The New City Council: Water

Water certainly was not one of the hot topics in this year's election.  But as the new City Council takes office in a couple of weeks, it needs to consider what the city's recent past has been with regard to water supply issues, and what its future will be.

Most of us have had a certain perspective about local water supply shaped in part by the local media and the political forces that have heretofore prevailed.  A new voice emerged on the blogging scene, however, a couple of years ago that taught us all a thing or two about water.

His name is Mike Baron.  Mike served as Greensboro's water conservation manager during the 1990's. 

Mike has developed a chart that is very instructive.  It illustrates the sharp variance between what Greensboro's water needs were projected to be over a decade ago, versus what they have actually been:

 

No one, to my knowledge, has successfully challenged the veracity of the message contained in the above chart.  The fact is that water demand decreased substantially in Greensboro during a time it was projected to increase.  The projected increase, which has not materialized, was used to justify the Randleman Dam project.

Observers may tend to express concern about droughts; and about the fact that our water supplies a couple of years ago were dangerously depleted.  They have cited the fact that we have had to buy water from adjoining jurisdictions.  But Mike would counter that our vulnerability in the past has been due to the fact that Greensboro tended to oversell its water-- i.e., it would encourage overconsumption by setting rates inappropriately low.  Only within the last several years has the city enacted a billing system in which higher amounts of water usage are charged at a higher price.  And of course, water rates have increased significantly over the last five years or so.

Mike has a tragic story.  When he worked for the city of Greensboro, his conservation program was successful in driving down consumption, and his program won awards.  But the city was in the business of selling water to generate revenues.  Revenues fell when Mike succeeded-- and Mike was fired.  The Randleman Dam project was sold to the public as necessary for future growth. 

The city's forecasts were based in part on the history of overconsumption drive by water rates that were then fairly low.  But they were also based on the assumption that our local industry would remain, and in fact would grow.

Of course, we lost much of that local industry, and our water demand decreased substantially.  And we have not replaced that industry.  So the water demand forecast turned out to be wrong.

What should the city do with this information?  If we believe that the city will continue to grow dramatically, perhaps the dam might be needed one day.  But otherwise, conservation and price-induced decreases in consumption might be sufficient for a long while, especially considering the fact that a high growth scenario is not immediately foreseeable.

How inextricably committed is the city to the dam project?  Have we reached the point of no return with that project from a financial standpoint?  Are there better alternatives that will accommodate anticipated future growth?  I cannot answer those questions.  Perhaps an inquisitive City Council might try to do so.

But when we try to  answer those questions, we need to consider Mike's chart.  His contention is that, if the city does not oversell its water to generate revenues, we should be OK with our water supplies for a good while.  Mike's blog is found here.

Comments

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Wicked post, Joe. Or as some would say, "evil";)

My thoughts on the recent vicious attack on Mike:
http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2009/11/something-for-king-of-greensboro.html

[Bill]

Regardless of what the details are in Mike's case, the salient fact I believe is that G'boro only has a maximum water supply capacity of 180 days. That is ridiculous, on par with shipping the city's trash 70 miles (or whatever) away. There is not enough contingency wiggle room. Why would having the extra capacity be bad for G'boro?

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

I'm sorry, Bill. But like Mike, I've been on the wrong end of the "Regardless of the details" . . . or the we "don't care about specifics" brush-off.

The good of the many outweighs the good of the one . . . unless the one is you.

I think the point kind of is that it would have been nice to have gotten to the "contingency wiggle" without (1) destroying a man's career and (2) fudging and lying to get it done.

If you want better government, you have to demand better government.

[Bill]

I wasn't making light of Mike's ordeal. As far as I'm concerned that and G'boro's water problems are two separate issues. I agree that a man's career shouldn't have been destroyed on the horns of deceit, but the real issue here is that G'boro only has 180 days of water supply. Several years of drought and this city is in deep doo-doo. Just as unforeseen black swans regarding the garbage issue could really put G'boro in a bad place.

