v
Proceedings of the First National Expert
and Stakeholder Workshop on Water
Infrastructure Sustainability and
Adaptation to Climate Change
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Office of Water
                                       April 2009
                                 EPA-600-R-09-010

-------
                                Table of Contents

Acknowledgements	iii
Disclaimer	iii
Acronyms	iv
1.     Introduction	1
1.1     Overview of the Workshop	1
1.2     EPA Office of Research and Development: Commitment to Climate Change Research and
       Adaptation	2
1.3     The EPA National Water Program: Sustainable Water Infrastructure and Adaptation to
       Climate Change	3
2.     Challenges and Opportunities in Adapting to Climate Change	4
2.1     Adaptation Challenges to the Nation and the Science Community	4
2.2     Perspectives from Utilities	5
2.3     When R&D Meets the Real World: The Challenges and Opportunities of Integrating Water
       Resource Management for a Changing Climate	7
3.     Applying Climate Science to Water Infrastructure Planning	9
3.1     Information  Needed for Infrastructure Adaptation Planning	9
3.2     Where the Research Meets the Road: Climate Science, Uncertainties, and Knowledge Gaps11
3.3     Holistic ORD Research to Ensure Water and Energy Efficiency through  Drinking Water
       System Sustainability	12
3.4     Accommodating Design Uncertainties: Past Practices and Future Needs	13
4.     Research and Development for Water Infrastructure Adaptation	15
4.1     EPA's Global Climate Change Science Program and Water Infrastructure Adaptation Research
       	15
4.2     AWWARF Research Strategy for Climate Change Adaptation	17
4.3     WERF's Climate Change Research Programs	18
4.4     Incorporating Climatic Uncertainties into Water Planning	19
5.     Climate Change Impacts on Hydrology and Water Resource Management	22
5.1     Projecting Hydroclimatic Changes - Downscaling	22
5.2     Projecting Hydroclimatic Changes - Local Applications of Downscaling	27
5.3     Evaluating Hydoclimatic Change for Water  Infrastructure Adaptation -  Part I	32
5.4     Evaluating Hydoclimatic Change for Water  Infrastructure Adaptation -  Part II	39
6.     Adaptive Management and Engineering: Information and Tools	45
6.1     National Infrastructure Condition  Assessment and Adaptability	45
6.2     Progressive Adaptation: Planning and Engineering for Sustainability	52
6.3     Adaptation Practices and Tools -  Part I	58
6.4     Adaptation Practices and Tools -  Part II	64
7.     Moving Forward in Adaptation	71
7.1     Concluding Remarks	71

-------
7.1     Suggested Ideas and Recommendations for Moving Forward in Adaptation	72
Appendix A   List of Workshop Participants	98
Appendix B   Workshop Agenda	107
Appendix C   Biographies of Workshop Speakers and Moderators	112
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change

-------
Acknowledgements

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the
following individuals for successfully conducting its First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop
on Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change:

EPA Workshop Coordinating Committee
       Y. Jeffrey Yang, Office of Research and Development, NRMRL
       Karen Metchis, Office  of Wastewater Management, WPD
       Elizabeth Corr, Office  of Ground Water and Drinking Water, DWPD
       Jill Neal, Office of Research and Development, NRMRL
       Robert Cantilli, Office  of Science and Technology,  HECD

EPA Workshop Support

       Michael Shapiro, Office of Water
       Sally Gutierrez, Office of Research and Development, NRMRL
       Steve Heare, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, DWPD
       Linda Boornazian, Office of Wastewater Management, WPD
       Suzanne Rudzinski, Office of Science and Technology
       Jeff Peterson, Office of Water
       Jim Goodrich, Office of Research and Development, NRMRL
       Tom Speth, Office of Research and Development,  NRMRL

Support from Abt Associates Inc. and Stratus Consulting,  Inc. under EPA Contract EP-C-07-023

Audio and  Transcription Services from The Track Group
Disclaimer

This document summarizes the proceedings of EPA's First National Expert and Stakeholder
Workshop on Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change. These
proceedings are being distributed in the interest of increasing public understanding and knowledge
of the issues discussed at the workshop. The views expressed in these proceedings are those of the
individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of EPA. Scientists in EPA's
Office of Research and Development have prepared the EPA sections, and those sections have been
reviewed in accordance with EPA's peer and administrative review policies and have been approved
for presentation and publication. Any mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change

-------
Acronyms

AMWA       Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies
ASCE         American Society of Civil Engineers
ASR          Aquifer Storage and Recovery
AWWA       American Water Works Association
BMP          Best Management Practice
BYWO        Build Your Way Out
CAT          Climate Assessment Tool
CCAR        California Climate Action Registry
CLIMB        Climate's Long-Term Impacts on Metro Boston
CSO          Combined Sewer Overflow
CSS          Combined Sewer Systems
CWA         Clean Water Act
DBP          Disinfection By-Product
DOE          U.S. Department of Energy
EBMUD       East Bay Municipal Utility District
EPA          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FACA         Federal Advisory Committee Act
FEMA        Federal Emergency Management Agency
GCM          General Circulation Model
GCM          Climate Change Model
GDP          Gross Domestic Product
GEOSS       Global Earth Observation System of Systems
GHG          Greenhouse Gas
CIS          Geographic Information Systems
HSPF         Hydrologic Simulation Program-Fortran
ICLUS        Integrated Climate and Land Use Scenarios
ICR          Information Collection Request
IDF          Intensity-Duration-Frequency
IPCC         Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IWRM        Integrated Water Resources Management
KBDI         Keetch-Byram Drought Index
LID          Low Impact Development
MBR          Membrane Bioreactor Reactor
MPDI         Modified Perpendicular Drought Index
MWAI        Metropolitan Water Availability Index
MWRA       Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
NACWA       National Association of Clean Water Agencies
NAWC        National Association of Water Companies
NCAR        Natural Resources Defense Council
NRMRL       National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NWP         National Water Program
O&M         Operations and Maintenance
ORD          Office of Research and Development
ORSANCO    Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change
IV

-------
OW           Office of Water
PCB           Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PDSI          Palmer Drought Severity Index
POTW         Publicly Owned Treatment Work
PUC           Public Utilities Commission
PV            Photovoltaics
R&D          Research and Development
RCM          Regional Climate Models
RIO           Ride It Out
SAM          Strategic Asset Management
SDWA         Safe Drinking Water Act
SRES          Special Report on Emissions Scenarios
IDS           Total Dissolved Solids
TMDL         Total Maximum Daily Load
TOC          Total Organic Carbon
TTHM         Trihalomethane
USDA         U.S. Department of Agriculture
UV            Ultraviolet
WEF          Water Environment Foundation
WEPP         Water Erosion  Prediction Project
WEPPCAT      WEPP Climate Assessment Tool
WGA          Western  Governors' Association
WRAP         Water Resources Adaptation Program
WRF          Water Research Foundation
WSMP         Water Supply Management Program
WSS          Water Supply and Sanitation
WTP          Water Treatment Plant
WUCA         Water Utility Climate Alliance
WWTP         Wastewater Treatment  Plant
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change

-------
1.     I ntroduction


The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) held its First National
Expert and Stakeholder Workshop
on Water Infrastructure
Sustainability and Adaptation to
Climate Change on January 6-7,
2009, in Arlington, Virginia.
Sponsored  by the EPA Office of
Water and  Office of Research and
Development, the workshop was
attended by more than 130 invited
experts and stakeholders from  the
federal, research, utility,
engineering, academic, and NGO
sectors. A  list of attendees is
provided as Appendix A.
Speaker panel from plenary session moderated by Dr. Pel- Yei Whung,
EPA office of the Science Advisor
The workshop included several plenary sessions, as well as two concurrent tracks:

•  Climate Change Impacts on Hydrology and Water Resource Management

•  Adaptive Management and Engineering: Information and Tools

The agenda is provided in Appendix B. These proceedings include summaries of each of the
presentations, as well as the discussion sessions. Where available, hyperlinks are provided to each
of the presentations on the EPA Web site. For each session, hyperlinks to the transcript of the
presenter's remarks are provided (with the exception of concluding remarks in Chapter 7). Appendix
C includes biographies for the speakers and moderators.

1.1    Overview of the Workshop
       Jim Hanlon, Director, EPA Office of Wastewater Management
       Cynthia Dougherty, Director, EPA Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water

Jim Hanlon and Cynthia Dougherty  opened the workshop by welcoming the participants.  Climate
change will have a large effect on water utilities and EPA is exploring ways to help them adapt and
manage water infrastructure. During this workshop, we will learn what tools and methods are
needed to maintain and improve water infrastructure. The infrastructure built today will be in place
for decades to come, and infrastructure planning decisions are being made each day. EPA and
utilities need to find better ways to  maintain the current water infrastructure and prepare for
changes. EPA's Sustainable Infrastructure Initiative fits  well into this discussion.

Important changes will affect water resource management in coming decades. A National  Research
Council (NRC)  study states that 42  percent of urban land areas will be redeveloped by 2030. The
United States is facing population growth of 20 percent by 2030 and 40 percent by 2050. EPA and
utilities need to look at green infrastructure and water reuse, for example, especially with the
upcoming economic stimulus package in which major investment decisions will be made. This
workshop is an opportunity to reach out to experts to build the agenda to deal with climate change
in the context  of adaptation.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change

-------
It is very important to gain a better understanding of what EPA can do to help utilities make
decisions and where EPA can make investments in science and research. It is also important for EPA
to understand what the utilities are already doing, and how to engage in research that is
complementary, not redundant.

The focus of this workshop is on precipitation-related impacts. Although sea-level rise is an
important concern for coastal utilities, this topic will be only touched upon here and will  be left for a
more complete discussion at a future workshop. Also, this workshop is focused on adaptation. While
the interaction between water utilities and energy is critical (water utilities use 3 to 4 percent of total
U.S. energy), this workshop will not address mitigation efforts.

It is important to note that this workshop is not being held under the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA), and therefore EPA is not looking for a consensus among participants. Further, there are
a number of federal  partners involved in this workshop, and EPA is looking forward to collaborating
with them.

Click here to read the transcript of Mr, Hanlon's and Ms,  Dougherty's remarks.
1.2    EPA Office of Research and Development: Commitment to Climate Change
       Research and Adaptation
       Sally Gutierrez, Director, ORD National Risk Management Research Laboratory

The EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is conducting research on the
country's aging water and wastewater infrastructure. The goals are to protect and improve  public
health, save energy, and improve the capacity for water infrastructure systems to incorporate
sustainability into their planning. NRMRL has begun to focus on climate change adaptation in the
context of aging  infrastructure. This focus has led to the development of the Water Resources
Adaptation Program (WRAP). WRAP is developing assessment and adaptation decision support tools,
as well as water  resources and infrastructure adaptation and multi-scale assessments (national and
regional adaptation strategies). NRMRL is working with the Office of Water to coordinate the
development and dissemination of data and tools.

The current toolboxes include drinking water treatment and water availability forecasting. NRMRL's
objectives in this area include discussing science needs, developing adaptation tools, and helping
develop interim decision-making processes. This includes fostering collaborative research and
accelerated transfer of research and development (R&D). NRMRL hopes to elicit feedback and
recommendations on EPA's climate change R&D activities and national  water  program.

Click here to view Sally Gutierrez's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Ms, Gutierrez's remarks.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change

-------
1.3    The EPA National Water Program: Sustainable Water Infrastructure and
       Adaptation to Climate Change
       Benjamin Grumbles, Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of Water

The National Water Program (NWP) recognizes that water is at the heart of the debate on climate
change. Two years ago, the NWP established a task force on climate change headed by Mike
Shapiro and Jeff Peterson. This task force developed a strategy to provide a connection between
science and resource management. The focus is not only on mitigation, but on adaptation strategies
and policies.

Consistent with the strategy, this workshop focuses on adaptation and the steps that need to be
taken to educate stakeholders and build solid partnerships.  This workshop was not designed to
simply restate the current science on climate change, but to provide EPA and utilities a connection
between the science and resource management, and to focus  not just on mitigation but also on
adaptation. This workshop should help  improve the communication between  EPA and water
managers on what the water managers can do about climate change under drinking water and clean
water laws. Leaders in all areas need to work together and engage in conversation focusing on
adaptation, education, and management. For this reason, EPA has a strong partnership with states,
other utilities, and everyone involved in this effort.

EPA recognizes that much of the discussion on adaptation relates to infrastructure. To continue  on
the sustainability theme, it is important to emphasize  resiliency. Gray infrastructure has to be able to
last 30 to 70 years. This workshop will also  look at programs, standards, and water management
techniques. One of the keys to success is to ensure that scientists and managers are working
together.

Federal agencies are working together on adaptation. In August  2008, Under Secretaries from
various federal departments and agencies began discussions regarding key areas related to water
and climate change. EPA has worked with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Department of
the Interior, the Army Corps  of Engineers, and the Commerce  Department, and sent a  directive  to
agency colleagues to being coordinating and sharing information. This workshop will help  inform
those discussions.

When members of the American public hear the term "climate change," they are concerned about it
but not necessarily thinking  about water. If they are, they are  usually thinking about sea-level rise or
melting glaciers. They don't yet understand the implications that climate change has for water
resources and the need to adapt to the impending changes. This workshop should help inform
regulators and infrastructure managers to make better decisions with respect to climate change and
water infrastructure.

Society faces "insurmountable opportunities." The Chinese word for crisis is composed of  two
symbols that represent danger and opportunity. Ben  Grumbles closed his remarks by stating,
"Ready. Set. Adapt."
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change

-------
2.     Challenges and Opportunities in Adapting to Climate Change
In this session, speakers discussed the challenges and opportunities faced by the water
management and science communities when considering how to adapt to climate change. The
concept that "stationarity" is dead' brings into question many of the standard tools and practices
that have been adopted.  This is a particular challenge as the water management community must
make investment decisions now for expensive infrastructure that will have a long life span. The
research community is grappling with  how to develop tools and approaches that can aid water
managers in taking future climate change and a changing  hydrology into consideration in decision
making.

Click here to read the transcript of the remarks of the moderator (Dr. Pai- Yei Whung, EPA Office of
the Science Advisor).
2.1    Adaptation Challenges to the Nation and the Science Community
       Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute

Peter Gleick began his keynote speech by stating that society needs to "manage unavoidable
impacts, and avoid unmanageable impacts." The impacts of climate change are unavoidable and
occurring right now. The debate regarding climate change is entering a new phase, where scientists
and policy makers must develop appropriate and effective responses that will address both
mitigation and adaptation.  Recommendations to water managers on climate change have been
available for two decades, but progress toward implementing these recommendations has been
slow. In many cases, climate change  poses serious challenges to managed water systems. Relying
on current engineering practices may lead  to incorrect and  potentially dangerous decisions.

Dr. Gleick made several recommendations. First, the 2000 National Assessment Report on Water
should  be  updated. Climate change needs  to be integrated  into all management and planning
activities at the federal, state, and local levels.  Eight years ago, the Secretary of the Interior issued
an order to integrate climate  change  into all decisions, but the order was ignored. There is also a
need to improve  assessments of the energy/water connections. Three to four percent of total U.S.
energy use goes to the water industry, and this percentage is much higher when home energy use
for water is included (e.g.,  heating). Therefore, water utilities will have to think about mitigation
efforts. In California,  utilities  and researchers are starting to assess the energy and greenhouse gas
footprint of water utilities.

There is a need to expand the concept of infrastructure to include nonstructural  measures, such as
low-flow toilets, and precision irrigation or  computer-controlled distribution canals for farmers. It is
important to think about infrastructure as more than dams, aqueducts, and wastewater treatment
plants.  There  is plenty of money available to upgrade traditional infrastructure, but if we expand the
definition of water infrastructure to include nonstructural measures on the water side as well,
investments could be more efficient. Also,  if these nonstructural measures were included in the
concept of infrastructure, manyjobs could be generated through the development of efficient
appliances and the installation of toilets and washing machines that use water efficiently.

When reviewing the science on  impacts of climate change, there are projections of hotter
temperatures, uncertain  changes in precipitation, dramatic changes in snowpack and melt, sea-level
rise with its impacts on aquifers  and delta  ecosystems, and extreme events (e.g., flooding and
drought). The models show that the western United States is expected to lose a significant amount

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    4

-------
of snowpack. This has enormous implications for water management in California. Snowpack
changes have not yet led to managers changing their reservoir use. Instead, there is talk of building
more reservoirs to deal with snowpack loss.

The concept of infrastructure needs to be expanded to include non-strucutural measures, such as
low-flow toilets or precision irrigation systems or computer-controlled distribution canals. In addition
to upgrading traditional infrastructure, emphasizing these other measures would be an efficient
means to conserve the water supply and a wise investment. The need for adaptation is not new for
California; the state has already experienced changes in the water cycle.

Dr. Gleick closed his talk by noting that the water community has for years recognized that
adaptation to climate change is needed.  In 1997 the  American Water Works Association's (AWWA's)
public advisory forum recommended that water agencies consider climate change, but they are still
not doing  so. Policies should integrate and coordinate mitigation and adaptation, and  managers
should review the advantages and disadvantages of existing water management policies. Useful
climate change models are available to deal with variability, but they may not be enough. It is
important to explore ways to incorporate adaptation  into planning,  and develop and test adaptation
strategies. Examples of incorporating adaptation include testing and modifying operating rules,
redefining infrastructure,  improving water-use efficiency, and better evaluating the
energy/water/greenhouse gas (GHG) links. Integrating climate change into water planning will help
managers understand existing risks and exposure. Managers and planners can no longer assume
that  hydrologic conditions will look the same in the future as they have in the past. Even the best
models are of little value  if managers do not integrate climate change into water management
decisions.

Click here to view Dr. Gleick's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Dr. Gleick's remarks.
2.2    Perspectives from Utilities
       David Behar, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission


David Behar explained that the Water Utility Climate Alliance (WUCA) began at a San Francisco
conference in the winter of 2007. WUCA is a consortium of water providers, and its mission is to
improve research, develop strategies for adaptation, and reduce emissions from water utilities.
WUCA has buy-in from the member utilities' general managers, and each member utility has senior
staff who focus on adaptation, holding conference calls on adaptation issues every several weeks.
WUCA has developed an awareness of climate change impacts on water and identifies  system
vulnerabilities to these impacts. It integrates climate change risk assessment into strategic and
capital planning and informs ratepayers of the science and potential costs.  Key discussions include
how best to integrate risk assessments and address what is known and not known regarding climate
science.

WUCA also addresses how to make decisions on adaptation, and how best to influence policy and
climate change science research and investment, particularly at the federal level. The Alliance is thus
seeking to hold conversations about these issues with climatologists and agency leaders.  However,
WUCA finds that these are often difficult conversations to have, because in many cases, the
engineering and utility management focus is different from the day-to-day  focus of the agency
leadership, which in turn  is different from the day-to-day focus of the climate science community.

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                     5

-------
Putting the above-mentioned discussions in the context of capital investment is vital. Mr. Behar
described two capital investment projects that have taken place in the context of climate change:
(1) San Diego County Water Authority: A $4.3 billion capital improvement program that includes
enhanced storage capacity, desalination, and a new water treatment plant;  and (2) San Francisco
Public Utilities Commission: A $4.3 billion project that includes a pipeline under San Francisco Bay,
dam replacement, and recycled water and  groundwater facilities.

In Reports to Congress (2005,  2008), EPA  has estimated that investment needs in drinking water
total up to $277 billion, and pollution control  investment needs are an estimated $203  billion, for a
total of $480 billion. These investments need to be made in the context of climate change. For
example, San Francisco is rebuilding a dam that is a  150-year  investment. These investments will
last well into the future, when there will be significant climate  change effects. When capital
investment decisions are  being made, it is  important to understand how the investments could
influence climate change  policy.

The other key challenge is the  significant uncertainty in predicting the implications of climate change
in order to make efficient capital  investments. In particular, there is significant uncertainty about
regional precipitation changes in  the future. Varying  projections in the Northwest make planning
very difficult. Seattle is looking at a 6 to 21 percent decrease in water supply, and San Francisco is
facing much earlier snowmelt than in the past. These precipitation changes are uncertain, although
newer models tend to show a decrease in total precipitation.

WUCA calls for a comprehensive  federal effort on predictive climate change tools. They want to see
improvement in the quality and accessibility of regional modeling  (also  known as downscaling).
WUCA  has several efforts underway, such as a climate modeling white  paper that will review the
state of the science on climate modeling and analyze where the most productive investments can be
made. The paper also addresses  when to expect more useful climate change projections. WUCA is
also working on a decision support white paper, being developed  by Malcolm Pirnie, which will
survey the decision support tools currently in use.

WUCA calls for "actionable science," which includes data, analyses, and forecasts that are
sufficiently predictive, accepted, and understandable to support decision making, including capital
investment decision making. WUCA is focusing on  climate-driven strategies  as  opposed to what are
known as "no regrets strategies."

WUCA  is taking direction from other organizations  such as the Western Governors' Association
(WGA), which in 2008 stated that water managers should clearly communicate their needs to the
science research community. The WGA said that water managers should focus on getting ahead of
research, decisions, and policy.

Mr. Behar concluded by providing the next steps for the water utility community. These steps
include recognizing the need for "actionable science," and considering the needs of water utilities
before  research agendas  are set, not after. There is a need for a coordinated and strategically
directed federal science effort and an increase in resources and computer modeling capability.

Click here to view Mr, Behar's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Mr. Behar's remarks.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change

-------
2.3    When R&D Meets the Real World: The Challenges and Opportunities of
       Integrating Water Resource Management for a Changing Climate
       Dr. James Goodrich, EPA ORD National Risk Management Resource Laboratory

James Goodrich said that the EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) is looking at applied
and practical research and wants to focus the research down to the local level. We are seeing
changes in precipitation and intensity, leading to more runoff and erosion. Not everyone will face the
same challenges; what Philadelphia and Boston do to adapt will be far different from what cities
such as San Diego and Dallas do. Many cities across the United States have the same number of
people in them, but have followed very different growth paths. Some  have boomed in recent years,
while others have depopulated. How those  cities adapt to climate change will be impacted by their
growth patterns.

There are several formidable challenges, such as whether society knows enough to adapt. How does
society know how much  adaptation is needed? What are the uncertainties in predictions, and what is
the best way to deal with them? What methods and techniques are available, and what can science
and engineering do?  Is the climate variation natural or anthropogenic? This workshop will attempt to
look at the methods and techniques that EPA, utilities, and other organizations are currently using.
It will be important to figure out the adaptation challenges that society is facing.

Dr. Goodrich presented several research questions and topics:

•   Downscaling and how to use  it locally by providing tools and methodologies for local managers,

•   Engineering information and tools,

•   Planning and engineering of water infrastructure for sustainability,

•   Predicting impacts on hydrology and water quality in watershed scales, and

•   Design criteria that consider energy, land use, and population changes.

