by Katrina Mendrey
There is nothing like writing your thesis to give you serious project envy. For instance, while I was caring for a gaggle of Douglas-fir seedlings potted with various forms and doses of metals in a greenhouse, my dear friend Betsy was trekking around the Cascades classifying a soil on which a rare white flower grows. Granted her sights are on steep, nearly inaccessible slopes, but it just sounds more romantic.
I thought the envy would wear off after I sacrificed my trees and started analyzing my data. Not so much. Now that I’m writing endlessly about metals in plants and soil, it’s worse then ever.
Most recently the source of my envy is SQ Water, a collaborative project between University of Washington students and researchers and citizens of Lomas de Zapallal, a slum in Lima, Peru. The purpose of the project is to design and engineer a fog collection system capable of meeting the community’s water needs and supporting irrigation to revegetate the barren urban landscape.
Admittedly, fog collection systems are nothing new. They’ve existed in the form of trees and natural vegetation for thousands of years. Within the last 30 years, man-made systems using landscape netting have been harvesting fog in places lacking vegetation and access to clean water.
So what’s so special about this project? Well, the same technology employed three decades ago is still being used today. That’s not such a bad thing, except now there are new materials including 3D landscaping mats capable of collecting fog more efficiently. Students, with the help of faculty advisers Susan Bolton (School of Environment and Forest Sciences) and Ben Spencer (College of Built Environments–Landscape Architecture), have tested several of these types of materials using a fog machine in a hoop house at the University of Washington.
But this project doesn’t stop with collecting the water. The group also designed origami storage tanks made of light durable plastic sheets and irrigation systems made from recycled plastic bottles and cotton wicks placed underground to efficiently water plants. Such a system is inexpensive and can be easily transported. In addition, without any fancy parts and materials, the systems could be maintained within the communities that use them.
Going a step further, they’ve also been testing various methods for fog collection from plants irrigated with water from man-made systems. In their hoop house experiment, vines such as grapes have been considered as an additional tool for water collection allowing a community to maximize their resources.
So why the project envy? It’s pertinent…now more than ever. With a growing population of slum dwellers, melting glaciers and an annual precipitation of 10mm a year, Lima is an ideal location to pilot a project such as this. But as water scarcity approaches 52% by 2050, it will be just one of many places in need of creative solutions to depleted water resources.
In the meantime, SQWater is waiting to hear if they will be awarded a P3–People, Prosperity and the Planet grant from the EPA. While fellow competitors at the Phase 1 competition in April voted them best in show, the winner of the $90,000 grant to implement the project has not been announced.
Katrina Mendrey is a student at the University of Washington studying soils, particularly the organic component of soils and is especially interested in biosolids.
If you have questions or comments for Katrina, please leave them in the comment area below.
May 17, 2013 | Posted by Michael "Aquadoc" Campana
Leave a Comment
Headed to Cape Cod, MA, so I’ll be on a plane most of the day.
Click here for the weekly water news summary.
“Excellence is the result of caring more than others think is wise, risking more than others think is safe, dreaming more than others think is practical and expecting more than others think is possible.” — Anonymous
May 10, 2013 | Posted by Michael "Aquadoc" Campana
Leave a Comment
This past week seemed like ‘Halogen Week’ on WaterWired. In honor of Drinking Water Week, I posted reviews of two books dealing with drinking water additives: chlorine and fluoride. You still have two days to celebrate Drinking Water Week – or chlorine or fluoride, if you are so inclined.
Click here to read the weekly water news summary.
“Don’t look down on anyone unless you are helping them up.” — Pakistani proverb (tnx @chanceofraincom)
May 9, 2013 | Posted by Michael "Aquadoc" Campana
Leave a Comment
A few days ago it was fluoride. Now it’s chlorine! What is happening? Halogen addiction on the verge of my 65th birthday? Maybe I have a thing for poisons added to drinking water!
It’s all in honor of Drinking Water Week.
Read on, dear reader.
@CaptDocMike is the Twitter handle for Dr. Michael J. McGuire, drinking water expertextraordinaire and member of the National Academy of Engineering, who just penned, The Chlorine Revolution: Water Disinfection and the Fight to Save Lives. It’s published by the American Water Works Assoication (AWWA).
Read more at Mike’s blog/website.
So what’s the deal? Is there another review in the offing? Not really. I am just going to provide my foreword, which Mike asked me to write.
