IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY · UNINTEROPERABILITY National Security Strategyfor U.S. Water I n The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, ... water is often referred to as the

MEDICINEAND BIOLOGYIEEE ENGINEERING IN

Magazine

VOLUME 27 • NUMBER 6 ■ http://EMB-Magazine.bme.uconn.edu ■ NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2008

UN

INTE

ROPE

RABI

LITY National Security Strategy

for U.S. Water

In The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, poet Samuel Coleridgeentwines us in the mystical journey of a mariner bound to abecalmed ship and mercilessly surrounded by volumes ofwater unfit to drink, ‘‘. . .water, water everywhere, Ne any

drop to drink’’ [1]. Coleridge’s tale of man’s action, reflec-tions, and subsequent remorse seems to demonstratively tellthe tale of humankind’s longstanding convoluted struggle togain supremacy over the one crucial element that sustains lifeon this planet: water.

Water appears to be a plentiful commodity, at least from thevantage point of global availability statistics. It has been saidthat if the sum of all available reserves of water were to beapportioned equally among all human beings on Earth, therewould be 5,000–6,000 m3 of water available for each individ-ual every year. (1 m3 equals 1,000 L or 264.17 gal.) This is alarge number, and the perplexing and disquieting fact, regard-ing the availability of all this water, is that the concentrationsof populations on landmasses neither coincide nor directlyintersect naturally with the majority of abundant water resourcepoints on the globe. Furthermore, the availability of water andaccess to it, as a matter of top concern, to enable and sustainpublic health among global populations, is exacerbated by theexpected rise in global populations. World population is set toincrease by 72% in urban areas by 2030, and city populations,with 100,000 people or more, are projected to rise by 175% [2].These large numbers are a major cause of concern. We mustnote that cities do not amount to a significantly large area, espe-cially when we consider that half of the world’s population livein them. Moreover, as per satellite imagery, all urban areas ofthe world cover only 2.8% of the world’s total land area, whichmeans that approximately 3.3 billion of the world’s peopledwell in an area smaller than the size of Japan [3], [101], [102].When we consider this perspective in the context of present-day population dispersions and resources availability, it is eas-ier to digest the plight of the ancient mariner [1].

Since antiquity, humankind has attempted to machineecosystems to avail water for quenching the thirst of peopleand channelize water bodies to harness power and for cultivat-ing crops [4]–[6]. The rise of industrial societies and succes-sive alterations of the ecology resulting from an incessant

search of resources have resulted in a severe degradation ofenvironmental quality, water quality and quantity, and sourcesof distribution.

To examine the high degree of interconnectedness and inter-dependencies associated with the problem of developing anational security policy for the water sector, we must view allproblem areas with an interoperability lens. The idea of intero-perability is one that has unrestrainedly flourished from vastmisunderstandings. The IEEE’s Standard Computer Dictionarydefines interoperability, for instance, as ‘‘the ability of two ormore systems or components to exchange information and touse the information that has been exchanged’’ [7]. Such a defini-tion is offensively narrow considering the sheer number, types,and segments of operational elements, resident in modern organ-izations, that can potentially have a predominant part in makingor breaking missions, whatever they may be. Rightly, interoper-ability is defined in [8]–[12] as the capability by which all oper-ating elements within interdependent and interconnectedsystems to be able to operate synchronously to achieve missionsuccess or predetermined goals and objectives continually. Here,synchronous operations infer to an operational requirement forall components or subsystems of interdependent and intercon-nected systems to be properly oriented, skillfully aligned, andreadied across geographic and organizational boundaries andprofessional disciplines to achieve mission objectives.

In the United States, uninteroperability (lack of interoper-ability) results from the improper resource allocation, poorcommunications, mismanagement, waste, abuse, negligence,malfeasance, and a permeating pattern of oversight that ismore permissive of a wasting of public infrastructures, endan-gering public health, and other things such as eroding confi-dence of citizens in governmental departments, agencies, andpersonnel and the long-term reliability of U.S. national waterinfrastructures. This article aims to introduce the reader to aclarified view regarding the need for interoperability in thewater sector in terms of assessing present-day shortfalls,organizing missions, goals, planning, and orchestrating activ-ities for success in serving public needs, in view of the need tomaintain high-quality water flow for public health. Moreover,a revised, contemporary cooperative engineering definition isoffered to stimulate necessary multidisciplinary and interdis-ciplinary scientific discussions that are crucial to the forging

BY ROBERT MATHEWS ANDCATHERINE M. SPENCER

© DIGITAL STOCK

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MEMB.2008.929887

Toward Ensuring Interoperability and CooperativeEngineering in the Water Sector

42 IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY MAGAZINE 0739-5175/08/$25.00©2008IEEE NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2008

Authorized licensed use limited to: Luis Kun. Downloaded on April 29, 2009 at 16:57 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

of novel solution orientations for the seemingly obduratewater sector problems in the United States.

Developing a National Security ApproachIndeed, very few things in the world are common to all ofhumanity, irrespective of race, color, creed, gender, nationalorigin, capacities, capabilities, economic status, etc. Water issuch a substance; it is necessary to sustain life in all forms. Assuch, water is often referred to as the elixir of life. Historynotes humankind as having been at conflict, with water as acenter point, since before 2500 BC. Perhaps least comfortingto learn is that the word rivalry is derived from the Latin wordrivalis [13], which translates to, ‘‘he who uses the same brook[stream] as another.’’ As part of a U.S. government-wideeffort to protect nationally critical infrastructures, there is akeen interest to protect water resources from all hazards,including threats [103]. To this end, the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) has been charged with the responsi-bility to devise and implement a national security action planto protect water sector’s key assets and critical resources. TheEPA is the central U.S. government agency that is also respon-sible for ensuring and assuring water quality standards forU.S. populations. [A critical infrastructure can be a single sys-tem or asset (or a system of systems or assets) that is deemedto be of extreme importance to the safety and security of theUnited States and its people. The needs to ensure, protect,defend, and, if necessary, recover and restore critical infra-structures are based on the determination that damage to thesecritical infrastructures would profoundly affect the quality andthe extent of life in the United States.]

Today, however, visions related to shoring up the U.S.national security area cornerstones have a tendency to befirmly anchored to sentiments and circumstances related tothose events of September 11, 2001. Indeed, the National Infra-structure Protection Plan (NIPP) is a key example of this near-sightedness. As a matter of design, and the need for supportivedeliberations, the inclusion of vital concepts regarding waterscarcity, usage, and derived utility is less prominent and is, infact, extraordinarily absent in the water sector-specific plan(WSSP) of the NIPP. With respect to the NIPP, HomelandSecurity Presidential Directive 7 (HSPD 7), paragraph 14states, ‘‘The Secretary [the Department of Homeland Security(DHS)] will establish uniform policies, approaches, guidelines,and methodologies for integrating federal infrastructure pro-tection and risk management activities within and across sec-tors along with metrics and criteria for related programs andactivities’’ [14]. Although the NIPP advocates for an all-hazards approach to risk management activities within and acrossthe Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) sectors regardingplanning, the NIPP, the National Response Plan (NRP), theNational Response Framework (NRF), and DHS have been veryeffective at being risk averse. The employment of an all-hazardsapproach necessarily requires all concerned to think comprehen-sively regarding the assurance of resources. However, assuranceis one area that has consistently been at the principal edge of leastattempts. In fact, the concept of critical infrastructure assurance,as both a pivotal planning component and as an important policyimplementation thrust, remains eminently absent from thenational policy framework.

Discussions associated with the need to formulate a nationalsecurity strategy policy framework, specifically on the matterof the need for critical infrastructure assurance, have remained

surprisingly silent, considering that Article IV, Section 2 ofthe U.S. Constitution guarantees, ‘‘Citizens of each State shallbe entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in theseveral states’’ [15]. The equal privilege reference here pitsitself against the following facts: 1) water resources in theUnited States are not equally distributed and 2) water is funda-mentally required to sustain and advance life. Therefore, toensure that privileges and immunities are equally bestowed oncitizens, government must be proactively engaged both tacti-cally and strategically in all areas necessary to be able to com-mit common government resources in a timely, efficient, andeffective manner to the benefit of all citizens. The need for theinclusion of assurance as a critical, overarching planningcomponent is, therefore, tied to the desire to avert or mitigatethe prospect of adverse population effects emerging from anydrastic alterations or limitations in resource availability in anypart of the nation. Protection is a key planning component, asmentioned in Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution,which states that the federal government will guarantee pro-tection for states against invasion. The fact that assurance poli-cies and practices are clearly underrepresented in strategicplanning processes amount to more than a mild presence ofvacuity. It is purely farcical because the U.S. National Intelli-gence Council (NIC) [16] has pinpointed that access to freshwater and water rights, in particular, are key issues that willshape the world of 2015, and this might result in a hard-wearing possibility of transnational conflicts being triggered.There is little value in molding strategic national securityplans when vital aspects, which should be a part of such plans,are, in fact, absent. What is the elemental value associatedwith those aims to protect assets or resources that have suf-fered either irreparable degradation or complete loss? Further-more, a national security strategy for the water sector that doesnot effectively take into account the hydrological cycle or failsto properly qualify and quantify a man’s need, reliance, anduse of water in relationship to his environment is ultimately oflittle value in terms of strategic implementability and usabilityin times of a crisis or a hazardous event. For instance, if thehydrological cycle is not considered to the extent that it mustbe, while crafting policy, any policy crafted in that way willbe less than sufficient in providing the required clarityregarding people, resource, and organization shortfalls. Sucha policy will also be deeply insufficient to be of anticipatory

‘‘[E]nsuring the allocation of sufficient supplies [water]at the right time, in the right place, and of the rightquality, increasingly requires consideration of theinterconnectivity of larger contexts and many diversestakeholders. Human security and development can-not be isolated from the health and viability of theEarth’s underlying life support systems. The intercon-nectivity challenge requires us to be able to thinkand act in terms of multiple geographies of connec-tion, from nation states and city limits to watershedsand river basins, and in terms of multiple timeframes,in order to ensure that short-term interests do not fore-close longer-term possibilities.’’

