water - Public Works Group Blog

April 3, 2023April 1, 2023

Can AI Help Fix a Water Main Break?

Robot in orange suit standing on a wet road looking down with cars parked on the side of the road

Maybe you’ve heard about AI, and maybe you haven’t, but odds are you most likely will. There are many types of AI tools being developed. One example is ChatGPT, a text-based tool providing answers to questions in a conversational manner. Since ChatGPT launched late last year, it seems everyone is discussing Artificial Intelligence (AI) and what it means to society. Being in public works, I can’t help but wonder about all the impacts to our industry

So today I thought about using the ChatGPT tool to see if it could help me figure out how to fix a water main break. After all, this is a common issue that comes up in public works, and I was curious to see how AI would respond. Could AI take the place of that wise, seasoned employee? Based on its advice I wouldn’t be ready to send it out to the jobsite just yet. Here’s how the conversation went:

My input: How do i fix a water main break?

ChatGPT’s answer: Fixing a water main break typically requires the expertise of a professional plumber or water utility company. It can be a complex and potentially dangerous task that requires specialized equipment and training.

Here are some general steps that may be involved in fixing a water main break:

Shut off the water supply: The first step is to turn off the water supply to the affected area. This may involve turning off a valve or shutting off the main water supply to the entire property.
Locate the break: The next step is to locate the break in the water main. This can be done by observing signs of water damage or by using specialized equipment, such as listening devices or cameras, to pinpoint the location.
Excavate the area: Once the break has been located, the affected area will need to be excavated to expose the damaged section of pipe. This may involve digging a trench or using other methods, depending on the location and accessibility of the break.
Repair or replace the pipe: Depending on the extent of the damage, the pipe may need to be repaired or replaced. This can involve cutting out the damaged section and replacing it with a new piece of pipe or using specialized equipment to seal the break.
Test the repair: After the repair has been made, the water supply should be turned back on and the system tested to ensure that there are no leaks or other issues.

It is important to note that these are general steps and that the specifics of the repair process may vary depending on the location and nature of the water main break. In any case, it is recommended that you consult with a professional plumber or water utility company to ensure that the repair is done safely and effectively.

My assessment: The AI gave a fairly simple explanation. To be fair, I didn’t give it a lot of detail regarding my expectations for its answer – I just asked a question. And I’ve found that being more detailed in your expectations for the output can make a big difference in the response. However, even with the simple steps provided by ChatGPT, I thought it left out a few critical items. So I followed up:

My input 2: In general that is good, but I think you should add a step where you call for utility locates before digging. That is really important. You should also add to the testing section a note about the need to test for water quality before allowing people to drink the water after the repair.

ChatGPT’s answer 2: You are absolutely right. Before excavating the area, it is important to call the local utility locating service to identify any underground utility lines that may be present in the vicinity of the repair site. This helps prevent accidental damage to other utility lines during the excavation process, which could result in further disruptions to utility services, property damage, or even personal injury.

Additionally, after the repair has been made and the water supply turned back on, it is important to test the water quality before allowing people to drink or use the water. Water quality testing can help ensure that the water is safe and free from contaminants that could be introduced during the repair process. This testing may involve taking samples of the water and sending them to a laboratory for analysis, or using on-site water testing equipment to check for things like chlorine levels, pH balance, and other parameters.

Thank you for bringing these important points to my attention.

My assessment: The AI was very accepting of my suggestions and polite in its response readily incorporating the information. I also liked that in its first response it emphasized the need to consult a professional. I’m going to keep testing out the tools, and as I do, I’ll try to share some of it in future posts. I’m also interested to see what others are doing with AI to help support public works and government work so reach out if you want to share!

May 6, 2019April 28, 2019

Build a Kit: Water – Week 4

This week we are starting to build our preparedness kit! The first item to collect is water. The suggestion is to have one gallon of water per person per day for three days. In our house, we have 8 people so we need 8 gallons each day and would need 24 gallons for the full 3 days.