Here is a PDF: Download Foreword_Chlorine_Rev_Campana_21Jan2013
Many years ago, an engineer colleague told me that if I ever wanted to thank one person for the excellent state of public health in the USA, make sure I thanked an engineer. When I presented a puzzled mien, he proceeded to explain the role of the engineering profession in developing methods for treating wastewater and disinfecting drinking water. I certainly understood the difficulty in, and importance of, treating wastewater, but I scoffed at the disinfection aspect, especially the difficulty. ‘What’s the big deal with disinfecting the drinking water? Just add some chlorine,’ I replied. He responded with a glare that I suspect I’d given to some of my students over the years, and proceeded to lecture me on drinking water disinfection with chlorine. Little did I realize that, lo these many years later, I would be penning the foreword to a book titled, The Chlorine Revolution:Water Disinfection
and the Fight to Save Lives, and being amazed at and enthralled by the wealth of information in Dr. Michael J. McGuire’s book. Suffice it to say that in writing this book, Mike added two more hats to his engineering one – those of historian and detective. The book is meticulously researched and documented and well-written.
Even I, as a non-engineer (hydrogeologist), have known Mike by reputation for a number of years. After all, he is a fellow ‘water wonk’ and (unlike me) a member of the National Academy of Engineering, an organization that does not suffer fools. I first met him several years ago when we both served on a National Research Council committee, and that in-person experience did nothing but enhance his reputation and my perception of his expertise.
Whence the origins of this book? It is an outgrowth of a paper Mike published in the Journal of the American Water Works Association in 2006, “Eight Revolutions in the History of U.S. Drinking Water Disinfection”. The title reminded me of my aforementioned comment disparaging the difficulty of drinking water disinfection. If a person like Mike sees ‘eight revolutions’ then I must be missing something. For once, my hunch was right. I had missed something about disinfection.
As Mike states in his Preface, the article was well-received, but he was not satisfied:
The first revolution fascinated me. What was the decision-making process behind the first continuous use of chlorine in the United States? Why was chlorination of a water supply first accomplished in Jersey City, New Jersey? Who were the people primarily responsible for implementing chlorination? What in their experience led them to take such extraordinary steps? What were the consequences of their actions? These questions led me to begin research for this book and to explore in depth this historic era in drinking water disinfection.
After reading the above, I was hooked. I wanted to learn what the ‘big deal’ was. After all, I knew enough about drinking water chlorination to know that it entails adding a poison to something about to be ingested by humans. You’d better have the biology, chemistry, and engineering right.
Now comes the surprising part. Despite the first sentence of my foreword, it was two men not trained as engineers who played the key roles in the struggle to chlorinate drinking water supplies: Dr. John L. Leal, a medical doctor turned public health and water expert, and George Warren Fuller, an MIT-trained chemist who became the foremost U.S. sanitary engineer before his 40th birthday. Leal was the one who speculated upon the health benefits of chlorinating public water supplies on a continuous basis. His research into bacteriology and the development of germ theory of disease led him to the works of Pasteur, Koch, and others to posit that chlorine dose to drinking water would be the key to drastically reducing or eliminating health threats from typhoid and other waterborne diseases. Fuller’s prodigious engineering skills would implement Leal’s theories; all he had to do was develop a continuous feed system that would safely chlorinate 40 million gallons per day!
Mike’s book goes into incredible detail. The court trials. The ‘chemophobia’ that was prevalent at the turn of the last century. The pioneering bacteriologists. John Snow and his ‘cholera map’. The understanding of what caused disease (no, not ‘miasmas’). Even the improvements to the microscope that led to advances in bacteriology do not escape Mike’s sleuthing.
Recalling the first sentence of this foreword, I must now confess that for years I have been telling my students whom to thank. But now I know a lot more: thewhole story and exactly whom to thank. And I know exactly what I will tell the students in my US Water Management class tomorrow morning.
The Chlorine Revolution: Water Disinfection and theFight to Save Lives is an extraordinary book telling a remarkable story. Engineer, water wonk, or not, you’ll be glad you read it.
Michael E. Campana, PhD
Past President, American Water Resources Association
Professor of Hydrogeology and Water Resources Management
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR, USA
21 January 2013
If the above is not a review, I don’t know what is. Great book!
