• Recently Written

  • A National Water Vision and Reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program
  • Demand for Hydrogeologists and Some Reflections
  • WaterDance Playlist
  • USA Water Resources: Time For A Little Less Talk And A Lot More Action?
  • New USGS Publication on Ground-Water Availability in the US
  • Water Resources Sustainability
  • Federal, State, Private Sector Roles in Water Policy
  • Aguanomics: Useless Gesture
  • Water Giant Philip E. Lamoreaux Dies
  • AWRA Input at Corps Public Meeting

• Categories

  • Adaptive Management
  • Climate Change
  • GIS & Remote Sensing
  • Hydrology
  • International
  • People
  • Water Policy
  • Water Resources
  • Water Resources in the Next Decade
  • WaterDance
  • Watershed Management
  • wetlands

• Archives

  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008

• Blogroll

  • Aguanomics - The economics of water (and some other stuff)
  • Aquafornia - Everything about SoCal water, and more!
  • Great Lakes Law Blog - A blog on all things wet and legal in the Great Lakes region by Professor Noah Hall
  • John Fleck - A science writer for the Albuquerque Journal and one of the best writers on Southwestern water and climate.
  • Reddit - water section - Steve Wainwright’s water blog with tons of news items
  • Water For The Ages - Global water issues with passion and concern.
  • Water Words That Work - From Eric Eckl, a communications and marketing expert for environmental causes.
  • Waterblogged.info - Jared Simpson’s water blog.
  • Watercrunch - Information on water issues in the Southeastern USA and beyond.
  • WaterSISWEB - From UC-Davis water students. More than just a blog, it’s a water resources community social bookmarking site. The users run the show, and all can participate.
  • WaterWired - All things fresh water - from the Institute for Water & Watersheds at Oregon State University.
  • Western Water Blog - The name says it all!

• Admin

  • Log in
  • Wordpress
  • Gratis
  • XHTML

  Search

Jane Rowan - President, AWRA

Both the House and the Senate have before them a revised version of a bill that took center stage just a few years ago.  The new version of the National Flood Insurance Program  (NFIP) (Senate Bill 2284, House Bill 3121) Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007) is before the Congress for reauthorization.  Both versions continue to provide flood insurance, expanding coverage in some cases while tightening up conditions for coverage in others.  One version expands coverage to include wind damage; the other version forgives NFIP’s  $20 billion debt to the National Treasury for the costs covering flood damages from the 2005 hurricane season, including Hurricane Katrina.  I am oversimplifying.  The question is, does the new legislation do enough to protect the floodplain as a resource, the watershed’s flood relief valve, from new construction and expanded risks?

Neither version addresses the continued expansion of the floodplain insurance program, which may not adequately provide enough direct incentives to stay out of the floodplain.  It is intuitive to limit risk and discourage development in the floodplain.  The federal government programs let local legislatures decide the extent floodplain development can take place in their jurisdiction, but hope that the incentive of flood insurance coverage property owners will result in local flood mitigation planning/legislation. Is the flood mitigation and legislation on the books in high risk communities enough?  When a flood disaster takes place in a non-participating community, the federal government is compelled to provide relief without having had the benefit of premium collections.  For the most part, high risk communities have created their own floodplain regulatory controls and have been granted access to flood insurance, but has the planned response taken place?  I am concerned less with the decision to provide relief than with the effectiveness of creating disincentives for reconstruction or new construction in flood prone zones.

In a nation guided by a National Water Vision, there would be recognition that the floodplain is part of the watershed, maintaining water quality maintenance by limiting erosion and encouraging groundwater recharge. The alternative is the potential of a developed floodplain contributing in huge and significant ways to water quality degradation during floods.  Absent of this Vision, what guiding principles do Congress and state and local communities use?

When the NFIP was first enacted in 1968 to provide insurance for properties in the floodplain not available privately, there were 1 million policyholders and $50 million in risk.  After 40 years, the number of policy- holders has increased to 5.7 million, and the risk to $1 trillion.  One of the stated goals of the NFIP was to create a means to share risks while creating preventative and protective measures for construction in the floodplain. Absent a National Water Vision, will Congress’ goals ever be reached?

Although passage of the currently proposed Act may not happen in this Congress it is my hope that in the next Congress, there will be an intentional shift toward  recognition of a National Water Vision in not only the legislation dealing with the national flood insurance program, but also with any legislation dealing with water and water related projects.  The best that could happen, would be for all branches of government, as well as state/local government, and the American people to internalize a National Water Vision, as recommended in AWRA’s last Water Policy Dialogue that took place near the Capital last year.  What is this National Water Vision?  What do you think it should be?