[Joe Guarino]

Bill, I don't necessarily disagree with your point. But I can tell what Mike's response has been. He says the Randleman Dam water could be oversold to depletion just as our current sources could be. Now our water rates are much higher than they used to be, and are structured differently. But if we were engaged in selling water from the Randleman Dam cheaply as was done in the past, and multiple municipalities were drawing from it, then it could go down also.

His other point, I suspect, would be that sales of water between municipalities-- as we have had with Burlington and Reidsville-- are entirely appropriate in providing an additional level of insurance for Greensboro.

[mick]

Couldnt the many many months of drought and near drought and water restrictions explain at least some of that drop in usage?

Im with Bill (i think) in that it takes years to get this stuff done. We cant wait until there is a problem to proceed.

I dont know what national averages are but is 180 days of water for an area of our size/population low, normal, what?

I heard just as many people griping about buying water from other areas as anything else. Some people are just never satisfied.

[Joe Guarino]

Mick, it would be useful to know if the 180 day figure (if correct) is on target compared with other areas, or if it is too low.

The cost of buying water from other areas should be compared with all the capital costs associated with building the dam and its related facilities. Of course, it is desirable to have your own reliable water source, rather than relying on other jurisdictions. But Mike's point obviously is that our present sources would be reliable if we do not sell them down because of unrealistically low prices.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

And once again, I am compelled to admonish Bill (in a respectful fashion) Bill that Mike's situation and the building of the dam are NOT two mutually exclusive situations.

It's my understanding that, as city water conservation manager, Mike could not, in good conscience, totally WHORE the city's projections justifying the building of the dam (which was once proposed to be much bigger). He was doing his job and he was doing it the right way - what ANY OF US would expect him to do.

But in Greensboro (as in Asheboro), hard work and dedication and SUCCESS are rewarded with a knife in the back - and as long as Greensboro gets its potable water sometime down the road (at the expense of communities downstream) that's fine with just about everybody. As I understand it, the community that hosts the dam (Randleman) doesn't even have a stake in it (in terms of getting water).

I have not been back to his blog/the post that set me off - nor do I plan to, but Fec kept throwing up the success of the bloggers over at Lake Norman Bath in rising up and throwing off corruption.

The thing about that is that first you have to recognize corruption.

[Joe Guarino]

I agree, Mary, that is another important dimension. The projections were off. And they were off even though the water conservation program was killed. If Mike were to have pressed that issue, he would have placed himself at risk if his employers were ruthlessly single-minded about getting their dam project and selling water to generate revenue for the city.

[Mike J Baron]

To: All
From: Mike J Baron

WHO SAYS GREENSBORO ONLY HAS 180 DAYS OF WATER?

That's right, Greensboro says it! And notice how quickly you have adopted "180 days of water" into your own vocabulary just as if Moses carried it down from the mountain.

Admit it! You just "say it" like it is gospel. Do you see how effective the propaganda has been?

YOU CANNOT BELIEVE ANYTHING GREENSBORO SAYS! You would think everyone knows that by now. Do you know what I was told to say on camera over and over again? Water Director Ray Shaw directed me to say, "We MUST have the Randleman Dam by the year 2000!"

I made this claim on TV and radio many many times...until around 1997 when I began to understand the water fraud the dam scammers were fabricating. And in case you have not noticed, it is now 2009 and Greensboro is swimming in water! Greensboro is using far less water than was projected, just like I predicted in 1999 when my claim was judged to be silly.

We all knew in 1999 that manufacturing was leaving for Asia. So why didn't Director Shaw factor manufacturing's departure into his projections? You know why! Nobody would support the Randleman Dam project if Greensboro admitted that water use would decline over the next decade. It has!

If you will fall for the "180 days of water claim," why are you so quick to doubt me and my claims? It is because of a decade of hype and lies ....and the complete concealment of the truth.

"Wiggle room" is good! If you want to see "wiggle room" just stare at my CHART and you'll find it. Every waterworks needs some, and Greensboro already has it via connections to other cities.

