WaterWired

Blue Peace Index 2019: New EIU Report Highlights Critical Gaps and Best Practices in Transboundary Water Co-operation

This morning I received an email from a representative of The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). The graphic was uploaded by me.

The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) is releasing a report tomorrow that examines the critical threats to the world’s freshwater supplies as a result of global transboundary cooperation.

The report finds that the Transboundary river basins – which supply the world with half of its freshwater flows – are run by ineffective water management bodies. With over 50% of the world’s population expected to be living in water-scarce regions by the year 2050, the EUI’s Blue Peace Index studies the challenges and the potential for conflict that water basin regions face. Several regions, such as the Tigris-Euphrates River Basin, are at particular risk of escalating conflicts over scarce water resources.

We believe that the report’s troubling findings are of vital importance to your readerships and are pleased to offer an exclusive on its contents. Please find the full press release below which is embargoed until 00:01 GMT Thursday 22 August and the full report attached. [Note: I am uploading this at about 02:00 GMT 22 August 2019.]

Please do let me know if you have any questions about this story or if you would like to speak to Matus Samel, lead author of the Blue Peace Index at The EIU.

Download Blue_Peace_Index_2019_Report_FINAL

What follows is the press release included in the email. Graphics scattered throughout the release are from the report and were uploaded by me.

Blue Peace Index 2019: New EIU report highlights critical gaps and best practices in transboundary water co-operation

• By 2050 more than 50% of the world’s population will live in water-scarce regions
• Transboundary river basins provide freshwater flows for over 40% of the world population, yetless than a third of these basins have joint water management bodies—and those that do exist are often ineffective
• Several regions, such as the Tigris-Euphrates River Basin, are at particular risk of escalating conflicts over scarce water resources
• Transboundary water co-operation can prevent such conflict and help countries reap economic, environmental and political benefits, even in challenging post-conflict regions, as demonstrated by the Sava River Basin 
• The Blue Peace Index examines how well countries and basins manage their transboundary water resources, and highlights priority gaps to address and best practices policymakers and practitioners can learn from

Rising stress on global freshwater poses significant challenges for agriculture, industry, energy generation, and domestic drinking and sanitation across the globe. Less than 3% of the world’s water supply is freshwater. Yet the demand for water continues to grow by approximately 1% per year. By 2050 the world’s growing demand for freshwater could put 45% of the world’s global GDP and 40% of its grain production at risk.

Transboundary river basins provide more than half of the world’s freshwater flow and are home to 40% of the world’s population. Yet, as the index addresses, there is a worrying absence of collaboration structures to govern these critical resources. A lack of co-operation can have considerable economic, social and environmental consequences.

The Blue Peace Index 2019, developed by The Economist Intelligence Unit with support from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, addresses the importance of transboundary co-operation on water management for stability and sustainable development. This can be in the form of shared institutions and legal frameworks bringing countries together in a commitment to resolve differences peacefully, and to use their shared water as a foundation for wider economic and diplomatic collaboration. The gains of transboundary water co-operation vary from reduced flooding and drought and protected biodiversity through to enhanced energy security and optimisation of investments.

The index examines the extent to which countries and basins are managing their shared water resources in a sustainable, equitable and collaborative manner. In its first edition, the index analyses 24 countries across five transboundary river basins on 74 qualitative and quantitative indicators.

·    The Amazon River Basin: There are relatively strong water management institutions, low water stress and actively engaged stakeholders in the Amazon River Basin, on both a national and transboundary level, but it is challenged by a lack of co-ordinated investment programmes and needs to improve co-ordinated pollution control mechanisms.

·          The Senegal River Basin: Strong institutions have been developed on the basis of a comprehensive cross-boundary agreement, but the Senegal River Basin suffers from a difficult natural environment, which jeopardises food security and access to local drinking water.

·    The Tigris-Euphrates River Basin: This basin faces considerable challenges across all index areas. The political and environmental context is particularly challenging and has resulted in almost non-existent regional co-operation. This difficult environment has far-reaching consequences, challenging access to water and negatively impacting pollution control.

·   The Mekong River Basin: Strong technical institutions have been developed to manage transboundary water in the Mekong River Basin but it lacks co-ordinated political decision-making. The absence of a single river management institution that includes critical upstream countries China and Myanmar presents significant challenges to sustainable water management in the basin.

·   The Sava River Basin: This basin has seen strong co-operation mechanisms developed in a difficult post-conflict situation and it represents best practice in many of the transboundary water co-operation areas. Nevertheless, it still lacks comprehensive mechanisms to engage stakeholders and co-ordinate investment activities.