Frankly this has been one of the impediments to me building a kit. That’s a lot of water to buy and store! Also, we want to make sure we don’t have that much water sitting around forever if a disaster never occurs. So we decided we need to buy and manage the supply so it is always somewhat fresh. The decision then becomes what is the best way to buy water so we can do that.

If we buy it in one gallon containers then we need 24 of them. We can’t risk having tap water available during a disaster to fill empty containers so the safest solution is to buy them at the store and keep them in a designated spot. But the problem for our family with these containers is that they are not convenient for us to use and rotate through.

Another solution is to buy 16 oz. bottles in a case of 24. If one gallon is 128 fluid ounces then one case would be enough for one person for the full 3 days. For all eight people we would need eight cases. This seems like the best thing to do for our family since we normally buy and use a case a week and could just put the new case in the storage area and take out one of the older ones and keep rotating through the water in this manner. In eight weeks we would have replaced all the cases with new ones.

The next question was where to buy the water because I definitely did not want to spend a lot. We could just buy an extra case each week for eight weeks during our regular grocery shopping trip.Â We shop at Meijer a lot – they sell a case of their brand of water for $2.79 a case so I would spend a total of $22.32. I also noticed Kroger has their brand of purified drinking water on sale for $2.29 for a case of 32 – 16.9 bottles. For a case of 32 bottles, I would only need 6 cases which would cost a total of $13.74, but there were special conditions at Kroger to get that price so I’m not sure I can do that.

At the end, we decided to make it easy on our family and budget, we will just add an extra case each week for 8 weeks since we still have 16 more weeks of building our kit anyway.

June 11, 2018

Is it Really Climate Change or is it Sewage?

Lately I’ve seen several presentations which all include a similar slide with a graph like the generic one I created below. All the presenters then refer to the graph on the slide and make a statement similar to this: “and because of climate change you can see an increase in flooding over the last several decades.” But with no supporting data ever offered to attribute this trend to climate change, these graphs have instead made me think the cause is most likely sewage.

Graph - for example only; not based on actual data — Graph – for example only; not based on actual data

So how do I get sewage out of this? Well, first it helps to have a background in the history of water distribution and wastewater treatment in the U.S. While some major cities began piping water to homes in the 1800s, construction of water distribution systems didn’t began in most areas until the early 1900s.Â At this time, wastewater in most areas was still discharged without central collection or treatment. According toÂ Urban Wastewater Management
in the United States:Â Past, Present, and Future, “By 1905, more than 95 percent of the urban population discharged their wastewater untreated to waterways. Little changed over the first quarter of the twentieth century,
and in 1924 more than 88 percent of the population in cities of over
100,000 continued to dispose of their wastewater directly to waterways.” Because this led to a non-centralized system, sewage was sometimes sent directly to a stream from multiple outlets and sometimes dispersed over land to eventually make its way to a stream.

All this began to change in the mid-1900s. The same publication cited above also noted Congress enactedÂ “the Water Pollution Control Act of 1948. The legislation provided for comprehensive planning, technical services, research, financial assistance, and enforcement. The Water Pollution Control Act was extended in 1952 and became permanent legislation in 1956.” There was a 1965 amendment to this act, and then eventually in 1972, Congress passed another Water Pollution Control Act.Â Â The paper points out “the 1972 Act set the unprecedented goal of eliminating all water pollution by 1985 and authorized expenditures of $24.6 billion in research and construction grants.”

The result of this flurry of legislative activity between 1948 and 1972 resulted in the installation of centralized wastewater treatment systems in urban areas across the U.S. Today all discharges from each of these systems are regulated through permits from the USEPA primarily for water quality control. The discharges are typically introduced to a stream or other body of water directly from the treatment plant. Treatment discharges have the potential to range from less than 1 million gallons per day (MGD) to 1.44 billion gallons per day. That’s a lot of water entering our streams on a continuous basis which is why I immediately thought of wastewater as a cause when I saw the graph trending up after the mid 1900s.

