December 23, 1996
EPA-SAB-EC-LTR-97-003
Honorable Fred Hansen
Deputy Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Subject First Report from the Science Advisory Board (SAB) Lookout
Panel: Focus on Water Issues
Dear Mr. Hansen:
In July, 1995 you came before the Science Advisory Board (SAB) Executive
Committee (EC) and asked the group to assist in the implementation of our 1995
Beyond the Horizon: Using Forecasting to Protect Our Environmental Future report
(EPA-SAB-EC-95-007) by serving as a Lookout Panel.
The purpose of this letter is to summarize the early EC's experience in carrying
out this mission. In accepting the challenge, we were aware of a number of constraints
facing the EC; e.g., the limited range of experience and perspective among the EC
members, the demands of other projects, and the lack of resources to delve into
background material in a number of interesting areas. At the same time, we recognized
that there are several reasons that argue for the EC's being the appropriate group for
serving as the Lookout Panel:
a) Many of the EC members participated in the Environmental Futures
Committee (EFC) and thereby have acquired both practical experience
and a certain "momentum" in futures work that should serve the EC and
the Agency well.
b) The EC includes a significant number of members who were not a part of
the EFC. These individuals will learn from the Lookout Panel experience
at the same time that they enrich it by providing fresh insights.
-------
c) The Agency is the "customer" for the output of this exercise. Since the
EC both knows and is known by the Agency and its programs, we can
provide an active, open forum in which substantive, informed dialogue
can take place among SAB members and between SAB members and the
Agency.
d) The arrangement is cost-effective.
In short, the SAB is happy to accept this challenge since we deeply believe that
the Agency, the country, and the world need to do a better job of incorporating the fruits
of futures thinking into their plans and in their actions. We recognize that it is often
difficult for governmental agencies, who are continually facing near-term deadlines and
demands, to take the long view. We believe that the SAB, at least at this time, is in a
good position to help the Agency reflect upon the future and thereby demonstrate the
value of taking the long view.
Before presenting the specific results of the first session of the Lookout Panel, I
want to describe briefly four premises that provide the foundation for our exercise and a
context for our results.
First, as articulated in Beyond the Horizon, the goal of the Lookout Panel is to
stimulate serious thought about the future in order to be better prepared to anticipate,
react to, and structure that future. The focus of the exercise is on increasing the
flexibility with which the Agency will confront the future, not on cataloging a series of
predictions by the EC.
Second, based upon your charge to us last year, we recognize that the Lookout
Panel function is a qualitatively different function from any that the SAB has had before.
This effort is meant to be a low-investment, provocative exercise, in contrast to the
more in-depth, rigorous reviews or de novo contributions that are characteristic of other
SAB efforts. You explicitly cautioned that there would be no additional SAB resources
available to support the Lookout Panel function, although some support would be
provided through the Office of Planning, Policy, and Evaluation.
Third, we recognize that the Agency will generally not mount a large effort to
respond to the outputs from the Lookout Panel. In fact, the major benefits to the Board
and to the Agency are likely to come from the conduct of and participation in the
exercise itself, again as described in Beyond the Horizon.
-------
Fourth, we recognize that there is no single, best approach for conducting a
Lookout Panel. There are a variety of approaches that could be used and should be
explored; e.g., tapping personal networks, inviting speakers, working with outputs from
other groups, and coupling early Lookout Panel results with different scenarios.
Working from these premises, the SAB has chosen to do the following:
a) The results of the activities of the Lookout Panel will be summarized in
the form of a letter to the Deputy Administrator, in contrast to all other
formal SAB communications to the Agency that are invariably addressed
to the Administrator. This procedure will emphasize the fact that the
Lookout Panel function is qualitatively different from other functions of the
Board.
b) The first few sessions of the Lookout Panel will likely be conducted as a
series of experiments in which different approaches to the function will be
explored. For example, for the first session (February 29, 1996) the
members of the Executive Committee used their own personal networks
as input to the process. For the second session (September 19, 1996)
the output of the Millennium Project1 was a focused source of information
for the Lookout Panel.
c) The SAB expects that at least one Assistant Administrator or higher-level
Agency manager will participate in each of the Lookout Panel sessions.
