Pipe upgrade urgency signalled

Bob Lloyd
Bob Lloyd
Dunedin's water pipes must be upgraded before oil shocks intensify and worldwide energy prices surge, a draft paper prepared for the city council suggests.

The paper warns potentially expensive improvements could be much harder to afford in the maelstrom of supply crunches and price spikes as the world grapples with peak oil.

Author Associate Prof Bob Lloyd, of the University of Otago's physics department, said research suggested declining oil stocks would come with a succession of recessions.

Unemployment and the cost of materials could rise to put new pressures on ratepayers and make it even more expensive to improve infrastructure, Dr Lloyd said.

"We expect these shocks to come, and we must now decide where our vulnerabilities are and take care of them while we can.

The end of cheap oil won't just be about the end of cheap travel; it will be part of a shock to the world economy that will have a much greater impact."

Dr Lloyd's paper is part of a suite of work the council commissioned to help it consider the potential consequences of peak oil.

The main report is still being written.

It pre-dated the release of parliamentary researcher Clint Smith's paper The Next Oil Shock which last week warned an oil-supply crunch could start in 2012.

A cycle of supply crunches would lead to price shocks, each shock leading to recession as consumers cut back to pay for petrol and oil-influenced consumables.

Key earners including tourism, and meat, dairy and timber exports, were among the most vulnerable, Mr Smith's report said.

Dr Lloyd said food supplies, especially imports, might also be vulnerable in a world where the cost of production was linked to international oil prices.

The council needed to promote local gardens to ensure Dunedin could feed itself if food imports became too expensive or difficult to secure.

This was especially important if successive recessions led to unemployment, Dr Lloyd said.

An author of the main report to the council, University of Otago Associate Prof Dr Susan Krumdieck, said Dunedin had time to plan its response to peak oil.

Fuel supplies were likely to slowly dwindle to be about the same as in the 1960s by 2050.

The decline would be measured in decades, not months.

Recessions affected the least productive parts of the economy, so further investment in the productive sectors might help the city prepare for the future, she said.

Referring to Dr Lloyd's concerns about the water system, she said oil shocks and recession could see communities managing local infrastructure through organisations such as water boards.

"What has happened since the 1940s and 1950s is the amalgamation effect, where single entities have taken on responsibility for infrastructure that covers a wide geographic area.

"This has been possible because of the use of cheap oil, but as it becomes more expensive, then it might make sense for local communities themselves to take control of local resources," Dr Krumdieck said.

Localisation would also mean local schools and local libraries could be revived as people moved to live closer to amenities.

Surveys in August suggested a "significant" commuter population might struggle to afford travelling 15km to 20km into the city each day.

The council had to improve mass transport.

The surveys suggested there was a "great deal" of dissatisfaction with public transport.

- stu.oldham@odt.co.nz

 

@MikeStk

We might have been talking about different times, but don't you think that renders your responses largely irrelevant then?

After all, I was addressing what had been done so far, and what had been 'set in stone' to do in the near term - to address the allegations that the council had done nothing and was sticking its head in the sand.

You're also putting the cart before the horse - the $25 million estimate comes from the estimate of spending $1 billion over the next 40 years, not the other way around.

Your comments regarding emergency works are wrong - what we're discussing here is the budget for planned upgrades. Emergency work has, I believe, it's own budget.

Back to planning things in advance - you keep talking about this like it's some big surprise that was sprung on the council, and on the public. It's not. Here's the short version:

In order to arrive at the figure of $1 billion, first someone needs to identify that a problem actually exists, probably by doing a desktop study that would have involved digging through DCC archives to identify when various pipes were laid.

The accuracy of that information needs to be verified; the accuracy of the pipe locations needs to be verified and updated; the state of the pipes needs to be investigated; and the work that needs to be done to bring the reticulation into line with the various standards needs to be investigated.

Then the work needs to be prioritised. I imagine that would involve looking at the sizes of the wastewater and stormwater catchments and working out which ones are the most heavily loaded, or have major contributors, or in the case of stormwater which ones are contributing the greatest pollution. The probably of various forms of failure would also be considered.

All of this, so far would probably be done by a staff member, or a couple of staff members, along with their other daily duties and as part of the renewal budget. Then a paper can be prepared, which would probably need to be peer reviewed, and then reviewed by a manager and a director before being put before the council. The council could require several revisions, and a time line of several possible (upgrade) scenarios developed.

