Jun
30
Water Giant Philip E. Lamoreaux Dies
June 30, 2008 | Posted by Michael "Aquadoc" Campana
Leave a Comment
With great sadness I report the recent death of yet another giant in the field of water resources.
Dr. Philip E. LaMoreaux, Sr., died at home in Tuscaloosa, AL, on 23 June 2008. He was 88, and had served the water community for over 60 years.
I did not know Phil as well as I knew Tom Prickett and Stan Davis, both of whom died last year, but Phil’s stature was every bit as great as theirs. Like Tom and Stan, he was not only an extraordinary professional, but also a gentleman. He leaves an unparalleled legacy.
The following three paragraphs are taken from Dr. LaMoreaux’s bio on the American Geological Institute’s WWW site:
Dr. LaMoreaux had occupied a central role in the development of hydrogeology and environmental geology into the most dynamic and sought-after disciplines in geology. He has been a leader in the profession of geology and has had a distinguished career as a federal, state, academic, and consulting geologist.
He served as Chief of the Ground Water Branch of the U.S. Geological Survey, State Geologist of Alabama, Professor of Geology at the University of Alabama, and Director of the Environmental Institute for Waste Management Studies (EIWMS) for Alabama before forming his form, Philip E. Lamoreaux & Associates., Inc.
He contributed much to the profession of geology through involvement with major geological societies: as President of the American Geological Institute, Association of American State Geologists, and American Institute of Hydrology; as Chairman of t he Geological Society of America Foundation Board of Trustees; as Chairman of both GSA’s Hydrogeology Division and American Geophysical Union’s Hydrology Division. He was a member of the National Academy of Engineering and was Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Environmental Geology.
Dr. LaMoreaux’s comments on working in geohydrology/environmental geology.
Here is a memoriam from the Arizona Geological Survey’s blog.
For those of you who wish to honor his memory, his family has requested that in lieu of flowers, contributions be sent to:
The First Presbyterian Church of Tuscaloosa
LaMoreaux Memorial
900 Greensboro Avenue
Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
205-752-3531
The Philip E. and Bunnie LaMoreaux Geology Scholarship Fund
University of Alabama Advancement Office
P.O. 870122
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487
1-888-875-4438
Rest in peace, in Phil.
“We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give.” – Sir Winston Churchill
Jun
22
AWRA Input at Corps Public Meeting
June 22, 2008 | Posted by Jane Rowan
Leave a Comment
On June 5, I participated in a public forum organized by the US Army Corps of Engineers in
The Corps Panel was hosted by the Honorable John Paul Woodley, Assistant Secretary of the Army, along with MG Don T. Riley Deputy Commander of the Army, Steven Stockton, Director of Civil Works, Larry Prather, Assistant Director of Civil Works and Ben Grumbles Assistant Secretary of the Office of Water from the Environmental Protection Agency. These gentlemen have provided continuous support AWRA and deserve our thanks and our enthusiastic input during the execution of this difficult task of updating the P&G’s.
Some of the other commenters included the Nature Conservancy, the National Wildlife Federation,
Jun
22
Green Ports Initiative in Philadelphia
June 22, 2008 | Posted by Jane Rowan
Leave a Comment
Have you ever thought that an industrial waterfront user would have something in common with a riverkeeper or environmental conservation organization?
Recently a partnership of the three Philadelphia Region waterfront authorities (Delaware River Port Authority, South Jersey Port Corporation and the Philadelphia Region Port Authority) collaborated, and developed a Green Ports Initiative with the purpose of creating a cooperative approach to reducing or neutralizing the impact of port operations upon the environment and the surrounding community. Their agreement coalesced in an MOU which included the following stated objectives, that they would:
(iii) Employing cleaner energy sources;
(iv) Replacement and/or modernization of vehicles and equipment
(v) Development of sound planning and development processes; and
(vi) Seeking funding sources to perform programs supported by the Green Ports Initiative.
