counted as responding, but not providing the required information. Those fax responses that were spoiled or were incomplete have also been counted, although these utilities have been contacted in an attempt to get a complete response.

And from the American Water Works Association (AWWA) about us page;

 American Water Works Association - Who We Are

The American Water Works Association (AWWA) is an international nonprofit scientific and educational society dedicated to the improvement of drinking water quality and supply. Founded in 1881, AWWA is the largest organization of water supply professionals in the world. Its more than 50,000 members represent the full spectrum of the drinking water community: treatment plant operators and managers, scientists, environmentalists, manufacturers, academicians, regulators, and others who hold genuine interest in water supply and public health. Membership includes more than 4,000 utilities that supply water to roughly 180 million people in North America.
 

TOTAL VALID RESPONSES  477 from all three *Results of a Survey by AWWA, AMWA,NAWC 
Preliminary Report*
 

Flint it is nice to see you asking the right questions.

Now it was well known by early this year that Y2K was a concern. Now if these folks can't take the time to fill out a simple survey to make sure the public is reasured then how they going to manage remediation.

It is obvious the guilt lies at the feet of the management that nixed the communications.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), December 12, 1999.

Sorry folks, I'm sure it's just me, but sometimes it seems the template gives erroneous results. Oh well, just cut and paste. It will get you to the site and check out the August updated contingency report, the 2nd one Tagged *New* It would appear from the language taken in context, they agree with preparing for Y2K.

Just for the heck of it...Link.

-- Michael (mikeymac@uswest.net), December 12, 1999.

Also from the senate report (100 day link above)

Concerns

In light of all the concentrated effort that has been undertaken, the Committee is surprised by the low level of readiness of the wastewater industry reflected in the July 1999 AMSA survey. A lack of readiness on the part of the wastewater industry can have a devastating impact on the drinking water supply, no matter how well prepared that sector is.

All of the AMSA survey participants anticipated completion of the repair phase by early fall 1999. This leaves virtually no time left for testing for those not yet done.

Another cause of our concern arises solely due to the immensity of the water and wastewater sector. The power industry pales in comparison to the size, scope, and varying degrees of technology that exist within the water and wastewater industry. These factors make it very difficult to offer any broadbrush assessment of the industry.

There are examples of equipment failure in the PDF file below also.

Warning this is a 6 meg file but very informitive

 Mitre PDF File

Flint

Would you like to start on the Chemical industry? Or are your researching days over?

Joel from the GAO is right we are going to find out during the rollover what exactly is going to happen in the water/wastewater industry and not before. That will go for much of Y2K I am afraid. The trouble is with research is that folks will only do so much of it. That includes myself. Y2K is a big picture senerio. Flint you are good at the smaller picture stuff. But please continue asking the right questions. Unfortunatly sometimes the correct answers aren't there.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), December 12, 1999.

Yet even of those 16% (or 14% or watever number you can get of the 4000-odd water systems) who responded, only 88-92% "claimed" they would be ready....to a unverified faxed survey, with no penalty or review or investigation of who was (or was not) ready.....

Regardless, the result leaves millions threatened...but this treated as "good news" - that means people can relax their preparations?

Makes no sense....and Koskinen refused to answer it when I asked him. Instead, he changed the subject, only responding "90% of the people in the big cities will be okay - everything there has been remediated."

That was his reply in mid-November.

Leaving out completely the related secondary problems of other failures (such as water hammer or loss of power) that could leave a system disabled mechanically as well.

Chicago, according to its mayor, has just three hours of water if the pumps fail.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 12, 1999.

Flint,

In the April survey there were 725 respondents out of 3500 utilities faxed the survey. The June survey you site as being an improvment had 614 respondents of which 70 were listed as incomplete/spoiled responses. 614 - 70 = 544 usable responses out of 3500.

Number of responding utilities servicing > 1,000,001 customers was 4. Of the 4 92% are completly done. What is 92% of 4?

"However only a very few systems are 100% Y2K compliant at this time." This is July 16th . "When looking at the last steps, testing and contingency planning, only 40-50% are 100% ready at this time."

Flint, did you read the report? Am I supposed to feel relieved because of this report? 4 large suppliers responded. Not all of them are 100% ready. 40-50% are 100% ready now.

people, read the report. If that is good news we are USCWAP (up shit creek without a paddle).

This is what I mean by no good news. The good news is bull shit. 544 out of 3500 utilities bother to respond. Are there more than 4 utilities that service more than 1,000,001 people? What is their status? They don't have ONE person with the time to fill out a 3 page questionaire? I know, they are all busy fixing things.

