FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2097788593> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2097788593 endingPage "48" @default.
• W2097788593 startingPage "42" @default.
• W2097788593 abstract "In a future that is increasingly defined by energy and water stresses, the federal government will be forced to act. But what should the federal role be, and what roles should individual federal agencies play? How can or should federal agencies support state, private, and local initiatives, and where does the federal government have the mandate and responsibility to lead? Research, national standards and regulations, and incentive systems have established federal activities that are all vital and appropriate roles to address these stresses. Because the nexus between energy and water cuts across so many areas, multiple federal agencies will be involved. One of these agencies will undoubtedly be the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps). In preparation for this call to action, below we review the current civil works mission of the Corps, give our perspective of what a Federal energy-water initiative might be, and propose roles of the Corps in implementing such an initiative. The Corps likes to trace its ancestry back to before the founding of the republic. George Washington appointed the first engineer officers of the Army on June 16, 1775, and the Department of the Army established the Corps of Engineers as a separate, permanent branch on March 16, 1802. Since then, the Corps has been involved in supporting both military and civilian needs and currently plays an important international role in the reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. On the civil works side, the Corps civil works programs include engineering, design, construction, rehabilitation, and operation and maintenance of water resources projects having a replacement value of over $150 billion. The Corps is the lead federal agency for reducing damages from riverine and coastal flooding, for navigation on the nation's waterways, and has a newer mission area in ecosystem restoration. In addition the Corps is the largest provider of hydroelectric energy in the U.S., provides many recreational opportunities at its facilities, and provides water supply storage at many reservoirs. Beyond its project-focused mission areas, the Corps regulates construction and dredge-and-fill operations in navigable waters and wetlands, plays a significant role in responding to natural disasters, and provides planning assistance to states. Unlike many other Federal agencies, the Corps has no single organic act that specifies its mission and authorities. Instead, it derives its “civil works” authorities from many statutes, including the Flood Control Act of 1936, the Water Supply Act of 1958, the River and Harbors Act of 1960, and the 1972 Clean Water Act. More recently, Corps project and programmatic authorities have been authorized every few years through the Water Resources Development Act (most recently in 2007). The Corps' civil works mission is funded at approximately $4.5 billion annually by the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriation Act. Most projects also require cost-sharing funds supplied directly by non-Federal sponsors (e.g., local governments). The Corps' civil works mission is authorized and funded separately from its military support activities. The Corps is organized into eight divisions in the U.S. and 38 subordinate districts geographically defined by watershed boundaries (Figure 1) and research and development and support activities such as the U.S. Army Engineering Research and Development Center and the Institute for Water Resources. The Corps is comprised of approximately 34,600 civilian and 650 military members, including military and civilian engineers, physical, biological and social scientists and other specialists. USACE Districts and Divisions Over the past few years, there has been increased recognition of the nexus between energy and water management; the role of this paper is not to delve into that nexus per se (for a more complete discussion of that nexus, see Voinov 2009 in this issue). Instead, this paper focuses on what can or should the Federal government do to best help the nation meet emerging challenges on the Energy-Water nexus front? What will the public demand that the Federal government do? What will be the most feasible activities, politically and technically, to address these challenges? A first step for the Federal government may be to promote a national focus on demand issues – for both water and energy – to reduce the potential challenges in supplying more of both, or at least to buy time to develop other solutions to energy-water issues. Such a focus would maintain traditional federal roles in research, national standards and regulations, and incentive systems. It would be relatively inexpensive to implement and it would contribute to national economic development and homeland security. The initiative might include research to develop quantum leaps in water and energy efficiency and promoting national standards and incentive systems that spur innovation. It may also focus on developing and distributing information on best practices and opportunities that reduce demand in economically and socially attractive ways. But a major federal focus on demand reduction would involve not only research and incentive systems, but outreach and education campaigns and a national call to make efficiency a national trait. Such a campaign would follow in the same footsteps as the various other national drives (e.g., the race to the moon, environmental awareness campaigns, and the war on drugs.). The Energy Policy Acts of 2005 and 2007 take steps toward a Federal focus on efficiency, as do other bills and initiatives in Congress and in executive branch