National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 2 The USGS WRD: A Performance Review
Suggested Citation:"3 Preparing For Tomorrow." National Research Council. 2009. Toward a Sustainable and Secure Water Future: A Leadership Role for the U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12672.
×
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"3 Preparing For Tomorrow." National Research Council. 2009. Toward a Sustainable and Secure Water Future: A Leadership Role for the U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12672.
×
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"3 Preparing For Tomorrow." National Research Council. 2009. Toward a Sustainable and Secure Water Future: A Leadership Role for the U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12672.
×
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"3 Preparing For Tomorrow." National Research Council. 2009. Toward a Sustainable and Secure Water Future: A Leadership Role for the U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12672.
×
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"3 Preparing For Tomorrow." National Research Council. 2009. Toward a Sustainable and Secure Water Future: A Leadership Role for the U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12672.
×
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"3 Preparing For Tomorrow." National Research Council. 2009. Toward a Sustainable and Secure Water Future: A Leadership Role for the U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12672.
×
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"3 Preparing For Tomorrow." National Research Council. 2009. Toward a Sustainable and Secure Water Future: A Leadership Role for the U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12672.
×
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"3 Preparing For Tomorrow." National Research Council. 2009. Toward a Sustainable and Secure Water Future: A Leadership Role for the U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12672.
×
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"3 Preparing For Tomorrow." National Research Council. 2009. Toward a Sustainable and Secure Water Future: A Leadership Role for the U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12672.
×
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"3 Preparing For Tomorrow." National Research Council. 2009. Toward a Sustainable and Secure Water Future: A Leadership Role for the U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12672.
×
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"3 Preparing For Tomorrow." National Research Council. 2009. Toward a Sustainable and Secure Water Future: A Leadership Role for the U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12672.
×
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"3 Preparing For Tomorrow." National Research Council. 2009. Toward a Sustainable and Secure Water Future: A Leadership Role for the U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12672.
×
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"3 Preparing For Tomorrow." National Research Council. 2009. Toward a Sustainable and Secure Water Future: A Leadership Role for the U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12672.
×
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"3 Preparing For Tomorrow." National Research Council. 2009. Toward a Sustainable and Secure Water Future: A Leadership Role for the U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12672.
×
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"3 Preparing For Tomorrow." National Research Council. 2009. Toward a Sustainable and Secure Water Future: A Leadership Role for the U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12672.
×
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"3 Preparing For Tomorrow." National Research Council. 2009. Toward a Sustainable and Secure Water Future: A Leadership Role for the U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12672.
×
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"3 Preparing For Tomorrow." National Research Council. 2009. Toward a Sustainable and Secure Water Future: A Leadership Role for the U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12672.
×
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"3 Preparing For Tomorrow." National Research Council. 2009. Toward a Sustainable and Secure Water Future: A Leadership Role for the U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12672.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"3 Preparing For Tomorrow." National Research Council. 2009. Toward a Sustainable and Secure Water Future: A Leadership Role for the U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12672.
×
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"3 Preparing For Tomorrow." National Research Council. 2009. Toward a Sustainable and Secure Water Future: A Leadership Role for the U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12672.
×
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"3 Preparing For Tomorrow." National Research Council. 2009. Toward a Sustainable and Secure Water Future: A Leadership Role for the U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12672.
×
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"3 Preparing For Tomorrow." National Research Council. 2009. Toward a Sustainable and Secure Water Future: A Leadership Role for the U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12672.
×
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"3 Preparing For Tomorrow." National Research Council. 2009. Toward a Sustainable and Secure Water Future: A Leadership Role for the U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12672.
×
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"3 Preparing For Tomorrow." National Research Council. 2009. Toward a Sustainable and Secure Water Future: A Leadership Role for the U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12672.
×
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"3 Preparing For Tomorrow." National Research Council. 2009. Toward a Sustainable and Secure Water Future: A Leadership Role for the U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12672.
×
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"3 Preparing For Tomorrow." National Research Council. 2009. Toward a Sustainable and Secure Water Future: A Leadership Role for the U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12672.
×
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"3 Preparing For Tomorrow." National Research Council. 2009. Toward a Sustainable and Secure Water Future: A Leadership Role for the U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12672.
×
Page 74

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

3 Preparing For Tomorrow In chapter 2, we reviewed various aspects of WRD’s performance, as requested in the statement of task (SOT; Box 1-1). In chapter 4, Water for Tomorrow, we will address the SOT questions that look to the future, out- lining recommendations for organizational adjustments and leadership to address the water resource problems facing the nation. To set the stage for tomorrow and provide context to look to the future, in this chapter we de- scribe problematic trends and water resource issues that will shape the pri- orities that USGS water programs need to address to meet society’s needs. We also briefly review components of the WRD’s planning process, work- ing with stakeholders to identify and establish priorities. This process is an important component to define directions that are relevant for future needs. Lastly, we review WRD budget and staffing, which provides necessary context on the operational and budget climate, related to past and present performance issues, but more importantly, this also must be understood as a starting point in preparing for tomorrow. WATER RESOURCE TRENDS “PREDICTABLE SURPRISES” AWAIT “Our Cup Runneth Dry” “Henceforth, North Americans will have to give up their assump- tion of an easy abundance of water, transcend their fears of future scar- city, and manage their water resources sustainably with due regard for their full value – ecological, economic, and social.” SOURCE: Mehan (2009). 48

