Category Archives: Analysis

Examination or contrast of actions taken by various government bodies or agencies, usually in a non-rant fashion.

Late Fee Follies (updated)

In the earlier article today, I referenced $25 million in overcharges. So how did the City manage that trick? Well, stupidity and arrogance, of course.

Back in 2012-2013, the City Controller’s (Ron Green’s) office did an audit of UCS’s Water Meters and Transmitters. Seeing as they’re not particularly technically adept, it was really an audit of policies and procedures, not the mechanicals, but it was prompted by years of complaints by the customers of inaccurate meters. (They’re not. As I’ve said for years, the problems are with the transmitters, and, as will be obvious here, the business processes.) The summary of issues found reads as follows:

Continue reading

Out of Time, Out of Water

Well, here we are after months with no post, and a half-hour just trying to remember my password to log in. I really haven’t been by here in way too long. Considered making a post back when the Greanias story broke last week, but settled for making a snarky comment. I would SO push for jury nullification, if I were called to serve. (Edit: Nullification of the poor sap being prosecuted for “falsifying a government document”; that is, a time card.)

But let’s face it, there are some things even more important that trying to get back control of our government from the perverts, hypocrites, and crooks with delusions of controlling our everyday lives.

Continue reading

So Long, and Thanks for all the… Grief? (Updated)

I have yet to see it on any news outlet in Houston, but the word at the office is that Director of Public Works and Engineering Michael Marcotte has tendered his resignation to Mayor Parker. The effective date is in two weeks. According to multiple sources, the Mayor was not happy with unspecified job performance issues and requested the Director vacate his position.

What prompted this action now? The City is embroiled in multiple controversies, as the new mayor puts her stamp on the city. A hefty water rate increase, a drainage “fee” initiative that has her tacit approval, upheavals at Metro; now would not seem to be the time to throw more fuel on the fire. All of those involve Public Works in some way. Yet the fact remains: Marcotte is out.

Several questions immediately occur:

  • Is Marcotte supposed to take the fall for the rate increase?
  • What was the mayor unhappy about?
  • Who else, if anyone, will be following, if the mayor is unhappy?
  • Did Marcotte balk at some demand involving the rates, cooperation with Metro, backing the initiative?

Taking the fall doesn’t make sense. There’s no way that Parker can shift the blame for needing the rate increase onto Marcotte; not while she was the controller and silently oversaw the vast expansion of debt funding from capital projects into everyday operations and maintenance. So what is going on?

Perhaps we’ll hear when the usual 3:48 pm Friday evening press release goes out, but I’m not holding my breath.

Update: My view of Marcotte is probably not that well informed; I don’t interact with him in any way. Still, my impression is that he’s an even-tempered administrator who doesn’t rush to judgment, isn’t prone to arrogance, and listens to his managers. He’s been a loyal soldier publicly, whatever he’s had to say privately. He’s tried, within budget constraints, to see to it that his employees are compensated as well as in the private sector.

If I had to take a wild guess, I’d say that the rift probably had to do with the rebate program, and/or contract administration and code enforcement. The latter areas have always given me a queasy feel when I’ve dealt with them; contract inspectors sometimes act like they’re working for the contractor, not the city. There’s nothing I can specifically point to as wrong-doing (or I’d be publishing it, screw OIG), but the creation of the rebate program risks letting the rot spread. Not to mention, it removes funding from the utility system and hands it to slumlords.

Who are these “Engineers” of whom you speak?

Well, I’ve said any number of times (though mostly not here) that the drainage fee was coming back. Sure enough, it has.. There were several things I thought were very interesting in today’s uncritical article.

  • The assumption that some of the metro sales tax (aka. “general mobility”) funds would be used for drainage and “infrastructure” improvements. In the first place, that assumes that the changing of the Metro guard means a resumption of those payments to COH. Second place, they’re talking about other than drainage if they’re using mobility funds. Third place, I hope they have that much left after paying for lawsuit settlements for breaking the law about open records. Just as Tom Bazan has hounded them about for years.
  • User fee is bullshit, it’s a property tax. Council Member Costello: “It’s a user fee!” Funny, I thought my property tax was a user fee. If I don’t pay it, I’m not going to have use of my land for very long.
  • Note the article’s reference to developer fees where such development “affects density.” In other words, they’re going to make it more expensive to develop inside the city– not only that, but they’ll penalize and discourage the very density growth that they claim to be encouraging (and needing) for MetroRail.
  • Who are these faceless “engineers” of whom the Chronicle speaks? The only one identified by name is the President of this relatively unheard-of “Renew Houston” That’s Edwin Friedrichs of Walter P. Moore, whose online bio reads:

