WaterWired

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)

CRS Legal Sidebar: 'Webcasting in the Time of COVID-19: Copyright Implications of Remote Worship & Distance Learning'

Kevin T. Richards has produced a CRS Legal Sidebar (3 April 2020) that is truly a sign of the times: Webcasting in the Time of COVID-19: Copyright Implications of Remote Worship & Distance Learning.

Download CRS_LSB_Copyright_Webcatsing_Edu_Workship_3April2020

I doubt I would have paid much attention to the copyright implications of the Zoom platform I'm using to teach my classes if this publication had been issued several months ago. Why not? I had no idea that the appearance of COVID-19 would force me and many others to use Zoom in place of live events. 

For best results, read the report online version (click on the title above) so that you can use the embedded hot links.

Introduction

Unauthorized public performance or display of a copyrighted work generally gives rise to liability for copyright infringement; however, current law exempts certain activities from infringement when performed in person. For example, singing a copyrighted hymn or performing a religious work during a religious service at a place of worship is exempted from infringement liability, as is the performance or display of a copyrighted work by an instructor while teaching in the classroom.

As a result of the COVID-19 social distancing policies, however, groups have begun webcasting what were previously in-person gatherings. (“Webcasting” is the practice of broadcasting an event live over the internet.) Places of worship may webcast their usual religious services. Schools and universities may webcast classes. Copyright law, however, treats transmissions like webcasting differently than in-person activities in some circumstances. Thus, certain activities generally exempt from copyright liability when performed in person may be infringing when they are transmitted or webcast over the internet. This Sidebar provides a background on copyright law before outlining possible approaches to exempting transmission of these events from copyright infringement liability.

Legal Background

A copyright gives its owner the exclusive right to take or authorize certain actions involving the underlying work. Specifically, the copyright owner has the exclusive right to, among other things, reproduce or distribute the copyrighted work, or perform or display the copyrighted work publicly. If any person violates the copyright owner’s exclusive rights (for example, by performing the copyrighted work publicly without the owner’s permission), then that person has infringed the copyright.

A person held liable for copyright infringement may be subject to a court order to stop infringing (an “injunction”) or may be required to pay damages. The amount of damages may be both the copyright owner’s actual damages and any profits made by the infringer, or an amount set by statute (“statutory damages”). Statutory damages may be set between $750 and $30,000 “as the court considers just,” but may be increased if the infringement was willful. The prevailing party in an infringement action may also be able to recover its attorney’s fees. In certain circumstances, copyright infringement may even be a criminal offense.

Congress has exempted certain actions from copyright infringement in 17 U.S.C. § 110 (§ 110), as well as in other provisions such as the one governing “fair use” (discussed below). In § 110, Congress created a list of acts that it explicitly defined as not infringing the copyright owner’s exclusive rights, notwithstanding that those actions involve using copyrighted works in a way that would ordinarily infringe. As explained below, two of those exemptions relate to in-person teaching activities and religious assemblies.

I'm skipping the 'meat' related to fair use, distance worship and learning to post this final  item:

Implications for Congress

Congress could approach the copyright issues surrounding remote worship and distance learning in a number of ways. One option would be to maintain the legal status quo. There are existing services that sell licensing bundles for churches to obtain permission to use certain copyrighted works. As discussed above, webcasters could rely on the existing fair use defense and specific exemptions for some uses. As a practical matter, copyright holders may be reluctant to sue educational or religious institutions for infringement, for public relations and other reasons.

Congress could also make the fair use provision easier to employ. For example, Congress could broaden or remove one or more of the factors considered when determining whether a particular use of a copyrighted work is fair. Congress could also legislate to place the burden of proof on the copyright owner, rather than on the religious or educational institution, in fair use cases.

Another option would be to amend or add to the existing protections in § 110. For example, the classroom exemption in § 110(1) and worship exemption in § 110(3) could be amended to include performance and displays transmitted over the internet, or the requirements to fall within the coverage of the distance learning exemption in § 110(2) could be changed. This would not be the first time that the § 110 exemptions have been amended to address challenges introduced by new technology.

The House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Report for the TEACH Act (“TEACH Act Report”) argued that the prior language of § 110(2) was “inapplicable to the most advanced delivery methods for instruction.” “Without an amendment to accommodate these new technologies,” the TEACH Act Report concluded, “the policy behind the 1976 act would be increasingly diminished.” Congress could use the same rationale to justify modification of the existing exemptions in § 110. Moreover, Congress could render any amendments to the § 110 exemptions temporary by, for example, having them expire on a particular date or when the current national emergency ends.