Although water resources were not specifically singled out for protection, I am nonetheless grateful for this modest but significant step. I personally would like to congratulate these three waterfront authorities for the first pro-environment effort I have ever seen, expended on behalf of an industrial port. AWRA also offers it’s assistance to this industrial sector, as well as other private and government agencies that may impact water resources in a significant way. Within our state and national membership are thousands of water resources professionals who have different specialties. AWRA is a place where scientists, engineers, attorneys, water users, water developers and policymakers can communicate, collaborate and connect regarding the wisest use of our most precious natural resource.
Some may not agree that this multi-port sustainable initiative MOU is a significant step, and would like to see all industrial waterfront uses terminated. However I would argue otherwise.
We must all recognize that continued operation of our ports is essential to our well being and our national quality of life. Most of these waterfront terminals lie in what were once extremely high quality wetland habitats, mostly salt and freshwater tidal marsh wetlands essential to myriads of shell and finfish, migratory birds and hertptile species. However, now developed for perhaps more than 100 years these sites are also the location of export and import trade, extremely essential to our economy and our way of life. Many of these facilities receive or import raw materials, products of international trade, including fruits and vegetables, automobiles and wood products, fuel bound for refineries or even electric generation plants. These waterfront terminals have been in existence for many years and rely on their proximity to water to continue sending and receiving cargo.
Environmentalists may find terminals as their unexpected bedfellows. Why not form partnerships with an industry that is open to environmental improvement? The interests of ports and the environmental conservationists converge with a lack of support for non-water dependent developments on the waterfront. These developments are occurring with increasing regularity on the edge of water bodies, mostly our major river outlets along the east coast. Once developed at the waters edge, they eliminate the use of the site for riparian habitat and for terminal operations alike. Residential communities, high rises, big-box retail stores, warehouses and casinos are locating on the waterfront in increasing regularity. Why do we allow developments on the waterfront when proximity to water us not essential?
The riparian zones of most major rivers along the east coast are old, tired and nearly completely developed with port terminals. Over the years the development compromised tens of thousands of acres of essential intertidal habitat. This habitat is mostly gone, however many port terminals have regrouped and reorganized into concentrated facilities leaving smaller port facilities abandoned. These abandoned port facilities are under increasing pressure for waterfront development. The newer terminals, completely dependent on their proximity to the river are beginning to review and revise their operations in order to decrease the impacts they may have on the environment, our hope would be that they would include improvements to water quality, riparian zone conservation and elimination of wetland impacts. We need to continue to bear up under the essential needs of waterfront trade terminals while at the same time discouraging the reuse of these older facilities for non-water dependent purposes, like residential high-rises and retail developments.
If you live on the coast, have you taken the opportunity to engage the waterfront authorities and ask them about improving their environmental practices? Would it be possible to encourage the reuse of former port facilities as restoration sites for wetlands or riparian areas and wildlife habitiat and public access? The riverkeepers often are the lone voices calling for river riparian zone restoration. Though some may want the removal of all port operations on the waterfront, perhaps it would be best to build partnerships and collaborate and compromise to encourage restoration of unused waterfront areas to natural habitats rather than selling the property to developers as high priced residential real estate.
Have you heard about ports in your city looking to evaluate their environmental practices in order to become more “green”? I would be very interested to hear your thoughts regarding the DRPA MOU as well as the experiences you have had in your waterfront community. Please visit AWRA’s Water Blog and contribute your thoughts and experiences to the water resources community so they can become more educated on the subject!
In late June we will hold our Spring Specialty Conference, “Riparian Ecosystems and Buffers, Working at the Water’s Edge”. I have invited our friends at the port.
I hope to see you at the AWRA National Conference in November in one of the greatest port terminal cities in the
May
12
Rep. John Linder’s 21st Century Water Commission Is Still Afloat
May 12, 2008 | Posted by Michael "Aquadoc" Campana
2 Comments
Jerry Sehlke just posted about a national water vision for the US, and what happens? A Congressman takes him up on that!
Rep. John Linder (R-GA), who represents Georgia’s 7th District, the northeast suburbs of Atlanta (Gwinnett County and environs), has seen his bill H.R. 135 to establish a “21st Century Water Commission” get voted out of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure’s Subcommittee on Water and Environment. Linder’s bill has been down this road before, getting House approval in the previous two sessions but no consideration in the Senate. His Senate colleague Johnny Isakson (R-GA) hopes to change that should the bill be approved by the House.
