WaterWired

A New Year's Day Tribute to 'Good Guy' John W. Fordham, R.I.P.

Sometimes I use New Year's Day to remember something I forgot to do in the previous year. This is one of those times but at least I can rectify my omission. What follows was originally written in August 2019. Why I delayed its publication is beyond me, but a recent card from John's widow Prella spurred this long-delayed remembrance. Here goes...

I got the news the other day from a Facebook post by Alan McKay: John Fordham had died with his family present at his home in Carlsbad, CA. Alan went on to say that John was 'one of the good guys'. My feelings exactly.

I usually write obituaries and recollections about people like Stan Davis, Tom Prickett, et al. - folks who were well-known to WaterWonks, water buffaloes, and fellow travelers.

John William Fordham? Not so much, although he was well-known to and respected by the Nevada water community. Yes, he was one of the good guys who always deflected praise and was a contemporary of mine (five years older).  John was a civil engineer - BS and MS from the University of Nevada-Reno, specializing in hydrology and water resources management. He undoubtedly had as much (if not more) influence on my early professional development than the aforementioned men.

We met in July 1976 at the Desert Research Institute (DRI) in Reno, my first job as a freshly-minted PhD from the University of Arizona. I was in one of DRI's centers, the Center for Water Resources Research, later changed to Water Resources Center (now the Hydrologic Sciences Center).

Since that was my first 'real' job (at $17,286 per year!) John and his academic mentor, Dr. Vulli Gupta, took it upon themselves to clue me in. Vulli was more about academics (we started writing an (unfinished) introductory hydrology textbook) and John was more about the nuts-and-bolts of how the Center ran, who did what, Nevada's water resources, etc. John was not the only who performed this function but I soon learned that he seemed to know about what (and who) worked and what (or who) didn't. He was also not a bullshitter. He was always there to help anyone.

I also came to realize that he knew a lot about hydrology, Nevada water and its idiosyncrasies, who had it in for the Center and all the other stuff. Turns out that his cousin Roland Westergard was the State Engineer. I am unsure that was a good thing.

My respect for John grew after the death of George Burke Maxey in early 1977. Burke was a legendary hydrogeologist who had been the only head of the WRC. When an outsider was brought in to replace Burke, John and a few others were viewed as being disloyal and/or too much oriented to the 'old ways', shunted aside, and were no longer in the power structure. John accepted this in stride and continued to do what he was asked and did what needed to be done. He was the consummate 'good soldier'.

John was also a darn good hydrologist/civil engineer. I learned quite a bit about surface water hydrology from him. He taught me much about flash floods, water quality, dams, water law and rights, ET. He was a practitioner, not a researcher (although most of us knew he wanted to finish his PhD). Vulli would bug him to no avail (I think John was in the 'ABD' classification).

Flash forward to late December2019 when Prella Fordham's annual holiday card arrived. I had never written her abou John's death. In my response to her card, I wrote that when I thought of John three things came to mind:

1) he was an 'engineer's engineer' - other would seek his advice/counsel;

2) he put his organization's interests above his own; and

3) he could always be counted upon to do what he was asked, and to do it right.

And Alan McKay's assessment was right: he was truly one of the good guys.

My only regret: I never told him any of the above while he was alive - how much I appreciated him and valued his help.

My funniest remembrance of John? At one time our offices were adjacent. One day in the early 1980s we had a lively discussion about CDs. We must have been engaged for 5-10 minutes before we each realized that I meant 'compact discs' and he meant 'certificates of deposit'.

Yes, John, I miss you (especially the technical sessions at Trader Dick's in the old Nugget.

You can read his obituary here.

Note: Comsider a donation to the Fordham Family Civil Engineering Scholarship Endowment #175449 with checks payable to UNR Foundation/0162, 1664 N. Virginia Street, Reno, NV, 89557 https://www.unr.edu/giving/foundation

"C'mon! You know better than that!" - John W. Fordham

Jesse J. Richardson, Jr. Opines: The Special Master's Report on Florida v. Georgia

Jesse James Richardson, Jr., Professor of Law at West Virginia University's College of Law, is one of the smartest water lawyers I know. He is also a delightful speaker so if you get a chance to hear him speak, do so.

Here's a piece he wrote after reading the Report of the Special Master in Florida v. Georgia water dispute. He gave me permission to post it. I just added the report itself, the ACF basin graphic, Jesse' picture, and the aphorism at the bottom.