Another reason I suspected wastewater had a major impact on stream flow was based on something I heard regarding the river flowing through our city. It seems in the past, people could walk across the river in the summer. As you can see in the photo of this river which I included at the start of this article, walking across the river today would most likely never be possible. In hearing this, there was no question in my mind that this was due to the wastewater discharges which now regularly flow into our riverÂ and increase its base flow.

So during the last presentation I attended, I asked if impacts from wastewater discharges were considered or analyzed to see how much these flows are contributing to increased flooding. I explained if prior to installation of wastewater treatment plants, base flows of rivers could reduce to almost nothing, these streams would have had more capacity to handle rainfall events. But now with increased base flow due to wastewater discharges, which really started entering streams between 1948 and the 1980s and continue to do so and increase, the ability of streams to handle rainfall events has decreased. This could be a cause of rainfall events impacting greater areas and resulting in increased damages in suburban areas.Â Also, as this USGS site shows, How Much Water Do We Use?, public water supply usage has increased over the years which would increase wastewater discharges even more. The presenter said they had never looked at the impacts of wastewater discharges.

As I continued to wonder about this, I looked online to see if others had thought of the impact of wastewater discharges on flooding events and discovered yes, they have. I even found studies which were done on the river in my community. H. Vernon Knapp, senior hydrologist with the Illinois State Water Survey, has developed at least two studies for the Fox River in Illinois which related to this topic. In his paper, the “Fox River Basin Streamflow Assessment Model: Hydrologic Analysis, October 1988,” heÂ analyzes the river flow taking into consideration impacts from effluent discharges from wastewater plants along the river. According to Knapp, in 1988, “approximately half of the low flows in the river upstream of these plants originated as effluent discharges from other facilities. Under these circumstances, the capacity of the Fox River to assimilate the additional effluents should be of concern.” His paper is also informative regarding other factors which can impact stream flow.

More recently Knapp developed a presentation, Effects of Future Water Demands and Climate Change on Fox River Water Availability. In it he states “watershed modeling suggests that the potential effect of climate change on Fox River low flows is considerably less than the effects of effluents and withdrawals, and thus does not substantially alter the water supply potential of the river.” He also notes “low flows in rivers such as the DesPlaines are almost 100% effluent.”

Perhaps not all increased flooding in all watersheds can be directly attributable to increased wastewater discharges since the 1940s, but I’m surprised it’s not always at least considered. Instead increased flooding events have been attributed to climate change, yet I could find no study which directly proves this. Most studies only look at the extent of flooding and make the leap with no specific data to back up the claim that this is due to increased precipitation brought on by climate change. A few studies I found also indicated there are too many factors other than just precipitation, such as antecedent water content, soil type, topography, etc., to conclusively make a direct correlation between increased rainfall and increased stream flow.

In the future, I hope to find more studies which do take into account the impacts of wastewater effluent on river flow and flood events to see if others have findings similar to Knapp’s.

January 28, 2017

Who Should Pay for Clean Water?

There's been an ongoing legal dispute in Iowa between the Des Moines Water Works (DMWW) and drainage districts in three Iowa counties to decide who should pay the price to clean up polluted water. It's an interesting case for those of us who are involved in stormwater regulation and water treatment. And it is one more step in the ongoing struggle to determine how best to protect the environment and who is best positioned or most responsible to pay that cost.

Background on the DMWW Case

According to the final ruling document (No. 16-0076), DMWW "is a municipal water utility … that provides drinking water to an estimated half-million Iowans in the Des Moines area." Their water sources are primarily the Racoon and Des Moines Rivers. The watershed for the Racoon River is about 2.3 million acres in size and spans 17 counties in Iowa. DMWW stated in their complaint filed in federal court that "from 1995 to 2014, nitrate concentrations in the Racoon River at the DMWW intake points exceeded the 10 mg/L standard for drinking water at least 1636 days, or 24% of the time." Example concentrations mentioned in the complaint are 11.98 mg/L, 13.23 mg/L, 11.89 mg/L, 13.43 mg/L, and 12.56 mg/L. Therefore in order to provide water to its customers that meets drinking water regulations, DMWW incurred costs at its three treatment plants to reduce this level below the standard. DMWW also noted the need to expend funds in the near future to construct a new facility to handle the continuing elevated levels of nitrate.

