MAKING BUBBLES ON THE WATER

A water utility hired a man as the distribution superintendent of its drinking water treatment plant. The utility agreed to rent to the employee a house owned by the utility located on a portion of the treatment plant site. The house apparently was not separated from the plant by fencing. Visitors to the house had to enter the plant site through the single gated entry, which was monitored by a plant operator and security cameras.

During a family gathering at the house, hosted by the employee, one of the guests was bitten by a dog that another guest had brought. The injured guest sued both the utility and the employee. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the utility was not liable. The court reasoned that the utility did not own or have control over the dog, and did not have control over the residence. (Howle v. Aqua Illinois, Inc., 2012 IL.App(4th)120207)

This October, 2012 court decision got me thinking that I have not seen much recent discussion about security in the water and waste water utility industry. The events of 9-11 caused water utilities to rush into place various security measures, ranging from armed guards to electronic monitoring and fencing. Then utilities were required to prepare and submit vulnerability assessments of their facilities. Subsequently, utilities became aware that many of enacted and proposed security measures came with high capital or operating costs, not easily recoverable in rates.

Recently, a television documentary featured the life story of a man who as a young boy loved to go fishing with friends at a rural river. His pals would catch loads of fish. But, he never caught any. All he did, he said, was to make bubbles on the water with his line.

I wonder whether, and to what extent, water utility security measures really are effective or are utilities merely making bubbles on the water with their efforts. Even where fences, gates, locks, cameras and monitors have been installed, are all vulnerabilities realistically addressed? Even when access to facilities is screened, nevertheless such access can create security risks by reason of information about a facility that a visitor receives, whether visual or in the form of documents.

By analogy to the Illinois decision discussed above, a utility could enhance its security with old fashion "junk yard dogs." If such dogs were to bite an invited visitor, a court likely would reach a different conclusion. However, if a utility relied primarily on dogs for security, the person bitten might wind up to be the utility itself, who had only made bubbles on the water.