WaterWired

Earth Day 2021: 1) Did I Really Build a Dam on Earth Day 1970?; 2) Climate Adaptation Academy

Happy Earth Day! I will not pen too long a post about Earth Day 2021. Other things will occupy my time on this 52nd Earth Day - such as promoting our upcoming 'adaptation academy' - see below.

I do remember the first Earth Day in 1970. I was 21, about to graduate with a BS in Geology from the College of William and Mary, get married, and head to the wild west - Tucson, Arizona, and the University of Arizona where I would study a new field - hydrology. It was a great excuse for many (but not moi) to skip classes but I actually helped do something useful: build a dam. 

Build a dam? On Earth Day? Did we not get the message down there in the Colonial Capital of the Old Dominion? 

Runoff (I knew some hydrologic terms even then) from a construction site was dumping (I knew enviro-lingo even then - 'dumping', not 'transporting' or 'depositing') sediment into our beloved Lake Matoaka, hallowed site of many ancient and sacred rituals (annual 3.2 beer can regatta, etc.). Thomas Jefferson, he who founded The University but attended W&M, reputedly lost his virginity there every week or so. These epochal events were celebrated nightly by many reverent, tradition-conscious undergraduates and wayward faculty. 

W&M didn't have an engineering program, so dam construction was left to geologists (not a bad idea - think Oroville Dam spillway). What, we were going to ask the physics majors? We'd still be arguing about strength of materials, charge density, and moments of inertia.

So build we did.

My sed-strat classmates (I had none who would admit to being geomorphologists) protested our plans because they wanted to witness an event that normally took millennia to complete: formation of a delta. But led by paleontologist Dr. Gerry Johnson, we won the day, constructed the dam (a replica of which is shown here), and saved our beloved waterway from premature infilling. 

There was much celebrating that evening at the lake. And much contamination the next day - something I trust Earth Day 1971 addressed.

And that's the truth (at least the part about building the dam).

Since 1970 I learned that the date for Earth Day was set for 22 April because it is about midway between spring break and the end of the term in American universities. It was envisioned as a holiday on which students could partake in environmental activities. 

How's this for an interesting Earth Day factoid? Richard M. Nixon (R) - during whose presidency the EPA, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act were all created - died on this day in 1994. Who would have imagined that? 

Here is our 'adaptation academy' flyer:  Download CASTT Adaptation Academy flyer v2

We at OSU are collaborating with IHE-Delft,AIT, UNFCCC, AGWA and the Korean Adaptation Center for Climate Change. 

“When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world." -- John Muir

CRS Report: 'The National Science Foundation: An Overview'

Laurie A. Harris penned this CRS report (9 April 2021): ''The National Science Foundation: An Overview'. 

Very informative!

I have posted a relatively large umber of graphics - click on them to enlarge them.

Download CRS_Report_NSF_Overview_9April2021

Summary
The National Science Foundation (NSF) supports basic research and education in the non-medical sciences and engineering. Congress established the foundation as an independent federal agency through the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 to “promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes.” The NSF is a major source of federal support for U.S. university research, especially in such areas as the social sciences, mathematics, and computer science. It is also responsible for substantial shares of the federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education program portfolio and federal STEM student aid and support.

The NSF is an independent federal agency. Although governed by the congressional and administration budget and oversight processes, NSF’s independent status has provided it with greater institutional autonomy than some other federal agencies. Some analysts assert that this autonomy protects NSF’s scientific mission. It may also be perceived as existing in tension with other public values, such as accountability. The tension between independence and accountability is an enduring policy theme for the NSF. It is reflected in historical debates over the agency’s authorization period and the role of Congress in topics such as grant-making and research prioritization.

NSF leadership and staff include highly trained scientists and engineers from a wide variety of scientific disciplines. In FY2020, NSF had a total workforce of over 2,000 at its headquarters in Alexandria, VA, including over 175 rotators—temporary staff from the research community who work at NSF for two to four years. NSF is governed jointly by the NSF director and the 24-person National Science Board (NSB). The director oversees the day-to-day activities of NSF, including staff and management, program creation and administration, grant-making and merit review, planning, budget, and operations. The NSB establishes agency policies, identifies issues critical to NSF’s future, approves the agency’s strategic budget direction, approves annual budget submissions to the Office of Management and Budget, and approves new major programs and awards. The board also serves as an independent body of advisors to Congress and the President.

