Dr. Famiglietti the Godfather of Groundwater Sustainability

Last week I read a very interesting Opinion piece in the NewYork Times by Jay Famiglietti who is one of the more important groundwater scientists of our time. It was a thought piece addressing what will happen if we don't protect our groundwater and it continues to disappear, will we need to move water to where our food is currently grown?  Dr Famiglietti was not really arguing for pumping the great lakes to California he was trying to highlight the coming water crisis and our need to take action.

Dr Famiglietti is currently a Global Futures Professor in the School of Sustainability at Arizona State University and serves as the Director of Science for the Arizona Water Innovation Initiative. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of Saskatchewan, where he was Executive Director of the Global Institute for Water Security. He was the founding Chief Scientist of the Silicon Valley startup, Waterplan. Before that he served as the Senior Water Scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology. From 2013 through 2018, he was appointed by Governor Jerry Brown to the California State Water Boards in the Santa Ana and Los Angeles regions.

I know his work best from when Dr. Famiglietti was a professor of Earth System Science and of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of California, Irvine, (2001 to 2016)  where he was the Founding Director of the UC Center for Hydrologic Modeling. Before that Dr Famiglietti was on the faculty of the Geological Sciences Department at the University of Texas at Austin, where he and his research team including Matt Rodell developed the way to use satellites to track changing water availability around the world. They pioneered the methods to detect groundwater depletion from space using the NASA GRACE mission. 

Dr Famiglietti also has a water podcast “What About Water.” It’s good you, too, should be a listener.  Jay Famiglietti | Global Futures Professor, ASU; Podcast host, "What About Water"

I would like to quote some of the highlights of Dr. Famiglietti’s comment on groundwater.  “For over a century, America’s farmers have overpumped groundwater, and now, as the world warms and the Southwest becomes drier, the situation is only growing more dire. Rivers are slowing to a trickle, water tables are falling, land is sinking, and wells are drying up.”

Our climate has changed and will continue to change. The fantasy of renewable energy and electrification of everything stopping climate change from happening was just that a fantasy. The climate will continue to change because we have failed in both our understand and action.

On Earth Day in 2016 196 countries officially signed the Paris Climate Accord that was intended to put the nations on a course to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels. The Paris Agreement aims to limit global temperature increase to well below 2°C above preindustrial levels and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C by each nation committing to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Even if every nation met their current pledge to reduce carbon dioxide emissions made in the Paris Climate Accord and its updates, the reductions promised are not enough to even maintain global temperatures within 2 °C above pre-industrial levels; and the nations are not meeting those pledges.  The United States currently represents less than 14% of global carbon emissions. There is virtually nothing we as a nation can do (at this point) to stop the climate from changing. We need to adapt to the future we will face and move to a sustainable path.

As Dr Famiglietti points out: “States are aware there is a problem — many are trying to sustainably manage their groundwater. But it’s not clear how successful these efforts have been. His research team has found that groundwater depletion is accelerating in the Central Valley, in spite of California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.”

In the best studied area of groundwater depletion attempts to regulate and manage it appear to be failing. The regulatory schemes so far in use appear to have failed. The groundwater management area of Virginia in the Potomac Aquifer is only doing a little better.  There will likely not be enough groundwater to accommodate future growth in the region without additional permit reductions or increasing supply through large-scale, long-term water projects.

Beyond the next few years, though, sustainability is tenuous and can easily be tipped out of balance. Potential growth in both unpermitted and permitted withdrawals can easily push demand in excess of supply, leading again to unsustainable use. Changes in the hydraulic cycle from the changing climate with impact sustainability and management of groundwater resources.

 “If we want to sustain groundwater supplies for future generations, we will need reliable estimates of what’s available in key aquifers, how its quality changes with depth and how much can be safely pumped without risk of running dry. That means we must prioritize the systematic exploration and evaluation of what’s in the ground and make a plan to end or dramatically reduce groundwater depletion.” In addition to the information needs pointed out by Dr. Famiglietti we need to further understand the use of groundwater and in the east we need to fully understand recharge and the impact of land use changes on groundwater recharge and surface water.

I encourage you to explore Dr Famiglietti’s podcasts. They are well worth your time.

Comments on PW Digital Gateway and Comp Plan Changes

The streams, rivers and groundwater in the Occoquan Watershed in Prince William County are at risk of degradation from PW Digital Gateway,  and the land use and zoning changes in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update.  As demand for local lands and resources increases and landowners seek to maximize the sale value of their land, developers look to create massive industrial development in the Rural Crescent where there is inadequate road systems, no stormwater infrastructure, no public water supply, no available source for cooling water supply, no sewage, etc.  