In an effort that appears to force a reduction in or capture of these costs, DMWW filed a petition in federal court on March 16, 2015 (Trial Case No. C 15-4020-MWB). According to the Order Certifying Questions to the Supreme Court, the complaint basically alleges the drainage districts, or defendents, are "responsible for the increasing nitrate concentrations in the Racoon River." And because DMWW provides water to its customers from this river, which now has elevated levels of nitrate, it must incur costs it would not otherwise have to in order to reduce these concentrations below regulated standards.

On the defendent side, the drainage districts argued they were not the proper party for this lawsuit. They also indicate that other agencies of the state and federal government are responsible for regulating these matters – not a court of law. In the end, their bottom line was "the existence and functions of drainage districts are so limited, the Iowa Supreme Court repeatedly, for over a century, has found districts not amenable to suit for damages, i.e., they are entitled to unqualified immunity."

Court Ruling in the DMWW Case

As reported in the online article of the Des Moines Register on Jan. 27, 2017, "the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that Des Moines Water Works cannot win damages under the Iowa Constitution against drainage districts in the three counties it is suing." The article includes an embed of the ruling in case anyone is interested in reading the court's explanation for each count of the complaint. The article also mentions there will be another ruling in June of this year to decide if drainage districts should be considered polluters under the Clean Water Act and subject to those regulations including the need to obtain permits for their discharges. corn

Why does this matter?

Water receives contaminants from natural and man-made activity, and removing those contaminants is not free. In the end, someone has to pay the cost, but who? In the Des Moines area, the cost to remove contaminants to provide safe drinking water is currently paid for by the DMWW which most likely passes the costs onto its customers. If the city subsidizes its utility for this purpose then the taxpayers of the city are also paying. But the people paying for that cost are not directly responsible for putting nitrates in the water. Instead studies show elevated contaminants in receiving streams are primarily a result of agricultural operations. (An earlier article in this blog cites a report indicating results of this in Illinois). So should agricultural operators pay the costs to remove contaminants?

Who pays is really what is being decided by lawsuits like the one brought by DMWW. In that case the court's decision leaves those using the water to bear the costs. Whether that is because of the manner in which the complaint was written or the specific defendents named, I cannot really comment on since I am not a lawyer. Articles and opinions I've read on the case indicate the matter is best left to legislators and regulatory agencies. What does seem obvious to me is no matter which entity pays, the cost will always ultimately be passed along to the end user. So whether it is the water or stormwater utility paying or the farmer, it seems we will pay for it through increased water bills to treat our water, taxes to clean our waterways, or grocery bills for increased costs for food production. So really the question should perhaps be How Do We Want to Pay for Clean Water?

May 13, 2016May 13, 2016

Water Unleaded Launch

Having worked for many years in the water industry, I've closely followed the recent events related to the lead controversy in Flint, Michigan. If you're a regular reader of this blog, you've also probably seen the articles my partner and I posted about the topic. As we continued to discuss the topic over the last few months, we realized we could continue to offer through our blog information to people about minimizing their exposure to lead in their homes. But what could we do to help people be sure they are not exposed to lead once they ventured outside their home? So we started to wonder if it might be useful to have a place online where people could check to see the levels of lead in places they were thinking of visiting. Today we are launching that site – Water Unleaded – to serve as a type of drinking water quality registry focusing on the content of lead in drinking water.

If you own or manage a business and are interested in listing information about lead in the drinking water at your site, we encourage you to head on over and check out the various listing methods. One basic listing can be created for free in the primary categories. If you are interested in posting test results or placing a listing in a lead-level category, a small fee applies. Memberships and paid listings are also available offering additional features. Some premium memberships allow the abilty to purchase a window cling to post at your place of business with verfication of test results.

