Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DeKalb outlines $1 billion, risk‑based push to replace small‑diameter water lines
Summary
County staff and outside engineering partners told commissioners DeKalb has logged roughly 8,000 water‑main breaks in eight years and has packaged about $1 billion in small‑diameter replacement projects over the next decade, prioritizing work by risk and consequence of failure.
Commissioners on the Public Works & Infrastructure Committee were briefed on DeKalb County’s new risk‑based strategy to replace small‑diameter water mains, a program staff say responds to years of aging infrastructure and frequent breaks.
The presentation, led by county staff and technical partners, emphasized scale: “Those dots actually represent about 8,000 breaks over the last eight years,” presenter Shane Ramarak said, “and that translates roughly to about three breaks a day.” Staff said the county spent about $142 million on replacements over the past five years and has packaged roughly $1 billion in projects through the county’s current capital improvement plan to address the problem over the next decade.
Why it matters: frequent breaks not only inconvenience residents but can reduce system capacity, complicate firefighting hydraulics and trigger regulatory scrutiny. County staff, working with consultants Arcadus Engineering and program managers, said they are moving from a reactive, break‑repair approach to an asset‑management model guided by condition assessments and a likelihood‑and‑consequence framework similar to industry practice.
Staff described how projects are generated and prioritized: project teams assess individual pipe segments for material and age, group segments into neighborhood or corridor projects to preserve hydraulic redundancy, and coordinate timing with other major infrastructure work (staff cited large roadway projects such as the GDOT I‑285 widening as examples of work to avoid or coordinate with). Michael Diaz of Arcadus described the method: “There’s a difference between the water main break that may be occurring in front of a fire station versus something that may be happening in a neighborhood,” Diaz said, explaining that consequence of failure factors into prioritization.
Commissioners pressed staff on procurement and delivery speed. Staff said many small‑diameter replacements are suitable for on‑call, minimal‑design contracts (a “plug‑and‑play” approach) that can accelerate delivery, while larger transmission mains require formal design and alternative procurement; they cautioned that shifting more risk to contractors (for example, by using certain procurement vehicles) tends to raise cost and that contractor capacity can limit how fast projects begin.
Staff also addressed communication and timing: the county tries to notify residents by email and press release for long outages, maintains a 24‑hour line for incidents and plans to improve public notifications. The county emphasized that the CIP list will be updated on a two‑year cycle but that annual condition reviews can reorder project priority; staff said the program maintains contingency funding and packaged projects so the county can move projects forward when necessary.
Next steps: staff will continue annual condition reviews, coordinate project timing with other infrastructure owners, pursue on‑call contracts and return CIP updates to the board as projects mature.
