From the Kojo Nnamdi Show:
Showing posts with label WSSC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WSSC. Show all posts
Monday, July 12, 2010
Monday, April 05, 2010
MoCo Delegation Defeats Prince George’s Minority Contracting Grab
In an earlier post, we detailed an attempt by the Prince George’s Delegation to acquire veto power over any changes to the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission’s (WSSC) minority contracting program. WSSC’s current program has been declared unconstitutional by its own legal counsel, but the Prince George’s legislators are eager to protect current minority contractors who benefit from it because they are significant political supporters. So the Prince George’s legislators, aided by Montgomery Delegate and Congressional hopeful Delegate Herman Taylor (D-14), wrote a bill requiring that any minority contracting changes receive General Assembly approval prior to enactment. But because WSSC serves both counties, the bill had to pass both the Prince George’s and Montgomery delegations to get to the General Assembly floor. And that proved to be its undoing.
The Prince George’s delegation passed the bill by a 19-0 vote on March 5. The Montgomery delegation first voted on the bill on March 26. At that time, the bill received eleven votes in favor and ten votes against. But it did not pass because it did not receive a majority of the Montgomery delegation’s twenty-four votes, thus relegating it to “limbo.” That was because House Chairman Brian Feldman (D-15) abstained, as chairs usually do, and Delegates Al Carr (D-18) and Tom Hucker (D-20) were absent. However, the bill’s supporters brought it up for a second vote on April 2. This time, eleven legislators voted in favor, six voted against, six abstained and one was absent. The bill thus went into limbo again and is dead for this session.
The interesting fact here is that some legislators changed their votes. They include:
Delegate Heather Mizeur (D-20). She voted nay the first time and was absent the second time.
Delegate Tom Hucker (D-20). He was absent the first time and voted yea the second time.
Delegate Al Carr (D-18). He was absent the first time and abstained the second time.
Delegate Sheila Hixson (D-20). She voted nay the first time and yea the second time.
Delegates Saqib Ali (D-39) and Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-18). They voted nay the first time and abstained the second time.
Delegates Bill Bronrott (D-16) and Ben Kramer (D-19). They voted yea the first time and abstained the second time.
The key votes here belong to Hucker, Hixson, Bronrott and Kramer. Hixson and Hucker supplied two new yea votes. Bronrott and Kramer deprived the bill of two yea votes it formerly had. So in both instances, the bill fell two votes short of the thirteen it needed to pass the MoCo delegation. And so the Prince George’s delegation’s plan to exert direct control over WSSC minority contracting has failed – at least for now.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Prince George’s Delegation Seeks Veto Power Over WSSC Minority Contracting
The commissioners of the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) have been told by their general counsel that the agency’s current minority contracting program is illegal. That doesn’t sit well with the Prince George’s County Delegation, which is devoted to the program and its beneficiaries. So they have a solution: they want veto power over what WSSC will do. And they are very, very close to getting what they want.
Minority contracting is big business in Prince George’s County and especially at WSSC. Prince George’s County has a history of sending aggressive defenders of the program to occupy its three seats on the WSSC’s six-member board. In fact, one of the county’s current commissioners is himself a minority contractor who has done business with the agency. The Prince George’s commissioners’ obsession with minority contracting runs so deep that the issue dominated a 12-hour board meeting held after the monster River Road pipe break last year, which was not discussed. What started as a program to protect struggling, small minority businesses decades ago has turned into a protection system for big, politically-connected companies looking to keep their piece of the pie. That’s because in thirty-two years of existence, WSSC’s minority contracting program has never graduated a single firm.
But the program has a problem: it’s illegal. WSSC’s own legal counsel told the commissioners back in January that the program was unconstitutional. The Gazette reported:According to commissioners, a legal analysis delivered to them in closed session Wednesday concluded that the WSSC’s minority business enterprise program violates the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1989 ruling, in City of Richmond (Va.) v. J.A. Croson Co., that preference programs are unconstitutional unless based on a finding that the beneficiaries otherwise lack access.
Of course, these contractors have had thirty-two years of access! And their political contributions get them a WHOLE lot more access than the average Joe on the street.
WSSC has known that its minority contracting program has had problems for at least five years but its commissioners cannot agree on how to fix it. The three Prince George’s commissioners almost always deadlock with the three Montgomery commissioners, so the current illegal program has been extended again and again. But the legal counsel’s naked declaration is forcing the issue to a head and that alarms state legislators in Prince George’s County. After all, some of them depend on minority contractors for cash and political support and their interests must be protected.
So Prince George’s County Delegate Aisha Braveboy (D-25) and Montgomery County Delegate Herman Taylor (D-14) introduced local bill PG/MC 116-10, which prohibits WSSC modification or approval of a new minority contracting program without General Assembly approval. In this case, that means approval by the Prince George’s delegation, the Montgomery County delegation and finally the General Assembly as a whole. Both lead sponsors have an angle. Braveboy has sought to cast herself as a champion of minority contractors and would like to use the issue in a potential challenge to Senator Ulysses Currie. Taylor is running for Congress against Donna Edwards and is looking for ways to build a base in Prince George’s County.
Local bills pertaining to bi-county agencies like WSSC must pass both the Prince George’s and Montgomery delegations before heading to the floor. Prince George’s approved it by a 19-0 vote. The situation is more complicated in Montgomery because the County Executive and the County Council are on record as opposing the bill. In a letter to the two delegations, the Montgomery County Office of Intergovernmental Relations wrote, “The Montgomery County Executive and Council oppose this bill because it could require the Commission to operate a program that is not legally defensible and because the Commission should have the autonomy to operate its own program.”
Most MoCo legislators care little or nothing about minority contracting. They see it as a Prince George’s issue. If Braveboy and her delegation are jumping up and down about it, why not just give it to them and try to get something for it later? So the MoCo delegation voted in favor of the bill by 11-10, but it did not pass because it needs a majority of the delegation’s twenty-four members, or 13 votes, to get approved. Delegates Al Carr (D-18) and Tom Hucker (D-20) were absent.
But the issue is not yet dead. Braveboy and Taylor are still pushing it and want a new vote, possibly today. If they can get both Carr and Hucker to vote with them, the Prince George’s delegation will get its veto power. WSSC could then fashion the world’s fairest, most legal minority contracting program but if politically-connected contractors squawk, it is going down.
That would be very, very dangerous. In the wake of its legal counsel’s opinion, WSSC is now knowingly operating an unconstitutional race-based contracting program. That makes the agency a sitting duck for any non-minority contractor looking to sue. And if there is a class action that covers a period of years, well… the liability will be incalculable. And any damages will be paid by you, the ratepayers. That’s right, you.
So who’s more important? The ratepayers? Or politicians and their cronies? We’re about to find out.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
What People Are Looking For on MPW
Our new Statcounter premium account enables us to pay close attention to which subjects draw the most page views. This is unique political intel on what makes Maryland’s cyberspace buzz! And as usual, we provide it to our esteemed readers free of charge. Who loves you more than we do?
Among the 100,000 page views we drew between May 30 and August 23, here are the most-viewed blog posts:
1. Pols Party While Budget Burns
2. More Warnings of State Budget Apocalypse
3. How to Save Money on Your Electric Bill Right Now
4. People with Development Disabilities at Risk of Losing Services
5. Is WMATA Management Starting to Crack?
6. The MACO Moment
7. Young Guns of MoCo Part Two
8. MACO Mushroom Cloud
9. Young Guns of MoCo Part Four
10. Funniest Facebook Status of the Day
11. Ten Random Questions
12. Saqib Ali and Nancy King Discuss Progressive Issues Part Two
13. Eli El’s Domestic Abuse Record
14. Democrats for Pelura
15. Single Tracking is a Terrible Idea Except When it’s a Good One
16. Red Line Opposition is Good News for MoCo Transit Supporters
17. Saqib Ali and Nancy King Discuss Progressive Issues Part One
18. Is Leggett Undermining Navarro on Day One?
19. Why CCT Supporters Should Give BRT a Chance
20. Dereck Davis vs. Jim Rosapepe on Electricity Reregulation
Now here’s something interesting. What are people searching for on MPW? We found out the search terms used by people to find MPW content, usually on Google, and combined it with the terms that had the greatest number of searches once people arrived on the blog. Now in most cases, people searched on “Maryland Politics Watch,” “Maryland political blog” or some variant thereof to find us. We excluded those terms since they are little more than identifiers for MPW. Here are the remaining terms that drew the greatest number of searches to and inside this blog:
1. Montgomery
2. WSSC
3. Saqib Ali
4. Budget
5. Pagnucco
6. Taxes
7. Facebook
8. Blair Ewing
9. O'Malley
10. MACO
11. Boy King
12. Purple Line
13. Baltimore
14. Sligo Golf
15. Electric Bill
16. I-270
17. Eli El
18. Slots
19. Helicopter
20. Cheryl Kagan
What a list! This is what caught our eye:
WSSC
The MSM may occasionally relax their coverage on WSSC, but the issue never goes away. Discontent with WSSC is always simmering because people constantly struggle with perpetual matters like dirty water, small outages, street repaving problems and the like that really add up. Then when a big pipe bursts, the frustration boils over.
