Bridging Theory and Practice Since 1974

Tag: Water Management

An Interview on Risk Management Tools: “Sometimes They Just Need to Hear It Through Someone Else’s Mouth”

By Jacob Becker

Last week I sat down with David Gorelick to learn more about his work modeling risk for water utilities. David Gorelick is a PhD student in the Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering at UNC Chapel Hill and a research assistant at the University of North Carolina’s Center on Financial Risk in Environmental Systems. His current research focuses on identification and mitigation of physical and financial risks to urban water utilities in the United States. We spoke about the tools he is developing to quantify uncertainty and how his academic findings can be useful for stakeholders.

The following interview has been edited for clarity.

 

Jacob Becker:

Let’s start out with an easy one, what’s the title of your thesis?

David Gorelick:

It’s kind of a working title: Supply and Financial Risks to Water Utilities Under Uncertainty. It’s very broad.

Jacob B: 

And a large part of that is developing a model, right?

David G: 

Yeah, we are constantly thinking about what sorts of tools utilities might benefit from to help them mitigate risks that they face. We incorporate new ideas into models that we build of their water balance operations and figure out how to model the greater [water] system itself.  We add different river flows and different precipitation cases. We’re expanding a broad set of uncertainty to try to see how well the tools we develop work under a whole range of future possibilities.

Jacob B: 

Cool, so is the tool you’re designing more of a generalized tool or specific tool? Or maybe a better question is who is the general audience for your tool? Is it for researchers or something you’re  planning on giving to a utility or utilities in general to help them make decisions?

David G: 

The tool is a model pretty much just for academic use. What we get out of it, the outputs from the model and the takeaways we’ve learned from using it, those sorts of things are what we present to the utilities. The results from the model are shown to them, and they can use it as a decision-making tool through us, but it’s not something they would ever directly use.

Jacob B: 

Are the results you’re are coming up with a more generalized for water utilities in general, or are you looking at the specific utility and then coming up with results that are specific to them?

David G: 

This is sort of a question we struggle with and go back and forth on. What we’re trying to develop are generalized solutions for all water utilities, or at least those in the United States, but at the level of specificity that we need to model them to feel confident that our results are accurate at all it becomes a pretty site specific. I think that to some degree the tools that we’re developing might be something that only works for one or two cases, but the long-term goal is to make them more broad than that.

Jacob B: 

Are there any specific things you found that you do feel are generalizable so far?

David G: 

Yeah, we found some general stuff and because the takeaways that we’re looking for are general, I think they also tend to sometimes be kind of obvious. What we’re doing is developing new tools for utilities to supplement the management strategies they already use. When we develop these new tools, our takeaways tend to be something like: when we add diversity to the portfolio of tools utilities have available to them, it makes it easier for them to manage their risks, and so that’s probably the most general take away we have. Others are related to the inputs that we force the models to deal with. A common theme is when demand growth reaches a certain point it becomes very difficult for the utilities to meet their long-term goals for performance. Again, I think that’s kind of an obvious goal, but the specifics of how the utilities reach [these goals] are not quite so obvious. The models can help us with those.

Jacob B: 

Yeah, also a lot of times you need to point out obvious things with data for people to accept it too.

David G: 

Yeah that does help. Utilities often have working relationships with consulting groups that do similar work to what we do. The advantage we have as academics is more freedom to show them information they don’t necessarily want to hear or that they weren’t really expecting us to provide (since they don’t pay our bills). Because of this they’ve been very open with us, and I think happy with the critiques we provide.

Jacob B: 

Any interesting utility interactions you want to share?

David G: 

Sometimes we sort of strongly hint that we think the way they’re operating a small portion of their system, handling drought conditions or something along those lines, is not necessarily the most optimal strategy. It’s nothing new to them usually, but sometimes they just need to hear it through someone else’s mouth.

Water Projects

Photo Credit: University of North Carolina’s Center on Financial Risk in Environmental Systems

 

Feature Image: The Research Triangle Region of North Carolina, including its four primary water utilities (Cary, Durham, Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), and Raleigh. Photo Credit: University of North Carolina’s Center on Financial Risk in Environmental Systems

About the Author: Jacob Becker is a second-year master’s candidate pursuing a dual masters in City and Regional Planning and Environmental Sciences and Engineering. His research interests include mapping air pollution, climate change adaptation and transitioning to clean energy sources. For fun, Jacob takes his mind off the slow heat death of the planet by hiking around it and indulging in improv and sketch comedy. Jacob received his undergraduate degree in Biology from the University of Chicago.