For more information on the proposed Act, check out both bills directly at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billsearch.xpd and type in the bill number, either S.  2284 or HR 3121.

Friend and colleague Todd Jarvis sent me the link to an article about demand for hydrogeologists. A number of friends and colleagues are quoted: Roy Haggerty, John Wilson, Dan Stephens.

The term “recession-proof” is interesting. I remember when the bottom fell out of the ground water contamination/remediation industry in the 1990s. Lots of hydrogeologists and engineers found themselves going from six-figure salaries to the unemployment line. Professional societies focusing on ground water and/or environmental contamination saw their memberships tank. Some societies have not recovered.

The emphasis on multidisciplinary education and environmental perspectives is a very good trend that I wholeheartedly applaud. But Dan Stephens’ comments are noteworthy.

The broadening of academic research has filtered down to the training of M.S. students. Some graduate programs, such as New Mexico Tech’s and the double-M.S. program at the University of Wisconsin, now require interdisciplinary courses in topics such as surface water, ecology, and economics. Some hydrologic consulting companies, however, complain that versatility isn’t what they need. “We’re having difficulty finding traditional hydrogeologists,” says Daniel Stephens, founder and head of a 110-employee environmental consulting company with offices in New Mexico, Texas, and California. “The people we’re seeing are fewer in number, and their qualifications are thinner.” Instead of giving students a smorgasbord of skills, Stephens says, universities should equip them to start work on real projects.

I think working on “real projects” should include multidisciplinary projects.

For many, it boils down to this: do you want a hydrogeologist who also knows some sociology, environmental science, economics, law, etc., or do you want someone who may be short on the “other” disciplines, but knows aquifer tests, modeling, contaminant transport, etc. like the back of her hand? It’s the old “jack-of-all-trades and master of none vs. narrow specialist” never-ending argument (”it depends”).

Here is what John Wilson, a former colleague of Dan’s at New Mexico Tech, says: 

But Wilson, whose department at New Mexico Tech embraced the multidisciplinary approach a decade ago, says his students are well-prepared to learn anything they need to know. “At some point, the employer is responsible for training students in the details of the jobs,” he says. Oil companies, he notes, are happy to recruit promising hydrogeologists and train them in petroleum exploration.

John’s got a good point.

Some of my “stream-of-consciousness” observations on hydrogeology after over 35 years in the water business, in no particular order:

• When I was in graduate school in the early 1970s, the emphasis was on water supply.
• In the 1970s the hydrogeological emphasis started shifting away from supply to contamination, remediation, etc.
• The “crash” in the 1990s schooled us in the real meaning of “recession-proof”.
• Environmental considerations have become more important (a good thing). 
• Water supply is back on the front burner these days (yeah!). 
• Bill Guyton, well-known ground water consultant, telling me and my fellow students in John Harshbarger’s ground water resource evaluation class (1972) at the University of Arizona than the quality he valued most in a new hire was “integrity”. We were all blown away; we had guessed wrong: geology, physics, computers, etc. I’ll never forget that comment. It still holds today.
• The degree of consolidation in the ground water industry has been substantial. A lot of the firms that were well-known (e.g., Dames and Moore, Woodward-Clyde, ) when I got out of school have long since been relegated to the dust bin of corporate history.
• The importance of hydrogeology is well-understood today. I remember trying to explain to a U.S. government scientist in the late 1970s why hydrogeology is important in geothermal exploration and development (I was successful, if getting a DOE grant is any indication). I also remember explaining to many what a hydrogeologist did (”So are you an engineer?”).
• Too many people have been taught that computer modeling = hydrogeology.
• The multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary education (including communication skills) of hydrogeologists is a very good idea, as is the inclusion of hydrogeologists on a variety of MD/ID teams.
• Undergraduate geological engineers, in general, make the best graduate students in hydrogeology; they know the geology and the math/engineering.
• For subsurface fate and tranpsort, those with chemical engineering training are great because they know the flow through porous media and chemistry (but they need the geology).
• Don’t forget to teach the fundamentals.
• Reservoir engineers, especially those in the hydrocarbon industry, really know their flow through porous media and subsurface flow modeling.
• I would do it all over again (I could have been an unemployed oceanographer).
• There is an increasingly strong ethic in the hydrogeological (and in general, the entire water resources) community to better the lives of the less fortunate through water and sanitation. I see this among the young and old. I think this a wonderful trend. 

The last bullet is the one I am most enthused about.

I’ll conclude with two of my favorite quotes involving hydrogeology.

“It’s amazing that someone can build an entire discipline out of studying the movement of water through rock.” — A famous astrophysicist, said disparagingly to a young hydrogeologist, who had just won a prestigious scientific award from a professional society. 