Here’s a prediction: if County Executive Ike Leggett draws a quality challenger and someone dies because of another River Road-style pipe break, that challenger will make major hay by framing it as a failure of leadership. You read it here first.
Saqib Ali
We all knew he was the King of Facebook, but it turns out that Saqib Ali is the Emperor of all on-line media. He has surely earned that title with his serial Facebook updates, Twitterings and constant MSM and blog coverage. We’ll see if his cyber-domination can actually translate into enough votes to beat District 39 Senator Nancy King if he challenges her.
Helicopter
The MSM may have woken up to the County Executive’s helicopter grab late, but this is a sleeper issue. It symbolizes the sort of county government cluelessness that first materialized during the $65,000 bathroom scandal. People are paying a LOT more attention to this than anyone in the Executive Branch wants.
Cheryl Kagan
Her hyper-charged insurgent campaign for Jennie Forehand’s District 17 Senate seat is drawing lots of interest. No current challenger equals her energy at the moment. This is yet another sign that Forehand has a big, big race on her hands.
We’ll have more exclusive intel on our next batch of 100,000 page views, probably in the fall. Stay tuned!
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Prince George's Fixation with WSSC Minority Contracting Never Ends
In the past, we have chronicled how the Prince George’s County WSSC Commissioners’ obsession with minority contracting has distracted them from the agency's serious capital problems. That fixation extends far beyond the Commissioners. Even though Commissioner Juanita “Wild Child” Miller is on the way out, Delegate Aisha Braveboy (D-25) stepped up by sending the following five-page letter on minority contracting to new WSSC Chairman Gene Counihan. If only Delegate Braveboy and the rest of the Prince George's County political establishment were equally focused on fixing pipes. Have they forgotten the former WSSC General Manager’s warning that bursting pipes could explode like “a missile?”
August 4, 2009
Gene W. Counihan, Chairman
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
14501 Sweitzer Lane
Laurel, Maryland 20707-5902
RE: WSSC’s MBE Program
Dear Chairman Counihan:
Thank you and your colleagues, Commissioners Joyce Starks and Juanita Miller for attending the special meeting of the Prince George’s County Bi-County Committee on Water, Sewer and Infrastructure on June 27, 2009. The meeting was convened to discuss the two proposals pending before the Commission for a revised Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) Program at WSSC and to provide legislative guidance as to the purpose and intent of the legislature in creating WSSC’s MBE program. At the meeting, legislators heard from a number of stake holders including the Director of Minority Business Enterprise for the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), senior staff from WSSC, as well as members of the minority business community, including both the African American and Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, the MD/DC Minority Supplier Development Council, and the Maryland Washington Minority Contractor’s Association some of whom are members of MDOTs Advisory Committee.
The legislature created the MBE program for the WSSC to remedy the lingering effects of past discrimination. In 2007, the legislature adopted HB 691 which reauthorized the MBE Program and established new criteria for the program. Article 29, Title 3, Subtitle 1, Sections 3-102 and 3-109 of the Maryland State Code requires the WSSC to establish a MBE program to facilitate the participation of responsible certified minority businesses for certain goods and services. Most notably, Section 3-102 (F) (2) of HB 691, which covers construction contracts, requires WSSC, by resolution and by regulations to:
“Establish a mandatory Minority Business Utilization Program to facilitate the participation of responsible certified Minority Business Enterprises in contracts awarded by the WSSC in accordance with competitive bidding or proposal procedures.”
Further, Section 3-109(B)(1) requires the WSSC, “by resolution and by adopting regulations to establish a minority business utilization program to facilitate the participation of responsible certified minority business enterprises in contracts awarded by the WSSC for goods and services not covered by § 3-102.”
WSSC’s 2005 disparity study conducted by BBC Research & Consulting and MGT of America, Inc., reported certain findings, which established a strong factual predicate for the continuation of a race-conscious MBE program. The findings include:
A. Discrimination has affected the relevant marketplace and WSSC in the past.
B. There is evidence of ongoing effects of past discrimination in the local marketplace and in the purchase of WSSC goods and services.
C. There is contemporary evidence of discrimination against minority- and women-owned firms in the relevant marketplace
D. The evidence indicated that some prime contractors that are doing business with the WSSC discriminated against MBE subcontractors.
E. There is strong evidence that certain manufacturers favor and collude with existing non-minority authorized deals and distributors for the purpose of preventing the entry of prospective MBE distributors and further marginalize the growth of prospective MBE suppliers by discriminating in the terms of distributorship agreements that are awarded to MBE suppliers that sell to the Commission.
These findings support the establishment of an aggressive MBE program to address the past and present discriminatory practices in the marketplace. M y colleagues and I analyzed the Interim General Manager (IGM) Proposed MBE Program and discovered that the proposed MBE Program endorsed by the IGM appears to take the least assertive approach to address the documented (both statistical and anecdotal) evidence of discrimination and does not meet statutory requirements of HB 691 and Article 29. Below I have highlighted our areas of concern:
• The Affirmative Action initiatives proposed by the IGM does not adequately address the findings of discrimination contained in the 2005 Disparity Study. For example, the study found “strong evidence” of collusion and discrimination in the distributorship community, yet the IGM’s proposed Affirmative Action Initiative is a voluntary minority distributorship program, whereby manufacturers or franchisors would be provided with certain “incentives” to award a franchise of distributorship to an MBE. The incentives identified in the IGM’s proposal are (a) extended contract option years and/or (b) accelerated payment programs. First, extended contract option years are typically provided for in agreements for the purchase of goods by government agencies and may not have the effect of encouraging manufacturers to do business with MBEs. Further, when queried at the meeting about the accelerated payment program, the WSSC staff said that program would consist of payments being made on a 15 day cycle, as opposed to a 25 day cycle. While there may be some modest benefits to this accelerated payment initiative, it certainly does not go far enough to address the latent discrimination and collusion found in the marketplace.
• The IGMs proposal to discontinue race- and gender-conscious subcontracting goals in most areas of goods and services appears to be inconsistent with statutory requirements. Section 3-109(C)(3) of Article 29, states that the WSSC must provide for minority business participation through subcontracting. Second, the IGM’s proposal proposes to use a Small Local Business Enterprise (SLBE) Program instead of MBE goals to address barriers to MBE participation ignores the discrimination based on race and gender found in the study. The Director of Minority Business Development Division for the MDOT that the State uses both MBE subcontracting goals and a Small Business Reserve Program to address discrimination in the marketplace, while meeting the constitutional requirements for a race-conscious program. Therefore, the WSSC should strongly consider using this model for meeting its MBE subcontracting requirements.
• The IGMs proposal does not contain a Sheltered Market Program for MBEs, as required by Statute. Section 3-109(C)(5) of Article 29 provides for the establishment of a sheltered market program for MBEs. While race-neutral programs must be considered before establishing utilizing the MBE Sheltered Market Program, the program must provide for such an initiative. Further, it seems clear from the data of the disparity study that small business programs, which have been in place at the WSSC, will not alone address the issues of MBE utilization. For example, of the nine law firms receiving payments over $100,000 in payments, only one was reported to be an MBE, which reportedly received $200,000 in payments. Further in the area of business services, only one MBE firm is reportedly receiving over $500,000 in contracts, which amounts to less than 10% of the total dollars awarded; in the area of plumbing, heating and electrical supply, only one MBE firm received over $500,000 in payments.
• The IGM’s proposal creates both a voluntary and mandatory MBE subcontracting goals for construction contracts, which is inconsistent with statutory requirements. Section 3-102 requires a mandatory Minority Business Utilization Program to facilitate the participation in construction contracts. Having both voluntary and mandatory programs may be confusing for staff who are charged with implementing the programs and for contractors who must meet the requirements. Further devising and implementing a voluntary program conflicts with the intent of the legislature and plain language of Section 3-102.
Other areas of concern, include, but are not limited to the following:
1. There does not appear to be any numerical goals by which to measure performance of the agency.
2. The language does not appear to target MBEs in Montgomery and Prince Georg’s County as required by Section 3-109 (c)(8) of Article 29, requiring Montgomery County businesses and Prince George's County businesses to each have a targeted percentage of at least 40% of any contracts.
3. Many provisions and terms contained in the proposal were ambiguous and staff was unable to explain how they would be interpreted or implemented.
4. The Director of the Officer of Small Local and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise says that implementing this new program would be an “arduous” task.