Preparing for Tomorrow 49 Future water needs cannot be precisely known, yet there are trends of increasing stress on water resources that are widely recognized. These trends are “Predictable Surprises” (Box 3-1) with respect to water re- sources in the near future (Bazerman and Watkins, 2004). These “surprises” are problems that can be recognized but they will not resolve themselves. For example, aquifers will not quickly recharge and “naturally resolve the problem” of aquifer depletion after they are overpumped (e.g., Ogalalla Aq- uifer). In many regions, water allocation conflicts already occur and will become worse in the future because of over-allocation of water coupled to increasing population growth and foreseeable droughts. As these predictable water crises occur the USGS remains in the position to assist the nation in understanding, predicting, and minimizing the impacts of these crises. But changes are needed for the USGS to successfully meet the nation’s chal- lenges. For perspective, we outline some key trends for water resources that must be faced in the coming years. BOX 3-1 Predictable Surprises In “Predictable Surprises: The Disasters You Should Have Seen Coming, and How to Prevent Them,” Bazerman and Watkins (2004), describe the charac- teristics of Predictable Surprises that may affect society or businesses: 1) A shared trait of predictable surprises is that leaders knew a problem ex- isted and that the problem would not solve itself. 2) Predictable surprises can be expected when organizational members rec- ognize that a problem is getting worse over time. 3) Fixing the problem would incur significant costs in the present, while the benefits of action would be delayed. (We discount the future.) 4) Addressing the surprises typically requires incurring certain cost, while the reward is avoiding a cost that, while uncertain, is likely to be much larger. (Hence, leaders know they can expect little credit in the short run for preventing them.) 5) Decision-makers, organizations, and nations often fail to prepare for predictable surprises because of the natural tendency to maintain the status quo (when a system still functions, there is no crisis to catalyze action). 6) A small vocal minority benefits from inaction and is motivated to sub- vert the actions of leaders for their own benefit.

50 Toward A Sustainable and Secure Water Future PROBLEMS OF WATER AVAILABILITY WILL BECOME INCREASINGLY MORE SERIOUS AND PROMINENT The U.S. Census Bureau projects the population of the United States to increase almost 50 percent from 282 million people in 2000 to 420 million in 2050 (U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/ usinterim- proj/). The amount of water available of appropriate quality for these peo- ple is limited. The hydrologic regimen of any given region of the country is influenced by regional climate, but also design and operation of our in- frastructure, including water and wastewater collection, storage and distri- bution, electric power generation, residential and commercial buildings, roads and bridges, and agriculture. Access to sufficient water has become and will continue to be a difficult problem throughout the United States, not only in the southwestern states that rely on well-recognized, declining surface water and groundwater resources (Figure 3-1). “Why You Should Worry About Water. How this diminishing resource will determine the future of where and how we live.” SOURCE: The cover page and headline for U.S. News and World Re- port, June 4, 2007. In the relatively humid Southeast, Georgia struggles to manage water to support its growing metropolitan areas, resulting in conflicts with the downstream states of Alabama and Florida. Salt water intrusion from over- pumping has reduced usable groundwater resources available to coastal cit- ies from Florida, to Bainbridge Island in the Pacific Northwest, and Cape Cod in the Northeast. Irrigated agriculture has been modified or abandoned in parts of the High Plains because groundwater levels have dropped. Water constraints are becoming both more chronic and widespread, as well as regionally acute (Figure 3-2). The areas of the greatest projected population growth are where water withdrawals are already unsustainable, exceeding available freshwater resources (the limit on recharge and re- newal of water) by 5 to >500 percent. Water supply and demand are linked inextricably to energy supply and demand, key components of so- cietal and economic health. “The availability of adequate water supplies has a profound impact on the availability of energy, while energy produc- tion and power generation activities affect the availability and quality of

Preparing for Tomorrow 51 FIGURE 3-1 Water-level declines in the U.S. Darker regions show major regions with declines of 40 feet in at least one confined aquifer, or 25 feet in an uncon- fined aquifer, since predevelopment. The dots are individual wells where the measured water-level difference over time is greater than or equal to 40 feet. SOURCE: Reilly et al. (2008). water” (Pate et al., 2007). When combining fresh and saline water with- drawals, the energy sector accounted for nearly 50 percent of withdrawals in 2000 (Pate, et al. 2007; Hutson et al., 2004). There are regional issues in water availability resulting from the water- energy nexus. Power plants have already had to limit generation because of insufficient water (Pate et al., 2007) and concerns about water availabil- ity have generated opposition to new power generation and fuel processing facilities. Nationally, about three percent of U.S. power generation sup- ports water supply and treatment. In California, where water is distributed long distances, 19 percent of electricity and 32 percent of natural gas con- sumption goes for water supply and treatment, end uses, and wastewater treatment (California Energy Commission, 2005). CLIMATE CHANGE WILL MAKE WATER RESOURCES CHALLENGES MORE DIFFICULT Climate change and its projected impact on hydrologic “stationarity” (that the climatic and anthropogenic controls over the hydrologic cycle

52 Toward A Sustainable and Secure Water Future 40% 40% 16% 15% 15% 40% 6% 56% 22% 18% 28% 54% Sources: 45% •USGS Circular 1200 (Year 1995) 46% •EPRI 2003, A survey of Water Use •Irrigation Re- sources and Water Costs, USDA/ERS, AREI, EIB-16: Chapter 2.1, 2006 FIGURE 3-2 Emerging Water Stress and Projected Population Growth. The gray shading indicates the counties where 1995 water withdrawals already exceed replen- ishment by precipitation by 5 percent to > 500 percent. The text boxes indicate the regional projections for the percentage population increase from 1995-2025. The areas of greatest expected population growth (the southwest, west, and coastal re- gions) coincide with the areas that already have excessive water stress on available, renewable water. SOURCE: Pate et al. (2007). Modified, with permission, Xeris- cape Council of New Mexico, Inc. are invariant) probably will result in greater environmental variability than has occurred in the recent past. Estimates of future climate change lead the hydrologic community to expect greater temporal variation in the avail- ability of water because of enhanced evaporation related to increasing temperatures, to precipitation declines in the interior western region of the country, to decreased snowpack storage of water, and to increased storm intensity in some regions (Bates, 2008). Almost all computer-model pro- jections of future change from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggest a hotter climate throughout the nation, coupled to further drying in the American west. These projected trends portend future diffi- culties the country will face with respect to availability and distribution of water resources.