It wouldn't surprise me to discover that, on the back of things like staff turnover, upgrades in places like Waikouaiti and Mosgiel, and the installation of the East and West Harbour waste water pipelines - all of which, ostensibly, would be competing for the same money - that the study required to reach the point where we can say "It's probably going to cost us a billion dollars over the next 40 years" began as early as 2000-2002. [Abridged]

Long-term

Replacing infrastructure now to save costs that are unaffordable in the future does not solve the longer-term problem of sustainability. If the system is too costly to run then redesign the system.
Dunedin needs to encourage the use of rainwater, greywater, soak pits etc.

Different times

We're also talking about different ranges of time.

You're talking about what's been budgeted for the next few years. I'm talking about Mr Harland's estimate of what it will cost after that - that number, after all, is what the DCC's estimate of a billion dollars comes from.

I understand it's not exact - as Mr Harland points out it could be more, or it could be less - but that's the only figure I've seen from the DCC that gives us a medium to long term estimate of the true cost.

Yes, it's just an estimate, but not some thing I made up it's a number from the DCC.

Even short term budgeted costs are just a guess. Budgeting $Xm for the next year doesn't help you if we get some pumping station overpressure event or a small quake and pop a whole bunch of aging main pipes. You just can't go and say "well, we only have so much in the budget, Maori Hill will get their water back this year and Opoho next year" as you might with say fields or sealing roads.

A budget works OK for scheduled upgrades, but sometimes we'll be forced to upgrade pipes whether we want to or not. And it will be cheaper if we get to them before they burst than fixing them piecemeal digging up patches here and there as they go.

Mostly though, what I'm advocating here is planning (and budgeting) years in advance. Start putting more money aside to fix things before they break. We should have started doing this years ago. We should have been doing this rather than building a stadium, especially as it appears the DCC was aware that has been an issue for years and didn't mention it in the press until right after the stadium was signed off.

Not doing the upkeep on our infrastructure is just another form of intergenerational debt, as bad as or maybe worse than borrowing money. As the city runs down it becomes another reason why our kids wont stick around.

Not really

Again, from the source you linked to:
...Mr Harland said the forecast increase to $25 million was an estimate and could change as more accurate information was received, for example about the exact condition of the council water pipe network.
"Twenty-five million [dollars] may not be the number - it could be more or it could be less." ...

Emphasis added by me.
Do you see the difference between what I am suggesting and what you are suggesting?

You are promoting supposition based on initial estimates as if it was fact.
I was discussing what has actually been budgeted.

I guess the article says...

 

I guess the article says both things - up to $19.68m in the next 10 years and to $25m in the "short to medium term".

Given we're talking about 50 years here, I guess the 'medium term' is 25 years or so - so both those things can be true at the same time if you look more than a few years ahead.

Of course, what Prof Lloyd is saying here is that if we spend even more short term we'll save in the long run. The problem of course is we don't have the money, because we spent it on circuses.

Really though you're arguing about angels and heads of pins - the issue here is that we need to spend a whole lot of money we don't have.

It doesn't much matter whether it's $12m or $17m a year - we don't have the money. We'll have to hit the ratepayers up for it on top of the stadium increases. Spread across 50,000 ratepayers that works out at roughly $240-$340 each a year for the foreseeable future. Plus, of course, whatever not putting money aside for depreciation will cost us.

 

From the ODT?

The article you linked to states that it will be increasing from it' currently budgeted 7.5 million pa to 19.6 million pa, which is an increase of 12.1 million - 70% of the 17 million you claimed.
The information is even cited in the post you replied to.

From the ODT

The Jan 30th ODT article I linked to above said "funding would have to more than triple to $25 million each year in the short-to-medium term".  If funding more than triples to $25m then it currently must be less that than 1/3 of that, or less than $8.3m.

To increase to $25m from less than $8.3m it must increase by more than $16.7m which I simply rounded to $17m - could be larger, of course.

Simple math, really.

Your facts versus the facts

You say:
So where will they get this extra $17m/year? (2/3 of $25m) rates increases continually for 50 years?

But the article you linked to states:
...the council's renewals funding would have to more than triple to $25 million each year in the short-to-medium term...
And:
During last week's 2010-11 annual-plan hearing, councillors agreed to defer 100% funding of depreciation for water and waste services assets to 2017-18, saving about $6.6 million over the period.

So you're going to have to explain where you plucked this $17 million from.
I got the impression from reading your article (among other sources) that the only thing that's being put off is 'non-urgent' work.