“It’s the drinking water, stupid.” – Michael J. McGuire, The Chlorine Revolution, p. 41 (apologies to James Carville)
Book Review: ‘The Fluoride Wars: How a Modest Public Health Measure Became America’s Longest Running Political Melodrama’
May 7, 2013 | Posted by Michael "Aquadoc" Campana
Leave a Comment
Introduction and ‘The Book’
It is funny to be writing about fluoridation of public water supplies and a book on that topic at this late date; I thought that battle had been settled years ago. Apparently not.
A few years ago, I encountered a book, The Fluoride Wars: How a Modest Public Health Measure Became America’s Longest Running Political Melodrama, that piqued my curiosity. It was written in 2009, authored by R. Allan Freeze and Jay H. Lehr, two people with whom I’m familiar, and their authorship was the main reason for my initial interest. More on that later.
I have finally read the book (twice) and thoroughly enjoyed it. I will give my impresssions of it and provide some of my own views on the issue. So this won’t be a ‘standard’ book review.
I should note that I have it on good authority that the bulk of the book – 90% or so – is Freeze’s work. I wondered about that because sometimes the first person pronoun ‘I’ is used, sometimes ‘We’. Sloppy editing.
My ‘review’ starts down below at My Ten Cents.
Why Discuss Fluoridation Now?
Old hat, right?
Some local communities have been going through gyrations about whether to begin/end drinking water fluoridation. In two weeks, residents of Portland, Oregon, just about 80 miles north of my home of Corvallis (fluoridated), will vote to decide the ‘fluoride fate’ of the city’s water supply, ably distributed by the Portland Water Bureau (PWB). The City Commission had voted to fluoridate the water, but opponents produced enough votes to force a vote. Oddly enough, about one-third of PWB’s 900,000 customers cannot vote on this issue because they live outside the city. The PWB’s supply is currently fluoride-free; Portland is the largest such municipal supply in the USA. I was surprised when I learned that a few years ago.
For those who oppose fluoride in their drinking water because it is a hazardous chemical (which it is, but recall the toxicology adage,“the dose makes the poison“) they might be surprised to learn that the PWB already adds toxic chemicals (chlorine, ammonia, and sodium hydroxide) to the water supply. The PWB does not do so out of some nefarious government-industry conspiracy, but because of health (chlorine and ammonia) and pipe corrosion (sodium hydroxide). Listen to this OPB news report.
I can vouch for the authors. R. Allan Freeze is one of the world’s outstanding environmental scientists. He is the lead author on the world’s best hydrogeology textbook, Groundwater, still a big seller after 34 years. Thirteen years ago he wrote a wonderful little book, The Environmental Pendulum: A Quest for Truth About Toxic Chemicals Human Health, and Environmental Protection. I used this book for about five years in an environmental studies class. Everyone who is involved in enviromental work or just concerned about the environment should read it. Freeze wrote a well-reasoned, amazing little treatise. I figured that he would treat ‘the fluroide wars’ with the same objectivity and I was right.
Jay Lehr is no slouch, either. He’s a hydrology PhD, the nation’s first, from the University of Arizona. He is a friend and I have great respect for him although I parted ways with him over the concept of megawatersheds. Lehr served as Executive Director of the National Water Well Association (now the National Ground Water Association) and really put that organization on the map. More recently he’s been associated with The Heartland Institute (Jay is not a pro-big government type).
Back To ‘The Book’
But how about the book? Here is the accurate blurb from the book’s WWW site:
A lively account of fluoridation and its discontents.
Since its first implementation in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1945, public drinking water fluoridation and its attendant conflicts, controversies, and conspiracy theories serve as an object lesson in American science, public health, and policymaking. In addition to the arguments on the issue still raging today, the tale of fluoridation and its discontents also resonates with such present concerns as genetically modified foods, global warming response, nuclear power, and environmental regulation.
Offering the best current thinking on the issue, The Fluoride Wars presents a witty and detailed social history of the fluoridation debate in America, illuminating the intersection of science and politics in our recent past. This reader-friendly assessment explores the pro- and anti-fluoridation movements, key players, and important events. Full of amusing and vivid anecdotes and examples, this accessible recounting includes:
- A careful and non-condescending look at the hard science, popular science, pseudo-science, and junk science involved
- A look at fluoride issues including dosage, cost, financial and funding interests, fluorosis, and problems of risk-cost-benefit analysis
- The back-and-forth drama between pro- and anti-fluoridation factions, with all its claims, counterclaims, insults, acrimony, and lawsuits
- Case studies of various cities and their experiences with municipal water fluoridation initiatives
- Fluorophobia and popular conspiracy theories involving fluoride
- The colorful characters in the debate including activists, scientists, magicians, and politicians
A richly and considerately told tale of American science and public life, The Fluoride Wars offers an engrossing history to both interested general readers and specialists in public health, dentistry, policymaking, and related fields.
