From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

This post is categorized under Utilities

If all of the "don't know's" and the "no information" and the "none-a-your-beezwax" answers are 3's, then the 1's and 2's are actual assessments, and not guesses. That's bad, right there!

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage.neener.autospammers--regrets.greenspun), August 21, 1999

Answers

The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain....

mud wrestling is my game....

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 21, 1999.

Dancr,

That's a good point, a very good point. It would mean that New York City may or may not have failures in its water and sewage treatment, because the Navy survey dated June doesn't have enough information to make an assessment. The survey dated June did have enough information, for example though, that it assessed Houston as an area where partial failure in water and sewage treatment is probable.

I would call a partial failure in water and sewage treatment a signficant Y2K disruption, and a situation for which some family contingency planning could turn out to be vital.

Is it actually possible that Houston might not have water and sewer service on January 1st? Well, according to this chart from the Senate Y2K committee's hearing on cities, the late June/early July report by the GAO on the 21 largest cities found that Houston had still not made its water/waste treatment systems Y2K ready yet:

http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/990715/chart4_tbl.gif

If my city's water/waste treatment facilities had problems for, let's say, one to two weeks, I know my life would be significantly impacted. And I would be glad that I had done some prepping.

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), August 21, 1999.

i agree and most of the general public seems to miss the fine points. we are currently working on a government "inspired" survey of manufacturers re: y2k compliance. when most of those requested to participate in the survey say "no" or won't give you information on their compliance--to me--THERE IS A GOOD CHANCE THAT IS A SIGN OF SOMETHING YOU MIGHT WANT TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT. even if the Navy data was a swag (and they must have had access to someone/something that provided the data for their swag) -- it still gives one reason for concern. what is also alarming--if that is the cities in which their are navy facilities--there must be many more cities/towns that are in the same shape? god bless the american public. wonder if they will remember next jan when the SHTF who stood up and soothed this over.

-- tt (cuddluppy@whatarewegonnado.com), August 21, 1999.

Also see this thread about cities and Y2K readiness from about a month ago:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0017kE

"My Little Rant"

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), August 21, 1999.

THIS is the part that leaves me wondering, too, inspite of the positive "spin" put on this when it got into the media mainstream. Why would the Navy (and I assume all the rest of the DOD) have instructions to obtain this info? Because it is their mission to be prepared and operational at all times, and they needed to know this info to do so; they needed to know the TRUTH from these utilities. They needed to create and implement back up plans for their equipment and personnel, no small deal. If the MILITARY asks you to tell them the truth, and you believe that your answers will be used to help maintain preparedness, won't most citizens/utility personnel be inclined to give them their best info? You may not be candid with the media or local user who calls looking for problems, but I would hope you wouldn't lie to the people who are responsible for running the local defense bases. Even if the concept of National Security doesn't come to mind, you do live in this locale if you work at this utility, and issues of self-preservation might lead you to tell the truth, realizing that the military could be helpful for maintaining order/contingency plans in your area. I would hope that the Navy, and all the other branches, would not accept useless info as the basis for making critical plans to protect their equipment and personnel, and state of readiness, and then put it in this survey. I also find it ludicrous to think that anyone would use the title of absolute failure likely.... and then list major cities under it, when all they meant to convey was "we aren't getting any straight answers from these people, so we don't know what to tell you about these locations". What? You can't design another column for that category, or just change the title so that it says what it means?

I also don't think this was leaked misinformation. First of all, they couldn't claim that this survey was a fake, because it WAS actually out there for sometime, and lots of military personnel saw it (which is how Lord got it, I imagine... it wasn't classified as we have heard... but more like an internal "heads up" for its people). The only thing they could say was "it doesn't mean what you think it means ... it was based on meaningless information, the titles don't mean what they say, and if you had asked us, we would have told you that we don't know, and can't know what to expect anymore than you can, for any locale anywhere in the world." That's essentially what I think their spin message amounts to; no confirmations of our fears, no reassurances that they are unfounded. The DOD, like the rest of us, has to base its preps on the self-reporting of each utility, and how much confidence we place in those self-reports. It seems everyone is hearing what they want to hear in that spin message; but I can't understand how anyone got "no problems, don't worry, everything is under control" from it. I'm outside of Baltimore and I sure didn't.

-- Kristi (KsaintA@aol.com), August 21, 1999.

I started a previous thread "Let's Play a Game: Remove the 3's" that addresses just this issue. I have not had a chance to analyze the results of the Navy report without "unkown" results, but would TRULY appreciate it if someone would do just that.