In conducting this research, it important to bear in mind that the water industry is  conservative, as it
makes decisions that affect communities for many decades. Technological and institutional changes
are needed to orient the systems toward sustainable water services. The centralized approach of big
pipes in and out has worked well in the past, but will not work in the future. There could be a point
where water quality returns to pre-EPA conditions if water systems stay on their current path.
Industry needs to look at new materials,  real-time monitoring, and new energy sources, and needs
to evaluate its carbon footprint, but must do these things at a reasonable cost. There will likely be a
shift toward multiple treatment systems or  a decentralized approach focusing on reuse and
recycling.

The EPA Water Resources Adaptation Program (WRAP) methodology is the integration of climate
change, hydrological  response, and land use infrastructure. This is combined with EPA's Sustainable
Infrastructure Initiative, which is  particularly looking at vulnerability assessments. The combined
efforts of the two programs will ultimately help the industry develop new,  sustainable water use
infrastructure.  Dr. Goodrich concluded by reiterating that the many federal agencies, universities,
financial institutions, and water research foundations need to have a coordinated R&D approach.

Click here to view Dr.  Goodrich's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Dr. Good rich's remarks,

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    7

-------
Summary of Discussion Session

A representative from the Water Research Foundation (WRF) stated that climate change adaptation
strategies have been around for two decades. WRF has conducted an exercise to review 400 WRF
projects since 2002. Of these 400, 130 were related to climate change; however, only eight had
climate change in their titles.

A water manager mentioned that he often sees great possibilities for R&D, and then R&D fails to
quickly move to implementation. The big questions are, "Who is impacted by action or inaction?
Who benefits and who pays?" The current financial model does not match up with the available
solutions. Science might decide the most cost-effective outcomes, but right now, the finances do  not
add up. Great projects such as water infrastructure are likely to be put aside because of other
investment needs. It is important to find the right financial model.

A water resources researcher said that economics is not being addressed in either of the two
workshop tracks, but could be discussed in Track B (Adaptive Management  and Engineering). He
thinks there  is  currently enough money, but managers and policy makers still do not integrate
climate change into  investment decisions.  This is notjust an economic issue. King County,
Washington, recently looked into  retrofitting homes rather than invest in a bigger wastewater
treatment plant. County staff found that it was cheaper to retrofit the homes, but they built the new
plant anyway due to risk factors.

A local government water manager stated that costs are a crucial factor. As important as it is to
receive federal funding, such funding is not likely to materialize. Although it is important to fund a
cap-and-trade  system for adaptation, it may not happen. More money will have to be found to meet
additional needs. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Les Snow wanted to build
additional dams in anticipation of climate change, but were told they could not have the money. The
local government manager has not found any infrastructure projects  that anticipate climate change
except for backflow  devices in San Francisco. The argument must be made  to ratepayers about the
future effects of climate change. For instance, if utilities are going to raise rates 10 percent, they
need to make a good argument for the increase.

A water resources researcher asked how to minimize the effects of raising rates. A local water
manager answered that a good argument is needed for the rate increases.  In San Francisco, the
rate increase had to be decided by  public referendum. A water resources researcher stated that
money is not the biggest problem. In many cases, the available funds have  to be spent anyway. The
biggest problem is getting climate science into the policy arena.  The  information that  he thinks is
"actionable"  is  not what utilities think is "actionable." A participant from the engineering community
said that the most important factor is that the consumer base is not valuing water properly. A local
water manager added that customer education  and perception regarding desalination and water
reuse is a key factor in getting approval for capital improvements. In the past, projects have been
held up due to protests by small groups.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change

-------
3.     Applying Climate Science to Water Infrastructure Planning

Building on the themes identified in Session I (Section 2), this session delved into specific details
such as decision-making approaches and the use of climate models, data, and information to aid in
incorporating climate change into water infrastructure planning. Perspectives were given from the
water management, consulting, and research communities.

Click here to read the transcript of the remarks of the moderator (Jim Taft, Association of State
Drinking Water Administrators),

3.1    Information Needed for Infrastructure Adaptation Planning
       Stephen Estes-Smargiassi,  Massachusetts Water Resources Authority

Stephen Estes-Smargiassi said that the mission of the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
(MWRA) is to provide an adequate and reliable supply of high-quality drinking water. In addition, its
goal is environmentally responsible collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater. However,
funds for this are always an issue because customers place higher priority on the utility delivering
water all the time and under any circumstances.

MWRA has several strategies for dealing with climate change. These strategies include (1) improving
regional climate change projections, (2) enhancing the understanding of potential impacts,
(3)  determining and implementing appropriate adaptations, (4) inventorying and managing GHG
emissions, and (5) improving communications and tracking mechanisms.

Mr. Estes-Smargiassi stated that the take-away message from his presentation is, "It'sjust
engineering." Water utilities already think about risk and consequence and do not need to be
convinced to act responsibly. While not everyone is convinced that climate change is happening, all
want utilities to act responsibly.  In addition to physical  adaptation, standard procedures will also
need to change as a result of climate change. It is important to consider how regulations and
guidelines the industry currently operates under will need to change, and also how the underlying
legal structure will need to change.

Mr. Estes-Smargiassi discussed scenario planning versus probability-based  planning. Stationarity was
a great concept in the past, but while assumptions and  coefficients are changing, the  underlying
problems and physical processes are not. A flood is still  a flood, pipes still must carry water, and rain
still falls and evaporates. There must be a plan for inundation from larger storms as a result of
climate change. Because buildings and equipment have a limited lifespan, and it is important to
ensure that each facility has planned and invested appropriately for the long term. This investment
needs to fit into the current maintenance and upgrade cycles, and the results must be reviewed on a
regular basis. There is also a need to change design curves.

Planners must follow the flood all the way "upstream" to determine needed adaptation.  Data that
planners need include new design flood elevations (the  Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) should issue new flood maps) and the frequency and distribution of storm intensity. Planners
must be appropriately conservative, since three meters  of sea-level rise will require flood-proofing all
of Boston, rather than just MWRA facilities—an assumption that would involve prohibitively high
investment costs.  However, planners must figure out where to draw the line for the medium-term
investment.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change

-------
Mr. Estes-Smargiassi discussed a recent project that was designed with climate change in mind. The
design planners of the Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) were challenged to think
about higher rises in sea level. The plant was raised two feet for the 50-year forecast.  An analysis
was done and some costs rose, but the planners took a guerrilla approach. It is important to note
that no one  in management knew that the planners did this. This  decision was made almost 20
years ago, and it is not clear in light of current sea-level rise projections if the plant was  raised
enough.

Further data needed include storm frequency, precipitation runoff, and more geographically discrete
data.  It will  be vital to put the new information into guidance and  design manuals and  to get
engineers to start working with the updated data.

Two other key issues to focus on include a change in regulatory guidance and a change  in customer
expectations. There is also a need to acknowledge the hierarchy of risks, for example (homes,
yards, streets, shellfish resources, recreation, and finally water use bodies). Planners need to think
about base demands as the population shifts, seasonal demands change, and access to emergency
supplies from surrounding jurisdictions shift or change. Multiple resources must integrate into
multiple regions (known as regionalization). By focusing on risks and consequences, managers
already plan and invest based on events that are unlikely to occur, such as a 1,000-year  event.
However, singling out climate change has made it harder for decision makers to make  investment
decisions. Climate change should be rolled into the  set of risks that are already being evaluated.
There is no  need to convince every decision maker  regarding climate change effects, but it is
important to treat climate change like all of the other risks that water managers face.

Laws and regulations are not stationary; just as the physical environment adapts to climate change,
laws and regulations must adapt  as well. Each year, there may be a need to  change agreed-upon
solutions under a policy on combined sewer overflows (CSOs) (e.g., the acceptable number of
CSOs). Utilities shield themselves from liability by using  generally  accepted standards;  for example,
the utility is  deemed negligent if there  is a failure under typical storms, but not under an extreme
event.

The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)  advocates  using the theory of decision
making under uncertainty to enact laws and regulations that adapt to climate change.  This process
will rely more on applying probability theory and more intensive modeling. Therefore, there is  a
strong need for probability-based analysis. However, wildcards include increased  variability,
extremes, and large population movements. Extreme weather events are likely to be more intense,
which can lead to exactly the type of conditions that could affect water supplies and drainage
systems. There should be a focus on research needs to  better understand these risks and this
variability.

Mr. Estes-Smargiassi concluded that most demographic projections assume stationarity,  but
questions if  this is a valid assumption. There could be major discontinuities, such as retirees
returning to the Snow Belt, or the long-term livability of coastal cities.  An additional question for
planners pertains to whether or not the discount rate should be set at zero.  It is difficult  to plan for
the long term with a rate greater than  zero.

Click here to view Mr. Estes-Smargiassi's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Mr.  Estes-Smargiassi's remarks.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   10

-------
3.2    Where the Research Meets the Road: Climate Science, Uncertainties, and
       Knowledge Gaps
       Dr. Dennis Lettenmaier, University of Washington

Dennis Lettenmaier stated that there is a need to integrate climate science much better into the
engineering process. The Seattle Public Utilities Commission (PUC) updates its plan every five years,
but has not considered climate change at all, even though it has funded many studies on this
subject. The reason for this is that while public policy analysts knew about climate change,
engineers did not understand what to do about climate change. Engineers have focused only on
stationarity.

There are several issues facing utilities in planning for climate change. Design and management are
based almost entirely on analysis of historic observation, risk,  and reliability (e.g., based on a 100-
year event). Methods are often standardized; for example, the Water Resources Council Bulletin 17b
is used for estimating flood  risk. However, utilities do not have standardized methods when they do
not assume the climate is stationary. Dr. Lettenmaier declared that it is therefore important to think
about probability analysis.

Dr.  Lettenmaier discussed the methods of probability analysis that are available to planners and
engineers. General Circulation Models (GCMs) provide the  best information.  In the past, GCMs have
been used only to create scenarios. There is a need to address GCM differences as a representation
of uncertainty and incorporate them into the planning process. Each GCM run is a representation of
what the climate system might do. The difference between individual models can be considerable.
Since the climate system is chaotic, it is better to perform  multiple runs of models and multiple
models to create ensembles, rather than rely on just one or a few models.

It is important to extract information from GCMs for planning, while considering the following:
•   Bias is a key issue,

•   All GCMs are not created equal,

•   It is not clear  how to weight GCMs, and

•   Multiple ensemble  models should be used.

Dr.  Lettenmaier discussed the methods available for downscaling. It is important to  note that
downscaling methods reproduce GCM uncertainties and will not resolve disagreement among GCMs.
Statistical downscaling is easier to apply than dynamic methods and can give a better representation
of uncertainty because downscaling methods can be simulated for hundreds to thousands of years.
Regional  climate models (RCMs) have more realistic topography than GCMs. A major limitation is
that they are typically  run for a ten-year simulation, a period that is very short for risk analysis.

Climate change needs to be incorporated into water planning in a routine manner. There is also a
need for a standard for the archiving of data sets to allow  easy access to historical information.
Planners  must recognize that climate projections will be updated, which may mean that they move
away from the critical planning period and incorporate climate change into the engineering  process.

Dr.  Lettenmaier concluded by mentioning that applications research  needs to include:

•   A better understanding of the elements of uncertainty  in GCM ensembles,

•   Better archiving of data sets,

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop  on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   11

-------
•   A stronger push for applied R&D on ways to incorporate hydrologic research into water
    engineering, and
•   A need for a more systematic approach to regional climate simulations and downscaling.

Click here to view Dr. Lettenmaier's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Dr. Lettenmaier's remarks.
3.3    Holistic ORD Research to Ensure Water and Energy Efficiency through Drinking
       Water System Sustainability
       Dr. Audrey Levine, EPA Office of Research and Development

Audrey Levine described the evolution of water infrastructure, which was originally designed strictly
as a supply system for fire fighting. Over time, it evolved into a source of potable and non-potable
water. Wastewater and stormwater collection then evolved to divert drainage and control health
risks.  Today, treatment systems are evolving toward developing better treatment, discharge, and
reuse techniques. Preventing oxygen depletion and improving water quality are two of the main
goals  of modern systems. There are currently 160,000 drinking water systems  in United States
serving more than 300  million people. The United States relies on these systems, which are of
varying ages and conditions, to provide water for consumers that expect it to be safe for drinking
and other applications.

There are several current and emerging concerns, including the sustainability of water systems,
which includes availability, infrastructure,  public health, and competing demands. Another concern is
the energy/water interdependencies that emerge when moving and treating water and  managing
infrastructure. Energy policy impacts water in a number of ways, and there are growing concerns
with biofuels and geological sequestration and their respective water demands. As society moves
more toward water resource replenishment, augmentation, and restoration to meet in-stream and
downstream uses, more integrated water  systems will be needed.

Dr. Levine described several climate change research drivers, including water availability and water
quality (including evaporation, microbiology, pathogen diversity, and survival).  Other research
drivers include energy and economic impacts on treatment reliability, including availability of
chemicals, transportation issues, restoration of the hydrologic cycle, and sustainable use for
ecosystems. Finally, water is not currently recovered and reused consistently. It is vital to preserve
high-quality water and make this water easy to transport.

It is important to be able to balance water availability and water use to restore and maintain the
hydrologic cycle. Priority must also be placed on the subject of water and ecosystem sustainability.
Dr. Levine discussed several further research issues to focus on, including public health protection.
More research is needed on ways to optimize collection treatment systems for water quality, water
recovery, and energy efficiency. Green infrastructure, low-impact development, integration of
centralized and  decentralized systems, and water economics are also key research areas. Dr. Levine
concluded by stating that ORD's drinking water research program is focusing on several long-term
goals, including characterizing and managing risks and organizing the program around the
hydrologic cycle.

Click here to read the transcript of Dr. Levine's remarks,

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   12

-------
3.4    Accommodating Design Uncertainties: Past Practices and Future Needs
       Doug Owen, Malcolm Pirnie Inc.

Doug Owen began by noting that the engineering community faces fundamental questions: "where
is the water, when are we going to get it, how much are we going to get, what form is it going to be
in, and what's the quality?" Mr. Owen noted that changing temperatures will have additional impacts
on regional planning, behaviors, and ecosystem health.  Engineers have developed processes and
approaches for developing reliable designs that enable infrastructure to function under a range of
conditions. With climate change, engineers now face the additional question of how they can
accommodate climate change uncertainties into sustainable water infrastructure.

Engineered systems are conduits between inputs and outputs. They balance short-term
requirements and long-term needs within an economic framework. Fluid flow and hydraulics are
based on physical laws and are well understood by the engineering community, but the major
uncertainty lies in the inputs and outputs. The conventional approach to engineering infrastructure
includes selecting the appropriate planning horizons, evaluating the alternatives, selecting the
preferred alternative, and designing the project using standard engineering principles. Engineers use
appropriate and cost-effective conservatism to account for uncertainty. The uncertain inputs and
outputs include population growth and demand. The data for inputs and outputs include urban
development, households and employment, income, water prices, and conservation.  It is vital to
have those data before developing the engineering solution. Historical records have traditionally
been used to assess variations in natural phenomena and usually include 75 to 100 years of records.
There is now a movement toward using more predictive models. Climate change will affect
concentrations of pollutants as a function of both rainfall and runoff and may require a different
solution set.

Mr. Owen said that design conservatism has two forms,  safety factors and  redundancy.  Advantages
of safety factors include reliability and  possible excess capacity as operating efficiencies are better
understood. Disadvantages include the fact that engineers may strand assets and systems may not
operate efficiently, particularly if the design is too large.  Engineers are always balancing between
designing as efficiently as possible and as flexibly as possible. The advantages of redundancy
include protecting against unit failure and decreased need for unit maintenance. Disadvantages
include the possibility that one unit may not be operating at any given time and the added cost to
the system. Costs drive smaller redundant modules so that there is not as much excess  unused
capacity.

Engineers must decide how to manage safety factors as a function of the consequence of failure.
Costs increase with more safety factors, while consequences are often difficult to predict and cost.
The consequences are often pre-determined by regulation or by community need. These include
regulations and needs regarding drinking water, wastewater effluent, and combined sewer
overflows. Infrastructure cannot be quickly changed to incorporate changes to regulations, needs,
and/or consequences. It can often take 15 years or longer from project evaluation to operation.
Historically, planning horizons have provided some degree of conservatism. But as changes occur,
this conservatism may strand excess capacity,  which may lead to designing systems in smaller
increments. Approaches also can differ for above- and below-ground facilities. Engineers do not
want to dig below ground because digging can represent up to 75 percent  of infrastructure costs.
Engineers can also put in bigger pipes at a marginal cost; however, if the system is oversized,  this
can lead to water quality deterioration and septic and pipe degradation over time.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    13

-------
Mr. Owen stated that analyzing the "knee in the curve" regarding, for example, the building of
combined sewer overflows (CSOs) can maximize incremental benefits. However, climate change will
alter where the knee occurs; thus, managers must balance infrastructure and operational
investment and try to stay at the lower end of the cost curve. Energy prices and climate change will
affect design and process selection through a shift to renewable sources, lifecycle assessment, and
energy audits or operational modifications. Mr.  Owen said that in order to make the best use of
existing infrastructure and determine where to  invest, engineers need a regional understanding of
impacts and knowledge of how precipitation patterns and temperature will change. He concluded by
saying, "some  people see the glass half empty, and some people see the glass half full, while an
engineer sees the glass twice as big as it needs to be."

Click here to view Mr. Owen's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Mr, Owen's remarks.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   14

-------
4.     Research and Development for Water Infrastructure
       Adaptation

The water management and research communities are developing information and tools that can aid
water managers in adapting to climate change. Representatives from EPA, WRF, the Water
Environment Research Foundation (WERF), and a water utility discussed research  and tool
development strategies that are underway and what is on the research agenda for future
development. The presentations helped identify research gaps and can be used to develop agendas
for research and tool building for water infrastructure adaptation.

Click here to read the transcript of the remarks of the moderator (Carol Collier, Delaware River Basin
Commission).
4.1    EPA's Global Climate Change Science Program and Water Infrastructure
       Adaptation Research
       Dr. Joel Scheraga, EPA Office of Research and Development

Joel Scheraga began by stating that information and tools are already available to incorporate
climate change into decision making. The EPA/ORD Global Change Research Program has a well-
defined mission to provide timely and useful scientific information to support decision making. The
primary focus is to assess the potential consequences of global change, particularly climate
variability and change, in the United States.

The focus areas of the ORD  program are water quality/aquatic ecosystems, air quality, and human
health. The program focuses on adaptation research to reduce risks and to take advantage of
opportunities presented by global change. The program is stakeholder-oriented, involving
collaboration with decision makers in particular locations to support decision making by trying to
understand what research is needed and when it is needed. The program is integrated across all of
EPA's laboratories and centers.

The program is currently trying to understand how climate change will affect EPA's ability to fulfill its
statutory, regulatory, and programmatic requirements (e.g., the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and
Safe Drinking Water Act). The ORD program  is undertaking a major assessment of climate change
on water quality as part of EPA's well-defined role within the multi-agency U.S. Climate Change
Science Program  (CCSP). This role includes assessing consequences for decision makers, evaluating
adaptation options, and developing decision support tools. In its 2001 research strategy, EPA
established a goal to assess  the potential impacts of global change on water quality and aquatic
ecosystems in the United States. Major assessments under this goal included:

•   Evaluation of the consequences of global change for water quality related to pollutants and
    microbial pathogens (2005-2006).

•   Development of the BASINS decision support tool for incorporating climate variability and
    change into water management decisions (2007).

•   Evaluation of the consequences of global change for stream and river biological indicators
    (2007).

•   Evaluation of the effects of climate change on aquatic invasive species and implications for
    management and research (2007).
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   15

-------
•   Ongoing development of information and tools on global change impacts and adaptation options
    in key watersheds.

Dr.  Scheraga described several success stories, including a study of combined sewer systems
(CSSs). Three to four years ago, EPA Region 5 and Great Lakes mayors approached ORD about
looking at CSSs.  There are 770 CSSs that serve about 40 million people. The study looked at
whether climate  change matters in the redesign of systems.  It found that climate change may result
in a failure to meet the established standards. There could be an average of 237 events per year
above the control policy's objectives across 182 communities. Key conclusions of the study included:

•   Climate change will affect future performance of many CSSs in the Great Lakes region.

•   Calculations of system size should not be based on current hydrology  and historic precipitation
    data.

•   A policy decision must be made about additional investments to build  in a margin of safety.

•   The risks posed by climate change to CSSs are manageable, and this also provides an
    opportunity to link with  smart growth policies.

The Global Change Research Program is  also developing user-friendly decision support tools such  as
enhancing BASINS with the Climate Assessment Tool (CAT) (available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/BASINS/). CAT will help determine how water resources could be
affected by a range of potential changes in climate, and the effectiveness of management practices
for increasing the resilience of water resources to changes in climate.

The program is now undertaking a major water quality assessment with the Office of Water (OW).
The Global Program will work with OW to conduct a study of the sensitivity to climate change of
goals articulated in the  Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking  Water Act,  and the opportunities
available within the provisions of these acts to address the anticipated impacts. The planned water
quality assessment will  be incorporated into the new OW climate change strategy. Future planned
activities include:

•   An assessment of OW needs and priorities relating to water quality and global change.

•   Broad-based, national scale assessment of water quality  endpoints vulnerable to  global change.

•   Detailed watershed-based, stakeholder-driven studies focused on local issues and specific
    management solutions for addressing global change.

•   Detailed studies of the potential impacts and opportunities for adapting water infrastructure and
    the built environment.

•   Development of broadly applicable decision support tools to increase the capacity of OW clients
    to assess and manage the impacts of global change on water and watershed systems.

Dr.  Scheraga concluded by  mentioning several reports that are planned:

•   Report on the potential  of sustainable/green infrastructure to increase resilience to global
    climate change (2011).

•   Report investigating the adaptation techniques (e.g., water reuse) and advanced water
    conservation approaches to increase  infrastructure resilience to global climate change (2012).
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    16

-------
•   Synthesis report on the adaptive potential of water resources development and water
    infrastructure engineering and management for responding to global climate change (2013).

Click here to view Dr. Scheraga's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Dr. Scheraga's presentation,


4.2    AWWARF Research Strategy for Climate Change Adaptation
       David Rager, Greater Cincinnati Water Works

David Rager introduced the climate change strategic initiative of the American Water Works
Association Research Foundation (AWWARF, which is now known as the Water Research Foundation
or WRF). The Water Research Foundation is one of the world's largest nonprofit  organizations doing
research in critical drinking water research. WRF has more than 900 subscribers, and is largely a
utility subscriber-based organization. Most of the research is driven by the needs identified by the
utilities. The foundation has been in existence since 1960 and has completed more than 1,000
research projects for more than $450 million  in research. The foundation identified four objectives
under its climate change strategic initiative.