He devises engineering solutions to help build better communities. Some of his signature projects include the Uptown Houston Transportation Master Plan and Streetscape Improvements Program, numerous roadways and facilities at the Texas Medical Center, Sam Houston Tollway Section VII-A, Minute Maid Park, Lake Texana State Park, BMC Software Headquarters, and the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

Mr. Friedrichs works to find consensus, both in his professional work and his civic activities, with groups such as South Main Alliance, Rice Design Alliance, Greater Houston Partnership, Houston Achievement Place, and various City of Houston committees.

Well, I’d not expect an un-influential person to be heading this project.. Can you say “Front man”? I knew that you could.

Some other notes:

The $8 billion to improve drainage would come primarily from three sources. First, the “Stormwater User Fee” that is expected to amount to about $5 per month for an average homeowner and $90 a month for an average commercial property owner with 14 units per acre.

In other words, a property tax, by another name.

Second, a “Development Impact Fee” would set up a program by which developers have to pay for the degree to which their projects impact density.

Which will discourage it, as noted above.

Third, a “pay-as-you-go” plan that would take the estimated one-sixth of total city property tax revenues used now to pay for interest costs on debt that has financed infrastructure and drainage projects and apply it directly to new projects. In other words, the city would not incur additional debt to pay for infrastructure as part of the plan and as old debts are paid off, money used to make those payments would be put to drainage and infrastructure projects.

How about we use the money for Police and Fire protection, huh?

But that’s not all, not by a long shot. Other funding:

The city also would continue to use other sources of funds to pay for road and drainage improvements, such as “mobility funds,” or sales taxes, collected by the Metropolitan Transit Authority and redistributed to the city.

So Metro’s going to cough up the money at last? Wonder how that will affect their already documented inability to pay for their current plans?

The proposed referendum includes a provision that would continue the program for another 20 years after 2032 unless City Council votes to modify or cancel it.

Keep that gravy train rolling, baby, hundreds of millions a year in public spending. Construction and engineering companies are lining up!

Parker said she preferred that the referendum focus exclusively on drainage rather than “general infrastructure,” and she also is uncomfortable that the charter amendment would prohibit future mayors from leveraging the revenues to issue debt if such a course were needed.

What, she wants to pile on MORE DEBT? Well, she let Bill White pile on all he wanted while ignoring the warning signs. Personally, I’m also worried about the referendum being used as an end-run around Prop 1 and Prop 2, if not to just “accidentally” repeal them entirely. “Oh, we didn’t realize it said that, but since it does…”

Houston’s voters need to wake up and smell the arsenic. The “non-partisan” nature of city elections means that neither the Democratic nor Republican parties feel any need to score points off the other by, Heaven forbid, actually doing what the voters want, instead of treating them as particularly stupid sheep to be sheared.

Quick, Rearrange the Deck Chairs!

As in, iceberg dead ahead!

Lemer/Farb/Roberts assessment of City of Houston Finances (22 October 2009)

Bob Lemer has become known as a bit of a “disaster monger”, and has been about as welcome as a global warming skeptic at a Greenpeace convention. Unfortunately, he’s also correct, and he’s not pulling his punches.

The City of Houston is financially broke and it appears that the mayor who takes office in January 2010 may have to captain the City through bankruptcy procedures.

Well if that ain’t telling it like it is.

Ok, here is my non-accountant read on it: Yes, if we honestly ‘fess up to what the (out of date and UNaudited) books say, we are flat broke. As in, we have a negative net value. That’s not the same thing as bankruptcy though, and while he confuses the point deliberately, I think he’s doing it in good faith. Bob and his co-signers, Aubrey M. Farb and Tom Roberts, are trying desperately to turn the Titanic before we hit the iceberg.

I recommend the full read above, but if Accountant Math makes your head hurt, you may want to skim at least the first half. If that’s too hard for you, I have highlights for the really attention-impaired, presented somewhat out of order, below the fold.

