Y2K Water Utility Predications By Sherman Fridman, Newsbytes. December 14, 1999

The head of the administration's Year 2000 readiness team is advising the nation not to get too concerned about a report released last Friday that claims that less than half of the water utilities in the US are ready for the date change.

"To put this as if it is somehow some sort of new phenomenon seems to me misleading," John Koskinen, head of the President's Council on Y2K Conversion, told Newsbytes, adding that a survey of the nation's water authorities found, in most cases, "no show-stoppers in their systems.

"I'm not sure why that (report) ran," Koskinen added. "It was a survey done in June that we released (based on data from the spring). Water is not at the top of our list of concerns right now."

Koskinen's assistant, John Gribben, added that, "We are confident that there are no systemic problems in the water sector throughout the country."

The report was released last Friday by non-profit environmentalist group Natural Resources Defense Council, in conjunction with the Center for Y2K and Society, a non-profit organization with a stated purpose of reducing possible societal impacts of the Year 2000 problem.

The NRDC and the Center for Y2K and Society claim that the most recent detailed industry survey by the American Water Works Association (AWWA), the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA), and the National Association of Water Companies (NAWC), shows that only 20 percent to 45 percent of drinking water systems in the country were Y2K compliant.

Even these figures were optimistic, the groups claimed, because there has been little or inadequate response to industry-wide surveys.

The groups cited no more recent information than a July, 1999, report of a telephone survey released by the General Accounting Office (GAO). That report said that only five out of the 17 city-owned or city-operated drinking or wastewater facilities contacted by the GAO responded that they were Y2K ready.

The lack of recent data has been "very frustrating," according to Center for Y2K and Society Executive Director Norman Dean, who added that the National Rural Water Association has not released data from a recent survey it conducted.

Also of concern to the NRDC and Center for Y2K and Society were what they claim are the "even worse" prospects for wastewater facilities. They cited a report issued by the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion that said only 4 percent of wastewater treatment facilities are Y2K ready.

According to Dean, "While we cannot predict which or how many systems, this data strongly indicates some drinking and wastewater facilities could have Y2K-related problems."

Dean said people should not panic, but instead should store 10 gallons of water per person per household, assuming that people would go through a gallon a day.

In addition to loss of water supply, some of the possible Y2K-related problems the groups predict are loss of water pressure, lack of adequate water treatment facilities, and/or chemicals and possible release of toxic or hazardous substances. In addition, wastewater facilities might discharge untreated sewage due to Year 2000 failures.

In contrast to the NRDC and the Center for Y2K and Society, the American Water Works Association released a report last Friday, claiming that its 4,200 member utilities will provide safe, clean drinking water on and after Jan. 1, 2000, accounting for almost 70 percent of the nation's tap water.

Jack Hoffbuhr, AWWA executive director, countered the NRDC and Center for Y2K and Society Report, saying, "Water utilities have to be prepared for the kind of glitches and poser outages that some forecast for Y2K on a daily basis. That's why over 90 percent of our members were fully Y2K compliant five months ago."

Dean pointed out, however, that his organization had asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to do a "stylistically valid" study on water utility preparedness, and that the EPA refused to so.

Doug Marsano, a spokesperson for the AWWA, told Newsbytes that both the association's members are confident that they are ready to provide a continuing supply of drinking water into next year, adding that it was easy for people to make charges that the water utilities were not ready.

However, Marsano also said that his members plan to have their pumping stations manned by workers over the New Year's weekend, and that all of the water utilities' facilities can be operated manually.

"Most of these facilities have been around longer than computers," he said.

The Center for Y2K and Society maintains a Website at http://www.y2kcenter.org

The NRDC's site is at http://www.nrdc.org

Information from the American Water Works Association can be found at http://www.awwa.org

http://www.computercurrents.com/newstoday/99/12/14/news1.html

-- LOON (blooney10@aol.com), December 14, 1999

Answers

Humm.

Somehow I feel less confident about Koskinens confidence.

Expect the unexpected.

Diane

Orange County CA faces water rationing after line ruptures

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 0020MZ

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 14, 1999.

Dean pointed out, however, that his organization had asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to do a "stylistically valid" study on water utility preparedness, and that the EPA refused to so.

Now, why would the EPA refuse to do this????? Any ideas?

-- LOON (blooney10@aol.com), December 14, 1999.

The only thing at "top of his list" of his concerns is keeping people from withdrawing money from the banks, or, phrased differently, convincing them they don't have to withdraw money from the banks.

