With this sort of flow metrology background, I frequently get inquiries regarding measurement systems for pipeline leak detection systems based on mass or volume balance.
Guess what, there are no large water flow calibration facilities that are capable of performing calibrations with +/-0.1% uncertainty… (I’ve arbitrarily chosen +/-0.1% so that one could realistically do 0.25% leak detection, i.e. to detect, find and patch small leaks before the pipeline erodes to catastrophic proportions, such as happened on Sunset Blvd., and flooded UCLA.)
So there’s something fishy going on — or water managers are just to lazy to take steps that would lead to more efficient supply of water.
In reply, I wrote: There are two main "drivers" (or lack thereof) for monitoring/blocking water losses: The cost of reducing losses is high relative to the value of the water.
This article may also be useful: Why loss calculations must include opportunity costs He replied: Actually, David, the cost of maintaining water pipeline, finding leaks, and avoiding catastrophic failures (such as UCLA and/or other road closures) is very low if properly planned.
Good measurement means equitable/honest distribution of costs Good measurement allows early detection of leakage at low levels Since most pipeline failures begin as pinhole corrosion pits, such small leaks (when detected) are easily repaired via saddle patches — or pipeline section replacement can be scheduled before catastrophes occur.
Certainly you may use my emails as support for your effort.
I got a reply from some low level screener to contact the state’s business opportunities office — even though I stated that I was willing to provide guidance on a no-cost basis.
* Here’s that email (note the last line) Thank you for taking the time to write to Governor Brown regarding water flow calibration and leak detection technologies.
The Governor always appreciates hearing from people who have innovative ideas to improve California.