—‘‘WBCSD Water Scenarios to 2025,’’World Business Council for Sustainable

Development, Geneva, Switzerland,August 2006

IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY MAGAZINE NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2008 43


value with respect to putting into place the contingencies andmitigation strategies.

In this article, the subject of resource scarcity is surfaced tomagnify the discernible necessity to identify, and protectequally, a proportional or near-proportional sum of resourcescapable of substituting for those resources that are likely to beimpacted in the event of hazardous events. The term usage isalso surfaced herein to refer to the manner in which water as aresource is likely to be needed in the aftermath of a hazardousevent. Finally, the subject of derived utility is surfaced to referonly to the manner in which resources need to be available topopulations, such that it can be available for proper use, in timeof need. There are likely to be those who will incorrectly presentan argument that the aforementioned statements represent gentleor subtle nuanced states, which do not warrant separate consid-erations, and that segments of disaster mitigation and recoveryplanning are ideally suited or positioned to envelop andadequately task these vital areas. Quite obviously, this work onthe whole stands as a testament to the need to include thesenuanced states as key parts in a strategic national plan, the exclu-sion of which would otherwise amount to a blanket forfeiture ofU.S. national security positions as they relate to water.

The Scarcity and Usage RelationshipIn discussions that involve water scarcity, Ismail Serageldin(former vice-president of the World Bank and founder andformer chair of Global Water Partnership) said, ‘‘[i]f the warsof this century were fought over oil, the wars of the next centurywill be fought over water. . .’’ Unfortunately, most often, hisquotation is cited only in part, which alters the context. In theoriginal, he continued to say, ‘‘. . .unless we change ourapproach to managing this precious and vital resource’’ [17].The discarded portion of the quotation qualifies why a certainoutcome is likely if serious adjustments or alterations in prac-tice do not occur. Here, the distressing similarity between themanner in which Serageldin’s strong plea to revamp ourapproach to water use and management as a rule is oftenexcised and the exclusion of the need to ensure the availabilityof water resources as a key policy attribute in an implementa-tion framework is immensely troubling. In terms of scarcity,usage, and utility, and in a national security context, the watersector plan is not only glaringly deficient but also derelict in itsapproach to serve the public interest.

In such a respect, the views of the Government Accountabil-ity Office (GAO), as the U.S. Government’s watchdog organi-zation, is insufficient as well. GAO’s assessments also focuslargely on a need to protect where the dominant concentrationin the approach has been to identify vulnerabilities in, andthreats to, drinking water systems and the need to formulaterespective responses [18]. To be sure, Serageldin’s message isnot symbolic of a glass half empty, rather one that suggests thatwe have the means, and the ways, to combat any possiblemanifestation of future wars involving water, but we must act.All the same, will we heed the warning? A familiarization withthe many aspects of water scarcity will undoubtedly improveour comprehensive understanding of the need for an alterationin our perspectives and behaviors, which, in turn, stands tofacilitate the effective implementation of conservation andmanagement measures for this precious resource.

Water that is fit to be consumed by man is certainly not aresource without limits. However, in the minds of many,there exists a false sense of equanimity, which leads to the

belief that water is both a bountiful and rebounding resource.Its scarcity, combined with a pressing demand for it, isimmensely misunderstood. Man’s cognitive difficulty com-prehending the scarcity of water has its origins in an informa-tional fissure, a wide visual misperception. The Westerncivilization, in particular, visualizes large volumes of surfacewater and presumes that global water scarcity is nothing buta myth, when the reality is quite different. At least since1977, various binding and nonbinding agreements in theworld have proclaimed man’s need for, and a universal rightto have access to, water [19]–[21]. The United Nations (UN)Mar Del Plata Declaration states, without equivocation thatmankind has, ‘‘. . .the right to have access to drinking waterin quantities and of a quality equal to their basic needs,’’ inhis desire to sustain and preserve life.

The amount of water required daily to sustain life in humansis nowhere set in stone. According to the World Health Organi-zation (WHO), the ‘‘‘absolute minimum’ quantity of water tosustain hydration remains elusive, as that largely depends onclimate, activity level, and diet’’ [22]. One fact remains clearand paramount: a man can sustain longer without food thanwithout water. By one estimate [23], gauging 2.22 gal (8.4 L)is a reasonable upper limit for allowable water loss from thehuman body, and taking into account the expected quantity ofdaily water loss to be 0.32 gal (1.2 L) at a minimum, an individ-ual weighing 154.3 lb (70 kg) can expect to survive seven dayswithout any water intake. This estimate, however, may indeedbe quite optimistic depending on the environmental extremesto which an individual is exposed in the world. The universalaffirmation regarding humanity’s need for water is based onsuch gripping and vigorous realities.

In the near future, the demand for water for sustenance willonly redouble, and remarkably so. In this regard, some perspec-tives are worthy of our attention as they are likely to undoubtedlyadd a little color to our cognitive canvas. The NIC approximatesthat nearly half of this planet’s ‘‘land surface consists of riverbasins shared by more than one country, and more than 30nations receive more than one third of their water from outsidetheir borders’’ [16]. At the moment, almost 3.2 billion peoplearound the world live within 124.3 mi (200 km) of a coast. By2025, this figure is expected to rise to an estimated 6.3 billionpeople [24]. Citing UN low-range population growth projections,the Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems (PAGE) discloses that63 river basins will each boast a population greater than 10 mil-lion by 2025; 29 of these 63 are already water stressed and areexpected to become even more so, whereas six river basins willjoin the ranks of those that are already water stressed, and another12 basins are projected to experience strong downturns in waterssupply per person toward 2025 [25]. Particularly important is aviewpoint that Stephen Olsen of the University of Rhode Islandoffers. He projects that the rising intensity of activities by coastalinhabitants will unquestionably and significantly continue todegrade the water quality along coastal regions, reduce freshwater flows to estuaries, and deprive the life-critical habitatsfrom many species. Indeed, the disappearance of fish stock byeutrophication (process whereby nutrients flow into lakes, estua-ries, streams, and other water bodies where they stimulate thegrowth of algae and nuisance plants [104]), for instance, in alllikelihood will give way to a wholesale collapse in fish stock[24], [26]–[29]. Such is the nature of rising uninteroperabilityamong highly interconnected ecological systems as a direct resultof human interventions.

IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY MAGAZINE NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 200844


It is still likely that water scarcity, usage, and managementwill not be well understood, given the range of complexity ele-ments that have be considered constantly and consistently. Forexample, to understand water scarcity better, we must be ableto view our chronic dependence on water and the frequencywith which we reach into the water jar callously. As westernconsumers, when we open a faucet, we expect water to flow,and we expect it to be of high consumable quality. Flow, thewater does; water use has actually been growing at more thantwice the rate of population increase in the last century.Between 1900 and 1995, there was a six-fold increase in waterconsumption [25]. Water consumption by the global agricul-tural sector presently accounts for 70% of all water use [30].In the United States, water consumption by the agriculturalsector has risen the fastest, even though the total dedicatedarea for crop cultivation has declined. Grippingly, today, eachunit of farm output consumes 70% less land than it did 50years ago, whereas water, pesticide, and fertilizer use per unitoutput has grown [31], [32]. Perhaps, the understated fact tonote here is that despite the ability of the agricultural sector toincrease productivity, and decreasing overall land utility by70%, water use in agriculture has only climbed. World popula-tions continue to climb and so will the persistent demand tocontinue to increase agricultural outputs. Consequently, thedemand for appropriate sources, and quantities of water, toirrigate the world’s agricultural lands will also rise if methodsof use do not change significantly. From a policy perspective,therefore, the need to thoughtfully and foresightfully map andaccount for the availability, and the assurance of water as aglobal resource, is not only essential for the sustenance of bio-logical life on planet Earth but also for ensuring and assuringfood security and safety for U.S. populations.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) [33], inthe United States, 240 million people depend on public supplysystems or community water systems (CWSs), delivering morethan 43 billion gallons a day, whereas 43.5 million people useprivately drilled wells in self-supplied water households, deliv-ering another 4 billion gallons in a day. Between domestic con-sumption and power, agricultural, industrial, and miningsectors, the United States withdraws 408 billion gallons eachday for use; of this, 347 billion gallons is fresh water, whichtranslates to roughly 1,400 gal of water being withdrawn forevery man, woman, and child in the United States. Naturally,these data do not accurately represent the estimated populationof United States by the Census Bureau, which stood at 305 mil-lion [34] persons. The discrepancy between USGS data mapsand that of the Census Bureau clearly illustrates the types ofdata accountability and relationships gaps involved in the man-agement and planning of waters as a resource.

