WaterWired

Students and Young Professionals (35 & Under)! Write a Short Article for AWRA's Water Resources IMPACT!

I want you!

No, this is not a late April Fools' Day joke - it's the real deal! Everyone's favorite ex-New Yorker and erstwhile Golden Stater (Truckee and Santa Cruz) WaterWired/Aquadoc is editing the July-August 2021 issue of Water Resources IMPACT with the working title  'SYPs: Speaking on Water'. I need your help in populating the issue with 6 - 9 short (800 - 1300 words, more or less) articles.

Why SYPs? Well, why not? Let's hear what they have to say. I am not necessarily soliciting articles that describe what it is like to be an SYP in a 'boomer' world, although a few such articles would be valuable. I am just looking for articles written from the SYP vantage point. Climate change. The 'water crisis'. Diversity, inclusion, equity. Gender issues. IWRM. Sustainability/resilience. Water quality. Water security. A short story about droughts. Forever chemicals. 

I am not seeking journal-style articles but ones that are much shorter, less technical, and written in a conversational, 'story-telling' style. The audience will be water-resources practitioners and students who are not necessarily technical geeks; even those who aren't WaterWonks read the magazine, which is published online-only. Circulation is a couple thousand or so.

If you think your proposed topic is too speculative or 'off the wall' - run it past me. If it is labeled as such - no problem - I like thinking outside the box. For example: you may be older than 35 and going back to school to switch to a new career. That could make a very interesting article. 

Here are two IMPACT articles I wrote that may help you:

Growing Up...with Managed Aquifer Recharge - recounts my 'childhood  adventures' on 1950s Long Island, NY, and the 'sumps' (recharge basins) I encountered. 

Download IMPACT_MAR Campana

Here is a brief article I wrote for the March 2018) of Water Resources IMPACT - Managing Water Ethically. It's sure to raise the hackles of some, as I promote the concept of Managed Aquifer Depletion (MAD) to assess when a groundwater supply is going to run out and then manage it to prolong it for as long as possible. 

Download MAD_Article

If you have never seen a copy of Water Resources IMPACT, take a look at our current
issue Connecting Land and Water for Healthy Communities, edited by our friend and colleague Mike Antos. 

If you are interested in submitting an article please let me know as soon as possible by sending a title and several sentences. We would like the complete articles by 24 June or so. We have some flexibility. Email: Michael.Campana@oregonstate.edu. My cell is 541-602-4085. Please don't send an article written without checking with me first; I don't want you wasting your time. Previously-written articles may be suitable for publication in Water Resources IMPACT as long as there are no copyright restrictions. 

Here are author instructions:

Download IMPACT Author Instructions_08.2019

Questions? Let me know ASAP.

Thank you!

Tell me a story.

"An ill-chosen word is the fool's messenger."- Anonymous

CRS Report: 'An Overview of Rare Earth Elements and Related Issues for Congress'

Brandon S. Tracy of CRS addresses a very important issue - Rare Earth Elements - so important to our security (24 November 2020): An Overview of Rare Earth Elements and Related Issues for Congress. 

Download CRS_Report_REE_24Nov2020

Click on graphicss to enlarge them.

Introduction
The rare earth elements (REE) are a commonly recognized group of 17 elements included in the list of critical minerals identified by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) pursuant to Executive Order 13817. Although domestic resources exist for some REE, the United States is currently reliant on imports. In 2019, the United States imported 100% of rare earth metals and compounds it consumed, even though it exported some domestically mined rare earth element concentrate for further processing (due in part to a lack of domestic processing facilities).

As the United States currently imports all rare earth metals and compounds, an ongoing concern for many is maintaining unrestricted access to these supplies. REE are used in many products and sectors; examples of products containing REE include metal alloys, catalysts, magnets, motors, and electronic displays. More information on the consumption of REE in representative sectors and products is presented in the section “Demand for Rare Earth Elements” below.