Enjoy!

"When stupidity is considered patriotism, it is unsafe to be intelligent." - Isaac Asimov

The Groundwater Project: An Evolving Platform for Groundwater Learning; Kudos to John A. Cherry - 2020 Stockholm Water Prize Winner!

A few days ago I received an email announcing a new endeavor, the Groundwater Project. The following is from the site.

About

A NOBLE PROJECT

Groundwater is the source of drinking water for nearly half of the global population and supplies much of the world's irrigation water. Groundwater is complex, out-of-sight and mostly out-of-mind. The Groundwater Project (GW-Project) is urgently needed to ensure that society achieves the exceedingly difficult task of scientifically-informed, sustainable management and protection of groundwater. 

The GW-Project has its roots in 2015 after Cathryn Ryan at the University of Calgary initiated the transfer of rights for the famous Groundwater textbook (Freeze & Cherry, 1979) back to their authors. To advance the state of the science worldwide the authors then agreed to provide free downloads of the original text and translations through the Hydrogeologists Without Borders website. This laudable initiative provided the inspiration for the much larger GW-Project aimed at updating and largely expanding the coverage of the original book. As of today, more than 20 instititutions are partnering with us and many others are on their way. The GW-Project was initiated in 2017 to cover nearly all aspects of groundwater relevant to both developed and developing countries. 

The goals of the GW-Project are to publish educational materials, online and free-of-charge. The GW-Project will fill large voids in educational groundwater publishing becoming the global standard for synthesized groundwater science. The first iteration will be in English, followed soon after by other languages. Many chapters will be layered to support understanding at both introductory and advanced levels with clickable links to equation derivations, worked problems, public domain educational reports, videos of lab demonstrations, field methods, and lectures. Although encyclopedic in scope, the GW-Project is focused on knowledge synthesis to achieve understanding, underpin classroom teaching and facilitate self-education. The GW-Project aims to provide explanations from experts who are so advanced in their grasp of complex topics that they are able to convey ideas in an impressively simple form.  Currently, more than 200 volunteer scientists and engineers from 23 countries on six continents are involved in the preparation of ebook chapters while the search for more participants continues. Over 500 chapters, organized in over 60 knowledge domains, will be prepared over the next few years.

Many of the contributors are senior internationally recognized experts. A priority of the GW-Project is to capture, while still possible, knowledge and key insights from this senior generation. The GW-Project will also serve as an electronic archive for old, but still insightful groundwater reports from government and other grey literature not readily accessible, or in jeopardy of being lost. In addition, the GW-Project will report on the latest advances in groundwater science and technologies to quickly disseminate new knowledge around the globe, with emphasis on the information needs of developing countries. The electronic format was selected because materials will be updated and re-published as improvements are made and as global contributions expand. 

The not-for-profit GW-Project will fill large voids in educational groundwater publishing, becoming the global standard for synthesized groundwater science.

With the help of hundreds of volunteers, the Groundwater Project contributes to a better world. Be part of this noble project. Join us. 

Why is the GW-Project Important?

Humanity faces unprecedented challenges today. Our rapidly growing population and the demand for higher living standards are putting enormous pressure on our planet. Abundant and clean freshwater resources have been taken for granted, and groundwater, being invisible to human eyes, is a particular case in point. Many people have the misconception that the groundwater supply is infinite. This profound unawareness of the origin and fate of groundwater, compounded by our increasing appetite to withdraw more groundwater and the need to dispose of more waste, is the cause of rapidly growing problems associated with groundwater quantity and quality. Examples of groundwater over-exploitation and contamination appear in the news media nearly every day. 

In writing the GW-Project, we truthfully and honestly tell the readers what we know as scientists. The imbalance of the inputs and outputs of our natural resources over time is an important concept, but it has been a privileged knowledge for the few with education in earth history. This should not be the case. If more world citizens can grasp this concept, the potential for conservative management will be higher. A mission of the GW-Project is to raise the next generation to understand: where our water resources come from; that life on Earth depends on those resources; and how precious the resources are simply because it took so very long for them to become what they are today.

The fields of groundwater management, assessment, and remediation technologies were extensively developed during the past decades and are now available to help create a better environment for future generations. The GW-Project is aimed at raising awareness of this problem, but most importantly, aims to educate citizens on how to best adjust their behavior to prevent the damages produced by lack of knowledge. One of the most important aspects of the GW-Project is to provide better training for technicians, professionals, and scientists to more adequately maintain the health of the planet. 