Download Report_SpecialMaster_FL_v_GA_11Dec2019

As a Christmas present to myself, I read the report of the Special Master in Florida v. Georgia yesterday. In summary, the Special Master recommends denying Florida's request for a decree because it has not proved the elements necessary to obtain relief. Florida points to the oyster fishery collapse as the harm, but the Special Master found that Florida failed to prove that Georgia caused the collapse. The collapse was likely caused, according to the Special Master, by frequent droughts, over-harvesting, and climate change.

 

In addition, the Special Master found that Georgia's use was not unreasonable or inequitable. Finally, the Special Master determined that the benefits of the apportionment would not substantially outweigh the harms. This is a good recommendation for agriculture, since the Special Master recognizes agricultural as a reasonable use generating "substantial benefits". However, the recommendation could prove to be ominous for rural states since the Special Master considered proportional population and economic production, even while decrying how relying on these measures too much would mean that the "larger state always win".

 

The recommendation is likely bad for environmental groups. Environmental benefits and costs appeared to be given minimal weight, especially when compared with tangible economic benefits and costs.

 

I think SCOTUS will accept these recommendations. The recommendations and very methodical and well supported. Since the Special Master has seen the witnesses and has developed the facts, it would be difficult to reject such well supported findings.

 

Overall, Several interesting points in the report.

 

(1) The Special Master thought it was important that Florida only presented evidence of harm during drought years. It was important to the findings that no harm was alleged during normal to above normal rainfall years. That seems odd to mean. Wouldn't one expect the harm to occur during drought years? I think the point was that the drought caused the damages, not Georgia's pumping. However, but for the the pumping of Georgia, would damages have occurred?

 

(2) The Special Master was very critical of the experts for Florida. Their testimony, in his opinion, failed to specially address harm to individual fish species. Florida's experts relied on a model, many of the assumptions of which the special master viewed skeptically, at best. Georgia's experts, on the other hand, used actual data from on-site meters and the like, which the Special Master viewed favorably. Note that on some issues, experts for both sides used models. The Special Master viewed the Georgia experts as more persuasive on those issues as well.

 

Note that the Special Master seemed to dismiss the testimony of one of Florida's experts because the expert failed to mention the weaknesses of the model until questioned on cross-examination. That expert also failed to disclose several results that did not support his conclusions.

 

In addition, Georgia's experts attacked Florida's data with specificity while Florida's experts offered only generalized attacks. For example, one expert challenged the irrigated acreage totals presented by Georgia, but never estimated how much acreage was omitted.

 

(3) The Special Master also found that Georgia's consumptive use was reasonable. As to the amount of consumptive use, this is the area where Florida used rainfall runoff models while Georgia's experts used number of irrigated acres and metering results. The Special Master found the Georgia method more reliable.

 

Although emphasizing that relying on this fact as dispositive would make reduce equitable apportionment analysis to a "rigid rule whereby the larger state always wins", the Special Master nonetheless seemed to place great weight on the comparison between the proportion of population (92%), employment (96%) and gross regional product (99%) attributable to Georgia and the consumption of state line flows (up to 17.4%, depending on how calculated). This seems odd to me as well. Percentage of population, etc. is all well and good, but the percentage of state line flows consumed may well need to be limited to a very small proportion of the water. 

 

(4) This Special Master also disagreed with the prior Special Master with respect to Georgia's conservation of water. The Special Master noted that, despite a substantial increase in population, Georgia uses much less water than it did 30 years ago, but failed to mention that that fact is true across the country due to increased efficiencies (low-flow toilets, more efficient irrigation, etc.).

 

"Drinking and other domestic purposes are the highest uses of water".  Agricultural uses of water in Georgia provide "substantial benefits". The special master also found the consumption "reasonable". However, agricultural use of water during drought was called out as "only increasing" and "not effectively curbed", making the question "to what extent the two states should share the burden of drought". The Special Master answered that question by, in a very perfunctory manner, applying the doctrine of reasonable use, and finding Georgia's use reasonable.

 

(5) The Special Master also found that even if the Corps of Engineers would increase flows into Florida, the impact would be minimal. Therefore, Florida would see "no appreciable benefit from a decree".

 

(6) Finally, the Special Master found that the potential harms to Georgia of apportionment would substantially outweigh the benefits to Florida. The Special Master specifically limited his analysis to marginal costs and marginal benefits, drawing approval from economists everywhere. The cost of generating increasing the flow by 801 cfs during summers during dry years would cost $100 million. The Apalachicola fishing industry generates "only" $11.7 million per year and the oyster industry "only" $6.6 million per year before the collapse. This difference appeared to be dispositive.

 

Enjoy!