This report provides an overview of REE, with a focus on domestic mineral resources and the potential for transforming REE sources (e.g., minerals, ores, concentrate, compounds) into inputs for other products. The United States has known deposits of REE, and one has been mined intermittently over several decades. While some deposits offer additional potential supply options, the United States currently does not have commercial-scale REE extraction capabilities. Ongoing research aims to lower the cost of extracting REE from mineral deposits and from recycled materials. Congress has shown interest in securing and enhancing the domestic supply of rare earth elements and critical minerals through proposed legislation.

Critical Minerals and Rare Earth Elements Defined
Many discussions of critical minerals employ the definition stated in, and the resulting list pursuant to, Executive Order (E.O.) 13817. The E.O. defines a critical mineral to be

(i) a non-fuel mineral or mineral material essential to the economic and national security of the United States, (ii) the supply chain of which is vulnerable to disruption, and (iii) that serves an essential function in the manufacturing of a product, the absence of which would have significant consequences for our economy or our national security.

The E.O. directs the Secretary of the Interior, who in turn directs the USGS, to work with other federal agencies to produce a list of critical minerals (and to update the list periodically). The Department of the Interior (DOI) accepted the final list from USGS, which includes the REE as critical minerals.

Seventeen elements are commonly considered to be REE, 15 within the lanthanoid group of elements, as well as yttrium and scandium. REE are often discussed or categorized as light REE (LREE) or heavy REE (HREE). LREE include lanthanum (La), cerium (Ce), praseodymium (Pr), neodymium (Nd), promethium (Pm), samarium (Sm), europium (Eu), and gadolinium (Gd).

HREE include terbium (Tb), dysprosium (Dy), holmium (Ho), erbium (Er), thulium (Tm), ytterbium (Yb), and lutetium (Lu). Yttrium (Y) is generally considered a HREE, due to its similar chemical and physical properties. Scandium (Sc) is not included in either subcategory. Promethium is sometimes excluded from these subcategories because it does not occur in nature.

 Cutting to the chase...

REE Cooperative and Corporation
Among other provisions, S. 2093 and H.R. 4410 would establish a federally chartered cooperative to process domestic and international sources of REE ores and materials containing thorium into products for sale. Afederally chartered corporation would accept and store all radiological material (e.g., thorium) produced by the cooperative and sell any valuable materials, and could conduct research on new uses of such materials. The cooperative and corporation would be privately funded and operated.

The presence of thorium (or other radiological minerals) in REE deposits can add to overall costs of production, as the thorium becomes regulated source material during processing.62 A cooperative/corporation could create a scale of operations that could overcome these additional costs that may render smaller operations unprofitable. In the absence of federal funding, it is not clear whether the federally chartered cooperative and corporation would be any more viable than a similar cooperative and corporation created by private sector entities.

These bills suggest that a federally chartered corporation could eliminate the higher costs a REE mining operation faces if the ore body contains thorium by taking ownership of thorium materials produced by cooperative members. It is unclear how a federally chartered cooperative could reduce the costs associated with the presence of thorium, as thorium materials would be expected to be regulated at the mine, where physical refining (e.g., crushing, sorting, floatation separation) can increase thorium concentrations to those regulated as source material. If the cooperative and corporation were to receive ore directly from the REE mine, they would likely face the higher costs associated with transportation of the ore and disposal of the tailings.

Fascinating!

Enjoy!

"The ball does not stain." - Diego Maradona

CRS Report: 'The National Institute of Standards and Technology - An Appropriations Overview' Updated: 25 February 2020

So who's ever heard of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)? It's probably one of the agrecies that if you've heard of it, then it's not doing a good job.Remember the National Bureau of Standards? It's now the NIST.

Actually it's so important that John F. Sargent Jr. has written this CRS report (updated: 25 February 2020): The National Institute of Standards and Technology: An Appropriations Overview.

Download CRS_Report_NIST_Appropriations_Overview_25Feb2020

Introduction

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a laboratory of the Department of Commerce, is mandated to provide technical services to facilitate the competitiveness of U.S. industry. NIST is directed to offer support to the private sector for the development of precompetitive generic technologies and the diffusion of government-developed innovation to users in all segments of the American economy. Laboratory research is to provide measurement, calibration, and quality assurance techniques that underpin U.S. commerce, technological progress, improved product reliability, manufacturing processes, and public safety.