Grace Lake and the Sinkhole of 1986: A Remediation Plan and 30-year Saga of Grass Roots Involvement

Central Florida, encompassing the area between Daytona and Tampa, contains numerous lakes—and many sink holes, which occur due to the weakening and collapse of the supporting layer of limestone beneath the ground surface. In fact, it is understood that a majority of the lakes in this area (“sink hole alley”) were formed as sink holes appeared and filled with ground water from the large underlying aquifers.

In April of 1986, a sinkhole appeared at the edge of a small lake known as Grace Lake, located next to Interstate 4 about 20 miles north of Orlando.  The initial depression and opening was around 10 ft. in diameter, and it was able to reduce the 14 acre lake to a small pond in a matter of days.  As described here, it would then take 31 years for the sink hole to naturally plug itself, but, in the interim, lake residents would spend countless hours trying to find ways to restore the lake, and learned much about urban planning and the importance of community involvement in the process.

Kamrath1

Early view of Grace Lake Sink Hole. Photo Credit: Mark Kamrath

In the beginning, in the immediate aftermath of the sinkhole’s appearance, residents did everything from using a shovel and dumping yard debris to fill the sinkhole (then, 10 feet in diameter) to contacting the local home owners’ associations and the county government.  Residents held meetings and tried to come up with a solution, but no one could come up with a structured approach to filling the sinkhole and restoring the lake.

For a couple of years, the lake did fill and there was hope that the sink hole had repaired itself.  However, in 1988, the sinkhole reopened and grew in size, causing the lake to again disappear.  This time, and for nearly three decades, only the heavy annual rains associated with the rainy season (June through October) would cause the lake to partially fill, only to drain again as the level of the Floridan aquifer went through its annual cycle.

During this period, there was stepped-up levels of grass-roots activity aimed at getting the attention of the local government (Seminole County) authorities to address the situation.  Not only were the residents disturbed by the loss of their lovely lakeside environment, and property values, but there was, fortunately, much more to it on a larger scale.

Since Grace Lake is part of the Seminole County storm water drainage system, and receives considerable runoff from the Interstate, the continuous drainage of the lake directly into the aquifer, a primary source of drinking water, was felt to be a serious concern.  This environmental and public health issue was to become the main driving force behind the effort to restore the lake.  (Note: In Florida, drainage of ground water into the aquifer is not that uncommon, and is part of the aquifer recharging process, but allowing a large sink hole to act as a “drainage well” in a drainage basin next to a busy interstate highway, as was the case here, was believed to be a violation of the relevant water management regulations.)

In 2001, local residents contacted the Seminole County Department of Public Works and the St Johns River Water Management District to learn more about the lake’s health and to inquire about a way to restore it. Contact was also made with the Department of Environmental Protection and the Florida Department of Transportation.  During this process, residents met with engineers, hydrologists, and other experts and came to the conclusion that more study of the lake was needed.

In 2004, after much discussion, about 30 residents of the North Ridge and North Cove subdivisions, which are located around the lake, raised enough money to commission a geotechnical study that would assess the lake’s hydrology and propose an engineering solution to remediate the sinkhole and restore the lake. That study was conducted by Devo Engineering of Orlando. It concluded that the repair of the sink hole was technically and economically feasible, and recommended a rather straightforward method to plug it.

Armed with their engineering study, residents returned to both Seminole County and the St. Johns River Water Management District asking for them to act.  For one reason or another, the county engineers did not feel that it was their responsibility.  The Water Management District told us that the first step in the process of implementing the engineers’ recommendations, whoever was going to do it, was to file an application for an “Environment Resource Permit”.  So, as instructed, the necessary paperwork was obtained, and the application process was started, making use of the talents of a recently retired engineer in the local group.  However, it was not long before it became clear that the type of data and analysis, including computer modeling of the local drainage basin, as was required to complete the application, would be out of reach for the small group of local residents involved.

It also became evident that, one way or the other, the local group would have to find a way to effectively apply pressure on the county officials so that they would accept the sink hole, and the drainage of raw untreated runoff from the lake into the aquifer, as their responsibility.  It was then that one of the home owners, who was well-connected to local political circles, was able to get the attention of key county officials.  This, in turn, cleared the way for a contingent of residents to appear before the Board of County Commissioners to present their case, and, at the end, obtain some indication that the county would take over the permitting process, and take on the job of repairing the sink hole and restoring the lake.

