WaterWired

Benefits & Challenges: Virginia Tech Unveils A New Undergraduate Degree in Water Resources, Policy & Management

At the recently-concluded 2018 AWRA Annual Conference in Baltimore Karl Williard of SIU convened and moderated a panel on Benefits and Challenges of Delivering Interdisciplinary Graduate and Undergraduate Education in Water Resources. Besides Karl the panelists were Sharon B. Megdal of the University of Arizona, Stephen Schoenholtz of Virginia Tech and yours truly.

Here is a description of the panel:

The science and policy of water resources involves many disciplines including hydrology, hydrogeology, engineering, chemistry, economics, law, and sociology and effective management of water resources commonly requires complex, interdisciplinary solutions.  Accordingly, in the past two decades, academia has responded to the need for training future water professionals by creating interdisciplinary water resources and hydrology graduate and more recently undergraduate education programs.  The federal government has also responded to this need by encouraging the training of interdisciplinary scientists through funding programs such as the National Science Foundation’s Integrated Graduate Education and Research Traineeship Program (NSF IGERT).  True interdisciplinary education and training is difficult to accomplish.  For example, universities need to rely on faculty who themselves were trained predominantly in disciplinary environments to lead and develop these education programs.  Successful interdisciplinary training requires new and novel approaches to education.  The panel discussion will highlight some of the successes and challenges associated with training the next generation of interdisciplinary water professionals from the perspective of well-established and relatively new education programs. 

Karl gave an overview of this important topic and Sharon and I recounted our experiences and thoughts on the topic. Stephen provided something different: a presentation on Virgina Tech's innovative new undergraduate degree, the first and only one of its kind in the USA: 

Download AWRA2018_Schoenholtz

Here is the blurb from the degree program's website: 

 Few undergraduate degree programs provide integrated training in water science, policy, and management; yet, professionals are required to have interdisciplinary expertise in these areas to solve critical problems facing society today and in the future. Water: Resources, Policy, and Management, administered by the Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation, is an interdisciplinary program and the first its kind in Virginia and is unique to any other undergraduate program anywhere in the U.S. The new degree program offers a strong interdisciplinary approach to water science, policy and management, while complementing existing undergraduate degree programs at Virginia Tech.

 I am generally skeptical of undergraduate degrees in 'water resources' simply because I think that the study of water resources is best done at the graduate level after receiving an undergraduate degree in a fundamental discipline related to some aspect of water (e.g., geology, civil/environmental/ecological engineering, economics, ecology, chemistry, political science, and many more). That said, I wish Stephen and Virginia Tech much luck with their innovative, groundbreaking degree program.

Perhaps a new educatonal paradigm is in the making. 

"The purpose of education is not to make men carpenters, but to make carpenters men." -- W.E.B. Du Bois

Paper: 'Assessing Carbon Pollution Standards - Electric Power Generation Pathways and Their Water Impacts'

This paper sounds like it's got some great ideas. Assessing Carbon Pollution Standards: Electric Power Generation Pathways and Their Water Impacts by Kustini Lim-Wavde, Haibo Zhai, Robert J. Kauffman and Edward S.Rubin.

Download Assessing_Carbon_Pollution_Srandards_Water

 Highlights

1) Without carbon regulations, CO₂ emissions and water use are highly affected by fuel prices.

2) Carbon regulations reduce both CO₂ emissions and water use.

3) Without incentives, carbon capture is not competitive with cheap natural gas and renewables

4) A stringent constraint on water withdrawal lowers the fleet share of once-through cooling 

Abstract

This study evaluates transition pathways in electricity generation and their future water impacts. Scenarios that do or do not comply with the carbon pollution standards – based on the U.S. New Source Performance Standards and Clean Power Plan – are evaluated. Using the Electric Reliability Council of Texas region as an illustration, the scenarios with carbon regulations are shown to have lower CO₂ emissions and water use from the power sector than the continuation of the status quo with more electricity generation from coal than natural gas. The benefits are due to increases in electricity generation from renewable sources and natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plants plus retirements of existing coal-fired plants, which depend on natural gas and CO₂ allowance prices. When CO₂ is captured and sold for enhanced oil recovery with a price higher than $15 per short ton, water consumption is elevated because of more electricity generation from existing NGCC plants retrofitted with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. A stringent constraint on water withdrawals decreases electricity generation from existing power plants with once-through cooling, but increases overall water consumption because of an elevated share of plants with wet recirculating cooling systems in the fleet.

Enjoy! 

"To every man is given the key to the gates of heaven; the same key opens the gates of hell."
 - Buddhist proverb

Bless Their Hearts! NWF's Texas Living Waters Project Produces 'Best Bets for Texas Water' - A Guidebook for Texas' Water Future

Sarah Bates of the National Wildlife Federtation - one of the  brightest lights when it comes to the Western  water-land nexus - just sent me this missive about the Texas Living Waters Project. 