agencies. In part this is in response to individual states taking the initiative in seeking alternatives to traditional energy and water supply and developing restrictions that are causing a patchwork of standards nationally and thus reducing national economic competitiveness and efficiency. A more comprehensive focus on demand management at the Federal level can move the country in quantum leaps towards radically lower energy and water demands and toward world leadership in energy and water efficiency technologies. Such progress would spur economic growth, and, by reducing reliance on imported energy sources, positively contribute to national security. The components of this multi-agency Federal initiative on demand management would include: Research and development to enhance the available water and energy supplies through new technologies, market mechanisms (e.g., metering and water banking), increased efficiency of water and energy storage and transmission infrastructure. Development of a next generation of national standards and Federal regulation and incentive programs, such as those that have shown success such as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards, the energy star and water sense programs and national building, appliance and plumbing codes and standards. Information and data sharing. Multiple Federal water and energy agencies (e.g., Corps, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey, and Bureau of Reclamation) should develop an open-access information and knowledge base that would contain data, tools, methods, and models to facilitate the assessment of energy and water supplies, demands and linkages, as well as promote collaborative decision-making at local and regional levels. Outreach and public awareness. Aggressive outreach and education programs, aimed not only at the public but also at specific water and energy use sectors, can rapidly increase public adoption of water and energy efficiency technologies. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's extension service is one model to build upon and coordinated with. Other avenues include public service announcements to promote conservation, efficiency, and lower consumption. A concerted effort to educate the public about opportunities and economic and social benefits will be necessary to imbue efficiency as a national trait. The overall principle would be that instead of focusing solely or primarily on supply, Federal agencies should be also focusing on demand, helping manage it by both increasing efficiency and decreasing consumption. We note that this new federal focus on demand management is not meant to supplant, but instead to complement the historically important federal roles in research, management, and development for energy and water supply challenges. But where does the Corps fit in? How can the Corps, with its extensive energy and water resources infrastructure across the nation, its expertise in energy and water resources planning, its research and development laboratories, and its natural resource management and regulatory responsibilities, support coordinated Federal actions to address energy-water challenges? First of all, the Corps can make the most of its existing infrastructure through infrastructure rehabilitation and optimization. Multi-purpose Corps reservoirs have storage already dedicated for water supply, and many have significant hydropower operations. The Corps can help augment water and energy supply by ensuring that its facilities operate at maximum effectiveness. Such steps would include rehabilitation of existing hydropower facilities, optimizing operations across turbines at an individual site and across hydropower generation facilities in a given river system, reviewing and revising operational rules to increase benefits, and improving forecasting and monitoring capabilities to increase operational capabilities. Secondly, the Corps can use the resources of the Army's research and development laboratories and the experience in its water supply regulatory program to develop expertise on demand and energy-water linkages. The military has long invested in research on energy and water efficiency in support of the “war fighter.” Combining the Army's expertise with expertise from the Civil Works mission could help the nation make quantum leaps in energy and water use efficiencies. In addition, the Corps responsibility under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act means that most new water-supply projects must undergo a review by the Corp of the need for additional water supply and the alternatives that are practical to meet these needs. This requirement necessitates an expert analysis of both the yield of new and existing supply options, as well as demand estimates. It also implicitly requires tools and processes for government regulators to engage in a dialogue with communities about the acceptable risk of water shortages and of lifestyle choices. The Corps is in a position to develop and disseminate expertise, both in the analytic tools and technologies to estimate and increase demand and supply reliability, and in the collaborative process tools for dialogue about risk and tradeoffs. With increased consideration of energy-water linkages and technological improvements, and a richer dialogue with communities on water and energy issues, “soft” solutions may emerge as the “Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative” that is mandated by the 404 regulatory process. By becoming a center of expertise for water demand management, the Corps can support state and local governments and other federal agencies in addressing water and energy challenges. Thirdly, the role of the Corps can continue to evolve from a project-by-project orientation to a systems perspective in planning and operations. Such a systems perspective would consider the