I am currently in DC (again!) for the annual meeting of the National Institutes of Water Resources (NIWR). Today we heard from Dr. Bob Hirsch, Associate Director for Water of the U.S. Geological Survey - the chief hydrologist of the USGS. Bob has been in this racket as long as I have (30+ years) and is an astute observer of the water scene. He spent about 35 minutes listing his four big water themes/issues for the foreseeable future.
What prompted his list was the question by a 20-something Capitol Hill staffer, "You have been studying water for over 100 years. Don't you have all the questions answered by now?" Makes you think. As an academic (or "academia nut)", I might have said, "Well, give me $500K and I will come back in a few years to let you know if we have answered them." (Duhhhh....guess what the answer would be?) Not Bob....So here is a synopsis of what he said. I will not go into all the detail because I could not write fast enough. I don't think these are in any particular order, although I suspect #1 is actually numero uno.
1) Instream (ecological, environmental) flows. The gridlock issue. As Bob correctly observed, and to which I can attest, the question in his engineering hydrology class of 30 years ago was "How much water can we take out of the river (or pump from the aquifer) for human use?" Now, it's "How much water should we leave in the river (or aquifer)?" And it's not just the minimum flow, but the whole stream hydrograph that needs to be considered.
2) Ground water - surface water interactions, and sustainability (closely related to [1]). How much water is available and how is it used (we still don't know these very well in many places)? How does ground water pumpage affect surface water, and over what temporal and spatial scales? Bob mentioned that our GW-SW models need to consider larger spatial scales (kilometers or tens of kilometers) and temporal scales (perhaps centuries). Chemistry and temperature need to be considered, not just flow. He also mentioned that to help address these issues, the USGS will soon unveil an integrated version of its PRMS-MODFLOW model called GSFLOW.
3) Incorporation of climate change into water resources planning. We all (well, Bob and I) learned our hydrology in the Stone Age when we assumed that processes were stationary (in a statistical sense). Well, that is no longer a good assumption, even without climate change - think of PDO, ENSO, etc. But now we have global warming. He spoke of "neohydrology" - hydrology assuming nonstationary processes.
4) "Fixing" impaired waterways. A lot of work still to be done. One sticky issue - to "fix" these, we will have to pay closer attention to water quality and land use impacts (Wow! What a novel idea - integrated land use and water resource planning!) which will mean telling property owners what they can and cannot do with their lands. In the USA, that is not a popular idea. 'Nuff said.
Bob summarized by stating the obvious - that to tackle the above, we cannot use "compartmentalized" approaches. And both theory and data are needed.
But I wouldn't be surprised if, in 2107, some 20-something Congressional staffer asks Bob Hirsch V "Hey, you've been studying water for 200 years. Haven't you answered all the questions?"
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."
Comments