Washing clothes in a washing machine often consumes53 gal per load, flushing a toilet requires between 1.6 and5 gal, a dishwasher requires 22 gal per load, washing dishesunder the tap dissipates 30 gal, brushing one’s teeth often con-sumes 2 gal, taking a bath requires 30 gal, and shaving with run-ning water often takes 20 gal [35]. Globally, the United States issaid to have the largest water footprint, with 2,480 m3/year percapita or 655,146.81 gal/year per capita. Comparatively, evenwith a much larger population, the Chinese have a relativelylow water footprint, with an average consumption value of700 m3/year per capita or 184,920.47 gal/year per capita [36].The Chinese do not consume as much water as Americans do,and not all Chinese have access to running water. Nevertheless,

Chinese Government’s commitment to national infrastructureimprovements remains strong. How long will it be before anunrelenting demand on national water resources in the UnitedStates begins to dry up?

The Politics of WaterResource scarcity problems, resource management, imple-mentation of resource conservation plans, and properly fram-ing a national security strategy can only be achieved whenpolicy entrepreneurs in the U.S. Congress and the ExecutiveBranch can pioneer and cooperatively implement legislativeinstruments that concentrate to preserve and uphold the publicinterest and consider weightily all matters contextually relatedto national survival. As long as there are political fissures, cre-ated or exacerbated by ill informed or unconcerned membersof Congress and by a national administration deficient in theskill set to formulate the required national policy frameworksand strategies, there will be tactical and strategic deficienciesor worse, errors. During the 1950s, President Dwight D. Eisen-hower comprehending this challenge eloquently framed this,which he saw as the need, in a letter to then Secretary of theInterior Douglas J. McKay and announced the formation of acabinet-level committee to analyze the national water policies.Eisenhower, in his communication, said, ‘‘[t]he conservationand use, which we make of the water resources of our nationmay in large measure, determine our future progress and thestandards of living of our citizens. If we are to continue toadvance agriculturally and industrially we must make the bestuse of every drop of water which falls on our soil. . .’’ [37].Eisenhower, in his time, realized well that American prosper-ity, both present and future, would be tied to the safety andsecurity of national water resources. A brief examination ofactivities during the Eisenhower administration is, therefore,assistive in recognizing our shortfalls today.

President Eisenhower wanted an extensive review of allaspects of water resources policy. He demanded that the cabinet-level committee make immediate ‘‘recommendations for thestrengthening, clarification, and modernization of water poli-cies,’’ and suggest ‘‘an approach to the solution of organizationalproblems involved’’ [37]. It was not as though previous adminis-trations were not concerned about water as a strategic ingredientfor national development or that they did not see the need to cher-ish water as a fundamental and major resource [38]. Continuingwith Truman’s intent, President Eisenhower in the early fiftiesdesired to push the envelope of comprehensiveness in assess-ments, which was to be made by his administration. It was indeeda sweeping attempt by a president to formulate and instantiate acoordinated and comprehensive national water resources plan,taking into account the critical organizational dysfunctionalities,which have only expanded over the years and continues to pros-per even today. Unfortunately, and nearly a decade later in 1962,General John Steward Bragdon, who served on President Eisen-hower’s Council of Economic Advisors’ staff through 1955 asthe president’s special assistant for public works planningthrough 1960 and as a staff consultant for U.S. House Committeeon Public Works, was still being forced to lumber away to imple-ment Eisenhower’s comprehensive visions.

Bragdon had met his enemies. Oddly enough, his enemieswere domestic, many of whom were in Congress, having takenan oath to protect and defend the citizens of this great nationagainst persons and acts (foreign or domestic) that opposed thesafety and welfare of the American people. Still others were



members of the White House staff; both quarters collectivelyconstituted the brick wall of bureaucracy and parochialism forBragdon. However, in 1962, Bragdon went on to assist draftingthe Public Works Planning Act, which would have providedfor the creation of a statutory coordinator of public works andwould have overseen such important matters as comprehensivewater resources planning. Congress, as before, shunned theproposal and failed to enact the proposed policies that weredesigned to advance national interests significantly. Severelyfrustrated and disappointed, Bragdon wrote scathingly regard-ing the [then] Bureau of the Budget’s routine stretches beyondits authority and operational boundary to engage in matters thatwere not budgetary in nature and of the White House congres-sional liaison staff, who were ostensibly adept at burying goodideas for the sake of satisfying a malformed political ideal ofthe day. He characterized such activities as purely obstructiveand not progressive. General Bragdon, a straight shooter, appa-rently suffered fools little, and Congress even less. Prof. GarySchwartz has characterized Bradgon’s failing to make mean-ingful progress owing to his ‘‘ineptness at bureaucratic maneu-verings’’ [39]. There are countless men and women inprofessional positions in this nation who routinely reach outand attempt to suitably advise those entities who are entrustedwith the authority to uphold public interest, and are subse-quently marginalized by their attempts, because of their‘‘ineptness at bureaucratic maneuverings’’ [39].

Governmental Hauteur and IntransigenceIn many respects, Bragdon considered bureaucratic maneu-verings to be a wasteful expenditure of human energy andnational fiscal resources. Bragdon’s detailing of his disdainfor parties emplaced to uphold the public interest, whileunproductive, exposes an all too important and persistent dis-connect, a fissure if you will, between the constituent popula-tions that seem to routinely remain unserviced and those thatare elected to represent the constituents, yet persistently fail todo so. During his White House years, Bragdon strove to mani-fest efficiency and cost savings in all public works projects byway of well-thought long-range planning. To this end, hesought advice from the likes of parties such as those of W.Edwards Deming, who was responsible, at least in part, for thereconstruction and revitalization of post–World War II Japan[40]–[42]. In spite of such bold actions by Bragdon, politicalimpediments persisted.

Yet another type of fissure is political inactivity by those whoare not only empowered to act but also ideally positioned to actin a timely fashion. In 1949, citing mountains of inefficiencyand waste, the Hoover Commission on Organization of theExecutive Branch of the Government recommended that ‘‘waterresources-related mission and functions’’ [43] of the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers (The Corps), and the Bureau of Reclamationunder the U.S. Department of Interior, be consolidated andorganized under the Department of the Interior. A minority num-ber of commissioners actually felt that the task was so importantthat responsibilities be organized under a wholly new depart-ment called the Department of Natural Resources. The Commis-sion emphasized that as ‘‘[p]ainful as the operation may be, thecase for a unification of functions of The Corps and the Bureauof Reclamation is so overwhelming that it ought to be effectedwithout further delay’’ [44], [45]. Additionally, the Commissionrevealed, ‘‘[t]here is simply no escaping the fact that so long asthe present overlapping of functions exists with respect to The

Corps, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Federal Power Com-mission, costly duplication, confusion, and competition arebound to result. It has been demonstrated time and again thatneither by voluntary cooperation nor by executive coordinationcan the major conflicts be ironed out’’ [44], [45]. Moreover,President Hoover’s man on the Task Force on Natural Resour-ces, former Governor Leslie Miller, cited violent jealousybetween The Corps and the Bureau of Reclamation and accusedboth of perpetuating enterprises and cycles of senseless competi-tion, and for being cockeyed, and permitting projects-relatedcost overruns in the billions of dollars [46].

Looking back, the specific recommendations made by theHoover Commission over half a century ago were treated withimmense loathing, and the water resources-related missions atThe Corps have increased or expanded into such things as man-aging watersheds holistically, protecting the environment, andeven recreation. The Corps’ vision for its recreation program sug-gests, for example, that it will ‘‘. . .plan and manage quality out-door recreation opportunities in a safe and healthful manner fordiverse populations on a sustainable basis resulting in benefits toindividuals, communities, the environment, and the economy’’[47]. As an agency of the U.S. Department of Defense, The Corpsprovides the nation with engineering (planning, designing, andbuilding) services [48]. One is left to wonder then what exactlythe role of an engineering service in the area of recreation couldbe, and what The Corps’ role in the protection of the environmentcould be, where the primacy at the federal government level restswith the National Parks Service and the EPA, respectively?

In the face of infinitely sensible recommendations madeover a half a century ago by the Hoover Commission, regard-ing the need to consolidate and organize mission concentra-tions of The Corps, these mission vaultings can only be termedanalytically as attempts at grabbing power, prestige, andmoney, one of program collateralization [a set of coordinatedactivities that are intended to 1) affirm present-day operationalcontrol over existing program areas and 2) consolidate opera-tional influence over multiple programs and associated resour-ces through mission and programmatic enlargement (creep)through Congressional appropriation processes to swell thedepartment or agency program portfolio]. The most recentexample of such behavior including impudence by this federalagency involved the St. John’s Bayou/New Madrid FloodwayProject in Missouri. The project was challenged in U.S. DistrictCourt, with the group environmental defense opposing, whosubsequently won the court challenge. The opinion of the courtamounted to nothing less than a resolute indictment, albeitpredictable in terms of agency history. The court’s opinionstated that The Corps chose to use ‘‘arbitrary and capriciousreasoning, manipulating models, and changing definitionswhere necessary’’ to suit their propositions and that by theseactions, ‘‘The Corps has demonstrated its willingness to dowhatever it takes to proceed with this project’’ [49], [50]. TheCourt added that by placing their fictitious plan into action,The Corps violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA) [49], [50]. The ruling came at the heels of along and embarrassing investigation by the Department ofDefense into the so-called Program Growth Initiative [51] byThe Corps in the year 2000, where The Corps, while pushingthe interests of the Barge industry [52], proposed a MississippiRiver navigation project costing upwards of US$1.1 billion,propped-up with falsified mathematical data [53]. Following



the year 2000 scandal, The Corps retreated, only to wait untilthe controversy subsided, and reemerged in 2004 to propose inplace of its year 2000 US$1.1 billion proposal a US$7.7 billionproject [54]! Apparently, unaccountability to and fearlessnessof the American people has a face and a name: The Corps.Shielded by members of Congress, The Corps has come toenjoy an outwardly protected state of existence.