I doubt the picture will be pleasant.

R.

-- Roland (nottelling@nohwere.com), August 21, 1999.

We know what WE know about this. Until the plug is pulled on the Klinton Spin Cycle, nobody else will know. It's rather like being tied to a chair, gagged, as you watch a killer sneaking up on an innocent victim........

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 21, 1999.

Kristi,

I agree with your note completely. I was just getting ready to post something like this when I read yours. I kept thinking abt the papers all night and the spin trying to figure it out. The thing that kept coming to mind was..if the navey called me and wanted to know info about my company I sure as heck wouldn't put my hiney on the line and lie to them! If someones job was on the line and they didn't want to lie maybe they just ignored the questions hoping they would all go away.

-- Moore Dinty moore (not@thistime.com), August 21, 1999.

Apparently the Navy assessment came from actual face to face interviews and inspections and not Happy Face letters in lawyereese. (This contrasts from many other lists produced by industry-self assessment without independent audit or by simple phone or return questionaire type surveys.)

Hmmm -- I seem to recall that the original concept of "Community Conversations" was for the public to have the opportunity for a face to face interview with utilities, government and business reps. to ascertain the extent of any problems "on the local level." I really believe that it was intended to unfold as in the following http://www.oregonlive.com/news/99/08/st081819.html (Article by Steve Woodward, The Oregonian -"This rural community is Y2K ready"

Unfortunately, the "conversations" have become just another worthless orchestrated gubmint "dog and pony" to sooth the savage breast.

I would like to share with you a story that I received on my e-mail last week. Apparently, some federal agency in New England was supposed to hold "public hearings" to gather testimony on a controversial proposed public land use. They managed the input away from controversy by running it in an "open house" format. In this format, agency folk gave lectures in stations around the room to groups of the public on the various alternatives being considered. Actual testimony or input into the proposal was simultaneously collected in private on a one by one basis with a recorder.

A large group attending the meeting did not find this acceptable. They gathered chairs in the standard meeting format for a hearing and proceeded to deliver their public input in front of the audience of their fellow citizens. They intruded into the process and self-governed in the open. The official in charge had a fit and would not record the testimony. Finaly, I recall, she gave up. Other "open houses" that were subsequently scheduled in the area were held in the tradition of the New England township. (I visualize the Norman Rockwell picture of the average Joe saying his piece.)

I do realize that many cities are far to large to have such a meeting. Where smaller community groups have formed, they are often getting stonewalled by the same dog and pony as the larger groups.

In my opinion, the significance of the Navy report is that the Navy has enough clout in many of the mid-sized cities to get an interview and opportunity to inspect. The Navy also has some technical expertise at its disposal to ask the right questions and dig underneath the veneer with which industry and local government has glossed over the issue. They (unwittingly) serve in lieu of meaningfull citizen oversight as the independent audit. The Navy report can now be used by citizens to have some real "community conversations" with those local cities on the list. Take Houston, for instance. I believe the city says that water and sewer are y2k-ok. Both the Navy and GAO assessments say "not." I would say that this provides the opportunity to open the issue up for some discussion that will most likely get behind the stonewall veneer previously presented by city officials.

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), August 21, 1999.

In Waco,TX, the (alleged) Navy report shows water, gas, electric as ok. Shows sewage treatment as not ok. The City of Waco says re: sewage treatment "we're 'ready'".

Good news? Bad news? Who knows?

-- mommacarestx (harringtondesignX@earthlink.net), August 21, 1999.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0017kE

[snip]

[Fair Use: For Educational/Research Purposes Only]

Friday July 16 1:31 AM ET

Big U.S. Cities Slow On Y2K Readiness

By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Many big U.S. cities -- including Los Angeles, Chicago and Washington -- are leaving themselves scant time to complete preparations for possible year 2000-related computer glitches, the audit arm of Congress said Thursday.

In addition, nine states are ``behind'' in efforts to ensure their most critical systems do not fail when the year 2000 dawns, said the head of a Senate panel monitoring the issue.

The nine -- which reported having completed work on less than 70 percent of their most important systems -- are New Hampshire, Ohio, Alabama, Louisiana, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, California and Hawaii.

On a local level, only 55 percent of the smallest counties surveyed -- those with a population below 10,000 -- say they have countywide emergency plans to cope with possible 2000-related disruptions to vital services, the National Association of Counties reported.