NSF has seven directorates that support science and engineering research and education; directorates are organized mainly by academic discipline. NSF directorates are further divided into divisions—typically with between four and six divisions or offices per directorate—that manage programs. In addition to these seven directorates, two offices administer NSF-wide programs: the Office of International Science and Engineering (OISE) and the Office of Integrative Activities (OIA). Among various cross-directorate and agency-wide investments, two areas of particular focus at NSF and interest to Congress have been artificial intelligence (AI) and the agency’s “Big Ideas,” which the agency describes as bold inquiries into the frontiers of science and engineering that endeavor to break down the silos of conventional scientific research to embrace cross-disciplinary and dynamic research.

After the Department of Health and Human Services, NSF is the largest source of federal funding for basic research, and the top source of federal funding for basic research in the fields of computer sciences and mathematics, environmental sciences, and social sciences. NSF does not conduct research in-house; rather, the agency provides research funding to outside entities (i.e., extramural research). In FY2020, NSF distributed 74% of its obligations for research and education funding via grants, 21% via cooperative agreements, and 5% via contracts.

Approximately 80% of NSF research and education funds are typically awarded to colleges, universities, and academic consortia. The remainder goes to private industry (about 13%), federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs, about 3%), and other recipients (about 4%). In addition to research grants, NSF provides funding for the construction, operations, and maintenance of research facilities and equipment. In FY2020, NSF issued approximately 12,200 new competitive awards to almost 1,900 colleges, universities, and other institutions in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 3 U.S. territories. In FY2021, NSF received $8.49 billion in appropriations. Of this amount, 81.4% supported the research and related activities account (RRA, $6.9 billion), 11.4% supported the education and human resources account (EHR, $968 million), and 2.8% supported major research equipment and facilities construction (MREFC, $241 million), with the remainder supporting administrative and related activities. After adjusting for inflation, NSF funding has seen slight increases in FY2020 and FY2021, after remaining relatively flat between FY2010 and FY2019.

The vast majority of NSF funding is awarded through a competitive, merit-based review process. This process involves three phases and at least five kinds of scrutiny for proposals, including an initial assessment for completeness, peer review by external subject matter experts who evaluate proposals according to two broad criteria (intellectual merit and broader impacts), program officer review, division director review, and a final assessment of the business, financial, and policy implications. Annually, NSF receives over 50,000 proposals for research, education, and training projects. In FY2020, NSF’s funding of 12,200 awards represented an overall success rate of 28% for competitively reviewed proposals. About 29,000 individuals participated in the merit review process as panelists and proposal reviewers in FY2019.

Very good report.

I got my first NSF grant in 1977, after writing my first NSF proposal in 1976. It was all downhill after that. I haven't written an NSF proposal since the early 2000s.  

I do recall getting caught up in the 'what to do with hydrology proposals' in the late 1970s. NSF was not kind to those of us with multi- or interdisciplinary hydrologic research. Neither the engineers nor geologists knew what to do with us and there was a perception among some that NSF just wanted the water people to 'go away'. All that changed in the early 1980s when NSF developed a hydrologic sciences program in the Division of Earth Sciences.  

Enjoy and good luck; an NSF grant is 'good money'.

"Chemistry is physics without thought; mathematics is physics without purpose." - Unknown (probably a physicist)

Employers/Supervisors - Please Take This Survey: Employer Perceptions of Career Training in the Geosciences

Friend and colleague Melissa Lenczewski at Northern Illinois University asked that I post this survey request from her colleague Megan Brown. 

Glad to be of help!

********************************************************************************************

Take part in a research study entitled “Employer Perceptions of Career Training in the Geosciences.”

What is it? The survey is designed to collect information regarding geoscience employers’ thoughts, feelings, and ideas on applicants’ preparedness for the positions for which they are applying. We expect that the survey (linked below) will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. It will be available until April 8^th, 2021.  

Who should participate?

Anyone who may be in the position to hire or work with newly graduated geoscientists.