Funny I would receive this today. I just finished sending Texas Water Wonk (H2OWonk) extraordinaire Todd Votteler a message. He is editing a fiuture (July 2019) issue of Water Resources IMPACT on - you guessed it - Texas Water! Stay tuned!

 Here's Sarah's email:

NWF’s Texas Living Waters Project team has released an educational guidebook that establishes our positions on and explores the pros and cons of different water supply options in Texas. You can view the interactive guidebook here: https://texaslivingwaters.org/bestbets

This project came together thanks to many contributions and rounds of revisions from the Texas Living Waters policy, science and conservation team. Please send congratulations to: Tom Spencer, Annie Schmitt, Norman Johns, Jennifer Walker, Myron Hess, Susan Kaderka, Ruthie Redmond (Sierra Club) and Paula Paciorek (Galveston Bay Foundation).

In addition to this online release, our team will be leading outreach efforts through webinars for both reporters and the general public, and will leverage our print booklet to build relationships through a state legislative briefing, the Texas Tribune’s Rural Texas Symposium, and one-on-one meetings with local representatives in key counties.

Here’s the release we sent out earlier this week:

Free educational resource helps Texans play an informed role in preparing for Texas’ water future

The Texas Living Waters Project, a coalition of National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club Lone Star Chapter and Galveston Bay Foundation, will release Best Bets for Texas Water this Thursday, Oct. 25. This guidebook explores strategies in Texas’ water security toolbox so that communities can prepare for both flood and drought without sacrificing wildlife and the environment.

The heavy rainfall that parts of Texas have experienced in recent weeks is consistent with climate change studies that predict more intense periods of both flood and drought across the state, causing hardship as communities struggle to prepare for both water extremes. Even as flooding events become more intense, Texas’ inevitable droughts will continue to threaten the long-term viability of the state’s water supplies.

While the most recent (2017) State Water Plan predicts a steadily rising population and growing municipal needs during the next 50 years, it also predicts the state will increasingly have fewer existing water supplies and higher potential for water shortages. As Texans grapple with the challenge of providing enough water for a growing state and a changing climate, the Best Bets for Texas Water guidebook breaks down the pros and cons of different water supply strategies so that community leaders, water suppliers and residents alike can understand the potential impacts of different water supply decisions.

This resource evaluates nine different water supply and management strategies against the following criteria:

• Environment: How does this strategy impact rivers, springs, bays and wildlife?
• True costs: This criteria looks beyond dollar signs to the big picture. How does this strategy affect the Texas economy (and water customers whose wallets foot the bill for water supply projects)?
• Long-term viability: Decades from now, will this strategy have been worth the investment? Looking forward, are there any opportunities and concerns that we already know to expect?

“The good news is that many strategies exist for Texas communities to prepare for a future with more people and less water,” said Tom Spencer, director of the Texas Living Waters Project. “But when it comes to implementing these strategies, the stakes are high. If water supply projects aren’t examined closely and done carefully, water could be wasted, rivers could be depleted, and wildlife could be harmed – all while Texans foot the costly bill.”

Texans can utilize this resource to better understand some of the strategies that will likely be considered during upcoming planning and decision-making processes, such as the 2019 Texas legislative session and the utility-led development of five-year Water Conservation Plans, due May 2019. As the individuals who typically bear the cost burden of water supply strategies through the water rates they pay, residents can use the information in this guide to hold decision-makers accountable for state and local water management approaches.

In addition to the digital version of this resource, the educational tool is also available upon request as a physical booklet. Texans hoping to take a deeper dive into these materials may do so by registering for a webinar that the Texas Living Waters Project team will host on Wednesday, Nov. 7 at 11 a.m. Central Time.

Press contact:

Tom Spencer
Director, Texas Living Waters Project
spencert@nwf.org, 512-610-7763

The Texas Living Waters Project is a collaboration of conservation groups working to ensure that there will always be enough fresh water. We do this by using science-based advocacy to encourage balanced approaches to Texas water management. It’s important for our wildlife, our economy and our kids.

I would have loved to have seen 'Best Bets for Nevada' but that's just me.

Enjoy!

"If that ain’t a fact, God’s a possum." - Texas saying

G. Tracy Mehan III's Review of RAND Report: 'Not Everything Is Broken - The Future of U.S. Transportation and Water Infrastructure Funding and Finance'

If you're like me you missed this 2017 RAND report: Not Everything Is Broken: The Future of U.S. Transportation and Water Infrastructure Funding and Finance by Debra Knopman, Martin Wachs, Benjamin M. Miller, Scott G. Davis, Katherine Pfrommer

You can access the report's site by clicking here. or downloading below

Download RAND_RR1739

 

 Here's the blurb from the website:

This report identifies the policies that promote and deter investment in and maintenance of U.S. transportation and water infrastructure. It focuses on status and trends in operations and maintenance (O&M) and capital spending by all levels of government; reviews current policy and practice; and recommends actions that the federal government could take to better align both policy and spending to public priorities.

