News & Publications
Private Hydrant Amendment Act of 2009
Testimony as prepared for delivery
Good afternoon, Chairman Mendelson and the Members of the Committee on Public Safety and Judiciary. My name is George Hawkins and I am the General Manager of the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC WASA). I'd like to thank you for inviting me to submit testimony on the "Private Fire Hydrant Amendment Act of 2009."
Let me begin by saying that DC WASA is proud to be part of the effort to comprehensively update and improve the District's public fire hydrant system, an undertaking that has been championed by this committee. Since the 2007 signing of a Memorandum of Understanding with the District's Fire and Emergency Services Department (Fire and EMS), DC WASA has aggressively worked to complete Phase One of an extensive capital improvement program related to hydrants. Through 2007-2009, DC WASA replaced 3,269 hydrants and completed 14,872 hydrant repairs. Please note that this figure may include multiple service calls to a single hydrant. In addition, we've successfully collaborated with Fire and EMS on a more aggressive inspection program. We continue to seek ways to improve our coordination during fires and to effectively and continuously update the information available to the public and our first-responders. DC WASA recognizes that ensuring the optimal performance of our hydrant and distribution system is absolutely critical to the safety and lives of those in the District and we will continue to work with Fire and EMS and District communities toward that end.
In addition to the extensive public hydrant inventory, there are an estimated 1,300+ private hydrants in the District, which is the issue that brings us here today. Private hydrants provide a vital service to neighborhoods and institutions such as universities and hospitals. In the event of a fire, any hydrant, be it private or public, needs to be accessible and in good working order. DC WASA supports the proposal in this bill prohibiting the approval of any permit or related plan that authorizes a private fire hydrant without an agreement stating who is responsible for the repair, maintenance and replacement of the hydrant. Clear identification of the responsible parties for these systems is crucial to ensuring that they are adequately maintained and that there is a clear channel for responding to any system problems.
Beyond the responsibility for future hydrant installations, this bill states that DC WASA may be responsible for repairs and/or replacement of private hydrants in the event of non-compliance by the owner to complete actions recommended as a result of a Fire and EMS inspection. While ensuring that these repairs are completed is a pressing issue, I would like to discuss a number of operational concerns associated with DC WASA this responsibility. Our concerns are threefold:
- the private infrastructure underlying the hydrant systems,
- right-of-way and access limitations,
- and cost.
On the first issue, providing a fully functional hydrant network means maintaining and repairing problems both with the actual hydrant and within the underlying system. Within the public system maintained by DC WASA, we rely on information about what's below the ground to identify hydrant problems and make sure that we're applying the right fix for the job. Of the approximately 80 hydrants currently considered out-of-service, DC WASA estimates that in 25 percent of those cases, the problem actually lies in the underlying distribution system. In the case of private hydrants, the underlying distribution system is also private. As a result, these systems do not necessarily conform to DC WASA standards—for example, they may use a different diameter pipe or may be built too close to a structure to dig around. Most importantly, these systems are not currently included on DC WASA maps, since they are not part of the public infrastructure and their components are unknown to us. We also do not have any information about maintenance and repairs that may have been undertaken in the years since the initial installation. Therefore, in the event of a break, DC WASA would face an unknown system with components that potentially differ greatly from our own.
In order to effectively repair the problem, we would first have to figure out what is actually in the ground and then would have to secure the necessary parts—not an insignificant challenge. To illustrate the potential difficulties faced in such a scenario, we were recently called upon to assist in a main break on the St. Elizabeths campus—a site with a system outside of DC WASA's infrastructure. Upon arriving, our crews discovered that the ruptured pipe was in increments of 10 and 14 inches. DC WASA pipes, in contrast, are in multiples of three and four—six, eight, twelve inch mains; we do not stock the pipe size that was needed. Our crew located a single piece of 10 inch pipe amidst our pipe inventory and, after an exhaustive search of our contractors' inventory, eventually identified a single stick of 14"pipe in WSSC's inventory the following day. A DC WASA crew made arrangements to pick up this pipe at WSSC and both pipes were delivered to St. Elizabeths in order to make the repair. However, taking on the responsibility of unknown systems in the future could result in two unwanted outcomes. First, that DC WASA artificially inflates its inventory, at great cost, with a wide-range of components we do not typically stock, just in case a private system happens to use them. Second, upon learning of a break, there will be a significant delay in repair while DC WASA both ascertains what system exists in the ground and orders the necessary parts to fix it. Given that this legislation proposes that DC WASA only step in once an owner has failed, this delay would add to an already unacceptably long timeframe for hydrant repair. Resolving the uncertainty about what private distribution systems exist and what they consist of is an absolutely necessary precursor to effective maintenance by any entity.