Conservation was providing plenty of surplus "wiggle-room" ....but Greensboro ended its own WC program because under it water use declined 4 years in a row. I was toast! What do you think all my rewards were for?-penmanship? Gosh! You people are making me work harder now than I did back then! I am trying to help you!

Wiggle-room is good but Greensboro has purchased 53% of Randleman Lake! If your wife asked you to get some toilet paper and you came home with a tractor-trailer full of Charmin would she reward you for providing "wiggle room" ....or would she commit you?

CAUTION: Every word of every water story Greensboro grinds out is spun to support the Randleman Dam project and keep citizen's wallets open. There is a cover-up going on and heads could roll if the citizens learn they were tricked into the dam.

Can you hear me now? Will you help get the word out?

[Fec the Terrible]

Please excuse me if I don't follow your advice. How can anyone take seriously someone who proclaims "YOU CANNOT BELIEVE ANYTHING GREENSBORO SAYS!"? I read your posts and comments and I understand the points you are trying to convey. Perhaps if you would dial back the hype and cynicism a bit.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

"Perhaps if you would dial back the hype and the cynicism a bit."

OH PUHLEASE! Are you kidding me?

The Edward Cone impression (i.e. "If you change this or that . . . if you do it this way . . . if you reduce it all to 100 words or less . . . we the right people of the blogosphere will listen") does not become you, Fec.

Forgive me if I'm cynical, but I've been doing that dance a whole lot longer than Mike. And I pretty much don't believe anything that anyone in Greensboro's current power structure says.

How can any of the rest of us take seriously someone who has spent years calling us "whack-jobs", "racists", booger-eaters", "crazy people" and MUCH WORSE for the horrible sin of speaking truth to power (which is EXACTLY what Mike is doing) . . . just because you - or Ed - or Roch - or JR are sucking up to a particular cabal . . . or in a sour mood on any given day?

You didn't give us any indication on your despicable blog post that you actually read Mike's posts and comments . . . or "understood" them . . . in fact you said you did not care about the specifics of his case. Your good-buddy-since-childhood runs the Randleman Dam project, so Mike's legitimate criticisms cannot be tolerated.

"Terrible" is the right description in your moniker.

Come one. Give me a good comeback. Call me a "lunatic" . . . or maybe even better . . . a fat girl.

Go ahead. Give it your best shot.

[cheripickr]

"Perhaps if you would dial back the hype and cynicism a bit."

Is this guy seriously a real person? Is it possible that he's just a made-up character for lampooning all that is wrong with humankind?

[Bill]

So, Mike. At full capacity, how many days of water does Greensboro have?

[Fec the Terrible]

Doc, I apologize for the the invective which I have caused to pollute your blog.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Bill, that's a good question.

Fec, your apology . . . buried in the comments section here at someone else's blog . . . is not accepted. You've got some retracting to do. And not just with me.

Try again. Do more. Send me a link when it's done - because I'm otherwise not going back to Vie de Malchance for anything.

It's pretty much the same thing I've told Edward Cone. And that's not "hate". I simply would like to see the scion of the Cone family to do his job in the same way I did mine.

He's a a fricking journalist, we're in the midst of a quagmire/debate on healthcare reform, he wants to be "relevant", and his family name is on the hospital that Randolph's big-gun bullies were trying to protect when they splattered my young, naive, idealistic guts all over "the White Wall" . . . because I saved the life of a baby that a Cone-owned doctor nearly killed with his arrogance and ignorance.

My blog is far from "polluted". It's hopping right now with other bloggers/readers who have had enough of your invective (I just love that word) . . .

. . . and the "rule" of the longtime ruling class in this blogosphere.

[bubba]

"Is this guy seriously a real person? Is it possible that he's just a made-up character for lampooning all that is wrong with humankind?"

Oh, he's real, all right.

Imaginary people don't send me emails like he sent me a few weeks ago in regard to a comment he didn't like.

I haven't yet decided what I'm going to do with that particular email.

[Fec the Terrible]

Why don't you all chip in and file a class action suit? We could get you all together in one room and throw a net over you.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

"We"?, Fec. You mean you and Cone?

