WaterWired

GAO Report: 'Science and Technology - Overview of GAO's Enhanced Capabilities to Provide Oversight, Insight, and Foresight'

A bit of GAO self-promotion here. 

Just released on 5 December 2019: 'Science and Technology: Overview of GAO's Enhanced Capabilities to Provide Oversight, Insight, and Foresight'.

Download GAO_S&T_Oversight_Highlights_5Dec2019

Download GAO_Report_S&T_Oversight_5Dec2019

Fast Facts

Rapid developments in science and technology are transforming multiple sectors of society, including medicine, transportation, and defense. These developments bring both opportunities—such as for economic growth and improved quality of life—and the potential for unintended consequences.

We testified about how we help Congress prepare for such changes—such as issuing technology assessments and our new “Science & Tech Spotlights.”

We also plan to increase our capacity to work on science and technology issues, in part by hiring more staff with expertise in areas like biology, computer science, nuclear physics, and aerospace.

Highlights

GAO provides a variety of science and technology (S&T) products and services to Congress. Over the decades, GAO has grown its S&T portfolio by adding technology assessments, engineering/project controls best practices guides, and, most recently, the Science & Tech Spotlight series. Together, these products are designed to address key congressional interests on S&T issues by providing foresight on the consequences of advances in S&T, oversight of the federal S&T enterprise and S&T-centric programs and projects, and insight into emerging issues and topics of congressional interest.

GAO has the expertise, independence, and access to data to provide authoritative, nonpartisan advice to Congress in a manner that complements other sources of S&T advice.

• Expertise: GAO’s new Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics(STAA) team has 59 staff members with masters’ degrees and/ordoctorates, as of November 2019. Fifty-six staff members have at least one degree in a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics field.GAO’s technology assessments are informed by appropriate S&T expertise, including external experts across academia, think tanks, and industry. GAO integrates subject and policy knowledge from across its 15 mission teams to develop rigorous methodological approaches to expertly analyze quantitative and qualitative data.
• Independence: GAO has a robust quality assurance framework to help ensure its independence and has congressional protocols to help ensure GAO is responsive to Congress in a nonpartisan manner.
• Access to data: GAO’s legal authorities grant it unique access to an extensive range of agency information and data, including classified information and other information that is not available to the public.

GAO will continue to build its capacity to respond to congressional demand. STAA’s current staff level is about one-half of what was outlined in the April 2019 plan submitted to Congress. GAO’s key S&T activities are shown in the figure below.

Background

Rapid developments in S&T are transforming multiple sectors of society, including medicine, transportation, communication, defense, and even culture. Like all technological change, each of these developments brings opportunities and potential unintended consequences. The ability of Congress to understand and evaluate such changes will be critical for the United States to remain safe, innovative, and globally competitive.

GAO’s mission is to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and ensure the accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people. The 2019 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill Conference Report encouraged GAO to reorganize its S&T function by creating a new office. In January 2019, GAO created the STAA team to build on and expand its decades-long work providing Congress with science and technology analysis.

This statement discusses (1) GAO’s S&T products and services for Congress; (2) how GAO is structured to provide S&T advice to the Congress; and (3) GAO’s plan to continuously improve its S&T advising capabilities.

For more information, contact Timothy M. Persons, Ph.D., Chief Scientist and Managing Director, Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics, at (202) 512-6888 or personst@gao.gov.

Can't beat GAO's expertise - right?

Enjoy!

"Normality is a paved road; it's comfortable to walk, but no flowers grow on it." - Vincent van Gogh (tnx to Josiah Shaver)

Floods! Insurance! CRS Report: 'The National Flood Insurance Program - Selected Issues and Legislation in the 116th Congress' & More!

This CRS report comes from Diane P. Horn and Baird Webel: 'The National Flood Insurance Program - Selected Issues and Legislation in the 116th Congress'.

