| ▲ | londons_explore 5 days ago |
| I wonder how much human health is impacted by these leaky pipes. I would like to see a city where pipes are guaranteed leak free, for example by making them double walled with high pressure air in the outer layer, and then seeing if disease levels in the city are lower. |
|
| ▲ | Jenk 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| That double wall thing is a red herring. The water system already protects against intrusion because the water itself exerts pressure on the pipes. Thus leaks are typically of the water getting out and not contamination of the water (most of the time, anyway.) Contamination rarely happens outside of the source of supply, and not somewhere along the pipeline. |
| |
|
| ▲ | nashashmi 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Water pipes are under pressure. So outside water and pollutants do not infiltrate into leaky pipes. Unless you have a water shutoff. But those situations are minimal. |
| |
| ▲ | kjkjadksj 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | City department of water and power was doing some unrelated sewer work but ran into a problem, and shut off water in my neighborhood. No alert to warn of the shutoff, or an alert when it came back on. I found out because I worked from home and noticed the tap wasn’t working and went out to ask the workers on the road if they shut the water off. Chances are virtually the entire neighborhood besides myself and another curious local pedestrian did not flush their taps after that loss of pressure no doubt induced contamination (most of the housing stock is 100 years old so runs into homes are probably in terrible shape). | |
| ▲ | closewith 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Globally they're definitely not minimal, nor are they unlikely even in developed countries. |
|
|
| ▲ | mschuster91 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > I wonder how much human health is impacted by these leaky pipes. Not much, because the water mains pressure keeps nasty things from entering the pipe. However, when the system is depressurized due to a power outage or due to running out of water, nasty things can happen (stuff entering the water pipes, oxygen from air bubbles causing rust), and that's why after such events boil-off orders are issued for a few weeks afterwards until it can be reasonably assumed that all pipes have been flushed and all air bubbles have gone. |
| |
| ▲ | kjkjadksj 4 days ago | parent [-] | | No warning went out when they shut my water off most recently. Certainly no boil off advisory. |
|
|
| ▲ | ocdtrekkie 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| For what it's worth, utilities do care quite a bit about leaks (it's service they are providing which they can't bill for!) and use various testing apparatus to locate leaky parts of underground systems for repair and replacement. Considering the difficulty and cost of repairing underground anything, most of which will be there for many many decades, it's never going to be perfect, but there's a lot of resources that do go into improving this. |
| |
| ▲ | npstr 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Why can't they bill for it? It's not like they are losing money on it, it's simply getting priced into the billable services they provide. Utilities are usually monopolistic, so there is little incentive for them to fix this. | | |
| ▲ | ocdtrekkie 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Fundamentally it is getting priced into services provided to residents as a whole. But you're also forgetting water is generally not provided by a business: Local government is not a profit enterprise, and generally has a lot of pressure to reduce (or limit the rise of, anyways) the bill. I can tell you factually a lot of work goes into measuring leakage, narrowing down what part of the water system it is coming from (most active components are metered in some way, and you can use math to determine where all of the water is not making it through a segment), and correcting those issues where it is cost-effective to do so. | | |
| ▲ | op00to 4 days ago | parent [-] | | For profit water companies are common. Municipalities do not have the capital to replace infrastructure, so private companies like American Water buy the pipes and plants, make the minimum fixes, and jack up rates to pay back investors. |
| |
| ▲ | pixl97 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > so there is little incentive for them to fix this. This kind of stuff is typically death by a thousand cuts. Add on that a lot of the places it leads are under roads that will have to be shut down for weeks/months and you start to realize the costs and impact of fixing these leaks are enormous. | | |
| ▲ | bluGill 4 days ago | parent [-] | | If it is a local leak they can fix it in a few hours but most often the whole pipe leaks (or maybe every joint) and so the whole road needs be redone - thus it is worth waiting for the road to wear out. |
| |
| ▲ | SoftTalker 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | They do, but rates are regulated, they can’t just tack on this month’s pipe replacement expenses. They have to make a guess, propose a rate increase, and get it approved by the relevant regulator or government authority. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | gnopgnip 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Alameda county does something similar for health reasons. All home sales require pressure testing the sewer lateral. With replacement required if it fails before the deed can transfer or a loan is funded. |
| |
| ▲ | SoftTalker 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Does the buyer or seller pay for the repairs? | | |
| ▲ | gnopgnip 4 days ago | parent [-] | | In practice the seller. Because they can’t sell to anyone without fixing it. But it’s negotiable. | | |
| ▲ | SoftTalker 4 days ago | parent [-] | | But the buyer gets the benefit of the repair. I'd probably push for at least a 50:50 split (or, have the line inspected before listing the house for sale, and if it needs repair add that to the asking price). | | |
| ▲ | gnopgnip 3 days ago | parent [-] | | The seller gets the benefit if they can’t sell it to anyone else |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | cyanydeez 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Those leaks are 99.9% one way. |
| |
| ▲ | londons_explore 5 days ago | parent [-] | | That way being 'sewage leaking into the ecosystem '? Followed by ecosystem being collected and put back into drinking water, most of which only has pretty lightweight treatment which doesn't even involve testing for any viruses which have snuck through. | | |
| ▲ | likpok 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The pipes are pressurized, so I would expect there to be limited avenue for infiltration. (Also, for sewage exposure, you’d need two leaks close together. Not impossible or anything, but much less likely. | | |
| ▲ | closewith 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Most of the world relies on drinking water collected from rivers downstream of other inhabited areas, so the impact of pollutants like sewage entering the watercourse does not have to enter a leaky water system to have a disastrous impact. |
| |
| ▲ | bluGill 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Most of the time the local soil is well able to purify the small amount that leaks. Most is key, see and expert on your local conditions for details. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Aromasin 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| We already have this data in a way, from cities where there is no running water and people rely on bottled water for drinking and washing. |
| |