What do I get out of this?

Your feedback will help prepare future geoscientists. You can also enter a random drawing for a $100 Amazon gift card. Your survey answers and email address will not be linked when you enter the drawing.

If you know someone who you feel might be a good fit to participate in this study, we ask that you let them know about this research project.

SURVEY LINK: Employer Perceptions of Career Training in the Geosciences Survey

More information including a description of the protocols and intentions of the project, as well as your rights and responsibilities as a participant, are included below in the Informed Consent Section.

Thank you very much, and we hope you choose to participate!

Megan Brown, PhD, Parker Porter-Mareth, and Ashley Barry

Department of Geology and Environmental Geosciences
Northern Illinois University

INFORMED CONSENT

Title of research study: Employer Perceptions of Career Training in the Geosciences
Investigators: Dr. Megan Brown, Department of Geology and Environmental Geosciences, Northern Illinois University, mbrown18@niu.edu and undergraduate researchers Parker Porter-Mareth and Ashley Barry.

Key Information:

• This is a voluntary research study on the perceptions of career training in the geosciences
• The study consists of an online survey to be completed by geoscience professionals
• The benefits include learning the skills employers' value in geoscience graduates to enable up to date curriculum in geoscience courses
• There are minimal risks that may include discomfort associated with disclosing personal information.
• If you agree to participate in this study, you will complete the following survey which should take approximately 15 minutes to complete.
  
  

Confidentiality:

No personally identifying information will be intentionally collected. Any information deemed identifying will be anonymized prior to analysis. The anonymized information will be stored on a password-protected computer, and retained for use in possible follow-up studies at future dates.

Compensation:

If you wish, you can enter a random drawing to win a $100 Amazon gift card at the end of the survey.

Your Rights:

The decision to participate in this study is entirely up to you. You may refuse to take part in the study at any time. You have the right to skip any question on the survey, as well as to withdraw completely from participation at any point during the survey. You have the right to ask questions about this research study and to have those questions answered before, during, or after the research. If you have any further questions about the study at any time, feel free to contact Dr. Megan Brown at mbrown18@niu.edu. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant that have not been answered by the investigators or if you have any problems or concerns that occur as a result of your participation, you may contact the Office of Research Compliance, Integrity, and Safety at (815) 753-8588.

Future Use of Research Data:

The anonymized information collected during this survey could be used for future research studies or distributed to another investigator for future studies without additional informed consent from you.

**************************************************************************************

Thanks!

“Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.” - William Butler Yeats

CRS Report: 'An Overview of Accreditation of Higher Education in the United States'

This CRS report (16 October 2020) popped into my email. Thought it would be a good addition, what with all the changes that might affect higher education. Alexandra Hegji is the author: 'An Overview of Accreditation of Higher Education in the United States'

Download CRS_Report_Overview_Higher_ED_USA_16Oct2020

The photo is not from the publication; it is 'Touchdown Jesus' (Hesburgh Library) at Notre Dame. 

Introduction
The federal government provides varying types of support to postsecondary
students and schools. Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA; P.L. 89-329), as amended, authorizes the primary programs that provide financial assistance (e.g., Pell Grants and Direct Loans) to students to assist them in obtaining a postsecondary education at eligible institutions of higher education (IHEs). In academic year (AY) 2017-2018, 6,642 IHEs were eligible to participate in the Title IV student aid programs. Approximately $122.4 billion was made available to students through Title IV student aid in FY2018. Thus, the federal government has an interest in ensuring the quality and integrity of postsecondary education in general, and of postsecondary education provided by IHEs in particular. However, federal law makes clear that ED shall not exercise control over educational curriculum. As such, the HEAsets forth three requirements—known as the program integrity triad—that IHEs must meet to participate in the Title IV programs.

The three requirements are state authorization, certification by ED, and accreditation by an accrediting agency or association (hereafter referred to as an accrediting agency) recognized by ED. The program integrity triad is intended to provide a balance in the Title IV eligibility requirements. The states’role is consumer protection, the federal government’s role is oversight of compliance to ensure administrative and fiscal integrity of Title IV programs at IHEs, and the accrediting agencies’ role is to provide quality assurance of the education or training offered by IHEs.