Download CRS_Report_NFIP_Issues_Legislation_2Dec2019

Introduction

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was established by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (NFIA, 42 U.S.C. §4001 et seq.), and was most recentlyreauthorized until December 20, 2019 (P.L. 116-69). The general purpose of the NFIP is both to offer primary flood insurance to properties with significant flood risk, and to reduce flood risk through the adoption of floodplain management standards. A longer- term objective of the NFIP is to reduce federal expenditure on disaster assistance after floods. The NFIP also engages in many “non-insurance” activities in the public interest: it disseminates flood risk information through flood maps, requires community land use and building code standards, and offers grants and incentive programs for household- and community-level investments in flood risk reduction. Unless reauthorized or amended by Congress, the following will occur on December 20, 2019: (1) the authority to provide new flood insurance contracts will expire and (2) the authority for NFIP to borrow funds from the Treasury will be reduced from $30.425 billion to $1 billion.

Issues which Congress may consider in the context of reauthorization include (1) NFIP solvency and debt; (2) premium rates and surcharges; (3) affordability of flood insurance; (4) increasing participation in the NFIP; (5) the role of private insurance and barriers to private sector involvement; (6) non-insurance functions of the NFIP such as floodplain mapping and flood mitigation; and (7) future flood risks, including future catastrophic events.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has identified the need to increase flood insurance coverage across the nation as a major priority for the current reauthorization and beyond, with a goal of doubling flood insurance coverage by 2023 through the increased sale of both NFIP and private policies. The NFIP’s premium rates do not reflect the full risk of loss because of various legislative requirements, which may exacerbate the program’s fiscal exposure. The categories of properties which pay less than the full risk-based rate are determined by the date when the structure was built relative to the date of adoption of a Flood Insurance Rate Map, rather than the flood risk or the ability of the policyholder to pay. A reformed NFIP rate structure could have the effect of encouraging more private insurers to enter the primary flood market; however, full risk-based premiums could be unaffordable for some households.

Although the NFIP has always had borrowing authority from Congress, an approach has not been developed by which the NFIP can repay catastrophic flood losses. To ensure the future financial solvency of the NFIP after catastrophic events, FEMA has suggested that a systematic analysis may consider the costs and benefits of using the reserve fund, borrowing authority, reinsurance, other forms of risk transfer, and perhaps a Treasury backstop at some catastrophic loss level.

The House Financial Services Committee reported a bill for the long-term reauthorization of the NFIP, the National Flood Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2019 (H.R. 3167), on October 28, 2019. One bill has been introduced in the Senate, on July 18, 2019, to reauthorize the expiring provisions of the NFIP: the National Flood Insurance Program Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2019 (S. 2187), with a House companion bill (H.R. 3872) introduced on July 22, 2019.

This report identifies issues for congressional consideration as part of the possible reauthorization of the NFIP, and outlines selected provisions which relate to the issues listed above in the bills to reauthorize the NFIP in the 116th Congress (H.R. 3167 and S. 2187).

Cutting to the chase.... 

Concluding Comments

GAO concluded that the sequence of actions taken by Congress in NFIP reform is important; for example, requiring full-risk rates for all policyholders and expanding the mandatory purchase requirement would create affordability concerns which would warrant having an affordability assistance program already in place. According to GAO, when addressing barriers to private sector involvement, it would be important to protect NFIP’s flood resilience activities at the same time; and addressing the outstanding debt would be best accompanied by premium rate reform to help reduce the likelihood of a recurrence of another unpayable debt buildup.250

As Congress considers a long-term reauthorization of the NFIP, a central question may be who should bear the costs of floodplain occupancy in the future. The NRC study on affordability concluded that the costs of floods can be borne in three possible ways, or in some combination of them. The first scenario is that individual policyholders (whether NFIP or private) bear location cost in the form of insurance premiums paid and damages falling within policy deductible amounts. The second possibility is that the federal taxpayers bear floodplain location costs in several possible ways: if the federal government develops a premium assistance program, or makes up for NFIP premium revenue shortfalls, or pays for pre-flood mitigation, or makes post- flood disaster assistance payments to individual households. In the third scenario, property owners and other floodplain or coastal zone inhabitants bear the costs for losses that are uninsured or otherwise uncompensated.251 While there are many ways to finance flood risk, the majority of the cost will likely ultimately be allocated across these three stakeholder groups: policyholders (the insured), taxpayers, and the uninsured, requiring potentially difficult policy choices by Congress.