Preparing for Tomorrow 53 “The future water crisis is unlikely to materialize as a monolithic catas- trophe that threatens the livelihoods of millions. Rather it is the grow- ing sum of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of water problems at regional and local scales (and not just in the semi-arid West…).” SOURCE: National Research Council (2004b). Foreseeable droughts will exacerbate water availability problems (Fig- ure 3-3) in areas where, due to historic water allocation, water is already overly or fully allocated. Historic water allocation decisions were made without current knowledge of water amount and reliability (i.e., flow regime of rivers, the refilling of lakes and reservoirs, or recharge and storage capac- ity of aquifers). In some areas freshwater withdrawals are already in excess of available precipitation by a factor of more than five (Figure 3-2). Another effect of greater variability of hydrologic events is increased flooding, in both riverine and coastal zones. Serious flooding impacts range from residential areas, croplands, infrastructure development and operations, to bridge clearances, urban storm water management, highways, railroads, and dams. Most of our infrastructure has been designed assuming that the frequency and magnitude of runoff events will not change in the future. However the accumulation of longer records and the extension of climatic and hydrologic records through paleohydrologic proxies and historical re- cords show that persistent, non-random fluctuations of weather, associated with the changing states of the global atmosphere and oceans may drive hy- drologic processes in the future in ways not reflected by our historic instru- mental record. Therefore, infrastructure needs to be designed and managed to be sensitive to the risks of these unfamiliar environmental changes (i.e., “stationarity is dead”) that broadly can be forecasted. Recognizing and ex- ploring the hydrologic significance of these changes requires both a vigi- lant monitoring program and a sophisticated water science monitoring agency such as the WRD. In 2003, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) surveyed state water managers and determined that even under normal or non-drought conditions, 36 states anticipated water shortages in the next 10 years. Under drought conditions, 46 states expected shortages in the same time frame. The economic impacts of such changes in the hydrologic cycle have been documented. The GAO (2003) reports that eight water shortages from drought in the past 20 years each resulted in ≥ $1 billion in monetary losses. The most severe of these droughts resulted in an estimated loss of $40 bil- lion to the economies of the Central and Eastern U.S. in 1988.

54 Toward A Sustainable and Secure Water Future FIGURE 3-3 A snapshot of drought conditions in the United States in June 2008. SOURCE: National Drought Mitigation Center/University of Nebraska, U.S. De- partment of Agriculture, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2008). Available online at http://drought.unl.edu/dm /monitor.html. WATER QUALITY IMPAIRMENTS WILL CONTINUE TO BE A DIFFICULT ISSUE Water availability is constrained by both water quantity and water qual- ity. Impaired water quality may limit the quantity available for various pur- poses. Water quality has improved in U.S. waters with the implementation of the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act (and other envi- ronmental protection programs); rivers are no longer catching fire and phos- phorus loading has been reduced, for example (NRC, 2002a). But nonpoint source contamination of surface water and groundwater from agricultural and urban lands remains widespread. More than one-third of the rivers and streams in the U.S. are listed as impaired or polluted (USEPA, 2008b) and by some estimates the trend of improving water quality is being reversed (Palmer and Allan, 2006).

Preparing for Tomorrow 55 The 2007 Gallup Earth Day poll found that Americans are more con- cerned with water than global warming or other environmental issues. A majority of those polled said they “personally worry…a great deal” about four different problems related to water: Pollution of drinking water (58%), Pollution of rivers, lakes, and reservoirs (53%), Contamination of soil and water by toxic waste (52%), and Maintenance of the nation’s supply of fresh water for household needs (51%). SOURCE: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci= 1615&pg=2. The Mississippi River system drains approximately 40 percent of the conterminous United States to the Gulf of Mexico (see Figure 3-4). The transport of nitrogen and phosphorus through the Mississippi to the Gulf contributes to expanding hypoxic conditions that now threaten aquatic life and the seafood industry in the Gulf (USEPA, 2007). The sheer magnitude of the problem makes resolution difficult and also requires federal in- volvement to define and comprehend it (NRC, 2008d). Hypoxia related to nutrients in runoff is not limited to the Mississippi River basin but is an expanding symptom of nutrient enrichment around country, around the world (Diaz and Rosenberg, 1995; Boesch, 2002; UNEP, 2006). Increased detection of organic constituents at low concentrations has highlighted an emerging concern with respect to ecological and human health. The EPA’s redefinition of its Contaminant Candidate List for drink- ing water (USEPA, 2008a; http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw /ccl/ccl3.html) and the USGS WRD’s assessment of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in water (e.g., Kolpin et al., 2002; Focazio et al., 2008) document that the number of identified water contaminants is growing faster than the determination of their effects on human health and ecosystem function. Combinations and co-occurrence of contaminants may pose threats equal to or greater than individual substances acting alone (Schwarzenbach et al., 2006; Brian et al., 2005; Altenburger et al., 2004). As the demand for water increases towards the limit of its availability, it will become necessary to use water of impaired quality as source water to meet society’s needs, requiring more costly handling and treatment. De-

56 Toward A Sustainable and Secure Water Future FIGURE 3-4 Mississippi River drainage and hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. SOURCE: USGS (2008). Adapted from http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow/ gulf_findings/hypoxia.html. salination of seawater, treatment and use of brackish groundwater, and re- use of treated waste waters will all likely be required in various regions of the country (NRC, 2008a). Alternative energy development such as bio- fuel production will also demand new supplies of water, and will impact the quality of rivers (NRC, 2008b). Collectively, these developments have tremendous implications for water resources. Ultimately, society may re- define the value of water both in the ecological context, i.e., Endangered Species and Clean Water Acts, and as an economic good. WATER PRICES WILL RISE “Fortunately, as each year passes, more countries, institutions and indi- viduals are realizing that we don’t just have a water problem – we have an impending water crisis. … … Finding the right balance to this di- lemma – water as an economic commodity versus water as a human right – will be one of the great social, economic and political challenges of this century.” SOURCE: “The State of the Water Industry 2007.” The Environmental Benchmarker and Strategist, Winter 2007.

Preparing for Tomorrow 57 Water in the U.S. is undervalued and subsidized directly by some communities and indirectly through public water use and allocation policies. Water users in the U.S. pay less for their water, in both absolute terms (Figure 3-5) and as a percentage of household income (Job, 2008), than in most other developed countries, and enjoy a relatively high level of water quality. Water prices are rising, beyond inflationary pressures, because of the need to repair aging infrastructure, the increased competition for water (drinking vs. irrigation), increases in energy costs, the costs of bringing new water sources (desalination) on-line, and also by society’s recognition of the need for restoration of ecosystem values. Over the past five years, average water rates in the U.S. have increased by 29 percent (based on annual surveys of NUS Consulting Group [http://www.nusinc.com/]) whereas the consumer price index rose only 15.7 percent during the same period (Bureau of Labor Statistics; NUS Consulting Group, 2008). The continued anticipated price increases for such a fundamental commodity as water have social equity implications. Cost increases will have the greatest impacts on the poor, which will engender other policy debates. Cost of Water (USD) $12.00 $10.00 USD per Thousand Gallons $8.00 $6.00 $4.00 $2.00 $0.00 m ly k ce en a y s lia nd n m es a ar an nd ai ad ric Ita iu do ra an at ed a Sp m lg m rla Af an nl st St ng Fr Sw en Be Fi er Au he C h Ki d D G ut te et So d ni N te U ni U FIGURE 3-5 Cost of water (US dollars) per annum in the United States com- pared to other developed countries for 2007. SOURCE: Modified, with permis- sion, NUS Consulting Group (2008). © 2008 NUS Consulting Group, Park Ridge, NJ.

58 Toward A Sustainable and Secure Water Future U.S. cities and smaller communities are entering a time when infrastruc- ture remediation and renewal as well as the rehabilitation of aquatic ecosys- tems can no longer be ignored. Dams, pipes, pumping stations, and treat- ment plants in many areas have reached the end of their useful lives and are in serious need of repair. Water has not been priced to accommodate such replacement costs. According to EPA’s most recent drinking water needs survey and report to Congress (USEPA 2009), the U.S. infrastructure expen- diture needs are projected to exceed $330 billion over the next 20 years for just public drinking water systems. The American Society of Civil Engi- neer’s 2009 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure (ASCE, 2009), cited investment needs, over this same period, of around $1 trillion, for the broader spectrum of drinking water and waste water systems. Full cost- pricing for water is always noted as a key to developing a sustainable wa- ter-supply infrastructure for U.S. society (USEPA 2008c; Mehan 2009), and these critical infrastructure needs will continue to push a rise in wa- ter prices. Studies for California water utilities found that better water information and forecasts are needed to assess long-range options for adaptive manage- ment given the growing variability and uncertainty on the limitations on wa- ter availability (Groves et al., 2008). These studies noted that utilities should begin management adjustments in the near-term to reduce their long-term vulnerability and to prevent unacceptable cost increases. Accurate data, information, and analysis to forecast and quantify the un- certainty in water quantity and quality will be increasingly important to minimize the inevitable rising cost of providing water and waste water ser- vices for the nation. The USGS is well positioned to do this. RESOLVING WATER CONFLICTS AND POLICY DEBATES WILL DEMAND MORE WATER SCIENCE Water policy debates and disputes continue to occur at all levels of government (local, state, and federal), and between the nation and its neighbors. The debate will include arguments about the nature of water as a mixed good, having public and private elements; transboundary is- sues related to water allocation; ecosystem vs. other societal needs; the approach to valuing water; the impact of rising prices and social equity; the costs and benefits of a range of engineering and social solutions; the variability inherent in the hydroclimatic processes and the spatial distri- bution of water resources; and more.

Preparing for Tomorrow 59 “Individuals, businesses, and government bodies make decisions daily about water use based on the physical, chemical, and biological proper- ties of the water, as well as on economic, social, legal, and political considerations: Is there enough water? Is it clean enough to drink? Is the supply declining? How will climate variability and change affect future water availability? Can current water use be sustained?” SOURCE: National Science and Technology Council, 2007. These debates are not new—“Whiskey is for drink’n and water is for fight’n over” is attributed to Mark Twain—but the debates are becoming increasingly visible and contentious and sometimes debilitating. New fac- tors enter the debate and the competition for the resource, including the eco- nomic and social benefits of recreational water use and the need to protect ecosystems. New policy debates will occur—and water resource decisions will be made. But will they be adequately informed to meet the coming un- certainties and constraints that society will face? The USGS is in the posi- tion to provide information to help resolve disputes over water resources at regional and national levels; information that consists of both high-quality data, research to improve data collection and to provide new tools for analy- sis, and new analyses to provide information to inform water management decisions. For example, the USGS has played a large role in developing options for forecasting scenarios to manage the heavily regulated Missouri River to meet the new objective of protecting riparian and aquatic habitats, as well as water navigation, power generation, and water supply. USGS flow data for the Potomac River are being used extensively to optimize re- leases from headwater reservoirs to meet the water release requirements for water supplies, as well as for fishing, commercial raft trips, and recreational kayakers. Federal, state, and local government managers and water resource asso- ciations, all recognize that they need more and better water data and im- proved water science—a subset of which is the need for improved analytical approaches that will contribute to new, adaptive strategies for management (e.g., Freas et al., 2008; GAO 2003). The GAO study showed that water resource managers, from over 80 percent of the states surveyed, ranked ex- panding federal water data collection as the most useful federal action that would help states meet their water information needs. Milly and others, not- ing “Stationarity is dead” show that improved water science may be as im- portant as data (Milly et al., 2008, a widely cited paper in the prestigious