I was not disappointed by the book; it is well-written and comprehensive (is it ever!) and the authors leave no stone unturned.
My Ten Cents
One thing bears clarification: fluoride is the ionic form of the element fluorine, which, at standard (room) temperature and pressure, is a diatomic, pale yellow, highly reactive gas that is extremely dangerous to handle. For most uses, fluorine is gnerally converted to the strong acid, hydrofluoric acid HF (think ‘glass etching’) or some similar chemical.
Items that struck me:
1) The conspiracy theories. For example: one involves ALCOA, the alumninum company, which has been foisting its toxic waste (containing fluoride) upon the public, selling it to those utilities who need fluoride for their water supplies. Why? Maybe so we won’t mind inhaling hydrogen fluoride gas at some of its facilities. The phosphate fertilizer companies also fall into this group, since their fluoride-containing wastes can be used as a source of fluoride.
Anti-fluoride groups like to point out that the fluoride used in drinking water is someone else’s waste. The authors quickly point out that harvesting soemone else’s waste to obtain a useful material is good practice (p. 150). Can you spell r-e-c-y-c-l-i-n-g? Then of course, there are those who believe that fluoridation is some government plot to control minds or medicate us against our will. Freeze and Lehr devote an entire chapter devoted to such theories and flurophobia (the title of the chapter). It’s good.
2) The journal Fluoride, the ‘standard bearer’ for the International Society for Fluoride Research (IFSR). According to the authors,Fluoride has never published an article supportive of fluoride in drinking water. On the other hand, manistream scientists who oppose fluoridation for scientific reasons (teeth mottling, skeletal fluorosis, etc.) have had trouble getting their papers published in reputable journals or have suffered humiliation at the hands of the mainstream science/health community.
3) Great detail on the teeth mottling issue, which is a concern. It may not be a life-and-death health issue, but some believe it could be psychologically damaging.
4) The best chapter is Chapter 11 – ‘Science and Not Science’ – all about ‘junk science’, a term bandied about a lot these days. My colleague Todd Jarvis thinks this is the best description of the issue – I agree – and although it pertains to the fluoride issue, anyone concerned with junk science should read it.
5) What about the decline in dental caries in nonfluoridated communities? The authors mention that this is likely due to thehalo effect, the exposure of the populace to fluoride toothpaste and foods and beverages processed with fluoridated water. So even if you are in a nonfluoridated community you are probably getting a dose of fluoride, and your teeth are happy!
6) Very good discussion on why fluoride is good for your teeth. More than enough to whet your apatite (Ha ha!).
7) Lots of personalities: Dr. Y, H. Trendley Dean, H.V. Churchill, Kaj Roholm, William Marcus, Frederick McKay, et al. Also case studies. And references!!
Risk assessment and economics are covered in Chapter 12. Some people are concerned about the chance of a fluoride ‘accident’ – an overfeed that dumps too much fluoride into the drinking water. The authors judge that risk at 1 in 10,000 in a given year. Furthermore, they estimate the risk of death from such a mishap to be 1 in 1,000,000. I should note that Freeze used a similar discussion on risk and acceptable risk in his earlier book. It was very enlightening.
9) In the excellent summary chapter, ‘The Light At The End Of The Tunnel’, Freeze and Lehr acknowledge that at high concentrations – much greater than the 1.0 ppm normally found in drinking water – fluoride can do harm. As they say, it is the most bone-seeking element there is and that can lead to problems (crippling skeletal fluorosis). But they give fluoride the bulk of the credit for the near elimination of dental caries. They are skeptical about claims of fluoride and cancer. The problem with many such anti-fluoride claims is that they rely on ‘unpublished, unreplicated, or repudiated’ work.
The authors also show their hand, and it’s safe to say they come down on the side of fluoridation (p. 363):
Overall, the pro-fluoridation movement is the clear winner on the credibility front. Those to whom we usually turn for expertise on scientific, medical, and technical matters speak pretty much with one voice in favor of the fluoridation paradigm.