This development in the northern portion of the Rural Crescent threatens the health of the Occoquan watershed and the very sustainability and affordability of the drinking water supply for Northern Virginia. When an undeveloped or generally open rural area is developed stormwater runoff increases in quantity and velocity washing away stream banks, flooding roads and buildings carrying fertilizers, oil and grease, and road salt to the Occoquan Reservoir.

Increased development in the Bull Run and Occoquan watershed as outlined in the PW Digital Gateway CPA, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update will increase paved surfaces and runoff and decreased forested and agricultural land. The result will be increase salinity and chemical and sediment contamination.

The salinity in the reservoir has been rising over time and may be reaching a critical stage.  The rising salt in the reservoir is primarily from watershed runoff during wet weather and reclaimed water from UOSA during dry weather. Sodium concentration in the reclaimed water is higher than in outflow from the two watersheds right now and will rise with the increase in blowdown from data center cooling and increased population density. However, increasing paved areas increases the salt runoff into the watershed.

The only way to remove salt from the drinking water supply is to invest billions of dollars (from your water rates) in building and installing desalination equipment in the region’s water treatment plants which are not currently capable of removing salt from the source water. There is no other source of water to supply our area. The costs to add treatment lines at Fairfax Water to keep the Occoquan Potable is estimated to cost between $1 and $2 billion. This is a cost that will be borne by the water rate payers including the 350,000 in Prince William County.

Prince William County did not even consider the impact of the proposed changes to the quality, availability and sustainability water supply as they are required to do under the Comprehensive Plan law. Before we do irreversible harm to the ecology and our regional drinking water supply, we need to look at what the impacts of planned changes will be to the water supply.

Fairfax Water has taken the unusual step to ask that Prince William County convene the Occoquan Basin Policy Board and oversee a Comprehensive Study of the proposed PW Digital Gateway CPA and the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update to evaluate their impact on water quality in the Occoquan Reservoir before any action is taken. The cost to restore the basin and treat the water is in the billions of dollars that will be borne by us, the residents who remain.

The Occoquan Watershed Model was developed over decades to evaluate the impact of land use decisions and compare potential land use scenarios and their impact on the Occoquan Reservoir water quality. Prince William County helped pay for the creation of that model, yet did not use it to evaluate the wholesale change in the land use of the county. 

Prince William County failed also to consider the impact of the proposed zoning changes to the quality, availability and sustainability of the water supply as they are required to do under the Comprehensive Plan law.   Nor did they consider the impact on meeting goals for the Chesapeake Bay pollution diet.

Genetically Modified Food

Using traditional breeding techniques of cross breeding and selection, mankind has been altering the genomes of plants and animals since the beginning of agriculture. Artificial selection where plants or animals that have specific desired traits are chosen to breed subsequent generations has resulted in a variety of different organisms, ranging from sweet corn to hunting dogs. In the past this selection has been limited to naturally occurring variations. However, advances in the field of genetic engineering have allowed for precise control over the genetic changes introduced into an organism. Today, we can place new genes from one species into a completely unrelated species through genetic engineering. This has been used for crop plants, farm animals and soil bacteria,

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are organisms with artificially altered genes designed  to change their characteristics in some way. To date the most well know use of GMO technology is related to food crops, for example food crops that are altered to produce proteins with pesticide properties from within the plant. However, GMO technology is also used for biological and medical research, production of pharmaceutical drugs and experimental medicine, optimizing agricultural performance or facilitating the production of valuable pharmaceutical substances.

Nearly all the corn and soybeans grown in the United States are genetically modified,  a variety of potato, sugar beet, oil seed rape are also genetically modified. A genetically modified apple has been approved by the USDA an is under review by the FDA. About 30 varieties of genetically modified maize, 7 varieties of GMO soybean, 1 variety or sugar beet and 3 varieties of oil seed rape, and a potato have been accepted in the European Union. Eight E.U. nations have banned GM crops outright and 64 require labeling of genetically modified crops. Throughout Asia, including in India and China, governments have yet to approve  GM crops, including an insect-resistant rice that produces higher yields with less pesticide and the potentially life saving Golden Rice. Golden Rice is a GMO crop engineered to deliver more vitamin A than spinach (rice normally has no vitamin A). This rice was engineered to eliminate vitamin A deficiency which causes more than one million deaths annually and half a million cases of irreversible blindness in the developing world. Yet, no country plans to grow it and in Africa, where millions go hungry, several nations have refused to import GMO foods with Kenya banning them entirely.