Matus Samel, lead author of the Blue Peace Index at The Economist Intelligence Unit, said: “Water management and transboundary water co-operation can affect people’s fundamental rights and livelihoods. If we do not address these challenges, balancing the needs of different communities, individual disputes can evolve into long-term conflicts. Water can be weaponised but can also be a tool for co-operation, even in the most difficult contexts. The Blue Peace Index allows us to start conversations and keep this critical issue on the global agenda.”

I have given this a brief read and liked what I read. Groundwater and aquifers were even mentioned! I would have like to have seen a case study dealing solely with a groundwater basin. When surface freshwater desiccates, conflict over groundwater - transnational/transboundary and otherwise - will ensue.

Enjoy!

"Always remember that you are absolutely unique. Just like everyone else." - Margaret Mead

CRS InFocus Report: 'Proposed Relocation/Realignment of USDA’s ERS and NIFA' Updated: 13 August 2019

Looks like the USDA is moving two of its agencies - the Economic Research Service and the National Insitute of Food and Agriculture - to the Kansas City area. Here is a 13 June 2019 article from the Washington Post.

The CRS weighs in on that proposed move with this 13 August 2019 two-pager InFocus report by Tadlock Cowan: Proposed Relocation/Realignment of USDA’s ERS and NIFA.

Download CRS_InFocus_Report_USDA_Relocation_13August2019

Background
As part of the proposed reorganization of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Secretary Perdue announced in August 2018 the department’s intention to relocate the Economic Research Service (ERS) and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) outside the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. He also proposed realigning ERS from the Office of the Undersecretary for Research, Education, and Economics (REE) to the Office of the Chief Economist. Among the stated reasons for the agency relocations are (1) improving USDA’s ability toattract and retain qualified staff without the burden of the high cost of living; (2) placing USDA resources closer to the many agricultural stakeholders who live and work outside the Washington, DC, area; and (3) creating departmental savings on high employment costs and rent.

In a subsequent Federal Register notice, USDA invited interested parties to make proposals for siting the relocated headquarters of ERS and NIFA. In October 2018, USDA announced that it had received 136 expressions of interest in 35 states. In early May, three sites were chosen for final determination: the Purdue University area (Indiana), Kansas City (Missouri), and Research Triangle (North Carolina). Two additional back-up sites were named: Madison, Wisconsin, and St. Louis, Missouri. On June 13, Secretary Perdue announced that the Kansas City region would be the new location for NIFA and ERS. A cost-benefit analysis of the relocation was also released with the announcement USDA further announced that the department would not realign ERS with the Office of the Chief Economist but retain the agency under the REE mission area.

Enjoy!

"Water crises are largely governance crises." - World Water Assessment Program (2006)

CRS InFocus Report: 'The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA)' Updated: 5 July 2019

Another CRS report that's been updated - 5 July 2019 in this case. The authors of The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) are Eva Lipiec and R. Eliot Crafton. This one is a two-pager.

Download CRS_InFocus_Report_CBRA_5July2019

Introduction
In 1982, Congress passed the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA; P.L. 97-348; 16 U.S.C. §§3501-3510), which established the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System (System). It declared the purpose of CBRA to be“to minimize the loss of human life, wasteful expenditure of Federal revenues, and the damage to fish, wildlife, andother natural resources associated with coastal barriers.”CBRA was enacted to remove federal financial assistance incentives for development on undeveloped coastal barriers, in recognition of potential problems associated with developing coastal areas. CBRA does not prohibit development within System areas; therefore, development may still occur using private and nonfederal funds. The System is currently composed of parts of coastal areas along the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands.

Coastal areas are of interest for development because of their aesthetic and recreational significance and resulting high taxable land values. However, due to the dynamic nature of coastal systems, development on coastal barriers and along the coast in general may be at a relatively high risk of storm damage and erosion. Additionally, development often disrupts the natural movement of sandy materials that maintain the protective nature of the shoreline and may harm fish and wildlife habitat.

CBRA has been reauthorized and legislatively modified numerous times, most recently in 2006. CBRA may receive attention from the 116th Congress due to the effects of coastal storms in 2016, 2017, and 2018 and subsequent federal expenditures. Some stakeholders have shown interest in the expansion, reduction, or modification ofSystem areas; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s (FWS’s)oversight role; and authorization of appropriations. This In Focus provides background information about CBRA and the System and briefly describes selected possible issues for Congress.

Enjoy!

"Your mind is like a parachute. If it isn't open, it doesn't work." - Buzz Aldrin (quoted in @businessinsider via @TheWeek)

AI, Data, and Water Management - IWA and Xylem White Paper: 'Digital Water' and More!