After some delay, and regular “reminding” by local residents, the county hired their own engineering consultants to conduct the necessary modeling and come up with a design for the repair.  Initially, the county’s approach was much more complicated and expensive than originally recommended by the residents’ engineer. It provided for concrete structure with an overflow gate that was intended to maintain a maximum lake level to avoid downstream flooding. But, after further analysis and several design iterations, the county engineers finally adopted the original relatively simple and cheaper approach to plugging the sinkhole, and finally budgeted the funds to implement the fix.

Overall, this process took approximately 10 years to complete, due to numerous delays, an economic recession, budget cuts, and other factors, including, it is believed, reluctance on the part of the county storm water engineers to lose a substantial amount of storm water storage volume, which the sink hole had provided by causing the lake to empty in the first place.  It turns out that such reticence to giving up that much valuable storage volume was well founded.

During the period of 2013-2015, the county legal department put an additional hurdle in the way of progress by requiring signed easements from each home owner located on the one side of the lake where there didn’t already exist a county “drainage easement”.  Unfortunately, the process of obtaining these easements became totally bogged down, and, even with a door-to-door campaign to convince reluctant home owners to sign, again caused a long delay in the project.

However, an unexpected change in project management at the county level resulted in a rethinking on this legal requirement, and the need for the easements was finally rescinded in the fall of 2015.

At the same time, in October-December, 2015, as Grace Lake was expected to recede (as it had been doing regularly for some 27 years prior), so that the work could commence, it was surprisingly observed that the level of the lake hardly went down at all.  In fact, as some unusual heavy fall rains fell, Grace Lake even reached its historical outfall level, where it overflows though a conduit under the Interstate roadway.  This conduit leads to a portion of the lake that was cut off from the main body of the lake when the interstate was built in the 1960s.  This, in turn, caused flooding of a local church school’s soccer field, which happened to be installed in this cut-off part of Grace Lake.   As might be expected, a consequence of this was that much blame was placed on the county for “fixing the sink hole and causing the flooding”.  Of course, this happened in spite of the fact that the work to repair the sink hole never started.

At this point, the county, with the help of lake residents, began to monitor lake levels closely, and, since the lake water level hardly fell in spite of the return of the dry season, it was determined at the start of the summer, 2016, that the sinkhole had naturally plugged itself, and the project was removed from the list of active county capital improvement projects.

At the end of the summer of 2016, and near the official end of the hurricane season in Florida, Hurricane Matthew arrived dumping 9 inches of rainfall over night, and, with Grace Lake being nearly full at the time, it again caused threats of downstream flooding.  Once again, complaints arose that the county was at fault for not preparing adequately for such an event.  The loss of storm water storage volume that Grace Lake once provided caused all downstream retention ponds to reach unprecedented levels, and near flooding conditions.

Then, during the summer of 2017, continuous heavy summer rains caused Grace Lake to reach its outflow level by the end of July.  So, the lake offered no help to the storm water drainage system when, on September 10, Hurricane Irma arrived with its record levels of rainfall.  Grace Lake water levels peaked at more than 4 ft. above its outflow level, flooding many yards around the lake and causing flooding to downstream retention ponds, yards and streets.  In one downstream neighborhood, residents had to drive through a foot or more of water flowing across the road to get to their homes.  And once again, the county was called upon to help, and pumps were use to move water from one pond to the next in an attempt to alleviate the flooding.

All of this because the Grace Lake sink hole had repaired itself, and removed many acre-feet of storage for the storm water.

Not only that, but the return of Grace Lake has led to a new set of problems for residents and various agencies to grapple with, especially in regard to the appearance of hydrilla and other noxious aquatic weeds that would eventually choke the lake if left untreated.  Debate among residents occurred in regard to the best way to treat Grace Lake following various environmental guidelines.  The most heated debates concerned the degree to which the recommended herbicides should be used safely, combined with the introduction of a limited population of sterile “grass carp” to control the weeds. Eventually, enough resident support was obtained to form an MSBU (Municipal Services Benefit Unit) to pay for the Seminole County Lake Management Program to treat the lake, but only after much effort to educate residents about its benefits and the County Commissioners voted to approve the MSBU.