Flood in the Delaware River Basin (thanks to Carol Collier, former DRBC ED)

Here are some more related CRS reports:

FEMA Individual Assistance Programs: An Overview  (Updated: 5 December 2019)

A Brief Introduction to the National Flood Insurance Program  (26 November 2019)

A Brief Introduction to the National Flood Insurance Program: Homeland Security Issues in the 116th Congress  (26 November 2019) 

Closing the Flood Insurance Gap   (Updated: 26 November 2019) 

Introduction to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)  (Updated: 26    
      November 2019)

Private Flood Insurance and the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
    (Updated: 26 November 2019)

What Happens If the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Lapses?
  (Updated: 26 November 2019)

Enjoy!

"And roots, if they are to bear fruits, must be kept well in the soil of the land." - Pearl Buck (via @CASTagScience)

GAO Report: 'U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Evaluations of Flood Risk Management Projects Could Benefit from Increased Transparency'

New report from the USGAO: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Evaluations of Flood Risk Management Projects Could Benefit from Increased Transparency. 

Download GAO_USACE_Full_Report_Nov2019

Download GAO_USACE_Highlights_Nov2019

Fast Facts
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers studies the potential costs and benefits of flood risk management projects—such as levees, floodwalls, or building relocation—to inform decision makers about their potential economic effects.

We reviewed 8 Corps studies and found they followed many best practices. But the analyses were not always transparent. For example, only one study considered the limitations of the computer model used in a flood damage analysis. Without that information, reviewers can’t make the best decisions on which projects would be most beneficial.

We recommended the Corps strengthen its internal review process to ensure decision makers have all the information they need.

Infrastructure projects like this system of levees and other barriers in New Orleans could reduce flood risks

What GAO Found
In the eight flood risk management feasibility studies GAO reviewed (see figure), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) followed a six-step planning process consistent with its guidance to, among other things, identify and evaluate the beneficial and adverse effects of alternative plans for proposed projects. In doing so, the Corps used economic analyses to evaluate project-specific categories of potential monetary benefits and costs of alternative plans, such as flood damage reduction benefits and project construction costs. The studies also used separate analyses to evaluate other effects, such as on wildlife habitat and the health and safety of communities.

In the eight studies GAO reviewed, the Corps typically recommended the alternative plan with the greatest net benefit, but also relied on other analyses in certain cases, as allowed under Corps guidance. Corps officials said they relied on other analyses to determine the best project design, help make decisions, or respond to local sponsors' preferences. For example, in one study, the Corps recommended a plan that provided a levee 3 feet higher than the plan with the greatest net benefits, in response to the nonfederal sponsor's request.

The Corps' economic analyses in the eight studies were generally consistent with best practices, but did not fully adhere to practices for transparency. For example, most analyses did not discuss the implications of key limitations in the models and data used. Corps officials acknowledged that transparency could be improved through their review process. By having future analyses align with transparency best practices, the Corps can better inform decision makers about potential economic effects of flood risk projects.

Why GAO Did This Study
The Corps, among other things, constructs flood risk management projects to reduce flood damage in threatened communities nationwide in collaboration with nonfederal sponsors. The Corps prepares feasibility studies to inform decision makers whether a proposed project warrants federal investment. In the studies, the Corps formulates and evaluates alternative plans for achieving the project's objectives and assesses whether the benefits of constructing it outweigh its costs.

