The Cost of Cheap Infrastructure

Happy Friday,

Two California foothill towns, C and SA. Both have about the same population and demographics (mostly fixed-income retired). They’re at the same elevation, have the same topography, have a similar water source, and both discharge their wastewater to ephemeral streams. So, they were subject to the same stringent wastewater treatment requirements and were required to upgrade their WWTPs at about the same time.

Twenty-five years later, the citizens of C and SA should be paying close to the same monthly sewer rates. But it isn't close...

Leaders at C always prioritized low cost. They chose the cheapest engineer (a prominent one) who proposed the cheapest predesign study. They were directed to pursue the cheapest treatment approach using the cheapest equipment for the cheapest design fee. After selecting the cheapest contractor (the one that made the biggest mistake), they hired the cheapest operations staff and underfunded maintenance. When they got sued by downstream residents and the state for failing to meet wastewater discharge requirements, they hired the cheapest attorney to sue the prominent engineer (unsuccessfully), paid many millions in fines to the downstream residents and the state, and were forced to spend more to modify their brand new plant.

One city council after another perpetuated (perpetrated?) the low-cost approach to infrastructure stewardship. “Because we care about our people”, they all said.

Over the same 25-year period and just down the road, wastewater decisions in SA were guided by our firm. Leaders there were equally concerned about cost and their citizens’ ability to pay. On those citizens' behalf, we clearly and confidently explained the difference between short-term cost and long-term value, and how each approach would affect monthly sewer rates. Because as engineers, that’s our job. We’re supposed to be the adults in the room. Always.

So, after twenty-five years, how has it all turned out for the residents of C and SA? Which leaders and which approach served their citizens’ best?

A single family in SA pays ~$65/month for sewer service.

A single family in C pays $150-$200/month, depending on where in town they live.

Every community competes with every other community to attract economic investment. The approach taken by the succession of elected leaders in C has screwed that community for the long term.

It's a selfish abuse of the public’s trust deserving of contempt. The leaders at C were more concerned about being second-guessed than about doing the right thing. Either that, or they were ignorant and unfit for the responsibilities of their role. Probably both. Harsh but well-earned, and unfortunately way too common.

Punchline: Don't be like C, and don't be a cheap, submissive, kowtowing engineer or engineering firm like the 'prominent' self-serving one C hired and later sued. You're always on the moral high ground when you properly represent the public. Someone always needs to stand firm and do what's right. There's no doubt, that's got to be you.

Have a great weekend. I'm sure you've earned it.

Dave

Feedback and blowback are always welcome: dave@goodnewsfriday.com

All 150+ topics are available at @goodnewsfriday.com