5. The MBE community did not participate in the development of the proposed program.
6. There is no consensus among Commissioners for this program and the Commission has never adopted the recommendations of the2005 Disparity Study upon which this proposal was based.
My colleagues and I analyzed Commissioner Starks’s Proposed MBE Program and discovered that the proposal is a revision of WSSC’s 1996 MBE Program and meets minimum statutory requirements contained in HB 691 and provided for under Article 29 Section 3-102 and 3-109. The proposal more aggressively addresses the findings contained in the 2005 Disparity Study. Further, it is more consistent with the State’s MBE program in that it establishes measureable contracting goals and mandates MBE participation in construction contracting.
There were concerns raised by your staff about the constitutionality of the Starks proposal. They stated that their consultant advised that this proposal may not meet constitutional scrutiny. We have not received a legal opinion supporting that conclusion. On the contrary, Ms. Starks testified that she employed the services of constitutional law experts from the University of Maryland in developing the program. However, I think the issue of constitutionality should be addressed by the legal experts from the University of Maryland before the full Commission and they should be required to provide a written legal opinion addressing the constitutional concerns.
Based on the findings above, we recommend the following:
A. Reject the IGM’s Proposal. Based on the findings above, there is strong opposition in the legislature for the adoption of the IGM’s proposed program. The program does not adequately address the findings of discrimination found in the 2005 Disparity Study and does not fully meet statutory requirements mandated by the Legislature.
B. Work towards the adoption of a program more consistent with the Starks Proposal. This strategy is advisable for the following reasons:
1. Mr. Chairman, you testified at the hearing that any program established at this point would be a two-year interim program. Since your staff stated that implementation of the IGM’s proposal would be “arduous” and that it would take a long time to train and educate staff, a program more consistent with the existing MBE program is advisable.
2. The MBE community testified that they had input into the development of the Starks proposal.
3. The proposal appears to meet the statutory requirements of the Legislature.
4. The proposal is a revision of the existing MBE program and will be easier to implement.
5. The proposal is more consistent with the State’s MBE program and those of other local jurisdictions in the relevant marketplace.
C. Obtain a legal opinion from the University of Maryland consultants before moving forward to implementing changes to the existing program.
D. Give the new General Manger an opportunity to provide input into the new program.
E. Get input from State and County MBE Offices.
During this process, you may find that additional changes need to be made to the Starks proposal. In the meantime, I recommend that Commission extend the existing program for 120-days while this deliberative process continues.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate your recognition of the Legislature’s role in the oversight of WSSC’s operations, including the MBE program. Further, I applaud your recognition of the need for a new disparity study and your plans to endorse the funding for a new program in this year’s budget so that the program can continue into the future. Lastly, I thank you for your time and your commitment to ensuring fairness and inclusion in WSSC’s contracting process.
Sincerely,
Aisha N. Braveboy, Esq., Chair
Bi-County Committee on Water, Sewer and Infrastructure
Cc:
WSSC Commissioners
The Honorable Donna Edwards, Congressional District 4
Prince George’s Delegation
Montgomery County Delegation
The Honorable Jack B. Johnson, Prince George’s County Executive
The Honorable Isaiah Leggett, Montgomery County Executive
MD/DC Minority Supplier Development Council
MD Washington Minority Contractors Association
African American Chamber of Commerce of Montgomery County
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce for Montgomery County
Minority Business Enterprise Community
Thursday, June 18, 2009
WSSC Board Picks New GM, But...
...The Gazette is already finding problems with his record in his old job in the District of Columbia. You just can't make this up, folks!
Update: Following is the press release from County Executives Ike Leggett and Jack Johnson. Note their lack of comment on the Gazette's information.
Update 2: The Post's Katherine Shaver, who has done consistently strong reporting on WSSC, has more.
Press Release
For Immediate Release: June 18, 2009
Leggett, Johnson Recommend New General Manager for Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
Montgomery County Executive Isiah Leggett and Prince George’s County Executive Jack Johnson today announced their recommendation of Jerry N. Johnson to serve as the new Chief Executive Officer/General Manager of the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC).
Johnson is currently General Manager of the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (WASA), a position he has held since 1997. He is nationally known as a turnaround specialist. As the first General Manager of a newly created water and sewer authority, he guided it from an unrated agency, with a projected $8 million deficit, to one with an A+ credit rating and $170 million reserve in just two years. In addition to being responsible for the day-to-day operations, planning and management of the authority, he developed and recommended long-range capital programs, financial programs and special projects to the Board, then oversaw
their implementation.
WASA provides drinking water and wastewater treatment to more than half a million residential, commercial and local governmental customers in the District and collects and treats wastewater for 1.6 million WSSC customers in Montgomery and Prince George’s counties in Maryland and for Fairfax and Loudoun counties in Virginia. The authority also operates the 150-acre Blue Plains Water Treatment Plant, the largest advanced treatment plant in the world.
Before his career at WASA, Johnson was employed by the City of Richmond for nearly two decades, serving in various capacities. From 1991 to 1997, he was Deputy City Manager for Operations. He also served as Director of Public Utilities and was responsible for four utility operations -- gas, electric, water and wastewater – providing service to the metropolitan Richmond area.
”I am very pleased that Jerry Johnson has agreed to serve in this important role,” Johnson said. “His extensive experience and background with wastewater treatment and management and his knowledge of our region makes him the best choice for General Manager.”
“Jerry Johnson’s extensive experience with utilities, especially with water and wastewater treatment, makes him the ideal person for this position,” Leggett said. “He also has the added advantage of knowing the WSSC service area and could hit the ground running.”
Johnson has an A.S. degree in Business Administration from Ferrum College, a B.S. in Urban Affairs and Economics from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He also completed the Program for Senior Executives in State and Local
Government at the JFK School of Government at Harvard.
The WSSC is the eighth largest water and wastewater utility in the country, providing water and sewer services to nearly 1.8 million residents of Montgomery and Prince George’s counties. The agency operates and maintains nearly 5,500 miles of freshwater pipe lines and more than 5,300 miles of sewer main lines.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Politicians Must Act on WSSC
Crack, crack, crack. That’s the sound of pipes breaking in Derwood, Potomac and Temple Hills. And what sound has come from the politicians charged with fixing the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission’s problems? With the exception of Senate President Mike Miller, we have heard very little sound at all.
WSSC has two related problems that stem from a common cause. First, it cannot select a new general manager, a position that has been vacant for more than a year. The nominee agreed on by County Executives Ike Leggett and Jack Johnson looks doomed because of accusations of racial bias in his last job. Second, WSSC’s Commissioners cannot agree on a capital fee schedule to accelerate replacement of its aging pipes. The agency’s paralysis continues despite the fact that WSSC’s former general manager warned in 2007 that catastrophic pipe failures could explode “like a missile.” Federal stimulus money contributed a measly $8 million to WSSC’s backlog.
The root cause of these issues is WSSC’s Board of Commissioners, which has three members each from Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties. Of the Prince George’s Commissioners, all appointed by Jack Johnson, one is a budget manager with no utility experience, one is a contractor who has worked on WSSC contracts and one is a repeated political candidate who has made a career of alleging racism at the agency and runs up big expense tabs. All are obsessed with minority contracting, and at one point they held a 12-hour meeting dominated by that issue in the aftermath of a pipe break.
As long as WSSC’s Board deadlocks, there can be no agreement on a general manager or a capital replacement fee. It’s just that simple. Leggett’s preferred approach of cooperation with Johnson has not paid off. Consider Johnson’s recent statement about the two County Executives’ general manager nominee to the Gazette: “I don't support [him] and I don't not support [him]. I just think there are some issues that need to be resolved.” How exactly can Leggett cooperate with an individual with that style of “leadership?”
WSSC cannot be restructured without state legislation. The Montgomery and Prince George’s delegations considered several proposals heading into Annapolis for the 2009 general session, including a bill to add a rotating municipal member to the Board and a bill requiring at least one vote from each county for a Board motion to pass. Both bills failed. The General Assembly did pass bills calling for whistleblower protection and more financial oversight - good ideas that do nothing to change the Board’s structure. Neither will help WSSC hire a new general manager or fix its pipes. Only Mike Miller is threatening action.
But the failure on WSSC does not belong to the state legislature alone. The Montgomery County Council complained loudly about the agency last winter but they never developed a common position on structural reform to send to the county’s statehouse delegation. County Executive Leggett still maintains that cooperation is the way out despite voluminous evidence to the contrary. And Governor Martin O’Malley, who made saving Prince George’s County’s hospital system a priority, has been completely absent from the WSSC debate.
So what will happen the next time a giant pipe breaks and homes and businesses dry up? All of the politicians will point fingers at each other. And you know what? They will all be right.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Big Daddy Spanks Jack Johnson Over WSSC (Updated)
Senate President Mike Miller is getting fed up with the problems at WSSC. Following is a letter he wrote to Prince George's County Executive Jack Johnson (referenced by the Post) in which he calls for "quick and decisive action" and "a WSSC that is ethical and competent."