complex feedbacks and connections between energy and water in Corps' navigation, ecosystem restoration, flood damage reduction, and other projects. By teaming with the Department of Energy's National Laboratories and other experts in energy assessment, the Federal government's expertise can be pooled to evaluate the systemic interactions in energy and water resources planning. For example, this could include assessing the potential impacts of investments in navigation systems relative to the energy-water interactions associated with moving commodities. In addition, it could include assessing energy-water connections when analyzing the potential impacts of flooding or of water shortfalls. Such systemic consideration of energy-water connections would also benefit planning for emergency response. Hurricane Katrina showed the extent of linkages between energy, water, and emergency management as energy production, refining and distribution systems were significantly affected and the Mississippi River was closed to navigation for coal barges. Such a systems perspective would be a natural extension of the Corps' existing planning expertise and would result in better information in the formulation and evaluation of plans for new projects, major rehabilitation and operations. Dziegielewski and Kiefer (2006:43) point out that The restrictive nature of existing Federal laws, policies and funding has left the Corps in a classic catch-22 situation. States and localities are taking the initiative for seeking out water supply alternatives, which is consistent with Corps policy. However, in doing so, … these entities more often than not perceive Corps involvement as a barrier and are more likely to encounter the Corps in regulatory proceedings than engage the Corps as a partner… This “problem” presents the Corps with its single best opportunity to help, which is to lead regional water supply planning studies that would facilitate the design of the most cost-effective and environmentally-friendly water supply options, thus reducing the cost and length of the permitting process. This approach is again centered on the supply side. By bringing expertise on demand management technologies and water-energy linkages, the Corps only becomes a more valuable resource for locals and states to assist in their planning processes. Note that at present some states turn out to be much more restrictive and conscious in their development plans than the Federal level. So, there may be no catch-22 situation if we bring the demand side into concern. Presently states are starting to seek alternatives to traditional energy and water supply, and develop restrictions that are even more stringent than required by federal regulation. In response the Federal government is creating obstacles for the States to move to less damaging technologies and more sustainable futures by proposing restrictions on states from imposing emission standards that are more stringent than Federal level11 See: EPA gets push on emissions controls Congressional backers of laws in Md., 11 states try to force agency to act: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-te.emissions13aug13,0,3089789.story, Democrats Face Off Over Emissions Bill. California Lawmakers Lead Opposition to a Draft That Would Prevent States From Taking Tougher Action Than The Federal Government. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/08/1750/. . Fourth, to fully support a federal response to energy-water issues, the Corps must engage more fully in outreach and education programs. Such activities would naturally flow from various Corps activities and policies on public involvement in planning, risk communication, and public interactions in the Corps natural resource management community. Such an extension of the Corps' evolving role as a natural resource manager could be expanded to distribute information aimed at different sectors on water efficiency technologies and energy-water linkages and assessment methods. In this task the Corps can take advantage of its distributed network of Districts, Divisions and local installations to offer educational materials to the public, water-intensive industries, and municipalities. Finally, to help the nation address energy water challenges, the Corps must continue to develop innovative approaches to governance and collaborative problem solving. Recognizing the primacy of states in water allocation, and the pivotal role of local communities and the private sector, the Corps must continue to forward collaborative approaches to water resources governance. These approaches have been espoused by the 2004 Cooperative Conservation initiative (see http://www.cooperativeconservation.gov), the Corps' guidance on collaborative planning (see http://www.usace.army.mil/publications/eng-circulars/ec1105-2-409/entire.pdf), the National Science and Technology Council's strategy for federal science and technology to support fresh water availability and quality http://www.svp.iwr.usace.army.mil/docs/CollaborativeTs&PsNov1606.pdf, and the Obama administration's clarion call for a more collaborative and participatory government (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment). With complex energy-water interactions and problems becoming increasingly salient to the general public, federal water managers will need to develop and promote new collaborative ways of problem solving. The Corps new Center of Expertise on Conflict Resolution and Public Participation (http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/cpc) has been recently created to address these challenges in concert with other Corps elements and with its partner Conflict Resolution Centers across the Federal family (e.g. U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, DOI's Center for Alternative Dispute Resolution, EPA's Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center). The