Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Here's the thing: maintenance of existing infrastructure that serves existing residents is almost entirely paid for by astronomical "impact fees" paid by new developments. In the East Bay, 85% of EBMUD's maintenance (not capital!) budget is funded from impact fees. These can be really high. Any new dwelling in the East Bay pays a minimum of $26000 for water capacity and a minimum of $4100 for wastewater capacity. It's a big pyramid scheme and the existing residents better get a clue and permit some new construction, or the public utility districts are going to have to change their strategy and get all that money from annual assessments on existing properties.



So, is the existing infrastructure well maintained in your opinion and adequate for existing use?


That the SFPUC's facilities are adequate to water their 2.7 million existing customers seems like a fact which proves itself.


As long as people are getting water, nothing is wrong?

The city is losing 7 million gallons per day in leaks (this also includes firefighting).

Are there alot of fires daily?


So it delivers 97% of the product to the user. Seems pretty good. What is your standard? According to the EPA the typical water system loses 16% to leaks, that means SFPUC is well above the typical system performance.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-04/documents...


Where are you getting 3% loss number from?

It seems to be over 10% is lost, based on the numbers in your prior comment.

As long as most places are leaking more, it is ok? Infrastructure relativism?


The amount of water SFPUC delivers to residential customers in SF is a small portion of the whole system, which serves a large area outside the city.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: