Mar
26
WATERS Network: Comments Invited
March 26, 2008 | Posted by Michael "Aquadoc" Campana
1 Comment
I just finished a two-day workshop of the WATERS (WATer and Environmental Resource Systems) Network, a group of academics that has been working for three years to develop a large proposal to secure Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) funding (c. $300,000,000) from the National Science Foundation for a hydrologic observatory infrastructure to permit the kind of investigations that cannot be done with small one-PI or a few PI proposals. The observatory will be designed to allow transformative science to be conducted, and will foster collaboration among hydrologic scientists, engineers, and social scientists. It is important to note that the latter group has been involved in the design of the network almost from the beginning and will not simply be ”thrown into the mix” once the project is funded.
The WATERS Network Project Office (WNPO; http://www.watersnet.org/index.html) recently released the draft WATERS Network Science, Education, and Design Strategy (SEDS) document for community review. Both the main body and the appendices of the document are available on the workshop website ( http://www.watersnet.org/workshop-20080324.html), where you will also find a blog for submitting comments. The recently-concluded workshop provided some review comments to the design team.
The SEDS document is the culmination of years of intensive planning in committees, meetings, and workshops involving hundreds of researchers and educators across the country, under the auspices of CLEANER (Collaborative Large-Scale Engineering Analysis Network for Environmental Research , http://.cleaner.ncsa.uiuc.edu), Critical Zone Exploration Network (http://www.czen.org/ ), and CUAHSI ( http://www.cuahsi.org ) hydrologic observatories. These groups have all contributed to the document through representatives on the WATERS Network Design Team (see WWW site); hence, the SEDS document represents a joint vision among these communities for infrastructure investment needs. While substantial community input went into the document, it is essential that the broader community carefully review the document and provide comments, which will be revised and delivered to the National Science Foundation for review by the National Research Council in summer 2008.
I encourage you to peruse the SEDS and submit your comments directly to the WATERS Network Project Office.
The Network has also issued a Request For Information (RFI; http://www.watersnet.org/docs/RFI-Fnl.pdf); this is due by 7 April 2008 and should be about 5 pages long. The Network will be submitting a Phase 2 proposal to NSF on 1 June 2008 for $5,400,000 for two years of activities. Responses to the RFI will be used by the WATERS Network Chief Scientist, Jeff Dozier of UC-Santa Barbara, to develop the Phase 2 proposal. So if you have an idea consistent with the WATER Network theme, consider submitting a response to the RFI.
Needless to say, this is quite an ambitious project that will receive much attention should the NSF decide to include it in its budget in 2-3 years. The WATERS Network folks will need buy-in from Federal water agencies and others. There were several agency representatives at the workshop who both supported the overall concept and commented upon the SEDS. We’ll see what happens should this project go forward. Since all MREFC requests receive special scrutiny from Congress (think ‘Hubble telescope’), there is concern that under the ‘zero-sum game’ mentality any funding for this project will come from other Federal agencies, likely those involved with water (e.g., USGS, Reclamation, EPA, USACE).
Stay tuned.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Comments
1 Comment so far
Subscribe
As a senior civil engineer with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, we encounter many things during our reviews and inspections of proposed modifications to, and construction of, new hydropower and related facilities, including dams, canals, and tunnels. Let me propose something that I had presented in a paper several years back–a transcontinental aqueduct and canal system. The largest pumps in the world are those employed in pump-storage projects. These facilities tend to cycle water from source to storage and back while reversing to generate electricity.
The reversible pump-turbines could pump water over mountain ranges to other similar installations. What about storage? Existing and abandoned quarries, mines, lakes etc. could be interconnected along with rivers. When rivers are in flood stage, perhaps in the future some of this excess water might be diverted from say, Missouri to New Mexico or Arizona, to help the Colorado River impoundments for other uses.
With fossil fuel costs increasing, we might return to canal transportation, which would be part of the transcontinental system. Think of agricultural advantages.
Why do roadways criss-cross the country and not aqueducts and canals?
In accordance with the Federal Power Act, our licenses (utilities and IPP entities) pay fees and headwater benefits to Congress annually, the sum of which is surprising (hundreds of millions per year). Researching where this money is spent now and where it could by allocated could yeild some healthy debate. I would leave that to our legislators.
I think we should think large.