WRF's goals include:  (1) improve industry awareness of climate change, (2) provide a set of tools to
assess vulnerability and develop adaptation strategies,  (3) develop tools for assessing water utilities'
carbon footprint, and (4) communicate information to  internal and external stakeholders.

WRF works globally with other organizations and has held research workshops in Edinburgh,
London, and Denver. These workshops identified research priorities, such as water resources, water
quality and treatment, infrastructure,  energy and environment, and communications and
management. There are also five key focus areas that the Global Water Research Coalition, of which
WRF is a member,  developed: water resources, water quality treatment, infrastructure, energy and
environment, and communications and management.

Mr. Rager mentioned several projects the foundation is currently working on, including: (1) climate
change impacts on the regulatory landscape and evaluating opportunities for regulatory change,
(2) analysis of changes in water use in regional climate change scenarios where  anticipated water
demands and use patterns under a range of climate change scenarios are being  examined, and (3) a
project focusing on ground water quality impacts resulting from geologic carbon  sequestration.

Mr. Rager identified two issues for water utilities regarding climate change. The first issue  is energy
management, in which utilities are looking to lower their energy use.  The second issue is the
impacts of climate change on water utility viability, particularly in regards to financing. He  noted that
utilities have concerns about water conservation because of the need for future rate increases.

Planned research for WRF includes climate change impacts on the regulatory landscape;
vulnerability assessment and risk management tools; analysis of changes in water use and regional
include climate change scenarios; change of mindsets to promote  design of sustainable
infrastructure that includes climate change; and carbon sequestration and its effects on utilities.
Research not related to climate change (though still affected by climate change)  includes energy
management and desalination. Utilities are seeking answers to these  issues, and WRF is trying to lay
the groundwork for cooperation.


Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    17

-------
Click here to view Mr, Rager's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Mr. Rager's remarks.


4.3    WERF's Climate Change Research Programs
       Claudio Ternieden, Water Environment Research Foundation

Claudio Ternieden said the first priority for the Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF)
with regards to climate change research is to learn what others are doing. No one organization can
do it all alone;  cooperation is key to moving forward on climate change issues. Once there is an
understanding  of what is being done, it is important to share information on lessons learned.
Another priority is to develop tools needed to make management decisions.

WERF's desired long-term outcomes of climate change adaptation research include opportunities to
identify and reduce GHG emissions and nitrogen removal. It is important to minimize impacts to
operations due to changing hydrologic and climate conditions. Another long-term goal is to make
decisions on capital improvements in the face of uncertainty. This is where developing decision-
making tools is extremely important,  focusing on asset management. Finally, WERF wants to
communicate management approaches and their costs to customers.

WERF's long-term operations optimization goals include reducing the environmental footprint of
waste water treatment plants (WWTPs) and improving solids management practices (i.e., for
biosolids). WERF hopes to facilitate breakthroughs of innovative and emerging technologies,
improve resource recovery, minimize energy use, and shift from energy consumption to a renewable
energy production paradigm. WERF wants to take a  holistic approach to operations optimization to
adapt to climate change.

In 2008, WERF published an assessment of international practices called "State of the Science
Report: Energy and Resource Recovery from Sludge." It included technical, capital cost, and
operating  and  management cost information for numerous technologies in various stages of
development. The report uses the "triple bottom line" approach to look at social, economic, and
environmental  considerations. Climate change research issues for WERF include the development of
value-added research to provide a solid understanding of the likely impacts of climate change,
including impacts on water quality, wastewater services, and costs. Research into developing
planning tools  and operational management to cost-effectively mitigate and adapt to climate change
is another priority.

WERF's "Buyer's Guide to Climate Risk Information"  provides guidance on the availability of climate
change information for planning. It contains guidance on the use and interpretation of downscaled
climate model  results, including the latest climate  risk information and tools. The guide is a
collaborative effort with AWWARF and the UK Water Industry Research (UKWIR). Coordinating with
WRF to help fill in research gaps, WERF has recently issued a request for proposals for a research
team to develop a white paper to characterize climate change impacts on clean water. WERF
expects the paper to be completed by July 2009.

WERF has identified further wastewater climate change research that includes demonstrating
sequestration of carbon in  biosolids. It is also researching the development of infrastructure
planning that can adopt cost-effective responses to climate change. Other areas of research include
identifying carbon footprints in new infrastructure, methane emissions from septic systems and force

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   18

-------
mains, and other fugitive sources. Finally, WERF hopes to identify barriers to better climate change
adaptation and mitigation. Mr. Ternieden left the audience with two questions to consider: What are
your priorities  in wastewater climate change research? What tools will you need to make
management decisions in the light of climate change?

Click here to view Mr, Ternieden's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Mr, Ternieden's presentation,


4.4    Incorporating Climatic Uncertainties into Water Planning
       Marc Waage, Denver Water/Water Utility Climate Alliance (WUCA)

Marc Waage began by stating that traditional water supply planning is based on observed weather
and hydrology. It assumes historic variability that history repeats itself and that climate is stationary.
This traditional method fails to properly treat the uncertainties from a changing climate. Water
utilities performing assessments of their vulnerability to climate change are faced with a large set of
future climate  projections. There is significant uncertainty about precipitation changes, and water
supply and demand is very sensitive to small changes in climate. When utilities try to incorporate
climate change projections into planning, they must use a minimum of three climate scenarios.

Traditional planning has relied solely on historical variability. Rather than planning for a small
number of outcomes, based on recorded weather and hydrology time series data,  utilities have  new
planning methods available that can use more than 500 climate scenarios with many sources of
uncertainty in  addition to climate change.  Utilities need to accept and plan for this large amount of
uncertainty. Mr. Waage introduced the idea of the cone of uncertainty. This concept is used to
compare traditional planning with what may be needed in terms of new planning concepts.
Uncertainty can grow over time  and create a larger cone; therefore, rather than trying to plan
optimally for a small  set of possible outcomes from a static climate situation, there is a need to  plan
for robust solutions that work well under a range of possible outcomes over time.

Mr. Waage facetiously presented the seven steps to adaptation, illustrating the importance  of
uncertainty in  new planning concepts:  1. Deny Uncertainty; 2. Debate Uncertainty; 3. Investigate
Uncertainty; 4. Attempt to Reduce Uncertainty; 5. Accept Uncertainty; 6. Plan for Uncertainty; and
7. Adapt to Uncertainty.

WUCA decision support objectives include aiding in the transition from stationarity- to uncertainty-
based planning methods. WUCA hopes to  bridge the gap between projections and the need to make
decisions. It aims to  identify, understand,  and evaluate decision support methods that will allow
climate uncertainties to be incorporated into planning. Finally, WUCA hopes to  raise awareness  of
decision support needs and promote research to improve methods. A white  paper will be published
in April to identify and evaluate different planning methods.

Mr. Waage named four promising planning methods. Scenario planning is a  systematic way to
develop many  outcomes in the future.  It uses a small number of equally likely scenarios, and in the
short run, it identifies commonality among scenarios. Scenarios are  more  about paradigms  (e.g.,
high water quality, green (environmental) conditions, economic woes). Two case studies on scenario
planning were  conducted in Tucson, Arizona and Denver, Colorado.  Denver Water incorporated
scenario planning  into its integrated assessment plans.


Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                     19

-------
Robust decision makingIs a computer analysis of many equally likely scenarios. It includes iteration,
hedging, and decision points. The method is not optimal, but is more robust than scenario planning.
Two case studies on robust decision making were developed for the Inland Empire (California)
Municipal Water District and Denver Water.

Decision analysis is an older method that uses decision trees and probabilities and minimizes
expected costs. The analysis can apply probabilities from recent climate models.

A real options method combines decision analysis and financial theory.  It also involves decision tree
and financial hedging concepts.

Mr. Waage concluded that traditional planning tools are inadequate to deal with climate change.
Utility managers are saying that they are overwhelmed by the amount of uncertainty that climate
change represents, but they still want to incorporate climate change into planning. WUCA is
conducting research to identify, understand, and modify new methods. It is developing case studies
and promoting these methods.

Click here to view Mr.  Waage's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Mr. Waage's remarks.
Summary of Discussion Session

A water manager raised the issue of carbon expenditures relating to water quality benefits (How
many tons of carbon dioxide equivalent are worth water quality benefits?) A water researcher
answered that this is a question that will be addressed in the future, but WERF is currently looking
at nutrient removal. A climate impacts researcher added that Congress wants to focus on mitigation
as well. This question needs to be addressed. His program is looking more at mitigation, and EPA is
looking at the ancillary benefits of adaptation investment for mitigation.

A climate impacts researcher asked to what extent research is being coordinated. Another climate
impacts researcher answered that within the CCSP is a major effort to look  at the appropriate ways
to do adaptation research  and develop decision support tools. CCSP members are addressing the
relative roles of different entities (e.g., federal, state, and private). There are different roles for
different organizations, but he does not know the answer because they are currently trying to
answer that question. They have test-beds to learn what it takes to adapt effectively to develop
decision support tools (e.g., partnership with the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
to develop their climate change  strategy). David Rager added that WERF is a subscriber-based
organization and their clients expect work be coordinated. There are laboratories of knowledge in
different areas. It is good to consider different ideas, and WERF has received good unsolicited ideas.
WERF currently has peer review groups and advisory committees, but there is a need for
independent research.

A member of the engineering community offered a third-order problem: uncertainty about
uncertainty is uncertain. We should do research on operations because reservoir management can
be just as effective as new construction. The conjunctive operations of two  reservoirs have provided
more reliability than five new reservoirs. Another example given was that a small increase in energy
efficiency in Southern Nevada led to more benefits. In New York,  a change  in operations will do as
well  in controlling turbidity as in building new infrastructure. A small increase in efficiency will give
more benefits than from everything we build in the future.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   20

-------
A water manager asked for more information on the Chicago example. A climate impacts researcher
answered that EPA made a presentation to the mayors of Great Lake cities. The presentation
included  a scenario analysis, and it tried to bound plausible climate outcomes, downscaled to the
Great Lake region. The analysis produced a robust set of outcomes and  all cases had more water
quality exceedences. Subsequently, Mayor Daley of Chicago and Chicago's Chief Engineer developed
Chicago's smart growth initiative. For example, they expanded combined sewer overflow operations
using green infrastructure, began using more permeable materials for paving, and began building
culverts better. Chicago recently released a climate change strategy that includes adaptation.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   21

-------
5.     Climate Change  Impacts on  Hydrology and Water Resource
       Management

This track focused on outputs from modeling efforts by the climate science community that can be
used by water resource managers for decision making, primarily identifying climate change
information that is now available or may become available within a few years. The sessions focused
on methods of developing higher resolution output (particularly precipitation) from climate models
through downscaling, as well as quantifying and understanding model output uncertainties, and how
model output is being used in decision making. The track also covered how observed climate data
can be used to support decision making in conjunction with downscaled model output.

5.1    Projecting Hydroclimatic Changes - Downscaling

One of the difficulties in using climate model projections to support decision making is the low
resolution from general circulation models (GCMs). These models project climate change on grid
boxes that are typically several hundred miles wide - an areal resolution too coarse for most water
resource decision making. Downscaling can produce results with higher resolution. Dynamical
downscaling using regional climate models (RCMs) can yield estimates at a scale of tens of miles,
while statistical downscaling methods can give point estimates or regional estimates at less than 10
miles. Downscaling typically use  probabilistic modeling approaches that incorporate statistical data
to enable decision makers to make their decisions  based on both the probability of an event as well
as the risk or uncertainty associated with that decision. This session reviewed developments in
downscaling and how downscaled output could be used  in decision making.

Click here to read the transcript of the moderator's remarks.
Downscaling or Decision-Scaling? An Overview of Downscaling
Dr. Casey Brown, University of Massachusetts

Downscaling refers to the process of translating climate projections from coarse resolution GCMs to
finer spatial resolution that is considered more  useful for assessing local and regional climate change
impacts. GCM outputs are for the most part applicable at the "continental scale" with seasonal or
annual values. In addition, they have inherent uncertainties. These uncertainties are due to several
reasons, including that models typically do not  account for the effects of topography and other
factors that influence the climate system. Further, correlation with 20th century data does not
necessarily imply skill in projecting climate in the 21st century. To account for this uncertainty and
the inevitability of model errors, using an "ensembling" approach that generates means and medians
from a suite of models often provides higher levels of projection confidence.

Downscaling methods are typically categorized  as statistical or dynamical. The statistical method is
generally simpler and more efficient, using statistical relationships between large-scale circulation
and regional climate to derive regional climate  information. It is the preferred method when
estimates of specific variables, especially at point locations, are the primary objective. However, this
method can produce results that are not based on a true understanding of regional  climate
dynamics. Dynamical downscaling nests higher resolution RCMs within GCMs to generate regional
climate information, an approach that allows users to incorporate topographic features such as
mountains. While this method typically  produces more realistic projections vis-a-vis  regional


Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    22

-------
topography, the long computational times required and the uncertainties in the models often
outweigh the benefits of this method.

Recognizing the shortcomings of both methods, Casey Brown presented a  related process called
decision-scaling as a recommended alternative to traditional downscaling methods. Whereas
downscaling focuses on increasing spatial and temporal resolutions of GCM outputs, decision-scaling
uses a bottom-up approach that looks at the climate sensitivities of a system or of decisions. Climate
information is then tailored to assist decision making, essentially beginning by specifying what is
needed from the GCM outputs. The three steps involved in this process are (1) identifying the
system or decision vulnerabilities to climate;  (2) characterizing the probability of those climate
hazards (risks); and (3) using systematic decision approaches to address these climate risks. Dr.
Brown provided an example scenario. In the example, the decision to  be made is whether it is better
to build two or three dams on the Blue Nile  in Ethiopia in the face of climate change. The first step
after identifying this problem would be to determine if the benefit-cost ratio is sensitive to changes
in climate. The  second step would be to estimate the probability of changes that  favor one option
over the alternative. The final step is to perform the final decision analysis by multiplying the
benefit-cost ratio by the probability of each scenario.  Dr.  Brown provided data that could be used in
the hypothetical decision-scaling process to  demonstrate  why building three dams would be the best
option, given the probabilities of each climate change scenario considered.

Click here to view Dr. Brown's presentation.

Click here to read the transcripts of Dr. Brown's remarks.
Dynamic Downscaling Efforts at EPA: Regional Linkages to NOAA and NASA Global Scale
Models
Dr. Alice Gilliland, EPA ORD National Exposure Research Laboratory

The National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) is providing air quality modeling expertise for
the EPA ORD Climate Impact on Regional Air Quality (CIRAQ) project. The objective of the project,
initiated in 2002, is to examine potential climate change impacts on ozone and particulate matter
using the regional-scale Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model linked with global scale
climate and chemical transport models. Through this effort, EPA has concluded increases in ozone
due to climate change were fairly robust across many global-scale and downscaled climate and air
quality studies. However, EPA also found that the impacts on concentrations of fine particles  (PM2.5)
in the air are strongly driven by precipitation changes in the United States, but that precipitation is
one of the most difficult fields to model. The models' simulations of current precipitation differ
substantially from the observations.  The analyses suggest a strong need for new regional  climate
scenarios.

NERL is  currently expanding its in-house climate studies and developing new regional climate
modeling (i.e., downscaling) applications. As part of this effort, NERL is relying on partnerships with
other agencies using GCMs, including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration  (NOAA). NERL is also developing staff
expertise in regional meteorological  modeling and is working with National Center for Atmospheric
Research (NCAR) Weather Research and Forecasting Model and others. This has led to an increased
confidence in NERL's dynamical downscaling methodologies, using present-day (verifiable)
scenarios. This increase in confidence will hopefully enable NERL to focus on addressing


Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   23

-------
precipitation and other uncertainties in RCMs, where in previous work the focus on was only on air
quality.

Click here to view Dr.  Gill/land's presentation.

Click here to read the transcripts of Dr.  Gilliland's remarks.
Web-Archive of Statistically Downscaled Climate Projections for the Contiguous
United States
Levi Brekke, P.E., Bureau of Reclamation Technical Services Center

The U.S.  Bureau of Reclamation in the Department of the Interior,  in collaboration with researchers
from Santa Clara University and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, has developed a Web-
based public-access archive of 112 versions of downscaled climate  projections at one-eighth degree
resolution (approximately 8 miles). This archive can help water managers by giving their analysts
access to climate projection information at basin-relevant resolution.  In addition, having an archive
of a large set of these projections can help support assessments of projection uncertainty and risk-
based adaptation planning by helping analysts understand the variability of different projections,
which can enable them to make decisions in the face of uncertainty accordingly.

Levi Brekke provided an overview of the downscaling method used to produce the projections
included in the archive. The Bureau of Reclamation used a non-dynamical, gridded method called
"bias-correction spatial disaggregation." This method uses bias correction approaches at the coarse
scale to adjust GCM output so that it statistically matches observed temperature and precipitation
data during common historical  overlap periods. It then spatially downscales the information from
coarse resolution to fine, interpolating monthly temperature and precipitation to a one-eighth degree
resolution.

Dr. Brekke provided an overview  of the archive's Web site and its functions. The archive is available
at http://gdo-dcp.ucllnl.org/downscaled cmip3 projections/.

Click here to view Dr. Brekke'spresentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Dr. Brekke's remarks.
The North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program: A Brief Overview
Dr. Linda Mearns, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research


Since 2006, the North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program (NARCCAP) has been
working on developing high-resolution climate change simulations that investigate multiple
uncertainties in regional  scale projections of future climate and that generate climate change
scenarios. Development  of these scenarios will help in researching and assessing  climate change
impacts by providing critical scenario inputs to a broad community of users that includes researchers
focusing on dynamical and statistical downscaling, regional analysis of NARCCAP  results, and
impacts studies. NARCCAP is running a set of RCMs nested in and driven by a set of atmosphere-
ocean general  circulation models (AOGCMs) over the conterminous United States and most of
Canada.

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    24

-------
Phase I of the program involved 25-year simulations using NOAA's National Centers for
Environmental Prediction's (NCEP)-Reanalysis boundary conditions from 1979 through 2004. Phase
II involved developing climate change simulations. NARCCAP performed RCM runs with six different
RCMs at 50-km  resolution nested in four different current and future AOGCM runs. This was followed
by conducting time-slide experiments at 50-km resolution for comparison with the RCM runs. In
comparing these runs, NARCCAP is attempting to quantify uncertainty at regional scales, using
probabilistic approaches. NARCCAP recognizes opportunities for "double-nesting" (i.e., conducting
further downscaling of already downscaled runs at higher resolutions) over specific regions,  which
includes potential participation of other RCM groups (e.g., NOAA's Climate Program Office's Regional
Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISAs)).  NARCCAP is making the data they collect available
for the climate impacts community, the climate analysis community, and regional modelers who
wish to achieve  higher resolutions by double nesting. For example, these other regional modelers
can take the boundary conditions from the RCM runs NARCCAP has produced at 50-km resolution
and then downscale them even further over  a smaller domain (e.g., the Northeast United States at
25-km resolution).

Click here to view Dr. Mearn's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Dr. Mearn's remarks.
Summary of Discussion Session

An initial question was broached by a climate change impacts researcher relating to the concern
about the amount of time required to run the computations for an ensemble of GCMs and RCMs.
The question was raised in the context of obtaining projections of changes in extreme events, such
as the maximum daily precipitation  in a year. While using an ensemble is time-consuming, using
fewer GCMs  could mean that projections are less robust. The following questions were asked: Is it
possible to get away from the high  resource and time costs of having to dynamically downscale 20+
GCM runs in order to have a usable analysis of potential  precipitation at the local scale?
Acknowledging that computational ability is continually improving, is there a better way to be
applying computational work? The current computation is at 25-km  resolution, but should the
climate modeling community be doing more to achieve higher resolutions?

Regarding the difficulty of communication between water utility managers and the climate modeling
community,  a water utility  manager commented that from the water utility perspective, the question
is, "What is the decision making value of the GCM work?" For example, if there is a 10 percent
decrease in precipitation, will climate models produce a level of certainty that water resource
managers can take to their policy makers or ratepayers today or in the future to argue for more
investment? "Actionability" is a different issue from uncertainty. At what point can we have strong
enough  analyses to know when to take action? A climate modeler highlighted the fact that there is a
lack of agreement on what is agreed on, and that many  in the climate modeling community are
currently working to clarify the existence and nature of the inherent uncertainties. As for
actionability, the water  utility manager  stated that although climate-modeling work has  not
necessarily been done for policy makers, it could be made more useful to them. The climate modeler
responded that the concept of actionability needs to be reexamined.

One water research engineer highlighted the need to connect the climate modeling community with
water utility  managers,  and identified this as a critical step in linking climate science and climate
policy. Using a bottom-up approach can help strengthen this link. Such an approach could involve
first looking  at changes that could hypothetically present problems for the  utility (e.g., a 10 percent

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   25

-------
decrease in precipitation or a threshold extreme rain event). Looking at the model output second
can help make model outputs more useful to water utility managers within the context of system
vulnerabilities.

With respect to actionability, a climate researcher asserted that while thresholds are important, one
cannot defend a threshold of actionability without confidence in the outputs of the GCMs. Statistical
downscaling methods cannot catch everything, but having an ensemble of model outputs (e.g., the
Bureau of Reclamation  archive) can help reach an actionable level of certainty by providing a suite
of model outputs from which more robust projections can be extracted. However, where the level of
actionability exists  is a matter of discretion for practitioners. Much more discussion on this issue is
needed to help flesh out a point of actionability vis-a-vis the level of associated uncertainty.

A climate change researcher commented that it is important not to forget that even  if the
downscaling methods can be shown to be effective; there is still a considerable degree of
uncertainty with respect to  emissions scenarios and climate sensitivities. Application of even the
most effective downscaling methods, though not fruitless, still does not result in certainty, and
perhaps more focus should be paid to bottom-up methods of downscaling that are comparable to
the decision-scaling concept.

A water research engineer expanded  on the notion of decision-scaling, explaining that in this
approach there is a need to evaluate  the sensitivities to a decision before  looking at the decision
itself. Some decisions are sensitive to climate change (e.g., increases in precipitation and
temperature), while some are not. When we start with the decision, we can evaluate the various
types of climate change processes that could affect the decision, and then use all tools available to
get an estimate of  the potential impacts in the event that those processes occur.

A water utility manager reminded  the group that from the perspective of the people in his position,
the uncertainties associated with climate change  and climate modeling are only one type of
uncertainty the water utility community deals with.  Even without climate change, much of the
country's underground  aquifers are nearly depleted, and utilities are already working on ways to
continue to meet demand in the face of these shortages.  It was brought up that maybe the focus
should be on  looking at water shortage adaptation strategies that need to be  implemented anyway,
and finding synergies between these  strategies and other climate change  adaptation strategies,
rather than focusing solely on downscaling climate change model outputs.