GAO was asked to review the methodology the Corps used in feasibility studies. This report examines, for 2015 through 2017, (1) the Corps' process for identifying and evaluating the benefits, costs, and effects of project alternatives; (2) the analyses the Corps used to recommend projects; and (3) the extent to which the Corps' economic analyses of benefits and costs are consistent with best practices.

GAO reviewed Corps guidance; examined planning documents and economic analyses in flood risk studies that the Corps had most recently completed from 2015 through 2017 from eight districts; and compared the Corps' economic analyses with best practices in GAO's Assessment Methodology.

What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that the Corps strengthen its feasibility study review process by including steps to ensure consistency with transparency best practices. The agency concurred with the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works should direct the Chief of Engineers and the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to strengthen the Corps' internal review process for feasibility studies by including steps to ensure consistency with best practices for transparency, such as verifying that all of the important assumptions and limitations in models and their implications for the economic analysis are consistently, clearly, and fully described. (Recommendation 1)

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

Enjoy Thanksgiving!

'When shifting paradigms it is important to put in the clutch.' - Unknown (via Patty Limerick)

GAO Report: 'Irrigated Agriculture - Technologies, Practices, and Implications for Water Scarcity'

It's been a while since I posted a GAO report. This one makes the grade: Irrigated Agriculture: Technologies, Practices, and Implications for Water Scarcity.

Download USGAO_Irrigated_Agriculture_12Nov2019

Fast Facts

Nationwide, irrigation consumed 20-30 trillion gallons of water in 2015. Most irrigation is in the West, where water is relatively scarce and precipitation low.

The 3 main irrigation technologies—gravity, sprinkler, and micro—can all be modified to be more efficient and save water. But in practice, farms may use such water savings to increase yield, switch to thirstier crops, or irrigate more land.

To address water scarcity, federal policymakers could offer incentives to use more efficient technology or practices, in return for farmers’ agreeing to reduce water consumption.

Irrigation and water scarcity across the contiguous United States.

What GAO Found

In the United States, irrigation accounts for more than 40 percent of freshwater use. Several areas in the nation are both heavily irrigated and considered water stressed. Farmers can select irrigation technologies and water conservation practices to better manage freshwater, an increasingly limited natural resource. Farmers have access to multiple irrigation technologies that could increase efficient use of water. Irrigation technologies include micro irrigation, which applies small amounts of water close to the plants; sprinkler systems, which spray water through nozzles; and gravity systems, where water floods the field or runs down furrows. In addition, practices such as irrigation scheduling may help farmers avoid over-irrigation. Farmers can also use precision agriculture technologies, such as soil moisture sensors, computer or smartphone decision support tools, and remote control of irrigation equipment to help optimize irrigation scheduling.

Farmers adopt and use efficient irrigation systems to maximize farm-level profitability, through improved crop yields and decreased costs and other inputs. Drivers of farmer adoption of irrigation technology include increasing profits and reducing risks, but we did not find much evidence that conserving water was a factor in adoption of technology. Barriers limiting adoption of more efficient technology include small farm size, large capital investments, and lack of available information on the technologies. For precision agriculture technologies, lack of connectivity, such as access to broadband, can be a barrier, particularly in rural areas.

Farmers’ use of efficient irrigation technologies alone may not conserve water. GAO’s modeling of an illustrative irrigated watershed shows farmers’ use of efficient irrigation scheduling—such as using data from soil moisture sensors to schedule irrigation—can reduce the amount of water applied to the field, resulting in less water withdrawn from a source, which in this model was groundwater. At the same time though, GAO’s modeling shows water that is consumed through evapotranspiration does not change with efficient irrigation scheduling, while return flows to the source bodies of water may be reduced. While, in some instances, reduced return flows may be beneficial, as such flows can convey pollutants downstream, reduced return flows may also result in less water available to downstream users.