Third time’s a charm, right?
Download linder_pr_water_bill_2008.pdf
Download hr_135_21_century_watercommission.pdf
Linder is one of the founders of the House Water caucus and spoke at our First and Third Water Policy Dialogues [access his most recent address here: http://awra.podshowcreator.com/podcasts.aspx?feedid=994]
Download congresswatercaucus.pdf
Linder’s bill establishes a nine-person commission with a three-year life and a $9M budget. The commission members will be unsalaried. The keys are not only the commissioners themselves, but also the staff positions and the Director, all of whom are salaried. The commission will study and develop recommendations for a comprehensive water strategy to address future water needs.
Okay, here are the “good, bad, and the ugly.”
Good:
- The commission is a very good idea and its charge is long overdue.
- I like the idea of a water strategy as opposed to a water policy (thanks, Dick!).
- States’ water prerogatives will be respected.
- Conflicts and duplication among Federal water agencies will be addressed (great idea - good luck!).
- Water quality and environmental considerations are embedded in the bill.
- The study will look at options other than simply trying to develop more supplies via infrastructure projects.
Bad:
- The commission, its charge, and budget should have been assigned to the The National Academies. They have experience with these kinds of studies, and would help ensure that politics would not rear its ugly head and that the “right” people would be appointed. I’d like to get a good water strategy, not the SOS.
- The commissioners should not all be “the usual suspects”; ditto the Director and staff.
- The bill calls for a 50-year horizon. A longer time frame is required - at least 100 years.
Ugly:
- The commission Director is appointed by the Speaker of the House and that’s a bad idea; too much risk of political shenanigans. The commission itself should hire the Director, a la the 9/11 Commission.
For those who say that the gravitas of the commission will be lessened by having the NAS involved at the expense of Congress and the President: ensure that Congressional hearings will be held on the committee’s report. There are precedents for this.
An amendment (in the form of a substitute bill) was recently added to Linder’s original bill by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX). Here’s what her amendment does (all good):
- increases the size of the commission to 11 members;
- increases the budget to $12M over five years; and
- directs the commission to include the effects of climate change and climate change science in its report and recommendations.
Download johnson_substitute_to_hr_135_oberst_127_xml_2.pdf
Time will tell whether the commission will produce a workable water strategy, but it’s a long-overdue start.
But the real test will come when the commission’s work is done. Will the President and Congress heed the recommendations? About that, I’m less optimistic.
“I’d rather be upstream with a ditch and a shovel than downstream with a decree.” – Western USA water saying
May
1
A National Water Vision for the US?
May 1, 2008 | Posted by Jerry Sehlke
2 Comments
Dick Engberg posted a very interesting concept to the AWRA board/staff and technical committee listserv’s today that may be of interest to our members related to the potential of developing a National Water Policy or Strategy (see below). There has been quite a healthy discussion that has been going on about it most of the day. I am hoping that those that responded to Dick’s posting will be willing to capture their thoughts from that discussion and bring them over to the blog to share those thoughts with our membership.
My personal thoughts are that it is pretty amazing (but not in a good way) that the US doesn’t have a National Vision for what is arguably the most/one of the most important natural resources on earth. The vision doesn’t need to get to long, complex or contentious - the goal of developing a vision is to state the ideal of what you would like to accomplish; e.g., we want to make water available and to utilize it for the benefit of all man kind, yet not pollute it or overuse it to the deteriment of the environment. I’m not saying that is what the vision should be, I just saying that it doesn’t need to be difficult or contentious to develop. Of couse, the potentially difficult and contentious aspects come soon thereafter, if we decide that we should develop water resources strategies, goals and/or policies on how to implement such a vision. As always the devil is in the details and the details are in the strategies, goals and policies.
So, what are your thoughts? Do you think that the US needs/should develop a National Water Vision? Should AWRA help lead the way? If so, should we develop an AWRA Vision and then share it with others or should we invite our sister professional water resources organizations to co-develop one? Let us know what you think!