Yes, it remains true that President Truman’s Water Resour-ces Policy Commission [55], for all policy time, became a note-worthy example of watered down federal water policy intentand direction, resulting from agreeing to too many compromisesamong key participants. In spite of such setbacks, before leavingoffice, Truman enacted new standards for water project evalua-tion by the federal agencies by way of Circular A-47. However,U.S. Congress neither approved the circular legislatively nor pro-posed an alternative. According to the National Research Coun-cil (NRC), Circular A-47 ‘‘remained a directive that Congressroutinely circumvented in its authorization and appropriationprocesses’’ [56]. Among the value principles in Circular A-47that Congress found emotive and did not legislatively approvewere key provisions that would have compelled federal agenciesplanning water projects to make certain that 1) each project’stotal benefits would exceed its cost, 2) project costs wouldinclude estimates of taxes foregone, and 3) a 50-year maximumperiod was set for repayment of all federal interest. The NRC hasaffirmed that The Corps, while planning water projects duringthe first part of the 1900s, put into place a highly structuredprocess that give opportunity to various interest groups withample prospects (32 specific stages) to present their views to TheCorps and Congress [56]. Clearly, such practices have beendetermined at some level to be ideal within The Corps, for ahistory spanning more than 50 years and sated with mishaps suchas those mentioned earlier, and have neither proven instructivenor reformative for The Corps.

Such policy impediments, where departments or agencies areable to clearly violate national tenets, push aside citizen interest,press on with interdepartmental or agency rivalries, and, whereCongress is able to proficiently renounce offering material guid-ance and oversight to governmental departments or agencies,can neither support nor maintain a sound policy direction thatcan satisfy a national water security strategy. Lightfully and log-ically then, the American people must hold Congress’s feet tothe fire to ensure that Congress does not abdicate its responsibil-ities in assuring national water quality standards and seekingfrom that legislative body, among other things, 1) a national

standard to assess water quality, 2) a national water monitoringstandard, 3) a well-defined and consistent data analysis method,and 4) standardize analytical method(s) to determine causes andsources of water contamination or pollution [57].

Admittedly, part of the difficulty related to the formulationof water policies, and the proper situation of fiscal and man-agement resources, involves the absence of clear measuresregarding the availability and use of water. Within an all-hazards preparatory context, there has never been a compre-hensive and systemic analysis of the water sector at the federallevel, which could then be assistive in formulating a holisticnational security strategy. The National Science and Technol-ogy Council (NSTC) within the Executive Office of the Pres-ident, as the primary body responsible for promulgatingnational guidelines for federal science and technology invest-ments, has said as much. In 2007, the NSTC and its Subcom-mittee on Water Availability and Quality (SWAQ), composedof 25 federal agencies, collectively responsible for all waterresource management and water research at the federal level,stated that ‘‘Our present-day understanding of water use in theUnited States is based on a coarse mixture of estimations andmeasurements’’ [58]. This admission has largely gone unno-ticed since.

Throughout the years, critical water decisions have emerged,corroborated only by a combination of poor governing judg-ment and imprecise information, which has subjugated accord-ingly a comprehensive sensibility obtained from scientificknowledge and the primacy vested in departmental or agencyauthorities. The recommendation to limit irrigation water with-drawal from the Upper Klamath Lake near Oregon–Californiaborder in 2001, and the ensuing pitting of the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS) against the National Academy of Science andthe NRC, is an exemplary contemporary tale that epitomizesthis problem [59]. With regard to forecasts relating to the futureavailability of water, when flawed predictions [60], [61] formthe basis for imposing usage restrictions associated withscarcity forecasts, the results too can be quite undesirable.

Even though this body of work cannot elaborate on them,there are ample examples where the uncultivated and fatuoushubris of government agency or department personnel andmembers of the legislative branch are appreciably contributingto the widespread degradation of our national critical infrastruc-tures and the manner in which we go about mitigating threats tothose infrastructures. Co-opting of the public policy province,

Assessments of how much water humanity will

need to exist and survive do not generally take

into account other living things such as trees,

which depend heavily on this life-giving

element [water] for their existence as well.



hijacking precious public resources, causing the erosion ofnational security positions, and discouraging comprehensivepublic policy discourse at the highest levels of government hasbecome an everyday activity. Perhaps, the division betweenthose who are elected to govern and those that are governed isbest qualified today in terms of that notable excerpt from Kip-ling’s ballad, which says, ‘‘Oh, East is East, and West is West,and never the twain shall meet’’ [62], firmly articulating thatthose who are elected to represent become determinedly dis-obedient and expansively stray from their sworn duty to thepublic’ purpose. Nevertheless, even in Kipling’s ballad, theunification of intent and purpose is made visible as he goes onto state, ‘‘There is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, norBirth, When two strong men stand face to face, tho’ they comefrom ends of the Earth’’ [62]. To be sure, to manifest this typeof union, the American people must press for accountabilityfrom those they elect to represent them.

Economic and Social ImplicationsThomas Robert Malthus, 18th Century scholar, in his com-manding and provocative work, An Essay on the Principle ofPopulation [63], lucidly argued that man needs resources[food] to survive like any other species of plant or animal onthe planet, and although resources have limits, the rate of risein human populations has demonstrated an absence of self-imposed control. Therein, he argued that the rate of populationgrowth and their need for resources would outstrip globalpower to produce the required resources to sustain burgeoningpopulations. Contextually, he characterized the ability forpeople to multiply and the ability for the Earth to give upresources or man to produce resources as not being coequal.

Man’s ability to produce food (grow crops) to sustain himselfis indeed directly tied to a universal need for water. Yet, assess-ments of how much water humanity will need to exist and sur-vive do not generally take into account other living things suchas trees, which depend heavily on this life-giving element fortheir existence as well. Consider that on the hottest day ofsummer, a mature Pecan tree can draw up to 250 gal of groundwater [64]. Such information is necessary to estimate needs interms of agricultural withdrawals and represent meteorologicaldata to support growers in their decision-making processes. Inlight of dwindling water resources, strategies and practices thatimprove and promote water use efficiency (WUE) are not onlya requirement for today but they are critical for the future [65].The use of deficit irrigation, or underirrigation strategies [66],directly intended to optimize crop yields per unit of water use[67] represents certain strategies that can output WUE.

We should remember that water consumption by the globalagricultural sector presently accounts for 70% of all water use[30]. In the United States, 83.2 billion gallons of fresh groundwater per day (bg/d) is withdrawn for public supply, privatesupply, irrigation, livestock management, manufacturing, min-ing, thermoelectric power, and other industries. The State ofCalifornia all by itself consumes 15.2 bg/d, whereas the State ofTexas, at 8.47 bg/d, is the next biggest withdrawer (Figures pro-vided by the National Ground Water Association [105]). Also,the National Ground Water Association estimates that 500,000new residential wells are constructed annually in the UnitedStates. Essentially, this amounts to having more mouths to feedat the same table.

Between 1950 and 2000, ground water withdrawal for irriga-tion increased from 23% to 42% of total. The acreage of land thatpresently uses sprinklers and microirrigation systems for targetedirrigation now comprise more than one half of all irrigated acre-age in the United States [68]. From a national security perspec-tive, there looms a sizable and evident threat that is bound toeffect the national breadbasket, and the global consumer at large,when the underlying supply of water is impacted.

In 1936, the Great Plains Committee, convened by Presi-dent Franklin D. Roosevelt to investigate the effects ofdrought and wind erosion in the southwestern United States,reported that the dust bowl was a ‘‘result of human modifica-tion of natural conditions’’ and that it had ‘‘accentuated a sit-uation which had been long developing’’ [69]. Today, we areconfronted with another situation, which has also been long indevelopment, an issue that deals with the agricultural life-blood in America’s High Plains.

Nearly 27% of all irrigated land in the United States is inthe High Plains, and 30% of the total ground water used forirrigation by volume in the United States is derived directlyfrom a source called the High Plains aquifer [70]. The HighPlains aquifer, also known as the Ogallala Aquifer, liesbeneath 175,000 mi2 of territory straddling eight states: Colo-rado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, SouthDakota, Texas, and Wyoming. In 2000, 17 billion gallons ofwater a day was being drawn from the aquifer for irrigationalone. Almost 2 million people in the larger cities along theperiphery of the High Plains aquifer withdraw 418 million gal-lons per day to satisfy their drinking water needs [70]. Four-teen million acres of crops flourish each year, which are fedby the aquifer [71]. Conservation of water as a requisite strate-gic ingredient is far from anyone’s mind, as the farming com-munities in the high plains continue with their pattern of waterwithdrawal, strung along by a false belief that the exhaustible

Being adept at crafting national policy

inherently demands that those at the table have

a deep and comprehensive understanding of

problem areas and of historical details

associated with progress that has been made

and that which has yet to be made.