This report provides an overview of accreditation of postsecondary education in the United States, including its role in the HEA Title IV program integrity triad. It begins with a brief history of accreditation’s historical role and purpose in higher education. It then describes the organization of accrediting agencies and the accreditation process. Finally, it discusses the federal role in accreditation.

Historical Role of Accreditation in Higher Education
Historically, accreditation in higher education developed as a part of the evolution of the American higher education system, at a time when it was becoming problematic that no single point of control or central body existed to set educational standards. In the late 19th century, there was no consensus on the content of the educational programs offered by postsecondary educational institutions or the distinctions between educational offerings at secondary and postsecondary institutions. Because the boundaries were unclear, the first voluntary associations of postsecondary institutions formed in the late 19th century to define the difference between high school and college and to develop some guidelines and procedures for peer review as a condition for membership.

Over time, a number of regional associations of postsecondary schools formed whose membership was contingent on accreditation. The associations established separate accrediting bodies or commissions that were responsible for developing standards on the institutional qualifications for membership. By the early 1970s, all but a small percentage of degree-granting institutions of higher education were either accredited or applicants for accreditation.

Purpose of Accreditation in Higher Education
The United States does not have a centralized authority exercising singular national control over postsecondary educational institutions. The states assume varying degrees of control over education, but in general, postsecondary schools are permitted to operate with considerable independence and autonomy. Consequently, the character and quality of postsecondary schools’ programs can vary widely. The role of accreditation in higher education, therefore, is to serve as a marker of a level of acceptable quality of educational programs and postsecondary schools.

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) describes the current practice of accreditation as “a means of conducting nongovernmental, peer evaluation of educational institutions and programs” and lists the following as some of the functions of accreditation:

1. assess the quality of academic programs at institutions of higher education;

2. create a culture of continuous improvement of academic quality at colleges and universities and stimulate a general raising of standards among educational institutions;

3. involve the faculty and staff comprehensively in institutional evaluation and planning; and

4. establish criteria for professional certification and licensure and for upgrading courses offering such preparation.

More to come, and worth it.

Enjoy!

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick 

CRS InFocus Report: 'WaterSense® Program - Congressional Authorization'

Elena H. Humphreys wrote this CRS InFocus two-pager about the EPA WaterSense® program: 'WaterSense® Program: Congressional Authorization'.

Download CRS_InFocus_WaterSense_25June2020

From the report:

WaterSense is a voluntary labeling program created by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to encourage the development and use of water-efficient products and services. Through WaterSense, EPA develops water efficiency specifications for products, certain services, and homes; licenses third-party certification bodies; and maintains a registry of WaterSense-labeled products and certified services.

EPA initially established WaterSense in 2006. The 115th Congress authorized and expanded WaterSense in America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA; P.L. 115-270), Section 4306 (42 U.S.C. §6294b).

The Trump Administration has proposed to eliminate funding for the WaterSense program in FY2018, FY2019, FY2020, and FY2021. The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94), included FY2020 appropriations for EPA and other federal agencies: FY2020 funding for WaterSense is the same as the FY2019 enacted funding level of $4.5 million, according to the joint explanatory statement that accompanied P.L. 116-94. AWIA does not include an authorization of appropriations for WaterSense.

A description of the WaterSense program, authorization, and revisions follows.

Cutting to the chase...

Water and Energy Savings
Depending on the product or service type, EPA uses different models to estimate water savings from data provided by their partners. From 2006 to 2018, EPA estimates that the program saved 3.4 trillion gallons of water. EPA also calculates energy savings attributed to WaterSense. EPA estimates that the WaterSense program has saved 462.5 billion kilowatt hours through reduced energy use in all phases of water delivery, use, and disposal.

EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) reported on the WaterSense program in August 2017. The 2017 OIG report found that consumers saved $1,100 for every federal dollar spent on the WaterSense program. OIG found that sufficient internal controls were in place to support the program’s water and energy savings claims but that EPA could improve tracking the number of partners working to improve water efficiency. OIG recommended that EPA require WaterSense partners to periodically recommit to the program.

Enjoy!

"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell the truth." - Oscar Wilde (quoted in @TheTimes via @TheWeek)