GMOs are a mixed bag, neither all good nor all bad. In the United States the vast majority of corn, soybeans, cotton, rape seed oil (canola) and sugar beets are GMO. The majority of these genetically engineered plants are used to make ingredients that are used in processed foods. These ingredients include; cornstarch in soups and sauces, corn syrup as a general purpose sweetener, and cottonseed oil, canola oil, and soybean oil used in mayonnaise, salad dressings, cereals, breads, and snack foods. Thus, many of the non-organic snack foods and convenience foods and processed foods containing, corn, high fructose corn syrup, xanthan gum (a thickener), baking soda, or soy and soybean oil contain GMOs. In addition, a GMO potato has recently been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), most papaya from Hawaii are GMO and the FDA is currently reviewing a GMO Salmon that is genetically altered to grow twice as fast a wild salmon.

Different GMOs add different genes inserted in different ways. This means that genetically modified foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. It is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GMO foods. U.S. FDA has a “consultation process” that helps developers of GMOs determine the necessary steps to ensure their food products are safe and lawful. The goal of the consultation process is to ensure that any safety or other regulatory issues related to a food product are resolved before commercial distribution. According to the FDA "foods containing GMOs grown in the United States that have been evaluated by FDA through the consultation process have not gone on the market until the FDA’s questions about the safety of such products have been resolved." Nonetheless, I won’t eat farmed salmon, let alone genetically modified farmed salmon with or without FDA approval; and I don’t generally eat processed food; but it’s good to know the FDA thinks my baking soda is safe.

Though GMOs have been around for many years, the long term safety and impact of GMOs is not known fully known. The safety assessment of GMO foods generally focuses on: (a) short term direct health effects (toxicity), (b) potential to provoke allergic reaction; (c) the stability of the inserted gene; (d) nutritional impacts associated with genetic modification (can we fully digest the food); and (f) any unintended effects which could result from the gene insertion. There is concern among some scientists and physicians that there might be subtle negative effects of lifetime exposure to GMOs that the short term studies have not identified.

Generally consumers consider that conventional foods (that have an established record of safe consumption over the history) are safe. When novel varieties of organisms for food use are developed using the traditional breeding method of selection, some of the characteristics of organisms may be altered, either in a positive or a negative way. In my house we believes that the selective breeding used to develop some grains, massive breasts on poultry, and feeding grain to beef and other animals has resulted in food that is not particularly nutritious or healthy.Though, I just love the results of selective breeding for apples.

Our choice is to buy grass fed beef, and pork from a local farm, Polyface. This is both about healthful eating and humane treatment of the animals. Years ago, as part of my job I evaluated the environmental impact of CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations that are to me the hallmark of industrial agriculture) in the northwest. After a few inspections of both conventional farming operations and organic farming operations that use CAFOs (yes organic beef can be industrially raised in CAFOs) and comparing them to alternative models of agriculture the extra cost seemed more than worthwhile. The reality is my husband expects to eat some meat (or fish) every day and for health reasons and what I saw in the northwest I buy grass fed, pasture raised meat and wild fish. We also try to avoid grains by limiting processed foods, bread, pasta, and corn.

Most nations consider that specific assessments are necessary for GMO foods. Specific systems have been set up for the rigorous evaluation of GMOs and GMO containing foods and their impact on both human health and the environment. Similar evaluations are generally not performed for conventional foods.

from Non-GMO Project Label

The current controversy in the United States that has been playing out in state after state is should require the labeling of GMOs. According to Consumer Reports National Research Center survey of over 1,000 people 92% of Americans GMOs should be labeled. The Non-GMO Project Verified seal launched in 2010 now appears on more than 22,000 products. There is a free iPhone app that allows you to search for products certified as non-GMO. I generally like labeling and information. However, there is massive confusion on the part of American consumers just what various labels mean and limited reading of labels. In truth you can avoid GMO foods if you wish by avoiding processes foods, papayas from Hawaii, corn and soy. Or buying certified organic versions. Nonetheless, there is a growing demand for labeling and a growing number of products that are labeled. Consumer Reports is a strong supporter of labeling and you might want to read their point of view.

Sustainability the Development of the Concept

Tomorrow is Earth Day 2011 and there is not much going on in Washington to mark the day. So today I am going to take a look at sustainability, where environmental awareness has taken us. Sustainability is traditionally defined as a practice that allows for the use of a resource without depleting it or impairing it. That simple concept; however, is not what the sustainability movement uses to define the concept. The definition accepted varies among different people and groups that are talking about sustainability. So let’s look at the development of the concept.