60 Toward A Sustainable and Secure Water Future journal Science) because water managers can no longer rely on previous statistical analysis of the historical hydrologic record that assumed the conditions of the past are fundamentally the same as those of the present or future (Wallis, et al., 2008). USGS science has been fundamental to flood forecasting and the design and management of water resources nationally. But the nation now needs new approaches for analysis and modeling and to incorporate new understanding of the physical causes of uncertainty to meet future design considerations. To adapt to and effectively manage evolving water trends, new science, more data, and new approaches will be needed to develop adaptive man- agement strategies. Since developing some of these strategies for water utilities will take decades, “waiting to adapt until climate has warmed is akin to waiting to build lifeboats after a ship has started to sink” (Wallis et al., 2008). The same can be said about failing to anticipate other, even more urgent and direct influences on water, such as those caused by development pressures in the face of the fundamental variability of the hydroclimate sys- tem. WRD PLANNING, PRIORITIES, AND STAKEHOLDERS The Water Resources Discipline planning process, to identify priorities and programmatic thrusts, involves interaction and input from their stake- holders at the national and regional level and also with a multitude of stakeholders at the state and local levels. Examined here, this also pro- vides additional context looking toward the future in Chapter 4. This dis- cussion addresses various components of SOT questions related to identi- fying priorities and the adequacy of these mechanisms, relevance to socie- tal needs, and stakeholder involvement, among others. The WRD, as with any federal organization, has a “top-down” compo- nent of management. Chapter 1 described the basic organization of the WRD; its national, or Washington level management (e.g., the Associate Director for Water, and the WRD’s office directors), who interact with the leadership of the USGS and the Department of Interior, and get input from Congress, to set broad national priorities related to the WRD programs (e.g., Box 1-2). At the national level, they also work with other federal agencies and other stakeholders to incorporate stakeholder needs where appropriate. The WRD also has a unique “bottom-up” component to its planning process. As discussed the WRD has Science Centers that operate in every state, carrying out USGS’ national programs, and also cooperating with state and local agencies in hydrologic data collection and water resources investi-

Preparing for Tomorrow 61 gations. This provides for “bottom-up” input, from the continual direct in- teraction with local and state stakeholders, providing insights to local water issues. Few federal agencies are organized in this manner. This input on water issues and concerns from managers throughout the nation, often helps to identify new and emerging issues. Some of these issues surface to be- come regional and national issues that, in turn, may get incorporated in na- tional program priorities, and hence in “top-down” programmatic thrusts. The “top-down” and “bottom-up” methods are intertwined, enabling a cyclical process that is somewhat unique to the WRD. As an example, the USGS’s National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) staff in Science Center offices, in watershed-defined units request information and input at the local to regional stakeholder level to discuss NAWQA design and identify national and local priorities. This approach leads to data shar- ing and cooperative studies and helps identify emerging issues as priori- ties. Some of these are then incorporated from the “top-down” in stan- dardized investigations across the national program, that then provide in- put to regional and national syntheses. The Top-Down Process Setting priorities and focusing the agency strategically should be ex- plicitly a top-down process. The USGS has cooperative efforts within Department of Interior and with external agencies, such as the Environ- mental Protection Agency (on water quality issues) and the National Weather Service (NWS) (on flood forecasting needs) to help it identify and prioritize issues from the national level—from the top-down. For- malized interactions with other federal agencies takes place in the Execu- tive Branch through the Office of Science and Technology Policy’s (OSTP; Executive Office of The President) auspices, such as the Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality and the Subcommittee on Hydrology. In addition to federal agency stakeholders, the list of engaged national and regional cooperators and interest groups that USGS works with is long, including groups such as: the Association of State Flood Plain Managers, the National Association of Flood and Storm Water Management Agen- cies, the Association of State Geologists, the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, the Interstate Council on Water Policy, the National Water Resources Association, the National Wildlife Federation, the West- ern States Water Council, and many others. We recognize the strong sup- port among these agencies for the USGS. However, much of this support seems to be focused towards the USGS providing raw data. While this is a

62 Toward A Sustainable and Secure Water Future valuable contribution, the Survey needs to be mindful that gathering raw data is often a step to meet a strategic goal, not typically a goal itself. The USGS leadership actively seeks external, critical review of its ma- jor program thrusts and activities to enhance the strengths of its programs and to help prioritize future programmatic thrusts. The USGS Streamgag- ing Program was reviewed by the National Hydrologic Warning Council (NHWC) in 2006 and the WRD Cooperative Water (Coop) program was reviewed by the Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI). Also, almost every Water Resource Discipline (WRD) program has been reviewed by the National Research Council over the past two decades (see Box 2-6) providing input on program priorities and improvements. In some programs, such as NAWQA, a formal national liaison committee meets with stakeholders including dozens of representatives with water- resources responsibilities or interests from national professional and trade associations, federal, state, and regional organizations, academia, public interest groups, and private industry. All these inputs are factored in to USGS discussions to develop top-down priorities and plan national pro- grams. The Bottom-Up Process The WRD, through its Science Centers and Coop program, has a presence in every state, as discussed. This state presence was established to conduct the federal inventory of the nation’s water resources including streamflow characterization. The WRD program evolved to provide fed- eral resources and share technical and scientific expertise with states to expand and improve needed water resource programs. This approach has also provided an effective and highly distributed network throughout the nation to engage stakeholders. The Coop Program develops and interacts on hydrologic activities and cost-shares water programs with approximately 1,500 individual cooperators—local, state, and regional entities. The USGS Science Center directors and staff interact with these stakeholders to assess water resource problems and priorities, develop yearly plans of operation, evaluate the progress of their projects and programs, and discuss future op- portunities for collaboration. Operationally, the four regional hydrologists and/or regional program officers meet with their water Science Center directors to review strategic directions, trends, issues, and water resource problems which become in- put for a regional summary, which then feeds into emerging national pri- orities. Annually, Science Center directors meet with senior WRD national

