In reading this blog post please review our Flint, Michigan – Introduction to Infrastructure Asset Management Analysis blog post, which provides background information for this post.
Implications of engaging in asset management
A utility engaged in asset management examines its infrastructure to determine components that are critical to meeting the levels of service and keeping the utility in proper operating condition.
This evaluation includes considering how likely an asset is to fail and how serious the consequences are if the asset does fail.
In the case of Flint, Michigan, my opinion is that an examination of the infrastructure would have pointed out the lead service lines as particular concerns in meeting health standards.
- One failure mechanism is an asset’s ability to meet levels of service. Clearly, the lead pipes were not able to meet the level of service of safe drinking water so in an infrastructure management analysis they would have been given a very high rating for a probability of failure. When this was coupled with the consequence of a failure of the possibility of lead poisoning, particularly of children, the risk of the lead pipes would have been extremely high.
- An extremely high-risk rating would require a utility to look at ways of reducing that risk. A couple of options would have been available to Flint, including corrosion control and staying with Detroit water or possibly other alternatives. Following an infrastructure management analysis, this extremely high-risk rating would be communicated to the utility management and governance for guidance and decision making.
- In infrastructure management analysis examining consequences of asset failure also includes investigating non-economic consequences which would have greatly benefited the decision-makers of Flint. From the information available publicly the Flint decision-makers seem to have been focused on the monetary consequences of decisions, with other consequences, such as social consequences, and environmental consequences, seem to have been given less emphasis or ignored.
Life cycle costing
Life cycle costing involves examining how you will intervene in the life of the assets from their initial installation to their final removal, including operation and maintenance interventions, repairs, rehabilitation, and replacement.
In this particular case, my opinion is, that from an infrastructure management planning viewpoint, an examination of the infrastructure, as well as the risks and criticality, would prompt the utility to develop a plan to replace the lead service lines over time.
In the meantime, they could examine operation and maintenance interventions which would help reduce the problems, again this could have been corrosion inhibitors or other measures.
- Life cycle costing also includes the element of business case evaluations for high dollar projects. This project, switching to the Flint River, given the cost of the project, would most certainly have qualified as such. A business case evaluation includes looking at costs, benefits, and risks.
If Flint had been applying infrastructure management practices (with associated asset registers, level of service and risk analysis) my opinion is that a well-done business case evaluation based on this infrastructure management information would most certainly have turned up the risks to Flint of switching to the Flint River – given the knowledge of the current state of the assets and the levels of service desired.
- A business case evaluation should also include a thorough investigation of the alternatives, including long-term costs, risks, and benefits of each. This type of analysis may have enabled the decision-makers to be much more aware of the potential for the public health crisis that could ensue from selecting the alternative of the Flint River. It would also have made them more aware of other more acceptable alternatives.
Advantages of long-term funding
Finally, the last component of infrastructure asset management practice is long-term funding.
From the publicly available information is seems evident that Flint Michigan officials, namely the appointed emergency manager, did not have a long-term view of funding.
From the publicly available information, it also seems they were very narrowly focused on costs in the short-term.
The supposed savings of $19 million over 8 years will be dwarfed by the astronomical costs of pipe replacement, legal fees, potential payouts from lawsuits, etc.
Also, the decision not to spend the estimated $80 to $100/per day on corrosion control, which might have been seen as a “cost-saving measure,” also turns out to be a very bad decision when looking at long-term costs and health consequences.
Investigating costs, benefits and risks over the long-term would have greatly benefited Flint.
Effect and cost of neglecting asset management
In the case of Flint, Michigan there is little publicly observable evidence that any sort of asset management program was in place, much less a robust one. Years of under-funding and neglect left the utility vulnerable to all sorts of problems, including the one that occurred.
Flint also suffers from one of the most difficult problems of all to address – managing infrastructure with a declining population.
It is too late to undo the damage that was done to the children of Flint, but it is not too late for the utility to begin an asset management initiative. Even now, the city would benefit greatly from starting it.
More importantly, it is time for other utilities across the U.S. and elsewhere to heed the lessons of Flint and consider developing and implementing infrastructure asset management programs.
There are so many ways that such a program can help a community avoid problems of this type in the future.
It may seem as if this is a daunting process, but it is not nearly so daunting as addressing the serious health concerns in Flint (and elsewhere) and reduction in public confidence in the drinking water infrastructure.
Also, taken in small bites over an extended period, such a program can be put in place without a significant burden.
READ FURTHER INSIGHTS FROM OUR OTHER FLINT MICHIGAN ARTICLES…
[posts template=”templates/teaser-loop.php” taxonomy=”post_tag” tax_term=”1800″ tax_operator=”0″ order=”des”]About the Author
Heather is well known throughout the USA in her role as Director, Southwest Environmental Finance Center where she had been working with utilities, providing asset management training across the US.
Heather and her team are the authors of the very successful and useful “A.M. KAN WORK!” interactive guide to Asset Management and Energy Efficiency that the Kansas Department of Environmental Health-sponsored.
PHOTO CREDIT: Michigan Municipal League via Flickr Creative Commons License.
[…] “Flint Michigan – Is it Too Late to Start an Asset Management Program?” for the continuation of this […]