The United States' transportation and water infrastructure needs are diverse, as are the reasons for maintenance backlogs and delays in rebuilding and modernization. Massive federal spending to repair or build anew may do some good by stimulating demand for construction services, but it will not fix what is broken in our approach to funding and financing public works — and not everything is broken. Underinvestment, to the extent it is occurring, varies widely by ownership, geography, and type of infrastructure. For example, while road and bridge conditions generally have improved overall since 2002, conditions on less-traveled roads have deteriorated. Lasting changes will require thoughtful consideration of targeted spending priorities, policy constraints, and regional differences.

The authors see no need for wholesale change in current roles and responsibilities among federal, state, and local governments. Policy changes at the federal level could drive public spending to high-priority regional-scale projects designed to deliver sustained national economic benefits. Changes in federal tax and fiscal policy could draw more private capital into financing public infrastructure, but direct private investment in transportation and water infrastructure is likely for only a limited class of profitable projects, and striking the appropriate balance between a larger role for the private sector and protecting taxpayers from financial risk has proven difficult in practice

But now - the pièce de résistance from one of the smartest guys in the room, G. Tracy Mehan III, a frequent contributor to WaterWired.He is executive director for government affairs at the American Water Works Association. His review will appear in the November issue of the J. AWWA.

Download Mehan_Review_Not_Everything_Broken.RANDpdf

Here are the first few lines:

Not Everything Is Broken: A “More Nuanced and Challenging” View of US Infrastructure

The authors of this RAND Corporation report on America’s infrastructure take a divergent, if not outright contrarian, view of the water ndustry’s current situation, dissenting from the common view that it is crumbling” before our very eyes. Full disclosure: this writer was a “critical reviewer” of this “self-initiated research,” part of the RAND Infrastructure Resilience and Environmental Policy Program.

RAND is a global policy think tank created in 1948 by Douglas Aircraft Company to offer research and analysis to the United States Armed Forces. Today it is financed by the federal government, a private endowment, corporations, universities, and private individuals.It is known for its problem-solving capabilities in a variety of public policy areas.

Cutting to the last paragraph:

Not Everything Is Broken is a treasure trove of useful data, penetrating insight, and recommendations, many of them challenging to the transportation and water sectors. It is well worth the reader’s time to engage its impressive analysis and policy prescriptions for enhancing the nation’s critical infrastructure.

Both the report and the review are winners. Not everyone is going to like what's said.

Enjoy!

Today's adage? What else:

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Unknown 

Robert T. Lackey SAF Plenary Address: 'Is Science on a Path to Irrelevance in Policy and Management?'

Friend and colleague Dr. Robert T. 'Bob' Lackey is no stranger to these pages. He usually lights up these pages with a provocative talk, paper, or blog post. This one is no exception; he recently addressed the Society of American Foresters at their meeting in Portland, OR, speaking on 'Is Science on a Path to Irrelevance in Policy and Management?'

Download Lackey_Science_Irrelevance_SAF_Plenary_Oct2018

His Wikipedia post lists him as a fisheries scientist and political scientist. How about that!

His talk begins:

So, what is this irksome little question? Who posed it? And, why is it so troublesome?

The question was asked by a high school student at the end of a routine “science day”tour, one of many show-and-tell tours at EPA’s National Research Laboratory in Corvallis. Thisis one of those “other duties as assigned” that we all do, but trust me, these tours are not normally memorable events in the life of a Deputy Director.

A little context: with a staff of several hundred energetic but bureaucratically challenged scientists, as deputy, and for those of you early in your careers, keep performing well and you too might have a job like this, one similar to working as a school principal, especially a principal assigned to a middle school in a troubled neighborhood.

Actually, I enjoyed this job, but . . .

Lab science tours were often a welcome breather from my daily task of keeping the bureaucratic peace.

Better yet, lab tours were not intellectually demanding, nor did they ever get into deep and difficult topics and students always accepted your statements as the revealed truth.

In fact, as tour guide, your biggest challenge was finishing the tour with the same number of students you started with.

But one of these tours turned out to be very different.

After this particular tour, as we were waiting for their bus to return, one of the high school students pulled me aside and spoke to me in a quiet, intense, and worried voice. She asked something like this:

“Nearly everyone in my family makes a living off the land, mostly as farmers and loggers. Every one of them thinks that scientists are biased against their activities, and even biased against most anything that people might do to change the natural environment. Are they correct? Are your scientists biased?”

Read on! 

Enjoy!

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but he is not entitled to his own facts.” - Daniel T. Moynihan (thanks to Bob Lackey)