“My God, that’s so primitive!” -- one oil-company reservoir engineer to another, listening to one of the world’s foremost hydrogeologists describe his latest fracture-flow model (overheard in 1985 at a scientific meeting) 

First of all, thanks to everyone who sent their suggestions for our WaterDance Playlist!   In last month’s Connections, I invited people to send me their favorite “water songs.”  The response has been terrific!  We’ve got some new stuff, some oldies, some bluegrass, some folk, some show tunes, some classical.  In much the same way that AWRA serves a multidisciplinary audience, our taste in music is multi-genre and eclectic.  There’s something here for everyone.  Grab your iPod or MP3 and get started!

I expect this list will grow as folks add even more great “water songs.”

As you read through, please keep the following in mind: 
 

• I have not indicated who the songwriter is for each song.  In many cases, the singer is also the songwriter, but certainly not in every case.  If you are very curious, you may research at one of the many lyrics websites, or on the artist’s website.  Or, try  www.wikipedia.com –  it is surprisingly helpful in this regard.
• When I have a favorite, I have listed the version(s) I like best.  Many of these songs have been covered by multiple artists.  Pick the one you like the best, and if it’s not listed here, share it with us in the comments.
• If you don’t know a song, and want to listen before committing it to your playlist, try searching for it on www.rhapsody.com.  They allow a few free listens to entire songs, and they have an extensive audio library.  You can also try www.youtube.com.  Many bootlegged, cellphone videos of live performances can be found here.  Be forewarned:  The audio (and the video) is often not great.
• I think this playlist will work in exactly this order, but feel free to mix it up as you see fit.

“Good Planets are Hard to Find” (Steve Forbert)
“Louisiana 1927” (Randy Newman/Aaron Neville)
“Take Me to the River” (Al Green/Talking Heads)
“The River” (John Hiatt)
“The River” and “Trouble River” (Bruce Springsteen)
“Paradise” (John Prine)
“Cry Me a River” (Ella Fitzgerald/Joe Cocker)
“Sitting on the Dock of the Bay” (Otis Redding)
“Old Man River” (Paul Robeson)
“Proud Mary” aka “Rollin’ on the River” (Credence Clearwater Revival/Ike &Tina Turner)
“Moon River” (Audrey Hepburn/Andy Williams)
“The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald” (Gordon Lightfoot)
“Wasted on the Way” (Crosby, Stills, & Nash)
“Water of Love” and “Down to the Water Line” (Dire Straits)
“Once in a Lifetime” (Talking Heads)
“Black Water” (Doobie Brothers)
“Down by the River” (Neil Young)
“Riverside” and “Don’t Cross the River” (America)
“Watching the River Run” (Loggins & Messina)
“River, Stay Away from My Door” (Fiona Apple)
“Five Feet High and Rising” and “Big River” (Johnny Cash)
“Down to the River to Pray” (Alison Kraus)
“River” (Joni Mitchell)
“Riverside Rhapsody” (Grateful Dead)
Handel’s Water Music

And here’s a suggestion from Jami Nettles from several months back when we were still talking movies … 

“I know you are just collecting movies, but if you ever go to music, there is an Australian band, Augie March (www.augiemarch.com) that has lots of water references.  In getting to know other fans, it turns out that there are a disproportionate number of civil engineers and hydrology types.  The most obvious is “Maroondah Reservoir” (Maroondah is an experimental watershed with significant forest water volume studies), but just about every other type is water body is referenced.”   

Thanks, Jami (and everyone!).  Worth a listen.Enjoy!

Nothing like initiating a post with a title from a song in Toby Keith’s repertoire (or from Sarah Bates’ original post). It’s all uphill from here.

In a post a few weeks ago entitled How We Can Save Our Country’s Water, the ever-thoughtful Sarah Bates declared that the time for more commissions and studies is over:

But the question remains. Do we need a new commission to revisit these questions? Or do we need to look more seriously at how we might mobilize the political will to implement the remarkably consistent menu of ideas that has already emerged from such gatherings of water experts over the past several decades? [To see this "remarkably consistent menu of ideas" see the Appendix of the recent report A New Western Water Agenda. It's a revelation.] 

She does have a point: been there, done that. No argument from me.  

Sarah’s comments reminded me of something I had forgotten - that the long-completed 1973 report of the National Water Commission could essentially be reissued, if it were updated with a chapter or two on climate change (see Jan Neuman’s comments in Sarah’s post). I first realized this several years ago, when my then-University of New Mexico colleague David Brookshire decided to clean his office and unearthed a copy of the report, on which he had toiled as a graduate student. We both stared in the amazement at the table of contents, which could have been lifted from something more recent, save for some mention of climate change and water resources.