With respect to the notion of actionability, a water consultant noted that the actionability standard
for water utility managers is typically based on past experience. The common maxim is, "I have to
at least be able to  handle everything  I've seen in the past, and still be comfortable with my ability to
handle events that exceed these limits." Operating toward the future, while knowing what has been
seen and done in the past,  is still the standard for water utility managers, as opposed to planning
for unseen future events. Utilities  need to ensure that over the long-term supplies are adequate to
meet demands. Model output can  be  used to test the robustness of a system. If climate change
means objectives may not be met, then the utilities may need to buy time. Water systems are
managed for  multiple objectives and  different objectives should be considered. Stakeholders can  be
brought in to do computer simulations of alternatives.

A water resources consultant commented that from the practitioner's perspective, many water
utilities are asking their engineers  and consultants to develop projections for them. It would be
advantageous for these practitioners  and the water resources community  as a whole to have a
standard practice for developing these projections.  Guidance is needed to ensure uniformity, and to
improve decision making in the face of uncertainty, which could  be a role  for EPA.

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   26

-------
5.2    Projecting Hydroclimatic Changes - Local Applications of Downscaling

A key component of adaptation is the understanding of risks that water utilities and other managers
face. Typically, this has been done through estimating hydroclimatic changes at a relevant scale for
water management, e.g., water basins. Outputs from climate models such as temperature and
precipitation are often entered into hydrological models to estimate the change in runoff.
Management models may then be used to examine  implications for water resource management.
This session explored how such assessments have been done and how they can be improved in the
future.

Click here to read the transcript of the moderator's remarks.
Regional Modeling for the Pacific Northwest
Dr. Dennis Lettenmaier, University of Washington

In this presentation, Dennis Lettenmaier discussed the activities and findings of the Climate Impacts
Group (CIG), a research group that is part of the Center for Science in the Earth System at the
University of Washington. CIG's research focuses on the intersection of climate science and  public
policy relating to water resources, aquatic ecosystems, forests, and coasts in the Pacific Northwest.
CIG is one of eight Regional Integrated  Sciences and Assessments (RISA) programs funded by
NOAA to research climate-sensitive issues of concern to decision makers  and policy planners. CIG
conducts monthly reviews of a regional  climate outlook it has developed for  the Pacific Northwest,
and performs updates to the outlook as appropriate. The outlook is available at:
http://cses.washington.edu/cig/fpt/cloutlook.shtml.

Dr. Lettenmaier presented some of the water resource-related findings from CIG's  research. He
explained that many water-related climate change  trends are well documented, such as decreasing
snowpack, but that not all changes in water resource-related processes are necessarily due to
climate change. CIG's  research has looked at trends in water resources in several locations,
including the Yakima River basin and the Puget Sound basin, where trends show increases in winter
water flows and decreases in summer water flows. Reduced summer flows are presenting problems
for agriculture water uses withjunior rights. Climate change-related and  natural variations in
precipitation and temperature are believed to be contributing to these changes in water flows,  and
can have indirect impacts on aquatic ecosystems. For example, fish populations in  the region's rivers
are sensitive to temperature changes, and many of the region's programs for protecting these fish
populations have yet to begin planning for the potential temperature impacts of climate change.
Another indirect impact of changes in precipitation, temperature, and stream flow is the affect on
the ability to generate sufficient and reliable electricity at hydroelectric dams. Supplies for urban
water uses such as for Seattle are estimated to have no or small decreases in  reliability.

Dr. Lettenmaier recommended that the  climate modeling community pay more attention to
recognizing and addressing uncertainties in model  outputs and highlighted the importance of using
ensembling methods of downscaling to  diminish the significance of  single-model uncertainties.  In
conclusion. Dr. Lettenmaier drew the participants' attention to the lack of understanding between
the science and user community,  and identified this as an important area to  focus on in future
activities.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    27

-------
Click here to view Dr. Lettenmaier's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Dr. Lettenmaier's presentation.


Hydrodimatic Modeling for Water Resources Planning in the City of New York
Dr. David Major, Columbia University

David Major provided a presentation on how hydroclimatic modeling is being incorporated into water
resources planning in New York City. New York City has been accounting for climate change in its
planning processes for several years,  beginning with the Metro East Coast report published in 2001
as part of the National Assessment of Climate Variability and Change. Dr.  Major stated that having
continuity of people working on climate change has been helpful in ensuring that climate change is
invariably considered in city planning  processes. City agencies involved in planning processes that
have or are currently incorporating climate change projections include the Department of
Environmental Protection, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Climate Change Adaptation
Task Force, and the city's Panel on Climate Change.

The Center for Climate Systems Research (CCSR) at Columbia University is working on downscaling
GCMs to develop regional climate information to assist city agencies in incorporating climate change
into their plans. The CCSR has run temperature and precipitation scenarios from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's  (IPCC's) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) through
sixteen GCM models, and sea-level rise scenarios from the AR4 through seven GCM models. The
AR4 emissions scenarios that they have used include B1, A1B, and A2 (low,  medium, and
moderately high). The output from these runs has been downscaled to the New York City region
from model grid boxes, and the results have been broken down into planning periods that extend
from the present to the 2020s, the 2050s, and the 2080s. The results are validated using hind-
casting methods.

Dr. Major presented some conclusions from CCSR's findings. Specifically, the CCSR found that over
time, models project that temperatures will  increase from the 2020s to the 2050s and the 2080s,
but there is increasing diversity and variation as to the amount that temperature will  increase.  With
precipitation, the models show that there will be generally more precipitation in the future, but with
greater certainty with respect to the amount. For sea-level rise,  the models  project that there will be
generally an increase in sea-level rise in future decades, but there is less certainty as to the
magnitude. Melting of major ice sheets has  not been included. The uncertainties in these model
projections highlight the importance of erring on the side of greater change and risk. Dr.  Major
provided the example of leaving room to build new retaining walls if sea levels rise high enough,
even if it is not yet certain that sea levels will indeed rise high enough to warrant building new walls.
Dr. Major concluded by saying that climate change scenarios are now fully a part of New York  City
agencies' planning processes, and that the city is in the process of developing city-wide "climate
protection levels."

Click here to view Dr. Major's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Dr. Major's remarks.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    28

-------
Predictive Capacity in the Colorado River Basin
Brad Udall, University of Colorado - NOAA Western Water Assessment

Brad Udall presented on the findings of the Western Water Assessment at the University of
Colorado, a NOAA RISA program that has been investigating flow projections for the Colorado River
Basin. For years, it has been accepted that the Colorado River Basin is at risk of flow reductions.
Since 1970, a temperature increase of two degrees Fahrenheit has  been observed in the basin,  and
snowpack in March, April, and May has significantly decreased at higher altitudes. In addition, at the
end of the Colorado River at Lakes Mead and Powell, water reservoir supplies and recharge
capabilities are shrinking while demand increases. Several studies have sought to project the range
of potential impacts of future climate  change on the river's flow, but the results generated are
extremely broad, with flow decrease estimates ranging from 6 percent to 45percent by 2050. The
more recent studies tend to be closer to the smaller changes in runoff.

Mr. Udall explained how the Western  Water  Assessment is working  to reconcile the discrepancies
between the projections. The overall approach the program is using is to first run hydrology models
during known past periods,  using the same historic data in each of  the different hydrology models,
to produce changes in streamflow with respect to temperature and  precipitation. The second step is
to drive the hydrology models with future climate change projections. This process has resulted in
several major findings. With respect to precipitation, the models showed that a 10 percent change in
precipitation produces an approximately 20 percent change in streamflow.  Temperature was more
variable, however, with a one degree Celsius change in temperature producing changes in
streamflow ranging from 2 percent to 9 percent depending on the model.

Dr. Rajagopalan Balaji and colleagues at the University of Colorado  recalculated Barnett's study on
drying of the Colorado River1 (which found a 50 percent chance of  Lakes Mead and  Powell going dry
by 2021) and found a 5 to 12 percent chance of Lakes Mead and Powell drying by 2026.

Mr. Udall noted that the  Brookings Institute  published a paper by Pat Mulroy calling for a single Los
Alamos type entity to combine current and potential future research on water resources and for
more collaboration among water agencies.

The results of the project's efforts highlight the importance of modeling at  high areal resolutions. In
addition, Mr. Udall noted that a future emphasis will need to be on  utilizing consistent GCM-derived
temperature and precipitation projections to drive different hydrology models, so that outputs can
be compared.

Click here to view Mr. Udall's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Mr, Udall's remarks.
1  Barnett, T. P. and Pierce, D. W., 2008: When will Lake Mead run dry? J. Water Resources
Research, v. 44, W03201, doi:10.1029/2007WR006704.

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    29

-------
Summary of Discussion Session


To open the discussion session, a climatologist raised the question, "What would happen to water
resource managers' "actionability" thresholds if we experience little or no additional climate change
impacts over the next 10 years, but still understand that changes are inevitable in the long-term?"
One response from a climate change impacts researcher was that investing in local  infrastructure
requires that local planners look more than twenty years into the future anyway, so it would not be
very problematic if we do not see significant climate change impacts in the next ten years. Many
local governments, particularly Seattle, New York City, and  Boston, have been planning for climate
change for several years in the face of current climate change impacts, which have  not been
overwhelming. Maybe EPA could adopt rules to require local governments to  incorporate  climate
change into their plans to ensure that they do so even if significant climate change  impacts are not
experienced in the near future.

A water utility manager made the comment that if the public does not see evidence of climate
change in the near future, it could be difficult for water utilities to ask ratepayers for additional
money to implement climate change adaptation strategies.  A climatologist stated that there is a 10
percent to 15 percent chance that there will be cooling effects over the next decade before
temperatures begin to increase in subsequent decades. The challenge will be explaining the
importance of adaptive measures in the immediate future to the public. How do we make the long-
term,  global impacts of climate change tangible on the  local level in the near future? A hydrologist
and climate  change impacts researcher made the point that the impacts of climate change are
already evident in some places in the country (e.g., places with decreasing snowpack), and that the
public is already sensitive to the need for adaptive measures.

A climate  researcher raised the issue of discrepancies in studies on the impacts of climate change.
Pointing to Mr. Udall's presentation on predicting streamflow in the Colorado  River basin, the
commenter made the point that researchers are  taking many different approaches to exploring the
same  problems, and that we have no effective way to verify the results, which are often
inconsistent. A climate change impacts researcher agreed, noting that while most studies agree on
the direction that trends will take (e.g., a decrease in streamflow), there is rarely concordance on
the magnitude of the change.

A climate change researcher raised the question, "What level of precision is necessary for policy
makers in order for them to act?" If we know the direction of the change, is that sufficient? Or is
knowledge of the  magnitude of the change absolutely necessary? A water utility manager responded
that from the utility's perspective, they are accustomed to dealing with variability and uncertainty. In
addition, they have little room for error and must always judge the effectiveness of their  plans on
the ability of the plans to succeed  in extreme situations, even though the ratepayers do not always
recognize the amount of money that is spent planning for events that rarely,  if ever, occur. This sort
of thinking applies in the case of climate change. It is hard to know what climate change impacts
will do to water resources and utility operations.  Moreover,  we often overlook indirect effects  on
other  key issues. For example,  reduced streamflow in the Colorado River basin could result in an
inability to generate electricity at Hoover Dam, which could have significant implications across a
large region. Water resource managers and utilities need to continue to plan  for low probability, high
impact events. We do not wait for absolute certainty; rather, we act with a preponderance of
evidence.

Another water utility manager noted that the more intense stormwater events is another indirect
effect of climate change impacts that many wastewater utilities will need to prepare for. Some have
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   30

-------
started to incorporate stormwater contingencies into their plans, but much more progress is needed.
A wastewater manager made the comment that the science community is not yet providing the
practitioners with adequate information to plan for more intense stormwater events. The point was
also made by another wastewater manager that wastewater treatment facility managers are in a
different situation from water utility managers in that the public perceives them differently.

A water resources manager asked what information the wastewater treatment community needs in
order to begin incorporating climate change into their planning documents.  A climate change
impacts researcher suggested that less variability in data about intense stormwater would be very
helpful.  In New York City, the city has been planning wastewater treatment infrastructure using
intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) curves, but there is concern that developing IDF curves for the
future could lead to lawsuits. A climate change impacts researcher commented that in King County,
the county's wastewater treatment department has been looking at downscaled climate information,
but not as far into the future as the water resource managers. The point  was also made that the
wastewater treatment community has to deal with  additional concerns, namely environmental
standards (e.g., with stormwater ponds), that are not applicable to the water resource management
community.

A water resources engineer raised the issue of whether modeling approaches can be  revised to be
more effective.  Engineers would benefit from having access to models that  produce output based on
the integration of design storms, which would enhance long-term planning. A research hydrologist
noted that there is  a significant need for the science community to provide  information on design
storms.

A hydrologist brought up the issue of the need for up-to-date data. Many people are concerned only
about the climate change projections and variability that comes out of models, but much of the data
that go into calculations of intense precipitation is obsolete, sometimes dating back to the 1960s.
Federal  Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood maps are an example of how model outputs
are used even though the inputs are no longer appropriate. It seems that this issue is of little
concern among the  practitioner community compared to the variability of the outputs. There  has
been very little funding provided to NOAA to update these data.

A hydrologist and climate change impacts researcher commented that it is important to understand
where climate sensitivities reside. Downscaling methods often produce results that could be
plausible, but are not suitable for the short-term because they often require too much computation
time. For the short-term, 25-hour storm analyses require long computations and  bias correction
before the information can be used, and this requires time. At what scale is it necessary to model
impacts in the face of short-term needs? How far down must we scale climate information in  order
to be able to take action?

A hydrologist raised the issue of how the public will react to climate change, stating that adaptation
is a behavioral-social issue and  that we must treat  it as such if we are going to take action. It is
extremely important that the water resources community have at its disposal the tools necessary to
communicate to the public the importance of adaptation. These tools exist but they are not
standardized and there is no accepted process for training those who would be using the tools. To
effectively incorporate climate change into water resource management,  it is necessary for these
tools to  be publicly available to  the water resource  management community, and standardization
and education in using these tools is imperative. A  hydrologist responded that these tools, while
extant, are outdated. EPA should encourage the teaching of 21st century tools, such as on
probability and risk, and should require regulators to use the new tools. A participant from the


Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   31

-------
modeling community stated that it is absolutely imperative that the water management community
prioritize efforts to develop standardized tools.

A climate change researcher raised the question, "What form should such a tool take? Should it be
something comparable to the 7Q10, the seven-day, consecutive low flow with a ten-year return
frequency (the lowest stream flow for seven consecutive days that would be expected to occur once
in ten years)?" A hydrologist said that the 7Q10 is updated every few decades, but it depends on
agreements with state agencies.

A climate change researcher suggested that EPA should maybe not focus so much on GCM and
regional climate model (RCM) outputs too far into the future, and should adopt a "segmentation"
approach that considers immediate short-term impacts that need to be addressed first.  Hundred-
year floodplains might not be as critical as the once-a-year flood, or the one-year-in-ten flood. We
need to break down the time periods to identify different decision points.

A hydrologist made the point that from the water resource manager's perspective, when looking at
future projections, it is important to start by considering one's objectives (i.e., what one is managing
for), which are often complex and interrelated. Water managers do not manage for the environment
as a whole; they manage for a suite of environmental needs. Another water manager noted that this
is the difference between top-down and bottom-up approaches to downscaling, and that it seems
like bottom-up methods might be more appropriate given the diversity of objectives. A climate
change impacts researcher noted that an ensembled top-down  approach can also be effective in a
given situation. Some objectives are more  conducive to top-down approaches (e.g., hydropower
production), while others  are not (e.g., ecosystem management).

A hydrologist noted the importance of recognizing observed  data when developing and  modifying
models. A great deal of attention is paid to the models themselves, and the outputs they generate,
but we need to pay attention to whether the models reflect reality. We should also be concentrating
on archiving observed  data in a useable fashion. A climate change impacts researcher noted that
while it is good that the data be  archived and made available, it needs to be collected and presented
in a helpful way, possibly in a single location. A climatologist said that stream gauges and the hydro-
monitoring network are the backbone of climate observations and that much of the country's data
monitoring infrastructure  is being shut down or not replaced due to lack of funds. A water resources
consultant responded that there  needs to be a Congressional mandate requiring EPA to regulate for
the best available information, and to invest in enhanced observation capabilities.
5.3    Evaluating Hydoclimatic Change for Water Infrastructure Adaptation - Part I

How to use observations is a critical part of adapting to climate change. This session explored what
hydrologic changes are and are not being detected in the observed climate record. The detection of
trends is a matter of interpretation and, as pointed out, made more difficult when the monitoring
network is degrading. The challenge of adapting to climate change is complicated when
observations are inconsistent with model projections.

Click here to read the remarks of the moderator (Dr. Dan Sheer).
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   32

-------
Hydrology and Climate Change: What Do We Actually Know?
Dr. Robert Hirsch, U.S. Geological Society

Robert Hirsch presented on the topic of water resource planning in the post-stationarity age. He
began with an overview of the basics of water resource planning, explaining that planning is
centered on risk-cost tradeoffs. These tradeoffs have been the subject of much research and
information collection, beginning with the Harvard Water Program in the late 1950s. Dr. Hirsch also
highlighted the fact that water planning analyses  require  planners to make certain assumptions
about the distribution of hydrologic variables (e.g., streamflow), which makes it necessary to
reevaluate current practices that have been in use since the 1950s, which are based on an
assumption of a  stationary climate (i.e., observed data from recent decades can be used to  project
future climate conditions).

Recent studies suggest that the concept of stationarity is no longer appropriate for water resource
planning and  that finding a successor to this approach is  a critical step in adapting to climate
change. Moreover, modeling should  be used to synthesize observations - not  replace them - and in
a nonstationary world, continuous and accurate recording of observations is critical.

There is currently significant variability in the precision of data on streamflow  conditions. For
instance, data show that flow timing generally shifts in areas where snowpack is significant, even
though there  is not always evidence of runoff volume changes. The data also  show that low flows
and average flows are predominantly increasing, while changes in flooding and changes in
groundwater  remain very unclear. With respect to flooding, the data do not provide clear evidence
that flooding  is getting worse, only that flood damages are increasing. The latter  may be the result
of changes in society (e.g., increasing construction in floodplains and property values). As for
changes  in groundwater. Dr. Hirsch explained that the data provide very little  clarity about what can
be expected in the future.

Dr. Hirsch presented  several graphics depicting changes in stream flows in various locations around
the country, explaining what historical data can and cannot tell us about the future. One important
thing the data do tell us. Dr. Hirsch pointed  out, is that despite public  beliefs that climate change
has been - and will continue to - make the  globe hotter and drier, evidence shows that
approximately 50 percent of locations around the nation experienced increases in annual median
flows  from 1941-1971 to 1971-1999 and almost no sites show a decrease. In  addition, changes in
flows  have varied considerably depending on the  location of the stream. As an example.  Dr. Hirsch
showed the discrepancy between flow changes between  locations in North Dakota and Iowa (where
floods have increased over the past 150 years) and locations in Georgia and Utah (where floods
have decreased).

Dr. Hirsch outlined a  nonstationary alternative approach to water resource planning that involves
two key concepts. The first is to pay attention to what is  actually happening hydrologically since
climate models do not provide reliable answers. For example, it is important to expect quasi-period
phenomena that climate science cannot yet explain (e.g.. El  Nino), and these  limitations  need to be
acknowledged and addressed appropriately. The second concept is that we should not lose track of
other  major change drivers (e.g., groundwater depletion, eco-flow requirements,  nutrient
enrichment, and demographic/economic/energy demands). To highlight the importance of keeping
track of multiple change drivers. Dr. Hirsch provided an example that compared greenhouse gas
concentration in  the atmosphere and nitrate in rivers and aquifers - two global continental scale
environmental changes with implications for water resources. Dr. Hirsch  presented several graphics


Proceedings of the  First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    33

-------
on how each of these global changes can influence water resources, and explained the sort of data
that are available to evaluate these impacts.

One of the overarching points of this comparison was to underscore the importance of accurate
measurements. Dr. Hirsch concluded by explaining the  extreme consequences of failing to
continuously and accurately record observations, informing the group of the high rate at which
stream gauges are currently being shut down (including 100 gauges in  2007 alone).

Click here to view Dr. Hirsch'spresentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Dr. Hirsch's remarks.


Precipitation Frequency Atlas of the United States: Update and Issues
Geoffrey Bonnin, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service

Geoffrey Bonnin presented on the topic of current activities within the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to update the NOAA Precipitation-Frequency Atlas (Atlas 14), a
principle standard for national rainfall intensity and frequency estimation which is based on data that
- in some places - date back to 1962. Atlas 14 is accessible online through NOAA's Precipitation
Frequency Data Server, which provides interactive  tables and charts with geographic information
systems (CIS) maps. Users can vary outputs for  seasonality and temporal distribution. The server is
accessible at http://www.nws.noaa.gov/ohd/hdsc.

Funding for observations  has virtually disappeared  in the last decades. Departments of
transportation in state governments  are the major  source of funding.

Mr. Bonnin reviewed some of the observed changes in  intense precipitation. The 100-year, 24-hour
values show a mix of increases and decreases in the Southwest. In the  East, mid-West, and mid-
Atlantic, there is more of  a tendency for increases than decreases.

NOAA's current updates to Atlas 14 have resulted in a number of changes (e.g., changes in 100-
year,  24-hour precipitation measurements). Mr. Bonnin explained  that these changes are due to
improvements in data and enhanced statistical and spatial interpolation techniques. He also made it
clear to the group that NOAA does not think that all of these changes are indicators of climate
change. Based on observations, the  impacts of climate  change on precipitation frequency have been
small  (compared with the error in estimation). Models show that projected changes over the next 50
years are small  with respect to the errors  associated with the estimates of precipitation frequency.
At 100 years, the projected  changes are considerably larger, suggesting that it may be more
appropriate to consider 100-year frequency projections rather than focusing on 50-year frequency
projections.  These results indicate large differences between models and between forcings. The fact
that the model results are only applicable down to  200-kilometer resolution highlights the fact that
the downscaling approach is questionable.

In continuing activities, Mr.  Bonnin explained that NOAA will use unadjusted historical data because
there  is currently little understanding of how the data should be adjusted.

Click here to view Mr. Bonnin's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Mr. Bonnin's remarks.