Simulated impact of switching to efficient irrigation scheduling

GAO’s analysis of survey data on farms that converted to more efficient irrigation systems shows there is no change in the amount of water farmers apply to a field with more efficient technology, except for a few technologies and crop types. One such exception is in orchards and vineyards, where switching to micro irrigation was associated with less water applied per acre. Efficient technology may actually increase water use, as it provides farmers with additional flexibility to expand irrigated land or to switch to more water-intensive crops.

Policy Options

The request for GAO to conduct this study specified a policy goal of reducing the impact of irrigated agriculture in locations facing water scarcity in the United States. With that goal in mind, GAO identified the following options federal policymakers could consider:

(1) Promote the use of more efficient irrigation technology and practices, such as irrigation scheduling.

(2) Promote the use of precision agriculture technologies, such as soil moisture sensors and weather stations.

However, in light of GAO’s findings, these options may need to be combined with appropriate agreements in order to enable and encourage water savings. Such agreements could include incentives to farmers for conserving water. Both policy options have the potential benefit of reducing the amount of water applied during irrigation. However, challenges include ensuring that water savings on the farm translates to water conservation on the larger watershed level.

Why GAO Did This Study

Demand for freshwater surpasses the amount naturally available in some areas of the United States. The agriculture sector competes for this limited resource, and withdraws and consumes the most freshwater of any user in the nation. GAO was asked to conduct a technology assessment around agricultural water use.

This report provides an overview of irrigation technologies and on-farm water conservation practices, factors influencing the adoption of these technologies, and implications of their use for water scarcity.In conducting this assessment, GAO reviewed scientific literature; convened an expert meeting with the assistance of the National Academies; visited farmers, academics, and industry representatives; interviewed officials from federal agencies; modeled water use in an illustrative watershed; and performed a regression analysis on U.S. Department of Agriculture irrigation, crop, and technology data.

GAO describes two policy options that federal policymakers could consider relating to irrigation technology and discusses their benefits and challenges.

For more information, contact Timothy M. Persons at (202) 512-6412 or personst@gao.gov or Steve D. Morris at (202) 512-3841 or morriss@gao.gov.

Enjoy!

"Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself." - Weiler's Law

CRS Report: 'Contaminants of Emerging Concern under the Clean Water Act' 7 November 2019

This CRS report (7 November 2019) was authored by Laura Gatz: 'Contaminants of Emerging Concern under the Clean Water Act'.

Download CRS_CECs_CWA_7Nov2019

Summary

Recent decades have seen increased national attention to the presence of “emerging
contaminants” or “contaminants of emerging concern” (CECs) in surface water and groundwater.
Although there is no federal statutory or regulatory definition of CECs, generally, the term refers
to unregulated substances detected in the environment that may present a risk to human health,
aquatic life, or the environment and for which the scientific understanding of potential risks is
evolving. CECs can include many different types of manufactured chemicals and substances—
such as those in pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, agricultural products, and microplastics—as well as naturally occurring substances, such as algal toxins. Data on CECs that would help determine their risk to humans and aquatic life or other aspects of the environment are often limited. Increased monitoring and detections of one particular group of chemicals, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), has recently heightened public and congressional interest in these CECs and has also prompted a broader discussion about how CECs are identified, detected, and regulated and whether additional actions should be taken to protect human health and the environment. While several statutes provide authorities to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and states to address CECs, this report examines authorities available under the Clean Water Act (CWA)—which Congress established to restore and protect the quality of the nation’s surface waters.

EPA has several CWA authorities it may use to address CECs, although it faces some challenges in doing so. Under the CWA, a primary mechanism to control contaminants in surface waters is through permits. The statute prohibits the discharge of pollutants from any point source (i.e., a discrete conveyance) to waters of the United States without a permit. The CWA authorizes EPA and states to limit or prohibit discharges of pollutants in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits they issue. These permits incorporate technology-based and water-quality-based requirements.