With the goal of educating the world citizens, the GW-Project is aimed at a global readership by presenting topics that are important not only to affluent countries but also to developing nations in the most remote corners of the planet. Chapters issued first in English will be translated quickly to several other languages so that the knowledge provided by the GW-Project will reach nearly all parts of the globe that have internet access via computers and mobile phones.

Want to see some of the free books that the GW-Project is producing? Click here. Don't forget to click on 'Categories' to see more. I did not see a book that dealt specifically with low-tech groundwater development and management in emerging regions: hand pumps, manual drilling, well completion, etc. Might want to get Steve Schneider to expand upon his excellent Water Supply Well Guidelines for Use in Developing Countries.

Consider a donation ot this worth cause: click here.

Included in the email about the GW-Project there was an announcement that Dr. John A. Cherry, one of the world's foremost groundwater scientists, had been awarded the 2020 Stockholm Water Prize, often considered the 'water Nobel Prize'. Not only is this an magnificent tribute to John but a recognition of the profession of hydrogeology and the importance of groundwater. And he's a terribly nice guy as well. We have worked together in Hydrogeologists Without Borders.

He is also the person behind the creation of the GW-Project.Both his head and his heart are in the right place. Bless you, John!

"Though the global water crisis is starting to get more attention,groundwater is often forgotten,despite making up 99% of the planet’s liquid freshwater.Many people still perceive it as pristine when in fact it is threatened by human activity.”- John A. Cherry

Robert T. Lackey: Darwin Was Right - A Scientist Needs a Heart of Stone

Friend and colleague Robert T. 'Bob' Lackey sent this around on a listserve and I though it worth posting. There is a link to a video of his talk. Here is a link to his blog post, which follows.

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

A few months ago I was asked to present my thoughts about what scientists can do to reverse the decline of public trust in the policy impartiality of scientists.  The importance of good science is broadly accepted across all political ideologies, but the level of trust in scientists (as separate from science) has probably never been lower. Here is the transcript of that talk presented at the 56^th Annual Meeting of the Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, March 6, 2020, Bend, Oregon:

I appreciate the opportunity to wrap up this session:  “Communicating Science Across Different Domains.”   Yes, it is certainly a fitting topic for all of us — and based on the range of perspectives we’ve heard this morning — it reinforces its timeliness.  Further — these days — given the privileged standing afforded science in the legal and policy world — and the potential for its misuse — both intentional and unintentional — it is absolutely critical for all of us all “to get the  science question right.”

OK — my specific assignment today is to answer this question:   How should scientists assure that they are sticking to science — and not drifting into policy advocacy?

I am very sure that each of you frequently see examples of “advocacy masquerading as science.”  I know I do — every day!   And — for those of us who are scientists — and those of us who work at interface of science – policy – and management — how do we avoid this?

Let me start with a simple “role playing” exercise.

First ― imagine that you are now in the spotlight — having been summoned to the state capitol to provide information to the Natural Resources Committee of the Oregon State Senate.   Great career opportunity!

Second ― imagine that the Committee is faced with a contentious question:   whether they should officially support — or oppose — construction of a dam designed to store water to help alleviate August droughts.   And — be assured — dams are always politically controversial!

Third ― you are a scientist who has studied in great detail this particular proposed dam.  In short — you are indisputably a scientific expert on the topic.

What is the proper role for you – a scientist?  This is not trick question — but it is also not a simple one.

My blunt answer:  follow Charles Darwin’s recommendation for scientists who find themselves in such circumstances — develop a heart of stone!

Why exactly did Darwin call for scientists to develop a Heart of Stone?  For sure — today his advice might seem a bit passe in this era of trigger warnings — safe spaces — and postmodernism!   But — what exactly are the alternatives to a heart of stone idea? — and why did Darwin not support these?

At a basic level — legislators — policy makers — and the public — expect scientists to even-handedly present scientific information relevant to the question under consideration.  Seems simple enough!   And — it is hard to argue against this expectation — this idealized view that you heard way back in Political Science 101 — right?

But — more fundamentally — what exactly — is scientific information?  And — equally important — what information is not science?  In short — what is this thing everyone casually labels as “science?”  After all — relatively speaking — the notion of science is only a few hundred years old — at least it has only been broadly popular for a few hundred years.  And — for sure — there are many other ways to acquire information — and indeed science is only one.

Francis Bacon popularized the basic principles of the “scientific method” several hundred years ago.  This is the reason why modern science is sometimes referred to as “Baconian Science.”

To be considered scientific information — it must have 4 characteristics.  In philosophy — as described in their often opaque — even cerebral — philosophical jargon — they are called the “big 4.”