So, 30-plus years after the appearance of the Grace Lake sink hole, and the beginning of a decades-long saga of ground-roots involvement with local government agencies to repair it, Grace Lake is currently near full, under treatment for aquatic weeds, and is part of the Florida Lake Watch program at the University of Florida.

Kamrath2

Sunset over Grace Lake. Photo Credit: Harry Jaeger

 

About the Authors: Harry Jaeger and Mark Kamrath

Harry Jaeger is a retired engineer, born, raised and educated in New York City, moved to Florida 30 years ago with relocation of his job with Westinghouse Power Generation from Pennsylvania.  He has been involved in Grace Lake sink hole story for 25+ years, and was instrumental in development of program with local county to that lake for invasive species of aquatic weeds.
Mark Kamrath is a Professor of English at the University of Central Florida. He moved to Orlando 21 years ago from Nebraska. He joined the Northridge Home owners association as part of an effort to remediate Grace Lake. He enjoys Florida’s local springs and many beaches, and likes to travel abroad when he is not doing research or teaching. 
Featured Image: Sunset over Grace Lake. Photo Credit: Harry Jaeger.

Water resilience in the city

North Carolina has many water-related problems. To mention some: Droughts, pollution of streams and lakes, quantity and quality of drinking water. Additionally, the cities and communities in the state are particularly vulnerable to severe flooding, an increasing problem due to climate change effects. Severe rainstorms, limited run off capacity by streams and rivers, rising ocean levels, but also here and there missing links in urban planning will cause damage to property, people and economy as well as environmental issues.

Could we learn from similar situations elsewhere? Let’s turn our attention to the Netherlands, mostly beneath sea level and with many rivers running through the cities and communities. Just a week ago, water levels in the Rhine rose to appr. 50 feet above its normal level. However, no uncontrolled flooding or damage has happened.

A couple of decades ago, the Netherlands stopped building ever higher dykes channeling the water rapidly downstream. As a response, the country created designated flood areas storing the overflow of water temporarily.

Similar is the approach towards heavy rain fall, where decennia old sewage systems could not take care of the extreme amounts of water. The Dutch city of Rotterdam, partner in the resilience program by the Rockefeller Foundation, has an innovative approach to water resilience. Rotterdam is located close to the coastline, is harboring one of the largest ports in the world, and has one of the main river systems running through the heart of the city.

Let’s focus here on one particular and successful approach that would work well in flood areas in North Carolina cities and communities: the so-called “water squares.”

Benthemplein water square. Photo source: De Urbansiten-Rotterdam

Using natural and roadside slopes and rooftop drain pipes, rainwater is collected in minor canals and directed towards squares in the city. The square is deepened into different levels, allowing it to store water. Nice architectural elements, design of streams and ponds, and several art and recreational elements make the place a fun place to be for citizen, young and old. This is an affordable approach to temporarily store overflowing streams from heavy rain fall in a controlled way.

 

Featured Image: Rotterdam. Photo Credit: Cor Rademaker.

 

About the Author: Cor Rademaker has worked in urban planning and design with regards to sustainable and social development  since the end of the eighties with his company, Strateq. Throughout the years, Strateq has been involved in more than 70% of urban development in The Netherlands. Strateq is involved in diverse Smart City Projects, both within the USA, The Netherlands and other countries such as Brazil and Indonesia.

I have worked with several universities on various projects, including The Hague University’s Innovative Entrepreneurship program, the Technical University Delft’s Green Campus project, and the Green Village – a test facility to make areas and buildings autarkic on energy, water and waste. In North Carolina, at the School of Information and Library Sciences at the University of North Carolina, he works on Smart City programs for students and professionals. I have realized the Smart City Event at the UNC CleanTech Summit and worked on a Smart and Connected Community Center NC. I am the chairman of the National Advisory Board for Strategies for Smart Cities in the Netherlands, and is involved in the EU SSCC Smart City Coordination Group. This includes new and innovative strategies, processes and technologies involved in Smart Cities, such as platforms, sensors and big data applications.

Previously, I have been VP at one of the larger public transit authorities in the Netherlands, the HTM in The Hague. I studied urban planning and urban design, mobility management, and human geography. I hold a masters of engineering on urban planning and design from NHTV Breda/Tilburg, a Msc in Human Geography from Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht and an MBA from Erasmus Rotterdam.