Summary

One of the most critical issues facing the United States today is the proper management of our water resources. Water availability and quality are changing due to increasing population, urbanization, and land use and climate change, and shortages in water supply have been increasing in frequency in many parts of the country. The National Science Foundation (NSF) has entertained the Water and Environmental Research Systems (WATERS) Network as one possible initiative whereby NSF could provide the advances in the basic science needed to respond effectively to the challenge of managing water resources.

The WATERS Network, a joint initiative of the Engineering, the Geosciences, and the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences directorates at NSF, is envisioned as an integrated national network of observatories and experimental facilities supporting research, outreach, and education on large-scale, water-related environmental problems. The proposed observatories would provide researchers with access to linked sensing networks, data repositories, and computational tools connected through high-performance computing and telecommunications networks. Because of the magnitude of this envisioned network, NSF proposed that the WATERS Network be built using funds from the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) appropriation, which is available to NSF to support the acquisition, construction, and upgrading of major research equipment and facilities.

In 2006, NSF requested that the National Research Council (NRC) Water Science and Technology Board convene a committee to provide advice as the WATERS Network navigates the multiyear planning process for MREFC funding. In 2006, a previous NRC committee considered potential research questions that the network might address (NRC, 2006). This current committee, formed in 2007, was tasked to review the WATERS draft conceptual design and its science plan and provide ad-



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 1
Summary One of the most critical issues facing the United States today is the proper management of our water resources. Water availability and qual- ity are changing due to increasing population, urbanization, and land use and climate change, and shortages in water supply have been increasing in frequency in many parts of the country. The National Science Foun- dation (NSF) has entertained the Water and Environmental Research Systems (WATERS) Network as one possible initiative whereby NSF could provide the advances in the basic science needed to respond effec- tively to the challenge of managing water resources. The WATERS Network, a joint initiative of the Engineering, the Geosciences, and the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences direc- torates at NSF, is envisioned as an integrated national network of obser- vatories and experimental facilities supporting research, outreach, and education on large-scale, water-related environmental problems. The proposed observatories would provide researchers with access to linked sensing networks, data repositories, and computational tools connected through high-performance computing and telecommunications networks. Because of the magnitude of this envisioned network, NSF proposed that the WATERS Network be built using funds from the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) appropriation, which is available to NSF to support the acquisition, construction, and upgrading of major research equipment and facilities. In 2006, NSF requested that the National Research Council (NRC) Water Science and Technology Board convene a committee to provide advice as the WATERS Network navigates the multiyear planning proc- ess for MREFC funding. In 2006, a previous NRC committee consid- ered potential research questions that the network might address (NRC, 2006). This current committee, formed in 2007, was tasked to review the WATERS draft conceptual design and its science plan and provide ad- 1

OCR for page 1
2 Review of the WATERS Network Science Plan vice on integrating the WATERS Network with other related observa- tional systems (see statement of task in Box 1-1). The committee previ- ously authored two reports: (1) an interim report that evaluated the Draft Science, Education, and Design Strategy for the WATERS Network (Task #1; NRC, 2008) and (2) a letter report issued in July 2009 that summarized the committee’s assessment of whether the Science Plan “sets forth a vision of what could be accomplished with an observing network to transform water science and engineering research and educa- tion” and “whether the Science Plan makes a compelling case for estab- lishing the WATERS Network with Major Research and Facilities Con- struction (MREFC) funding” (Task #2; NRC, 2009). This report, the committee’s final, provides a more detailed review of the Science Plan (Task #2) and provides advice on collaborating with other federal agen- cies (Task #3). ASSESSMENT OF THE SCIENCE PLAN The Science Plan was intended as a broad vision document, and in this light, the document succeeds in communicating a high-level vision for transforming water science and engineering research through the establishment of an observatory network. The plan out- lines the opportunity to collect, analyze, and integrate hydrologic, envi- ronmental science and engineering, and social science data at a level that has not previously been possible. Overall, the committee finds that the presentation of the overarching science question and the three grand challenges in hydrology, engineering, and social sciences provides com- pelling arguments in support of the WATERS Network. The integration of social sciences with engineering and hydrol- ogy is a key benefit of the WATERS Network. The committee com- mends the WATERS team for its efforts to bring together the community of researchers and encourages the team to continue to nurture the integra- tion of multiple disciplines. While the Science Plan makes a convincing case that the WATERS Network will likely lead to strong, transformative science in its individ- ual pieces, it is not clear that a collection of such pieces will meet the MREFC criterion that the WATERS Network will “exhibit systems characteristics greater than inferred simply by the connectivity of its parts” (NSF, 2005). Each of the three hypothetical examples of regional, theme-based science in the Science Plan (i.e., snow hydrology, eutrophi- cation of estuaries, and urban water systems) illustrates how our under-

