
Fighting to Replace America’s Water Pipes - ktamura
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/10/climate/water-pipes-plastic-lead.html?
======
wmf
More sobering is the fact that there probably will never be enough tax money
to pay for new pipes anyway: [https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-
scheme/](https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/)

~~~
Pyxl101
I read some of the articles on that site, such as the case study linked below.
There are some interesting points and ideas there, but I'm not sure the
methodology by which they argue that wealth is being destroyed is sound.

[https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2009/3/30/the-cost-of-
de...](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2009/3/30/the-cost-of-development-
one-example.html)

In particular, the analysis considers whether the cost of a road along some
properties will be repaid by tax on those properties. However, this ignores
the 'network effect' present in society, and various other taxes that
residents contribute to.

Residences don't provide property tax revenue in isolation - the residents
also generate tax revenue in a variety of other ways that depend on
transportation. For example, residents commute to work, and work for
corporations that pay a high amount of property tax. It's commonly understood
that commercial districts contribute far more tax than residential districts
do. That's often why cities want to zone for it. But the two zones depend on
each other. Neither works without the other.

Residents consume from various other businesses in the area where they live,
and those businesses pay tax and have employees, and so on. Residents also
generate income and pay income tax and sales tax. Residents who are connected
via top-notch infrastructure generate value in inter-state, national, and even
internationale commerce through their consumption of mail-ordered goods and
use of Internet, phone, and cable TV.

There are certainly some rural areas where infrastructure might be a loss. I'm
not saying that's not possible. Just saying this rationale and analysis isn't
convincing.

It's also not necessarily a problem if individual small areas run at a loss,
as long as larger society is willing to subsidize or pay for them. For
example, imagine a small dense city like San Francisco that generates
incredible wealth. Some people might commute to that area from nearby cities.
Those cities and the transportation in between might not earn enough in tax
revenue from local residents to pay for the infrastructure at the local level,
but it may be the case that higher-level structures above the city such as
counties, states, or the federal government receive enough tax revenue from
the region that they're willing to pay for the transit. Those larger political
structures can look at the big picture, like how transportation within the
region is impacting the regional economy.

For example, the federal government recently gave a multi-hundred-million
dollar grant to develop rail infrastructure between Seattle and Portland. Is
that worth it? I have no idea. That seems like a high price to me to transfer
a few hundred people per train trip. But the point is that the model works as
long as society is willing to pay for this infrastructure. The articles
haven't made the case that people can't or won't pay for it; just that in some
very narrow analysis, properties don't pay for streets along the property. But
roads are never useful in isolation - it's the network that matters.

You could argue that infrastructure could be more efficiently designed if
people lived closer together, and needed less infrastructure. That's probably
true. But that's not saying wealth is being destroyed. It's saying that
society is willing to pay the cost necessary for the quality of life people
want. (Assuming that we do have the money for it - haven't seen the argument
that we don't) You could argue that wealth is being destroyed every time
people buy "organic foods" because they're so much more expensive and
wasteful, for example. It's the same idea.

The fundamental premise of the articles seems to be that growth of suburbia is
unsustainable because suburbia does not generate enough property tax to pay
for itself. An accurate analysis needs to consider all of the ways that those
residents contribute to the tax base, as employees and customers, and add the
sum of the effects up, before argue that it's legitimately wealth-destroying.
One needs to consider the effect of infrastructure on tourism and the ability
of an area to attract residents and businesses. You can't evaluate the
cost/benefit of infrastructure merely by looking at the property tax revenue
of properties adjoining it.

~~~
pja
Given that your counter-argument is a trivially obvious one, a little further
thought would have led to the conclusion that the StrongTowns bloggers might
have thought of it too.

Since you just read until you thought of an objection to their thesis & then
stopped, you failed to find the articles where they do the lifetime cost
analysis over a whole town (i.e., both "suburban" and "business" districts)
and find that this pattern of development means that the profits from the high
tax business districts fail to make up for the costs from exurban / US style
suburban development.

Have a trawl through the Best-Of lists. In particular:
[https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/12/8/the-real-
reaso...](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/12/8/the-real-reason-your-
city-has-no-money) stands out.