First, the information must be rational — that is — it relies on the senses.  Second, it must be acquired in a systematic way —  a path that is clearly explained.  Third, it must be testable — others can evaluate the results — it is not based on faith.  Fourth, the results must be reproducible — others following the same procedures and methodologies will come up with the same answer.  If the results cannot be reproduced — it is back to the drawing board!

But — there are other kinds of knowledge — and these are not better — or worse — but they are not science.  For example — knowledge gained through experience is ubiquitous — but it is not science.  A common example is fishermen’s knowledge accumulated after years on the water — or perhaps passed down over generations based on a sort of collective experience.

Most definitely — experiential knowledge may be a terrific source of information — but it does not possess the 4 essential characteristics of science.

Think back to Darwin’s time — the dominant faith affecting science was what might be called the classical Christian view of creation.  These days — in my experience — the dominant faith in the areas of science that I work — is what is often called “Green Religion.”  In its simplest formulation — this faith assumes that natural ecosystems — those undisturbed by humans — are inherently superior to human-altered ones.  And — applying a similar theological litmus test — native species are a priori superior to non-native ones.

Don’t get me wrong — there is absolutely nothing inappropriate — or appropriate — with religious or faith-based postulates — but they are outside the purview of science.

But in Darwin’s time — it was not Green Religion — but rather Christian theology that conflicted with the scientific method.  In Darwin’s time — scientists were expected to accept up front the creationist view of the origin of species — and most did so voluntarily.  But — Darwin argued — do your research — test your hypotheses against the observable facts — draw your conclusions.  Stop there!   Do not presuppose anything!  In short — as uncomfortable as it might be — Darwin encouraged scientists to develop a heart of stone.

But even if a scientist follows Darwin’s advice to the letter — that scientist must be trusted.  Thus — managers — policy makers — and especially  the public — would might like to assume that a scientist is presenting straight — unbiased facts and interpretations.  But in reality — the question is always there — is that scientist sticking to the science — or is he slanting the science to cleverly push a particular policy preference?  As a practical matter — if a reader or listener trusts a scientist — that reader or listener will almost certainly accept the veracity of what is being presented by that scientist.

OK — the central question still remains — are scientists trusted by the public these days?  In essence, given that trust is essential for scientists to play a useful role in policy making and management — what do the national polls show?

First — the good news — there have been a lot of polling done on the trust question.  Now the bad news — no poll that I could find addressed fisheries — or any other aspect of natural resource management.  The closest discipline I could find was “environmental science” — for sure not a perfect fit — but it will have to do.

OK — to what extent does the public trust scientists on the topic of environmental issues?  The results?  In a Washington Post/ABC national poll — 40% — 4 in 10 — said they place little or no trust in the impartiality of scientists.  But — even more disturbing to me — the other 60% were not all that supportive — they were lukewarm in their level of trust of scientists.

In another more recent national poll — this one by the PEW Research Center — barely a third of the respondents said environmental scientists provided fair and accurate information all — or most of the time.

Why such a low level of trust?   We can speculate about what has caused this loss of trust — and many people have.  Regardless — there are some things that scientists  themselves can do to help rebuild trust.

The first thing that we need to do is to eliminate “stealth policy advocacy.”

The second is to stamp out normative science from all aspects of the scientific enterprise.

Now — the stealthy part — normative science is very similar in appearance to regular or traditional science — but it has an embedded or hidden policy preference.  And the challenging part — it is often very difficult to pick up on this embedded policy preference!

Don’t be so sure that you are not at risk for normative science.  Why?   Detecting normative science is not as easy as it might appear.  After all — what is being presented:

•  Looks like regular science
•  Sounds like regular science
•  Is offered by people who appear to be “scientists”

Even experienced policy makers and managers can be deceived!  What chance does the general public have?

Let me circle back to the example I started with — the proposal to build a water supply dam — and the proper role of scientists in the decision-making process.  Let’s have a little more role playing — imagine that you are a world expert  in some ecological discipline.  You have been assigned to a blue ribbon team of similarly elite scientists.  Your job is to determine the likely ecological consequences of building a dam on this river.

OK — exactly how would you describe the scientific results to that Senate Committee — or to the public?

Would you be tempted to use the term “degradation” to describe the river with the dam?  If you do — you have slipped into normative science.  Why?  — because you have made an assumption that a free flowing river is preferable to a dammed one.  Perhaps it is better policy-wise — but not better scientifically — just different — a value judgment that others should make — not scientists.