Miller has long been concerned about WSSC. In 2005, he called turmoil at the agency a "cancer" and said, "Public confidence in the ability of this board to govern is nonexistent." Judging by the contemptuous reaction of Johnson's staff, Miller may have to take direct action to fix the agency. And if Big Daddy is serious, we will be cheering him on every step of the way.
Update: Miller offers more in the Gazette, including this beauty: "In another year we'll have another county executive and, hopefully, a better working relationship between the county executives and the commissioners." Youch!
June 15, 2009
The Honorable Jack Johnson
Office of the County Executive
County Administration Building
14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive
Upper Marlboro, MD 20772
Dear County Executive Johnson:
I am writing to express my grave concerns and frustration as to the level of total incompetence at the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (“WSSC”). As you know, in Prince George’s County, we are surrounded by the Patuxent River, the Potomac River, numerous tributaries of these rivers, and the accompanying watersheds that flow directly into these very environmentally sensitive areas.
Given the importance of these areas, it was truly beyond belief that, on May 11, 2009, 30,000 gallons of raw sewage spilled into a direct tributary of the Potomac River, the Piscataway Creek. Incredibly, on June 4, 2009, another 30,500 gallons of raw sewages spilled directly into the Piscataway Creek. This means that in less than one month, over 60,000 gallons of raw sewage has been allowed to pour directly into Piscataway Creek. This is not only incomprehensible, it is unacceptable.
I believe one of the most critical roles of government officials is to serve as stewards of our environment. The health and safety of our citizens depends upon our ability to protect the air and the water quality in the county. Additionally, it is not fair or equitable for one county to be allowed to have raw sewage polluting the rivers and tributaries that go beyond its own borders.
These recent events confirm that the WSSC has sunk to levels of incompetence that we should all be embarrassed to see. The needs have been well documented and yet WSSC Commissioners representing our County have sat idly by, while pipe after pipe has burst. Now, during the worst recession we have seen since the Great Depression, they raise rates by 9%. This rate increase coincides with public disclosure of thousands of dollars of ratepayer funds being used by WSSC members to pay for things such as political and charitable events. All during a time when there still is no General Manager of the Agency. Given this information, why on earth should we or the citizens of this County believe that they need the rate increase or even know how to address these serious issues with additional funds?
It is far past time for a massive overhaul of this agency. We cannot simply shrug our shoulders and accept delays and excuses for things such as raw sewage flowing into sensitive environmental areas again and again. I would, therefore, formally call upon you to act in your official oversight roles to take the reigns of this situation.
The first step must be the expeditious appointment of a General Manager, who possesses the sufficient credentials and expertise to take over the agency and resolve these issues immediately. Next, the County Council should call for hearings and demand a comprehensive plan for an effective resolution of these matters, as soon as possible. The use of ratepayer funds for questionable activities by WSSC members should also be reviewed. If these issues cannot be addressed at the local level by the time the General Assembly convenes in January, State legislators cannot in good conscience allow things to continue as they have been.
I look forward to your decisive and quick action and am willing to assist you in these efforts in any manner possible. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns and I would further ask that you please advise me as soon as possible as to actions the County plans to take in this matter. The citizens of our County deserve a healthy environment in which to live and raise their families and they deserve a WSSC that is ethical and competent.
Sincerely,
Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr.
TVMM/vlg
cc: Prince George’s County Council
Thursday, June 04, 2009
WSSC Spills Raw Sewage into Piscataway Creek
PG Politics forwarded us this message about a raw sewage spill by WSSC into a Potomac River tributary. This raises an interesting question: how much pollution is WSSC creating in the Chesapeake Bay?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kelly Canavan
Date: Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Subject: [PrinceGeorges_Discussion] WSSC saved you a trip to Piscataway; put your foot in your toilet instead.
To:
The AMP Creeks Council
The Accokeek, Mattawoman, Piscataway Creeks Communities Council
301.237.5040
301.283.0263 fax
P. O. Box 477, Accokeek, MD 20607
Hello, Elected Representatives, and Friends of The AMP Creeks Council!
Today WSSC spilled 30,500 gallons of raw sewage into Piscataway Creek. (See photo below, taken next to Piscataway Wastewater Treatment Plant.)
On May 11, 2009, WSSC spilled 30,000 gallons of raw sewage into Piscataway Creek.
That's 60,500 gallons minimum so far this year.
In 2008, as documented by WSSC, a minimum total of 7,358,000 gallons of sewage overflowed into Broad Creek/Piscataway.
Since Prince George's County policy makes sustainable farming here nearly impossible anyway, lets cross our fingers and hope for a drought. If the County won't help put food on the table, I don't know if we can depend on them to keep feces out of the water. And when it rains in South County, it frequently pours from WSSC.
The spills were not into drinking water. They were into recreational water that fish swim in. Reconsider fishing in those waters, especially if you plan to eat the fish. Today may not be the day to take the boat out.
Please let us know if you can help tidy up down here.
Thank you, and stay dry!
Kelly Canavan
President, The AMP Creeks Council
Thursday, May 14, 2009
WSSC Wild Child Takes on the Boy King
OK, it’s not King Kong vs. Godzilla. Or Darth Vader vs. Doctor Doom. Or even Moe vs. Larry vs. Curly. But in a throwdown that just had to happen, two of MPW’s favorite targets are going at it: Washington Suburban Sanitary Commissioner Juanita “Wild Child” Miller and Washington Post editorial intern Steven “Boy King” Stein. Let’s get ready to RUUUMMBLE!!
The Boy King fired the first shot with a tartly-worded Sunday editorial blasting WSSC. The Post’s Katherine Shaver has been doing some excellent reporting on the woes of the Maryland suburbs’ most dysfunctional agency and Stein followed by criticizing its “corrosive politics.” Stein’s critique of WSSC echoes ours – so closely, in fact, that we wonder if he used our blog post for his research. After all, everyone knows how attentive the Boy King is to MPW.
Well, leave it to the Wild Child to come blasting back! We know that Juanita Miller is a talented email writer and she did not disappoint. Here’s what she sent out to all of WSSC on Monday night. Can you imagine what she would have written if she knew Stein was an intern?
From: Miller, Juanita [mailto:jMiller@wsscwater.com]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 6:17 PM
To: Hawes, Jennifer; #Commissioners; #Change Leadership Team; #Commission Employees
Subject: RE: Clips: 5/11/09
It is quite apparent that the Washington Post's editor is on a "witch" hunt in its continued attempts to denigrate Prince George's County and its Commissioners. The article "Water Fight" (05/10/2009, editorial) contains little substance with lots of fabricated and manipulated the verbiage contrary to the two "balanced " articles on WSSC written last week by reporter Katherine Shaver.
The truth is in the facts and detail which the editor has clearly and apparently purposefully omitted! The editor demeans the "process" (labeled "dubious" in the editorial) which six commissioners developed, approved and initiated. The editor omitted that Rudy Chow was the highest ranking candidate from a national search. Equally as important, he is a 30-year Montgomery County resident and has worked at WSSC for more than 25 years. Mr. Chow was selected by the former GM to run the largest department in the agency-- Customer Care, and he has demonstrated leadership and management skills based on his performance for the GM to make that selection. Mr. Chow has earned the right to be WSSC’s GM. He is hardly a pawn of Prince George’s County since his lifelong ties have been and are to Montgomery County. The characterization of Mr. Chow made by the Post editor undermines Mr. Chow and the integrity of the process.
Montgomery County commissioners have blatantly "refused" to adhere to an established process (approved and sanctioned by them) only after Mr. Chow was identified as the winner of that process--that is the FACT!! They have clearly shown on two other occasions preference for "less qualified" persons to lead the agency, i.e., they supported an employee who had only two months working at the agency, with no engineering experience, rather than the more senior, experienced and qualified employee to serve as the interim GM. They supported a candidate (recommended by the two County Executives) with a checkered past over its own "home grown" employee. Their conduct has made a mockery of "succession" planning and been an insult to the committed employees who seek to grow with this agency.
Yet it is apparent that the Washington Post editors have little concern for truth when expediency and continued desire to denigrate and demean all that is Prince George’s County, simply because they can do so in anonymity. The editors who wrote this editorial have little to no knowledge of WSSC's MBE program and process and have continued to rehash the same misinformation as if or because it is the singular most important crutch the Post has to lean on when it seeks to cast aspersions on the minority commissioners and the MBE program. The editor dug deep once again to a 1997 reference in an attempt to "impugn" this Commissioner’s leadership in carrying out fiduciary responsibilities. The FACT is the staff member who was the project manager at that time for the sludge contracts and was responsible for investigating firms prior to award of the sludge contract, had not done due diligence and was reprimanded for that shortsightedness at the public hearing. It should also be noted that the State Ethics Board cleared and exonerated Commissioner Miller from the unfounded allegations made 12 years ago. This case is a matter of State record and can be easily checked by Post researchers; yet the Post editors have continuously and purposely mischaracterized that matter.