Concerns about the adequacy of federal funding for physical science and engineering research led to efforts by successive Presidents and Congresses to double funding for the NIST laboratory and construction accounts, together with the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy Office of Science. President Bush’s proposal was to do so over 10 years; the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) set authorization levels consistent with a seven-year doubling and the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 set authorization levels consistent with an 11-year doubling. However, appropriations did not keep pace with authorization levels or presidential requests. In addition, the appropriations authorizations for the accounts targeted for doubling lapsed at the end of FY2013. Appropriations for the targeted NIST accounts increased by 42.3% from FY2006 to FY2016.

Funding for NIST extramural programs directed toward increased private sector commercialization has been a topic of congressional debate. Some Members of Congress have expressed skepticism over a “technology policy” based on providing federal funds to industry for development of precompetitive generic technologies. This approach, coupled with pressures to balance the federal budget, led to significant reductions in funding for NIST. The Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), which accounted for over 50% of the FY1995 NIST budget, were subsequently proposed for elimination. In 2007, ATP was terminated and replaced by the Technology Innovation Program (TIP). TIP was subsequently defunded in the FY2012 appropriations legislation. President Trump has proposed the elimination of federal funding for the MEP program in fiscal years 2018 to 2021.

In December 2014, Congress enacted the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014 (Title VII of Division B of P.L. 113-235), establishing a Network for Manufacturing Innovation (also referred to as Manufacturing USA). The explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113) directed NIST to use an open competition to select the technological focus areas of industry-driven manufacturing institutes. Upon completion of its first competition, NIST announced its selection of the National Institute for Innovation in Manufacturing Biopharmaceuticals (NIIMBL). In total, 14 NNMI institutes have been sponsored by the Department of Defense (DOD, eight institutes), Department of Energy (six institutes), and Department of Commerce (one institute). A new DOD-sponsored instituted is being competed in FY2020. A second NIST-sponsored institute has been requested in the President’s budget.

For FY2020, Congress provided $1,034.0 billion for NIST, including $754.0 million for the Scientific and Technical Research and Services (STRS) account, $162.0 million for the Industrial Technology Services (ITS) account, and $118.0 million for the Construction of Research Facilities (CRF) account. Within the ITS account, Congress provided $146.0 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program and $16.0 million for Manufacturing USA, including ongoing support for NIST’s first institute, the National Institute for Innovation in Manufacturing Biopharmaceuticals (NIIMBL), and support for coordination of the Manufacturing USA network.

The President is requesting $737.5 million for NIST in FY2021, a decrease of $296.5 million (28.7%) from the FY2020 enacted appropriation of $1,034.0 million. Included in the FY2021 request is $652 million for the STRS account, a decrease of $102.0 million (13.5%); $25.3 million for the ITS account, down $136.7 million (84.4%); and $60.2 million for the NIST CRF account for FY2020, down $57.8 million (49.0%). Within the ITS account, the request would provide no funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program, a reduction of $146.0 million from the FY2020 enacted level. The FY2021 ITS request includes $25.3 million for Manufacturing USA, an increase of $9.3 million (58.1%). Of these funds, $20.0 million would be for the award and initial funding of a second Manufacturing USA institute; and $5.3 million would be for coordination of the Manufacturing USA network. All changes are from the FY2020 enacted levels.

Mission

The U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is the “lead national laboratory for providing the measurements, calibrations, and quality assurance techniques which underpin United States commerce, technological progress, improved product reliability and manufacturing processes, and public safety.”

By statute, NIST is “to assist private sector initiatives to capitalize on advanced technology; to advance, through cooperative efforts among industries, universities, and government laboratories, promising research and development projects, which can be optimized by the private sector for commercial and industrial applications; and to promote shared risks, accelerated development, and pooling of skills which will be necessary to strengthen America’s manufacturing industries.”