Preparing for Tomorrow 63 leadership staff as well as with the chiefs of the Offices of Surface Water, Groundwater, and Water-Quality. To meet national interests and strategic needs the USGS must have this local presence. The synthesis of local and statewide data gathered by co- operative initiatives is part and parcel of regional assessments. NAWQA was noted as one example of how this was done in the past; another was the USGS Regional Aquifer System Analysis Program. Staff in Science Center offices collaborated with state agencies to compile needed data and analyses on an aquifer system in their area—then the various state data were synthesized into a Regional Analysis of aquifers that span multi-state areas, to provide the overview and information for forecasts that contrib- uted to improved management of these important groundwater resources. As an illustration of the benefits of the bottom-up process, the aware- ness of pharmaceuticals in the nation’s waters began at the local level when USGS and cooperating state and university scientists conducted studies and documented veterinary drugs in local surface water as a result of discharge from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO’s). This led to the further documentation of human pharmaceutical and personal care products (PPCPs) in surface and groundwater. Research on pharma- ceuticals, hormones, and other so-called organic wastewater contaminants is now a major initiative within the Toxic Substances Hydrology program of the WRD, and a national concern of many federal agencies. This coordinated mix of top-down and bottom-up approaches of man- agement has previously served the USGS well. However, we are con- cerned that the balance between national priorities and local needs has become skewed related to budget and funding issues. WRD BUDGET AND STAFFING The SOT (Box 1-1) asks questions that require some understanding of the operational and budgetary climate within which Water Resources Dis- cipline (WRD) has operated. Further, any recommendations for program- matic change or future directions (Chapter 4, Water for Tomorrow) should take these resource constraints into consideration. This section provides an overview of the organizational structure of the WRD and looks at the budgetary ‘climate’ by examining the changes in funding over time and how this has affected the WRD from a budgetary, demographic, and scien- tific perspective.

64 Toward A Sustainable and Secure Water Future “Water resources research funding has not paralleled growth in demo- graphic and economic parameters such as population, gross domestic product (GDP), or budget outlays (unlike research in other fields such as health). The per capita spending on water resources research has fallen from $3.33 in 1973 to $2.40 in 2001. Given that the pressure on water resources varies more or less directly with population and eco- nomic growth, and given sharp and intensifying increases in conflicts over water, these trends are very troubling.” SOURCE: National Research Council (2004b). In 2004, in Confronting the Nation’s Water Problems, the NRC noted (see quote in the text box above) the overall decline in funding for water resources at this time when the nation’s water resources problems are growing. The following graphs summarize trends in the WRD budget from 1990 to 2006 (Figures 3-6 through 3-9), reflecting these problematic trends. In nominal (i.e., non-inflation-adjusted) dollars, the budget trend over the past 16 years is upward (Figure 3-6), but in inflation-adjusted, i.e., real dollars, the trend is flat or slightly downward since the mid-1990s (Figure 3-7). A further subdivision of the WRD budget (Figure 3-8), reveals that the only major component of the WRD budget that has risen significantly in real terms since 1990 is the State and Local Reimbursable Coop funding for the Coop program, (i.e., non-federal), matching funds from local coop- erators. This increase is in marked contrast to the trend of the federally appropriated Coop funding (WRD Coop Appropriated, i.e., the federal matching funds), Figure 3-8. There is growing wedge of disparity between the federal and cooperator contributions from 1990 to 2006. The 1990, cooperator contribution was 54 percent—only slightly higher than the 50:50 match originally intended by Congress. This had grown to a 66 per- cent match—essentially a 2:1 cooperator:federal ratio—by 2006.

Preparing for Tomorrow 65 Nominal Water Resources Discipline Budget; Fiscal Years 1990 - 2006 Reimbursable 500 Other 400 Reimbursable State & Local Million USD 300 COOP Reimbursable Other Fed 200 Agencies WRD COOP 100 Appropriated 0 WRD Appropriated 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 200 200 200 199 199 199 200 200 200 200 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 Fiscal Year FIGURE 3-6 The Water Resources Discipline (WRD) budget from Fiscal Year 1990-2006, in nominal (non-inflation-adjusted) dollars. “Reimbursable” projects are those that provide a specific service for another agency or organization, as opposed to those that are appropriated directly by Congress. “Coop” refers to the Cooperative Water Program, defined in main text. DATA SOURCE: USGS. Inflation Adjusted Water Resourecs Discipline Budget; Fiscal Years 1990 - 2006 Reimbursable 500 Other 400 Reimbursable State & Local Million USD 300 COOP Reimbursable Other Fed 200 Agencies WRD COOP 100 Appropriated 0 WRD Appropriated 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 19 9 19 9 19 9 19 9 19 9 19 9 19 9 19 9 19 9 19 9 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 Fiscal Year FIGURE 3-7 The Water Resources Discipline budget in real dollars (inflation adjusted to fiscal year 2000) shows the generally static nature of the budget since 1990 and a general decline since its peak in 1994. DATA SOURCE: USGS.