Another fact relative to Commissioners’ expenses is the three year cumulative amount of $10,000+ paid by the GM for this Commissioner to attend the national AWWA conferences. It is to be noted that each year the cost for attending this conference comes out of the GM's budget for each Commissioner from both counties who chooses to attend the conference. It also should be noted that Commissioner Counihan's expenses of $9000-plus for 14 months far exceeded that of Commissioner Agarwal's expenses of $5000-plus for the five years he has served. I surmise that it wasn't newsworthy since it didn't involve a Prince George's Commissioner exceeding expenses.
I am "adamant" about adhering to established policies and procedures and have documented many accounts of irregularities that the Post is apparently not interested in publishing. I am also adamant about supporting a process that identifies a person who happens to be the most qualified for GM and who happens to be Asian. The Post should be questioning Montgomery County representatives who have manipulated and engaged in underhanded tactics to circumvent a process that identified one of its own longtime residents as the winner of the GM process.
It's apparent that news must be slow at the Post for the editor to continue to misrepresent certain facts relative to Prince George's Commissioners and their position on issues.
The only "pet" in this matter is the "peeve" as well as the "unspeakable and capricious" journalism exercised by the Washington Post editor who obviously has a penchant for attempting to denigrate Prince George's County's Commissioners, especially this one. This explains why the Washington Post readership appears to be suffering, especially in Prince George’s County. It’s apparent the Post editors are determined to print disparaging articles about Prince George’s County.
As has been stated previously in the public forum and is reiterated in this missive, the Washington Post does not guide the actions or operations of this agency nor the functions of its Board.
It appears that the Post is on a mission to fabricate and manipulate information in an effort to cover up the corrupt activities occurring at this agency and provide a distraction of the facts. It's ironic that these articles began to appear shortly after an audit/investigation of certain activities at the Commission was requested by Commissioner Miller.
The Post did not find it "newsworthy" to further research/investigate Commissioner Miller's assertion to its reporter about the corruption at the agency, i.e. an employee being arrested for stealing $10,000 plus of ratepayers money and other risks that leave the agency exposed which need to be mitigated . And did I mention that Commissioners allocated funds to hire an Ethics Officer, conducted interviews and then the process got halted (and not by the Prince Georges' Commissioners)? Also the agency spent well over $100K for the original GM search only to have the Montgomery County Commissioners balk at the results and continue an exclusive search outside of Commission authority and then had the agency billed for the Montgomery County process. This means that the ratepayers paid for a duplicate yet exclusive process conducted by Montgomery County.
Let the truth be told, the Post editors’ determination to impugn the integrity and character of Commissioner Miller and Prince George’s County have blinded them to the FACTS.
Commissioner Juanita Miller
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
What We Are Watching in Annapolis
While the mainstream media titillates itself with the University of Maryland porn scandal, here’s what we have our eyes on in the rest of the General Assembly session.
Misclassification Bill
Despite heavy lobbying by anti-union hired guns Lisa Harris Jones and Sean Malone, the O’Malley administration introduced a bill to crack down on tax cheating by employers who misclassify workers as independent contractors. Other states have found that they are losing tens and sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars in income taxes and unemployment revenues every year due to such scams. The bill was nearly crippled by two poison pill amendments adopted by the Senate. The bill is now in conference and if the Senate’s amendments survive, the odds of any actual crackdown on tax cheats will be very low.
Prince George’s Stadium
Marc Korman says the stadium is a bad deal for Maryland and he’s right. But it could be a good deal for Prince George’s County if only they could get the rest of the state to pay for it. After all, with Senator Ulysses Currie (D-25) chairing the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee, you might figure the county could grab a bit of cash for it. Instead, the Prince George’s County Council voted against the stadium, pulling out the rug from delegation supporters and throwing the whole plan into limbo. It seems that the Prince George’s politicians can’t work together even to implement bad ideas, which may actually be a good thing.
Expungement Bill
Delegate Lou Simmons’ (D-17) odious abuser expungement bill is technically still alive in the House Judiciary Committee but we have not heard about it in awhile. We hope that it will not re-emerge from its lair.
Bill Frick’s Credit Card Bill
Delegate Bill Frick’s (D-16) bill to crack down on credit card abuse has passed the House 136-1 and is now before the Senate. We ask the Senators to read Marc Korman’s excellent post praising the bill.
WSSC
Several months after the disastrous pipe break on River Road, the momentum for structural reform at WSSC has petered out. If nothing emerges from the General Assembly, the Montgomery and Prince George’s delegations will have to flee to Antarctica when the next pipe inevitably explodes.
Reregulation Bill
The bill to reregulate new power plants is the ultimate “do-little-but-hype-a-lot” bill. It will have virtually no impact on electric bills and distracts attention from real measures that could make a difference. The Senate passed it but some members of the House Economic Matters Committee dislike it. The General Assembly would do well to return to the issue with different legislation next year.
MCPS Disclosure
Delegate Al Carr’s (D-18) local bill requiring online vendor disclosure by the Montgomery County Public Schools passed the House on a 139-0 vote. This bill is badly needed and we hope the Senate supports it.
Will Anything Positive Happen on Transportation?
The Governor and the General Assembly are doing nothing to raise revenue for transportation even though the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) even though its money is disappearing before our eyes. A bill by Delegates Susan Krebs (R-9B) and Brian Feldman (D-15) limiting raids on the TTF was killed by the House Appropriations Committee. Senator Rob Garagiola’s (D-15) task force bill may or may not get a vote from the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee. Even if it does, time is running out on a House vote.
We’ll report back on how all of this turns out. In the meantime, don’t forget to check out Senator Andy Harris’s (R-7) latest anti-porn coverage.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Leggett and Johnson Recommend New WSSC General Manager
Following is the press release from the two County Executives. The candidate must be confirmed by WSSC's Board of Commissioners.
For Immediate Release: March 17, 2009
LEGGETT, JOHNSON RECOMMEND WSSC GM
UPPER MARLBORO, MD - Montgomery County Executive Isiah Leggett and Prince George’s County Executive Jack Johnson today announced their recommendation of David E. Chardavoyne to be the new Chief Executive Officer/General Manager of the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC).
Chardavoyne, 61, comes from San Antonio, Texas, where he served as president/chief executive officer of the San Antonio Water System (SAWS), the city-owned utility that provides water, wastewater, chilled water and steam utility services to the seventh largest city in the country. During his tenure with SAWS, he achieved successes in the areas of strategic growth, corporate reorganization, legislative involvement and finance.
His prior experience includes five years as president and director of Thames Water Holdings Inc., the U.S. subsidiary of the third largest global water, product and services provider. He also held top-level posts with United Waterworks Inc. in New Jersey, Jamaica Water Securities Corporation of New York and Citizens Utilities Company in Connecticut.
Chardavoyne’s career has provided him with extensive experience in transforming company cultures, resulting in improved performance, profitability, and operational and organizational efficiency. His experience also reflects a sensitivity to the needs of employees, including finding ways to enhance employee relations and increasing employee morale.
The candidate was introduced by Johnson and Leggett during a morning news conference at the offices of the County Executive in Upper Marlboro.
“County Executive Leggett and I felt it was necessary to bring a true leader and professional to lead WSSC,” Johnson said. “This important agency that has a history of delivering high quality services to both Prince George’s and Montgomery counties and I am confident David Chardavoyne will improve on that tradition.”
“I’m pleased to announce that, working in concert with Jack Johnson, we have found someone who is an ideal fit for this very important position,” Leggett said. “David Chardavoyne has broad-based managerial experience which involves all levels of corporate structure and government. With his knowledge of water management issues and communication skills, David Chardavoyne would be a strong, energetic general manager for WSSC.”
Leggett and Johnson emphasized the importance of having a strong leader in the position at a time when problems caused by aging infrastructure – as evidenced by the increasing number of major water main breaks within the past months – and an economic downturn are plaguing both counties and affecting thousands of residents.
“Residents of Montgomery and Prince George’s counties have experienced first-hand, the major disruptions and, in some instances, life-threatening situations that have come about as a result of aging water and wastewater infrastructures,” Leggett said.
“I want to thank County Executive Jack Johnson and County Executive Isiah Leggett for their kind words and for giving me the opportunity to serve in this challenging position at this critical time,” said Chardavoyne. “I am looking forward to the challenge of heading this very important organization, and to contributing to its success in serving customers within the two-county area.”