Corps' Shared Vision Planning (http://www.SharedVisionPlanning.us) process institutes an on-going collaborative learning effort when there is an iterative exchange between Federal, state, and local levels on priorities, data, analysis, scenarios, and decisions. It is an open-ended adaptive process that is the only possible way to manage open, evolving systems, such as watersheds. While Shared Vision Planning has been mostly used in application to water resources, there is no reason it cannot be used in other situations where resource planning and environmental decision-making and conflict resolution is required. The Corps can work with other Federal and state partners to further develop and popularize such alternative dispute resolution methods and technologies. To address the above priority areas, the Corps will need to engage others in the federal family. Although the Corps will need to work with many federal and state agencies, four key partnerships immediately come to mind: In the area of infrastructure rehabilitation and optimization, the Corps will need to work with experts at DOE to improve hydropower turbines and their efficiency, as well as to optimize the production across turbines and across production facilities. The Corps will also need to share experiences with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on their approaches to hydropower dam operation and in adopting collaborative approaches to hydropower regulation. The Corps will need to continue to collaborate closely with EPA to develop and disseminate expertise on water supply and demand expertise for evaluating water supply permits. Furthermore, any outreach and education initiative would have much to learn from and share with EPA's Water Sense program to increase public awareness for water conservation. Finally, the Corps will need to partner with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Tennessee Valley Authority to share experiences on everything from infrastructure rehabilitation and optimization to system-wide planning and operations to public outreach and education for water resources management. The Corps' historic role and expertise in water resources management in the United States is a resource that can and must be put to the service of helping the nation address its energy-water challenges. The Corps' contribution to this national effort will include contributions from its world class research activities, from its role in managing infrastructure, and from its regulatory responsibilities. By partnering with expertise in other Federal and non-Federal organizations, the Corps will be able to help the U.S. meet these challenges. The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Institute for Water Resources or Voinov's organization. Hal Cardwell is with the Corps of Engineer's Institute for Water Resources, and is presently leading the Corps new Conflict Resolution and Public Participation Center http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/cpc/, as well as the conceptual development, case studies, and outreach to promote collaborative modeling approaches for water conflict resolution http://www.sharedvisionplanning.us. Prior to coming to the Corps in 2002, Dr. Cardwell was with Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Environmental Sciences Division for a decade, including five years on loan to the US Agency for International Development (USAID) working globally and then in Panama on water issues. Dr. Cardwell is functionally fluent in Spanish, holds a Ph.D. in Geography & Environmental Engineering from the Johns Hopkins University. He can be reaches at 703-428-9071 or Hal.E.Cardwell@usace.army.mil. Alexey Voinov (PhD) is Associate Professor at the International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation (ITC). Prior to that Dr. Voinov was coordinating the Chesapeake Research Consortium Community Modeling Program, and was also Principle Research Scientist at John's Hopkins University. He has spent one year with the AAAS Science and Technology Fellowship program working with the Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources. Before that he was with the Institute for Ecological Economics, first at Univ. of Maryland, and, later - Vermont, working on integrated studies of the ecological and human dynamics and sustainability sciences. His academic and teaching interests evolve around modeling of various ecosystems, with applications to environmental and integrated assessment, management and decision support. He is a keen advocate of stakeholder involvement in modeling and decision making. Dr. Voinov is Editor of the Journal for Environmental Modeling and Software and President of the International Environmental Modeling and Software Society. His recent book is on “Systems Science and Modeling for Ecological Economics” (Academic Press/Elsevier). He can be contacted at +31(0) 53 487 4507 or email: aavoinov@gmail.com. Norman Starler is a lead economist for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, where he works in the areas of policy analysis, benefit-cost analysis and future directions. Prior to joining the Institute for Water Resources, Dr. Starler served in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for seventeen years where he was senior examiner for both the Army Corps and the Bureau of Reclamation. Prior to serving with OMB, Dr. Starler was the Senior Economist for the Bureau of Reclamation. Additionally, he has extensive experience with the Department of the Interior's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Agriculture's Economic Service and with two universities – State University of New York and South Dakota State University. Dr. Starler holds a PhD in Economics from Iowa State University. He can be reached at 703-428-6670 or norman.h.starler@usace.army.mil." @default.