Continue reading

Normative Conformity, or “Why Obama Polls so Well”

Go here, and read this article, all the way to the end. Especially if you’ve ever listened to a co-worker blathering on about hope and change, and thought, “no, I don’t want to start an argument or stand out…”

Implicit in the Left’s continuous attempts to exaggerate Obama’s perceived support is the belief that “a crowd draws a crowd” and that undecided voters will be drawn to the Obama camp if they think “everyone else” is supporting him. But is that an accurate assessment? Is there any evidence that it’s true?

Well, actually, yes.

And that evidence was collected fifty years ago.

Starting in 1951, Asch, a professor at Swarthmore College, ran a series of unusual experiments to generate a quantitative measurement of the subjective term “conformity.” The experiments, which many now consider somewhat unethical and a bit sadistic, went like this:

A volunteer was recruited to participate in a vision test. He was brought to a room with seven other volunteers who were also to take the same test, in a group. Little did the volunteer know, however, that his fellow “volunteers” were all confederates of the experimenter, and the test was not a vision test but a psychological torture session designed to elicit conformist behavior. The experimenter would then unveil a pair of displays, one showing a single black line, and the other showing three black lines of varying lengths. The volunteer is told to simply state which of the three lines most closely matches the length of the single line.

The volunteer, who was always placed in the second-to-last position, was only allowed to state his answer after he had heard most of the other faux-volunteers give their answers. For the first two rounds, these confederates were instructed to give the obviously correct answer; in each instance, the test subject would then also give the correct answer. But starting on the third round, the confederates, as instructed by Asch, intentionally gave a consistently wrong answer; the goal of the experiment was to see if the volunteer would “break” and also begin to chime in with the wrong answer as well. Most volunteers would resist for a few rounds, but eventually the majority would cave in at least part of the time and give the wrong answers in complete defiance of their own perceptions. Overall, the test subjects gave the wrong answers 36.8% of the time — an astonishing result.

Should you speak up? Should you speak out? Should you engage an Obamabot? Well, yes. Just have an escape route planned; they’re not all rational, when challenged, you know. For the sake of your fellows, (who will probably slink for the shadows, leaving you unsupported, the ingrates).

…the pressure to conform drops precipitously if the subject is aware of even a single fellow dissenter. All it takes is one person to shatter the facade of unanimity, and suddenly the number of conformist answers drop from around 33% to around 8%. With more dissenters, it drops even further.

Now as any of my longtime readers know (Hi, mom!), I wrote off the Republican party back in 2006 over pork and immigration. I may vote for its candidates, or I may vote Libertarian, but I don’t consider myself a member of either one. I’ve supported the Jacksonian Party, with a membership of one. (Or two.)

Next week, I will have more information on how to stand up, en masse, and refuse to conform. Stay tuned.

Tentative Contract Agreement

The following e-mail just appeared in my mailbox.

Joint Email to City of Houston Employees

City of Houston and HOPE Reach Tentative Agreement on Contract

We are pleased to announce that the City of Houston and the Houston Organization of Public Employees (HOPE) have reached a tentative agreement in contract negotiations. This agreement reflects our mutual commitment to delivering quality public services to all Houston residents while ensuring fair compensation for every city worker.

The proposed agreement runs for three years and takes effect after it has been ratified by HOPE members and approved by the Houston City Council. Highlights of the agreement include:

– Guaranteed raises for every year of the contract for municipal employees.

– Additional performance-based compensation based principally on Employee Performance Evaluations.

– A minimum wage of $10 an hour for every city worker by September 2009, with an immediate minimum of $9.50 an hour.

– A freeze on the percentage of health care premiums paid by employees.

The first step in making this historic agreement a reality begins with the important process of approval and ratification by city employees. From March 6 to March 20, HOPE will be holding informational meetings about the contract at worksites across the city. All municipal employees will be allowed 1 hour to attend these meetings to learn more about the contract. At the close of each meeting, voting will take place. Voting will also be held at the HOPE office. To view a complete schedule of sessions, click here

Sincerely,

Mayor Bill White
City of Houston

Norm Yen
President of HOPE

Ok, now down to the quibbling. Continue reading

Yao Is More Important

Today, the city council will be voting on whether to buy five blocks of land for nearly $16,000,000, give away a street, and swap away a piece of the city infrastructure in order to create a place where the Dynamo might build a stadium.

The Houston Chonicle chose to lead its print edition today with a headline story that Yao Ming is out for the season due to a fracture in his foot. The online edition does no better, with two stories about the Rodeo, one the headliner.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. The Houston Chronicle is part of the problem in Houston. We badly need an alternative news outlet, and the Chronicle Houston Press isn’t it.