A native of upstate New York, Chardavoyne studied civil engineering at the University of Wisconsin. He was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force and received an educational delay to attend Cornell, where he received a Traineeship from the federal Water Pollution Control Administration, the forerunner of the Environmental Protection Agency. He received an MS in Environmental Engineering with a minor in Operations Research and an MBA in Finance from the University of Connecticut.
During his active duty with the Air Force, he was stationed in Italy as part of the USAF Security Service (Air Intelligence Agency). Chardavoyne is a registered Professional Engineer in Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, New York and Ohio.
The WSSC is the eighth largest water and wastewater utility in the country, providing water and sewer services to nearly 1.8 million residents of Montgomery and Prince George’s counties. The agency operates and maintains nearly 5,500 miles of freshwater pipe lines and more than 5,300 miles of sewer main lines.
There are about 1,500 employees, and the commission’s budget totals approximately $757.1 million.
# # #
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
WSSC Commissioner Raises Money – and Eyebrows (Updated)
WSSC Commissioner Juanita Miller has opened a new campaign fund to run for office. That’s not unusual – the former Delegate has run unsuccessfully for County Council and State Senate before. But the identities of some her contributors are sure to make tongues wag.
First, let’s remember some of the highlights of Miller’s service on the Commission. In our prior post, we described how Miller intervened on behalf of the third-highest bidder – a minority contractor – on a 1997 WSSC job that it lost by $2 million. The revelation that the contractor had been a campaign contributor to a prior Miller campaign prompted an ethics investigation. Miller then alleged widespread racism in the agency, a charge that was rebutted by WSSC’s black general manager. And just prior to her 2002 race against Senate President Mike Miller, she revived more charges of racism against minority contractors that were not upheld by the U.S. Justice Department.
Minority contracting is a big priority for the three WSSC members appointed by Prince George’s County Executive Jack Johnson. In 2004, the Commission unsuccessfully tried to seize direct control of minority contracting from the agency’s General Manager in a closed-door meeting that violated the agency’s bylaws. WSSC Commisioner Prem Agarwal is himself a minority contractor who performed $1.46 million of WSSC work within nine months of his appointment to the Commission after contributing $12,000 to Jack Johnson’s campaign. And minority contracting dominated the Commission's 12-hour January meeting - a meeting that had no discussion of recent pipe breaks.
Now Juanita Miller has established a new campaign fund and is soliciting contributions. (The State Board of Elections does not list the office she is seeking.) Miller has received a total $4,840 through 1/21/09. Among her contributors are:
Friends of Andrea Harrison, Springdale, MD ($300), the campaign fund of the newest member of the Prince George’s County Council and Montgomery Delegate Herman Taylor ($40) of District 14.
Prem Agarwal of Mitchellville, MD ($100), Miller’s fellow WSSC Commissioner.
The Law Offices of Dana Stebbins, Washington, DC ($100). Stebbins is a lawyer who represents minority contractors and is a Prince George’s County resident. She has contributed $9,249.55 to Maryland politicians over the last decade, including $1,750 to Senate President Mike Miller. Longtime Washington, D.C. columnist Jonetta Rose Barras reports that Stebbins convinced Mayor Anthony Williams to fire a D.C. government manager because he demanded that the city’s Community Development Corporations “perform for the hundreds of millions of dollars they receive from the local and federal governments.”
LLP Management LLC of Temple Hills, MD ($50). LLP Management is an MDOT-certified female contractor and a Prince George’s County-listed minority contractor owned by Larhonde L. Patterson. Patterson is a real estate agent who was fined $200 by the state’s Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation for “failing to include the Homeowner’s Warranty in the terms of the purchase contract.”
Major F. Riddick of Fort Washington, MD ($200). Riddick is a minority contractor who runs food concessions at BWI Thurgood Marshall Airport.
Rajan Natarajan of Burtonsville, MD ($100). Natarajan is the Director of Government Initiatives for Gantech, a minority-owned IT contractor that has done business with many state agencies.
Juanita Miller clearly has admirers in the minority contracting community. At the moment, we do not have evidence that any of the above contributors (other than Agarwal) have performed work for WSSC. If Miller was indeed receiving campaign funding from WSSC contractors, that would be a worthy subject for investigation by the authorities.
Below is a complete list of Juanita Miller’s campaign contributors as of 1/21/09. (Click on the graphic for a larger version.) If any readers can enlighten us about any of them, please contact me through my Blogger profile or leave a comment.
Update: One of our informants claims:
Dorothy F. Bailey is the immediate past district 7 council member in whose district Miller lived. Bailey was replaced (because of term limits) by Camille Exum, daughter of Sen. Exum.
Major Riddick was an aide to a former county executive and has run for county office as recently as 2006.
Sandra Pruitt is an "activist." She led the effort to force out school board member Nate Thomas who was charged with some kind of sexual misconduct with a minor, but never brought to trial or convicted. She is also the driving force behind setting up a second NAACP chapter in the county. She feels the original chapter's president isn't doing the job. Earl Adams (Lt. Gov. Brown's aide) is or was vice president of the original chapter.
Cereta Lee is the PG Register of Deeds. She got the job, despite her lack of qualifications, because Sen. Exum drove out the former incumbent, a well qualified white female attorney doing a good job and demanded that the job go to an African American.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Who Will Call the Question on WSSC?
It has been more than a month since the life-threatening water pipe break on River Road. And while Montgomery County Council Members have begun to raise questions, a solution to WSSC’s problems does not appear in sight.
The basic cause of dysfunction at WSSC is its paralyzed six-member commission. With three members each appointed by the County Executives of Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, the commission has been unable to agree on the selection of a new general manager or on a financing plan for capital improvements. The commission’s failures continue despite the fact that WSSC’s former general manager warned in 2007 that catastrophic pipe failures could explode “like a missile.”
We have already documented the unbelievable behavior of the Prince George's County commissioners. But even if they are someday replaced by competent successors, the counties’ divergent economic interests are a factor in the dispute over capital financing. In February 2008, Montgomery’s commissioners preferred a plan that would charge all customers the same fee, while Prince George’s commissioners wanted to tie capital fees to property values. Each jurisdiction feels the other wants to burden it with an unfair share of capital costs. If a compromise is ever reached, it seems inevitable that the capital plan will be underfunded because of these different points of view.
Since WSSC is a state-chartered, bi-county entity, any changes to the agency’s governance must result from state action. Delegate Brian Feldman (D-15) and Senator Rich Madaleno (D-18), the two chairs of Montgomery’s delegation, are interested in having the Governor appoint a tie-breaking vote to the commission. Delegate Al Carr (D-18) would like to see a seventh commissioner appointed from one of the municipalities in the two counties. Either proposal may break the short-term stalemate over capital financing and perhaps even result in the appointment of a new general manager. But that does not deal with the long-run disagreement between the counties. As the wealthier jurisdiction, Montgomery may be better able to invest more resources in the system than Prince George’s. But because WSSC governance is shared, only two outcomes are possible:
1. The two sides will meet somewhere in the middle on financing rates, thereby shorting capital improvements systemwide.
2. Montgomery will have to pay a greater burden and effectively subsidize improvements in Prince George’s.
Neither of the above outcomes are acceptable to Montgomery residents. And Prince George’s County politicians are already resisting proposals to allow Montgomery to spend more of its own money on its own pipes.
Over the long run, there are three reform options.
1. Bifurcate the system as is the case with M-NCPPC. Some core functions will be shared, but the two counties will finance their pieces of the system separately.
2. Total divorce, with the assets split between the two counties.
3. Sell the system to a private entity.
Privatization should at least be explored, but given Maryland’s political leanings, it almost certainly will not happen. That leaves the two separation options. Either of them would require significant study time by the state and action by the General Assembly. But this issue cannot simply be left to the state. The elected leaders at the county level have an obligation to state their view on what should be done.
And what have they said so far? The Post described County Executive Ike Leggett’s reaction to the River Road pipe break this way:Last month's water main break, which was shown extensively on national television, was the third major disruption to a WSSC pipeline in the past six months. In the days after the River Road flood, Leggett and [Prince George’s County Executive Jack] Johnson pledged to work together.
Attempting cooperation with Jack Johnson is exactly what Ike Leggett did after the last pipe break in Derwood. That effort failed. No general manager was hired. No capital plan was approved. Jack Johnson would rather go on secret trips to Africa than ensure safe water service for his constituents. The only thing worse than failure is repeating failure.
Leggett cautioned against a legislative effort, saying this week that any changes would require a partnership with Prince George's leaders. “You’re not going to change the governance unless you have a collaborative approach,” he said.
The Montgomery County Council has reacted more strongly. Consider these statements from the following Council Members:
Nancy Floreen, Chairwoman of the council’s Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Committee:Montgomery Councilwoman Nancy Floreen, who leads a County Council panel that oversees water infrastructure, said it may be time for the counties to divide the system.