Ogallala Aquifer is anything but [72]. Directly contradictingsuch belief systems is the fact that since the 1940s (when irriga-tion development first began in the High Plains), all rates ofrecharge of the aquifer have not equaled the rate of with-drawals from the aquifer, and multiple global climate models(GCMs) have forecasted a warmer and drier future for thisregion, foreseeing only increased water usage [73]. In his book,John Opie attempts to sensitize us to this with a mournful tonesaying, ‘‘Ogallala groundwater is a nonrenewable resource’’and that it cannot be restored because ‘‘its original sources,winter runoff from the Rocky Mountains carried by braidedstreams to the plains, no longer replenish the aquifer’’ [74]. Hestresses that the water in the Ogallala Aquifer is essentially fos-sil water, pocketed approximately 10,000–25,000 years agofrom the glacier-laden rocky mountains before it was geologi-cally cut off by the Pecos River and the Rio Grande. He alsostates that the Great Plains region is at the nexus of threeimportant phenomena: 1) it lies in the heart of the 1930s dustbowl, 2) it is the center of intensive drawdowns of irreplaceableOgallala Aquifer groundwater, and 3) it is home to a highlyprofitable, vertically integrated agricultural industry, with cat-tle feedlots and beef processing plants, spanning out a 250-miradius, supplying nearly 40% of the nation’s beef supply.

To sustain the types of activity that Opie has described,annual pumpage of ground water from this ancient resourcehas had to rise to nearly 6 trillion gallons of water (18 millionacre-feet) in 1980 [75]. This number is impressive, and theglobal effect of the aquifer drying up is equally impressive. Ifthe Ogallala Aquifer were to cease its precious offerings, morethan US$20 billion worth of food and fiber would disappearfrom world markets instantaneously [75]. Opie takes care toalert us to a need for a systems’ approach, suggesting thatattempting to solve complex problems with an understandingthat is scaffolded together only by limited investigations, or byan incomplete grasp of information, will surely be disastrous;he added that the Ogallala Aquifer-based agricultural area ismerely an expiring ‘‘prosperity, on the edge of failure’’ [74].

With regard to our understanding of overall situations of theOgallala Aquifer, once again, history comes to our education.Before the Great Plains Committee announced that conditionsin the 1930s ‘‘had merely accentuated a situation which hadbeen long developing’’ [69], there was a resolute report in the1899–1901 period, from Willard D. Johnson of the USGS,which provided a thorough view of topography, soil analysis,water resources, climate, and vegetation of High Plains. In hisreport, Johnson wrote, ‘‘The volume of loss which the body ofthe ground water sustains annually can be no greater than thatof the contribution to it annually. [Thus] [t]he draft for generalirrigation would need to be at a rate considerably less than thissmall rate of replenishment, to avoid serious lowering of thewater plane (to prevent early depletion), and such a very limitedsupply, even if obtained at no expense for lifting (pumping),would be of no material benefit in irrigation’’ [76]. He, fearingthat any Plains’ recharges will not sufficiently replace theamount likely needed for agricultural withdrawal, wrote, ‘‘[t]heabsolute verdict must be that they are nonirrigable’’ [76].

Between the eminent work of Willard D. Johnson, in 1901,the work of the High Plains Committee, in 1936, and the contin-ued warning by the USGS assessment, in 2000 [77], there is afair amount of detailing in derelict policies, knee-jerk govern-mental reactions, and eager-beaver commercial opportunism.Yet, this wealth of information, made known over the span of a

century, has failed to illuminate those that are in a position togovern and has failed to manifest discernible shifts in policy,which could potentially reform the negatively impacting envi-ronmental actions (nationally) and economic actions (globally).

The High Plains aquifer irrigated 3.5 million acres of farm-land in 1950. Today, it is irrigating 16 million acres, more thana four-fold increase in water consumption [74]. Between 1940and 1995, in areas, the High Plains aquifer has already givenup as much as 50% of its stored water [78]. In Finney County,Kansas, for instance, where short-grass prairie once dominated,corn, wheat, and sorghum are now commonplace (Figure 1).How much longer can we sustain high withdrawals from theHigh Plains aquifer without significantly and adversely affect-ing the U.S. national agroeconomic environment? How muchagricultural expansion can the region sustain in the overall? So,what does the future hold for the High Plains, and what nationalsecurity strategy exists to mitigate effects? It is estimated thatwater wells in 17% of the agricultural land area in High Plainswill experience more than a 75% decrease in well yield by theyear 2020, and in about 42% of the agricultural areas, wellyields are expected to decline by more than 25% by the year2020 [75]. One somber fact to add to such considerations andcontemplations in view of the global energy crisis is the pres-sure on the U.S. agribusiness to boost corn production [79].

Running estimates project that by 2015, a demand for approxi-mately 31.5 billion gallons of ethanol, which would amountto roughly 20% of U.S. fuel consumption then, will require

Fig. 1. Advanced spaceborne thermal emission and reflec-tion (ASTER) radiometer image of crop fields (fed by theOgallala Aquifer in Finney County, Southwestern Kansas).Healthy, growing crops are green. Wheat is a brilliant gold,and sorghum, resembling corn, will be paler. Fields of brownhave been recently harvested or plowed under or will lie fal-low for the year. See inset for a magnified sense of the sizeand scope of irrigated fields. These fields are between 0.5and 1 mi (800 and 1,600 m) in diameter. (Photo courtesy ofNASA/GSFC/METI/ERSDAC/JAROS and U.S.-Japan ASTER Sci-ence Team.)



95.6 million acres of corn to be planted to yield approximately15.6 billion bushels of corn [80]. Just in the High Plains, for theyear 2007, South Dakota boosted corn production by 8.9%, Kan-sas by 10.4%, and Nebraska by 11.1% [81]. For the rush to pushethanol and biofuels production legislation, a biofuels mandatehas managed to spin into motion some highly insidious and unde-sirable economic effects, among other things. Consider that outof the total increased acreage allocated for corn production, asmuch as 50% of it will be converted or transferred from soybeancultivation acreage, 25% of it will be from the ConservationReserve Program, and another 25% will come from hay and pas-ture lands [82]. As demand for corn production soars and more ofsoybean and wheat cropland is in effect taken away, and allo-cated to corn production, prices for corn will rise by 40%, soy-beans by 20%, and wheat by 17%. Another by-product of thismandate to force biofuels production will be a hefty loss ofAmerican exports; corn exports will decline precipitously by62%, wheat by 31%, soybeans by 28%, pork by 18%, andchicken by 12% [83]. In addition, rising feedstock prices areexpected to domestically slow livestock production. This litanyof cascading and tightly coupled effects amounts to another clari-fied demonstration into a pronounced state of anthropic miscon-struction in the minds of many in U.S. Government regarding thecritical role of interoperability and interdependence of workingcomponents, and subsystems, in highly complex systems. For thesame reason, at the present time, a comprehensive national secu-rity U.S. agroeconomic impact analysis does not exist, which hasthe ability to feed into, or assist the creation of, a national securitystrategy for the water sector or any truly usable emergency pre-paredness-related action document for the water sector.

Some may review the aforementioned statements as intendedto suggest that the development of biofuel-related interests orinitiatives will be futile and should, therefore, be debarred,which is quite the opposite. Given the precarious economic con-ditions now stipulated, at least in part, by volatile fossil fuel pri-ces, and increasing climatological impact on the environmentproduced by hydrocarbon emissions, we cannot ignore that outof 26 different biofuels that were examined recently [84], [85],21 were able to reduce greenhouse emissions by more than30%, when compared with gasoline (petrol). Yet, 12 of these 26proved to impose higher aggregate environmental costs thanfossil fuels [84], [85]. From a policy perspective, therefore,careful analysis of the impact of fuels, materials, and other costsmust be achieved, well balanced by scientific data, beforepolicy directions can be determined as being ideal. Some analy-ses demonstrate that switch grass and native prairie grassesform excellent raw materials for ethanol production, requiring

low water, fertilizer, pesticide, and energy inputs, while provid-ing significantly better all-around yields than corn, contradic-tory to present-day policies in motion [86]. Yes, technologiesare not quite mature in the processing of cellulose fiber intoethanol to be able to launch production-scale operations. How-ever, when formulating national security strategies and policiesin an area, there is a need to be prescriptive and comprehensivein the approach. Today, from the government side, less atten-tion is paid to matters such as achievable gains in resource con-sumption (water), environmental impact, the productionpotentialities, switch grass, and natural prairie grass than thereis toward the mass production of ethanol from corn. In this areatoo, the instruments of national security policy making areinstead moribund and proscriptive.