"August in Florida is God's way of reminding us who's in charge." - Blaize Clement

CRS Report: 'Changes in the Arctic - Background and Issues for Congress' Updated: 27 November 2019

This is another CRS report that is updated periodically.

Just the other day I heard a story on NPR about increased Russian activity in the Arctic and the wariness of the Norwegians and others.  

So here is the latest update by Ronald O'Rourke at al. 'Changes in the Arctic - Background and Issues for Congress'

Download CRS_Report_Changes_Arctic_27Nov2019  

Summary
The diminishment of Arctic sea ice has led to increased human activities in the Arctic, and has heightened interest in, and concerns about, the region’s future. The United States, by virtue of Alaska, is an Arctic country and has substantial interests in the region.

Record low extents of Arctic sea ice over the past decade have focused scientific and policy attention on links to global climate change and projected ice-free seasons in the Arctic within decades. These changes have potential consequences for weather in the United States, access to mineral and biological resources in the Arctic, the economies and cultures of peoples in the region, and national security.

Although there is significant international cooperation on Arctic issues, the Arctic is increasingly being viewed by some observers as a potential emerging security issue. Some of the Arctic coastal states, particularly Russia, have taken actions to enhance their military presences in the high north. U.S. military forces, particularly the Navy and Coast Guard, have begun to pay more attention to the region in their planning and operations.

The five Arctic coastal states—the United States, Canada, Russia, Norway, and Denmark (of which Greenland is a territory)—have made or are in the process of preparing submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf regarding the outer limits of their extended continental shelves. The Russian submission includes the underwater Lomonosov Ridge, a feature that spans a considerable distance across the center of the Arctic Ocean.

Two of the Coast Guard’s three polar icebreakers—Polar Star and Polar Sea—have exceeded their intended 30-year service lives, and Polar Sea is not operational. The Coast Guard has initiated a project to build up to three new heavy polar icebreakers. On May 12, 2011, representatives from the member states of the Arctic Council signed an agreement on cooperation on search and rescue in the Arctic.

The diminishment of Arctic ice could lead in coming years to increased commercial shipping on two trans-Arctic sea routes—the Northern Sea Route close to Russia, and the Northwest Passage close to Alaska and through the Canadian archipelago—though the rate of increase in the use of these routes might not be as great as sometimes anticipated in press accounts. International guidelines for ships operating in Arctic waters have been recently updated.

Changes to the Arctic brought about by warming temperatures will likely allow more exploration for oil, gas, and minerals. Warming that causes permafrost to melt could pose challenges to onshore exploration activities. Increased oil and gas exploration and tourism (cruise ships) in the Arctic increase the risk of pollution in the region. Cleaning up oil spills in ice-covered waters will be more difficult than in other areas, primarily because effective strategies for cleaning up oil spills in ice-covered waters have yet to be developed.

Large commercial fisheries exist in the Arctic. The United States is currently meeting with other countries regarding the management of Arctic fish stocks. Changes in the Arctic could affect threatened and endangered species, and could result in migration of fish stocks to new waters. Under the Endangered Species Act, the polar bear was listed as threatened on May 15, 2008. Arctic climate change is also expected to affect the economies, health, and cultures of Arctic indigenous peoples.

Here is just one issue for Congress:

Climate Change and Loss of Arctic Sea Ice
Record low extents of Arctic sea ice in 2012 and 2007 have focused scientific and policy attention on climate changes in the high north, and on the implications of projected ice-free seasons in the Arctic within decades. The Arctic has been projected by several scientists to be ice-free in most late summers as soon as the 2030s.This opens opportunities for transport through the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route, extraction of potential oil and gas resources, and expanded fishing and tourism (Figure 3).

More broadly, physical changes in the Arctic include warming ocean, soil, and air temperatures; melting permafrost; shifting vegetation and animal abundances; and altered characteristics of Arctic cyclones. All these changes are expected to affect traditional livelihoods and cultures in the region and survival of polar bear and other animal populations, and raise risks of pollution, food supply, safety, cultural losses, and national security. Moreover, linkages (“teleconnections”) between warming Arctic conditions and extreme events in the mid-latitude continents are increasingly evident, identified in such extreme events as the heat waves and fires in Russia in 2010; severe winters in the eastern United States and Europe in 2009/2010 and in Europe in 2011/2012; and Indian summer monsoons and droughts. Hence, changing climate in the Arctic suggests important implications both locally and across the Hemisphere.