Council President Phil Andrews:
“It’s long been an issue,” Floreen said. “Maybe this is the time to take a long, hard look at going our separate ways.”There is now a real safety threat because of the lack of sufficient infrastructure replacement... It's partly money [but] there also has to be a way to get decisions made by the commission.
Valerie Ervin:The WSSC has been an issue for many years in terms of the governance of this bi-county agency because there are even numbers of representation from Prince George's County and our county -- and there always seems to be a deadlock.
George Leventhal:I do think it’s true that this marriage is not working and we need a divorce.
Marc Elrich:Councilman Marc Elrich (D-At large) of Takoma Park said that he’s interested in splitting the regional water and sewer system between the two counties as soon as possible. “Seems to me we shouldn't be held hostage to their desires on the other side,” he said.
Duchy Trachtenberg:It's time to play some hardball and to legislate or litigate... We are going to have to force a conversation about responsibility.
This is a matter of leadership. And given the explosive nature of the pipe breaks, it is also potentially a matter of life and death. The County Executive must push for dramatic long-term change and not settle for mere “cooperation.” But if he does not take a stand, then the County Council must step up with a common position on long-term structural reform and make their preference known to the state. The clock is ticking until the next giant break. And we the voters are watching.
Friday, January 30, 2009
WSSC Put To Shame By Others In Response To PCCP Crisis
By Wayne Goldstein.
Based on studies, news accounts, and water utility web sites, I have learned that two water utilities stand out in their response to the Prestressed Concrete Cylinder Pipes (PCCP) crisis - the Howard County Bureau of Utilities and the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) - as compared to WSSC. Howard County and WSSC simultaneously experienced PCCP breaks in the '80s and '90s, and even sued the same pipe manufacturer. But the similarity ends there. One of WSSC contractor Pure Technologies research papers, "Acoustic Monitoring of Prestressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe - A Case History" tells what happened:
"In 1995, Howard County’s Bureau of Engineering and Utilities developed a plan for inspection of its water mains constructed of PCCP… Beginning in April 2000, an acoustic monitoring program was implemented on approximately 6000’ feet of this pipeline… Howard County’s Long-Term Plan is to acoustically monitor all the PCCP water mains within the water distribution system. This will provide information regarding the overall condition of the pipes and enable Howard County to determine areas that should be externally inspected or replaced. Acoustic monitoring has allowed pipe evaluation without taking the pipeline out of service and provided data over an extended period of time. Acoustic monitoring has been proven successful in locating failures and Howard County will continue with this program. Acoustic monitoring of 5000 feet of 30-inch PCCP water main in US Route 40 from St. Johns Lane to Dogwood Drive is presently being conducted."
In its 1999 Annual Report, SDCWA stated: "In the early '80s, the Water Authority began experiencing failures in portions of its older, prestressed concrete pipeline. These pipes were constructed as far back as the late 1950s. How the Water Authority responded to these failures represented a significant change in the way the Water Authority inspects and maintains its aqueduct system. In January 1992, the board approved the Aqueduct Protection Program, an inspection, preventative maintenance and repair program that has won accolades from across the U.S. Since 1992, the Water Authority has spent more than $6 million for the inspection and repair work that prevents pipeline failures and unplanned service interruptions… The greatest testament of the Aqueduct Protection Program’s value is its track record: since the program’s inception, no section of inspected pipe has failed."
At a November 2000 meeting, SDCWA voted to "...Award a Professional Services Agreement to Pressure Pipe Inspection Company for $140,000 to Provide Remote Field Eddy Current/Transformer Coupling Inspection Services for Pre-stressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe for the Fiscal Year 2000/2001 Aqueduct Protection Program Shutdowns." In a 12/22/08 press release, Pure Technologies announced that it: "has been awarded a contract for up to [$3] million by …(SDCWA)… The SDCWA contract is for the supply and installation of Pure’s patented SoundPrint® AFO fibre-optic acoustic monitoring system as part of the Water Authority’s Aqueduct Protection Program, and monitoring services for the installation until September 2011. This is the third such contract awarded by the Water Authority to Pure since November 2005. Upon completion of the installation, which is scheduled for January and February 2009, Pure will be monitoring a total of 48 miles of the Authority’s aqueduct system."
Pure Technologies also reported in one of its papers: "Approximately 82 miles of [SDCWA] pipelines are pre-stressed concrete cylinder pipes (PCCP)… Made from a combination of steel and concrete, PCCP appeared highly resistant to corrosion and to provide unparalleled inner pipe strength. However, numerous catastrophic failures have occurred with these pipes worldwide. In response, the Water Authority in 1991 instituted a pro-active 30-year program to reinforce the pipes with steel liners. To date, the Water Authority has relined more than 24 miles of its pipelines. The remaining 58 miles of PCCP are targeted for rehabilitation by 2027, helping ensure a safe and reliable water supply to the region."
What these documents show is that these two water utilities developed a comprehensive approach to PCCP in the early to mid '90s and embraced monitoring technology in 2000 almost as soon as it became commercially available. These programs have never been shut down. Howard County inspects PCCP pipes down to 30 inches. In contrast, last November, there was this news account: "Although the fiber-optic system, which uses computers to monitor when wires inside pipes break, would not have applied to the [48-inch] Derwood pipe, the system would be beneficial for monitoring large pipes close to residential areas, WSSC officials said."
WSSC, in a briefing to the full County Council earlier this week, stated that it began inspections in 1981 when it: “first used Visual and Sounding to identify deteriorated areas and delaminations.” This detailed briefing bore little resemblance to the minimal information provided to a Council committee last year about the Derwood break. This week, I also learned that WSSC may have been more proactive in PCCP inspections and repairs and replacements than the public record appeared to show, making use of Sonic/Ultrasonic Pulse Echo to identify micro-cracking in the mid-1990s and using electromagnetic testing in 2001. WSSC may even have begun a comprehensive physical inspection program of its larger PCCP ahead of both Howard County and SDCWA. WSSC used steel in 1997-98 to line about four miles of its largest, 96-inch PCCP, similar to SDCWA’s chosen solution for all of its PCCP. Another four miles of PCCP in various large diameters was replaced in 1989 and in 1997.
Despite such responsible behavior, WSSC allowed long periods between visual inspections. According to the just-released records, there were eight years where little if any PCCP were inspected: 1982, 1983, 1992, 1993, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005. There were also seven years where more than 7 miles – 37,000 feet - of PCCP were inspected annually: 1988, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2007, 2008. There have been three cycles of years of little inspection followed by years of much inspection since 1981.
While various forms of “non-destructive testing” (NDT) first began with inspections in 1997, it does not appear to have been routinely used after that. This record also shows that WSSC still waited seven years longer than Howard County and SDCWA to make use of electronic inspection. While it did first use electronic inspection in 2001, it inspected less than two miles of PCCP that year and didn’t use it again until 2007. WSSC also failed to either inspect or monitor PCCP in diameters below 54 inches even though the smaller diameter PCCP is inspected and monitored by the other water utilities. To its credit, I found a few comments like this: "The sonic/ultrasonic nondestructive testing of the WSSC 96" pipe demonstrated much more good pipe exists than had been anticipated; this saved tens of millions of repair dollars." Pure Technologies also praises WSSC's approach to repairing PCCP where warranted, rather than doing indiscriminate relining or replacement regardless of remaining useful life.
In physically and electronically inspecting 4.7 miles - 24,816 feet - or 1551 sixteen-foot PCCP sections in the fall-winter of 2006-07, WSSC replaced 13 failure-prone sections, less than 1% of the total PCCP. In inspecting 5.8 miles - 30,624 feet - or 1914 sixteen-foot PCCP sections in the spring of 2007, WSSC replaced 2 and repaired 7 failure-prone sections, less than 1/2 of 1%. Internal acoustic fiber optic monitoring cable was also installed for all 10.5 miles. WSSC told the council this week that it costs $250,000 per mile to physically inspect PCCP and then set up the continuous electronic monitoring. It wants to do only twelve miles per year for just $3 million, claiming it doesn’t believe it could get more than that. WSSC also stated that it could do as much as 18 miles per year without disrupting water usage. Does anyone believe that either county would refuse to authorize an additional $1.5 million per year to inspect and install monitoring equipment in an additional six miles of PCCP to perhaps prevent the equivalent of another River Road break?
WSSC has been guilty of too little, too late over the last 28 years in doing regular inspections. It continues to rely on past assumptions about PCCP size and age, that have been shown to be incorrect, in order to save relatively small sums on inspection costs. It then is forced to waste money when PCCP fails. The $500,000 cost to WSSC for the 255 million gallons of water lost in the Derwood and River Road pipe breaks alone could have instead paid to inspect and to install continuous monitoring equipment in two miles of PCCP. Until this week, WSSC appears to have almost concealed what it has done right over the years, a far cry from agencies like MCPS that often take credit where little is due.
