WaterWired

Emily Green's The Week That Was, 22-28 August 2010: Pakistan

Ready for another excellent weekly compendium of water world events from the mind of  Emily Green?

But her post is different this week: The Week That Was, 22-28 August 2010 focuses on the death, desperation, and destruction that the Pakistan floods have wrought.

And she is not just talking about floods, either. She provides a link to Dick Gordon's  interview with psychologist Feriha Peracha, Reprogramming Child Jihadists. Peracha does not refer to Taliban by their name, but just calls them 'terrorists.'

From Emily's post:

For the last five years, Peracha has run a school for teenaged boys wrested from the Taliban. She accepted the assignment because she remembered going to the Swat Valley as a child, when she says it was a welcoming place where fruit farmers would not let her leave without feeding her.

Here is more:

As the August floods hit Swat, she described being called from the school by a major to see “people standing on the edges of the river … staring at the river as if they could stop it.” They couldn’t stop it. Now, working with aid organizations, she is trying to get food to stranded residents.

We all know that more could have and should have been done in the early days of Katrina. How to use that knowledge? For information from the Red Cross on relief for the Swat Valley, click here.

The picture from the post is by a child showing bullets raining down on the Swat Valley.

Here are some more organizations that accept donations for Pakistani flood relief. Aid is desperately needed.

"Don't look down on anyone unless you are helping them up." -- Pakistani proverb 

Jim Thebaut Guest Post: START, Nuclear Weapons, and Water

Friend and colleague Jim Thebaut - journalist, planner, philanthropist, filmmaker - just sent me this piece on the need for a new START (STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty). The relationship between nuclear weapons and water is elucidated.

Time for a New START
Jim Thebaut

ONE  NUCLEAR BOMB WILL RUIN YOUR WHOLE DAY! BY THE END OF THE COLD WAR, A SINGLE MISSILE WOULD BE TEN TO FIFTY TIMES MORE POWERFUL THAN THE BOMBS DROPPED ON HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI.

The world is much less stable than during the Cold War era. Regions of the world are experiencing destabilizing levels of war, terrorism and crime and the population of the planet is projected to be 9 billion by 2050. Water scarcity, climate change and drought, poverty, disease, loss of agriculture land and food supply could generate nuclear arms proliferation in those regions seeking  to secure a better way of life.  The process of Arms Control negotiations and the new START Treaty needs to be reconstructed, widen and expanded to include all nuclear power states in order to assure an over-all global reduction of nuclear weapons and a strategy and schedule to ultimately eliminate them entirely in order to assure international security.
 
The primary legacy of the Cold War is the existence of weapons of mass destruction. Cold War military programs produced over sixty thousand nuclear weapons. Efforts since 1991 at serious disarmament and arms control have reduced the danger of total global destruction but the planet is still at risk and the potential for a nuclear exchange or a catastrophic detonation of a single nuclear devise in a major city or an accident still exists. Even as Russia and the U.S. have been decreasing their nuclear arsenal there has been an increase of nuclear weapon states. Both India and Pakistan have developed nuclear weapons and Iran and North Korea have been using Cold War technology to develop their weapons programs. The potential for a tragic event which kills hundred of thousands or millions of people becomes a greater threat everyday.
 
The United States and Russian Federation recently completed negotiations on a new START Treaty and the Obama Administration is pushing for the full Senate to ratify the agreement by November. Furthermore, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry is applying pressure to vote the Treaty out of committee as soon as possible.
 
The new START Treaty is a relic of the Cold War and there are significant reasons why the ratification process of the Treaty should be slowed down and re-evaluated in order to reflect the reality of today's new dangerous world. Obviously its critical the new treaty must establish a level of equality regarding the reduced number of strategic warheads (including missiles with multiple warheads),  the means of delivery by land based missiles, submarine launched missiles and nuclear capable bombers. In addition, both countries entire systems need to be modernized in order to assure continued safe command and control and there must be a clear understanding in the Treaty for regular verification. 
 
But also there is an evolving global perspective which needs to be included. The genesis of the nuclear technology was generated by the U.S. and the former Soviet Union during the Cold War and they now have a historical and moral duty to assume responsibility for geopolitical nuclear safety around the world and this accountability should be clearly spelled out in the new START Treaty. Furthermore, the U.S. and Russia needs to include the other nuclear states in the world as participants and signatories in the Treaty in order to establish a comprehensive global safeguard. Those countries should include China, India, Pakistan, Britain, France, and Israel.