66 Toward A Sustainable and Secure Water Future Inflation Adjusted Water Resources Discipline Budget; Fiscal Years 1990 - 2006 160 WRD 140 Appropriated Million USD WRD COOP 120 Appropriated 100 Reimbursable Other Fed 80 Agencies Reimbursable 60 State & Local COOP 40 5 6 4 8 9 0 1 2 3 7 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 200 200 200 199 200 200 200 200 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 Fiscal Year FIGURE 3-8 The Water Resources Discipline (WRD) budget in real dollars (inflation-adjusted to fiscal year 2000) showing the individual trends; only the State and Local Reimbursable Coop (i.e., the non-Federal share of coop projects) portion has risen. DATA SOURCE: USGS. Inflation Adjusted Water Resources Discipline Research Program; Fiscal Years 1990-2006 $45,000,000 Appropriated Reimbursable $40,000,000 $35,000,000 $30,000,000 USD $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 Fiscal Year FIGURE 3-9 Inflation adjusted Water Resources Discipline research funding (adjusted to fiscal year 2000), again showing the decline through time. DATA SOURCE: USGS.

Preparing for Tomorrow 67 The increase in funding provided by state and local cooperators may be an encouraging measure of WRD product demand by supporters, a positive illustration of cost-effectiveness (see chapter 2). However, if USGS WRD resources and staffing continue to decrease, further program modifications will be required (NRC, 2004b). We do not mean to imply that more optimi- zation of programs is a bad thing, in fact, it is encouraged. However, con- tinued WRD optimization should be in conjunction with adequate resources and staffing. While some past budget reductions have produced some cost- effective program optimization, continued decreases will not provide ade- quate resources and staffing to meet the nation’s future needs, in our judg- ment. The increase in funding provided by state and local cooperators also raises concerns about the direction and scope of the WRD program. With the decline in federal funding, the WRD has, at times, turned to state and local sources to find financial support for personnel and activities. While the Coop program relationships have had widespread positive influences on the application of science to water resources, increased state and local support raises some concern about the ability to concentrate Coop resources on na- tional to regional-scale priorities. The NRC’s report on NSIP (NRC, 2004b) noted that the viability of potentially essential NSIP streamgages is intrinsi- cally connected to whether Coop funding continues and is stable. The report argues that streamgages essential for national interest and flood forecasting should be funded by federal allocation and not tied to Coop funding and we support that view. Figure 3-9 summarizes the portion of the WRD budget apportioned to research, divided into congressionally appropriated funds (that go to a re- search entity such as the National Research Program) and reimbursable funds to support joint research by the USGS and other state or federal agen- cies. Research funding has been static or on a slight downward trend since the 1990s as well. The flat-to-declining trend in funding is paralleled by a loss in personnel, addressed below. Staffing and Demographic Analysis Overall, WRD staffing has declined by approximately one-third since 1993. The data show a steady decline in both “science” employees (e.g., hydrologists, physical scientists) and “non-science” employees (e.g., budget analysts, personnel officers) in the WRD (Figure 3-10). The flat- to-declining budget over the past 16 years, coupled with salary increases and promotions, contributed to this loss of staffing.

68 Toward A Sustainable and Secure Water Future Water Resources Discipline Staffing Trends 6000 Science Water Employees Non-Science Water Employees Number of Employees 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 0 1 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 Fiscal Year FIGURE 3-10 Number of employees in the Water Resources Discipline from 1990 to 2007. DATA SOURCE: USGS. Water Resources Discipline Headquarters and National Research Program Staff Levels 500 450 Number of Employees 400 350 300 250 200 150 NRP Staff 100 WRD HQ Staff 50 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 Fiscal Year FIGURE 3-11 Staffing of the National Research Program (NRP) and Water Resources Discipline Headquarters+ (WRD HQ) staff from 1990 to 2007. NRP staff has been reduced by 30 percent since 1993, and Headquarters staff by al- most 60 percent. DATA SOURCE: USGS.

Preparing for Tomorrow 69 Staffing of the Water Resources Discipline Research Hydrologists 140 NRP 130 Number Research WRD Science Centers Hydrologists 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 Fiscal Year FIGURE 3-12 Staffing levels of Research Hydrologists in the National Research Program (NRP) and Research Hydrologists in the Water Resources Discipline (WRD) Science Centers; staffing has declined in the NRP, with a substantive increase (through the late 1990s) in the Science Centers—the net effect has been a decentralization of hydrologic research capacity. DATA SOURCE: USGS. crease in the number of research hydrologists in the Science Centers during the 1990s. The net effect has been a decline in research grade staff and a decentralization of WRD’s research capacity. The re-distribution of research hydrologists to the Science Centers has promoted a higher level of science in the “field,” but possibly to the detriment of the NRP. In the past, how much did the critical mass of energetic research scientists, in close proximity in the NRP, contribute to novel technologies and advances? For example, major advances in geochemical and groundwater flow modeling and field investigations evolved from the close collaboration of NRP researchers during the 1980s and 1990s. Yet the percentage of non-hydrol- ogists (e.g., biologists) among scientists has increased somewhat since 1990, seeming to reflect an attempt to answer to the increasingly interdis- ciplinary challenges faced by the WRD (Figure 3-13). In tandem with the decline in staff, there also has been limited turn- over. The WRD workforce has aged dramatically since 1993, especially in the NRP where the percentage of hydrologists age 51 and older has in- creased from 24 percent in 1990 to 58 percent in 2007 (Figure 3-14). This

70 Toward A Sustainable and Secure Water Future Percentage of Non-Hydrologist Water Resources Discipline Scientists 30% Hydrologist Scientists Percent (%) Non- 25% 20% 15% 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 199 199 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 Fiscal Year FIGURE 3-13 Non-hydrologist scientists employed by the Water Resources Discipline (WRD) as a percentage of the total number of scientists from 1990- 2007. With the increase in multidisciplinary work, the proportion of scientists other than hydrologists in the WRD has increased during the 1990s and has held fairly steady since then. DATA SOURCE: USGS. Percent Water Resources Discipline Hydrologists Older than Age 51 70% 60% 50% % > Age 51 40% 30% 20% All WRD Hydrologists 10% NRP Hydrologists 0% 90 95 00 05 06 07 19 19 20 20 20 20 Fiscal Year FIGURE 3-14 Percentage of National Research Program (NRP) and other Wa- ter Resource Discipline (WRD) hydrologists aged 51 and older. Note the dra- matic aging of the workforce since 1993 in the NRP. DATA SOURCE: USGS.