This arrangement will insure that: 1) the SAB has the benefit of the
insights and foresight of top Agency managers; and 2) those managers
receive the personal stimulation associated with involvement in the
process of confronting possibilities about the future.
d) The SAB may augment the Lookout Panel with participants selected from
the cadre of SAB members and consultants and/or invited experts who
are particularly well-versed in the technical area under discussion.
In order to clarify this Lookout Panel activity for the Agency, the public, and
ourselves, we generated draft Mission and Vision Statements (Attachments A and B).
1. The Millennium Project is an international effort to link innovative thinkers into an electronic web for the
exchange and exploration of ideas about the future. The Agency is participating through the efforts of the
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation.
-------
While these Statements will likely evolve over time, we expect them to provide the
direction and power behind our initial thrusts into this project arena.
With these understandings and expectations as a backdrop, we based the first
experiment as a Lookout Panel on input from the personal networks of the members of
the Executive Committee. In late 1995, each member was encouraged to use his/her
professional contacts to gather issues/topics that could be considered for discussion.
From all of the ideas submitted, we selected a subset of issues that sounded a common
theme; i.e., water resources, as the focus for the first meeting. The results of our
discussion are captured in the intentionally short description in Attachment C.
In short, in its brief, non-comprehensive look beyond the horizon, the Board sees
three water-related issues that could have significant implications for the Agency and
the country; i.e., the quantity of available high-quality water, the growth of high water
use industries, particularly agribusiness, and the status of our infrastructure of the
collection and distribution of water.
The Board is still experimenting with the best way in which it can perform its role
as a Lookout Panel. The Agency's feedback on substance and process, as well as its
active participation in the effort, is both welcome and requested. We look forward to a
good interaction with the Agency as we collectively prepare ourselves for the future.
Sincerely,
Dr. Genevieve Matanoski, Chair
Lookout Panel
Science Advisory Board
Attachments:
A - Mission Statement for Lookout Panel
-------
B - Vision Statement of the SAB Lookout Panel
C - Summary of Discussions at SAB Lookout Panel Meeting
on February 29, 1996
-------
ATTACHMENT A
MISSION STATEMENT FOR LOOKOUT PANEL
The mission of the SAB Lookout Panel is to serve as early-warning system to
identify and bring to the attention of the Agency:
To identify and communicate to the Agency
a) Potential future environmental problems that have not been generally
recognized.
b) To identify Recognized environmental problems that could potentially
increase significantly in intensity in the future.
c) Potential solutions to currently intractable environmental problems.
The time horizon is 15-30 years into the future. The geographic scope is global,
including both the truly global (e.g., stratospheric ozone depletion) and the aggregate
effect of local actions (e.g., use of pesticides indoors), with a focus on how the U.S. is
likely to be affected.
The process should involve the Agency in a substantive manner.
A-1
-------
ATTACHMENT B
VISION STATEMENT OF THE SAB LOOKOUT PANEL
1. Current Situation
The SAB Executive Committee meets semiannually as a Lookout Panel to share
and discuss issues "beyond the horizon" that could have a significant effect on the
environment 15-30 years into the future. Since the environment is global in extent, the
Lookout Panel's scope is also global, although its focus is on how the emerging
problems will impact the United States. The Panel is free-thinking, wide-ranging, and
explores a variety of approaches to carrying out its function.
The intent of the exercise is to assist the Agency in thinking about the future by
challenging it to consider issues that are not yet on the Agency's agenda. The Lookout
Panel is designed as a low resource-intensive effort in which the Executive Committee
(many members of which participated in the Environmental Futures project in 1995) use
a variety of approaches to share their insights in forecasting what the future might hold.
2. Future Vision
In the future the Panel will be seen as a significant source of solid information,
productive speculation, and creative forecasting about potential environmental
problems of the future. The Panel will solicit/gather potential topics from a wide range
of sources, both domestic (e.g., the SAB members and consultants) and international
(e.g., G-7 countries) with whom the SAB will establish collaborative relationships.
Through semi-annual meetings the Panel will bring focused attention to
selected, specific issues that have cross-cutting impact on a variety of environmental
media/problems. The Agency will look forward to the release of the Panel's succinct
reports and will reflect and report on the implication of those observations for the EPA
mission and methods.