Subject: [Impacteditors] RE: [AWRA Staff] Rivers Running Dry
This is interesting. I’m glad to see others getting on the band wagon. Too late? Who knows? To have a coherent and cogent policy we need a National Water Vision. We don’t have a national vision, we have a variety of visions each based on the needs of the person or group’s specific concerns or needs. What is necessary is some way of coalescing these visions into a single one. Policy will come out of this. I find it interesting that there is now in Canada a CWRA (Canadian Water Resources Association) working group that is mapping out and energizing the processes needed to develop and implement a “National Water Strategy” for Canada. It’s interesting that the Canadians can get a group like this together and deal with this need. The CWRA Board of Directors recognized that a National Strategy must be developed and implemented with active participation from all levels of government, all business sectors and citizen groups. I like their use of the word “Strategy” - it ha!
As, for me, a more positive connotation than “Policy”.
We attempted to do something like what the Canadians are doing with the Water Policy Dialogue series and our “After Action” reports. I believe what the Canadians are doing, though, is one step further, that is, taking the equivalent of the after action reports together with imput from government and citizens and building a strategy.
I’m wondering if AWRA should take the bull by the horns and put together a working group to do the same thing as the Canadians? Who would we invite to be part of such a group? Would it be relevant? Would anyone listen? Would anyone care? I think there are a lot of us that care - it might be a way for our voices to be heard. Perhaps the meeting that Gerry Galloway has proposed for September should be constructed along these lines?
Some random thoughts.
Dick Engberg
Apr
30
WaterDance Lives On …
April 30, 2008 | Posted by Terry Meyer
1 Comment
Several months ago now, facing the cold, wet, foggy, dreary and long 28 days in the dreaded month of February and desperate for a diversion, I proposed in the AWRA e-newsletter, Connections, a film festival to be held in each of our homes, and I provided a list of 28 films (mostly readily available) in which water plays an important role either as setting, protaganist or antagonist, supporting cast, metaphor, symbol, or allegory. You can see the complete list here: http://www.awra.org/newsletter/0801newsletter.html. I named it WaterDance and launched it into cyberspace with my “send” button.
Such a response I got! I had no idea there were so many like me who love movies and dread the month of February, too. There were those who added to my initial list, those who provided commentary on my selections, and those who set out to watch as many as they could of the films I suggested. Many, many people could not believe I left “Chinatown” (1974, Roman Polanski) — that classic story of California water rights, intrigue, and incest — off my list, and I could hardly believe it myself. So, I tried to make amends in my next issue of Connections (available here: http://www.awra.org/newsletter/0802newsletter.html).
I had a number of great one-on-one email conversations, and one insightful person suggested posting the idea of WaterDance on a blog so the conversation could be more inclusive. While I had to wait for the AWRA blog to exist in order to put her idea into action, here it is at last!
I’ll start you off with a sampling of suggested additions to my original list from Connections readers:
- Deliverance (1972, John Boorman)
- The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957, David Lean)
- The River (1951, Jean Renoir)
- Sphere (1998, Barry Levinson)
- Cast Away (2000, Robert Zemeckis)
- Holes (2003, Andrew Davis)
(Visit www.imdb.com for lots of information about these and many other movies.)
And, you can check out my previous lists at the links provided above, and with your help WaterDance can run all year long.
With this post I launch WaterDance into the blogosphere. Let’s see if it floats!
Apr
23
Key Water Issues Now Facing our Nation
April 23, 2008 | Posted by admin
4 Comments
Robert M. Hirsch, Timothy L. Miller, Pixie Hamilton, and Robert Gilliom
Series: Water Resources in the Next Decade
Challenges to sustaining sufficient and high-quality water for human consumption, industry, farms, energy production, and ecosystem services continue to intensify in many parts of the Nation. We face four key water issues that call for support from the science and engineering communities.
