Water loss control and long term efficiency - who is ultimately responsible?
Here we are on water loss day 2024 once again contemplating how to combat water loss in a sustainable manner. I have been doing this for more than 40 years and have progressed from technical to managerial to ownership roles along the way. We're all undertaking a part of the solution, or are we?
We talk about; training our frontline operators, equipping them with the latest technology equipment, preparing short, medium and long term plans, preparing bankable projects, regulation and so on and that is all good and necessary. But that's where it starts getting a bit more fuzzy for me.
Who controls the budgets, what is more important to do with that budget? The push and pull of how budgets are really utilized, whether at water company level, municipal level, state level or national level affects the continuity of all of the other good stuff we do with water loss control. A shift in political emphasis can stop a project before it starts.
Water is the second most vital need for the human body after air, how can we ensure our water loss projects continue even during political change, how can we ensure our water loss projects take top priority for any governing body?
Diretor Técnico | EXAQUA.com.br. Professor | EEP/FUMEP.
3 个月Great, Julian T.! I have seen in many new contracts some higher Capex at beggining and lower supply flows and lower Opex at the end of contract, reducing exploration expenses due to loss reduction. There are tariff subsidies to distribute it equally if there is a strong regulation and a mature C level to conduct the process. I could add political stability to discussion, since if all plans changes each 4 years, it is very difficult to achieve
Diretor Técnico | EXAQUA.com.br. Professor | EEP/FUMEP.
3 个月Fully agreed, Julian T.! C level commitment + regulation (or regulation + C level commitment) may be part of answer