What does a telecom technician laying fiber optic cables have in common with a homeowner installing a sprinkler system? Both run the risk of hitting an underground utility line.
Utility line strikes are not only costly but also pose serious safety risks. Every 62 seconds, an underground utility strike occurs in the U.S., leading to over 2,000 injuries and 400 deaths annually.1 The financial impact is also significant—direct repair costs can exceed $100,000, but the true cost is often much higher. Researchers estimate that for every $1 in direct damage, there are $29 in additional costs, including property damage, fines, and lost revenue.2
Despite widespread efforts to prevent these incidents, utility line strikes are still a big problem. In this blog, I’ll break down the excavation process and highlight three common breakdowns that lead to these costly issues.
From a broad and cross-industry perspective, excavation is a five-step process. Even with this simple process map, we can already see that a lot of prework is required before digging.
5-Step Excavation Process Map
To better illustrate opportunities for breakdowns in the process, I’ll expand to the next level of detail. In analyzing a real-life incident, I often dig into even more detail, but this level is generally effective for discussing line strikes.
Expanded 5-Step Excavation Process Map
Click here to see the whole map
The first major step in excavation is to assign an excavation team and plan the work. Breakdowns often happen when plans are incomplete—missing steps like gathering documentation, identifying hazards, or setting clear job boundaries. Scheduling is also a critical consideration in the planning process. The Common Ground Alliance (CGA), a nonprofit focused on preventing utility line damage, found that late utility locates cause delays in over 50% of excavation projects.3 It’s best to budget for extra time.
An incomplete plan can also lead to inadequate team selection, resulting in workers taking on tasks they’re not trained to handle. Ensure everyone on the excavation team has the right qualifications, and don’t underestimate the number of people needed to complete the job safely. Be extra diligent when working with third-party contractors. Detailed plans will help ensure they bring in the right resources to meet the project’s needs without compromising safety.
The second step in excavation is to obtain necessary permits and notifications, which includes contacting the appropriate One-Call center. While 811 is the number used in the U.S., other countries have different services, such as Click Before You Dig in Canada.
When you contact a One-Call center, such as Texas 811, you’ll share information about the work you plan to do and where you plan to do it. Then, the utilities send locators to the site to physically mark the ground. The introduction of 811 in 2005 led to a significant decrease in line strike incidents, with damages cut in half by 2015. However, incidents have been climbing again, and the latest CGA report found that over a third of line strike incidents involve issues with locating practices.4
Mistakes can occur on both sides of the locating process. Utilities might mark lines incorrectly or, as we mentioned earlier, be late in performing the location process. Excavation planning teams can also contribute to problems if they provide incomplete or incorrect project details. That’s why “Identify Facilities” is a critical piece of this step in the excavation process. Facility identification typically involves electronic scanning to generate a Stakeout Report, which includes mapping underground facilities and marking them with above-ground stakes. However, electronic locates can be less accurate in congested areas, making the next step—soft excavation—essential.
The third step, just before digging begins, is to prepare and verify the site. This involves using soft excavation methods to daylight — carefully removing soil to safely expose underground structures. One of the most common breakdowns in this process is that it doesn’t happen all together. A CGA whitepaper5 found that only 42 percent of excavators report always verifying sites through daylighting. Skipping this step and relying solely on electronic locate reports or drawings can be risky, as congested facilities and outdated records often result in inaccurate utility locations.
There are several methods for daylighting, and the best choice often depends on specific project needs and site conditions. Using a backhoe is fast but can be risky and messy. Hand shovels offer more control but can be time and labor intensive. Hydro excavation—which uses high pressure water to precisely cut through the soil and an air vacuum to remove it—is fast, safe, and accurate. However, hydro excavation can be costly due to the specialized equipment and disposal requirements.
In many cases, hydro excavation is a smart investment, particularly when working near high-risk lines. The CGA found that in incidents where daylighting was skipped, 61% hit a natural gas line6—a repair cost that far exceeds the expense of renting a hydro vac. Choosing the right daylighting approach for each job can prevent costly errors, so weigh the options carefully before you dig.
Many excavations are performed without issues—not because the process was executed perfectly, but because nothing went wrong this time. For a work process to be truly reliable, it needs to be clear and precise. Think of it like a Lego set that comes with step-by-step instructions that show exactly where each piece goes and the exact order of assembly. Most corporate procedures, on the other hand, are much more vague: “Step one, gather Legos. Step two, assemble Legos.”
Your excavation process might outline the basic steps—call 811, verify locates, follow permit requirements—but the actual process often includes additional unwritten steps, workarounds, or adjustments based on experience. These details can improve efficiency but also introduce inconsistencies if they aren’t captured or reinforced.
A process isn’t reliable just because incidents are rare. The real test is whether it’s followed the same way every time, not just when something goes wrong. Tracking how often key steps are actually performed—not just assumed—helps identify gaps before they lead to failures. Adding cross-checks, like verifying daylighting completion, strengthens the process and reduces reliance on luck.
1 - https://www.gp-radar.com/article/2021-gprs-dirt-report
2 - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321110173_What_Do_Utility_Strikes_Really_Cost
3 - https://dirt.commongroundalliance.com/2022-DIRT-Report/Late-Locates-A-Current-and-Emerging-Crisis#mainContentAnchor
4 - https://dirt.commongroundalliance.com/2022-DIRT-Report/Damage-Root-Causes-Remain-Consistent#mainContentAnchor
5 - https://commongroundalliance.com/Portals/0/Library/2020/White%20Papers/CGA%20White%20Paper%202019%20-%20FINAL.pdf?ver=2020-08-14-125534-127
6 - https://dirt.commongroundalliance.com/2022-DIRT-Report/Damage-Root-Causes-Remain-Consistent#mainContentAnchor