UPDATE:
So here we are, almost 7 p.m in the evening. Take a look at what the Chronicle thinks is more important than the result of today’s council meeting:

Record Revenue

blogHOUSTON reader “Royko” (a.k.a. Tom Bazan) was kind enough to upload the results of his constant TPIA requests made to the City of Houston and Metro for sales tax revenue. Because numbers make the eyes glaze over, here is his data in a more visual format. It’s pretty clear that the Mayor should not be having problems finding money for the police department. (Click on the chart for full size.)

I’m also working on a chart for the Metro sales taxes, but I will have to get some questions answered first.

Trash the Fee, Part III

In prior segments of this series, I’ve hinted that the new “heavy trash pickup fee” (which we should really be calling the “garbage service tax”) may be impossible to administer fairly. Today, I’ll discuss why, but be warned–there’s a lot of parenthetical comments coming because there are so many interrelated side issues, it’s not funny. Well that, and Office Depot had a sale on punctuation marks.

As with most such garbage programs, the proposal in Houston is to add a flat fee to “everyone’s” water bills, regardless of whether they actually use the heavy trash or recycling services. The problem is, that oft-quoted “30% of users” figure refers to garbage service users. It doesn’t refer to utility service users, and there is a difference between the two groups. It’s especially stark here in Houston, because we have gone on for so long with the two services completely separate. This isn’t just a financial issue; it’s built into the very infrastructure of both Departments, and even subtly, our ordinances. I’m not talking about things like authorization for the fee; I’m talking about problems with implementing it.

Continue reading

What’s in a Water Bill?

A while back, in the discussions over at blogHouston’s forums, we were having a discussion about the garbage tax, and I made a response to correct the mistaken impression of another reader that we were already paying for garbage with our water bills. While blogHouston has a much larger readership than Houblog (even when I’m writing here regularly), it occurs to me that it was too informative a piece of writing to remain buried in the forums where I feel certain not all readers go. So I have copied the response here below for anyone who may have missed it.


Before the Mayor effectively disconnected the cost / rate equation, the water bill had zilch to do with the solid waste. Now it has zilch to do with anything. The accounting is fairly technical, but the way it’s divided is simple: Solid Waste gets funded from tax revenue every year, whereas Public Utilities is funded from user revenue. The two funds don’t mix at that level. I’ll leave aside what happens when the Council loots any surplus, as happened under Brown. Such funds [go into the General Fund, and] are not directly transferred to any other Department, and there is no correlation between the amount of utility revenue and Solid Waste budget anyway.

What do I mean by disconnect? The way it was supposed to work is that every year, the department would examine the bond service, the cost of operating the system, the labor, and all the etceteras, to determine how much money needed to be raised on an annual basis. Multi-year projections, going forward, blah, blah, blah. However, owing to the asinine design of the department, only the capital costs, debt service, and operation of the Public Utilities Division got counted on the costs side. Guess what got left out? Billing. The costs of the Utility Customer Service Branch, if not all of Resource Management, got omitted from the equation. So, on the surface, COH was running a slight profit on utilities — in reality it was probably running a deficit! A Jefferson Wells audit calculated the per-account cost of administration and billing to be around $2.30 per month. This would mean about $1,000,000 per month, easy.

So in 2004, when the rates were finally increased after 11 years, the Financial Management section of Resource Management proposed a $2.35 fee to be added to the sewer bills of all customer accounts, in order to pay for those costs. At which point the infighting started — to put it bluntly, this would cause one section to be singled out publicly. It made zero sense anyway — if you’re going to split out administrative costs, then do it for the debt service, the treatment costs, the repair and maintenance costs, etc. Furthermore, why add the cost to the sewer? There’s thousands of accounts that have only water, with no sewer (industrial supply, sprinkler systems, fountains, etc.) Yet their administrative cost is virtually the same.

So what happened? Take a gander at this. Look at single and multi-family sewer rates. That’s the fee, reduced to $1.00, with three years of automatic increases added. And businesses don’t pay it. In fact, nobody pays it but homeowners and apartment complexes. If the definition of a compromise is, “a bad solution that pleases no one,” then I think this fits.