• W2097788593 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2097788593 creator A5017742557 @default.
• W2097788593 creator A5037680294 @default.
• W2097788593 creator A5042574035 @default.
• W2097788593 date "2009-12-01" @default.
• W2097788593 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W2097788593 title "The Energy-Water Nexus: Potential Roles for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers" @default.
• W2097788593 cites W2021312554 @default.
• W2097788593 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-704x.2009.00064.x" @default.
• W2097788593 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W2097788593 type Work @default.
• W2097788593 sameAs 2097788593 @default.
• W2097788593 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2097788593 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2097788593 hasAuthorship W2097788593A5017742557 @default.
• W2097788593 hasAuthorship W2097788593A5037680294 @default.
• W2097788593 hasAuthorship W2097788593A5042574035 @default.
• W2097788593 hasBestOaLocation W20977885931 @default.
• W2097788593 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2097788593 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2097788593 hasConcept C147176958 @default.
• W2097788593 hasConcept C148609458 @default.
• W2097788593 hasConcept C149635348 @default.
• W2097788593 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2097788593 hasConcept C186370098 @default.
• W2097788593 hasConcept C3017454777 @default.
• W2097788593 hasConcept C39432304 @default.
• W2097788593 hasConcept C524765639 @default.
• W2097788593 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W2097788593 hasConceptScore W2097788593C121332964 @default.
• W2097788593 hasConceptScore W2097788593C127413603 @default.
• W2097788593 hasConceptScore W2097788593C147176958 @default.
• W2097788593 hasConceptScore W2097788593C148609458 @default.
• W2097788593 hasConceptScore W2097788593C149635348 @default.
• W2097788593 hasConceptScore W2097788593C17744445 @default.
• W2097788593 hasConceptScore W2097788593C186370098 @default.
• W2097788593 hasConceptScore W2097788593C3017454777 @default.
• W2097788593 hasConceptScore W2097788593C39432304 @default.
• W2097788593 hasConceptScore W2097788593C524765639 @default.
• W2097788593 hasConceptScore W2097788593C62520636 @default.
• W2097788593 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2097788593 hasLocation W20977885931 @default.
• W2097788593 hasOpenAccess W2097788593 @default.
• W2097788593 hasPrimaryLocation W20977885931 @default.
• W2097788593 hasRelatedWork W2431359360 @default.
• W2097788593 hasRelatedWork W2781828791 @default.
• W2097788593 hasRelatedWork W2790326371 @default.
• W2097788593 hasRelatedWork W2883206911 @default.
• W2097788593 hasRelatedWork W2947694673 @default.
• W2097788593 hasRelatedWork W2964211074 @default.
• W2097788593 hasRelatedWork W4283579962 @default.
• W2097788593 hasRelatedWork W4290779388 @default.
• W2097788593 hasRelatedWork W4312772950 @default.
• W2097788593 hasRelatedWork W595627036 @default.
• W2097788593 hasVolume "143" @default.
• W2097788593 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2097788593 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2097788593 magId "2097788593" @default.
• W2097788593 workType "article" @default.