The second operational concern DC WASA faces is right-of-way and access issues for private property. Given the unknowns surrounding private distribution systems, repairs could entail significant disruption of private property, as DC WASA must ascertain what is in the ground before being able to fix it. In addition, there is a spectrum of potential hydrant problems, all of which have differing impacts on public safety. For example, a hydrant may be sited too low but still be operational, or it may have a blockage that cuts off flow. In both of those cases, a hydrant may be designated by Fire and EMS as out of service. However, the second example presents a more serious and immediate threat to public safety than the first does. Current District Code allows for the Mayor to grant access for repairs in the event of unsafe conditions or public safety considerations. Right-of-way and access issues could be lessened by clarification of the following:
- what out-of-service scenarios fulfill the criteria for access to be granted by the state?
- What is the process by which access would be granted, so as to avoid further delays in responding to the problem?
The third issue we'd like to highlight is that of the cost to District residents. In this case, the impact could fall both on the individual whose hydrant requires repair, as well as District ratepayers or taxpayers. The unknown infrastructure concern outlined earlier means that DC WASA performing repairs will almost certainly be the highest cost option for the responsible owner. Since it is proposed that DC WASA only be responsible as a last-resort, this higher cost may encourage owners to effect repairs using a contractor with knowledge of the system, if possible, thus resulting in a lower cost. If this does not occur and DC WASA does perform the necessary work, we would then also become responsible for collecting the cost of the repairs. An owner who has already shirked the order by Fire and EMS to maintain the system may present a collections challenge. In the worst case scenario, if DC WASA cannot collect on its expended costs, it will have to make up that revenue through rate adjustments in future budgets. We are interested in exploring solutions by which an inherently inefficient response (DC WASA attempting to repair unknown system issues) and the costs incurred therein do not become the responsibility of District ratepayers. Potential options include mandating advance payment or attachments through the real property tax bill similar to the District's "Clean or Lien It" program.
Finally, DC WASA would like to raise two additional points. In Section 2(c), the bill states that DC WASA shall bill the owner up to twice the cost of repair. DC WASA does not, on principle as a public, not-for-profit entity, bill for more than the cost of service provided. In addition, Section 2(d) states that if ownership of a private hydrant cannot be determined, the District will assume ownership. This appears to suggest that the hydrant would then essentially be considered part of the public inventory. If this is to be the case, DC WASA suggests that repair of those hydrants, or of any underlying system problems impacting hydrant performance, would then fall subject to the MOU governing the shared responsibilities of Fire and EMS and DC WASA. Specifically, this creates an additional financial obligation on the part of the District, as reimbursement for the repair or replacement of newly identified public hydrants would be required from the District as it is under the current hydrant program. Given the unknowns of the underlying systems, the additional costs could be more significant than those currently associated with the hydrant program. We would be happy to further explore this particular question, and its cost implications for the District, with both the Council and the relevant executive agencies, for the purposes of clarifying responsibilities.
DC WASA is committed to working with the District and this Committee to ensure that residents, businesses and visitors alike are protected by a functioning, efficient and well-maintained hydrant system. While significant progress has been made on improving the public infrastructure, responsibility for private hydrants has, to date, remained murky. We welcome this effort to clarify responsibilities and protect public safety and we look forward to working with all stakeholders toward solutions for the operational and implementation challenges we have highlighted today. Thank you and I welcome any questions that the Committee may have.