Friend and colleague Elaine J. Hanford, who provides my Monday post each week, included this white paper in her most recent post as well as a link to the article by Chris Teale in Smart Cities Dive, How AI and data turn city water management from an art to a science. The article alluded to the white paper and quoted some of the authors of the white paper, who are:

Will Sarni CEO, Water Foundry
Cassidy White, Consultant, Water Foundry
Randolf Webb, Director of Strategy & Marketing, Xylem Inc.
Katharine Cross, Strategic Programmes Manager, International Water Association
Raul Glotzbach, Strategic Programmes Officer, International Water Association

I know Will and Katharine; both are on the A-team and I suspect the other are, too.

Download IWA_2019_Digital_Water_Report

Executive Summary 

“Digital water is already here” is the clear message after interviewing utility executives and leading experts from around the globe. From big data solutions to advanced management of the distribution network to digital customer engagement programs, nearly all utilities we talked to have begun the digital transformation journey. While the transformation is not always easy, with aging infrastructure, inadequate investment, changing climate and demographics, digital water is now seen not as an ‘option’ but as an ‘imperative.’

The foundational elements of water services – resource sustainability, infrastructure management, and financial stability – have been under threat for years. The business-as-usual practices in the water and wastewater sector cannot be relied on to sustain services. A more sustainable and secure water future means moving to the next generation of water systems, which includes embracing digital solutions and the enabling conditions that can support their effective implementation.

Just as digital technologies are transforming many aspects of our world – from our cities, to our homes and our personal lives – they are also transforming water. How will digital technologies transform our relationship with water – not just the water and wastewater utility sector but how all stakeholders connect to and manage water?

This paper – largely based on interviews, surveys and inputs from nearly 50 utility executives and over 20 subject matter experts – examines how digitalisation is transforming the water sector through the experiences of water and wastewater utilities. The aim of this report is to provide an overview of the current state of digital in the water sector, the value potential for digital solutions, and the lessons learned from those on the digital journey. By creating a comprehensive body of knowledge from 40 utilities at various stages in their digital water journey, the paper can serve as a critical tool for water decision makers and for all those interested in advancing global water security and sustainability.

Chapter 1: Defining Digital Water outlines the building blocks of what is digital water including the data, technologies, and practices that drive value across the water and wastewater utility value chain. This includes an overview of the organisational and technology structure of a digital utility, an expanded view of the value chain to include customer engagement and water supply, and an exploration of the ecosystem of digital experts and solution providers around water and wastewater utilities.

Chapter 2: Digital Technology’s Impact on the Economics of Water and Wastewater outlines the wide-ranging impact of adopting digital solutions, including the value realised internally within the utility (e.g., process optimisation, reduced capital expenditure, etc.) and the value realised externally to the utility (e.g., regulatory compliance, increased transparency and governance, etc.). A broader perspective is then taken to bring forward the deeper shifts in the water sector that are connected to this digital transformation across workforce, cities and homes.

Chapter 3: Navigating the Digital Journey then examines the digital journey leveraging insights from 40 leading utilities worldwide, including in- depth interviews with 15 utility executives. This intelligence is distilled into a Digital Water Adoption Curve that serves as both an assessment tool and as a roadmap to guide utilities on moving through the digital adoption journey. This curve begins with utilities at an immature digital development phase and expands through to utilities that are digitally sophisticated, having embedded digital in the culture and decision making processes of the organisation. There are a number of lessons learned from utilities in their digital journey, but two of the most important include the need to set a digital ambition at the CEO and Board levels; and the need to start small and experiment.

Chapter 4: Accelerating Digital Water Adoption looks at what is needed for uptake and integration of digital water in utilities. External pressures from customer needs, market competition, and increasing water scarcity along with internal demand for efficiency, cost-savings, and improved risk management, are forging the way for water utilities into the digital future and opening the door for digital technologies to address both new and old challenges within the water sector.

Chapter 5: Concluding Remarks on the Digital Water Journey closes
out the report by reflecting on the impressive progress made to date by
many in the water sector towards extracting value from digital technologies and summarising key findings. As stated in the beginning, “digital water is already here.” However, we recognise that the water sector is incredibly diverse and there is significant progress to be made, both in expanding the number of utilities taking part in the digital journey and in accelerating the impact from digital solutions. This is where the International Water Association (IWA) – and the broader water industry – has a significant role to play.

This paper should ultimately serve both as a guide and as a source of inspiration as the water sector works together to embark on the journey of solving our toughest challenges with digital solutions. From proactively managing our aging infrastructure, to ensuring water quality from source to tap, to advancing water equity, and much more, we have the proven solutions to address these challenges in an effective and affordable way. There has never been a better time to be a utility professional than today.

Enjoy!