A world view accepting the interconnections among the nature and the society of mankind is a very ancient world view that appears in many indigenous and ancient civilizations. Only in the 20th century did large parts of society lose that understanding. Rachel Carson reminded us of that interconnection. Her book, Silent Spring, first appeared in serial form in the New Yorker and then as a best selling book in 1962. The science in the book may have been shallow, but her literary genius and emotional appeal created a movement. Followers flocked to Carson's cause which was rendered all the more powerful by her premature death in 1964 from breast cancer. The book's release was considered by many to be a turning point in our understanding of the interconnection between the environment and societal well-being.

In the 49 years since that time the environmental movement has reached middle age. The widespread acceptance of the validity of the environmental movement, which began in earnest in the 1950’s, followed by the first Earth Day in April 1970 and by the founding of the US EPA in December of 1970 established the environmental movement as mainstream. The current generation of young adults has grown up with the three “R” being “reduce, reuse, and recycle.” While society was embracing the environment, the leading edge of the environmental movement journeyed towards a broader concept: sustainability and sustainable development.

Since the late 1980s sustainability has been used more in the sense of human sustainability on planet Earth. One of the most widely quoted definition of sustainability and sustainable development is from the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development commonly called the “Brundtland Commission.” They defined sustainability and sustainable development as:
"Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

In late 1983 Gro Harlem Brundtland, the former Prime Minister of Norway was asked by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to establish and chair the World Commission on Environment and Development, a special, independent commission convened to formulate "a global agenda for change." After three years the commission produced what is commonly known as "The Brundtland Report." Published in book form in 1987 as Our Common Future, the report addresses what it identifies as "common concerns," such as a population growth, lack of food security, dwindling biodiversity, and excessive use of polluting energy. Finally, the report lists "common endeavors," such as managing communally or society owned resources, making industry more efficient, maintaining peace and security while not suspending development or degrading the environment, and changing institutional and legal structures.

The Bruntland report has often been subject to criticism, on the grounds that many of its 'forecasts' proved to be inaccurate and in fact many of the causal assumptions were not studied. As the Development Education Program of the World Bank Institute (WBI) points out many of the relationships are just not measurable; and many of the goals are in conflict with each other. So what has survived of the Bruntland report is the first sentence. The Bruntland report should be viewed as a product of its time and its focus on inequalities between rich and poor should be seen in that context. Even in 1987 Brundtland Commission stated “Globally, wealthier nations are better placed financially and technologically to cope with the effects of possible climatic change. The world must quickly design strategies that will allow nations to move from their present, often destructive, processes of growth and development onto sustainable development paths.”

The World Commission on Environment and Development (Bruntland Commission) was followed in 1992 by the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, (Rio Declaration) which was developed at the 1992 United Nations "Conference on Environment and Development," often called the Earth Summit. The document consists of 27 principals that range from youth mobilization to eradication of poverty to compensation for environmental impact and national environmental policies. The most lasting portion of that document was the “Three Dimension Concept” which coined the concept that sustainable development was a balance of three dimensions: • Environmental Protection • Economic Growth • Social Development

In 1993 President Clinton created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, a panel of leaders from business, science and other areas. The committee was tasked with bringing together industry, environmental groups, and government agencies to form consensus on policy; and implement programs to promote sustainable development. They focused on programs to lower greenhouse gas emissions, and policies that might foster sustainable communities.

Still, common themes run through most definitions of sustainability. They usually deal with nature, the economy, society or, perhaps most often, all three together. Most are not about maintaining life precisely as it is today. They are about the rate of change, and about equity between generations or political groups. Many see sustainability as a continually evolving process. The World Conservation Strategy views sustainable development as integrating conservation with satisfying basic human needs, achieving equity and social justice, providing for social self-determination and cultural diversity, and maintaining ecological integrity.

The US EPA states “Sustainable development can be facilitated by policies that integrate environmental, economic, and social values in decision making. From a business perspective, sustainable development is accomplished by capturing system dynamics, building resilient and adaptive systems, anticipating and managing variability and risk, and earning a profit.” It sounds good, but I have no idea what that means in real life and how we apply the principals of sustainable living and development to our lives and our communities, but I note they were able to include the three dimensions from the Rio Declaration. All of these different organizations address different aspects and definitions of sustainable development, but all are vague and remain open to interpretation.