A Reorganized Orientationfor Cooperative EngineeringMarcus Vitruvius Pollio, architect to Caesar Augustus, wrotethe following passage in his magnum opus The Ten Books ofArchitecture, circa 27 B.C., in which he said, ‘‘The architectshould be equipped with knowledge of many branches ofstudy and varied kinds of learning, for it is by his judgmentthat all work done by other arts is put to the test. . .[as] knowl-edge is the child of practice and theory—it follows therefore,that. . .those who relied only upon theories and scholarshipwere obviously hunting the shadow, not the substance.’’ In1906, following the principles of Vitruvius (although he didnot know it then), Herman Schneider instituted an engineeringprogram at the University of Cincinnati, which exposed forthe first time in an engineering curriculum a blend of theoryand real life practice [87]. So, the first cooperative educationprogram in engineering in the United States began, with 12students enrolled in mechanical engineering, another 12 inelectrical engineering, and three in chemical engineering.Soon, Northeastern University, in 1909, University of Pitts-burgh, in 1910, University of Detroit, in 1911, and GeorgiaTech, in 1912, followed suit [87].

In fact, following Schneider’s proposition, a widespreaddiscussion of the merits in graduating a comprehensive engi-neer ensued within the engineering community [88]–[90].However, not until four decades later, in 1946, did the conceptof cooperative engineering education find a serious direction,when Clement J. Freund carved into place five specific aimsfor cooperative education in the cooperative system: a mani-festo [91]. He proposed that cooperative engineering educationhelps in the following: 1) first-hand and actual knowledge of,and experience with, the execution in industry or government

To examine the high degree of

interconnectedness and interdependencies

associated with the problem of developing

a national security policy for the water sector,

we must view all problem areas with an

interoperability lens.



of engineering designs, business principles, projects, anddevelopments in all career fields; 2) an understanding of, andfamiliarity with, the problems and viewpoints of working menand women; 3) assisting students, by direct and personal expe-rience in industry, and testing their aptitudes for their chosencareers; 4) enabling students to adjust to employment by agradual transition from academic pursuits to the requirementsand conditions of the world of work; and 5) training and other-wise preparing students especially and directly for higher-leveladministrative and operating functions [87]. He envisioned acooperative education program to be curricula that lead to thebachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral degree, which requires, orpermits, students to examine theoretical aspects of engineer-ing, balanced with the practical side of engineering, by beingsufficiently exposed to highly diverse running issues in busi-ness or industry [87].

Cooperative engineering education served an enormouslyvaluable purpose for a time. Great challenges now stand beforethe engineering profession. Yet, in light of rapid changes intechnology growth and surfacing of associated potentialities,technological transformation of societies, and the growing needswithin societies, the engineering profession has in large partstood still, with little change. Logically, one might be inclined tosay, ‘‘[n]obody need learn. . .survival is not compulsory’’ [106].The eminent scientist, renowned engineer, and formerly a Presi-dent’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection (PCCIP)Commissioner, Dr. William J. Harris has succeeded in power-fully characterizing this challenge and in offering key insightsinto the need to dos. He has said, ‘‘It is not just enough to simplyconceive and implement an operating infrastructure design and aplan that is efficient, economical, effective, and reliable anymore.We must have in place (and not be just thinking of themabstractly) the scientific capability to anticipate the presence ofanomalies in nationally critical infrastructures. The [engineering]profession must now more than ever seek to painstakingly edu-cate and motivate its own, and those in power especially, to insti-tute much needed remedies’’ [92].

The difficulty that engineering as a profession is experiencingin terms of the necessary direction in which the profession shouldadvance is not unique to engineering but to humanity as a whole.Amidst high complexity, and pressed with the need to act, manconfronts the perpetual chicken or the egg question, which sty-mies the uninstructed. The use of the term uninstructed here isnot derogatory, rather the one that signifies an unoriented state, ala, Alan Kay, who said, the [right] point of view is worth 80 IQpoints [93]. As Robert Jervis neatly introduces, complexity self-imposes terms of comprehensivity, which require the generalhuman tendency to lean toward the quickest of solutions as ameans of satisfying the mere desires of a lazy brain not to beentertained [94]. Jervis emphasizes, ‘‘we can never do merelyone thing,’’ and that ‘‘[i]n a system, the chains of consequencesextend over time and many areas. . .that disturbing a system willproduce several changes’’ [94]. Well, the fact remains that wecan, and we routinely, do merely one thing, without ever realiz-ing how that one action tends to affect others things and causeundesired and potentially disastrous effects. As an example, arecent research at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography hasrevealed that a ‘‘major and immediate water supply problem onthe Colorado system’’ [95] now exists and that the repercussionsof this will comprise perilous Lake Mead impacts as well.

The fact remains that beyond a certain boundary of com-plexity, conventional engineering principles simply fail to

explain the behaviors of certain systems. Taking note of suchprogressions, the NRC’s facilitating interdisciplinary researchcommittee has argued that, among other reasons, the rise ofcomplexities in both nature and society, and the need to exploreproblems and questions that cannot simply be consigned to asingle professional discipline, now require a vigorous and prac-tical scientific shift toward a cooperative interdisciplinary exis-tence [96]. Yet, cooperative engineering programs, engineeringcurriculum, and the profession as a whole are not on therequired change-oriented path, nor is comprehensivity (a pro-found need for interdisciplinarism and multidisciplinarism inscholarship and professional practices) being embraced withinthe professional area as it must. For instance, today, the engi-neering community is well aware that the various instrumentsof national policy are in a position to either invigorate or fraykey research directions that are important to the nation. How-ever, the policy space is often the farthest area of professionalinterest in the life and times of an engineer. With regard topolicy makers who are in constant need of good scientific orengineering counsel, the equivalent is true. Such is the nature ofthe existence of two separate, still interdependent, commun-ities. Therefore, a revised and reformed cooperative engineer-ing concept must evolve to accommodate a wider horizon ofinterdisciplinary and multidisciplinary knowledge. Academicinstitutions must urgently entertain the already broadened intel-lectual demands inflicted on the engineering profession fromthe real world. Modern college or university curricula and thelevel of preparedness of the modern graduate to be able to offerthe requisite challenge to modern societal problems do notachieve a match.

ConclusionsTake into account the following key questions. If after a natu-ral or unnatural hazardous event, the mitigational or recoveryplans are deemed either nonactionable or inoperative becausethe key asset or resource itself is not recoverable, or thataspects of the WSSP/NIPP plan themselves cannot spin up tooperational status, permitting for the coordination of depart-ments or agencies, plans, personnel, and resources, how willpopulations be impacted? How successful will service orresource restoration efforts be? More importantly, what arethe options or alternatives? Indeed, scarcity, usage, andderived utility go to the heart of ‘‘assuring that sufficientresources/supplies are in position at the right time, in the rightplace, and is of the right quality for consumption’’ [97] intimes of crisis. Planning for such eventuality will require themost intimate consideration, and holistic interconnectivity, ofall variables in the equation, as World Business Council forSustainable Development (WBCSD) notes it [97].

In this respect, national security plans can only be as strongand as robust as the weakest link in the chain of foundationalthoughts that compose the plan. Proper identification of keyassets or resources in the water sector and putting into placeall-hazards protection programs for such assets or resources,and the needed management schematics and plans, do not gothe necessary mile. To design an adequately scoped nationalsecurity resourcing plan, all critical internal and externalaspects of the system, their interdependencies, and their rela-tionship to the environment must be well understood, withunmatched intensity and sensitivity. The applicability andusability of a National Security plan, for instance, is only asgood as the quality of subject matter analysis and the practical



utility of prescriptions contained therein, particularly in thecontext of re-establishing the quality of life for impacted pop-ulations. Here, the national security strategy for the water sec-tor fails to meet the objective; in fact, this was never itsobjective as defined. The need to protect existing assets orresources, while important, cannot be the sole area of concen-tration; criteria for resources assurance must have a key placein overall national security strategy configurations. Onceagain, if assets or resources are not recoverable, or responseplans to reconstitute assets or resources cannot be made opera-tional, or if it is deemed not deployable, what then? For exam-ple, in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, because of damagedinfrastructure and flooding, water fit for human consumptionwas plainly unavailable in New Orleans. Furthermore, destruc-tion of public roadways and bridges made it practically impos-sible, even for the military, to deliver drinking water to theneedy there and immediately [98], [99]. A national securitystrategy for water should, therefore, rightly consider all aspectsof scarcity, and the type of failures in disaster mitigation orrecovery planning or operational modes, which has the poten-tial to manifest, to the extent that measurable contingenciescan both ensure and assure the health, safety, and continuity inthe availability of supplies or resources to populations. To suc-ceed in the assembly of an employable national securitystrategy for the water sector in the public interest, there mustbe a better expression of the value of water to humanity as awhole, using the interoperability lens, in addition to adequatelyframing the impact of water scarcity, quality, and distributionson usage and societal utility [100].

Robert Mathews is distinguished senior research scholar onnational security affairs and U.S. industrial preparedness anddirector of the Office of Scientific Inquiry and Applications(OSIA) at the University of Hawaii Center for StrategicAdvancement of Telematics and Informatics (CSATI). He is adomain specialist in ultracomplex systems, such as the nationalairways systems, global economic systems and markets, highlydistributed large-scale command, control, communications,intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C3ISR) systemsin military and intelligence communities, and health care sys-tems. He is also a senior policy and programs analyst on nationalsecurity matters such as U.S. critical infrastructures, counter-ter-rorism, and domestic security, with concentrations in continuityof government (COG) and continuity of operations (COOP).