"An alum who was head of student government just became our college president. He has fixed the parking problem."- @ass_deans

USGAO Report: 'Water Resources Projects - Army Corps of Engineers Can Further Enhance Acceleration of Feasibility Studies'

This GAO report: 'Water Resources Projects - Army Corps of Engineers Can Further Enhance Acceleration of Feasibility Studies'

Download GAO_USACE_Highlights_29July2019

Download GAO_USACE_Report_29July2019

Here you go!

Fast Facts
The Army Corps of Engineers undertakes water resources projects to reduce the risk of damage from coastal storms, among other things. The Corps first conducts a feasibility study to determine costs, benefits, and whether the project is in the federal interest. Such studies can take years. To accelerate feasibility studies, Congress and the Corps introduced reforms.

The Corps has not fully implemented recent reforms, evaluated the impact of its reforms, or maintained complete data on its feasibility studies.

We recommended developing plans to implement remaining reforms and evaluate the impacts of reforms, and taking other actions.

What GAO Found
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has taken steps to address some feasibility study acceleration provisions under the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014) but not others. For example, to implement a provision related to coordination, the Corps in September 2015 issued guidance emphasizing the importance of early coordination with other federal agencies to avoid delays later in the process. However, the Corps has not taken steps to address other provisions, such as one that calls for the Corps to establish a database to make publicly available information on the status of feasibility studies, citing resource constraints. The Corps does not have a plan to address these other provisions. A plan that includes resource estimates would better position the Corps to address the remaining acceleration provisions.

The Corps regularly monitors feasibility studies and has conducted some reviews of its acceleration reforms, such as an analysis that found that some studies were too complex to complete within the agency's timing and cost requirements—i.e., within 3 years and for less than $3 million. However, the Corps has not comprehensively evaluated the reforms' impacts. Corps officials and stakeholders expressed differing views on the reforms' impacts on the costs, time frames, and quality of feasibility studies. For example, many Corps officials GAO interviewed said the reforms' overall goals to reduce studies' cost and time frames were positive, but others raised concerns, such as that the $3 million cost limitation may not be realistic for different geographic areas. Corps officials said they have not conducted a comprehensive impact review in part because they are focused on monitoring ongoing studies. These officials said they see the value in conducting such a review as they complete more studies, but they have not developed a plan to do so. Developing an evaluation plan would help the Corps conduct a timely and effective review.

The Corps has not maintained complete milestone data in its central data system for the 19 feasibility studies GAO reviewed (see figure). For example, 12 studies did not include data for one or more milestones. Corps officials said agency policy requires the entry of information on 10 key milestones in the agency's central data system. However, GAO found that the policy only explicitly requires that two of the key 10 milestones be entered into the agency's central data system. Without clarifying its policy to help ensure officials enter data on all milestones in the central data system, the Corps will not have complete data to efficiently monitor the progress of feasibility studies.

Why GAO Did This Study
Water resources development projects undertaken by the Corps—such as those to reduce the risks from coastal storms—historically have taken years or even decades to complete. To implement these projects, the Corps first conducts a feasibility study, which includes an analysis of the federal interest and the costs, benefits, and environmental impacts of a project; such studies can take several years to complete.

WRRDA 2014 requires the Corps to, among other things, conduct activities to accelerate the completion of feasibility studies. The act also includes a provision for GAO to assess acceleration reforms. This report examines the extent to which the Corps has (1) addressed the WRRDA 2014 feasibility study acceleration provisions, (2) reviewed the impact of its feasibility study acceleration reforms, and (3) maintained complete milestone data for its studies. GAO reviewed WRRDA 2014 and Corps documents; reviewed 19 feasibility studies subject to the act's acceleration provisions; analyzed data on key milestones; and interviewed Corps officials and stakeholders.

What GAO Recommends
GAO is making three recommendations to the Department of Defense to direct the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works to (1) develop a plan with resource estimates to address the remaining WRRDA 2014 provisions, (2) develop a plan to comprehensively evaluate the impacts of the agency's acceleration reforms, and (3) clarify its policy to help ensure district officials enter data on required milestones for feasibility studies in its central data system. The agency concurred with the recommendations.

For more information, contact Anne-Marie Fennell at (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov. 

Recommendations for Executive Action

1. Status: Open

   Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

   Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works to develop an implementation plan that includes resource estimates to address the remaining WRRDA 2014 acceleration provisions. (Recommendation 1)

   Agency Affected: Department of Defense

1. Status: Open

   Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

   Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works to develop a plan to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the impacts of the agency's feasibility study acceleration reforms. (Recommendation 2)

   Agency Affected: Department of Defense

1. Status: Open

   Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

   Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works to clarify its policy to help ensure district officials enter data on all key milestones for feasibility studies into its central data system. (Recommendation 3)

   Agency Affected: Department of Defense

Enjoy!

"Knowing what must be done does away with fear." - Rosa Parks (quoted in  @wctrib via @TheWeek)