It appears to be the only the fed's have ever been worried about - other than re-electing the Clintons. Nothing else matters.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 14, 1999.

"I'm not sure why that (report) ran," Koskinen added. "It was a survey done in June that we released (based on data from the spring). Water is not at the top of our list of concerns right now."

Uhhhhhhh............ then what the heck is?

Lessee, no problems with the basic infrastructure; banks OK; insurance doing dandy; Fed programs 99% (including the IRS) safe from disruption; railroads fine; chemical plants fully remediated.....

Who - Douglass Carmichael?? - hangs out with Koskinen? Perhaps he knows what's bothering Kosky's pretty little head? Hey, maybe we here can de-bunk it for him........ :)

-- lisa (lisa@work.huh??), December 14, 1999.

"Water Is Not At The Top Of Our List Of Concerns Right Now"

Give it about 18 + 3 days. And forgive me for wondering, but what concerns? I thought everything was just peachy?

"I'm not sure why that (report) ran," Koskinen added

Er, because it's the only detailed and credible report available? "No news is good news" doesn't apply here.

all of the water utilities' facilities can be operated manually. "Most of these facilities have been around longer than computers,"

Sure, because the computers don't really do anything. They're just big flashing boxes like on Star Trek. No one was laid off when they got installed and there's just as many people there as when the plants were run on manual, right?

Right?

-- Servant (public_service@yahoo.com), December 14, 1999.

The NRDC is a contemptible organization of treehugging scaremongers, but it is simply irresponsible for Koskinen to simply dismiss this survey without providing evidence to the contrary.

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), December 14, 1999.

Loon,

You wrote:

"Dean pointed out, however, that his organization had asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to do a 'stylistically valid' study on water utility preparedness, and that the EPA refused to so."

Several possible explanations that come immediately to mind:

~ Lack of resources

~ Lack of personnel, including lack of personnel with expertise in embedded systems (and therefore inadequate appreciation of the nature of scope of possible problems)

~ Narrow reading of their mandate: they (along with other regulatory agencies) have shown great reluctance to get involved in areas they do not consider to be part of their mandate. While EPA does have responsibilities for taking action in an emergency, Y2K and embedded systems problems have not been viewed as an emergency. They also seem to be equivocal about their role in the prevention of an emergency. ~ Other matters that they are clearly required by law to address have highest priority in their minds.

~ Less than adequate expertise regarding Y2K and embedded systems on the part of those running EPA and those in major roles of responsibility in the Federal government.

~ Likely failure on the part of those running EPA to recognize the implications of the President's Council's changed view regarding embedded systems (November 1999)

Now, why would the EPA refuse to do this????? Any ideas?

-- Paula Gordon (pgordon@erols.com), December 14, 1999.

Corrected version:

Loon,

You wrote:

"Dean pointed out, however, that his organization had asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to do a 'stylistically valid' study on water utility preparedness, and that the EPA refused to so.

Now, why would the EPA refuse to do this????? Any ideas? "

Several possible explanations that come immediately to mind:

~ Lack of resources

~ Lack of personnel, including lack of personnel with expertise in embedded systems (and therefore inadequate appreciation of the nature of scope of possible problems)

~ Narrow reading of their mandate: they (along with other regulatory agencies) have shown great reluctance to get involved in areas they do not consider to be part of their mandate. While EPA does have responsibilities for taking action in an emergency, Y2K and embedded systems problems have not been viewed as an emergency. They also seem to be equivocal about their role in the prevention of an emergency. ~ Other matters that they are clearly required by law to address have highest priority in their minds.

~ Less than adequate expertise regarding Y2K and embedded systems on the part of those running EPA and those in major roles of responsibility in the Federal government.

~ Likely failure on the part of those running EPA to recognize the implications of the President's Council's changed view regarding embedded systems (November 1999).

-- Paula Gordon (pgordon@erols.com), December 14, 1999.

LISA is that 99% of the original number of mission-critical systems...or the numbers that are now being stated?

Look at GAO reported # of mission-critical systems near the bottom.

-- beej (beej@ppbbs.com), December 14, 1999.

Translation: Something will kill you before you reach the 3 day death by dehydration. Unless you are 40 feet underground. This criteria is the only rational explanation I could see for discounting the water problems. I know, it sounds extreme, and I can easily rationalize it away, but... try chewin' on it for a few.

-- Hokie (nn@va.com), December 14, 1999.

Response to Koskinen Says "Water Is Not At The Top Of Our List Of Concerns Right Now."