Since 2005, the rates automatically increase by the amount of inflation in the tri-county metro area. What this means is that the actual costs of running the department no longer matter. They can be be higher, they can be lower, they can be unchanged. But whatever the overall rate of inflation is according to the U.S. Dept. of Labor, that is how much the bills will increase. And now that I think of it, is this a violation of the city charter, since it doesn’t seem to fit the (non-technical/legal) description of an Enterprise Fund? And if it is a violation of the charter, will the Mayor break the rate structure as fast as he breaks some leases?


I’d just like to add that, while searching for additional links to add to this post, I looked through the City Controller’s site, and noticed several curious things. Firstly, the Consolidated Annual Financial Report for FY 2006, which ended nine months ago on June 30th, is not on the website. The latest is 2005. Second, you’d think that if the site has multiple pages to explain about the Controller’s office, its function, and its history, it could find space for a page of basic information on the city budget, and how it is organized. Some quick facts, maybe even definitions of things like “Enterprise Fund” and so on. Why, schoolkids could use it for civics assignments (if they still have such a class, and it hasn’t been replaced with “How to Hate America” and “Western Civilization is Evil” lessons). Also, there’s been some very interesting audits released recently. Not that we’ve heard much about them in the press…

Trash the Fee, Part II

Unsurprisingly, the Houston Chronicle came out today with an editorial in favor of the “Waste Reduction” fee. No one should be surprised by that; the Chronicle has never met a bit of social engineering it didn’t like. Needless to say, it heaped praise upon the idea’s friends.

Even so, council members including the conservative-leaning Toni Lawrence seemed to quickly grasp the fee’s role in keeping other city services free and accessible. It’s a promising sign that constituents also can put the fee in its proper context.

What "free and accessible" services are those pray tell? The understaffed police department and the fire department? One wonders how much longer those will remain free. Just what is this “context?” (And can you call a tilt that small a “lean?” I guess you can if you’re indulging in Chronicle Newspeak.) But the Orwellian re-definition of “free” and "service" doesnt’ stop there.

The other proposals also are fair — if far less controversial. The panel decided against including a “user fee” for weekly trash pickup. That makes Houston almost unique among major Texas cities, most of which attach that fee to homeowners’ water bills. Heavy trash pickup — a lumbering, wasteful process that dispatches trucks monthly to serve 30 percent of city households —

Stop. Right. There.

Could someone please explain to me how it is "fair" to charge ALL Houston households for a service that only supposedly 30% use? If this is a fee on heavy trash pickup, shouldn’t the fee be charged to people using the service? The mayor, his task force, and the Chronicle want to make it sound like these 30% of users are the problem, yet then they want to charge everyone that receives any city garbage service (provided they get a water bill, anyway), whether they produce heavy trash pickup or not. Could someone explain to me how this is not a universal garbage fee? The mayor’s answer seems to be (paraphrasing here): “Because it’s not labeled as such. We’re calling it a heavy trash reduction fee.”

Labels do not a reality make. I can paint myself in blackface and start singing "Mammy," but I bet calling myself the greatest black musician since B.B. King isn’t going to keep the NAACP off my lilly-white ass. Just ask Michael Richards. Unfortunately, the Houston Chronicle, the task force, Controller Annise Parker, Mayor Bill White, and “conservative-leaning” Toni Lawrence do not appear to be functioning in the same reality as the rest of us. To continue their propagandizing:

— would be reformed in two sensible ways. Gradually, over several years, scheduled pickups would drop to twice annually. Residents, however, could call in extra pickup requests for a small cost.

Ah, so we’re going to charge everyone we can, and then charge the real users too. Which really gives the show away about the $42 fee actually being a universal garbage service fee, not a heavy trash fee, doesn’t it? Only, since they’re not calling it a garbage fee, they can come back in a few years and impose something else with that name too, can’t they? If you think not, look at all the weird fees on your electric and phone bills. Now that’s the art of inventive fee charges raised to the professional level of the private sector. (And some folks wonder why I sneer at “privatization” of government functions. People, businesses have to pay a fair wage and make a profit. The city doesn’t have to do either.)

In the balance of “cost vs. service” lies the biggest problem with this plan, in two respects. In the first place, only a hardcore “social engineer” is going to be stupid enough to want to pay more to get less service. Maybe that “engineer” can afford it, but I’ll bet you a sixty-year-old grandmother with nothing but $819 a month in Social Security can’t. (That’s the poverty level for 1 person.) Hey, remember, according to some folks, 1 in five children in Houston live in poverty! Let’s burden their guardians with more fees. After all, those damn poverty-laden households generate tons and tons of heavy trash every year–they can buy one less pack of cigarettes a month, can’t they? Make them pay! What’s controversial about that?