Like the rest of the globe, temperatures in the Arctic have varied84 but show a significant warming trend since the 1970s, and particularly since 1995. The annual average temperature for the Arctic region (from 60o to 90o N) is now about 1.8o F warmer than the “climate normal” (the average from 1961 to 1990). Temperatures in October-November are now about 9o F above the seasonal normal. Scientists have concluded that most of the global warming of the last three decades is very likely caused by human-related emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG, mostly carbon dioxide); they expect the GHG-induced warming to continue for decades, even if, and after, GHG concentrations in the atmosphere have been stabilized. The extra heat in the Arctic is amplified by processes there (the “polar amplification”) and may result in irreversible changes on human timescales.

The observed warmer temperatures along with rising cyclone size and strength in the Arctic have reduced sea ice extent, thickness, and ice that persists year-round (“perennial ice”); natural climate variability has likely contributed to the record low ice extents of 2007 and 2012. The 2007 minimum sea ice extent was influenced by warm Arctic temperatures and warm, moist winds blowing from the North Pacific into the central Arctic, contributing to melting and pushing ice toward and into the Atlantic past Greenland. Warm winds did not account for the near-record sea ice minimum in 2008. In early August 2012, an unusually large storm with low pressure developed over the Arctic, helping to disperse the already weak ice into warmer waters and accelerating its melt rate. By August 24, 2012, sea ice extent had shrunk below the previous observed minimum of late September 2007.

Modeling of GHG-induced climate change is particularly challenging for the Arctic, but it consistently projects warming through the 21st century, with annual average Arctic temperature increases ranging from +1° to +9.0° C (+2° to +19.0° F), depending on the GHG scenario and model used. While such warming is projected by most models throughout the Arctic, some models project slight cooling localized in the North Atlantic Ocean just south of Greenland and Iceland. Most warming would occur in autumn and winter, “with very little temperature change projected over the Arctic Ocean” in summer months.

Due to observed and projected climate change, scientists have concluded that the Arctic will have changed from an ice-covered environment to a recurrent ice-free ocean (in summers) as soon as the late 2030s. The character of ice cover is expected to change as well, with the ice being thinner, more fragile, and more regionally variable. The variability in recent years of both ice quantity and location could be expected to continue.

The next section deals with the geopolitical environment. Give it a read!

Excellent overview. Enjoy!

"Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups." -- John Kenneth Galbraith

My Ten Cents: Imagine a Day Without Water. Really? How About Every Day Without Water?

Today, 23 October 2019, is Imagine A Day Without Water. It is the fifth annual such day.

From the site:

No water to drink, or even to make coffee with. No water to shower, flush the toilet, or do laundry. Hospitals would close without water. Firefighters couldn't put out fires and farmers couldn't water their crops.

Some communities in America already know how impossible it is to try to go a day without our most precious resource: Water. But many Americans take water for granted every day. Imagine a Day Without Water 2019 is the fifth annual day to raise awareness and educate America about the value of water.

Last year, over 1,000 organizations came together. Will you join us in 2019?

The following is from The Source magazine, 23 March 2016; I wrote it at the behest of Jamie Workman, then the editor.

The American Southwest, Brazil, Central America, Caribbean island nations, South Africa, and North Korea are just a few of the places enduring droughts.

Since 1993, the world has celebrated 22 March as World Water Day, a special designation date at risk of drowning amidst others like Lost Sock Memorial Day [9 May], Flip-Flop Day [17 June], or Pluto Demoted Day [24 August].

Water can’t afford to slide back into oblivion for the next 364 days. It’s too unique. There’s no substitute. Run out of oil? Use gas. Run out of gas? Burn coal. Run out of water? Hmmm…

Water security is also too urgent. The fight for clean water is hardly a developing world issue; it’s universal and demands constant vigilance.

In Flint, Michigan, lead contamination of the tap water has plagued the populace and charted an uncertain future for many children, and the effects are irreversible. This is the precarious knife edge on which water professionals work 24/7/365.

Until 1993, Milwaukee was considered to have an excellent water system. Then the chlorine-resistant parasite Cryptosporidium parvum contaminated Milwaukee’s drinking water supply, sickening 400,000 people, killing sixty-nine, and becoming the largest documented waterborne disease outbreak in U.S. history. Milwaukee’s water system has recovered, and I’d drink from taps. But it took time.

Beyond challenges of polluted drinking water, the world faces risks from aging water infrastructure; overpumped aquifers, and perhaps the most publicized issue: drought. The American Southwest, Brazil, Central America, Caribbean island nations, South Africa, and North Korea are just a few of the places enduring droughts.

It’s all bad news, right? Happily, no.