Between the two of you, you'd better bring a REALLY BIG net.

And I would not push that button too hard.

You'd lose.

[Brandon Burgess]

"We could get you all together..."

--I think Mr. Martin and his pal would love for everyone to be talking about him rather than the dam scam.

[Fec the Terrible]

Well at least I'm finally being punished for my real crime.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Mr. Martin (aka Fec) just sent me an e-mail with my home address typed in the subject heading.

This is what it said:

"What's next? I'd feel really bad if you blew a gasket.

Fec"

Before I call the cops, I'm just wondering how anyone else would take it?

[Fec the Terrible]

I hope they'd take it the way it was meant. By now I've sent you dozens of emails. Post them. I've been your friend and and I remain one now. Allow me to prove it.

But I will not be your victim anymore.

[Bill]

Maybe it's his awkward way of asking for a date.

[Fec the Terrible]

I'm attempting to deal with something no one around here has had the courage to face: Dr. J's volcanic and irrepressible anger.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

I don't think so, Bill. Over the last approximate half-hour, I've gotten well over 20 e-mails in addition to the one already posted.

My "friend" has diagnosed me with several psychiatric ailments and threatened to report me to the North Carolina Medical Board.

And like calling the Randolph County Sherriff's office for protection is an option.

I'm scared.

[Fec the Terrible]

I'm sitting quietly in my home in north GSO trying very hard to finally reach you.

[Fec the Terrible]

I'm sorry folks, but if you can't see what's been going on around here for years, you're more obtuse than even I thought.

Dr. J's harangues end tonight.

[Bill]

Block his email address. Don't engage him on your blog. Ignore him.

[Brandon Burgess]

I think it's time we ignore the troll. The man is a troll and his blog is a troll. It's one thing to call names over the net, but creepy emails is where we draw the line in this day.

[Fec the Terrible]

That's right. I'm the troll. Tell'em Doc. This is your blog and I appreciate your allowing me to use it.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Easy for you to say.

I suppose Cone and Roch and all the rest think it's funny now.

The e-mails are evidence.

[Fec the Terrible]

Yes ma'am, they are, but only if you should decide to use them. I did the best I could but I see it wasn't enough. Do your worst.

[Brandon Burgess]

I have to give it to you Mr. Martin; you couldn't discredit Mr. Baron, so you did the next best thing: draw attention away from his message. Job well done. Lets move on.

As for Dr. Johnson's "harangues", what do you care? She's let in to me a few times, no biggie. We're all big boys and girls here.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

As I said on Housecalls, Mr. Martin, thank you for your permission.

And yes, Brandon, it is a shame that "Fec" has once again managed to draw attention away from Mike's message. I am sorry for it.

For everyone's future reference:

NCGS 14-196.3 (Cyberstalking). FYI, Subsection (b)(2) states:

"It is unlawful for a person to: Electronically mail or electronically communicate to another repeatedly, whether or not conversation ensues, for the purpose of abusing, annoying, threatening, terrifying, harassing, or embarrassing any person."

Subsection (d): "Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor."

OBTW, Mr. Martin need not post at Housecalls anymore. Perhaps, in light of his behavior tonight other bloggers might follow suit.

Unless, of course, they approve of it.

[cheripickr]

I think old stool-boy's finally pinched off more than he can flush.

[Joe Guarino]

OK, folks, let's call a time out. I have been spending time with visiting in-laws tonight and was a bit surprised to see this thread. Once again, we do best when we talk about the issues, and when we refrain from talking about each other.

In spite of any attempt to disparage Mike or divert attention from his message, the facts of his chart have not been refuted. One can interpret them and predict their significance for the future perhaps in several ways, but the stubborn facts still remain.

I find particularly loathesome any effort to take shots at Mike. This is a man-- a devout Christian-- who has suffered profoundly because he stood up for principle and truth. He has more courage and integrity at this moment in his thumbnail than the rest of us will ever claim our entire lives. Like Mary, he sacrificed a great deal-- in ways most of us could scarcely imagine-- because he did what he thought was the right thing.