If you provide testing services or other water related services or products, you can also create a listing. For a small fee, you can place your listing in the category representing the type of service or product you offer.

Because the site is newly launched, we are very interested in your feedback. Please let us know if you find any bugs or have any questions or suggestions. We are trying to provide a useful site to help all of us better understand lead levels in our drinking water and minimize our exposure. Thanks for checking it out!!!

February 15, 2016

Flint Water Testing Update & One Quick Easy Fix

Flint Water Analysis as of Feb. 13, 2016

One more week has gone by and there have been an additional 2,133 tests completed for lead and copper in Flint, Michigan. This brings the total number tested to date to almost one third of the 31,000 total users (number of total users from the city of Flint website). I've updated the pie chart showing little change in the percent of sites testing over the action limit for lead levels, now at 7% with a level of 9 ppb being the 90th percentile – well below the action level of 15.

Fortunately I've noticed discussion of the situation in the media and online turning to a more well thought out direction with some realizing lead in the water is probably not the primary cause of the lead problem in Flint. People are also starting to realize Flint is no different than the majority of cities in the U.S., and all this testing is proving Flint is actually better off than many with respect to lead levels in their water.

One article, "Two, Three… Many Flints – America’s Coast-to-Coast Toxic Crisis," does a good job discussing the lead risks posed by paint and how this is not just a problem for Flint, Michigan. The article also points out how focusing too much on Flint to the exclusion of all else and not acknowledging that cities all across America are in the same or worse state will ignore the larger problem. And this will mean that people in other areas will continue to face this issue as they do now with little to no help or education.

And while I like that the article, "Fixing Our Broken Water Systems" also acknowledges the problem is all over, it's concerning that the media is still pushing for full replacement of service lines and other requirements that will be costly, time-consuming, and more importantly not immediately solve the problem. Another suggestion in the article was for each city to conduct a census of homes to find all the lead lines. Anyone who has worked in the water industry understands this would not be a foolproof method because the line at the main and into the home can be copper, but any of the length in between could be lead. The only way to know for sure if a line has any lead pipe is to dig it all up, and it is not feasible to do so just to get a census done.

Using a GIS to help analyze the problem

Instead it would be beneficial for cities to check their old records to see if they have anything showing service line installations. One city where I worked still had old permits for each installation indicating the size and material for each service line. If a city has cards like Flint, they can hire someone to input all that data into a GIS or into an EXCEL table with addresses and then upload it into a Google Fusion table and map it like I did for the test results below. Once the data is in a GIS, someone could overlay the information to see if the lead tests results match up with the lead line records. If age of residence is known, that could also be used and overlaid with the other data.

A quick, easy fix for communities with lead issues

While a GIS can help a water system get a better handle on lead in their system, it still doesn't actually solve the problem. Adding phosphates will address the lead in the water issue, and it is a fairly easy method to implement. But I understand Flint has already done this, so the lead levels in the water problem appears to be covered. But what about the lead paint and the community's need and desire to specifically focus on solving the problem for their lower income population? Since this population primarily lives in rental housing, the city of Flint, which already has a Rental Inspection Program, could easily add lead-free requirements to their rental program by amending their ordinance.

Basically, in order to rent a unit in Flint, the city could require the landlord to provide proof the service line to the unit was either installed originally with a non-lead pipe or that if originally lead, it had been replaced. Additionally, the landlord would need to prove the home did not test positive for lead paint. Only with this lead-free certification could a unit be approved as a rental. This places the burden of cost on the landlord who is a business owner and has an obligation to provide a safe living environment for people who are paying him or her money to live there. This requirement would also assist people who have lower incomes and who have little to no control to improve the building or facilities on which they rely. According to the U.S. Census 2014 Housing Selected Characteristics for Flint, Michigan, 45% of their housing stock are rentals. Enacting this amendment to their Rental Inspection Program would go a long way towards ensuring people in their community are living in lead free homes.