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   34

-------
National Hydrodimatic Change and Infrastructure Assessment: Region-Specific
Adaptation Factors
Dr. Y. Jeffrey Yang, P.E., U.S. EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory

In this presentation, Jeffrey Yang described the efforts of the EPA Water Resource Adaptation
Program (WRAP) and explained how the program's investigations contribute to research on
approaches to water resource adaptation. WRAP'S objective is to provide data, tools, and
engineering  solutions for adaptation to climate, land use, and socioeconomic changes. In this new
program, scientists and engineers investigate potential effects of climate change on the nation's
watersheds and water infrastructure.  Based on the results of these investigations, practical and
effective adaptation solutions are being developed. The research approach has three basic
elements: (1) investigating hydrologic effects of climatic change and defining the water resource
needs of future socioeconomic conditions using tools such as climate modeling, robust statistical
analysis, and water availability forecasting; (2)  developing adaptation methods, primarily focused on
advanced and  innovative engineering techniques  and solutions; and (3) developing and providing
end users with tools for water resource adaptation. This information is  used to establish adaptation
measures for specific regions and watershed basins (e.g., wastewater reuse  in water-stressed
Florida, the Great Plains,  the Southwest, California, and other West  Coast regions). More information
on the program is available at: http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/wswrd/wqm/wrap/.

Dr. Yang provided an overview of the current paradigm in infrastructure and water program
adaptation, explaining the significance of uncertainty - in terms of engineering options and costs -
and timeframes with respect to different rates of  climate change. He showed how these
uncertainties over different timeframes can impede effective decision making for infrastructure
planners.

WRAP has adopted a systematic  approach to assessing  hydroclimatic changes and impacts that
recognizes inherent errors and uncertainties in  model outputs. This  approach considers several
essential questions, including whether hydroclimatic changes are tangible; whether the scientific
evidence of these changes is sufficient to warrant action, and if so, what are the changes within
infrastructure and water program planning horizons; and how to adapt.

Using this approach, WRAP is currently conducting a Nationwide Hydroclimatic Changes and
Adaptability  Assessment.  This assessment looks at hydroclimatic changes, land use changes,
socioeconomic developments, and infrastructure conditions and integrates temporal periodicity,
spatial correlations, and  hydroclimatic province classification. The result is a regional-level overview
of expected  changes due to climate change (e.g., sea-level rise along the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf
Coasts) and  lists of specific potential adaptation factors  in these areas (e.g.,  population change and
its relevance for changes in sea-level  rise, storm surge,  and disruptive meteorological events). These
adaptation factors illustrate large regional differences in hydroclimatic and land use changes  and
show that primary adaptation factors are often region-specific.  These results will enable water
resource planners to understand  key vulnerabilities in their region and to plan accordingly.

In conclusion.  Dr. Yang identified the need for further refinement of regional impacts and
geographic distributions,  as well  as a need for an examination of adaptive integrated water
resources management through a prism of risk management that accounts for rates of change,
different planning time horizons,  uncertainty, energy demand and supply, and economics.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    35

-------
Click here to view Dr.  Yang's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Dr.  Yang's remarks.


Summary of Discussion Session
The discussion was initiated with a comment by a hydrologist who stated that rules evolve when
either they stop working or it becomes evident that implementing them costs too much. The kind of
information that was presented by Mr. Bonnin is the type that drives rule evolution. The rules are
not being updated and that may be because they are working.  It may cost too much to change the
rules and climate change may not be enough of a reason to change them. While there is not much
information on climate change that  leads us directly to the ability to plan specific designs, there is  no
reason why we should not anticipate climate change to avoid larger problems in the future through
such measures as putting in footings to adapt to sea-level rise.

A water engineering researcher pointed out that there are limitations to what climate science can
explain and that it is good to make a distinction between what the models can do and what climate
science can do. In most cases, assumptions must be made about the future. With climate science,
we can make the best predictions for the future using nonstationary approaches. If the climate
community can come up with a substitute for stationarity, what is the potential for putting this new
regime into practice? Are the prospects realistic if the research  community is focused  on more
narrow topics? A research hydrologist responded that this will require a funding source that is not
interested in narrow results, and that  it is not clear if any federal agency is interested in this at the
moment. The research community should be looking for these sorts of opportunities.  Maybe industry
can play a role, but the motivation needs to come from the federal government. Moreover, we
cannot be focused on achieving instant results because there needs to be a long-term investment.

A hydrologist commented that when NOAA was first publishing its Atlas 14 updates, it was expecting
a large volume of lawsuits from developers saying that their environmental compliance expenses
would be increasing significantly as a  result of the changes in Atlas 14. Surprisingly, there were no
lawsuits. The assumption is that practitioners are  using the updated data without paying as much
attention to confidence intervals. This suggests that maybe NOAA can just add uncertainty factors
into tables and people will pick it up and  use it. But there are issues when it comes to regulation
(i.e., who would regulate?). Virtually every county has its own design manuals. The NOAA Atlas
publications are supposed to be federal standards, but there are few in the federal community who
pay attention to them because the federal community focuses on regulating and funding.  Perhaps
the federal community should be active in saying things like "thou  shalt use this standard  in all
designs."

Another hydrologist said that as  for changing hydrologic practice, practitioners say "We are aware of
climate change processes,  but how do we use this information to make estimates of 100-year
floods?" His reaction is to view the problem from two angles. When you look at the empirical data,
you need to ask whether there is a strong trend - it is hard to see  trends in the upper tails of data.
When you look at the models, you need to ask whether they work. The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) tells us that models do  not predict extremes well.  These two avenues
suggest that there is not enough knowledge on which to base changes in practice. Moreover, there
are other areas to consider. For example, urbanization has a  huge  role on the magnitude of floods,
due to the impacts of impervious surfaces. Another is the effect of large dams: there  is no empirical


Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    36

-------
evidence as how dams affect floods. We should be incorporating these areas into integrated
planning.

A water researcher commented on the complexity of the issue and suggested focusing on two
questions: How should we look at historical data, and  how should we incorporate these data into
models? We need to think about timeframes that are relevant to all the hydrologic and climate
modeling communities involved (including engineers and water managers). If you look at the ranges
of timeframes, many engineers are not thinking about the uncertainty embedded in the data that
are available, but it  is necessary to incorporate uncertainty. Standards for practice will need to
incorporate uncertainty in design management.

Returning to the initial comment of the discussion,  a climate modeler mentioned that in the context
of climate modeling results, current results are too uncertain to be used in decision protocols that
already exist. So the questions are. Are there thresholds of uncertainty, and Can we - given a level
of uncertainty - have a target level of uncertainty to reduce it to in order to reach a point where we
are comfortable taking action? Moreover, how do we get the two sides (i.e., the climate modeling
community and the  water resource planners) together to  address these questions? Whether and to
what degree it is appropriate to be confident in climate model outputs is an important issue. As was
done for the IPCC report, it is important to combine information into ensembles. To do this, the
hydrologic and climate modeling communities need to work together.

A climate change researcher made a point that we are talking about long-term investments and
decision making, which leads to the question of what kinds of information are being observed, and
what level of detail in these observations is actionable for users? A key question to be answered is,
"Where do we direct research to improve decision making?"

A research hydrologist said that the hydrologic and climate modeling communities can work
together, in fact, they need to work together.  The commenter made the point that the USGS is
committed to being  involved in the climate modeling community's efforts because it is critical to
have people with hydrology-based perspectives involved in  key modeling activities. Unfortunately,
the overlap between the two communities is still very small at this point. A hydrologist commented
that he does not see splits between the two groups today. We need more research and answers to
key questions, but there are not enough people working on these issues right now. Despite this, we
can be looking to the collective community of engineers, designers, and planners that are using
federal rules and standards that the hydrologic and climate modeling communities publish. Part of
the reason why we publish confidence  information  is to help these practitioners. It is important to
make the information more probabilistic to help them make informed decisions with uncertainty
ingrained. In  addition, the people on the ground need to be approached with the issues we are
talking about today, but in a less esoteric way. We need to give them rules and standards that are
understandable and that they can put into practice.

A water researcher mentioned that EPA is currently working to incorporate probabilistic data into its
hydrologic modeling through the WRAP program. In addition, there is currently an initiative on the
part of engineers working to incorporate hydrology into modeling. A strong relationship with
engineers can be a key asset for climate and hydrologic modelers in their  efforts relating  to climate
change.

A water research engineer commented that he and fellow engineers always seek to take pragmatic
approaches to problems and to use tools at their disposal. He posed the question to practitioner
engineers, "What tools do you need?" A water engineer responded that he will use data available to
him, but has concerns about models. Specifically, he commented that models are generally best

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    37

-------
when based on historical data. Precipitation and streamflow have direct relationships to many of our
hydrologic indices, but periodicities are not being used in the models - some rule curves ignore
them. Information on paleo-climates is not available. Where we have changed rule curves we have
had increased efficiencies, but they have been ignored. The opportunities are there to use this next
10-50 year period, while we are settling down the models, to look at observational databases. At the
same time, current models do have value (e.g., some have been used to predict floods and storm
surges). Speaking on behalf of the practitioner community, practitioners do think outside the box.
We need to focus on the trends in observations and bring these into our models.  Many engineers
are implementing observational data, but they are not being incorporated into the models. Overall,
there is a lot of opportunity for climate modelers, engineers, and water  managers, as well  as for
students.

A water utility manager mentioned that he is  interested in consumers' points of view. Without
disputing that the data are what we can  best base action on, as a water policy maker trying to plan
for unprecedented change, we have to do what we can to understand what the future holds. If
historical data and observations do not give us a good answer, and modeling does not give us what
we are looking for, we need a hybrid approach that we can use to make our decisions.  The answer
to the question, "What we are looking for?," is probabilities and risk assessment.  The question  is
therefore, "Are we going to get probabilities and risk factors out of climate models on the
parameters we care about (e.g., temperature, precipitation frequencies, and storm intensity)?" Will
this give  us an understanding of what the next 100 years will look like, and move us toward
actionability? Or is 100 years too far into the  future for us to plan? Without probabilities and risk
factors, we cannot go to our  ratepayers for more money to invest in infrastructure.

A hydrologist commented that we are trying to figure out how to put trends in climate change into
engineering practice. This consists of working with rules that are based  on observations (e.g., 100
year events, confidence intervals), since these are parameters that we use to develop the  basis for
engineering rules.  Information that comes out of climate change models now informs ourjudgment
but does not inform the rules. If we are going to get model output into  the rules, we need to
demonstrate that the current rules do not work or are too expensive. To do so, we need data and
sampling. We currently do not sample, so we need to put up more sampling stations. The
commenter suggests that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)  could be  used as a model
for sampling to figure out how much it costs to make things work. Additionally, we could set up
requirements to do evaluations at higher intervals, so that people can look at the evaluations to get
better information.

A water researcher made the  point that when we look at large  uncertainties and long timeframes, as
we customarily do for water infrastructure investment, there is a need to evaluate plans. Once you
have evaluated and reevaluated these plans,  you can incorporate observed data to give you
confidence to reduce the uncertainty in the climate models. There is a need to do this type of
assessment, and to incorporate it into the studies and actions.

A water resources consultant commented that many  practitioners agree that we need to move to a
risk management approach that accounts for  uncertainty. There is a need to do this using
alternatives to the regulatory approach. For areas not covered  by regulations, we need to
incorporate robustness and uncertainty. Uncertainties should include broad probability distributions,
for example, including evapotranspiration as well as precipitation.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    38

-------
5.4    Evaluating Hydoclimatic Change for Water Infrastructure Adaptation - Part 11


A number of water utilities have been moving ahead to understand their vulnerabilities to climate
change and make adaptation decisions. This session explored how those utilities have been
assessing vulnerabilities and making decisions on adaptation.  In particular, this session focused on
how utilities have used climate model output and other information on climate change to aid them in
decision making.

Click here to read the remarks of the moderator (Dave Behar, San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission / Water Utilities Climate Alliance),


Climate Vulnerability Assessments
David Yates, National Center for Atmospheric Research

The  National Center for Atmospheric Research  (NCAR) is partnering with the Water Research
Foundation (WRF; formerly the American Water Works Association  Research Foundation) to work
with water utilities to develop decision tools to facilitate assessments of water utility vulnerabilities
to climate change and adaptation options. This work builds off a past project between these two
partners that resulted in the production of a primer on climate change for the drinking water
industry. More information on this collaborative can be found at http://www.isse.ucar.edu/awwarf/.

David Yates began his presentation by offering an overview of the difficulties of using climate model
outputs from the perspective of the water utility. He explained how most general circulation models
(GCMs) have between 1 and 2 million calculation points, but even with this many points the models
do not produce enough certainty in areal resolution. These models  produce temperature projections
with relatively higher-certainty than precipitation projections. The model grids are too large,
however, to be useful for utilities, and the models often overload computers even at resolutions of
100  kilometers, where 10 kilometer resolution would be ideal. To bring model output down to a level
usable to utilities, the community uses what is called "parameterization" (or GCM "drizzle"), but
strategies for doing so are still primitive, and the parameterized  models cannot tell us much more
than "When it rains, it is going to rain a little harder."

Dr. Yates next provided the group with an overview of current activities of the NCAR-WRF
collaborative effort that are aimed at resolving  some of these  model downscaling issues. Specifically,
they are working with utility partners to develop structured processes for explicitly considering
climate change in water utility decision making. This decision analysis process involves  four steps:
problem structuring,  deterministic analysis, uncertainty analysis, and evaluation of alternatives.
Problem structuring involves looking at the utility's goals, alternatives, information, and values
before conducting a deterministic analysis, which consists of developing a model for the decision to
be made and performing a sensitivity analysis to identify key variables. The uncertainty analysis step
requires that utilities represent key variables with  probabilities and determine the best plan under
uncertainty. After evaluating each of the alternatives, utilities can repeat the process in multiple
iterations to produce more robust results.

Dr. Yates described several example problems that NCAR and WRF's utility partners are concerned
about and explained  how NCAR, WRF, and various other consultants and research  groups are
working together to develop tools to support these utilities' decision making efforts. He explained
how the collaborative partnership is working with utilities to implement planning strategies that are

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    39

-------
not based exclusively on historical data and observations, but are based on models. Dr. Yates drew
comparisons between critical questions involved in hydrological modeling and planning modeling,
noting that there is a need for coordination between the two. He explained that NCAR is working
with other organizations, including EPA, to develop the Water Evaluation and Planning System
(WEAP), an integrated resource management tool that combines hydrology and water planning
models. Dr. Yates concluded by providing an overview of how this tool has been used by two of its
partner utilities in their decision making processes to provide them with simulations of water
demands and supplies based on user-created variables and user-managed scenarios. More
information on this tool is available at http://www.weap21 .org/.

Click here to view Dr. Yates'presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Dr.  Yates' presentation.
Strategies for Assessing Impacts and Adapting to Climate Change for Wastewater
Utilities
Laura Wharton, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks

In response to an executive order issued in 2006, King County developed a Climate Change Plan
that summarized climate change projections in the Pacific Northwest, based on research by the
University of Washington's Climate Impacts Group (CIG) and identified action items for the county to
take to adapt to projected changes. The plan included action items for the wastewater treatment
division  related to reclaimed water and strategies for the division to manage wet weather impacts of
climate change. The division owns and operates a wastewater collection  and treatment system that
serves a population of 1.4 million people, collecting wastewater from 34  local sewer agencies and
conveying it to two treatment plants (a new treatment plant is currently  under construction).

According to the CIG's projections, the region can expect higher temperatures by 2100 (increases of
roughly  1.8 degrees Fahrenheit every 25 years); potential increases in precipitation with more rain
than snow likely; snowpack decline with earlier runoff; increased risk of floods and drought; rise in
sea levels; and potential impacts to groundwater. Of these impacts, the wastewater treatment
division  is focusing primarily on threats from rising sea levels,  intense storms, and increased capacity
needs. Approximately 40 structures, including one of the treatment plants and numerous pipeline
systems are periodically affected by tides and storm surges from the Puget Sound. The division  used
the research supplied by the CIG to evaluate its vulnerabilities to climate  change and found that sea-
level rise could lead to impacts on the division's facilities by 2050, a time  span that is approximately
equal  to the expected life of a new treatment facility, which underscores  the importance of
immediately incorporating climate change into planning.

Laura Wharton described current actions by the division to implement the action items outlined  in
the Climate Change Plan, including promoting regional water supply resilience by maximizing
development  and  use of reclaimed water from the wastewater treatment system and exploring
reuse approaches. She  provided an overview of how treated wastewater  can be reclaimed and
reused for a variety of uses and described a number of benefits from reclaiming water. Ms.  Wharton
described the division's activities in response to the plan's action  items. These activities involve
continuing the division's existing reclaimed water programs (currently 300 million gallons per day are
reclaimed for irrigation  and cooling uses),  identifying customers for reclaimed water from the new
Brightwater Treatment  Plant, and completing a draft reclaimed water comprehensive plan by 2011.
This new comprehensive plan will investigate the conditions under which future reclaimed water

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   40

-------
investments should be made, opportunities for reclaimed water use, and regional issues and
implications for develop future projects.

Ms. Wharton introduced another component of the county's Climate Change Plan, the Adaptation
and Planning Response Vulnerable Facilities Inventory, which was developed for county divisions
that are responsible for long-term asset management to help them understand potential risks to
their assets as a result of climate change. Using this inventory, the division is developing strategies
to manage wet weather impacts of climate change to the sewer system. This involves identifying
facilities that might be impacted by storm surge and sea-level rise, and then developing a
methodology to combine these  projections to analyze impact thresholds and characterize impacts.
The inventory work is also helping the division identify adaptive strategies for affected facilities and
include findings in comprehensive plans and facility design. Ms. Wharton provided an overview of
the sources of data that the division is using to provide input into the inventory (e.g., sea-level rise
forecast data from CIG) and presented a sample output from the inventory that illustrates the sea-
level rise vulnerabilities under multiple sea-level rise scenarios  (ranging from low sea-level rise to
rapid ice sheet  melt) for a specific facility. From this exercise, the division has discovered multiple
instances where plans will need to be revised to address vulnerabilities (e.g., the design for the
sampling facility and flow monitor vault sites at the Brightwater Treatment Plant was raised by about
five feet). The division has also decided to conduct an analysis of sea-level rise impacts  on system
hydraulics and to include sea-level rise as a planning factor in all future projects. In addition, the
division plans to review sea-level rise literature every five years and address changes in five-year
updates to the conveyance system plan.

In conclusion, Ms. Wharton explained that the process the division is currently engaged in is a
dynamic one that will require clear and continuous communication with the public. In addition, the
division will need to focus  on evaluating investment risks and determine appropriate thresholds to
spur action and expenditures. New approaches the division is considering include building  in
resilience to changes, promoting and funding  sustainability, and integrating processes to improve
results (e.g., using reclaimed water as a resource).

Click here to view Ms.  Wharton's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Ms,  Wharton's remarks.
Implicit Climate Change Adaptation: Modifying System Operations for Turbidity Control
Paul Rush, New York City Bureau of Water Supply, and Dr. Daniel Sheer, HydroLogics, Inc.

The New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) operates a water supply
system that delivers  approximately 1.2 billion gallons of water daily to nearly half the state's
population, and about 90 percent of this supply comes from the Catskill/Delaware system west of
the Hudson River.  In 2007, the EPA granted  the department a waiver through 2017 that permits it
to use this water supply without having to filter it. Maintaining filtration avoidance requires diligent
control of source water turbidity, which refers to the cloudiness of a fluid due to suspended solids
such as naturally occurring silt (e.g., due to erosion), since high turbidity can have potential  impacts
on the disinfection process. Many GCMs under a variety of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) emission scenarios suggest that the region will experience increased precipitation
and more frequent intense precipitation events in the future, which can lead to increased turbidity.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    41

-------
NYCDEP has conducted studies to help it understand the sources of turbidity in the Catskill system
and to help inform structural and nonstructural strategies to prevent, manage, and control turbidity.
The work was completed by linking a water supply system mass-balance model called OASIS and a
reservoir water quality model called W2. Using these models in tandem, NYCDEP evaluated six
alterative turbidity control options (e.g., dividing weir crest gates and building basin diversion  walls)
for the terminal reservoir in the Catskill system, including five infrastructure development
alternatives and one operations-based alternative. For each alternative,  NYCDEP calculated the
expected frequency of days on which alum treatment would be required. The studies revealed that
nonstructural system operational changes alone can significantly reduce the turbidity of the terminal
reservoir of the system;  when combined with infrastructure alternatives, the results suggest that the
number of alum application days could be reduced to near zero.  These results are contrary to the
earlier belief that  major  infrastructure investment would be required to control turbidity.

While the combined OASIS-W2 model was useful for conducting these studies, the studies
concluded that the development and  implementation of a real-time system Operation Support Tool
(OST), which combines water quality and water supply data with forecast inputs, along with the
construction of selected  infrastructure improvements is the most cost-effective means to achieving
turbidity control. In addition to the water supply benefits, the implementation of OST will provide a
better understanding of  water supply risks associated with operational changes, and will allow
NYCDEP to react to changing conditions in real time when considering system water quality,
downstream flood events, and cold water fisheries habitats.

In conclusion, Paul Rush identified several research and development needs, including needs for
new forecasting tools  (e.g.. El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO)-based ensemble inflow and demand
forecasts)  and development of tools to assess the impacts of land use changes, groundwater
pumping, and climate change on runoff, water demand, and water quality. In addition, more
research needs to be focused on impacts assessments of operations modifications on the reliability
of physical facilities, and on assessments of legal  liability issues surrounding adaptation of water
supply operations to climate change (i.e., if we are  helping neighboring water systems or fellow
agencies with other environmental objectives, are we putting ourselves at risk of liability suits?). Mr.
Rush  also highlighted  the importance of recognizing that building new infrastructure should not  be
the default solution to managing water supplies; rather, the focus should be on how the
infrastructure is used. Utilities need to invest in analytical tools to ensure that the  operational
capabilities of existing infrastructure are maximized and tools for doing so need to be able to be
used to meet consumer  and stakeholder expectations in the face of uncertain conditions.

Click here to  view Mr, Rush's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Mr. Rush's remarks.
Summary of Discussion Session

To open the discussion session, a water utility manager asked how critical it is to improve predictive
tools. A local water resource manager responded that it is very important, since it can help water
utilities and water resource managers make better decisions and provide better benefits to their
customers.

A water resources manager commented that one of the things that has been useful to local
governments is to have access to the climate modeling research of state universities because the
public notices when their findings are published. This takes the pressure off local governments so

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   42

-------
that they can focus on supervising engineers. From the perspective of a local government water
resource manager, it is useful to have scientists defending the science so the policy makers do not
have to. A climate change impacts researcher commented that several  utilities and water districts
have worked together as a "climate group" to bring together scientists  and policy makers. These
groups invite scientists to talk about various topics so as to inform the utilities on the science of
climate change. Such efforts (e.g., NOAA's Regional  Integrated Sciences and Assessments  (RISAs))
are helping to fit all the relevant pieces together.

A hydrologist responding to the initial question of the importance of predictive tools commented on
the importance of having real-time forecasting. The National Weather Service has been issuing real-
time forecasting information from short-time intervals to seasonal intervals. In doing so, many
researchers  have  demonstrated with clarity that if probabilistic rules as opposed to deterministic
rules are adopted, there is a significant increase in efficiency.