The Agency will also develop or gather scenarios of alternative futures.
Following consultation with the Panel, the Agency will use these scenarios, together
with the Panel's reports on specific issues, to forecast future conditions, thereby
providing insights to evolving environmental protection policies and methods.
B-1
-------
The Panel will become part of a network of comparable advisory bodies
throughout the world who will trade forecasting information and insights via several
means-including the Internet-thereby sharpening their vision and broadening the
impact of their reports.
The success of the Panel will be measured by the increased agility with which
the Agency faces the future, rather than by the increased accuracy with which the
Panel predicts it.
B-2
-------
ATTACHMENT C
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS AT SAB LOOKOUT PANEL MEETING ON
FEBRUARY 29, 1996
At its first meeting as a Lookout Panel in February 29, 1996, the SAB met with
Mr. Robert Perciasepe, AA/OW, to discuss future problems in the area of water. The
results of those discussions presented below are not based on either intensive or
exhaustive treatments of the issues. Rather, they are presented as the impressions
and ideas of a group of technically trained individuals who are alert to environmental
problems that the Agency could be facing in the future.
1. The availability of high quality water
Population size and economic growth continue to be among the major drivers
that determine the availability of fresh renewable water. The four largest use
categories of agricultural irrigation, thermoelectric facilities, public supplies, and
industry account for 96% of the renewable freshwater used in the United States (1990
data). As population pressure, pollution, and other factors impact our renewable
freshwater supplies, competition between human and ecological uses will intensify.
However, as water treatment technology advances, it may be possible to use some
source waters of lesser quality for human use because of treatment plant efficiencies in
removing both chemical and microbial contaminants while retaining more of the
freshwater resource for ecological purposes.
In addition to increased demand, our water resources are further strained by a
non-uniform distribution across the country that requires a tremendous capital
investment to overcome; e.g., construction of dams, pipelines, etc.
We can already see evidence of how people will address this problem in the
future. In some cases, such as parts of Florida, the issue is one of adequate storage of
the water resources that are available. In some areas economic and social forces are
leading to imaginative ways to "wring more use" out of a drop of water. For example,
drip agriculture is developing as a significant means of lowering agricultural demand for
water in some regions and on some crops. On the other hand, some economic and
distribution practices have the effect of encouraging comparatively profligate use of
water in neighboring areas.
C-1
-------
As it considers the future, the Agency should become as concerned about the
quantity of water that is available, as it is about the quality of the water that is available.
The nation's experience in energy conservation should be seen as a harbinger of the
possibilities (financial and environmental) that could be realized from a conscientiously
coordinated approach to water conservation. In fact, the government should review the
energy conservation experience in order to design an improved approach that benefits
from the "lessons learned" in that exercise.
The emphasis on quality, rather than quantity, may be a result of the perspective
of a Congress responding to today's articulated needs. Therefore, there is a need for
foresighted thinkers who will speak out persuasively so that our lawmakers explicitly
consider the future when they make their decisions.
The quality of water, particularly for human consumption, is a growing concern.
In the face of rising demand, suppliers are turning increasingly to lesser quality surface
water sources with their associated concerns about toxics and microbes. This trend is
occurring at a time when the country is exploring disinfection strategies based on
treatments other than chlorine gas and whose effectiveness and ancillary risks are
being examined.
For several years the SAB, through the DWC, has called upon the Agency to
exercise increased vigilance and develop greater expertise to deal with the risks
associated with microbes. The future would be well-served by our re-echoing that
sentiment here. The Board looks forward to continuing its advisory capacity to the
Agency as it conducts careful studies on the complex question of disinfection
alternatives.
2. High water use industries, particularly agribusiness
As a part of the increased pressure on our limited water resources, the
introduction of high water use industries creates special problems. In addition to
obvious water demands created by growing food and fiber crops on marginal land,
animal husbandry operations have been scaled up to such an extent that a single
installation can rival a small city in terms of the water resource needs. For example,
the construction of a hog raising/butchering operation in a rural setting can have the
same impact on water resources as a 20,000-person town, only the environmental
impact can be more immediate and more localized, often without the attendant financial
resources to address the problem effectively.