While WSSC is now far more straightforward than it was just a few months ago in the aftermath of the Derwood pipe break, I believe that the governments and ratepayers of both counties should exercise greater oversight of all of its operating and CIP budget requests to help WSSC maintain its newfound virtue. This means asking questions to get specific information about the sizes and ages of all broken water pipes, PCCP or not, and the ages and break history of all water pipes proposed for replacement. We need this factual information to decide for ourselves how much WSSC really needs for future infrastructure repair and replacement.
Whatever we decide, we can't punish lower income residents in both counties, in good times or bad, with flat fees for billing or infrastructure instead of instituting aggressively progressive rates that can also motivate greater water conservation efforts. We need to continuously monitor WSSC for potential catastrophic failure as much as we need to demand that WSSC continuously monitor all of its PCCP for potential catastrophic failure.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Can Anyone Believe What WSSC Says About Its PCCP?
By Wayne Goldstein.
In my New Year's Day column, I quoted from news accounts from the '90s that described WSSC's experiences with major breaks of its Prestressed Concrete Cylinder Pipes (PCCP) as early as 1975, a problem that became much more widespread in the '80s. What has WSSC done to deal with this problem in the decades since? WSSC apparently has been unable or unwilling to provide any detailed information to the government or to the rate-paying public about those efforts. However, in the September/October 2008 issue of Underground Infrastructure Management Magazine, WSSC was far more forthcoming, although not necessarily more accurate nor entirely truthful:
"Given its size and stature, [WSSC] cannot afford to take a reactive approach to maintaining its infrastructure. As a result of several …(PCCP) water transmission main breaks in the early and mid-1980s, WSSC began investigating inspection and testing techniques for PCCP that eventually led to an aggressive and innovative approach to assess the condition of its transmission mains with the intent of preventing future failures and optimizing the pipe-line service life. One area of particular concern was a portion of the Commission’s 400 miles of PCCP installed during the late 1960s and early 1970s."
"WSSC was an early adaptor of non-destructive testing, monitoring and inspection of PCCP. In the late 1980s, WSSC began its PCCP inspection program with internal visual and sounding methods. WSSC researched and worked closely with consultants during the development of the non-destructive testing and monitoring techniques widely used today for PCCP. WSSC’s PCCP program when first established included the inspection of all 60 miles of PCCP water transmission mains 54-inch and greater."
"WSSC is currently working with Pure Technologies and others, to embark on an expanded program to inspect all 140 miles of PCCP 48 inches or larger. According to WSSC, this proactive program is key to the management of these critical assets. By proactively maintaining an understanding of the condition of the transmission mains, WSSC is able to optimize the service life of the pipelines, identify short-term repairs, plan for long-term capital improvements and provide value to ratepayers."
"WSSC uses a combination of visual and sounding inspection, sonic/ultrasonic testing, and electromagnetic inspections to assess the condition of its large-diameter PCCP. The inspection identifies anomalies, areas in need of repair and establishes a baseline condition, which includes estimating the number of broken wires in each pipe section. WSSC uses acoustic monitoring methods to identify and track additional wire breaks. To date, WSSC has inspected all PCCP water transmission mains 54 inches and larger and installed acoustical monitoring equipment for 17 of its 60 miles of PCCP of this diameter."
"…Mike Higgins, regional manager for Pure Technologies, said that WSSC is one of the leaders in the area of large diameter PCCP inspection nationwide. 'A lot of agencies would have replaced or sliplined the pipelines, but WSSC was able to go in and find the problem areas and fixed them to operate the system in a safe manner,' he said. 'The WSSC experience has shown the ability to extend the service life of problematic pipelines.' "
Let's look at the facts to see how accurate this story is. In a response to questions from the Montgomery County Council about the June 2008 break of the 48-inch PCCP in Derwood, WSSC wrote: "It is known in the industry that large diameter PCCP pipelines manufactured in the period from 1960 through early 1970 similar to the one that broke have a proven track record of reliability and do not have high break history." The Derwood PCCP was installed in 1969.
A national study of PCCP breaks published in the spring of 2008 found "a significantly increased rate of failure for pipe installed between 1971 and 1979. Fully 50 percent of the catastrophic leaks and breaks recorded were manufactured or installed between those years." It appears that WSSC fudges the years of greatest concern by at least 2 to 3 years from "the late 1960s and early 1970s" to the 1970s when reporting to the government and to the public as compared to what it tells its water industry colleagues.
What this also means is that the other 50% of PCCP that failed in the national study were manufactured or installed in other years. The River Road PCCP was installed in 1964. It may even be that most or all of WSSC's PCCP was installed in the '60s and '70s, meaning that pipe failures might be from throughout this time period. As I indicated in my last column, the biggest problem with PCCP is the susceptibility of the prestressed wire to corrosion, regardless of its thickness or its year of installation. Once the protective cement coating is breached, it is only a matter of time before the wires start to break. Thicker wires just take longer to break than thinner wires. The result could be that the older PCCP from the '60s with thicker wires could fail in the same time period as the younger PCCP from the '70s with thinner wires.
As for WSSC being an early adaptor of PCCP inspection processes, the record is either scant or contrary. According to the 1996 news account referenced in my last column: "WSSC General Manager Cortez White said yesterday that the utility had developed special imaging equipment to test the integrity of the concrete pipe. White said the section of pipe that blew Tuesday was scheduled to be tested within a year. He said other sections of concrete pipe have been found to be at risk and were replaced without disruption in service to WSSC customers."
Another WSSC General Manager said this at a February 2007 meeting: "Lastly, Mr. Brunhart noted it is time for the six-mile inspection of the PCCP as it had not been done for five to six years." WSSC also noted in its July 2007 Utility-Wide Master Plan Phase 1A – Final Report: "The PCCP inspection program was said to have lagged in recent years, and was felt by the Delphi workshop group to have been beneficial in identifying issues before failure of the pipe. It is recommended that WSSC reinvest in this program, since the consequence of failure of large diameter transmission mains is very high."
There was also this response last month about the River Road PCCP break: "Among the possible causes, they said, was corrosion of metal support wires inside the concrete pipe, which passed its last inspection in 1998, or shifts in the ground beneath it. 'Something has happened in the last 10 years, and we hope to figure that out,' said Gary Gumm, chief engineer for the [WSSC]." Another account stated: "…the pipeline was last inspected in 1998 and was scheduled to be reinspected by 2011."
Apparently, WSSC had a program to inspect 66-inch PCCP like that along River Road as little as once every 13 years. It appears to have inspected some of its largest PCCP every 5-6 years, but then not to have ever inspected "smaller" 48-inch PCCP like the one in Derwood, even 39 years after installation. How does this compare to the development of inspection technologies and programs elsewhere?
Pure Technologies, one of the companies now helping WSSC to inspect and monitor its PCCP, has written a series of research papers about PCCP over the years. According to one such paper: "Research done in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s by the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation investigated the use of continuous acoustic monitoring to track the deterioration of prestressed concrete pipelines. Results from work done at the Agua Fria pipeline in Arizona indicated that deliberate wire cuts generated large distinctive acoustic anomalies, which could be recorded by suitable equipment."
"In 1993, Pure Technologies Inc. began to use continuous acoustic monitoring to track the failure of unbonded post-tensioning strands in concrete buildings and parking structures. The size and complexity of these structures required the development of specialized equipment and software to collect, manage, and analyze the large amounts of data flowing from these sites. These programs, techniques and equipment designs have been applied to the monitoring of prestressed concrete pipe."
"In 1996, Pipeline Acoustic Systems (PAS) of Phoenix, Arizona was awarded a contract to supply a 6,200-ft. hydrophone array and data acquisition system to be deployed at different locations in the pipeline. PAS selected Pure Technologies to design and manufacture the system. A prototype system was developed and first tested in September, 1996. After several design modifications and software enhancements, a functional system was deployed in August, 1997."
A different company wrote this: "Immediately upon organization of Pipeline Technologies Inc. in June 1995, the firm answered a formidable challenge of the pipeline industry to develop a method of determining the structural condition of buried large diameter water pipelines while they remain in service. PTI, parent firm of Pipetech International, conducted a rigorous development program to meet this challenge, resulting in the introduction of acoustic emission technology to the PCCP industry in late 1996. In the decade since its introduction, acoustic emission technology has become the widely used technology of choice for determining the health of PCCP pipelines on every continent throughout the world."
Given that the technology to allow for the continuous monitoring for the sound of wire breaks, first through hydrophones and later through fiber-optics, has been available for at least 12 years, when did WSSC and other water utilities take advantage of it? Tomorrow, I will show the comprehensive approach of other water utilities to monitoring its PCCP, in stark contrast to WSSC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