The entire intense drama of the Cold War was played out inside the Kremlin and the White House and a miscalculation could have had a deadly outcome. The interplay between the Soviets and the U.S. leaders proved to be a decisive factor in the Cold War. During the era, bi-polar brinkmanship and confrontation was eventually replaced by "Detente", Summit Conferences, Arms Control Negotiations and ultimately the 1972 Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) and eventually in 1992 the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). Arms control negotiations help to establish a continuous dialogue between the U.S. and the Soviet Union and the fact a nuclear devise has not been  used in nearly seven decades since the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was because of this continuous open discussion as well as the paradigm of Mutual Assured Destruction, rational leaders and secure command and control. 
 
In today's multi-polar nuclear world, the threat of the use of a nuclear weapon is as great as anytime during the Cold War. In today's new world, which includes rogue states, terrorists, climate change  and the humanitarian water crisis it can not be assumed the same degree of reason which occurred during the Cold War will prevail. Consequently, it will require a global effort to offset the threat and this reality needs to be included in the new START Treaty.  
 
A primary example is the prevalent tension and conflict involved in the Cold War nuclear arms race occurring between India and Pakistan. The current size of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is a secret and India is building  its arsenal without establishing any limits. In 2008 India was the 10th highest military spender and plans to spend from 50 to 55 billion US dollars on its nuclear program thru 2014. Transcending the ethnic and political tensions that have existed between these nuclear power country's since the establishment of  Pakistan is water. Water disputes instead of  religion and border conflict could trigger a war between India and Pakistan. 

Rivers flow between India and Pakistan and competitive upstream - downstream issues have evolved over water for irrigation, drinking and energy production in the region and it has generated significant tensions. Furthermore, the tragic flood disaster in Pakistan which has shattered the lives of millions could be a prelude to future calamities. Extreme weather events caused by climate change, which includes more intensive and extended monsoon seasons, melting Himalayan glaciers, droughts, water scarcity and food shortages in conjunction with significant population growth and  poverty will exacerbate the drastic conditions and further threaten international security.

Another nuclear power is China, which should be incorporated into and included in the START Treaty negotiations They have important geopolitical and economic outreach, significant technological knowledge and a evolving nuclear arsenal.  Furthermore, China has  been assisting Pakistan in the development of nuclear weapons as a counter to India because of their serious competition for global markets and prestige. This has caused considerable concern in India regarding the  potential for military conflict with neighboring China which has stimulated India's military spending. This military build-up reality has further created a dynamic of hostility in Pakistan-India relations.  
 
The U.S. Senate should think twice before ratifying the Treaty and expand its horizons and depth and dimension of its global responsibilities and involvement. The world is clearly on the brink of disaster unless dramatic international solutions are implemented. The immediate reduction and a serious effort in ultimately eliminating  nuclear weapons is a necessary and critical step in the process for the world to evolve and transcend into a safe and secure existence. But it will require political will and courage, vision and true statesmanship and the implementation of lasting bipartisan public policy and comprehensive, effective geopolitical strategies in order to accomplish this ultimate objective.  

New Orleans Flooding: 'The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is for Good People to Do Nothing'

I've taken some liberties with one of my favorite quotes. Why I chose this particular aphorism for this post's title will soon be apparent.

One thing to remember: this post deals with something written almost three years ago and reflects conditions at that time.   

 

Five years ago today, New Orleans experienced disastrous flooding that killed approximately 1,500 of its residents; left countless others injured, psychologically damaged, and homeless; caused billons of dollars in damages; and left the world wondering why the USA government responded in a manner totally unbecoming to the world’s most powerful nation. At the time, the flooding was believed to be a natural disaster, and some no doubt still believe that.

I no longer believe that fiction, especially after reading a letter written on 30 October 2007 by one of the USA’s foremost geotechnical engineers, a member of one of the independent teams investigating the flooding. Given the age of the letter, I suspect many of you have read it. I just discovered it, thanks to Lloyd G. Carter. The letter's title is profound: New Orleans, Hurricane,Katrina, and the Soul of the Profession.

I’ve never read such a remarkable, thorough, and troubling report. I use the word ‘report’ because a 42-page, single-spaced letter strikes me as more a report than a letter although it has the format of the latter. Professor Raymond B. Seed’s 30 October 2007 letter to William F. Marcuson III, then president of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), painstakingly documents the post-flood investigations, and had particularly harsh words for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (primarily the New Orleans office) and the ASCE headquarters staff. He also had a few choice words for the President of Louisiana State University. But most of his scorn is directed toward the USACE and ASCE, to which he belongs.

Seed did not mince words; consider some he used: unethical, collusion, murder, cover-up, incompetent, retribution, hardball, unpardonable, dysfunction, shame, flawed, set-up, punishment, watered-down, indefensible. trustworthiness, pointless. You get the picture.

Seed is Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at UC-Berkeley, the nation’s top-rated department. He is obviously proud of his profession and concerned that its reputation and position of public trust were irreparably damaged by certain USACE and ASCE actions. His letter to Marcuson is a plea to right the ship and get ASCE on track again.