But then they add:
Unfortunately, they have not always worn the victor’s mantle with grace. There are many documented cases of the suppression of anti-fluoridation articles in establishment journals and the shunning of reputable scientists who developed an anti-fluoride viewpoint. These actions represent an embarrassing stain on the record of the dental research establishment.
The authors conclude with a plea for civil discourse, and urge the two sides to sit down together and discuss their differences. It does not appear that this has been done. Both sides are entrenched. I’m not surprised.
I can’t say that The Fluoride Wars is the best book I’ve read on the subject only because it’s the only book I’ve read on the issue. But it is, for the most part, an even-handed treatment of the topic. It isextremely comprehensive – well-referenced and indexed. It is a great source book for for pro and con factions alike. And the writing is exceptional. Read it. You will be educated and entertained.
I have to say I was surprised at the extreme opposition of some to fluoridation. I understand that there are legitimate concenrs about the saftety of fluoride in drinking water. Afer all, it is a poison. But so is chlorine, and I hear little fuss about chlorination, perhaps because we have had about 40 more years doing chlorination. With respect to to chloriantion I might add that more are becoming concerned with disinfection by-products – perhaps another post may be in order. In the meantime, there is Mike McGuire’s book, The Chlorine Revolution (read my review here).
I do not consider myself naive; I do trust the water purveyors to ‘get it right’ – just like they have with the addition of chlorine. I don’t expect to see fluoride concentrations at toxic levels in drinking water any time soon. And I am not prone to conspiracy theories about fluoride or anyting else, so that issue does not resonate with me. And it may be forced medication, but you can argue that so is chlorination. To me, both are public health issues.
Do I believe in fluoridation? All I know is that I grew up with a water supply that was not fluoridated until I was in my early teens. I have the proverbial ’mouthful of silver’ and ‘fond’ memories of those heinous belt-driven drills. My former sister-in-law, ten years my junior, grew up entirely on fluoridated water and has nary a cavity. I know – crappy sample size (although The Lancet might accept a paper on the topic).
“All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison….” - Paracelsus (1493-1541)
May 3, 2013 | Posted by Michael "Aquadoc" Campana
Leave a Comment
I will be spending the next few weekends engaging the IRS once again – tax forms for nonprofits are due on 15 May. Fortunately, my situation is not very taxing. And, as luck would have it, the weather this weekend is supposed to be fabulous.
Enjoy the weekly water news summary.
“If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story.” - Orson Welles
Shill alert! I have no formal affiliation with the High Country News (except as a faithful subscriber) but you won’t know it from the following post.
Oh, yeah, the writing is great and I frequently cite articles in my classes.
The High Country News has once again done us Colorado River WaterWonks a great service: updated its classic Colorado River Plumbing poster. The venerable Colorado, recently named the USA’s most endangered river by American Rivers, is often hailed (or lamented) as the USA’s (or world’s) ‘hardest-working river’ – especially given its relatively meager discharge.
Although I live in the lush Willamette Valley of western Oregon, the Coloradois my favorite river, bar none (Truckee River of NV-CA a close second). Its basin is where I was first exposed to the vagaries and oddities of Western water law. It traverses some of the world’s most spectacular scenery (love the canyon country!).
Consider that the Willamette River, near whose banks I live, has a watershed about 5% of the Colorado’s basin but a mean annual discharge about 70% greater - 25 MAF. And the mighty Columbia, with a watershed the same size as the Colorado’s (about 250,000 square miles), has a mean annual discharge about 14 times greater – 200 MAF.
In any case, the poster is being offered as an inducement to recruit more subscribers. It first appeared in Fall 1986 in a four-part series, “Western Water Made Simple” (love that title – talk about chutzpah, and perhaps irony). I first saw it in the book version of that series.
Alas, it does not appear that the poster can be obtained without participating in the subscription promotion. I think that is unfortunate; HCN could probably sell a zillion of these things. I’ve written boss-man Paul Larmer to see if HCN will reconsider. Otherwise, I just may have to buy some gift subscriptions, another way to obtain it.
But doing that would be well worth the cost.
“Uphill: The natural direction that Western water flows, providing there is money uphill.” – Ed Quillen, Western Water Made Simple, p. 193.