Preparing for Tomorrow 71 Percent Water Resources Discipline Hydrologists Older than Age 51 70% 60% 50% % > A 51 40% ge 30% 20% All WRD Hydrologists 10% NRP Hydrologists 0% 90 95 00 05 06 07 19 19 20 20 20 20 Fiscal Year FIGURE 3-14 Percentage of National Research Program (NRP) and other Wa- ter Resource Discipline (WRD) hydrologists aged 51 and older. Note the dra- matic aging of the workforce since 1993 in the NRP. DATA SOURCE: USGS. have concluded (e.g., NRC, 2002b), and we state as well the WRD will not be able to meet their missions or the challenges ahead for nation’s water resources if such trends continue. THE USGS WRD CAN ADD VALUE TO WATER RESOURCE DEBATES The WRD has a legacy that can enable it to provide leadership and valuable information toward resolving water resource debates and assess- ments in the United States. The agency, even with the reductions in staff that have taken place, has a large number of scientists and highly skilled, experienced technicians in various fields that affect water resources. These include: geologists who study the environmental conditions that affect wa- ter storage and conveyance in aquifers, lakes, deltas, and streams; geo- chemists and geomorphologists concerned with the origin of contaminants such as sediment, metals, and organic materials; hydrologists concerned with the processes of water storage and transfer through landscapes, and biologists concerned with the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems that both affect and are affected by natural and managed characteristics of water resources.

72 Toward A Sustainable and Secure Water Future Percentage National Research Program Hydrologists by Age Group; 1990 45% 40% % NRP Hydrologists 35% 30% Percent (%) 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 30 and Under 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 60 61 and Over Age Group FIGURE 3-15 Percentage of National Research Program (NRP) hydrologists by age group in 1990. DATA SOURCE: USGS. Percentage National Research Program Hydrologists by Age Group; 2007 50% 45% % NRP Hydrologists 40% P e rc e n t (% ) 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 30 and Under 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 60 61 and Over Age Group FIGURE 3-16 Percentage of National Research Program (NRP) hydrologists by age group in 2007. DATA SOURCE: USGS.

Preparing for Tomorrow 73 A particular strength of WRD is its capability for multi and interdisci- plinary approaches to the analysis of the components of the hydrologic cycle and its management. For example, the agency monitors the quanti- ties and quality of surface and groundwaters. In recent years, it has ex- tended its concern “upstream” by linking these measurements with infor- mation on rainfall, snowmelt, and the conditions of watersheds through empirical analysis of data collected by other agencies and by development of its own modeling capabilities to address both land use effects and cli- mate change on water resources. Looking “downstream” within the hy- drologic cycle, the agency is involved in data collection on the water qual- ity and ecological functioning of natural and impacted aquatic ecosystems. It continues to expand its analysis of water availability and use, as well as the functioning and restoration potential of large coastal water bodies such as San Francisco Bay, the California Bay-delta, Chesapeake Bay, the Mis- sissippi Delta, and the Florida Everglades (Chapter 2). The involvement of WRD in the linked systems that constitute our water resources and their management problems, from climate to the sea, positions the agency as a critical contributor and potentially a leader of efforts to advise govern- ments and the public in addressing the expanding water-related issues. The interdisciplinary nature of the WRD can also provide flexibility, which ideally can allow the agency to adjust rapidly to emerging concerns, whether they are the environmental role of new chemicals or nanoparticles, atmospheric connections that affect regional-scale water resources, or the terrestrial and atmospheric linkages associated with warming of boreal regions. The broad geographic reach of WRD, with its offices in all fifty states also means that the agency has a means of keeping its finger on the pulse of changes in water resources and their use across the country and the potential to recognize changes and emerging issues at an early stage. The agency is also well-placed to participate in, or even facilitate construc- tive resolution of interstate water-resource conflicts because it is involved in monitoring and analyzing the behavior of water resources (rivers, lakes, and aquifers) that cross state boundaries. What we are describing is a long-standing WRD tradition of studying the impact of human activities on natural resources such as land, water resources, and ecosystems. This fundamental tradition facilitates, not only thorough effective assessments by the agency itself, and it prepares WRD personnel to collaborate with and even to provide interdisciplinary leader- ship among other agencies, that generally have a more narrow disciplinary focus in, for example, atmospheric science, or land and wildlife manage- ment. The issue of whether society can manage resources sustainably in the face of population growth, wealth production, and climatic uncertainty

74 Toward A Sustainable and Secure Water Future has become the signature environmental issue of our age, and the USGS, and particularly WRD, are ideally suited to play a leadership role in a national strategy for sustainable resource management.

Next: 4 Water for Tomorrow »
Toward a Sustainable and Secure Water Future: A Leadership Role for the U.S. Geological Survey Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $44.00 Buy Ebook | $35.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Water is our most fundamental natural resource, a resource that is limited. Challenges to our nation's water resources continue to grow, driven by population growth, ecological needs, climate change, and other pressures. The nation needs more and improved water science and information to meet these challenges.

Toward a Sustainable and Secure Water Future reviews the United States Geological Survey's (USGS) Water Resource Discipline (WRD), one of the nation's foremost water science organizations. This book provides constructive advice to help the WRD meet the nation's water needs over the coming decades. Of interest primarily to the leadership of the USGS WRD, many findings and recommendations also target the USGS leadership and the Department of Interior (DOI), because their support is necessary for the WRD to respond to the water needs of the nation.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!