NIST conducts leading-edge research in its seven research laboratories located in facilities in Gaithersburg, MD, and Boulder, CO.3 NIST employs approximately 3,000 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support personnel, and hosts about 3,500 guest researchers and associates from academia, industry, and other government agencies, who collaborate with NIST staff and access user facilities. Research is focused on measurement, standards, test methods, and basic “infrastructural technologies” that enable development of advanced technologies. Infrastructural technologies assist industry in characterizing new materials, monitoring production processes, and ensuring the quality of new product lines. Cooperative research with industry to overcome technical barriers to commercialization of emerging technologies is a major component of NIST’s work.

In addition, NIST manages extramural programs such as the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program and the Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NMI, also referred to as Manufacturing USA). Several other extramural programs previously conducted by NIST have been eliminated or integrated into other NIST activities. These programs are discussed in the next section.

Cutting to the chase....

Concluding Observations

When NBS was renamed NIST under the provisions of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, the laboratory was given additional missions and supporting programs. Two of the new programs—the Advanced Technology Program and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program—were intended to improve U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness. These programs generated criticism from some policymakers and analysts who objected to them on a variety of grounds, including whether such activities are appropriate for the federal government to undertake; whether they might result in suboptimal choices of technologies, choices better left to market forces; whether certain technologies, companies, or industries might be chosen for support based on criteria other than technical or business merit; and whether tax dollars should be awarded to already-profitable firms.

In contrast, NIST’s historical mission of conducting laboratory research in support of standards and metrics continued to enjoy broad support and faced little controversy. Evidence of this support can be seen in the selection of the STRS account—through which NIST laboratory work is funded—as one of the targeted accounts in the doubling efforts of former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama and successive Congresses. However, even with broad support and the absence of controversy, funding for the NIST STRS account did not grow at the pace its advocates supported in presidential budget requests and successive authorizations of appropriations due to tight overall fiscal constraints on the federal budget.

These issues are discussed in more detail below.

Read on and enjoy!

“In the year 1500 AD Europe knew less than Archimedes who died in the year 212 BC.” – Alfred North Whitehead

Theresa Nogeire McRae Presentation: 'Conservation and Social Value of Preserving Farms on the Urban Fringe'

Theresa Nogeire McRae gave this presentation at our 3 February Geography seminar. 

Download Nogeire_Geog_Seminar_2020

Here is the blurb from her site:

I teach and conduct research in sustainable agriculture, landscape ecology, and conservation biology. My current projects focus on urban agriculture, scaling and spatial distribution of food systems, and how different models of food production might improve conservation outcomes and resilience of food supplies to climate change.  My past research focused on how biodiversity persists in human-dominated landscapes, and especially how wide-ranging species use agricultural and grazing landscapes.  I use GIS, spatially explicit modeling, and field data to answer questions about how private lands might be better managed to advance conservation goals while providing necessary resources for people.  I am based in Corvallis, Oregon.

Here are few random screenshots from the presentation. 

Want to learn more? Check out her publications page, especially the PloS pubs and other listed in her PDF.

Enjoy!

"Science is a differential equation. Religion is a boundary condition." - Alan Turing

V.B. Price Column: 'Public Service Idealism and Scrooge Saboteurs of Clean Water and Public Health'

V.B. Price wrote this piece which he published in his Mercury Messenger newsletter (which has the wonderful Latin motto,'Nullius in verba' - 'Take nobody's word for it'). I enjoyed it, and he gave me permission to publish it here.

 

President John F. Kennedy was assassinated 56 years ago last week, on the day before Thanksgiving in 1963 at the age of 46. It was a moment when the world turned upside down for many of us. That Thanksgiving was the bleakest I can remember. It was the first time that Americans of my generation had experienced almost first-hand a highly public political murder. And the victim, many thought, was not only a bright symbol of America’s post-war future but a thinking person’s president, one who understood the perils of foreign relations, racial prejudice and environmental carelessness.

I remember, too, how shocked I was when I heard people who seemed mired in hatred say they thought Kennedy had it coming. They seemed to me like heartless Ebenezer Scrooges cackling and scheming, rattling their chains, counting mountains of gold doubloons, reveling in their riches. They were the same people I would come to consider capitalistic saboteurs of environmental sanity in the age of global warming nearly sixty years later, like those companies and politicians who are working today to undermine the Clean Water Act of 1972 in the Supreme Court case involving the poisoning of coral reefs in Hawaii.