April 26, 2013 | Posted by Michael "Aquadoc" Campana
Leave a Comment
I don’t know where he’s going, but I know how he’s getting there.
Enjoy – click here!
“This water, once it’s used, is gone for good. Unlike any other human use that I can think of, it’s extracted from the hydrological cycle, never to return.” - Pat Wilson, member of the Northern Plains Resource Council, discussing groundwater used in fracking operations, Casper Star-Tribune, 26 April 2013
April 24, 2013 | Posted by Michael "Aquadoc" Campana
Leave a Comment
Have a colleague who has made significant contributions to water policy? Why not noninate her for the Henry P. Caulfield, Jr, medal?
Maybe you know of a project that embodies the concept of IWRM? Why not nominate the organization responsible for our new (since 2012) IWRM award?
There are three ways you can get involved. You can nominate an outstanding:
1) Water resources professional or institution
- Fellow Member Award
- Honorary Member Award
- Mary H. Marsh Medal
- Sandor C. Csallany Award
- Icko Iben Award
- William C. Ackermann Medal
- Henry P. Caulfield, Jr., Medal
- A. Ivan Johnson Award
- IWRM Award
2) Student chapter
3) State section
It’s not hard to submit a nomination – visit this page. Submissions are done electronically. The due date is 3 May 2013, so you have a little over a week.
Winners of awards will be announced at AWRA’s 2013 Annual Water Resources Conference in Portland, OR.
We’ll be waiting for you.
“Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius.” – Arthur Conan Doyle
April 23, 2013 | Posted by admin
Leave a Comment
Agricultural Hydrology and Water Quality II which was held during the conference in St. Louis, Missouri on March 25-27.Thirty-four students participated and were schedule throughout the thirty-nine sessions and the poster session.Conference attendees were given the opportunity to judge the students during their scheduled session.The following criteria were used for all competitors:
- Efficient use of allotted presentation time or poster space.
- Quality of responses to audience questions in oral or at poster sessions.
- Effective integration of audio-visual materials.
- Perceived preparedness.
- Logic and understandability of material (problem, methods, results, conclusions).
- Adequate description of context for material – conveyed purpose of paper, identified relevant literatures, etc.
- Overall style and presence; effective communicator – enthusiasm or persuasiveness
- Suitability for AWRA/professional audience.
- Significance and originality of the material presented.
Everyone did a terrific job and made the decision difficult. However the following individual was selected as the outstanding winners:
Oral Student Presenter: Mark R. Williams, Penn State University, University Park, PA Nitrogen concentrations and transport potential in shallow groundwater: Contrasting seep and non-seep regions of a riparian zone in an agricultural watershed (co-authors: Anthony Buda, Hershel Elliott, Elizabeth Boyer)
Poster Student Presenter: Margaret Kalcic, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN Farmer perceptions of targeting agricultural conservation practices (co-authors: Linda Prokopy, Jane Frankenberger, Indrajeet Chaubey)
Again, our congratulations on a job well done to all those students who were in the competition and we wish them all the best in their future endeavors. We look forward to hearing more from everyone at future AWRA conferences!
Mark R. Williams Bio
Mark Williams is a Ph. D. candidate in the department of agricultural and biological engineering at Penn State University in University Park, PA. He is currently working on a project with the USDA – Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Pasture Systems and Watershed Management Research Unit evaluating the fate and transport of nitrogen in headwater agricultural watersheds. Specifically, Mark’s research is aimed at elucidating the role of hydrology on nitrogen transport in emergent groundwater seeps and determining how seeps influence stream water quality.
Mark received a B.S. in environmental resource management with minors in soil science and water resources management from Penn State University in 2008. Following his B.S. degree, Mark worked with scientists from the USDA-ARS and Penn State on a project to determine nutrient losses following manure application in the late-fall and winter. He received his M.S. in Agricultural and Biological Engineering from Penn State University in 2010. Upon completion of his Ph. D. (May 2013), Mark will be working with the USDA-ARS Soil Drainage Research Unit in Columbus, OH as a postdoctoral agricultural engineer.
Margaret Kalcic Bio
Margaret is a PhD student at Purdue University in the Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department and Ecological Sciences and Engineering Interdisciplinary Graduate Program. Her research focus is on targeting of agricultural conservation practices, including the watershed models used, spatial optimization, and the human dimensions of targeting. She earned her BS at Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering in Needham, MA, and her MS from Purdue.