------
rayiner
Of course the NYT would find a way to make a disaster caused by bad public
governance all about evil “deep-pocketed” companies. The American Society of
Civil Engineers rates our water infrastructure a “D.” That’s due to chronic
underfunding, which in turn is caused by municipal governments setting water
and sewer rates far too low to maintain and improve the existing
infrastructure. Water infrastructure is a case study in how poor political
discipline can result in disastrous utility regulation, with disasterous
results.

~~~
Shivetya
Politicians prefer to cut ribbons than reinvest in existing infrastructure.
Ribbon cutting gets face time and worse they prefer the bigger and more glitzy
type of projects which in themselves tend to incur even further maintenance
debts. So next time your local politicians want new office complexes, heavy
rail solutions, or such, push them to reveal how current infrastructure
maintenance is being done and what the outstanding costs are.

With regards to water pipes. I don't care how my water is delivered. What I
care about is that it is proven safe, durable, and the least expensive
solution meeting those requirements is used. There is no reason that the
Federal Government or a coalition of states and cities cannot formulate a set
or rules governing the use of each type.

While there are concerns about poisons leaking into some types of pipes more
attention needs to be focused on getting those poisons out of the ground or
routing around them. So perhaps using plastic where its known safe to keep
costs down and resorting to more expensive solutions when clean up options
fail or are exorbitant in costs

------
amelius
While we're at it, can we put some extra fiber optic cables in the ground, and
this time let the government own all of it?

~~~
wernercd
Because the government should be trusted with that infrastructure/information
and they won't become a bloated, red-tape laden mess?

I think the majority of people agrees there needs to be changes in things...
but putting "government" in charge of the backbone of the internet? Would
definitely not a change for the better.

Personally... I think there should be one of two rules: Companies can't own
content AND infrastructure (IE: Comcast)... or a higher cost (taxes? fees?)
for companies that do and/or don't have reasonable competition.

~~~
stephengillie
Why do arguments like this continue to be made, despite many cities already
having municipal broadband?

This anti-governmental prejudice is tiring. Governments are made of people -
what makes you trust those people less than other people?

~~~
wernercd
Because, by and large, I don't trust people?

I love my country and for the most part trust the Government... but on the
same token - you'd have to be blind not to see how inefficient they are
compared to private organizations (IE: Post Office compared to FedEx. Private
Hospitals compared to the VA.)

You'd also have to be blind to not see blatant growth and abuses of
privileges. The ACA growing government meddling in healthcare. Snowden - and
similar - releases showing abuses. Daily revelations about different groups
abusing their privileges.

"Arguments like this" continue to be made because examples are PLENTIFUL of
how inefficient, self serving and abusive large organizations get. The same
can be said of Unions - which are great in some aspects... horrible in others.

~~~
mikeash
The Post Office will send a letter to the other side of the country for 49
cents. How much would that cost from FedEx? They’re pretty competitive for
packages too.

------
nlperguiy
There are limits to growth. The infrastructure bubble is cracking.

No one was there to think through the long term investment in infrastructure.

The prices have skyrocketed due to regulation and now the government can't pay
for all that regulated work.

Similar thing will happen in EU. Pipes are failing all across the western
world.

~~~
maxerickson
Our ability to produce material goods (even in the supposedly hollowed out US
manufacturing sector) really is greater than at any time in history. We aren't
crashing into any growth limit when it comes to infrastructure.

The problem is that taxes have been cut and costs like pensions have gone up
(both in absolute terms from things like favorable contracts and life
expectancy and in relative terms because of the tax cuts).

~~~
droro
Our ability to produce manufactured goods has very little to do with our
ability to build infrastructure.

Construction productivity in the U.S. is actually DROPPING:

[https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/08/daily-...](https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/08/daily-
chart-17)

[https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/capital-projects-and-
inf...](https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/capital-projects-and-
infrastructure/our-insights/the-construction-productivity-imperative)

[http://harvardcgbc.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/Wang_2Page...](http://harvardcgbc.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/Wang_2Pager_Productivity-US-Construction-Industry.pdf)

~~~
maxerickson
Right, but per worker productivity in the construction industry isn't a growth
limit (the claim I was addressing), it is something else.