At issue are fears that some computers may crash or scramble data by misreading 2000 as 1900, the result of old space constraints that pared the date field to two digits.

Any such glitches, known as Y2K problems, could disrupt the provision of water and waste treatment, emergency services, transportation systems, city government services and the operation of public buildings among other services.

The problem could also boggle systems that hinge on date-sensitive microchips, such as traffic signals, radio communications and 911 emergency services that rely on global positioning systems.

Dallas and Boston were alone among the 21 biggest U.S. cities to report completion of efforts to deal with the so-called Y2K problem, the General Accounting Office said. The GAO is the audit and investigative arm of Congress.

Nine cities -- New York; Houston; Philadelphia; San Diego; San Jose, California; Indianapolis, Indiana; Jacksonville, Florida; Memphis, Tennessee; and Milwaukee -- said they expected to complete preparations by Sept. 30.

The remaining 10 -- Los Angeles; Chicago; Phoenix; San Antonio, Texas; Detroit; San Francisco; Baltimore; Columbus, Ohio; El Paso, Texas; and Washington -- said they expected to be ready by Dec. 31.

Joel Willemssen, head of a GAO arm that tracks information systems, voiced concern about the laggards. He made his comments in a letter released at a hearing of the Special Committee on Y2K issues.

``Completing Y2K activities in the last months of the year increases the risk that key services will not be Y2K-ready in time for 2000 because there will not be enough time to deal with unanticipated complications,'' Willemssen said.

``Given the amount of Y2K work remaining to be done in the last months of the year, contingency plans are critical to ensure that cities will continue to provide key services through the year 2000 date change,'' he added.

The Senate panel displayed a chart showing that only 43 percent of the 21 cities' key systems were said by the cities themselves to be ready as of July for the date change.

The GAO carried out the study by interviewing city officials by telephone from June 28 to July 9.

Sen. Robert Bennett, a Utah Republican who heads the special Y2K committee, said he feared that many state and local governments were ``leaving little room for testing, contingency planning and unexpected problems.''

``I hope these statistics aren't as bad as they appear,'' he said in a written statement.

``Only very efficient executive-level management and contingency planning can sustain us through the upcoming historic date change,'' added panel Vice Chairman Sen. Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[snip]

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), August 21, 1999.

The July 15th Senate hearing on local and state and government preparedness: http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/990715/

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), August 21, 1999.

Kristi - excellent comments! Marsh - excellent comments!

sdb

-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@Prodigy.net), August 21, 1999.

It is a violation of Federal Law to "deliberately mislead" the Armed Services as to your (company, factory, farm, etc) readiness to supply items considered vital to the continuance of the agency involved. It is NOT against the law to mislead the general populace if by doing so no individual gain is accomplished by the official.

This is why the utilities probably didn't lie to the Navy (at least the ones that answered). If they did lie and there wasn't total chaos, the government that was left would prosecute them and use them as scapegoats for what did happen. "See, we tried to protect you but these scumbags lied to us. We had no idea this was coming at us/you."

BTW, these laws date back to the First World War and were enforced during WWII and the Korean War but not VietNam...wonder why?

-- Lobo (atthelair@yahoo.com), August 22, 1999.

Dancr,

Quick Note: Recategorizing thread under...

Military/Pentagon Papers/Hot Topics (New)

Diane
TBY2K Sysop


-- Diane J. Squire (y2ktimebomb2000@yahoo.com), August 22, 1999.

Here's a link to the GAO's report on its survey conducted in late June/early July on the Y2K readiness of large American cities:

http:// www.gao.gov/corresp/AI99246R.PDF

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), August 22, 1999.

Sorry about the typo. Here's the link again:

http://www.gao.gov/corresp/AI99246R.PDF

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), August 22, 1999.

Linkmeister, (I still have a hard time not calling you by your other name!) :-) last December there was a huge "fight" in Houston city government. Controller Sylvia Garcia wanted to audit the city's computer systems to see if they were Y2K compliant. Mayor Lee Brown said, "No! That is ridiculous and a waste of taxpayer money!" One of the biggest "arguments" was about the water system. Controller Garcia stated on the local news, "There WILL be water outages!"

I can only hope that a LOT of progress has been made. The mayor doesn't seem to want anyone to know. Hmmm... Glad I'm outside the city!

-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), August 22, 1999.

Anyone remember the movie "Rear Window"?

Sometimes I feel like Jimmy Stewart.

-- Wilferd (WilferdW@aol.com), August 22, 1999.