Further, the technology for using the water and handling the wastes at such
C-2
-------
operations is roughly 30 years old and has failed with unfortunate frequency. The
regional impacts of such operations can be significant. On the positive side, there are
some signs that with vision and imaginative engineering, such wastes could be
recycled through a productive process.
3. Status of infrastructure for collection and distribution of water
The Board called attention to a situation that is becoming all-too-evident: the
deterioration of the infrastructure for collecting and distributing drinking water. This
situation is likely become significant in the near-term, rather than long-term, future. It
would appear that the nation currently lacks a strategic vision for addressing the
problem.
As Mr. Perciasepe pointed out, while the country spends billions of dollars on
infrastructure capital expenditures every year, much of those dollars are directed at
problems of waste collection and treatment. The country has never made that kind of
investment in drinking water supplies and distribution.
In summary, the Board re-iterates the fundamental importance of water to the
economic, environmental, and physical health of the country. At the same time, we
foresee increased pressures on those resources developing in the face of a patch quilt
of policies that both invoke and reject market forces, that both invoke and reject
engineering intervention.
In many respects, for some years, water issues - particularly drinking water
issues - have been in the "vigilance/maintenance mode". There are indications that
current level of vigilance/maintenance will be insufficient to provide us with the quality
and quantity of water that we will need for the kind of future we would like to have for
ourselves and our children.
C-3
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
CHAIR
*Dr. Genevieve M. Matanoski, School of Hygiene and Public Health, The Johns
Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
MEMBERS
*Dr. Jesse H. Ausubel, Program for the Human Environment, The Rockefeller
University, New York, NY
*Dr. Joan M. Daisey, Indoor Environment Program, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory,
Berkeley, CA
Dr. William Glaze, Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
*Dr. Mark Harwell, Rosentiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of
Miami, Miami, FL
Dr. Margaret Kripke, Department of Immunology, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center,
Houston, TX
Dr. Morton Lippmann, Nelson Institute of Environmental Medicine, New York University,
Tuxedo, NY
*Dr. Alan Maki, EXXON Company, USA, Houston, TX
*Dr. Donald R. Mattison, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh, PA
Dr. Granger M. Morgan, Department of Engineering & Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon
University, Pittsburgh, PA
*Dr. Ishwar P. Murarka, Land & Groundwater Protection and Remediation, Electric
Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA
Dr. Paul R. Portney, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC
-------
*Dr. Verne Ray, Medical Research Laboratory, Pfizer Inc., Groton, CT
Dr. Richard Schmalensee , Dept. of Management and Economics, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
Dr. Jerry P. Schubel, New England Aquarium, Boston, MA
Dr. Ellen K. Silbergeld, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine,
University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD
*Dr. James E. Watson, Jr., Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
Dr. George T. Wolff, General Motors Environmental and Energy Staff, General Motors,
Detroit, Ml
LIAISON FOR SCIENCE ADVISORY PANEL
Dr. Ernest McConnell, National Toxicology Program (Retired), Raleigh, NC
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF
Dr. Donald G. Barnes, Staff Director and Designated Federal Official, Science Advisory
Board (1400), US Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20460
Ms. Priscilla Y. Tillery, Staff Secretary, Science Advisory Board (1400), US
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460
* Indicates members of the Executive Committee who participated in the February 29, 1996
Lookout Panel Meeting
-------
NOTICE
This report has been written as part of the activities of the Science Advisory
Board, a public advisory group providing extramural scientific information and advice to
the Administrator and other officials of the Environmental Protection Agency. The
Board is structured to provide balanced, expert assessment of scientific matters related
to problems facing the Agency. This report has not been reviewed for approval by the
Agency and, hence, the contents of this report do not necessarily represent the views
and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor of other agencies in the
Executive Branch of the Federal government, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute a recommendation for use.
-------
DISTRIBUTION
The Administrator
Deputy Administrator
AA Office of Water
Assistant Administrators
Regional Administrators
EPA Headquarters Library
EPA Regional Libraries
Chair, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel
Chair, ORD Board of Scientific Counselors
Library of Congress
National Technical Information Service
Congressional Research Service
IV
------- |