Catherine M. Spencer has been in the water industry for morethan 25 years. As a graduate water specialist for Black & VeatchCorporation, her areas of interest have been water quality andbest utility practice. Her background encompasses water micro-biology, chemistry, and engineering. Her professional work hasalso focused on system operations from source protection,through distribution.

Address for Correspondence: Robert Mathews, OSIA/CSATI/UH [Duty Station], 119 St. Mary’s Avenue, Clinton,NY 13323 USA. E-mail: [email protected].

References[1] S. T. Coleridge, ‘‘The rime of the ancyent marinere,’’ in Lyrical Ballads withPastoral and Other Poems, vol, 1, 3rd ed. London, UK: T.N. Longman, 1802.[2] ‘‘Investing in development: A practical plan to achieve the millennium devel-opment goals,’’ Report to the UN Secretary-General, UN Millennium Project,Earthscan, Sterling, VA, 2005.

[3] ‘‘State of world population 2007: Unleashing the potential of urban growth,’’UN Population Fund, New York, 2007.[4] J. A. Thomson, The Science of Life: An Outline of the History and Biologyand its Recent Advances. Chicago: Herbert and Stone Co., 1899.[5] F. M. Colby, Ed., The International Year Book–A Compendium of the World’sProgress in Every Department of Human Knowledge for the Year 1898. NewYork: Dodd, Mead and Co., 1899.[6] A. G. Tansley, ‘‘The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms,’’Ecology, vol. 16, no. 3, 1935.[7] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE Standard ComputerDictionary: A Compilation of IEEE Standard Computer Glossaries. New York:IEEE, 1991.[8] R. Mathews, ‘‘U.S. Department of Defense and Air Force Research Labora-tory (AFRL), guiding principles,’’ presented at the Conf. Next Generation Infor-mation Environment (NGIE), Hamilton, New York, June 1997.[9] R. Mathews, ‘‘Special session on integration and interoperability of National Secu-rity Information Systems,’’ presented before the Institute of Electrical and ElectronicsEngineers (IEEE), US DOT VOLPE Center, Cambridge, MA, June 9, 2006.[10] R. Mathews, ‘‘Some myths regarding interoperability,’’ presented at the 29thEMBS Ann. Int. Conf. in conjunction with the Biennial Conf. of the French Societyof Biological and Medical Engineering (SFGBM), Lyon, France, Aug. 23–26, 2007.[11] S. Keene, ‘‘Reliability, law of least astonishment and the interoperabilityimperative,’’ IEEE/RS Annu. Tech., New York, Dec. 2007 and IEEE Trans. Reli-ability, vol. 57, no. 3, Sept. 2008.[12] L. Kun, G. Coatrieux, C. Quantin, R. Beuscart, and R. Mathews, ‘‘Improvingoutcomes with interoperable EHRs and secure global health information infra-structure,’’ presented at the Int. Council on Medical and Care Compunetics(ICMCC), London, UK, June 9–11, 2008.[13] Rev. W. W. Skeat and D. Litt, An Etymological Dictionary of the EnglishLanguage. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1893.[14] The White House. (2003, Dec. 17). Critical infrastructure identification, prioriti-zation, and protection, Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 7 [Online].Available: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031217-5.html[15] N. Bowles, The Government and Politics of the United States, 2nd ed. NewYork: St. Martin’s Press, 1993.[16] ‘‘Global trends 2015: A dialogue about the future with nongovernmentexperts [NIC 2000–02],’’ National Intelligence Council, Office of the Director ofCentral Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, DC, Dec. 2000.[17] Available: http://www.serageldin.org/water.htm[18] ‘‘Drinking water: Experts’ views on how future federal funding can best bespent to improve security,’’ U.S. Senate, Government Accounting Office (GAO),Washington, DC, GAO-04-29, 2003.[19] ‘‘Additional Protocol I & II,’’ in Mar del Plata Declaration of the UnitedNations Water Conference, Argentina, and the Geneva Convention, 1977.[20] J. Scanlon, A. Cassar, and N. Nemes, ‘‘Water as a human right?’’ IUCN-Environmental Policy and Law Paper 51, International Union for Conservation ofNature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland, 2004.[21] P. H. Gleick, N. L. Cain, and D. Haasz, The World’s Water 2004–2005: TheBiennial Report on Freshwater. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2004.[22] G. Howard and J. Bartram, Domestic Water Quantity, Service Level andHealth. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2003.[23] C. A. Piantadosi, The Biology of Human Survival: Life and Death in ExtremeEnvironments. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2003.[24] D. Hinrichsen, Coastal Waters of the World: Trends, Threats, and Strategies.Washington, DC: Island Press, 1998.[25] C. Revenga and J. Brunner, et al., Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems(PAGE): Freshwater Systems. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 2000.[26] J. H. Tidwell and G. L. Allan, ‘‘Fish as food: Aquaculture’s contribution,’’EMBO Rep., vol. 2, no. 11, pp. 958–963, Nov. 2001.[27] ‘‘Reducing environmental impacts of coastal aquaculture,’’ GESAMP, Rome,Italy, FAO Rep. and Studies 47, 1991.[28] ‘‘Monitoring the ecological effects of coastal aquaculture wastes,’’GESAMP, Rome, Italy, FAO Rep. and Studies 57, 1996.[29] C. Folke, N. Kautsky, and M. Troell, ‘‘The costs of eutrophication fromsalmon farming: Implications for policy,’’ J. Environ. Manag., vol. 40, no. 2, 1994.[30] ‘‘Coping with water scarcity: A strategic issue and priority for system-wideaction,’’ UN Water Scarcity Initiative Rep., Rome, Italy, Aug. 2006.[31] ‘‘The state of the nation’s ecosystems—Measuring the land, waters, and liv-ing resources of the United States,’’ presented at the H. John Heinz III Center forScience, Economics, and the Environment, Carnegie Mellon Univ., Pittsburgh,PA, 2005.[32] The State of the Nation’s Ecosystems—Measuring the Land, Waters, and Liv-ing Resources of the United States. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2008.[33] S. S. Hutson and N. L. Barber, et al., ‘‘Estimated use of water in the UnitedStates,’’ U.S. Geological Survey Rep., 2000.[34] ‘‘Population division. U.S. Population stood at 304,890,333 at 00:42 GMT(ESTþ5),’’ U.S. Census Bureau, Aug. 2008.[35] ‘‘Introduction to the human dimensions of global change,’’ Association ofAmerican Geographers, 1997.[36] A. Y. Hoekstra and A. K. Chapagain, Water Footprints of Nations: WaterUse by People as a Function of Their Consumption Pattern, vol. 21. WaterResource Management, 2007.[37] D. J. McKay, ‘‘President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s letter to secretary of theinterior, regarding the establishment of a cabinet committee on water resourcespolicy,’’ The White House, Washington, DC, May 1954.