The CWA authorizes EPA and states to address CECs through technology-based effluent limitations using national Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards (ELGs) or by setting technology-based effluent limits in NPDES permits on a case-by- case basis. The CWA requires EPA to publish ELGs, which are the required minimum standards for industrial wastewater discharges. The CWA also requires EPA to annually review all existing ELGs and to publish a biennial plan that includes a schedule for review and revision of promulgated ELGs, identifies categories of sources discharging toxic or nonconventional pollutants that do not have ELGs, and establishes a schedule for promulgating ELGs for any newly identified categories. In cases where EPA has not established an ELG for a particular industrial category or type of facility, or where pollutants or processes were not considered when an ELG was developed, the permitting authority (EPA or states) may still impose technology-based effluent limits on a case-by-case basis. Although EPA and states have these authorities available to address CECs, there are some challenges to doing so, including a lack of data available to support new ELGs or updates to existing ELGs. Agency officials stated that it is difficult for the agency to keep pace with the growth of new chemicals in commerce.

The CWA also authorizes EPA and states to address CECs through water-quality-based requirements. States are required to adopt water quality standards for waters of the United States and review them at least once every three years. The CWArequires EPA to publish, and “from time to time thereafter revise” water quality criteria that reflect the latest scientificknowledge. States use EPA’s criteria as guidance in developing their water quality standards. The CWA directs states to adopt criteria to protect their water bodies’ designated uses and to also adopt criteria for all pollutants on the Toxic Pollutant List, for which EPA has published criteria. Once a state adopts water quality criteria for a contaminant as part of its water quality standards, several CWA tools are available to the state for achieving them. The primary tool is to establish water- quality-based effluent limitations in NPDES permits. Although EPA and states have authority to address CECs through water-quality-based requirements, they often lack data needed to support development of criteria or water-quality-based effluent limitations.

The CWA also authorizes EPA to designate contaminants as toxic pollutants or as hazardous substances, which may trigger other actions under the CWA and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.

Recent congressional interest in CECs has focused on addressing one particular group of CECs—PFAS—and on addressing them through other statutes. However, in the 116th Congress, H.R. 3616 and H.Amdt. 537, Section 330A, of the House- passed version of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2020 (H.R. 2500), would direct EPA to add PFAS to the CWA Toxic Pollutant List and publish ELGs that establish effluent limitations and standards for PFAS within specified time frames.

Cutting to the chase...

Conclusion

While Congress is currently debating how to best address the concerns related to widespread detections of PFAS, attention to other emerging contaminants (e.g., microplastics and algal toxins) has also increased with the availability of new detection methods and increased monitoring. Observers note that in the coming years, other CECs will likely emerge and prompt similar calls for immediate action to protect public health and the environment. Many observers argue that federal actions to address CECs currently tend to be reactive rather than proactive. Many of these observers assert that more focus and attention is needed on assessing the toxicity of chemical substances before they are introduced into commerce. Congress is currently considering legislation to improve federal coordination and responses to CECs.

Specific to the CWA, some observers advocate for oversight to identify and address potential gaps or barriers in CWA authorities and processes that make it difficult for EPA and states to quickly respond when CECs are detected. Other observers assert that EPA could better use its existing authorities to address CECs. For example, EPA has not updated its ELGs for certain industrial categories in decades. Accordingly, some observers assert that various ELGs do not reflect advancements in science or technology that could lead to new effluent limitations for CECs. Similarly, some stakeholders assert that EPA could better prioritize which CECs warrant water quality criteria development. EPA’s ability to address these and other recommendations depends on the availability of resources, treatment technologies, and scientific and economic data. Moving forward, Congress may be interested in evaluating EPA appropriations for the CWA programs that support EPA’s efforts to address discharges of CECs. Congress may also be interested in overseeing the Administration’s implementation of these programs.

 Enjoy - very good summary.

"Curiosity is the one thing invincible in Nature." - Freya Stark (in National Geographic Traveler)