A climate modeler asked how many water resource districts are completely unexposed to climate
modeling/climate  change. A  local water utility manager responded that King County developed a
guidebook to help local governments in their region to get started on these sorts of issues. Five
years ago, there were not many local governments who were exposed  to these ideas, but the
tangible impacts of climate change have heightened  awareness. Another water manager commented
that large utilities have many more resources at hand, and the smaller  ones are definitely less
advanced. For many utilities, climate change adaptation is a new concept and there is much
skepticism, but there is a change toward a direction of greater acceptance, particularly amongst
smaller utilities.

A climate impacts researcher pointed out that when looking at national associations and trade
groups, there are  many that are on board with climate change initiatives, and there has been  a lot
of activity in the last few years. Many utilities now belong to at least one of these groups, if not
more. A watershed manager responded that the extent of this sort of participation depends on the
size of the utility and its location. Utilities in the Great Lakes region, for example, might have
different reasons for considering climate change impacts than utilities on the East or West Coasts.

A water consultant commented that many small utilities use probabilistic operating rules. For
example. Rocky Mount, North Carolina, does assessments every month as to the probabilities  of its
reservoir falling short. The State of North Carolina has purchased access to many tools that the
public can use, and there is evidence of the public using them. Using these tools, local governments
have access to more  recent and up-to-date information. If they have the tools, they have the  ability
to move the information out into the real world of operations.  In addition, if your operations tools
are also your planning tools, you have the ability to use similarly formatted ensembled climate
forecasts. But if you want to move in that direction, you should focus on operations first.

A watershed manager commented that it is often difficult to come up with probabilities for stream
flow and precipitation. When looking at these probabilities and looking  at water impacts, what does
this sort of information do to address stream and water treatment needs? A hydrologist responded
that applying climate change projections to long-term plans for water quality is not difficult to do for
many parameters, and that it is possible to link to other water quality models (e.g., the generalized
water loading function). A researcher responded that NOAA is currently writing documents in
support of efforts to produce real-time water quality forecasts, but it is on the back end of the
project timeline.

Another water manager suggested looking at how utilities responded to concerns about water
security.  He  said the  response  was not effective and should be studied.

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    43

-------
A water manager commented that one thing happening with local governments is that people are
already addressing climate change issues through much more efficient use of water resources as a
result of drought pressures. Utilities that have already been reducing demand and supply in areas
affected by shortages might be putting themselves into more vulnerable positions, since they might
not be as able to adapt to future changes. One member of the water management community
commented that this is  the first he has heard of the significance of water conservation during these
discussions. He  suggested that the community could use the savings from conservation to develop
supplies to meet new growth in demand. He questioned the logic behind the assertion that utilities
are making themselves  more vulnerable by implementing conservation programs to reduce demand.
A hydrologist  commented on the fact that if a water utility manages its reservoir to always meet
demand, it would run out of water. Reliability is a function of conservation.  Rocky Mount, North
Carolina, worked their way out of a shortage, not by building new pipelines, but by coming to an
operating policy that looked ahead, effectively saying that when the risks got  too high they would
reduce demand from the reservoir. The questions to ask are, "What is reliable? How do you make
sure that you are never going to run out of water?" Conservation makes it harder to do short-term
measures if you have no slack in the system anymore. You had better have a larger reserve at the
end of time, in case of devastating drought.

A water resources manager asked aboutjoint climate and water community initiatives, and whether
these initiatives have been focusing exclusively on water supply  impacts from climate change and
not looking at stormwater issues as well.  A climate change impacts researcher responded that in his
experience these initiatives are looking mostly at how climate change impacts affect supply. The
reason why the  focus has been on supply is because that topic is of primary concern to the utilities.
Storm surges and flooding are often of secondary concern.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   44

-------
6.     Adaptive Management and Engineering:  Information and
       Tools

This track focuses on the adaptive techniques, practices, and approaches used by water resource
managers and engineers for dealing with current and potential climate change impacts. It addresses
how water utilities look forward on a 10, 20, 50 year and longer planning window. The sessions
focused on what climate change information and decision-making tools are used and will be needed
to make management and engineering decisions in light of climate change.
6.1    National Infrastructure Condition Assessment and Adaptability


To begin the discussion on adaptive management and engineering, this session provided information
on the current status of national infrastructure and some of the options for making decisions. The
infrastructure built today will be in place for decades to come. The session addressed how climate
considerations are included in investment decisions. Most water resource managers agree that there
is now a level of actionable science on climate change and they are ready to move forward.
However, decisions must be made in a framework of uncertainty.  This uncertainty can be reduced,
described, and even quantified. This session presents information on the available tools and
techniques to assess infrastructure vulnerability and adaptability in the context of climate change.

Click here to read the remarks of the moderator (Dr Neil Stiber, EPA Office of the Science Advisor),
Rehabilitation, Replacement, and Redesign of the Nation's Water and Waste water
Infrastructure as a Valuable Adaptation Opportunity
Dan Murray, P.E., EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory

Dan Murray began by stating that the 2002 Gap Report identified a $500 billion investment gap in
infrastructure. In response, EPA developed the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Initiative in 2005.
The initiative has four pillars, which include better management, water efficiency, full-cost pricing,
and a watershed approach. It has an annual budget of $7 million and has several cross-cutting
themes, such as innovation, partnerships, technology, and research. To understand the critical
factors behind future demands and threats related to climate change, ORD initiated the Aging Water
Infrastructure Research Program in 2007. The program is designed to facilitate the more cost-
effective operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of aging and failing drinking water and
wastewater systems. It also facilitates the development and application of advanced designs and
management approaches for drinking water  and wastewater systems.

Mr. Murray identified many of the program's focuses. Primarily, the program focuses on
understanding the critical factors behind future demands on and threats to our national water
infrastructure systems. Other focuses include optimizing repair, rehabilitation,  and replacement of
drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, and extending the service life of in-place drinking
water and wastewater system components. The program  is evaluating the performance and cost  of
innovative technologies and approaches and investigating advanced system design and
management concepts.  It focuses on detecting, locating, and characterizing leaks in drinking water
and wastewater conveyance systems, and designing systems with green infrastructure and low-
impact development components to attenuate wastewater and stormwater flows.

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                  45

-------
The program's core focus is on the support of strategic asset management (SAM), which is a tool
that can be used by water and wastewater utilities to adapt to the effects of global change. Through
effective condition  assessments of infrastructure systems and optimal investments in system
rehabilitation, replacement, and redesign, especially focused on long-term system demands and
threats, asset management can support successful adaptation to climate change. While strategic
asset management is a tool for effective infrastructure adaptation, technical, and institutional
challenges must be overcome to realize its potential. System modifications and resultant
performance improvements will be measured over decades, making adaptation seem more like
evolution.

The Aging Water Infrastructure Research Program's SAM uses a three-legged stool of tools:  (1)
condition assessment, (2) rehabilitation, and  (3) advanced concepts. The condition assessment is
key to determine how systems react, deteriorate, or fail. There are several key questions that must
be answered during an evaluation of strategic assets. They include:

•  What is the current condition of my assets (pipes,  pumps, tanks, etc.)?

•  What is my required level of service and current performance?

•  Which assets are critical to sustained performance?

•  What are the best options for investment in operations and maintenance (O&M), rehabilitation,
   and/or replacement to sustain long-term  performance under climate change?

•  What are the best, long-term,  sustainable funding strategies?

Further questions must be answered while performing a condition assessment:

•  What and where are my assets, and what is their current condition?

•  What drives or  will drive these assets to deteriorate and fail over the short- and long-term?

•  What are my customer service demands, regulatory requirements, and current performance?

•  What are the remaining useful lives of these assets and the performance consequences of their
   deterioration and failure?

Mr. Murray provided an assessment example performed by Melbourne (Australia) Water.
Melbourne's assessment found increased potential for pipe corrosion in the wastewater collection
system as a result  of increased sewage concentrations associated with water conservation,
increasing ambient and seasonal temperatures, and longer travel times within  the system. They also
saw increased  incidence of sewer overflows due to increased rainfall intensity during storms,
increased risk of pipe failure and collapse due to dry soil conditions, and finally increased salinity
levels in recycled wastewater due to rising seawater infiltrating into the collection system and
flowing to wastewater treatment plants.

Mr. Murray identified another tool that is vital for SAM,  known as rehabilitation/replacement/
redesign. To evaluate the potential of this tool for current assets, managers must answer the
following questions:

•  What are the O&M, rehabilitation, replacement, and redesign options available to sustain
   performance?

•  Which options  are feasible given the condition assessment?

•  What are the lifecycle costs of these feasible options?
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    46

-------
•   What are the optimal choices that balance available resources with an acceptable risk of
    performance failure?

In conclusion, Mr. Murray states that asset management is a tested strategic framework for
addressing water infrastructure adaptation challenges, but infrastructure adaptation will be more like
an evolution as success will be measured across decades. Rehabilitation, replacement, and redesign
decisions made today will affect system performance for 30, 40, 50, or even 100 years to come.
There are many technical and institutional issues that must be addressed now to accelerate
infrastructure adaptation, including the development of tools that enable local infrastructure
adaptation decision making. In addition, accepted modeling and engineering  practices need to be
challenged, and innovative approaches and designs need to be tested.
Click here to view Mr, Murray's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Mr. Murray's remarks.


Flood Control and Surface Water Management Infrastructure in the Age of Climate
Change
Dr. Rolf Olsen, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources

Rolf Olsen began by asserting that there is a tradeoff between flood control and water supply and
climate change is already affecting these tradeoffs. Water storage must allow for minimum flows,
which can protect water quality, ecosystems, and passage levels. Much of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' reservoirs are used for recreation, which often develops into the largest concern for
maintaining  appropriate water levels. Warming has already driven observable hydroclimatic change,
such as  less snowpack and earlier snowmelt runoff. For example, a study of average stream flows in
the North Fork River in  California has found a significant earlier peak of discharge during the 1990s.
These changes, coupled with increasing population in urban areas, have the potential to impact the
design and operation of future drinking water treatment plants.

Flood storage space is funded by the federal government, so the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does
not own the water, just the storage space. Literature suggests that a warmer regime may result  in
about the same annual precipitation,  but could result in less snowpack, earlier melt, flow shift, and
greater storm variability/intensity. Thus the Corps must plan for more rain-flood space, particularly
during the winter and allow an earlier reservoir fill. The Corps analyzed 22  GCM simulations for 2030
using projected temperature and precipitation ranges under two climate scenarios. It determined the
10th, 50th, and 90th temperature and precipitation percentiles by sub-basin and generated reservoir
inflows using perturbed temperature and precipitation input using the National Weather Service
River Forecast Center model. Finally,  it tested flood control curves using Corps'  ResSim model. The
model shows that for New Bullards Bar in Yuba County, California, reservoir pool elevations
exceeded flood pool zone during 19 of 144 samples and overtopped the dam during eight sampled
flood events, indicating a need for more flood control space in the reservoir. A risk-based approach
may be  a better alternative for managers than the traditional  rule curve.

Dr. Olsen discussed several adaptation strategies for water resource managers. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate  Change (IPCC) states that integrated water resources
management (IWRM) should be the  "instrument to explore adaptation measures to climate change."
Adaptations to climate change include making better  use of existing water  resources.  In order to

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    47

-------
accomplish this. Dr. Olsen described several strategies. Managers should evaluate if there are
benefits from revising reservoir storage rules and authorized purposes as climate changes. They
should identify new uses for reservoir storage that have a greater economic or social value than
current uses, which may involve reallocation studies. Flood storage space could be evaluated based
on updated hydrologic records and future projections. Storage space dedicated to maintaining
ecosystems may become a priority for managers. An adaptive management process can have
flexibility to adapt to observed climate conditions on an annual basis.  Some projects may be
operated more efficiently as part of a system of reservoirs rather than as a single project.

Two workshops were held in spring of 2007 that brought together California water managers to
discuss climate change and  reservoir operations. They attempted to answer the following questions:
"What does climate change  mean to California reservoir rule curves? When should a water control
manual be modified?" How much modification can be done depends on the original Congressional
authorization. The conclusions gathered from the meeting included a  long-term goal to begin a
dynamic, transparent process for updating rule curves, which should be a priority. However, Dr.
Olsen noted that this is an expensive process. The managers also displayed a desire to increase
flexibility in operations to improve system adaptability under climate change. A systems perspective
should be employed that considers all objectives and integrates all operations. The current
knowledge on climate change and variability may not be specific enough to adequately evaluate
flood rule curves.

There are several reasons for managers to reallocate and re-operate their water management
systems. Many existing water resources projects were designed decades ago and often used a
relatively short hydrologic record that assumed stationarity. Current and future hydrologic conditions
may also be changing for many reasons, including climate change, variability, and land use changes.
Demographic, social, and ecosystem changes may result in changing uses for reservoir storage. Dr.
Olsen concluded by stating that water control plans should be reviewed and adjusted, when
possible, to meet changing local conditions. Changes in reservoir operations can be time-consuming
and expensive, often requiring an  environmental impact statement with public participation by
stakeholders with different objectives.

Click here to view Dr. Olsen's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Dr. Olsen's remarks.
Climate Change Readiness Assessment and Planning for the Nation's Drinking Water
and Wastewater Utilities
Dr. Stephen Buchberger, P.E., NRMRL-UC WRAP Team


Stephen Buchberger began by stating that water utilities with dwindling and compromised supply
sources currently rely on outdated infrastructure. The aging infrastructure attempts to produce high
quality drinking water, treated to meet increasingly stringent regulatory standards and to deliver
finished water to a growing customer base of informed consumers with high expectations but few
financial resources. Dr. Buchberger identified several issues that he explained are currently
converging crises that could evolve into a perfect storm. These issues include a shifting climate,
evolving institutions, a growing population, changing regulatory issues, uncertain economics, and
aging infrastructure. Water utilities are seeing this  perfect storm as a convergence of independent
events that form an environment never experienced before.


Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    48

-------
ORD and the University of Cincinnati developed the Water Resources Adaptation Program (WRAP) to
perform a comprehensive survey to identify and analyze the most important factors affecting the
performance of the nation's water resources infrastructure over the next 50 years. Dr. Buchberger
identified several surveys were that already in existence, for instance, the EPA NEEDS Surveys, the
U.S. Conference of Mayors City Water Survey, the WRF Strategic Assessment, and the American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Infrastructure Report Card. The EPA NEEDS survey is a detailed
estimate of the cost of construction of all needed publicly-owned treatment works in all of the states
(where a need\s a project, with associated costs, that addresses a water quality or public health
problem). The 2005 U.S. Mayors survey found that aging water infrastructure is the number one
"every-day" chronic issue,  and a 2007 survey found that asset management programs are
increasingly vital for water utility operation. The WRF Assessment found that trends in 2005
continue to be primary drivers of water utility strategies today, including aging infrastructure and
financial constraints.  It identified trends that are comparatively new or more pronounced since the
2000 assessment, including security and climate change.

The Five Cities Plus Regional Survey and the WRAP National Questionnaire were developed by ORD
and the University of Cincinnati. The Five Cities Plus survey included Cincinnati, OH; Columbus, OH;
Fort Wright, KY; Indianapolis, IN; Louisville, KY; and St.  Louis, MO. It was completed by the
directors of these municipal wastewater agencies in June 2008. The survey is similar to the U.S.
Conference of Mayors Survey. The WRAP National Questionnaire was a 40-question web-based
survey that was distributed on-line via several national water organizations, including the Association
of Metropolitan Water Agencies  (AMWA), the National Association of Clean Water Agencies
(NACWA), and the National Association of Water Companies (NAWC) to a select subset of the
nation's drinking water and wastewater utilities during the summer of 2008. The main objective of
the questionnaire was to identify, through the eyes of the water industry, the most important factors
likely to affect the performance and sustainability of the  public and private water  resources
infrastructure across the United  States over the next 50 years. A total of 55 water utilities responded
(31 drinking water agencies and 24 wastewater agencies), representing nearly 43 million customers
with infrastructure assets that included 91 water treatment plants, over 520 storage tanks,  nearly
1,200 pumping stations, and over 73,000 miles of pipeline.  Four out of five respondents expected
demand for water service to  increase over the next 20 years with an average annual growth rate of
about one percent. The survey results showed that most agencies had developed a formal master
plan and planning horizons ranged from 5 to 40 years with  a median of about 20  years. However,
nearly 40 percent of water utilities did not have a formal asset management program. Of the four
primary water-related infrastructure categories (i.e., pipes,  pumps, tanks, plants), the pipeline
systems used to distribute drinking water and  collect wastewater werejudged to  be in the worst
condition. The generally poor self-assessment of existing urban water piping systems is consistent
with the overall low grade assigned to drinking water and wastewater in the recent ASCE report
cards on the nation's infrastructure. The survey found consistencies among the wastewater and
drinking water utilities and the self assessment portion of the  survey shows that both groups feel
they are performing better than the ASCE Report Card shows.

Dr. Buchberger mentioned the top three challenges having the greatest impact on the operation and
performance of the nation's water industry over the next 50 years: (1) aging infrastructure, (2)
government regulations, and (3) funding shortfalls. This  ranking was consistent for agencies in the
drinking water group and in the wastewater group. While climate change was recognized as an
impending issue, it was viewed as a distant concern in comparison to the more immediate and
urgent operational needs of the water utility. The industry-wide practice of developing and  updating
a master plan provides a ready opportunity for incorporating flexible mitigation  and adaptation
strategies to help water utilities cope with anticipated impacts from global climate changes. Dr.
Buchberger concluded that the WRAP survey shows that aging infrastructure and climate change are
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   49

-------
complementary concurrent challenges for the water industry. There is a tremendous opportunity to
rethink and redesign the water infrastructure, reflecting adaptation to climate change, low impact
development (LID), decentralized systems, green options, and sustainable approaches.

Click here to view Dr. Buchberger's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Dr. Buchberger's remarks.


Assessing the Impacts of Climate Change on Drinking Water Treatment
Dr. Robert Clark, P.E., NRMRL-UC WRAP Team

Climate change may affect both surface water and groundwater quality. Increases (or decreases) in
precipitation and related changes in flow can result in problematic turbidity levels;  increased levels
of organic matter; high levels of bacteria, viruses, and parasites; and increased levels of pesticides
in lakes, rivers, and streams. Some areas may experience droughts resulting in elevated levels of
potentially toxic algae, high concentrations of organic matter, and bacteria. Climate change coupled
with population changes may therefore impact existing and future drinking water treatment
infrastructure. Some of these impacts have the potential for causing serious violations of drinking
water standards. These changes, coupled with increasing population in urban areas, have the
potential to impact the design and operation of future drinking water treatment plants. Robert Clark
states that drinking water treatment has  the following three general  objectives: (1) to remove any
toxic or health-hazardous materials,  (2) to remove or inactivate any disease-producing  organisms,
and (3) improve the aesthetic acceptability of the water. Each goal must be achieved at a
reasonable cost.

The EPA Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Model has been adapted and utilized to address these
impacts. It has been developed to assist  utilities in identifying and screening new treatment
technologies for meeting new and existing regulations. It also assists utilities in evaluating the
possible effects of source water or treatment process operations on disinfection by-product (DBP)
formation. The WTP Model uses empirical correlations to predict central tendencies of variables such
as Natural Organic Matter (NOM) removal, disinfection, and DBP formation in a treatment plant. The
model has been validated using data from the EPA's  Information Collection Request (ICR) in
conjunction with data from the Greater Cincinnati Water Works' Miller (surface water) and Bolton
(ground water) treatment plants. It predicts changes in water quality parameters caused by
chemical addition and/or by treatment configuration specified by the WTP Model. The team has
modified the WTP Model to accept real-time inputs.

To illustrate the model's application,  an example has been constructed using historical total organic
carbon (TOC) data and two hypothesized increases in TOC  (to represent climate change impacts).
The effects of these three scenarios were evaluated by simulating a conventional water treatment
plant and a conventional plant with the addition of granular activated carbon (GAC). The model
assesses the regulatory impact on total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) through conventional treatment
and examines possible treatment modifications to achieve regulatory targets. It was found that the
conventional plant could not meet current drinking water standards under these scenarios. However,
by adding GAC and varying reactivation frequency, it was found that the simulated GAC plant could
meet current DBP regulations, but at increased cost.

In conclusion. Dr. Clark states that climate change will most likely have an impact on surface water
quality. The WTP Model allows an evaluation of the impact of water quality changes on water

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                  50

-------
treatment. The model can show quality impacts in real time and simulate effects of quality and
population growth. Finally, it can estimate cost impacts of design and operational changes.

Click here to view Dr.  Clark's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Dr. Clark's remarks,


Summary of Discussion Session

A participant stated that large utilities have been discussed a lot, but we are not applying these
concepts to small utilities. Gloucester, MA, has the highest rates in the country and is not thinking
about climate change. There is a need to engage the small- to medium-sized utilities.

A water manager mentioned that there are challenges with water treatment and many different
strategies, particularly surface water versus algae. Does the model address different issues? A water
researcher answered that the model makes some adjustments for different issues, but it still needs
some enhancement.

A water resources consultant mentioned that modeling for the Southeast, including that done in
South Carolina, indicates that operating rules need to be changed. They asked whether this is this
more  of a political issue. A water manager responded that there are different priorities in the
Southeast for the Corps. The questioner then asked if climate will be part of the discussion and the
water manager stated that he hopes so.

A scientist stated that there is a confluence of aging infrastructure and climate change which is
leading to a  golden opportunity. Is it possible to present them to taxpayers as one issue? Steve
Buchberger answered that it is a question of economics; plans for rehabilitation need financial plans.
It could be adequate to simply provide funding for green infrastructure. The moderator stated that
perhaps cost is an issue,  but uncertainty is a key issue.

A water manager provided an example of Jasper Water and Sewer. When utilities do renewal and
rehabilitation work, it is done piecemeal because of financial restraints.  Ten miles of pipe are not
replaced, just sections. Components of treatment plants are replaced, not entire plants. Utilities are
constrained by these financial issues.

An urban planner stated that Keene, NH, produced a climate action plan for adaptation in November
2007. They deal with water infrastructure through capital improvement programs. Their approach
was to first work on mitigation issues that also addresses adaptation. They have discovered a lack of
decision making and financial tools available to local governments. She  also mentioned that
conversations on adaptation are difficult to have with communities. A water researcher responded
that this brings up the issue of how communities pay. It is important to explain to them the
expected damages if they do not pay.