[38] R. R. Renne, ‘‘The president’s water resources policy commission,’’ LandEcon., vol. 26, no. 3, Aug. 1950.[39] G. T. Schwartz, Urban Freeways and the Interstate System, vol. 49. South-ern California Law Review, Mar. 1976.[40] W. E. Deming, private communication, Dec. 1955.[41] J. S. Bragdon, private communication, July 1956.[42] R. A. Mohl, ‘‘The interstates and the cities: Highways, housing, and the free-way revolt,’’ Poverty and Race Research Action Council, Washington, DC, 2002.[43] The Hoover Commission Report on Organization of the Executive Branch ofthe Government, United States Commission on Organization of the ExecutiveBranch of the Government (1947–1949). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1949.[44] ‘‘Task force reports,’’ United States Commission on Organization of theExecutive Branch of the Government (1947–1949), Herbert Hoover Commissionon Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government (1947–1949), U.S.Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1949.[45] M. Arthur, Muddy Waters: The Army Engineers and the Nation’s Rivers.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1951.[46] P. VanDevelder, Coyote Warrior: One Man, Three Tribes, and the Trial thatForged a Nation. New York: Little Brown and Company, 2004.[47] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ vision statement [recreation], USACE, Natu-ral Resources Management, Vicksburg MS [Online]. Available: http://corpslakes.usace.army.mil/employees/recreation/recreation.html[48] Fiscal Year 2006 Federal Real Property Report: An Overview of the U.S.Federal Government’s Real Property Assets. Washington, DC, General ServicesAdministration, 2007.[49] Environmental Defense, et al. [Plaintiffs] Vs. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,et al. [Defendants], Civil Action No. 04-1575 (JR), United States District Courtfor the District of Columbia (Judge James Robertson presiding), Sept. 13, 2007.[50] Reining in the corps of engineers. (2007, Sept. 20). Time [Online]. Available:http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1663903,00.html[51] F. Al-Mahan. (2003, Feb.). The US Army Corps of Engineering. GeorgeWashington University, Institute for Crisis, Disaster, and Risk Management, Cri-sis and Emergency Management Newsletter [Online]. Available: http://www.seas.gwu.edu/�emse232/corps1.html[52] M. Grunwald. ‘‘How corps turned doubt into a lock: In an agency where theanswer is ‘grow.’ A questionable project finds support,’’ The Washington Post, ASection, A01, Feb. 13, 2000.[53] U.S. Office of Special Counsel. (2000, Dec. 6). Statement of Elaine Kaplan,Head/Special Counsel. U.S. Office of Special Counsel, Press Statement [Online].Available: http://www.osc.gov/documents/press/2000/pr00_36.htm[54] M. Grunwald, ‘‘Par for the corps: A flood of bad projects,’’ WashingtonPost, B01, May 14, 2006.[55] The Report of the President’s Water Resources Policy Commission, vol. 1: AWater Policy for the American People; vol 2: Ten Rivers in America’s Future; and vol.3: Water Resources Law. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1950.[56] New Directions in Water Resources Planning for the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999.[57] ‘‘Water quality: Key EPA and State decisions limited by inconsistent andincomplete data,’’ U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC, Rep. GAO/RCED-00-54, 2000.[58] ‘‘A strategy for federal science and technology to support water availability andquality in the United States,’’ National Science and Technology Council (NSTC),Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Water Avail-ability and Quality, EOP, White House, Washington, DC, Sept. 2007.[59] R. F. Service, ‘‘‘Combat biology’ on the Klamath,’’ Science, vol. 300,no. 5616, Apr. 2003.[60] M. H. Glantz, ‘‘Consequences and responsibilities in drought forecasting:The case of Yakima, 1977,’’ Water Resour. Res., vol. 18, no. 1, 1982.[61] J. W. Mjelde, et al., ‘‘Valuing forecast characteristics in a dynamic agricul-tural production system,’’ Am. J. Agr. Econ., vol. 70, no. 3, Aug. 1988.[62] R. Kipling, The Writings in Prose and Verse of Rudyard Kipling: Verses1889–1896. New York: Scribner, 1899.[63] T. R. Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population: A View of its Past andPresent Effects on Human Happiness, 6th ed. London, UK: John Murray, 1826.[64] T. Sammis and E. Herrera, Estimating Water Needs for Pecan Trees. New Mex-ico: College of Agriculture and Home Economics, New Mexico State Univ., 1999.[65] A. Neef, L. Chamsai, M. Hammer, et al., ‘‘Water tenure in highland water-sheds of northern Thailand—Tragedy of the commons or successful managementof complexity?’’ in Land Use, Nature Conservation, and the Stability of Rainfor-est Margins in Southeast Asia, G. Gerold, M. Fremerey, and E. Guhardja, Eds.Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 2004.[66] L. S. Pereira, ‘‘Water and agriculture: Facing water scarcity and environmen-tal challenges,’’ Agr. Eng. Int.: CIGR J. Sci. Res. Dev., vol. 7, Feb. 2005.[67] T. A. Ewemoje, ‘‘Effects of variable irrigation scheduling on growth parame-ters of Celosia Argentea in humid tropical environment,’’ Agr. Eng. Int.: CIGREJ., vol. IX, Mar. 2007.[68] ‘‘Water use in the United States,’’ in National Atlas of the United States.Dept. of the Interior, Apr. 2008.[69] ‘‘The future of the Great Plains: Report of the Great Plains Committee,’’U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, Dec. 1936.[70] K. F. Dennehy, ‘‘High plains regional ground-water study: U.S. GeologicalSurvey Fact Sheet FS-091-00,’’ High Plains NAWQA, U.S. Geological Survey,Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO, 2000.[71] W. Ashworth, Ogallala Blue: Water and Life on the High Plains. New York:W.W. Norton, 2006.

[72] M. V. Guru and J. E. Horne, The Ogallala Aquifer, Poteau, OK, The KerrCenter for Sustainable Agriculture, 2000.[73] N. J. Rosenberg and D. J. Epstein, et al., ‘‘Possible Impacts of global warm-ing on the hydrology of the Ogallala Aquifer Region,’’ Climatic Change, vol. 42,no. 4, Aug. 1999.[74] J. Opie, Ogallala: Water for a Dry Land, 2nd ed. Lincoln, NE: Univ. ofNebraska Press, 2000.[75] J. B. Weeks, et al., ‘‘Summary of the high plains regional aquifer-systemanalysis in parts of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, SouthDakota, Texas, and Wyoming,’’ U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1400-A (USDOI/USGS), USGPO, Washington, DC, 1988.[76] W. D. Johnson, ‘‘The High Plains and their utilization,’’ presented at the 21stAnnu. Rep. of the U.S. Geological Survey, Hydrography Part IV,1899–1900.[77] V. L. McGuire, ‘‘Water in storage and approaches to ground-water manage-ment, High Plains aquifer,’’ U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1243 (U.S. Dept. ofthe Interior), Reston, VA, 2000.[78] D. W. Cash, ‘‘Cross-scale information and decision-making systems for com-mon pool resources: Water management of the High Plains aquifer in the U.S.Great Plains,’’ presented at the IASCP Conf. Constituting the Commons: CraftingSustainable Commons in the New Millennium, Bloomington, IN, 2000.[79] P. Westcott, ‘‘Ethanol expansion in the United States: How will the agricul-tural sector adjust?’’ Economic Research Service, United States Agricultural Serv-ice, Washington, DC, Outlook/Rep. FDS-07D-01, May 2007.[80] A. Elobeid, et al., ‘‘Long-run impact of corn-based ethanol on the grain, oilseed,and livestock sectors: A preliminary assessment,’’ CARD Briefing Paper [06-BP 49],Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State Univ., Ames, Nov. 2006.[81] ‘‘Prospective plantings report, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agri-cultural Statistics Board,’’ U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, DC, Mar. 2007.[82] Soil Science Society of America, ‘‘Fueling ethanol production while protect-ing water quality,’’ ScienceDaily, Apr. 4, 2008.[83] T. Searchinger, et al., ‘‘Use of U.S. Croplands for biofuels increases green-house gases through emissions from land-use change,’’ Science, vol. 319,no. 5867, Feb. 2008.[84] R. Zah, et al., Okobilanz von Energieprodukten: Okologische Bewertung vonBiotreibstoffen. St. Gallen, Switzerland: Empa, 2007.[85] J. P. W. Scharlemann and W. F. Laurance, ‘‘How green are biofuels?’’ Sci-ence, vol. 319, no. 5859, Jan. 2008.[86] M. J. Groom, et al., ‘‘Biofuels and biodiversity: Principles for creating betterpolicies for biofuel production,’’ Conservat. Biol., vol. 22, no. 3, 2008.[87] ‘‘Educating the engineer of 2020: Adapting engineering education to the newcentury,’’ Committee on the Engineer of 2020, Phase II, Committee on Engineer-ing Education, National Academy of Engineering, National Academy of Sciences,Washington, DC, 2005.[88] M. W. Alexander and D. B. Rushmore, ‘‘A new method of training engineers andthe relation of the manufacturing company to the technical graduate,’’ ProfessionalAmerican Institute of Electrical Engineers, Atlantic City, NJ, Rep. 1363, Jan. 1909.[89] C. R. Dooley and C. P. Steinmetz, ‘‘The training of Nontechnical men andthe value of classics in engineering education,’’ Professional American Instituteof Electrical Engineers, Atlantic City, NJ, Rep. 8542, Oct. 1909.[90] C. A. Bowman, ‘‘On the systematic training of engineers: Are we practical?’’CAN Engineering, Rep. 2015, Jan. 1909.[91] C. J. Freund, et al., ‘‘The cooperative system—A manifesto, American Soci-ety of Engineering Education, Committee on Aims and Ideals of CooperativeEngineering Education [Freund, Chair],’’ J. Eng. Educ., vol. 37, no. 2, Oct. 1946.[92] R. Mathews and W. J. Harris, private communication, June–July 2007.[93] ‘‘Predicting the future,’’ Stanford Eng., vol. 1, no. 1, 1989.[94] R. Jervis, System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life. Princeton,NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1997.[95] T. P. Barnett and D. W. Pierce, ‘‘When will Lake Mead go dry?’’ WaterResour. Res., vol. 44, Mar. 2008.[96] ‘‘Facilitating interdisciplinary research,’’ Committee on Facilitating Interdis-ciplinary Research, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (NAS/NAE/IOM), Washington, DC, 2005.[97] ‘‘WBCSD water scenarios to 2025,’’ World Business Council for SustainableDevelopment, Geneva, Switzerland, Aug. 2006.[98] C. Copeland, Hurricane-Damaged Drinking Water and Wastewater Facili-ties: Impacts, Needs, and Response. Washington, DC: Congressional ResearchService (CRS), Library of Congress, 2005.[99] J. R. Elliott and J. Pais, ‘‘Race, class, and hurricane Katrina: Social differen-ces in human responses to disaster,’’ Soc. Sci. Res., vol. 35, no. 2, June 2006.[100] The Urgent Need to Transfigure the National Security Water Strategy ToAssure Public Health in the United States, to be published.[101] Gridded Population of the World, Version 3. Palisades, NY: Center forInternational Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Earth Institute,Columbia Univ., 2005.[102] Global Rural Urban Mapping Project. Palisades, NY: Center for Interna-tional Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Earth Institute, ColumbiaUniv., 2004.[103] National Infrastructure Protection Plan I (NIPP). Washington, DC: U.S.Dept. of Homeland Security, 2006.[104] USGS. Definition of eutrophication [Online]. Available: http://toxics.usgs.gov/definitions/eutrophication.html[105] U.S. Ground Water Facts. Westerville, OH: National Ground Water Associ-ation (NGWA).[106] W. E. Deming, private communication, May 1987.



Documents

IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY · UNINTEROPERABILITY National Security Strategyfor U.S. Water I n The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, ... water is often referred to as the