Where will it come from

So where will they get this extra $17m/year? (2/3 of $25m) rates increases continually for 50 years? Just think, we could have bought a stadium for that much .... oh wait, we did, and now we can't afford clean water without putting up the rates even higher. As I said, water is more important than circuses.

The whole point of depreciation is saying "it's getting old, so we'll squirrel some money away for when it gets fixed or replaced". Not putting the money away is basically pretending it's not getting old. It doesn't 'save' money, it just means we won't have that money available to us later when we need it.

We have to get away from this "let's leave all the debt to the kids" mentality that became SOP for the previous council (after all, infrastructure debt is just as bad as dollar debt) and start paying our own way.

It's taken us - what, 30 years? 40? - to build a real sewerage plant. They were arguing about it when I was a kid. Let's be a bit more proactive, move a little faster and plan for the future rather than just patching pipes.

As Dr Lloyd points out, we'd be better of if we replaced our pipes now when the pipes are cheap rather than later when they will be much more expensive.

Red herrings and straw men.

Hype & Mike, you both have presented logical fallacies, somewhere between a 'Red Herring' and a 'Straw Man'.

Mike:
I didn't ask about what the council had agreed to do in the near future - I asked about what the council had done so far.
There is an important distinction in there.

Hype:
I didn't address DCC spending in general. I addressed DCC spending on a specific issue. Nor did I make any comments about the stadium. 

Oh, and Mike, I suggest you go back and re-read your own sources:
...The 50-year funding forecasts were the cumulative total of new and existing spending, and meant the council's renewals funding would have to more than triple to $25 million each year in the short-to-medium term...
...The council was spending about $7.5 million on renewals funding this year, which was already budgeted to increase to $19.68 million in 2019-20...
...Mr Harland said the forecast increase to $25 million was an estimate and could change as more accurate information was received, for example about the exact condition of the council water pipe network.
"Twenty-five million [dollars] may not be the number - it could be more or it could be less." ...

...During last week's 2010-11 annual-plan hearing, councillors agreed to defer 100% funding of depreciation for water and waste services assets to 2017-18, saving about $6.6 million over the period....

What the article actually says is:
1) The problem has been around and known about for years.
2) The DCC has been spending money doing upgrades, and trying to understand the exact extent of the problem.
3) The DCC will continue to do both of these, and is planning on spending an increasing amount of money on it over the next 10 years.
4) The DCC anticipates meeting the full projected yearly cost of renewal (S25m pa) in the next 10-15 years. [Abridged]

How much we know about DCC spending...

...is "very little". Trippy, have you not noticed the many requests for information about spending, that are met with either bland pretend-answers that give no factual information, or by the convenient excuse of commercial sensitivity?

One great example of this is the price paid for Carisbrook and how the sum of $7 million was arrived at. It has been impossible to extract from the DCC (elected or unelected persons) who valued it, even though the deal is done (as are we - like a dinner).

We cannot even find out why the DCC records available to the public show they paid $7 million, yet the ORFU shows it received $6 million.

The time for opening the books is long overdue. There have been far too many secrets regarding our money.

What did the previous council do?

Well, as reported in the ODT, the last council decided to attack the problem by agreeing to "defer 100% funding of depreciation for water and waste services assets to 2017-18".

So I'd say that previous council did the bureaucratic equivalent of putting their fingers in their ears and going "la la la I can't hear you" - they put off saving up to pay for it for a couple of council terms so that some other council would have to deal with it.

DCC spending

How much do either of you actually know about what work has already been done with regard to this issue?
How much do either of you actually know about what steps have been taken to rectify it by the previous council, and how much money has been spent already?

Not so uncertain

I think it's a not so uncertain problem - the DCC has already told us we will need to spend a billion dollars to replace the our aging, 100 year old, water pipes over the next 20 years - why they waited until the week after the council had voted on the stadium I have no idea.

So we have to replace them - what Prof Lloyd is telling us is that it will be a lot cheaper to do it sooner rather than later - the problem of course is that the city now has no money to spend on this required infrastructure work. The previous council seemed unable to understand that water is more important than circuses, hopefully this new council will step up and do the right thing.

An uncertain future

Meanwhile we go ahead propping up debt- loaded fripperies, like the stadium, which will suck up rate payer money and make the job of securing our future, to cope with peak oil and climate change, more out of reach.

ODT/directory - Local Businesses

CompanyLocationBusiness Type
Construction Survey LtdQueenstownSurveyors
Henderson Cycle & MowersAlexandraEquipment & Machinery
P.R Bishop Builders LtdOamaruBuilders
Southern TraverseQueenstownTickets & Events