A member of the water research community commented that when we  look at what we are
investing now versus what is needed over the next 20 years, there is a  $540 billion difference. We
could  reduce this cost by up to 20 percent if everyone implements best practices. People will end up
paying two times as much in the future as they do now, and that is a low-ball  figure. Having a
conversation with people is vital. You must tell them that maintaining water infrastructure is costly.
There are three things utilities should demonstrate: (1) people must understand what you do, (2)
they have to see the value, and (3) you must demonstrate that you  are using  best practices. Some
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    51

-------
sophisticated utilities are using asset management strategies, but there are many more utilities who
are not close to this management practice and many who do not even know the current state of
their assets. Another member of the water research community mentioned that there is a lot more
involved than just engineering. We  will be adding over 100 million people to the United States by
2040. Where will all these people go? All other practices must be involved in this discussion,
including environmental, economic, and health fields. This is not a free resource.

Another water researcher stated that mitigation needs money in the form of a price on carbon. How
does adaptation get involved in the cap-and-trade discussion? A member of the water management
community stated that there is a  lack of leadership with this issue. We have  an entitlement
populous; everyone does not have accountability for their actions. Engineers must redesign, and
politicians must revalue because the public must be given many different options.

6.2    Progressive Adaptation:  Planning and Engineering for Sustainability

Water utility management inherently is about making decisions under uncertainty for ranges of
outcomes. Water managers have had to cope with change and confront risks.  Water managers
routinely look at the probability and the likelihood of an event; they look at the consequences or
impacts of an event;  and finally, they look at risk mitigation or risk reduction or avoidance. This
session covered some tools and approaches  that have been used by water managers to address
risks and some that are being developed to help water managers also address risks from climate
change.

Click here to read the remarks of the moderator (Steve Allbee, EPA Office of Wastewater
Management),
Overview of Integrating Climate Adaptation into Lifecycle Costing and Planning
Steve Allbee, EPA Office of Wastewater Management

Steve Allbee began by stating that in order to integrate climate adaptation into lifecycle costing,
managers need to address the following questions to determine critical facilities: "How are they
affected? What is the likelihood of the effect (although they cannot determine when or how large
the affect will be)? What does it cost to mitigate risk?  What are the consequences of not mitigating
risk?" Identifying critical facilities requires a risk-driven assessment that asks what the probability is
and what is the consequence. Managers should focus  management and resources toward high
probability and  high consequences. Adaptation requires risk exposure management applied to the
probability or likelihood of event, the consequence or  impact of event, and risk reduction and
avoidance (also known as risk mitigation).

Mr. Allbee describes a stepped approach to conducting assessments. A 100 percent level (basic)
requires at a minimum a glance  at all assets, while a 20 percent level (intermediate) focuses on
some assets that need  more thought. Finally, a 5 percent level (advance critical) requires a full
economic analysis, which is very costly. Mr. Allbee identified two key questions: (1) Is the impact
reasonably predictable? (2)  Is it cost effectively preventable? Resulting management strategies
could be very different. In order to  improve the confidence level, the best appropriate process and
quality of data used will result in confidence that the course is the right one. However, most  utilities
are not willing to invest the money  into such an analysis. A strategic level map of organizational risk
should not display any assets in  a critical risk area. When evaluating cost perspectives, managers
must look at direct lifecycle costs and economic costs. Direct lifecycle costs include acquisition,

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   52

-------
operation, maintenance, renewal, disposal, and decommissioning. Economic costs include financial
costs, direct costs to the governmental organization, direct consumer costs, and finally, an analysis
of the triple bottom line. Mr. Allbee concludes that after integrating initiatives into the management
framework through the asset management business processes, managers can commit resources to
actual spending from the operational and capital budgets.

Click here to view Mr, Allbee's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Mr. Allbee's remarks.
Adaptation of Water Infrastructure Investments to Changing Demands and Climate
Variability: A Systems Approach
Dr. Van idAla vian. World Bank

Vahid Alavian began by stating that water is an integral element of many economies and water
investments influence the economy at both the macro and the micro levels. The impacts of climate
change on the hydrologic cycle are felt in similar ways by both utilities and developing countries.
The degree to which a water system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of
climate change  defines its vulnerability to climate variability and extremes. A  number of factors
make water investments in many developing countries vulnerable to the impacts of climate change
and may as a consequence expose the country to unmanageable economic shocks.

At the cross-cutting level, climatic impacts will have significant consequences on infrastructure
systems that deliver services and/or manage the resources. These systems include water,  energy,
transport, and ecosystem management infrastructure. Infrastructure system here is defined as an
integrated system of physical, institutional, and financial elements.  Regardless of the purpose, these
systems are intimately linked to water. The design of these systems will have to change for both
developed and developing countries. At the sector level, water systems can be classified as those
that deliver water services (e.g., water supply and sanitation, urban drainage, wastewater,
irrigation) and those that help manage resources (e.g., multi-purpose infrastructure, watershed
management, river basin management). Water services and water resources  are both affected very
differently by climate change. These systems are already under pressure as a result of increasing
water demand through rapid urbanization, degrading infrastructure due to lack of maintenance, and
weak management institutions in many countries. Climate  change is expected to seriouslyjeopardize
the water systems and it is vital for developing countries to transition into a more manageable
system.

Estimates show that by 2025, 2.8 billion people, and by 2050, 3.4  billion people, will be living in
primarily water  stressed  watersheds globally, as compared to the current 1.4 billion. The rapid
growth of slums is also a major area of concern because high density and inadequate urban
planning make the provision of sanitation services in slums a particularly difficult challenge. About
75 percent of the  population  growth over the next 15 years will be  in cities of less than 5 million
inhabitants, with over 50 percent in cities fewer than one million where services are already in short
supply and  of poor quality. Many of these  large cities are coastal cities which face additional climate
change impacts.

The key challenge is financing investment in water systems. Annual investment required to meet the
millennium  development goals is  $25-30 billion and current levels are only at $15 billion. Public
spending on infrastructure was halved  between the early 1980s and the late 1990s. Currently, it is

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   53

-------
at about 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Investment in water supply and sanitation
(WSS) is less than 1 percent. Expectations that private investment would compensate the fall in
public funding have not been met. The current investment level is $1 to $2 billion per year, primarily
focused on specific markets (e.g., China, treatment facilities). Overseas development assistance to
the water sector has declined since the mid-1990s;  the share of aid allocated to WSS is currently 6
percent. The current financial crisis has cut deep into aid and investment in WSS and other
infrastructure projects.

There is already a lot of hydrologic variability in the developing world and climate is not as large a
concern as consistent  water supplies and sanitation. A winter flood in Kenya in 1997-1998 caused
$2.39 billion in infrastructure damages, while a drought between 1998 and 2000 caused $2.4 billion
in losses. They had a 22 percent impact on GDP per year, in contrast to Hurricane Katrina, which
had losses of less than 0.5 percent of GDP. Infrastructure service delivery is at the core of water
security, energy security,  and climate change agenda. Adaptation is critical for irrigation, water
supply, and  hydropower.

Dr. Alavian stated that "no regrets," "good practice," and "sustainable"  actions can bejustified with
or without climate change. These actions include demand management, efficiency, productivity, and
intelligent and flexible design and operation  of water infrastructure (including  "on demand"
intervention, and infrastructure that "scales to needs"). "Climatejustified" actions are different
because they require more care in measuring impacts,  more precise assessment of system
vulnerability, a deliberate decision on the degree of risk to be taken, and strong justification of
usually high additional costs. "No regrets" adaptation measures for infrastructure include intelligent
and flexible  design and operations. A major effort is needed on rehabilitation,  including cross-
sectoral infrastructure (e.g., water,  energy, and transportation), early warning mechanisms, and an
increased capacity to respond.  Improvements in monitoring and assessment technology, efficiency
improvement, and demand  management are also key.  Dr. Alavian concluded that evaluating
economics and tradeoffs include decision making under increased uncertainty  and risk-based project
economic analysis. Financing mechanisms include risk insurance  (for systems and for customers,
notably the poor) and  incentives for private sector investments.

Click here to view Dr. Alavian 's presentation.

Click here to read the  transcript of Dr. Alavian's remarks.
A Review of Quantitative Methods for Evaluating Impacts of Climate Change on Urban
Water Infrastructure
Dr. Walter Grayman, P.E., NRMRL-UC WRAP Team


It is widely accepted that global climate change will impact regional and local climates and alter
some aspects of the hydrologic cycle, which in turn can affect the performance of the urban water
supply, and wastewater and stormwater infrastructure. How the urban water infrastructure will be
affected and how these impacts may be mitigated by design or operational changes has been the
subject of study and much conjecture.

In a qualitative assessment, potential impact pathways are identified and a general assessment of
the relative significance of the pathways is made. These pathways must be understood before one
can move to quantitative  assessments. A quantitative assessment extends this analysis to include
mathematical modeling techniques to calculate numerical estimates of the impacts of global climate

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   54

-------
change on the hydrologic cycle, water quality, the ecosystem, land use/population development, and
ultimately on the actual performance of the urban water infrastructure. Direct impacts include
decreases in precipitation, while indirect impacts include the deterioration of water quality via
temperature changes; affects on insect populations; and impacts of insects on trees, leading to soil
erosion. Other issues include uncertainty, timeframe, population growth, and energy stressors.

Dr. Grayman asked, "How does climate change  affects infrastructure interaction?" One must model
ecosystem changes, hydrologic and water quality processes, and land-use  and population changes.
Various metrics, such as cost, flow quantities, flow quality, population impacted, etc., can be used as
measures in a  quantitative analysis. There are many direct and indirect impact pathways and
feedback loops associated with these processes. An important component  of this type of analysis is
an assessment of the uncertainty associated with the quantitative estimates. Developing a
framework for evaluating the quantitative impacts of climate change on the urban water
infrastructure using existing modeling techniques representing the processes and interactions is the
ultimate goal. Model categories include climate change, hydrologic models, water quality models,
ecosystem models, population/land use models, infrastructure models, and systems dynamics
models (which are  integrations of all models).

Climate change models (GCMs) are mathematical models of the Earth's climate.  Coupled climate
models (AOGCMs) represent the interactions between the atmosphere, ocean, land surface, and sea
ice. Spatial or temporal downscaling derives regional climate data from coarse-resolution model
outputs. Some of these issues surrounding climate models are uncertainty and the inability to
account for short-term intense precipitation events. Hydrologic models are rainfall-runoff models
that predict streamflow resulting from precipitation. They can either be in time scale (event based,
such as a particular storm, or continuous), or spatial scale which analyzes  large or small watersheds.
Hydrologic models can be integrated with geographic information systems (CIS), however, most
pre-date climate change applications. Water quality models measure how water quality varies
temporally and spatially due to loadings and the environment. They are often used in conjunction
with hydrologic models. Examples include stream water quality models (QUAL2K, WASP), integrated
hydrologic/water quality models (BASINS, SWMM), integrated streamflow/water quality models
(EPD-RIV1), and integrated groundwater flow/water quality models (MODFLOW).

Climatic conditions determine where individual species of plants and animals can flourish, therefore
ecosystem models can be used to simulate changes in processes and geographic distributions. Land
use/population models project temporal and spatial changes in land use and population.  They are
often integrated with CIS and attempt to measure feedback from climate change on future land  use
and population patterns. Infrastructure models predict the performance of components of the urban
water infrastructure. Examples include water distribution systems (EPANET), urban stormwater
systems (SWMM), water treatment models (WTP), and wastewater treatment models.  All of these
models have issues surrounding uncertainty, reliability, and interactions with climate change.

Systems dynamics models test "what if" scenarios of complex systems with feedback loops.
Examples include the MIT Greenhouse Gas  Emissions Simulator, the C-ROADS: The Climate Rapid
Overview and Decision-Support Simulator, and the ASU Systems Dynamics analysis of urban
vulnerability to climate change. A question surrounding systems dynamics  models is whether they
can describe the processes in sufficient detail and accuracy to trust the results of the models. In
order to help solve these issues with the above  mentioned assessment framework. Dr. Grayman
identified several research needs, that there should be an enumeration of qualitative pathways
between climate change and infrastructure  impacts, and there should be an in-depth evaluation  of
quantitative  assessment tools of the above mentioned models.

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   55

-------
Dr. Grayman concludes by stating that we must have a clear understanding of the mechanisms and
pathways by which climate change can impact the performance of the urban water infrastructure.
Existing quantitative models  must be evaluated to ensure that they adequately represent these
mechanisms and pathways. If not, further research and development is needed.  Finally, he stated
that there will always be a large degree of uncertainty in the modeling process associated with
climate change.

Click here to view Dr. Gray man's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Dr. Gray man's remarks.


Water Use and Re-Use in Energy Technologies in a Carbon-Constrained World
Dr. Pratim Biswas, P.E.,  Washington University in St. Louis

Water infrastructure sustainability and adaptation to climate change is a very broad topic. Clean and
alternate energy production technologies  are being developed and implemented. A key contributor
to climate change is fossil fuel based energy production,  which means we are now in a "carbon-
constrained world." Water issues related to clean energy need much  more attention than they are
currently receiving. There are several energy scenarios that need to be discussed. Energy sources
form a "mixed bag" including fossil fuels and alternative energy.  Population growth is placing stress
on energy production, particularly in developing countries. Population growth and energy growth go
hand-in-hand, so we need technological innovations to step up energy production in an
environmentally  benign manner.

Interests in energy usually come and go.  Alternative energy gained importance in the 1970s, but
that interest quickly waned. Pratim Biswas introduced the energy equation, which includes fuel
economics and reserves,  energy security,  and carbon dioxide (C02) and other environmental
emissions. There are many technological  issues and challenges as we transition into a clean energy
economy. Society will rely on fossil fuels in the interim (next 50 years). Intermediate term solutions
include methanol and other fuel cells, hybrid energy generation,  and  biofuels. Long-term solutions
are hydrogen and distributed energy production.

Water and energy are intimately  interconnected.  It is vital to carry out a "holistic analysis" which
accounts for environmental factors such as water use. For example, during electricity production
using coal, a holistic analysis examines the water use during mining,  electricity production, and
waste treatment. It will analyze their operational  use of water, then use tools to see if water can be
conserved or "re-used." Each 500-MW coal plant  burns 200,000 kg of coal per hour, releases
750,000 kg of C02 per hour,  and uses 2.2 billion gallons of water per year (equivalent to a city of
250,000 people). Fifty percent of electricity in the United States comes from coal, amounting to two
billion metric tons of C02 emissions per year. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has performed
detailed studies on water use in coal plants.

Many of the alternate technologies will have varied uses of water, and this has to be considered as
choices are made for the future.  Solar energy is diffuse but plentiful,  and has the potential of being
used for distributed generation. While silicon has been a  mainstay of the semiconductor industry, it
is expensive and energy intensive to produce  (current photovoltaics (PV) have attained efficiencies
of 20 to 25 percent).  Solar energy needs  low-cost production methods and materials that are
plentiful, such as oxide semiconductors. The water required to produce hydrogen for a U.S. fuel cell
vehicle fleet is around 100 billion gallons of water per year. We currently use about 300 billion

Proceedings of the  First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    56

-------
gallons of water per year in the gasoline refinery industry alone. Domestic water use in the United
States is about 4,800 billion gallons per year. The United States uses about 70 trillion gallons of
water per year for thermoelectric power generation. Fossil production of electricity consumes about
0.5 gallons of water per kWh produced. Wind and PV consume no water during their electricity
production. This means that every kWh of wind that replaces a kWh of coal saves 0.5 gallons of
water. If we aggressively install wind, then our overall water usage would drop. Bioenergy faces the
issue of food versus energy crops. Dr. Biswas and Washington University have developed an
auditing process for analyzing water used during the ethanol production process. This is available at:
www.aerosols.wustl.edu/education/energy/ethanolaudit/. The greening of buildings, both existing
and new infrastructure, is another energy goal. Washington University is trying some novel
approaches in a new state-of-the-art laboratory building that will reduce water use and take
advantage of water recycling and reuse.

In conclusion. Dr. Biswas states that holistic, integrated analysis is a key for understanding the
relationship between energy production and water issues. We need to develop auditing tools to
evaluate energy and water usage, and then use these tools to design water re-use and conservation
to guide the overall design of an energy production system in a  "carbon-constrained world." The
issue of water will continue to be very important.

Click here to view Dr. Biswas'presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Dr. Biswas' presentation.
Summary of Discussion Session

A member of the water research community mentioned that distributed energy offers potential
solutions that have parallels to the water system. WEF members could be more interested in this.
Another water researcher added that tools need to be developed to measure the economies of
scale. These tools are being used in the energy industry and they can be applied to the water
industry as well. A water manager answered that the big difference is that you can store one and
not the other. A participant remarked that in the 1970s we went to a centralized system to deal with
pollution, now it seems like the opposite. A member of the water management community added
that Chicago is considering the terrorism threat for decentralized systems. We need to find multiple
sources of water,  notjust Lake Michigan, in case our treatment system went down. A water
resources manager mentioned that we need to take into account the dimensions of both centralized
and decentralized systems.

A water manager  stated that they are finding that the private  sector is involved in reclaimed water
used for irrigation purposes. Regulators are not prepared for those who are  operating facilities in
private developments.

Another water manager mentioned that they are also looking to diversify their sources, looking at
desalinization on the Hudson River. Dealing with the public perception surrounding this is difficult. A
water manager remarked that the five-year drought in Australia led to a brand new assessment of
priorities, which in turn led to desalination.

A water researcher stated that he wanted to know more about the asset management map. A
member of the water research community responded that the example came from Orange County,
CA, in which the organization engaged on where risk was located and found that it did not fall at

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    57

-------
critical points. There should be an action plan for each risk. He stressed that this was very
important.

A water manager asked, that while risk assessment was relied on by the energy sector, how do they
protect against the risks of an energy system failure? Another member of the water management
community added that Miami cannot depend on the  power grid to operate due to hurricane risks.
Miami water created redundant power supplies at 1,000 pump stations. They have an operating
agreement with the utility and can use excess power. They have diesel-fired boilers, which are not
ideal from an environmental standpoint. In regards to the relocation situation, Miami has assets at
risk due to sea-level rise, so at what  point do they discuss relocating the population because of
climate change? A water manager responded that environmental refugees are a concern that the
World Bank is looking at, but this runs counter to World Bank safeguards that all refugees must be
moved to a better situation. A water  resources manager remarked that we should copy Australia's
water sector and focus on global collaboration on these issues.

A water resource consultant added that  in terms of financing, these are tough decisions that
ratepayers or regulators are not ready to make.  Additional funding for research and development
(R&D)  and implementation of water infrastructure products is necessary.

A water manager responded by asking whose money is the issue here? Research at the federal level
is dedicated to finding the most cost-effective resources and  applying them across the country. The
regulatory system has to evolve, and this is not  an either or discussion between investment and
research. One participant questioned the number of  years people are willing to stick with a program.
Research can lead to long-term, sustainable practices.

6.3    Adaptation Practices and Tools - Part I

The following two sessions discuss the adaptive  management, engineering, information, and tools,
available to water utility managers. A wide range of  options is illustrated in Part I, including a focus
on operational adaptations in California,  a focus on potential  institutional adaptations along the Ohio
River; and a focus on comprehensive risk analysis as an action mechanism in the Boston area.

Click here to read the remarks of the moderator (Josh Foster, Center for Clean Air Policy).
Alternative Water Supply and Drinking Water System Operations: Preparation for
Climate Change Adaptation in East Bay MUD
Dennis Diemer, East Bay MUD, CA


Dennis Diemer began by stating that climate change is a growing threat to communities that have
enjoyed plentiful water supplies for decades and planned their water systems based on historical
water supply records. Climate  change science continues to evolve and provide a better
understanding of potential impacts, which include  lengthening periods of increased ambient
temperature, rising sea levels, reduced snow blankets in the West, and rising river temperatures.
Water managers face difficult decisions on how best to adaptively plan and reliably provide for the
water needs of future generations.

The East Bay Municipal Utility  District (EBMUD) has been closely following climate change science to
understand the potential impact to the region.  EBMUD serves 23 cities and over 650,000 customers.
EBMUD has been using data and information on global and regional climate change impacts, and

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   58

-------
has applied them toward its water supply and operation planning efforts. EBMUD has cooperated
with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and modeled potential water temperature
increases in the Mokelumne River and EBMUD Reservoirs.  It has conducted hydraulic and hydrologic
modeling to determine the potential impact of climate change on river flow and reservoir filling.
EBMUD is tracking both the IPCC and State of California work to predict climate change impacts on
the western United States. EBMUD's research identified six key areas of potential vulnerability: water
supply, flood management, water demand, sea-level rise, power generation, and water quality.

There are a significant number of predicted climate change impacts on EBMUD's water supply,
including varying hydrologic reliability. There will be more dry years, less snowpack, and earlier
runoff. It is not known if there will be more or less precipitation overall, but less snowpack is very
likely. For EBMUD, three out often years are dry years, and a 20 percent reduction in precipitation
would increase the frequency of dry years to five  out often years. There will be an increasing
demand for water and increasing water temperatures. Customer use of water for outdoor irrigation
and indoor water consumption  may increase with a warming climate. Other effects include the
lengthening of the growing season, and a decrease in soil  moisture content. Warmer water
temperature in river and reservoirs will have large effects on local fisheries and on water quality.
The effects on water quality could  lead to increased turbidity, decreased water treatment plant
capacity, and increased water production costs. Infrastructure reliability will also be affected due to
sea-level rise and delta vulnerability. EBMUD's power generation could also be affected according to
the modeling.  EBMUD could see increased energy demand, increased peak energy use of between 4
and 19 percent, lost power generation by 10 to SOpercent, and lost revenues.

EBMUD has identified and developed appropriate  adaptive strategies to prepare for the impacts of
climate change. Climate change considerations have  been  accounted for in EBMUD's strategic
planning  process to support short-, intermediate-, and long-term decision making, including planning
for its future water supply  needs. Their  planning approach has a climate change objective in 2008
which included a monitoring and response plan. The  Water Supply Management Program (WSMP)
2040 incorporates the new Freeport Project with the  Sacramento River supply. EBMUD developed
water supply alternative portfolios  that considered flexibility, diversity, reliability, carbon footprint,
and energy consumption. EBMUD conducted sensitivity analysis to evaluate each alternative
portfolio's ability to adapt to climate change The alternative portfolios included increased
conservation, increased recycled water,  water transfers, groundwater banking, desalination, and
increasing the  height of reservoirs.  To increase GHG  mitigation, EBMUD has conducted GHG
inventories since 2005 and is certified by the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR). Onsite
renewable energy such as  solar PV and  wind from microturbines have been installed. EBMUD  has
also begun a wastewater cogeneration project, in addition to its existing hydropower generation.
Finally, a hybrid vehicle fleet has saved  12,000 gallons of gasoline and reduced C02 emissions by
103 metric tons.