Kafka, anyone?

-- Rider (free@last.Amen), December 14, 1999.

We don't need no sinking water...

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), December 14, 1999.

Obviously Kosky never got hit with a case of aeomebic dysentary. Maybe someone should've dosed him with it so he could understand just how important good water is. Can you say Death by Dehydration? How 'bout "Chocolate Volcano?"

-- Billy Boy (Rakkasan101st@aol.com), December 14, 1999.

This one is easy!

To live the human must have:

#1 air
#2 water

But right here at the top of the life continuation totem pole he says "Water is not at the top of our list of concerns right now" so one has to go back up to air.

Hhhmmm, what makes the air unbreatheable? Chemical hazmat accidents, Bhopals, nuclear meltdowns, nuclear all-out-war, radiation, uncontrollable fires, anthrax, plague -- the known feared stuff that kills ya before 3 days of dehydration.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), December 14, 1999.

Right on target Ashton and Leska. It doesn't ake a rocket scientist to figure out what the top concern is. Just look at the rapidly growing list of State, Federal, and Military agencies going underground for rollover. Not to mention the abandonment of the major cities by the Wealthy Elite. Mission one to the gov.org is to survive and maintain their stranglehold over the golden goose, reguardless of the consequences to the general public. Like the cockroaches and the rats they will come crawling out of their holes afterwards to re- establish their endentured servitude pyramid scheme upon the battered population.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), December 14, 1999.

A&L

Pretty scary stuff! Hope you're feeling better, you were missed!

-- got_h2o? (karlacalif@aol.com), December 14, 1999.

Grrrrthis article is so irritating. Did they even bother to READ the report?! A brief responses to Koskinens/AWWAs claim that the report was based on old information:

Response:

The AWWA/NAWC/AMWA survey was done in June 1999, the preliminary report was posted in July 1999. The industry indicated that it would update this preliminary report but did not do so. Based on this survey, the Presidents Council and the Senate Y2K Committee reported that 92% of water utilities were fully compliant as of June 1999.

ON OCTOBER 21 1999, AWWAs Y2K representative Jon DeBoer confirmed in writing that the Senate Committee and Presidents Council had MISINTERPRETED the preliminary report. (See Appendix D to the NRDC report at www.y2kcenter.org/resources/centerpubs/index.html). In fact, VERY FEW water utilities were fully compliant, he said. Look at the industrys own chart on p. 23 of the NRDC report for the real state of compliance as of this survey. From very large to small, only 20-45% were ready. Re-read AWWAs letter in Appendix D confirming this fact. Dont you think that the fact that Presidents Council and Senate Y2K Committee stopped worrying about water based on INCORRECT conclusions from an UNITELLIGIBLE survey is newsworthy?

Additionally, Mr. DeBoer provided NEW information about the disappointing results of follow-up phone calls to the 500 largest water utilities that had not responded. He said, Of those who provided information, the responses are quite similar to the previous results, and very few of the numbers will change significantly. This is NEW INFORMATION, folks, not old statistics.

And why is AWWA STILL claiming (in its press release) that over 90% of its members were ready in May  is it because they havent read the report and the letter from their own Y2K spokesperson? Or is it because they figure that the public wont bother to read it?

Why wont they answer the the second letter to AWWA (in Appendix D) about the 7 survey questions to which responses were NOT INCLUDED in the preliminary report? (i.e. questions about estimated completion dates and what percent of your systems were found non- compliant). They already have the data -- why wont they share it with the public?

Furthermore, the report discussed the failings of AMWAs recent follow-up survey  done in SEPTEMBER 1999. Therefore, the article was wrong when it stated that The groups cited no more recent information than a July, 1999, report of a telephone survey released by the General Accounting Office (GAO). That report said that only five out of the 17 city-owned or city-operated drinking or wastewater facilities contacted by the GAO responded that they were Y2K ready. (By the way, shouldnt the GAOs results have raised some eyebrows?) The article also doesnt question why AMWAs survey failed to ask utilities if they had completed the final phases of TESTING and IMPLEMENTATION. As the report explained, these phases may take just as long or longer than the repair/replacement phases.

