Major Water Main Break in Bowness Area

[kevman]

If water restrictions are here to stay I'd rather see limits in place than the staged restrictions. Limits are easier to enforce since we all have a meters and limits don't rely on your neighbour reporting you. They also let the end user decide how they want to use their water.

As it stands now, we can't use a hose for some of our garden/lawn but you can fill an entire personal swimming pool.

The city is currently using 500 million litres a day or around 333 litres/day per citizen (assuming 1.5 million citizens). I don't know the residential split but lets say every citizen gets 100 litres a day to use how they'd like. This means a family of 4 could average 12 m3/month and still stay within their allocated 100 litres a day. I'd take that deal in heart beat and happily water our garden/lawn.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by kevman

If water restrictions are here to stay I'd rather see limits in place than the staged restrictions. Limits are easier to enforce since we all have a meters and limits don't rely on your neighbour reporting you. They also let the end user decide how they want to use their water.

As it stands now, we can't use a hose for some of our garden/lawn but you can fill an entire personal swimming pool.

The city is currently using 500 million litres a day or around 333 litres/day per citizen (assuming 1.5 million citizens). I don't know the residential split but lets say every citizen gets 100 litres a day to use how they'd like. This means a family of 4 could average 12 m3/month and still stay within their allocated 100 litres a day. I'd take that deal in heart beat and happily water our garden/lawn.

Only 12 cubes a month? Get outta here with your communist nonsense. I can't survive on that.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Leondros

Would you say that strategy is working given that 3 years later water loss has increased and every year after that strategy was implemented reports have been flagging concerns on water loss?

Considering that you have it backwards and three years later water loss had decreased by 15%, yes.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by surferguy

Dig up all the pipes now!

Why is there so much construction! Stupid city!

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Why is there so much construction! Stupid city!

I think the problem is when you just leave things until they fail you end up with just as much construction fixing breaks, and have a lower-quality system as well. Unfortunately since we're way behind, there would be some catch-up required. On the plus side, since we're coming off a big emergency and the UCP will be looking to buy Calgary votes I think there's a good chance we can get the province to pay for it.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Considering that you have it backwards and three years later water loss had decreased by 15%, yes.

In 2019 our water loss was 37%? Where are you seeing this data?

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Good Point, I think we should be looking at the city council that was in power when these faulty lines were installed!

Gondek was born by that time, right? Don't let her off the hook so easily.

What did she do, as a child, to prevent this boondoggle? Nothing. Exaaaaactly.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

Gondek was born by that time, right? Don't let her off the hook so easily.

What did she do, as a child, to prevent this boondoggle? Nothing. Exaaaaactly.

Damned Boomers! I'm telling ya' its all their fault!

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Leondros

22% line loss is horrendous. For reference if you fixed even 12 -15% of that you likely gain an extra month of total city water useage during peak summer months. This needs to be addressed.

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

It's worth noting however that BILD Calgary is a lobby group run by some of the worst possible people you could imagine (land developers and home builders) https://bildcr.com/about-us/2024-202...-of-directors/

I would assume their interest is less altruistic and more about getting that bag

Originally Posted by Torture

Oh GOD. Look at all those horrible people. Even worse than rapists, serial killers, and pedophiles!

Are these people lying about the 22% loss? How much is that costing the city (us) every ####ing year?

Why is the first reaction to attack these people/to dismiss the issue? Is "getting the bag" a one time cost to fix an going issue where we are losing nearly a quarter of our water?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Leondros

Would you say that strategy is working given that 3 years later water loss has increased and every year after that strategy was implemented reports have been flagging concerns on water loss?

I would suggest that this is a result of the program. As they get better at measuring leaks you find more leaks.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Leondros

In 2019 our water loss was 37%? Where are you seeing this data?

Just a math note 22%/.85 =25.8%. So a 15% reduction in water loss is a 3-4% in the % of water loss.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Are these people lying about the 22% loss? How much is that costing the city (us) every ####ing year?

Why is the first reaction to attack these people/to dismiss the issue? Is "getting the bag" a one time cost to fix an going issue where we are losing nearly a quarter of our water?

My concern is more centered around BILD framing this as "we've been telling the city about this for years!" when the city of course, has known about this for years.

A lobby group's motivations, being either to get contracts for their members or oust the current council/mayor in favor of more sprawl-friendly candidates, should be questioned considering most of them aren't involved in civil infrastructure of this manner at all, since they're downstream.

You can place a lot of blame of Calgary's sprawl-incurred infrastructure issues on the over-bearing influence companies like Brookfield, Jayman, Homes by AVI, Mattamy, Melcor, etc. had during the Bronconnier years.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Are these people lying about the 22% loss? How much is that costing the city (us) every ####ing year?

Why is the first reaction to attack these people/to dismiss the issue? Is "getting the bag" a one time cost to fix an going issue where we are losing nearly a quarter of our water?

This is a pretty common issue in cities across North America. There are a lot of water pipes across cities, many of them are old. Calgary is not alone in this.