One aspect of water, dear to my heart, deserves more exposure. It is known as hydrophilanthropy, defined as “the altruistic concern for the water, sanitation, and related needs of humankind, as manifested by donations of labor, money, or resources.”

Among the best known organizations involved with this endeavor – Water for People, Engineers Without Borders, Rotary International, World Vision; Catholic Charities; U.S. Agency for International Development; Oxfam; WaterAid; Save the Children; Agua Para La Vida; El Porvenir; Lifewater; Living Water – what’s impressed me is the number of students who, as a career choice, want to devote much of their lives to learning how to help others help themselves.

I’m glad World Water Day will be around for a while. But do celebrate this precious liquid every day, and try to imagine a No Water Day.

 

Here at OSU we will be calculating the Blue Peace Index for the Colorado River Basin - click hereto see what we will be doing.

Enjoy!

"Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." - T.S. Eliot (quoted in @BookRiot via @TheWeek)

My Recollections of 20 July 1969: A Big Day for Geology at the College of William & Mary and More!

I never imagined writing this recollection about the landing of Apollo 11 on the Moon.

20 July 1969 is one of those dates that I'll always remember where I was and what I was doing - just like 22 November 1963 (JFK's assassination) and 11 September 2001. The latter two were sad days, but not Sunday 20 July 1969. For me, that's the day geology became relevant in a way it hadn't.

At the time I was a rising senior in the Department of Geology at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, VA. I spent much of that summer in the 'Burg working on an NSF-funded project that had been secured by my advisor, Dr. Bruce K. Goodwin. I was doing some geologic mapping and other measurements along the James River in the vicinity of Richmond, VA. That work would lead to my seminal (NOT!) B.S. thesis, Jointing and Foliation in the Petersburg Granite near Richmond, Virginia. Richmond sat astride on the fall line, where the 'hard rocks' of the Piedmont met the 'soft' sediments of the coastal plain. But that's another tale.

I spent the latter part of that day - Sunday - in the basement of Bryan Complex, a large men's dormitory on the W & M campus. I was actually in the basement of Dawson Hall, one of the five wings of the complex.  Dawson Hall was not only my dormitory (room 323) but its basement also housed part of the Department of Geology, whose labs and classrooms were located in a portion of the basement of Bryan Complex. Made it terribly easy for me to roll out of bed at 7:50 AM to make an 8 AM geology class in the Dawson Hall basement. Sometimes I actually did make it to class.

Televisions were rare on campus in those days, but there was a small B&W TV in the Dawson basement. I can't recall where it came from but on that day we knew what it would be doing: glued to the coverage of the Apollo 11 landing and Neil Armstrong's Moon walk. Like about half the country we tuned it to CBS and Walter Cronkite, fiddling with the rabbit ears to get the best picture possible - grainy, but that's about the best anyone could do a quarter million miles away from a 10-watt transmitter. We placed the TV atop one the cabinets so we could all see it. One of the taller guys was assigned the task of adjusting the rabbit ears to keep the picture from drifting away. 

A bunch of us waited anxiously for Armstrong's Moon walk, which occurred about 10:30 PM Eastern time. The crowd was not that large - maybe 20-25 or so, mostly geology majors and assorted denizens of the Bryan Complex. At the time of the walk most of the crowd were males although I do recall a few women. We had a lot of women in the small geology degree program, but in those days W&M had a curfew for women - by 10 PM Sunday they should have been in their dorms. But that night, all bets were off.

We cheered when Armstrong walked.

I recall thinking that Apollo 11 would be a game-changer. Up until then, the space program was more about astronomy, engineering and physics than geology and rightly so. Even the ultimate mission was a remarkable feat of engineering. But geology was significant, because one of the main elements of that mission and future lunar excursions was to bring back rocks and ascertain the presence of water, moonquakes, etc.  Study of Moon rocks would provide great insight into Earth, the Moon, our solar system, and beyond.

The Apollo program and its legacy turned out to be so much more than I imagined.

But on 20 July 1969 it was great to be an Earth scientist.

It still is.

Can't wait for a lunar return trip and one to Mars. Hope I will be around.

And one other thing: in those days, we were concerned with global cooling. Just waiting for those ice sheets to come sliding down from the Laurentians and points north. 

"I am, and ever will be, a white-socks, pocket-protector, nerdy engineer." - Neil Armstrong (quoted in @Oregonian)

"Ten years ago the moon was an inspiration to poets and an opportunity for lovers. Ten years fro now it will be just another airport." - Emmanuel G. Mesthene