The NRDC report also discussed the fact that NRWA had surveyed its members in SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1999. Why didnt the report discuss the findings of NRWAs survey? BECAUSE NRWA HAS NOT YET RELEASED THEM, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE DUE THIS FALL, according to the Presidents Councils final report! Why has NRWA not released its survey results??? By the way, the Presidents Councils final report inexplicably omitted AMSAs July/August 1999 surveys finding that only 4% of sewage utilities had completed the implementation phase and only 14% had completed the repair phase! The Presidents Council didnt even link to AMSAs website, although it linked to AWWAs, AMWAs the EPAs and many other water industry sites. Dont you think that information belonged in the Presidents Councils final assessment? The Senate Committee considered AMSAs results significant enough to say, We feel justified in stating we are alarmed by these statistics. So why do you think the Presidents Council omitted the less-than-rosy results? Hmmmm?

One more thought about AMSAs optimistism that all its members will be ready to treat your sewage in 2000: They made similarly optimistic predictions after their October 1998 survey that many utilities would be ready in APRIL 1999. These predictions were proven wrong. (See the thread below at http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=001zxJfor more info and discussion about the report.)

According to the article above, Doug Marsano, a spokesperson for the AWWA, told Newsbytes that both the association's members are confident that they are ready to provide a continuing supply of drinking water into next year, adding that it was easy for people to make charges that the water utilities were not ready. [YES it is, especially when AWWAs Jon DeBoer confirms it.] However, Marsano also said that his members plan to have their pumping stations manned by workers over the New Year's weekend, and that all of the water utilities' facilities can be operated manually. [HAVE THEY LOOKED AT EPAS LESSONS LEARNED SHOWING THAT MANY ADDITIONAL STAFF ARE NEEDED TO OPERATE A PLANT AVERAGING 254 MGD TO CONTROL VARIOUS STATIONS IN MANUAL MODE?? Has your utility been hiring/training staff for its go back to manual contingency plan.]

Please read these documents in full and make up your own mind. One last thought: Lack of readiness doesn't mean that obvious disruptions are certain to occur, but wouldn't it be nice to have an accurate statement of the risks put out by industry/regulatory representatives?

I think I need to go stomp around now  there is smoke coming out of my ears.

-- d (d@d.com), December 14, 1999.

Another thing (stomping around wasn't effective):

According to the article above, Koskinen said, "a survey of the nation's water authorities found, in most cases, 'no show-stoppers in their systems.'" However, I don't think that any of the surveys I've looked at (including those discussed above) asked utilities if they had found any "show-stoppers." In fact, I do not recall that ANY of the drinking water surveys asked about the EFFECTS of non-compliance (in contrast, on the wastewater side, AMSA's 1998 survey did ask about impacts, see www.amsa-cleanwater.org/y2k/dec18test.htm). Does anyone know of any survey of impacts on the drinking water side?

In any case, some food for thought: what does "in most cases" mean?

-- d (d@d.com), December 14, 1999.

They figure the fact that less than 4% of the nation's wastewater facilities are remediated will not matter, because the water will be turned off.

Got shovels?

-- no flow (off@off.off), December 14, 1999.

To those here who are desperately trying to spin this into something more than what it is...

Bottom line: "It was a survey done in June that we released (based on data from the spring)"! Ancient history!

-- CD (not@here.com), December 14, 1999.

CD

I would expect you could provide me with reasureances on why this is not a problem.

Please check out and comment on this thread

AWWA water update for the record (Flint, flintc@mindspring.com, 1999-12-12)

or this one dealing with wastewater.

Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies August 1999 Follow Up Survey

At least be able to come up with something better than one liners.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), December 14, 1999.

"I would expect you could provide me with reasureances..." "Please check out and comment..." "At least be able to come up with something more than one liners..." -Brian

Brian, I ask you. Even if I somehow proved to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that these activists groups "NRDC" and "Center for Y2K and Society" have routinely twisted the truth in order to forward their "causes", would it be worth my while to do so? Even if I somehow proved to you that Koskinen and Gribben were not lying, spinning, hiding or exaggerating the truth about water utilities, would it be worth my while to do so? The answer to those questions is; no, it would not be worth the effort. You and many others on this forum would still argue that it didn't matter because of (fill in the blank with your favorite "if"). You would throw 6 or 7 more discussion links at me which you felt supported your arguments, but which I felt were nothing more than a reflection of this forum's dogma of being blind to anything that contradicts the beliefs clung to around here. Beliefs which, by the way, were long ago carved in stone. You see Brian, I don't want to play that game.

Paula- Do you think it may also be possible that the EPA "refused" to do this 'stylistically valid' survey because they might have a policy of not catering to every activist group that comes along and "requests" action?

-- CD (not@here.com), December 15, 1999.