It’s not that Kennedy was a Lancelot, pure of body, mind and soul. He was an American politician, a child of capitalist culture himself, a member of the upper crust, though shunned by those who hated Catholics and the Irish. He was adroit at the rough and tumble of democratic elections, a political winner burdened with all the compromises and backroom realities that can mean. Though rich and regal in bearing, Kennedy was also an idealist who believed in public service, a man cleansed of cynicism by war, who considered pursuing the public good a moral duty and the profound and worthy responsibility of those born into privilege. He embodied a pragmatic, and I still think heartfelt, noblesse oblige.

His thinking about citizenship and public life was the exact opposite of those who espouse the modern brand of fatuous, hysteric, social and economic Me-ism that runs our country today. These greedy, hate-filled pols and their bully “base” extol and defend exploitation and see cheating and self-aggrandizing as a sacred right and privilege of the ruling class.

Kennedy’s political bearing was a direct assault on the grand banditry of the Me-ism of his day. That’s why his fewer than three years in office were marked by early-stage policy formation around civil rights, job creation through public works and environmental justice.

In the words of America’s great essayist E.B. White writing in the New Yorker in 1963, ten days after Kennedy’s killing, “he was young enough and tough enough to confront and enjoy the cold and wind of these times, whether the winds of nature or the winds of political circumstance and national danger…. It can be said of him, as of few men in a like position, that he did not fear the weather and did not trim his sails, but instead challenged the wind itself to improve its direction and to cause it to blow more softly and more kindly over the world and its people.”

This holiday season, it’s Kennedy’s environmental conscience and common sense that bolsters my optimism, especially as the Clean Water Act of 1972 comes under fire from conservative Scrooges and their corporate shills. A case in point is what’s happening in the County of Maui, Hawaii, over the discharge of poorly treated water into the Pacific Ocean, where it’s killing off important coral reefs around the island of Maui.

Even in the in the early days of American environmentalism, Kennedy supported Rachel Carson’s view of pesticide pollution in her book Silent Spring. In 1962, he created a Science Advisory Committee to investigate Carson’s thesis about the dangers of DDT, which ended in supporting her views to the letter and helping to have the pesticide banned. He was outspoken about water conservation in Arizona and the West and chose one of the great conservationists of his day, Stewart Udall, to be his Secretary of Interior. Udall influenced President Lyndon Johnson to support and sign the Wilderness Act, the Water Quality Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the National Trails Systems Act.

The Clean Water Act, of which Kennedy was the spiritual father, is under fire in Hawaii in the U.S. Supreme Court. It’s an odd case but one with potentially far-reaching consequences. Basically, the County and island of Maui pumps treated wastewater into deep groundwater reserves. The treated water, however, does not stay in the groundwater but migrates into the Pacific Ocean, where it becomes a pollutant and has various ill effects on aquatic life. The Clean Water Act of 1972 protects navigable waters, such as larges rivers and oceans. Earthjustice, the Hawaii Wildlife Fund and others have sued the County of Maui under the Clean Water Act. The county contends it’s not at fault when the treated wastewater ends up in the Pacific, as it injects it first into the groundwater. What happens next, it says, is out of its control. When the 9^thCircuit Court of Appeals disagreed with the county, the county took the case to the Supreme Court, where it remains, despite numerous settlement attempts.

If the Supreme Court sides with Maui County, other navigable waters might be threatened by polluted wastewater and other contamination. The subsequent polluters would argue that the Maui decision sets a precedent, allowing movement of pollution into protected waters if such movement was beyond their control and therefore beyond their intention. The logic is supremely faulty, consistent with the Trump administration’s hostile attitude toward all environmental regulation to protect public health. Once a pollutant has entered navigable waters and has been scientifically recognized, to continue polluting would be a premeditated violation of the Clean Water Act and an assault on the public’s health.

And that’s the clear difference between the boorish and dangerous Me-ism of Trumpish America and John F. Kennedy’s pursuit of the public good.

Amen!

Enjoy!

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." - apologies to Edmund Burke

"Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future." - John F. Kennedy