------
tomohawk
If a local government wants to do this responsibly this time around, they
should require the contractor to put up an escrow to cover any issues for 30
years. These are long term projects, and this will force the cut and run type
companies to look elsewhere for work. The contract may then share the risk by
requiring the pipe suppliers to also chip in and be on the hook.

------
fencepost
It's interesting but not surprising that this competition exists. I'm not sure
the concern about what leaches from the plastic pipe is legitimate, since it
seems like a lot of ductile iron (which replaced cast iron) is also plastic
lined though with a different plastic. Iron may have a structural strength
advantage, but how important is that most of the time? Finally, plastic pipe
may have the advantage in some locations due to the nature of the soil - there
are some places where the soil is more likely to cause corrosion in the iron,
and for those it seems reasonable to use plastic rather than simply coating
the iron in it.

Overall I think the big advantage is going to come from actually getting the
aged pipes replace more than from the choice of which new material to use.

------
nayuki
The two NSF logos, National Sanitation Foundation (
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSF_International](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSF_International)
) and National Science Foundation, sure look similar.

~~~
maxerickson
It's just "NSF International", the name is a tip of the hat to the old name
rather than an acronym.

------
Spooky23
Many of these stories are ginned up a bit, as they are PR for civil engineer
societies.

My wife worked for a water utility in an old city. Outside her bosses office
was a lined wooden pipe that had been in place since 1680 or so, and was
removed during a construction project.

Unless the pipes are riveted, they have a surprisingly long service life, and
techniques exist to spot at risk pipes and even make some repairs without
digging.

~~~
twobyfour
Tell that to the kids in Flint, Michigan who got sick because the city's water
pipes were too old (and the city wasn't willing to pay for appropriate water
treatment to account for that). Or the ones in NYC who have been drinking from
lead-laced school fountains.

And those 500 year old wood pipes may still work, but they probably leak like
sieves. NYC, for instance, loses billions of gallons a year to leaks in the
pair of hundred year old water tunnels it can't afford to shut down for
repair, and more from leaks in iron water mains all over the city.

The US northeast arguably can afford to waste that much water. Many parts of
the world can't.

~~~
Spooky23
Flint had nothing to do with old pipes. It was about bad management and bad
engineers whose incompetence resulted in poisoned water.

Those individuals were held criminally responsible. Unfortunately, society and
the citizens of Flint bear the cost and consequence of their misbehavior.

~~~
twobyfour
Actually, the old pipes were a major factor. You see, without the correct
chemical treatments, the old pipes were releasing scale that had built up over
the years.

You see, old lead pipes are safe once they build up a patina; but untreated,
acidic water erodes that patina (and also leaches lead from the pipes more
readily) and allows the lead to enter tap water.

Even with proper treatment, when lead pipes are disrupted by construction, the
patina/scale can be disturbed and the pipes can become dangerous again.

So yes, the failure to treat the water is the immediate (and I agree,
criminally negligent) cause of the crisis. But the root cause is old lead
pipes; resuming treatment doesn't fully eliminate the danger (which will
continue to be elevated for as long as it takes for the patina to build back
up); and one of the solutions under discussion has been replacing them.

[http://m.startribune.com/flint-water-crisis-reveals-
vulnerab...](http://m.startribune.com/flint-water-crisis-reveals-
vulnerability-of-all-old-water-pipes/366788591/)

~~~
Spooky23
Of course they are a factor. So is not having billions lying around to rip up
every street and building connection to water. Especially in impoverished
cities that can barely afford street lighting.

Without the crisis created by criminal negligence, you had a much more
sustainable situation that could have been addressed while controlling impact
to consumers of water.

Note that I'm not agitating for old pipes. Far from it -- but in a world of
limited resources, advocating for magically conjuring up money to do wholesale
replacements of water supply (and sewer, as disrupting old pipes will disrupt
old sewers) is a fantasy that distracts from solutions to these engineering
problems.