So if I think Sarah has a point - that it is time to act - why do I still think we need a National Water Commission? Why not just update the 1973 report? Several reasons: 

1. the landscapes (demographic, political, water resources,etc.) have changed and the stakes are higher since 1973;
2. climate change and its effect on water resources now loom ominously on the horizon;
3. the public and Congressional consciousness about water has been raised quite a bit, with far more people concerned about their “water future” than in 1973;
4. a Natonal Water Commission created by Congress will add additional gravitas to the issue and its recommendations will be more difficult to ignore than those from a self-appointed panel of experts;
5. A National Water Commission may spur parties (states, regional consortia, agencies, etc.) into action because of the threat of Federal hegemony (analogous to the threat of litigation that brings warring parties to the negotiating table); and lastly,
6. when a conservative Republican Congressman from a “red” state - Rep. John Linder (R-GA) - is leading the charge for a National Water Commission, that tells me something (see #3 above): it’s time. 

The above items don’t mean that the 1973 report should be ignored. It should be the first thing the new Commission reads.

If a Commission is created, that does not mean we should rest on our laurels (or levees), fully expecting Congress to solve everything (do I look that stupid?). We need to keep working to solve problems.

And, if a National Water Commission makes reasonable recommendations that Congress disregards or permits to become ensnarled in the morass of partisan poiltics, I think you’ll see such a hue and cry from the water professionals, stakeholders, and general public even Congress cannot ignore.

But maybe we’ll need Toby Keith to kick some butt.

“We learn nothing from history except that we learn nothing from history.” – Cicero  

A new report, USGS Circular 1323, Ground-Water Availability in the United States, has just been released. This report examines what is known about the Nation’s ground-water availability and places the regional studies by the USGS Ground-Water Resources Program as a long-term effort to understand ground-water availability in major aquifers across the Nation. The report is written for a wide audience interested or involved in the management, protection, and sustainable use of the Nation’s water resources. 

From the WWW site:

Ground water is among the Nation’s most important natural resources. It provides half our drinking water and is essential to the vitality of agriculture and industry, as well as to the health of rivers, wetlands, and estuaries throughout the country. Large-scale development of ground-water resources with accompanying declines in ground-water levels and other effects of pumping has led to concerns about the future availability of ground water to meet domestic, agricultural, industrial, and environmental needs. The challenges in determining ground-water availability are many. This report examines what is known about the Nation’s ground-water availability and outlines a program of study by the U.S. Geological Survey Ground-Water Resources Program to improve our understanding of ground-water availability in major aquifers across the Nation. The approach is designed to provide useful regional information for State and local agencies who manage ground-water resources, while providing the building blocks for a national assessment. The report is written for a wide audience interested or involved in the management, protection, and sustainable use of the Nation’s water resources

Ethan Timothy Smith

Series: Water Resources in the Next Decade

What is Sustainability? Because of the many interpretations of sustainability, it helps to first examine what the concept might mean. In 1983 the Brundtland Commission developed a philosophical statement that requires each generation to avoid compromising the needs of the future.

APPLYING THE CONCEPT: THE SYSTEMS VIEW

Long Duration

Public policies that are intended to be permanent are aimed at the idea of long duration. Over many years, for example, we have methodically intervened in the natural hydrologic system, especially in Western states, to move water from its origin to where we want it to be. As time has progressed, we have discovered that this policy becomes more difficult; adverse impacts have been discovered, and now we are rethinking the whole policy. But, by now there are major population and economic centers in areas that could never sustain them without engineering intervention.

Reasonable Use Rate

It would seem obvious that a natural resource like water cannot be used indefinitely at a greater rate than it can be renewed, which usually occurs via natural processes. Yet, our history of water use is replete with examples of water use that have regarded the resource as boundless. Ground water depletion has been, and in some cases continues to be, a major problem. The idea of “water mining” regards water as a resource to be used until exhausted, and ignores renewal entirely. In many cases deep water aquifers of various kinds contain water that takes thousands of years to reach the aquifer, so that the renewal rate is less than the pumping rate by many orders of magnitude.

Moderate Solutions

Moderate public policies are those which tend to avoid extreme solutions to problems about water resources. Extreme solutions are those in which inordinate efforts are undertaken, often meaning very large investments in facilities. Liberal application of water, fertilizers, and pesticides to agricultural regions has led to runoff, soil erosion, and nonpoint source contamination. The extreme cases tend to be those of too great a concentration or density of human activity. In this kind of decision making trap, each step seems to be relatively harmless, yet over time accumulated decisions lead to serious problems.