And they have — all across Canada, wasting millions of tax dollars already invested in making that water safe to drink and trying to get it to every tap. In some municipalities, there have been estimates of water loss as high as 35 or 45 per cent. A 2009 study said leaky pipes cost Ontario 25 per cent of its drinking water — enough to fill 131,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools and equal to a loss of $700 million a year.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/city-...lars-1.1048035

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by GGG

Just a math note 22%/.85 =25.8%. So a 15% reduction in water loss is a 3-4% in the % of water loss.

Duh - good call, thanks. I read it has a % of total gross water production rather than a reduction of the loss.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Torture

This is a pretty common issue in cities across North America. There are a lot of water pipes across cities, many of them are old. Calgary is not alone in this.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/city-...lars-1.1048035

Right, I don't want to seem like it isn't a unicorn just in Calgary but surely something that we can reasonably look into. #### I mean a no good place like Edmonton can do that much better? And the problem costs us tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars every year - seems like something to check into without just dismissing it out of hand with an ad hominem.

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

My concern is more centered around BILD framing this as "we've been telling the city about this for years!" when the city of course, has known about this for years.

I guess don't really care who gets any kind of "credit". And isn't this even worse consider the last ####ing month? I'm way more interested in why the #### it's been left like this. If the answer is "Well, lots of people have this problem. Oh well, clearly can't do anything about it." - that's pretty ####ing stupid when you have a major city nearby that clearly can.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Leondros

In 2019 our water loss was 37%? Where are you seeing this data?

No, to put it another way, water loss in 2022 was 85% of what it was in 2019.

Again, they are addressing it.

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

My concern is more centered around BILD framing this as "we've been telling the city about this for years!" when the city of course, has known about this for years.

The funniest part is people immediately moved to blaming Gondek/Council/Nenshi and suggesting the city was ignoring the issue when the CEO himself even had to admit the following:

“They have a water loss reduction plan that they are pursuing, and they’ve made some progress on that. We encourage them to continue refining that plan.”

Even “I’ve been writing letters about this for years!” guy knew he couldn’t leave out that they’ve had a plan they’ve been successfully pursuing for years without looking like a dork.

2019 was the last plan. A minimum effort google search in the top shows a report from Alberta Municipalities talking about efforts Calgary made in 2010 to address water loss. The same effort would immediately show that water loss is an issue everywhere and that Calgary’s numbers are not unique in North America, Canada, or even Alberta.

I’m trying to imagine how quickly someone would have had to turn their brain off to go with “Ungh Gondek bad!” on this. Maybe it was never turned on.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Right, I don't want to seem like it isn't a unicorn just in Calgary but surely something that we can reasonably look into. #### I mean a no good place like Edmonton can do that much better? And the problem costs us tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars every year - seems like something to check into without just dismissing it out of hand with an ad hominem.



I guess don't really care who gets any kind of "credit". And isn't this even worse consider the last ####ing month? I'm way more interested in why the #### it's been left like this. If the answer is "Well, lots of people have this problem. Oh well, clearly can't do anything about it." - that's pretty ####ing stupid when you have a major city nearby that clearly can.

They have been looking into it, and addressing it, which is how they’ve been reducing it.

The fact that you still don’t understand this when it’s been explained to you clearly is, as some might say, “pretty ####ing stupid.”

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

No, to put it another way, water loss in 2022 was 85% of what it was in 2019.

Again, they are addressing it.



The funniest part is people immediately moved to blaming Gondek/Council/Nenshi and suggesting the city was ignoring the issue when the CEO himself even had to admit the following:

“They have a water loss reduction plan that they are pursuing, and they’ve made some progress on that. We encourage them to continue refining that plan.”

Even “I’ve been writing letters about this for years!” guy knew he couldn’t leave out that they’ve had a plan they’ve been successfully pursuing for years without looking like a dork.

2019 was the last plan. A minimum effort google search in the top shows a report from Alberta Municipalities talking about efforts Calgary made in 2010 to address water loss. The same effort would immediately show that water loss is an issue everywhere and that Calgary’s numbers are not unique in North America, Canada, or even Alberta.

I’m trying to imagine how quickly someone would have had to turn their brain off to go with “Ungh Gondek bad!” on this. Maybe it was never turned on.

100%. This is exactly why BILD being even asked about it feels weird and agenda-based.

Oh for real? A bunch of rich people who would benefit from a more lax council have "measured concerns" with the current council under the guise of caring about the city?

Unprecedented!

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

No, to put it another way, water loss in 2022 was 85% of what it was in 2019.

Again, they are addressing it.

Can you please point me to this data?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Leondros

Can you please point me to this data?

No. But there is this quote:

After the adoption of a new water loss strategy in 2019, Chan said the city successfully cut water loss by 15 per cent over three years, from 337 litres per connection per day in 2019 to 286 litres per connection per day in 2022.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...of%20schedule.

And you’re welcome to dig through the city’s publicly available performance reports to find the Water Treatment and Supply report (same ones that produced the 2020 report you mentioned) staying they had already reduced it by 12% around 2022 and were aiming to reduce by 25% by 2030.