OCR for page 1
Summary 3 standing of particular issues could be significantly advanced. However, there do not appear to be clearly articulated, compelling questions or hy- potheses in the Science Plan that require integration across individual observatories at the same time. The document also does not explain clearly why any of the three major questions cannot be approached re- gionally and, in fact, why some current efforts are not addressing the sci- ence questions, at least in part. As the WATERS team goes forward, it should bolster its case that a national network of observatories is re- quired to address the science questions that are posed. The committee believes that such a case can be made, especially with a strong social science component as part of the interdisciplinary water science network. However, the persuasiveness of the argument for WATERS as a unified facility also requires a strong case for the scientific and engineering knowledge to be gained from a national network. Alternatively, a dif- ferent funding mechanism within NSF might be considered, if feasi- ble, for establishing a phased network of observatories that could address the questions posed in the WATERS Science Plan while tak- ing better advantage of advances in technology over time. The committee finds the high-level vision for science to be well done in the Science Plan, but as the WATERS Network moves ahead through conceptual design phase, a much more detailed “science plan” will need to be developed in parallel with the design. Additional development and refinement of the Science Plan will be needed in the future to make sure that the necessary coordination between the desired science and the fea- sibility of network construction is accomplished. That is, the natural pro- gression from high-level vision to detailed description of scientific objec- tives will have to occur. In support of this anticipated need, the commit- tee in Chapter 2 offers some guidance with regard to cyberinfrastruc- ture—a critical element of the WATERS Network to link the local ob- servatories and to enable multiscale and networkwide analyses by a wide array of researchers. Additionally, issues to be considered in the devel- opment of a network of observatories, including factors that facilitate intersite comparisons, are discussed in Chapter 3. INTEGRATION AND COORDINATION The WATERS Network could serve as a catalyst for bringing agencies together to contribute to a broader integrated agenda. De- scriptions of federal and state agency water-related activities tend to pro- vide a picture of projects that are compartmentalized and directed by

OCR for page 1
4 Review of the WATERS Network Science Plan agency mandates and authorities. Given the breadth of the WATERS agenda, the program will gain from interactions with these diverse agency programs. Interagency collaboration could entail at least four possible levels of coordination: (1) interaction among researchers so that the WATERS Network team stays abreast of the objectives and findings of related programs and can learn from the experience of agency staff working at similar large-scale data collection and management projects, (2) development of policies for sharing data collected through independ- ent initiatives, (3) coordination of future data acquisition plans, and (4) development of cyberinfrastructure for data sharing and other collabora- tive activities. Many possible benefits from improved coordination and integration have been summarized in Chapter 5. The degree of coordina- tion that can reasonably be achieved, however, may depend upon the data sharing and cyberinfrastructure challenges encountered, as discussed in Chapter 2. To enhance coordination and integration, the WATERS team should involve appropriate federal agencies, state and local govern- ments, organizations, and international programs at an early stage. Interactions and relationships that are developed in a coordinated and planned way will have more impact than ad hoc opportunism by individ- ual scientists. OVERARCHING CONCLUSIONS The WATERS Network Science Plan outlines a compelling vision for ways in which new, integrative hydrologic, environmental science and engineering, and social science research can help address pressing water management concerns while advancing water science and educa- tion. The argument for construction of a simultaneously operated na- tional observatory network with funding from the MREFC program is not as convincing in the Science Plan, and the WATERS team should consider whether the case for a national network can be strengthened or whether another funding mechanism can be considered. Many design challenges remain to be addressed in future planning efforts, including selecting observatory sites, determining second-level research questions, and developing a cyberinfrastructure plan. As the details of the WA- TERS Network evolve, the Science Plan should be developed and re- fined in parallel. To optimize the potential contributions of the WA- TERS Network, the team should coordinate and collaborate with related

OCR for page 1
Summary 5 government and nongovernment agencies and organizations at an early stage.