A lot of things struck me about Seed's letter. Two things stand out:

 

1) Levees failures during Hurricane Katrina were similar and in some cases, identical in location, to the ones that occurred during Hurricane Betsy. If the post-Betsy investigation had been done properly, the 2005 flooding might have been avoided or mitigated. This corresponds to the New Orleans office's long (c. 50 years) history of avoiding meaningful outisde technical review of its work.

2) Federal pressure was brought to bear on Louisiana State University, UC-Berkeley, and the National Science Foundation (who funded some of the investigative work). The latter two rebuffed the pressure, but LSU's president caved and ultimately fired Dr. Ivor Van Heerden of LSU's Hurricane Research Center (now called the Hurricane Center), who was one of the leaders of the State of Louisiana's investigative team. LSU later received $12M from the USACE to "help the Corps prioritize its projects."

It is importnat to note that Seed gave kudos to some who performed admirably in the face of great pressure. He also does not impugn the entire Corps or all of ASCE.

I would love to see Harry Shearer's documentary, The Big Uneasy, which will be shown tomorrow at selected locations. His film will undoubtedly address some of the same issues broached by Seed. Here is a recent NPR interview of Shearer:

 

 

Here is ASCE's current take on the disaster.

 

The situation has obciously changed since Seed wrote his letter. The USACE leadership in New Orleans has changed. I can't comment on the steps ASCE has taken simply because I have not folowed that situation (I am not a member, nor I am an engineer). I hope it has, because I am a great admirer of the civil engineering profession and count civil engineers among my most valued colleagues and friends.

Many organizations are remembering the 2005 disaster with all sorts of retrospectives. Please make a reading of Professor Seed's letter part of your remembrance.

Comments on his letter are especially welcomed.

Download Katrina_and_Soul_of_the_Profession

 

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of eveil is for good men to nothing." -- Edmund Burke, quoted in the letter (p. 41)

WaterWired's Off to Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic

Shill alert!

Heading south to Puerto Rico this morning for the 2010 AWRA International Specialty Conference and 8th Caribbean Islands Water Resources Congress on Tropical Hydrology and Sustainable Water Resources in a Changing Climate.

That's a mouthful!

Here is the final program. Looks good!

I've not been to Puerto Rico since 1966, when I came down as a band member to play in a local production of West Side Story. Not a bad high school trip!

After the conference I will head to the Dominican Republic to see Las Tres Dominicanas, former SUSIE students Ana Maria, Alexandra, and Johara (from L to R in the photo) , and check out a few other things (rural water projects?) as well.

I will be back home late on 8 September.

Probably won't be posting daily between now and then, but one never knows, does one?

"A good beginning is half the work done." -- Puerto Rican proverb

NGWA Enters the Blogosphere with Bad News from Arizona, Contracts Consensus

Kevin McCray, Executive Director of the National Ground Water Association (NGWA), has started the NGWA Blog. I congratulate him for doing so.

Can Twitter be far behind?

[Disclosure notice: Kevin is a friend, and I worked closely with him when I served four years on the NGWA Board and nine years on NGWA's Scientist and Engineers Division Board, including two years as Chair. I joined NGWA in the Pleistocene Epoch.]

His very first post on the decline in residential water systems in Arizona over the past 29 years brought some less-than-welcome news for many of NGWA's members. Here is the worst case:

The 38 percent one-year decline between 2007 and 2008 is pretty dramatic, and when compared to the not so long ago all-time high (for the 29 year period) of 4,517 in 2005, the drop is even more striking – 68 percent.  While the freshest numbers are not always a complete reflection of actual activity because of the paperwork back log among contractors and the state agencies to whom they report, it is pretty evident that well construction has recently fallen off. 

Yesterday's post dealt with contracts:

One industry story I often hear is the frustration consultants have with contractors, and contractors have with consultants, over the terms of a contract or bid specifications. I’ve heard the “horror stories” from both sides. So NGWA put together a task force of members to look at the options available to make negotiations easier – more fair – and less costly for all.

The task force discovered ConsensusDOCS, a comprehensive compilation of 90-plus contract documents written and endorsed by a diverse coalition of stakeholders in the design and construction industries. These contracts incorporate best practices, and fairly allocate risk to help reduce costly contingencies and adversarial negotiations. Over the course of the past year, a team of NGWA members put together recommendations for the best use of these contracts for groundwater work, and we are now one of 28 associations belonging to the ConsenusDOCS coalition. 

Learn more about ConsensusDOCS.

I look forward to more posts. 

Things I'd love to see: blogs for each of the four NGWA divisions (Scientists and Engineers; Contractors; Manufacturers; Suppliers) and the thirteen Interest Groups.

"The only thing one can do with good advice is to pass it on. It is never any use to oneself." -- Oscar Wilde