-- Mr. Pinochle (pinochledd@aol.com), December 13, 1999.

Flint,

You said:

Since the AWWA was the source of the scare story about only 14% of water/wastewater treatment facilities being ready, here is an updated story. (I wonder why our resident researchers never seem to find these things?) http://www.awwa.org/y2k07.htm

Response:

As Brian pointed out, the 14% statistic referred to the results of AMSAs July 1999 wastewater treatment survey, NOT the June 1999 drinking water survey by AWWA, NAWC, and AMWA.

AMSA's July 1999 wastewater treatment survey (on AMSAs website) explains that only 4% of respondents had completed the implementation phase and only 14% had completed the repair phase. As for AMSAs optimism that all of its members will be Y2K-compliant by the end of the year, you might want to note that they were similarly optimistic in their October 1998 survey (also on AMSAs website) that 18% of their members would have completed implementation and 35% would have completed repair BY APRIL, 1999. But the July survey showed that respondents were nowhere near these optimistic projections, even three months after April! Are you really willing to trust the industrys current rosy predictions? Even the Senate Committee said in its 100 day report, We feel justified in saying that we are alarmed by these statistics.

You said (regarding the preliminary report from AWWA/NAWC/AMWA June 1999 survey):

Here is a salient quote from this site: "Analysis of the surveys indicate that water utilities are currently much better prepared for the new millennium than they were only 10 months ago. The Survey shows that overall, 92 % of all systems have gone through the inventory, assessment, remediation or replacement, and testing required to become completely Y2K compliant. This breaks down to 92.5% for the very large systems, 88.7 % for large, 90 % for medium, and 93.6 % for small systems. In 1998, only 51 % of all systems had even completed their assessment, although 81 % expressed confidence that they would be ready before December 31, 1999. In general, it appears that utilities will be prepared to handle the issues confronting them when the new year begins. In addition, very few systems still require remediation or replacement"

Response:

Read on in that same document. You will see the following quotes in the industrys own report:

However only a very few systems are 100% Y2K compliant at this time. . . When looking at the last steps, testing and contingency planning, only 40-50% are 100 percent ready at this time.

and

"Isolated instances of malfunctioning equipment may result in pockets of consumers not having adequate supply."

It seems that such conflicting statements are among the reasons why the report was considered unintelligible.

In addition, please read the section in the NRDC/Center for Y2K & Society report explaining that, in fact, the industry survey did NOT find that 92% of utilities were compliant (pps. 21-25) and the correspondence from AWWAs spokesperson (Appendix D) confirming that far fewer than 92% of responding utilities said they were compliant. (The report is at www.y2kcenter.org/resources/centerpubs/index.html).

You said:

Uh huh. Third-hand reports from AWWA filtered through "advocacy groups" is accepted as the Whole Truth. The word from the primary source is rejected! Can't you SEE how stupid you look?

Response:

Please read the report again, and look at the Appendix, which contains a letter from AWWAs Y2K spokesperson admitting that far less than 92% of respondents said they were Y2K ready. The report also relies on documentation provided by the industrys trade associations and utility spokespersons, including testimony, correspondence, and survey reports. What kind of material do you consider to be the primary source?

Finally, some food for thought:

Why did AMWAs September 1999 survey fail to ask utilities if they had completed the testing, implementation and IV&V stages of Y2K compliance?

Why hasnt NRWA, which calls itself Americas Largest Utility Membership Association, Serving Over 19,000 Water and Wastewater Utilities RELEASED the results of its survey, which  according to the Presidents Councils finall assessment report  were due this fall???

-- d (d@d.com), December 13, 1999.

Water - a very simple industry, mostly government-provided, certainly entirely government regulated.

Unique in that its systems are easy, plain, low cost, easy to regulate (low pressure, moderately corrosive, readily available replacement parts, easy to isolate and repair .... etc.) Only a few suppliers (chlorine, power, spare parts every now and then...presto - you got water!).

A water system is the easiest thing in the world to fix - NO OTHER system is as simple and "forgiving" in its ease of use. Even if its broken - all you have to do keep water coming in faster than it can leak out, and the customers are happy. Leaks don't matter. No fires, no explosions. Once its installed - little upkeep.

Add a simple meter-reader, billing system for water and sewage - based on a single product in a single area - this is, no doubt the easiest system ever thought of to remediate. To servey, to repair or replace - all parts are readily available, every in low tech - locally available. Unlike nuclear power or aircraft - where documentation and proof-of-testing and certification abounds.....

So - the easiest system in the world to survey, to remediate, to test - and they can't even tell how many systems are ready? They don't even have a way to tell how many responded? The ones that responded can't answer the questions to a 3 page form from the national government?