Flexibility

Because public policy decisions are regarded as the solution or end of a problem, little thought is often given to what might be done to address an action that turns out to be a serious mistake. The problem with such cases is commitment to some course of action without regard for unintended consequences. Because it is not possible to know everything when a decision is made, we should anticipate the need for revisiting the problem, and be careful about making commitments that are difficult to modify. Periodic monitoring and determining how to reverse the policy become important. We should be able to learn lessons from experience but stay on the path of improving sustainability. These notions have seldom been part of public water policy, but would go far to avoid some of the problems we see today.

There was an interesting discussion Western Governors Association on water policy and management:

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2008/07/01/news/wyoming/2b6cb5cb311eb5d3872574780083afc6.txt

I guess the question is whether this is just the “we’re in trouble, we need to do something now” discussion that comes with every periodic drought and then falls by the wayside as soon as we get a good snow/rain year or if we’re starting to see a real paradigm shift where the states and feds may actually become serious about wanting regional planning and cooperation? The statements that really caught my eye were:

“One of the primary reasons for this level of consumption, Udall said, is that water is simply too cheap, and the price is not in line with the value of the resource.”

“… fundamental changes need to me made to the mission statements of several federal agencies, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, in order to make it a priority for these federal agencies to work with states on their water plans… Currently all federal involvement and planning is done on a project-by-project basis, with no thought to the overall water picture, he said.”

Whether you think your water is too cheap depends on where you live and what you pay for it, but overall it is surely too cheap relative to its value. However, thinking about it relative to the second statement, it seems that, in part, the reason it is too cheap is that water infrastructure, transfers and distribution are so heavily subsidized by the federal government.

It seems like the classic federal/state “love-hate” relationship… The states want the feds involved when they need funding or technical support, but then hate it when the feds have the audacity to think that since they helped build the infrastructure/system or developed or helped support a program, they should have a say in what should be/has to be done. The feds want a say in what should be/has to be done, but increasingly they don’t want to (can’t afford to?) help pay for it or support it…

So, the question is, given our mixed ownership/relationships - water is a private property right (at least in the west), states own the water, feds have historically funded much of the development and M&O of the systems, each party wants to control it, nobody seems to what to fully pay for it… Should we, how can we move forward to bring water into line with its value and manage and use it wisely to meet both human needs and to protect the environment?

What are your thoughts?  What should AWRA’s role should/could be in helping shape the debate to improve how the private sector, states and feds work together to tackle this critical issue?

David Zetland, owner of the Aguanomics blog, posted this item on 17 June.  I’ve pasted it in below, without any further comment.

I just got this nice email:

As a result of the drought declaration by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, many Californians will soon likely face mandatory conservation orders. In fact, many water districts and cities have already asked for voluntary measures.

I have compiled some water conservation suggestions that I hope you will find useful. Some are remarkably simple, and many will help you save money while saving water. The most important fact is that the sooner you begin saving water, the better. Acting now will provide more savings in the long run.

I hope you will visit the water conservation page on my Senate website by using this link to learn more about water conservation and how to get started.

Because of global climate change, our weather is changing each year. While we can hope for wetter years in the future, it is important that we begin to plan for dryer years. I hope that you will start saving water today.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

It’s a pity that she didn’t say something like:

Hi Citizen,

We seem to be mismanaging water at the federal, state and local level. Since this is making your life less-enjoyable, we have decided to reform water laws, regulations and institutions to reflect the fact that water is a precious resource.

You should expect that water’s going to get more expensive for those who waste it and that water will no longer be wasted in ways that reflect outdated policies. Don’t worry, however — we are going to make sure that every citizen gets his or her share of water and that industrial and agricultural interests are able to buy the reliability that they need to prosper and thrive in our Golden State.

We are not going to suggest water saving methods to you because we know that you understand how a faucet works. Instead, we will spend your tax dollars on reforming government to serve citizens instead of private interests.

We’ve got your back!

Barbara and the Crew

 

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

On June 5, I participated in a public forum organized by the US Army Corps of Engineers in Washington, DC.  The purpose of the public meeting was to gather input regarding the revisions of the Corps’ Principles and Guildelines (P&G).  The attendance at the meeting was not overwhelming, but many organizations were represented and I found it uncanny that many of the organizations emphasized similar comments regarding suggested enhancements to the P&G’s.

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, American Rivers,  the Everglades foundation, the Association of Floodplain Managers, the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, and the University of Maryland  Water Resources Collaborative (represented by our own Gerry Galloway).  Comments provided on behalf of AWRA are linked here:   pg-finalcomments-jane-rowan-rev-6-5.doc