- Streamflow to Support Aquatic Ecosystems. The historic question in water-supply development was “How much water can we take from the river on a reliable basis?” The contemporary question is “How much water do we need to leave in the river to support and sustain stream biota and habitat?” Far more than a question of minimum in-stream flow requirements, this challenge involves the entire hydrograph, interactions of flow conditions with channel form and water quality, and the consequences of these changes on ecosystems.
- Sustainable Ground-Water and Surface-Water Supplies. Historically, ground-water resources were tapped with little consideration to aquifer-storage depletion or streamflow effects. Now, ground-water storage is diminishing in many aquifers, resulting in higher pumping- lift costs, land subsidence, saltwater intrusion, and reduced streamflow. The contemporary question is “How do we manage ground water and surface water as a single sustainable resource?” To answer this question, we must expand systematic collection of data for tracking water resources, develop reliable hydrologic models for analysis of the interconnected ground-water and surfacewater systems, and evolve legal and economic institutions that consider the whole interconnected resource.
- Sustainable Water Quality. Since implementation of the Clean Water Act in 1972 point sources have been largely controlled for regulated contaminants, and waterquality concerns have increasingly focused on difficultto- control nonpoint sources of pollution, such as agricultural and urban runoff, and atmospheric deposition. Possible causes of impairment can include: changes in flow, increases in water temperature and salinity, presence of natural or anthropogenic chemical contaminants (including those at concentrations that are not lethal but may have adverse effects on humans or aquatic life), invasive species, riparian disturbance, and construction of physical barriers. The analysis of changes in water quality is complicated by the fact that variations due to normal fluctuations between wet and dry periods can overshadow the human influences. The contemporary question is “Can we identify which causes of impairment are dominant so we can successfully manage our water resources?”
- Effects of Climate Change. We have managed and developed water resources on the premise that water resources behave in a stationary and relatively predictable manner foretold by historical data. However, we now see that both short-term and long-term hydrologic variability is the norm, ranging from natural short-term climate swings related to El Niño to long-term changes associated with increased greenhouse gas concentrations. These influences can change the magnitude and timing of streamflow, which in turn changes the reliable supply for human and ecosystem uses. The contemporary question is “How do we manage water resources knowing that hydrologic processes are not stationary and our current ability to make reliable predictions is limited?’
Two needs stand out as we attempt to address all of these challenges. First, credible long-term data and assessments are needed to understand our water resources and how they are changing through time. In addition to water quantity and quality data, we also need ancillary data on landscape features and human activities related to chemical, land, and water use.
Second, we need to accelerate the development of reliable predictive models to understand water resources in places and times that we cannot feasibly monitor, and to determine how resources will change as a result of our water management decisions and actions. These models must have a strong basis in theory but be guided by long-term observational data. Science and technology have been crucial to the development of our water-resources infrastructure and improvements in water quality to date. Science and technology are central to resolving the water issues that we face today.
Apr
23
Water Resources Challenges in the Next Decade and Beyond: Global Change
April 23, 2008 | Posted by admin
Leave a Comment
Gerald Sehlke
Series: Water Resources in the Next Decade
I believe that the most pressing issue is “Global Change” and its impacts on humans and the environment. Changes on earth are always a mixture of natural and anthropogenic changes. “Global Change” research focuses on the anthropogenic aspects of climate change, land use change, water resources development, and urbanization.
Arguably, much of the success associated with human survival and prosperity has been related to our ability to control and utilize water resources to our benefit. We have developed reliable water supplies that provide water in sufficient quality and quantity, when and where it is needed to support basic human needs and economic development. We have protected humans and human development (e.g., crops and infrastructure) from destructive natural phenomena, such as hurricanes and floods. We have improved basic sanitation, controlled pollutants, and developed reliable irrigation, navigation, and energy systems. Energy production and use has also been a major factor relative to human survival and prosperity. However, while extending human longevity, health, and prosperity, our activities have altered the earth’s climate, and in many areas drastically affected the way we live (e.g., urbanization), how much land and water we utilize, and the extent to which we have polluted the environment.