But the second half of the problem is the real killer: Reducing the scheduled pickups will not reduce the amount of heavy trash produced in Houston. It will however, cause the amount of illegal dumping to skyrocket. We already ticket people for putting out heavy trash one day early. What is going to happen when someone has a load to be disposed of, and it’s three months until the next pickup? It’s going to get dumped in the nearest vacant lot or on a dead-end street. "But don’t worry," proponents say, "the fee will pay for extra enforcement!" So could someone explain how that squares with this?

The projected savings for Houston? $14 million a year.

How much of the savings is going to be eaten by the need for extra enforcement? And how much good will that extra enforcement be? My bet: zero. The only way to really nail a dumper is to catch them in the act. Is Chief Hurtt going to suggest cameras on every vacant lot next?

Let me ask this: Does anyone think it’s strange that the director of the Solid Waste Department picked now to retire? There appears to be no pressing family or medical reason for him to depart at this moment. And as the director of Solid Waste, Thomas “Buck” Buchanan is the natural point man for any proposal to change the ordinances, especially if Mayor Bill wanted to avoid being in the line of fire of a sure-to-be unpopular proposal. Chief Hurtt sure takes it on the chin for red-light cameras, doesn’t he? Go read Matt’s interview of the departing director. Notice how he sidesteps the question on the proposals, while still appearing to support the mayor.

In my opinion, the big news is not what all the noise is being made about. The code of ordinances that defines who is eligible for city solid waste services really hasn’t been modified for decades. . . .The real news is that the task force has devised a recommendation to modify the code of ordinances so that 10,000 or more customers that are not eligible for service will be receiving service from the city.

He sticks to the administrative side of the issue and says nothing about how the fee and related proposals will improve Houston’s handling of solid waste. People, refusing to talk about the “improvements” to recycling and solid waste pickup is a HUGE omission, one that this gentleman is too experienced to make by accident. I thought his absence from the front lines of the publicity for this proposal was odd, but it shouldn’t take anyone with a city employee’s experience in figuring out the city’s inner workings to realize that this means the state of Denmark is having problems with rottenness once again.

The way to reduce illegal dumping is to stop making it so difficult to dispose of garbage in the first place. (Granted, a lot of this is under the EPA’s control; which is why you can’t just drive your truck to the landfill anymore and toss stuff in. Who knows what would end up in there?) All this fee and service reduction is going to accomplish is to trash up our neighborhoods, while enabling the mayor to shift more money to useless bike trails. And I think Col. Buchanan knows that. But like a good soldier, he’s not going to publicly embarrass his commander; he’s going to let the commander pick someone in line with his philosophy.

I guess I’m not a good soldier.

Col. Buchanan makes a good point though; probably the only good part about this set of proposals is that it tries to bring some order to a chaotic area that hasn’t been examined in over 40 years. Simply put, the ordinances and codes that worked for a city of a half-million four decades ago do not work for the fourth-largest city in the U.S., especially given the changes in our society. There’s a lot of things that are creaking along, with the bureaucracy trying to patch over them, often being whipsawed by contradictory directives from successive administrations. Many city ordinances need to be given a comprehensive review and updated to cope with 21st century technologies and trends. (Public Works was also in the middle of such a project, but it has been “delayed” by the current proposals, and my gut feeling is it won’t get done this year due to the controversy.)

The task force also found a way to dampen escalating disputes about who is eligible for free trash pickup and not receiving it, and vice versa. City policy is clear: eligible residences must face a city street. But confusion has ballooned along with the densely-platted townhouse developments city-wide, in which some units face the street — and get trash pickup — and their inward-facing neighbors do not.

But, of course, those inward facing neighbors will still get charged $21 per semi-annual heavy trash pickup, won’t they? I can confidently say that as the projected revenue numbers stand right now, no one has made a count of which townhomes do not face the street, and subtracted them from the revenue. I’m not even sure if the proposal exempts non-served properties from the fees.

And that thought will lead us to part 3 of this series, in which I examine the biggest flaw in this entire scheme: administering it. I’m sure the water department is looking forward to having to keep track of which properties are eligible and which aren’t….