Or — you could take the exact same scientific information and label the river with the dam as “improved.”  After all — it will provide badly needed water in late summer — but the relative importance of that goal is a political determination — a value judgment — not a choice for scientists to make.  Again — the science is the same — the only thing that has changed is that you have embedded a different policy preference.  No other change!

This is so common these days that many listeners will not pick up on it!  How should scientists report these results?  My answer — scientists should use terminology that does not presuppose a value judgment — nor presuppose a policy preference.

In short — in this example — I suggest using the word “alteration” as being much more policy neutral.  Using “alteration” in this example does not imply that either state of the ecosystem is preferred policy-wise.

Let me wrap up — what should scientists do — my recommendation — play the science straight up — do not build in subtle policy preferences.  Be alert.   Test your wording for signs of policy bias.

For sure — there are temptations aplenty to co-opt scientists — mostly they come from policy advocates and politicians.  Whatever the temptation — avoid falling into the trap of stealth policy advocacy.  Leave the advocacy to advocates — stick to science.

And remember Charles Darwin’s advice — he was dead-on all those years ago — a scientist needs a “Heart of Stone.”

Thank you!

Here is a link to the video recording: click here. 

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

Enjoy!

"A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, - a mere heart of stone." - Charles Darwin

CRS Report: 'TEACH Grants: A Primer'

This 12 December 2019 CRS report was authored by Rita R. Zota: 'TEACH Grants: A Primer'. 

You can even get a Master's degree.

Download CRS_Report_TEACH_Grants_Primer_12Dec2019

Summary
The Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant program is intended to encourage individuals to enter the teaching profession by providing recipients with grants of up to $4,000 annually to pursue coursework that leads to a certification in teaching. Congress authorized the TEACH Grant program in the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-84) to address concerns about growing demand for high-quality teachers, especially in low-income schools.

To be eligible for a TEACH Grant, among other requirements, a postsecondary student has to meet certain academic achievement requirements and be enrolled in a TEACH-Grant eligible program of study. The TEACH Grant program is the only HEA Title IV program with an academic merit requirement.

As a condition of receiving a TEACH Grant, a recipient must complete four years of teaching in a high-need field and in a school that serves low-income students, within eight years of completing his or her program of study. If a recipient fails to complete the required teaching service, his or her TEACH Grant is converted into a Federal Unsubsidized Direct Loan, which must be repaid in full including interest that accrued since grant disbursement.

To be eligible to disburse TEACH Grants, among other requirements, an institution of higher education (IHE) must provide a high-quality teacher preparation program that is either accredited by a Department of Education (ED)-recognized accrediting agency of teacher education programs; or is approved by a state, includes a minimum of 10 weeks of full-time pre-service clinical experience, and provides or assists in providing pedagogical coursework. Additionally, such teacher preparation programs must provide or assist in providing supervision and support services to program completers when they are working as teachers.

Program administration tasks are divided among IHEs, ED, and the loan servicer with which ED contracts. IHEs award and disburse TEACH Grants to recipients, while the loan servicer performs day-to-day administrative tasks after a grant has beendisbursed. ED oversees both the IHE’s and the loan servicer’s functions.

Since the inception of the program, over 300,000 TEACH Grants, totaling nearly $938 million, have been disbursed. Based on a Government Accountability Office (GAO) analysis, the estimated take-up rate of TEACH Grants by the potentially eligible population in the 2013-2014 academic year was 19%. According to an American Institutes for Research (AIR) study, among TEACH Grant recipients who began their eight-year service period prior to July 2014, 63% saw their grants converted to loans as of July 2016.

Several issues related to TEACH Grants may garner congressional attention. The bulk of these issues pertain to program design, including the extent to which the program successfully identifies individuals who commit to teaching, the size of the TEACH Grant benefit, challenges associated with finding and sustaining a qualifying teaching placement, teacher preparation program quality at IHEs that disburse TEACH Grants, and the continued application of the “highly qualified teacher”definition to the TEACH Grant program. Other issues are related to program implementation, such as challenges associated with certification of teaching service and the absence of an appeals process. Lawmakers may also wish to consider other changes that have been proposed since the TEACH Grant program was authorized. Some of these include permitting partial payback of TEACH Grants converted into loans that is prorated based on the length of service fulfilled for recipients who do not complete the service requirement, allowing teachers whose roles or duties change to continue to fulfill their required teaching service with such new roles or duties, or replacing or sunsetting the program altogether.

Good deal!

Enjoy!

“Those who can, do; those who understand, teach.” - Aristotle