Global change, at its root, is driven by two major factors; first, the overall size and growth of the human population; and second, by a combination of our life styles, our economies and technology development, which drives our utilization of and impacts on natural resources and increases the wastes/pollutants we generate and discharge to the environment. Humans have been incredibly successful organisms; unlike other species, we have been able to modify our environment on the large scale, allowing us to successfully reproduce greatly and survive by adapting and expanding into virtually every niche on earth. Hence, the human population that was relatively stable at a few millions to a few hundreds of millions until 1 A.D., began expanding rapidly to approximately one billion in the early 1800s to our present population of 6.4 billion people today. That number is expected to grow to 8–12 billion people by 2050. Like all biological organisms, our mere presence impacts the earth’s environment. Unlike other organisms, humans have been able to impact the environment on the global scale.
The hydrological and biological capacity of the earth must be shared by all living creatures. In early human history, there were few humans and little human technology, so humans could be as destructive as they were capable of being and have minimal immediate impact to regional or global environments; and they caused a minimal if not an unperceivable footprint on future generations. However, as human populations expanded drastically, we migrated and established significant populations in most niches on earth and our capability to impact the local environments also expanded, allowing us to impact regional and then the global environment. In addition, our technological capacity expanded allowing us to modify the amount, quality, timing, and location of water in most of the world’s major river basins; to extract, harvest, and utilize large quantities of earth’s biomass; to produce such large quantities of pollutants and wastes as to change the very chemistry of our atmosphere, and to degrade a large percentage of the land and water resources on earth.
Historically, humans have not been gentle to the environment or our fellow inhabitants and even though modern environmental and sustainability philosophies tout that we will be better stewards in the future, our environmental record is spotty. However, even if we succeed in living in harmony with the environment to the greatest extent possible, the likely impacts of having 12 billion people on earth in the future could very well prove to be catastrophic to both our fellow earth-inhabitants and to ourselves.
The challenges for the next decade and beyond are to limit our population growth, to moderate our life styles, and to develop technologies that will provide for our human needs, yet protect and maintain the earth’s environment for all current and future inhabitants.
Apr
22
Brown & Caldwell: Special Earth Day Edition of Water News
April 22, 2008 | Posted by Michael "Aquadoc" Campana
Leave a Comment
Brown and Caldwell has published a special Earth Day edition of its Water News.
“If one morning I walked on top of the water across the Potomac River, the headline that afternoon would read ‘President Can’t Swim’.” – Lyndon B. Johnson
Apr
20
ABA Best Papers in Environmental Law and Water Law
April 20, 2008 | Posted by Michael "Aquadoc" Campana
Leave a Comment
Colleague Patrick Griffiths of the City of Bend alerted me to this information, which is from the American Bar Association’s Section on Environment, Energy, and Resources (www.abanet.org/environ/best/).
The ABA Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources recognizes the following paper submissions as the “Best Papers” prepared for the 37th Annual Conference on Environmental Law (Keystone), 26th Annual Water Law Conference, 15th Section Fall Meeting, and the 36th Annual Conference on Environmental Law. Each author was presented with a certificate of recognition and a Section publication as a token of appreciation for their outstanding submissions.
You can download each of these free at the above WWW site.
Here are the Environmental Law winners:
Thomas A. Bloomfield | Gallagher & Gallagher, a Professional Corporation
The Topsy Turvey World of CERCLA Uncertain Law – Uncertain Science
Sharon M. Mattox | Vinson & Elkins, L.L.P.
The 404(b)(1) Guidelines: Overview and New Developments
Rex R. Raimond | The Meridian Institute
Ethical Considerations Regarding the International Development and Application of Nanotechnology and Nanoscale Materials
Douglas R. Williams | Saint Louis University School of Law
Complexity, Competence, and Confidentiality: Ethical Issues at the Cutting Edge of Environmental Law
Water Law winners:
Charlton H. Bonham | Trout Unlimited
A Recipe from the Field for Dam Removal Agreements
Sandra Zellmer | University of Nebraska College of Law
Anti-Speculation: Ghost-busting, Trust-busting, or Ensuring Beneficial Use?
I have read only Zellmer’s paper, which I strongly recommend.
Subscribe