"Oh, don’t worry, that’s Solid Waste’s job."

"OK, so then you’re saying Solid Waste is going to keep track of all 440,000 Public Works utility account numbers and which properties they serve, so they can correctly say "charge these accounts, but not those."

"But! But! They do it in all the other cities, don’t they?"

"Not exactly…."

See you in a few days for part 3.

Rusty Pipes?

Rorschach sent me a link to an ABCNews.com story about how the big cities in the northeast are facing a serious breakdown in their potable (i.e.: drinking) water delivery systems. Seems that they’re getting old and crumbling, leading to some serious water leaks. New York probably has the worst. Bear in mind when you read this, that NYC has to draw water from hundreds of miles away, incuding resivoirs in the Catskills and the Delaware river, through huge pipelines, 40+ feet across.

The oldest, largest cities in the country — Philadelphia, Chicago, Denver, New York — are all showing signs that their distribution systems are in need of repair, said Eric Goldstein, a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council, a leading environmental group.

In New York City, for example, the biggest leak in its system loses 1 billion gallons of water a month, he said.

Frankly, someone’s got to be misplacing a decimal point. I remember seeing an episode of 60 Minutes (back when it did respectable TV news journalism), in which an inspector was fighting an uphill battle against laziness and shoddy workmanship in the new lines. I would have to assume that the leak is somehwere in those lines, which supply raw water to the city’s treatment plants; anything else would result in half of Manhatten washing away. There are 1440 minutes in a month, which means that the leak would be losing nearly 700,000 gallons per minute. That might be possible if one of the major supply lines is breached, right next to a river that can accept the flow….

Their biggest problem is that they’re not replacing lines fast enough. According to this article, NYC is replacing only forty miles of water main per year. I don’t know how many they have, but bear in mind that Houston, a city smaller in population, but much less dense, has over six thousand miles of mains.

The overall health of our utility system is an issue I’ve kept a bit of an eye on over the years, because it impacts the health of Houstonians in general.

EPA rules require that water leaving a city’s water plant be tested for microorganisms like cryptosporidium and legionella that thrive in degraded water systems. (The) EPA also requires tests for a slew of other contaminants, including lead, copper and arsenic, which can lead to any number of gastrointestinal or other illnesses.

But once water has been purged of such impurities, different ones can enter the water supply as it courses through miles of old pipe.

“Investigations conducted in the last five years suggest that a substantial proportion of waterborne disease outbreaks, both microbial and chemical, is attributable to problems within distribution systems,” the National Research Council said in a study for the Environmental Protection Agency released in Decembe

Such was the cause of a lawsuit by some Houston homeowners, alledging that the high incidence of cancer in their neighborhood was caused by broken water lines running through a hazardous area containing toxic waste. They failed in their lawsuit only because while they could prove that lines had broken, and contaminants had entered the system, they coulndn’t prove how much, on which occasions, and establsih a direct causal link between specific breaks and their increased cancer. For what it’s worth, water used in my household is filtered; I generally will no longer drink plain tap water straight from the faucet.

Fixing this problem is going to be expensive, nationally.

“We estimate in the next 20 to 30 years water utilities will have to invest $250 to $350 billion just to replace the pipes that are in the ground today,” said Jack Hossbuhr, executive director of the American Water Works Association, the industry’s trade group.

How does Houston fare? I can’t claim to have a lot of inside information, but I’d say I’m a very well-informed layman at the minimum. The summary: we have some minor problems now, and will be facing increasing problems in the next 20-30 years, I think, but not a total system collapse — if we continue to spend steadily on maintenance and line replacement each year. If we get another Mayor Brown slashing spending on both, all bets are off. The biggest headache over the next generation: older inner-loop neighborhoods (especially minority) and the southwest side. A lot of the city’s infrastructure on the SW side was built in the 60’s, and I would assume its estimated lifespan to be somewhere in the range of a half-century to 75 years. I’m not really certain; I can’t find any projections on it. Overall though, I don’t see us as having near the issues of the NE cities; for one thing, our system is a lot younger than theirs — parts of which are well over 100 years old. We’ve also been aggressive about rebuilding and upgrading the system (at least in non-minority neighborhoods…) so most neighborhoods are supplied by water mains built within the last 20-30 years, even if the smaller distribution mains within those neighborhoods are older. The mandated switch to surface water has also impacted our system. Most of our main trunk lines from the new treatment facilities are only 25 years old (and in some cases, less than five).