But this is not primarily about Mike. He has raised issues about our local government that some will regard as unpleasant or inconvenient. He is able to do that because he knows more about it than most of the rest of us; and he has challenged us to think about this issue differently than the standard party line would require.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Yes, Cheri. He has. I was so rattled earlier that my hands were shaking. Now I'm back to being angry and primed to do something about it.

I wondered where you were Joe. Things were getting stupid there for a while, and I was thinking about asking you to close the thread.

Once again, I whole-heartedly agree with you about Mike Baron. He is a good and decent man . . . who did not deserve what happened to him . . . who most certainly did not deserve the "invective" that was aimed his way earlier this week . . . and who did not deserve to see his message derailed here.

I am sorry for any part my very passionate defense of Mike may have played in inviting the derailment. But by God, I do feel his pain as if it were my own.

And/so, AMEN. Thank you for this post, and thank you for your support.

[Roch101]

;)

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Yeah, Roch. I expect you/Cone have enjoyed all of this.

You'll forgive me if, after Fec's cyber-assault last night, I'm not up to the bait and switch this morning. I'm taking the day off.

Perhaps we can leave the floor to Mike now . . . if he would like to say/add/expound upon anything.

[Beelzebubba]

i was sharing these posts with my research assistant, Flatuensia. we often discuss the accuracy and merits of what is released as "news".

Bledsoe is the best with using a machete to perform cataract surgery. CP is very good using the sharper instruments under different lighting. we even have a guy named Fec, who drowns the baby in the bath water. But everyone seems to have missed a huge story out of China. They reported a 8% "economic growth." This is wonderful news i guess. But if you look carefully at kilowatt hour usage, they performed the task with a reduction of 4%, according to separate CIA and WSJ unrelated reports. Flatuenzia, with her keen nose for facts, knew that something just didn't smell right. We both figured that China had harnessed the power of the nougatron, the perpetual motion machine, the ark of the covenant...or...some of the information just wasn't accurate. Bofa'us smelled a rat.

Maybe the same thing happens in GSO that happens along the mysinformation highway. We get a whiff of something and know it's not us, but we just don;t know what to do from there. It's like we all get elevator syndrome at the same time. Something is raunchy to high heaven but no one speaks up. In a world where jon stewart and dennis miller cannot both be funny and relevant, we have to choose whose silliness we laugh at. Either Baron or GSO is pulling our chain.

[Joe Guarino]

Beelzebubba, I don't think it is Baron who is doing so. Again, no one has refuted the facts related in his chart.

In the mid-90's, a high projected growth in water consumption for Greensboro, with its then-bustling economy, was conceivable-- particularly if one assumed that there was no conservation and that water would continue to be sold cheaply in great quantities to generate revenue for the city. But with the export of local industry and a stagnant local economy factored in, those projections became more unrealistic. Conservation induced by higher water rates would later suppress demand further.

It should have been obvious by the year 2000 that the previously prodigious amounts of industrial water used locally would decline drastically.

[Beelzebubba]

Ten Bears: "it's sad that governments are chiefed by the double-tounges"

dr joe, your words have iron in them.

[RecycleBill]

Getting back on topic:

All I know is that during the worst of our droughts I personally saw swimming pool contractors from other North Carolina cities hooking 8000 gallon tanker trailers to Greensboro fire hydrants. And I saw this on several occasions.

On other occasions I was personally directed by the paving contractor I was working for at the time to fill 8000 gallon tanker trailers with water from Greensboro fire hydrants and haul it to construction projects outside of Greensboro. The water is used to reduce dust and increase compaction of the road bases before they are paved.

And if you tell me this was water being delivered TO Greensboro then I'll know you're a fool.

Go on, keep believing everything Greensboro says-- those of us who actually do the work know better.

[Joe Guarino]

Billy, I had no idea that was going on. Very interesting. Do you think this represents stealing, or does it represent some type of agreed-upon arrangement?