Nobody right now knows what systems are FINISHED? Percentages? "Reporting they will be complete.....?"

There can be problems testing - LA proved that. But at least they tried to test....how many didn't do that much?

How many are done? Who is not? THEY DON'T KNOW - WASHINGTON CAN'T SAY - but want us to trust them that nothing significant will happen.

Now, lets look at something complicated .... like tax forms that this same group of governments has to send to tens of thousands of mortgage companies......

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 13, 1999.

Mr. Pinochle mentioned

       "This is what I mean by no good news. The good
       news is bull shit. 544 out of 3500 utilities bother to
       respond."

No it is worse than that. From the GAO report (May 99) they list the total facilities. The survey it would appear  means didly squat.

 GAO water report. Must read.
 

       ""Background The United States population is served by about 55,000 community
       drinking water facilities and by about 16,000 public wastewater
       facilities. 2 While most of these facilities are relatively small, about 3,300
       large and very large drinking water facilities and about 500 large and very
       large wastewater facilities serve the majority of the population.""

And to top it off the AWWA releases this masterful bit of CYA mentality to reasure the public
 

 American Water Works Association - Public Affairs Advisory

""Public Affairs Advisory 
      TO:
            AWWA Leadership
            All Utilities
      FROM:
            Jack Hoffbuhr
      DATE:
            December 10, 1999
 
      Who:
            Natural Resources Defense Council/ Center for Y2K & Society
      What:
            Report on Water Utilities' Y2K Readiness
      When:
            December 10, 1999

Today, USA Today ran a front-page story on a report issued by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Center for Y2K & Society that questioned water utilities' Y2K preparedness. The NRDC report speculates that "only 20 percent to 45 percent of drinking water systems were Y2K compliant as of June 1999." The article can be viewed on the USA Today website:

www.usatoday.com/usatonline/19991210/1743752s.htm

The report, entitled Y2K Risks in the Water Industry, can be viewed over the internet at:

www.y2kcenter.org/resources/centerpubs/Y2Kwater.pdf.< /center>

This finding is contrary to the survey conducted by AWWA, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies and the National Association of Water Companies, which found that 92.5% of water utilities Y2K compliant infrastructures by May of 1999. The survey also found that over 80% had contingency plans in place by that time. The most recent information about the water profession's Y2K preparedness can be viewed at:

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

AWWA has been in contact with the Associated Press, Reuters, CBS News and MSNBC about this story and has issued a press release reemphasizing the water profession's Y2K readiness. The release follows this advisory. AWWA strongly recommends that its utility members be prepared to discuss their Y2K preparation efforts with the media and consumers. Members should also be prepared to discuss their staffing plans for New Year's Eve as well as their contingency plans if Y2K glitches cause a power outage or a computer breakdown.""

And I have found this on the AWWA site. This discribes the seriousness of the situation.

This has a posting date of Nov 11 1999

American Water Works Association - Y2K: Problems and Solutions

all in all a mighty fine example of the situation as I see it.

All first hand

Haven't even got to the EPA or the Califonia site yet.

In Canada I have little idea what is going on. There is almost no information out there.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), December 13, 1999.

Stupid tags

-- Brian (imager@home.com), December 13, 1999.

Left

-- Brian (imager@home.com), December 13, 1999.

From AWWA's memo:

"This finding is contrary to the survey conducted by AWWA, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies and the National Association of Water Companies, which found that 92.5% of water utilities Y2K compliant infrastructures by May of 1999."

Response:

Uh...."which found that 92.5% of water utilities Y2K compliant infrastructures by May of 1999." What the heck does that mean??? Isn't this sentence missing a verb or two?

This (the 92% figure) is the most contested issue raised by the NRDC/Center for Y2K & Society report -- and AWWA still can't put out an intelligible statement?!

-- d (d@d.com), December 13, 1999.

It's mid-December, 1999.

8% of the population are apparently in a lot of trouble.

The remaining 92% might be in lot of trouble - since the AWWA can't seem to agree on what 8% is affected or not.

I repeat - this is good news? Water is the single easiest single system in the world to remediate. And "they" can't even figure out which 92% of what number is ready - and this includes only the "BIG" systems apparently. Which "big" systems are not finished?

Seems like a mayor or two would like to know......

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 13, 1999.

Well here is the NRWA site with virtually no information

 Y2K - The Millenium Bug

And a set of links for sixth graders.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), December 13, 1999.

  A few good links

Office Of Water Y2K Sector Action Plan

 California State Water Resources Control Board,

 EPA Congressional Testimony

-- Brian (imager@home.com), December 13, 1999.