Our primary disadvantage is that we’re spread out, meaning that for a city of our population we have a huge amount of pipeline; six thousand miles of it, as I said. When we do have to replace it, it’s going to be a lot to do, which is why constantly doing some replacement is crucial. That brings us to our second major disadvantage: the lack of maintenance starting in the Brown years. It only takes a few years of slacking for the problems to snowball; in drought conditions that occurred during his administration, we had 1500-2200 leaks on report. That doesn’t even include the collapsing sewer system, which was blamed on “cold weather.” Having atrophied the city work force, and faced with an angry public, the last years of his tenure were marked by increasing the amount of work farmed out to contractors; the city now keeps several of them on retainer and dispatches them to problems almost as if they were city repair crews. The exception to this is the Kingwood area, which has been wholly contracted out — to Severn Trent. (I seem to recall that one of the reasons we annexed them was to “offer” them city services. Doesn’t contracting those services out suggest the city couldn’t make good on that “offer” to Kingwood?) Whether or not this has been enough to make up the difference, I am not certain, but it appears to be so for now.

What I don’t have access to is information on the average age of the system; how much of it is how old, and so on. The older it gets, the more water we lose, and the more contaminents that enter the lines–or sometimes, the more the old lines contaminate the water themselves, with rust. I can say that the amount of lost water in Houston ran around 11-15% a decade ago, with spikes of up to 18% in drought conditions. “Lost water” is a lot more complicated subject than it seems, as by AWWA definition, it includes all water not sold. This means city facility use, firefighting, free giveaways (such as to the Zoo Development Corporation, which doesn’t have to pay for any water used at the zoo for fifty years), flushing lines, theft, leakage, and administrative error.) That’s actually not too bad; Philly, which takes the subject much more seriously, was routinely losing about 17-21% at that time. Houston, with its “plentiful” water, is not as rigorous in pursuing this subject, and doesn’t even track some categories. It’s a problem with interdepartmental cooperation, and isn’t wholly within PW&E’s control.

We’ve been blessed since the Lanier administration with a strong series of PW&E chiefs who were nuts & bolts guys, and more interested in getting & keeping the city’s house in order than in poltics and graft. That was not true under Whitmire, with two caveats; I can’t point to anyone at the top I know was bad (though some middle and lower managerial ranks barely escaped prosecution), and the housecleaning did start in her last term, when it became obvious how badly the Utilities Group had been mis-managed. For a while, the water and sewer divisions were spun off into their own department, which gave Director Fredrick Perrenot time to start the cleanup. My take on him is that he was not a bad Director, but not much better than middling; interested in his own advancement, and willing to play politics to get it. Then James Schindewolf came back on board with Lanier, at which point Public Utilities was reunited with PW&E, and Perrenot became second fiddle. JS concentrated on both training and system infrastructure, when he wasn’t busy running the city for Lanier. Early on, he paid lip service to the Whitmire administration’s plan to reach as far east as Toledo Bend for future water supplies, but that plan got quietly swept under the rug when it was clear there was no backing in Austin for it. Then things backslid badly under Brown, who brought Perrenot back — until he had to throw him to the wolves after several years of slashed budgets and no maintenance blew up in his face during 2000-2001. Loyally carrying out the orders of his master to chop spending and staffing had left Fredrick with no choice but to fall on his sword when ordered to do so. (Edit: Argh. King was the director under Brown who had to retire, Perrenot had a subordinate position. I think he was in charge of the “Utilities Group” in PW&E — hence the confusion.)

PW&E’s current director, Michael Marcotte, seems to be adequate, but is evidently much more of a manager than an engineer. (Although, for the record, he is a P.E. and D.D.E.) Beset by the loss of a major portion of its institutional talent, he may be exactly what the department needs when it needs it. His insistance on what is called the Continuous Management Improvement process has paid dividends with a department that is much more process-oriented than before. Unfortunately, much of his time has been taken in the last year or two with sorting out the mess in Code Enforcement, so I have no idea if he’s been able to watch the long-term strategic situation. Only time will tell us whether another nuts-and-bolts engineer will be needed to ensure the health of Houston’s water supply in the 21st century, but I can say for certain that future directors will not lack for the information necessary to make decisons. Hopefully, they’ll still have a few employees left to locate and analyze it. 🙂