Failing to protect
September 11, 2008 By: Brian Richesson Pit & QuarryOur nation’s infrastructure is in dire shape. If this year’s flood coverage following the Midwest’s 30-plus deadly levee breaks isn’t convincing, think back a year or so ago. Just last summer, the collapse of the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis left many pondering the safety of the nation’s highways and byways. And who can forget the shocking images of post-Katrina New Orleans?
Construction attorney Barry B. LePatner said America has not done nearly enough in response to these disasters – and that does not bode well for the future.
“Each of these infrastructure breakdowns could have been prevented,” said LePatner, coauthor of “Structural & Foundation Failures” and author of “Broken Buildings, Busted Budgets: How to Fix America’s Trillion-Dollar Construction Industry.”
“Take the Midwest floods, for instance,” he said. “In 1993 the same areas experienced massive flooding that resulted in over $10 billion in damage as well as loss of life. The current flooding has cost $1.5 billion, and that number is sure to grow.
“It makes you wonder what went wrong,” he continued. “Why weren’t proper measures taken to keep this type of flooding from happening again? Who dropped the ball – and why were they allowed to drop it? We as a society need to ask these questions, not to point the finger of blame, but to make certain that what was avoidable can be prevented in the years to come.”
To pinpoint a common problem in each of these infrastructure failures, examine the systems used to identify needed repairs and to allocate funds for infrastructure remediation, said LePatner. Since the 2005 National Transportation Act, states are allowed to do what they choose with the money given to them by the federal government. For the first time, the federal government has stepped back from establishing national guidelines for the design and maintenance of critical infrastructure facilities.
“Deferral of money makes infrastructure repair a losing battle,” LePatner said. “After all, allocating minimal amounts to keep a failing bridge or a levee in status-quo condition is just plain wrong when facing the inordinate rebuilding costs and economic damage that will result after it fails and causes huge devastation. Post-infrastructure failure costs are always astronomical – in terms of dollars and human lives – and far outweigh the costs of any preventive measures that could have been taken.”
Inaccurate statistics
Stop using inaccurate statistics as justification for not spending the necessary monies on infrastructure. In some locations in the Midwest, the recent flooding and that which occurred back in 1993 was designated as “500-year flooding.” Despite popular belief, this does not mean such floods happen once every 500 years, but that they have a 1/500 (or 0.2 percent) chance of happening in a year.
According to a recent Kansas City Star story, if FEMA determines that a levee can withstand a 100-year flood – or a flood that has a 1 percent chance of happening in a given year – then the area that levee protects is not considered to be in a flood plain. This designation means federal flood insurance isn’t required for residents who live in the area.
“These areas are flooding more and more frequently,” LePatner said. “Despite that fact, officials from organizations like the Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA like to shirk responsibility by saying they couldn’t have predicted the severity of the flooding. That may be true, but what they can control is how risk is assessed in these areas. Some of the methods being used for risk assessment – like floodplain maps – are outdated and inaccurate. Money needs to be allocated so that risk can be reassessed based on current circumstances so that levees can be built up and strengthened where they need to be.
“The bottom line is that people need to know if there are areas where they shouldn’t build their homes or establish their businesses,” he added. “Relying on inaccurate information to make these decisions puts families and businesses at risk and extends the potential for high costs in damages in the future.”
'Real costs'
Start calculating “real costs” when making decisions regarding the long-term impact of potential disasters. Needed infrastructure repairs are often ignored because the money it would take to make them in the short term a) isn’t easily available or b) would restrict the amounts of money politicians could spend in areas more favorable for them. But what happens when you look long term – to future disasters? Suddenly, you realize the costs of infrastructure remediation pales in comparison to the future costs of ignoring it.
“Let’s use the levee breaks and flood wall breaches that resulted from Hurricane Katrina as an example,” said LePatner. “Before Katrina struck, it would have taken an estimated $10 billion to repair the levee system so that it could withstand such a storm and protect most but not all of the New Orleans metro areas. But that’s not the end of the story: You must also take into account that New Orleans’ population has been reduced by nearly 50 percent, and trade and commerce in the area may never fully recover.
“The point is that we must start considering all of the ‘what ifs’ related to our failing infrastructure,” he added. “Katrina should have served as an example that ‘hoping nothing happens’ is not an acceptable course of action. Anyone who truly took the long view would quickly see that it’s almost always a terrible mistake to let infrastructure repair needs slide.”
LePatner referred to a recent report from the American Counsel of Engineering Companies showing that California estimates it is losing at least $15 billion a year in loss of production due to the lack of necessary spending to repair the state’s infrastructure.
“State governments should take into account how much they are losing by avoiding the repairs their infrastructure needs,” he said. “Money is being lost whether there is a disaster or not; the only thing that differs is how much money is lost.”
Expert recommendations
Force politicians and other government officials to act on expert recommendations given to them. The nation’s infrastructure is frequently inspected, but recommendations for repairs often fall on deaf ears or get held up due to lack of funding. The I-35 bridge is a prime example.
According to a recent investigative report commissioned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and compiled by the firm Gray Plant Mooty, MnDOT hired outside consultants to a) assess the fatigue life and fatigue cracking in the bridge and b) determine whether it was necessary to add redundancy to the bridge, providing extra support to the original structure, as a safety precaution. Neither was accomplished.
According to the report, MnDOT initially recognized the need for redundancy but later focused on the fatigue analysis. Ultimately, the bridge did not receive any materially different treatment than it had historically, and redundancy was not added.
“It turns out a bent gusset plate was photographed and filed in 2003, but none of the inspectors or MnDOT officials who looked at the photo noticed,” LePatner said. “As it turns out, the bending of multiple plates is what caused the collapse of the bridge. If the repairs and inspections above had been carried out as planned, perhaps the bent gusset plate would have been noticed and the bridge could have been closed to protect the public.”
According to the investigative report, as a result of the bridge collapse that happened because these repairs weren’t made, “Lives were shattered … so too was confidence in the [state’s] bridges.” Public faith in government collapses with any fallen bridge.
LePatner noted how fixing infrastructure problems that could lead to loss of human life is compulsory – not optional. “We should create an independent system that requires that monies are used as designated and which then oversees the system to ensure that projects get completed as planned,” he said. “It should not be earmarked money or pork-barrel spending, but a non-discretionary spending item that must go toward its intended purpose.”
Please send any technical comments or questions to our webmaster.