Mr. Diemer concluded that EBMUD will continue to monitor the science and perform the necessary
studies to evaluate the possible impacts of climate change. They have determined vulnerabilities and
identified future actions to reduce them. EBMUD has incorporated the potential for climate change
into EBMUD's strategic planning process and planned for water supply uncertainty with a diverse
and flexible portfolio. Finally, they  are implementing mitigation elements and taking a proactive
approach to reducing GHG emissions.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    59

-------
Click here to view Mr. Diemer's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Mr, Diemer's remarks,


Stormwater Management and Extreme Precipitation: Protecting Surface Water and
Source Water Quality in Ohio River Watersheds
Alan Vicory, Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission

The  Interstate Compact of the  Ohio  River Valley established the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission (ORSANCO) to abate  interstate water pollution in the Ohio Valley drainage. ORSANCO
establishes discharge requirements on the Ohio River, and monitors and assesses water quality and
biology. ORSANCO also respond to spills and coordinate the implementation of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) and Safe  Drinking Water Act  (SDWA) Programs. The commission also conducts research and
works closely with river users (particularly publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and WWTPs).
The Ohio River Basin is highly engineered and has 20 dams and 49 power generating facilities.
Annually, it transports 230 million  tons of cargo 981 miles from Pittsburgh, PA, to Cairo, IL, and is
often called the U.S. industrial  artery. The drainage basin covers 203,900 square miles in  14 states
and is home to over 25 million  people. It provides drinking water for 5 million people (29  intakes)
and contains over 120 species  of fish. The river is shared by six states and has a very diverse  land
use,  including  mining, agriculture, chemical industries, and coal production. Given the magnitude of
the basin and the wide diversity of land use and hydrologic conditions, the challenge with respect to
the study of predictive effects of climate change and formulation and delivery of mitigating and
adaptive strategies are highly complex technically, politically,  and institutionally.

From the standpoint of water quality, it is expected that climate change impacts on the Ohio River
will be comparatively less severe than on most other streams, due both to its size and the extensive
in-place infrastructure that facilitates the river's use for industrial navigation. Still, given the current
general understanding that climate change will result  in increased occurrences of drought and
elevated flows, there are important implications with respect to water quality. For example, low flow
conditions and higher stream temperatures heighten the risk  of algae blooms and low dissolved
oxygen, and higher observed levels of total dissolved solids, chlorides, and sulfate. In the event that
more flow augmentation is necessary via  U.S. Army Corps operated reservoirs, lower water levels
may  diminish recreational opportunities. Water quality effects from higher flows will  likely include
increased sedimentation, higher observed levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxin
(shown to increase with higher flows), increased  bacterial levels due to sewer system overflows, and
additional  inputs of non-point related pollutants such as bacteria,  atrazine, and nutrients due to
agriculture production. Ten percent of the combined sewer overflows (CSOs) in the country are
affected by additional bacteria  loadings from high flows. Related high flow impacts include aquatic
habitat impairment and hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. There are also important implications
regarding spills. There are over 600  industrial discharges and chemical spills can  show up 150 miles
away from their release point.  In high flows, spill events tend to be infrastructure-based, such as
barge breakaways, while in low flows, spill impacts are exacerbated due to less dilution.

ORSANCO is new to the issue of climate change,  but as the commission engages the issue,  it
expects that its role, activities,  and relations with its member states and federal agencies  will follow
current policy. Mr. Vicory stated that the commission needs to know what to track with an
established monitoring network and  sound historical data. Is there sufficient  plasticity in current
regulatory processes to allow us to keep pace with pace of change? Should our criteria change as

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    60

-------
climate changes? If not, the alternative might be that we list more impairments.  In February,
ORSANCO is holding a scenario planning, or "futures visioning" workshop. The commission is in
need of predictive tools for climate change and a clearinghouse for these tools. It will also be
important to identify interstate management implications and integrate the interaction of energy and
water into the climate management challenge. This will be a particularly key issue for the Ohio
Valley.
Click here to view Mr. Vicory's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Mr, Vicorv's presentation.
Case Study: Risk and Management Analysis for Progressive Adaptation of Water Supply
in Metro Boston
Dr. Paul Kirshen,  Tufts University

Paul Kirshen stated that proactive adaptation requires that actions are taken before major impacts
have occurred. Research has shown that this is a more cost-effective approach than reactive
adaptation. The requirements of proactive adaptation planning include a consideration of climate
change in current planning so proper adaptation can occur, in particular, explicit accounting for
climate non-stationarity and other uncertainties. There is a need to consider dynamics,  i.e., the
timing of adaptation actions in recognition of the impacts of other driving forces on infrastructure
and the environment (e.g., population, globalization, urbanization); GHG mitigation; active
stakeholder involvement at all levels; and consideration of adaptation interactions among various
infrastructure and environmental sectors. A scenario-based risk assessment procedure addresses
many of these challenges. The consideration of system performance  over all conditions moves away
from the traditional "design event" approach (i.e., 10-year storm, 100-year storm). It focuses upon
"residual risks," i.e., consequences of impacts that occur when the design level of a project is
exceeded and explicitly recognizes that uncertainty (lack of quantified probabilities) exists in the
process, which must be addressed through scenario analysis. The assessment relies upon two-way
communication with stakeholders to select the level of risk they can tolerate while considering
tradeoffs of multidimensional costs versus safety.

Scenarios of outcomes that cannot be characterized by known probabilities can  be  combined with a
risk-based approach that is used for actions whose outcomes can be characterized  by a probability.
In the risk-based approach, the costs and benefits of the performance of an infrastructure system
over the entire range of possibilities are evaluated. The complete analysis can be assembled
similarly to a decision tree. If probabilities can be assigned to the uncertainties,  then the analysis
collapses to a normal decision tree. The major uncertainties in adaptation planning may include
various land use, GHG emission scenarios, the climate impacts of each GHG scenario, and local
socioeconomic scenarios.  The outcomes of scenario-based risk assessment analysis are probabilistic
estimates of the impacts of various adaptation actions by expected values  and other metrics given
the uncertainties.  If time series of actions and outcomes are included, then the  dynamics of climate
change and adaptation can be understood. The complete analysis allows decision makers to
understand the range  and timing of possible actions, and their associated costs. Its value in
adaptation  planning is that decision makers can search for adaptation actions that function well no
matter what future climates are.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    61

-------
This framework was demonstratively applied to the water supply system of metropolitan Boston,
MA, which consists of a large regional system serving most of the population either fully or partially
and smaller, totally self-sufficient municipal water supply systems. The Climate's Long-Term Impacts
on Metro Boston (CLIMB) project uses a scenario-based risk assessment approach, with a Monte
Carlo simulation of impacts that uses boot strapping for climate inputs and simulation models for
system performance over time. Using the indicators of reliability as measured by the percent of time
it fully meets its annual demand, vulnerability as measured by size of average failure, and resilience
as measured by time to recover to full operation, the self-supplied systems were found to be at risk
after 2020. Several adaptation scenarios were used, including a base case. Ride it Out (RIO), Green,
and Build Your Way Out (BYWO). Resiliencies of the supply system,  measured by the length of a
period of failure under all scenarios, are generally always one year. Vulnerabilities of the supply
system, measured by the average size of deficit, is significantly  less  in the BYWO scenario, next
followed by the Green scenario, and then the RIO scenario. Due to its present high safe yield and
relatively low demand, the regional system functions well even under climate change and if the local
self-supplied systems join. The regional MWRA system functions well even under climate change and
if the local self-supplied systemsjoin. Presently, the MWRA is not obligated to serve self-supplied
systems in the event of temporary or permanent shortages. Therefore, local systems could consider
anticipating  climate and demographic changes by managing demand to minimize shortages,
increasing instream flows, increasing system storage capacity though reservoirs or aquifer use, or
considering  using such water supply sources as reclaimed wastewater and desalination.

Click here to view Dr. Kirshen's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Dr. Kirs hen's remarks.
Summary of Discussion Session

A water resource manager stated that the steps he has taken involve strategic planning efforts, then
capital planning, then capital funding, and finally voter approval. Convincing people is very
important. Most utilities have capital plans that are very rigid. It is now important to have some
flexibility, particularly since adaptation needs to be built into capital  plans. A local water manager
responded that strategic planning is an excellent tool to communicate to both employees and the
board of directors. We  have had success going to ratepayers and explaining to the public their
plans.

A water resource researcher mentioned that he is impressed on the mitigation efforts of EBMUD,
particularly being  registered with the climate registry. California requirements are driving flexibility
for utilities that may  not be available in other areas. A local water manager responded that AB32
was the writing on the  wall for us to make the decision tojoin the CCAR.

A water resource researcher mentioned that with strategic planning, many issues will be affected by
climate change, and  utilities have to be cognizant of these other issues, such as population growth
forecasts. Growth forecasts are consistently applied in strategic planning, but  agreement on the
forecasts is needed.  Is  anybody looking at a carrying capacity approach for factoring in climate
change? You may arrive at the maximum amount of water that you can deliver. A local water
manager remarked that they have not used it as a limiting factor, but they are integrating
vulnerabilities to climate change into strategic plans. When they add climate change into the mix,
they have not said that they cannot accommodate added capacity.

Another water resource researcher  stated that with the issue of CSOs in Ohio, green infrastructure
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   62

-------
could be a good way to deal with these issues. A local water manager responded that from the
regulatory agencies and the 10-15 strategic plans on water from governments, there is no
appreciation for looking at future plans. It is important for people to advocate for state agencies to
develop strategic planning that incorporate such factors as green infrastructure into their plans. A
water resources researcher added that Cambridge, MA,  is turning to LID. It is vital to start thinking
about these issues now. A water resource manager remarked that Chicago formerly took a sewer
oriented approach and now they focus on managing landscapes, notjust pipes (Chicago has over
5,000 miles of pipes). They changed ordinances from prescriptive to performance oriented.
Managing CSOs was a high level decision, and they are changing standards as they learn.

A participant stated that they are thinking of capturing non-potable water for re-use. How should
they be dealing with water quality standards, total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), and state
regulators? A water resources manager responded that  he does not know if state agencies are
thinking about these issues, but this is an issue that should be presented at American Water Works
Association (AWWA) conferences,  and data that show which direction the world is moving. Bringing
issues to the attention of  state agencies now is very important. Also use EPA to advocate your
position.

A water resource manager remarked that it comes back to educating and communication. They are
upgrading a plant because of algae, which led to a rate  increase, and now have to describe this to
their customers. The customer base has no idea what it takes to deliver clean water.

A water utility representative added that the Marcellus Shale deposit in Pennsylvania uses a lot of
water to extract natural gas. Integrating planning involves so many different areas, this project hit in
three weeks, and the commission was left scrambling. Many are  not doing a very good job of
scenario planning with high energy prices.

A water resource researcher mentioned that the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
California office commented on AB  32 and looked at LID and water reuse issues. They are also
looking at the stimulus and transportation bills, state revolving funds, and eventually the climate bills
in order to find money for utilities. A supplementary GHG bill could allow for the sale of credits for
nutrient reduction and other plans.

A member of the water resource research community stated that they are incorporating future
environmental scenarios into planning, such as Everglades restoration. The  key issue they are facing
is sea-level rise and its affects on the Everglades. They have to determine and then evaluate the
freshwater requirements.  Climate change  impacts all different levels of planning and it is necessary
to have some event that occurs to influence decision makers. What event will occur that will make
all this possible? A public  referendum will not be prepared until after the fact.

A water resource manager added that ratepayers need to know more about the water process.
Customer education in his community does not get funding.  In contrast, Chicago looks at cultural
indicators, and  will not succeed  in getting projects funded if they do not educate the public. It would
be helpful to know what other utilities are doing with cultural indicators. A water resource manager
responded that they are producing educational flyers.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   63

-------
6.4    Adaptation Practices and Tools - Part 11

This session illustrates a number of sophisticated planning approaches that feature the integration of
multiple attributes of water resource planning within a planning framework. The presentations also
demonstrated how such planning frameworks become more challenging as the multiple dimensions
of future climate variability are factored into the analysis. Many ongoing research efforts are
highlighted that are very much in step with this greater level of challenge.

Click here to read the transcript of the remarks of the moderator (Mikaela Engert, City of Keene,
New Hampshire).
Integrated Water Management for Sustainable Water Supply in Southwestern Florida
under Global Changes: Water Reuse and Energy Considerations
Mark Simpson, Manatee County Manatee County Utilities Department

Mark Simpson began by stating that historically, about 90 percent of Floridians utilize groundwater
as their potable supply. Most of the population is located on the coasts. Florida has various aquifers
throughout the state, including the Biscayne Aquifer and south and east aquifers of Lake
Okeechobee. There is also a surficial aquifer that is generally found throughout the state with
variable productivity which is recharged by local rainfall. The Floridan Aquifer is a highly productive
aquifer, and well confined in southwest Florida. Manatee County is located on the southwest coast
of Florida just south of Tampa  Bay, and serves about 300,000 people with water and about 200,000
with wastewater. The surficial aquifer varies in depth throughout the area. There is a well-confined
layer where the intermediate aquifer is found, and saltwater is found below the layer across the
entire State of Florida. There is a bubble of fresh water sitting on top of the saltwater. In Manatee
County, there  is good confining layer between the upper Florida aquifer, the intermediate aquifer,
and the surficial aquifer.

Though variations exist depending  on location and the particular aquifer,  water quantity, quality,
and availability of groundwater often presented the most economical option for individuals and
public supply,  agriculture, and  industry. A well that could supply all the water demands could be
installed on  most any piece of property. Groundwater quality is characteristically  consistent,
relatively easy to treat to potable standards, and seemingly unaffected by surface activities.
However, increased population has led to the over pumping of aquifers. Saltwater intrusion  is
prevalent in aquifers right along the coasts and, as well fields have moved inland, they have led to
more intrusion. The southwest Florida Water Management District has limited the pumpage on the
Floridan Aquifer. They are now forced to consider alternative or non-fresh groundwater supplies,
such as surface water, brackish water, desalinization, conservation, and reuse.

Surface water seems to be an ideal candidate for alternative water in Florida. There is an average
rainfall of over 50 inches  a year; however,  only 2 percent of that precipitation goes to recharge the
aquifer. The majority of the precipitation flows out to the sea or is lost to evapotranspiration. One  of
the other limitations of surface water quantity is that it is subject to drought, and because of the
relatively flat topography in Florida, there must be large reservoirs, storage facilities, capture
stations, and pump stations with transfer lines to capture the water.  The  cost of  building these
reservoirs, which have to be off-stream reservoirs, is very high. Recent studies in Peace River Valley
of some  new alternative service water supplies have shown $170 million to  $320 million in capital
costs for a 10-million gallon a day supply, which brings the unit cost  up to between $4.70 and $7.80
per thousand gallons. Besides surface water quantity, it can be an issue of quality as well. Water is

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    64

-------
more vulnerable to contamination events and there are ideal conditions for cyanobacterial growth in
Florida, elevated total organic carbon (TOC), algal exudates, and micro-pollutants. These all require
advanced treatment beyond conventional treatment, which helps drive that treatment cost up.

Climate change is predicted to affect both quantity and quality of surface water. Rainfall is predicted
to become "flashier" and storage becomes an even greater issue. Effects are seen sooner on surface
water than on groundwater. Another alternative source is brackish water. Much of the water
requires membrane treatment for total dissolved solids (IDS) reduction, which leads to high power
costs that rise with increasing fuel prices. Another source,  desalination, requires even tighter
membranes and higher pressures and comes with the same cost effects as brackish water. Some
economies can be realized with the co-location  of desalination with power plants. Conservation is
also identified as an alternative supply. In southwest Florida, there have been water restrictions
since the mid-1990s. There are also various conservation initiatives, including education programs
and landscaping. Florida has managed to decrease per capita use by about 30 percent.

Reuse  has been used in southwest Florida for urban irrigation (in St. Petersburg), and throughout
southwest Florida for agriculture, athletic fields, and golf courses. The Manatee Agricultural Reuse
System is a local, state, and federally funded project that constructs pumping facilities and pipelines
to connect three regional water reclamation facilities. The  reused water is provided to farmers in
place of higher quality groundwater from the Floridan aquifer. It is very cost-effective to be able to
give this reused water to farmers. Very little infrastructure is required and the systems uses between
10 and  18 million gallons  per year.

Mr. Simpson concluded that sustainability in southwest Florida requires multiple sources,  which
include fresh  groundwater, the easiest source to treat and supply. The preservation of those
groundwater  aquifers is key for surviving drought conditions for the area. Using reclaimed water for
irrigation is the cornerstone for the reuse strategy. It presents an opportunity to conserve both
money and energy. Reuse presents opportunities to conserve money and energy. It is 13 times less
costly than alternative surface water processes  and 10.3 times less costly than brackish water
processes.

Click here to  view Mr. Simpson's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Mr, Simpson's remarks.
EPA Water Resource Adaptation Program (WRAP) Research and Development Activities
on Adaptation Methods and Techniques
Roy Haught, EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory

Roy Haught began by commenting that regardless of what we do, some degree of future climate
change will occur. Climate change is affecting the global water cycle and adapting will be necessary
in certain regions and for certain socioeconomic and environmental systems. In the United States,
the majority of the existing drinking water and wastewater treatment plants, and water delivery
distribution and wastewater sewerage collection infrastructure systems continue to age and
deteriorate. Environmental and climate changes are expected to superimpose additional effects on
the already stressed and aging infrastructure. The way we design, manage, operate, and maintain
our water resources and infrastructure needs to be a priority. ORD is conducting research on
drinking water and water quality related issues, and demonstrating how the research could be used
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    65

-------
to support both the aging water infrastructure and global climate change initiatives. Users can visit
these R&D facilities and learn firsthand about the technologies under development.

Utilities are changing their attitudes about water usage. More stress is being placed on conservation,
but water quality and quantity are still critical. The Water Resources Adaptation Program (WRAP) is
conducting a drinking water treatment process evaluation. These evaluations include water
availability forecasting, alternative water resource development, water conservation techniques, and
water resource impacts from bio-fuel  productions. ORD is developing technologies that support the
WRAP program; national and regional assessments are ongoing. Results of the R&D effort will be
available to end users and stakeholders.  There are several facilities where R&D activities are taking
place. At the Edison facility in Edison, NJ, they are taking a broad approach to infrastructure.  They
have developed an experimental stream facility in Milford, OH. Another facility sits on the grounds of
the Cincinnati, OH wastewater treatment plant, where many different tests and evaluations can be
completed. These tests and evaluations include secondary treatment on activated sludge systems,
soil column for irrigation simulations,  and wastewater reuse experimental testing. They are also
developing a low-pressure Membrane Bioreactor Reactor (MBR) to evaluate wastewater reuse. At
the facility, they can test under controlled conditions how different contaminants affect water
quality.

For water conservation techniques, ORD is developing and evaluating a nonintrusive networked
acoustic water quality sensors detection system to detect leaks and reduce water loss in
underground pipes, prevent water quality deterioration (due to infiltration and cross contamination)
in pipes,  and maintain or improve water quality. Other activities include an improvement of
operations management and preventive maintenance, and the development of an  infrastructure
database on pipe failure modes, geographic distribution, network age, and network operations.
Water conservation improvements are also utilizing studies on water pipes, which include
distribution system simulators such as corrosion studies, monitoring sensor studies, and leak
detection studies. Alternative water conservation techniques at ORD include stormwater collection
and management, rain gardens and swales development.

Mr. Haught concluded by stating that EPA ORD has research facilities, engineers, and scientists
conducting research supporting 21st century sustainable infrastructure initiatives. Different
infrastructure systems in the various regions of the country will depend not only on the integrity of
the infrastructure, but also on the  infrastructure's management, operational, and functional systems'
ability to adapt to climate change.  These research results could be used to help infrastructure adapt
to climate change.

Click here to view Mr, Haught's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Mr. Haught's remarks.
BASINS CAT, WEPPCAT, and ICLUS: Modeling Tools for Assessing Watershed Sensitivity
to Climate and Land Use Change
Dr.  Tom Johnson, EPA National Center for Environmental Assessment


Tom Johnson began by stating that the warming of the climate system is unequivocal as is evident
from the 1.4°F increase in global average air and ocean temperatures in  the last century. At the
same time, many regions have experienced changes  in precipitation amount, an increase in the
frequency of heavy precipitation events, and widespread melting of snow and ice. There has been a

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    66

-------
rising global average sea level since 1961  of around 1.8 mm/yr. Projecting forward, continued
warming and changes in the amount, form, and intensity of precipitation are expected, albeit with
large and poorly understood regional variations. Water resources and aquatic ecosystems are highly
vulnerable to these changes, with possible effects including increased occurrence of floods,
droughts, and water quality and ecosystem degradation. Water and watershed systems are highly
vulnerable to these changes.

Climate models have limited skill  predicting future climate at the spatial scales needed by water
managers, particularly at local and regional scales. Models are very effective for  understanding
system sensitivities behavior. Looking ahead at different scenarios and drivers can help show
impacts on watersheds. We can use this understanding to start identifying the ranges of potential
climate change impacts and to develop strategies for managing risk (e.g., increasing resilience to
future change). Given the inherent  uncertainty, it is best to think about adaptation in the context of
specific vulnerabilities (bottom-up vulnerability assessment). Specific systems such as wastewater
plants and drinking water plants drive the question of vulnerability. It is important to constrain
uncertainty and isolate what causes vulnerability.  There are three modeling tools developed  by the
EPA ORD for assessing the sensitivity of water and watershed endpoints to climate and land  use
change: the BASINS Climate Assessment Tool (CAT), the WEPP Climate Assessment Tool
(WEPPCAT), and the Integrated Climate and Land Use Scenarios (ICLUS) tool.

BASINS CAT is available in EPA's  BASINS 4 modeling system, and provides BASINS users the
capability to create scenarios and assess watershed sensitivity to climate change using the
Hydrologic Simulation Program-Fortran (HSPF) watershed model  and post-processing capabilities for
calculating a range of management targets (endpoints) useful to water and watershed managers
from model output. This capability is intended to support BASINS users interested in assessing a
wide range of "what if" questions about how weather and climate could affect their systems. The
system couples data and tools to support the total maximum daily load (TMDL) program by
calculating permitting points, and can also assess and provide weather data scenarios. The model
has a pre-processing capability to modify historical temperature and precipitation time series to
create scenarios reflecting a wide range of potential changes in climate (user determined). It also
has a post-processing capability to calculate hydrologic and water quality endpoints (e.g., mean
flow, 100-year flood, annual nitrogen (N) loading) and can conduct frequency analysis.

It manages and automates input into the BASINS HSPF watershed model. Combined with the
existing capabilities of BASINS models for assessing the impacts of land use change and
management practices, the  climate assessment capabilities provided by the CAT allow BASINS users
to assess the impacts of alternative futures including climate and land  use change as well as
implementation of adaptation strategies (e.g., best management practices, BMPs) for  increasing
resilience to climate change. BASINS 4,  including the CAT tool, can be downloaded from:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/basins/.

WEPPCAT is an online tool that provides a similar, flexible capability for creating user-determined
climate change scenarios for assessing the potential impacts of climate change on the sensitivity of
soil erosion and sediment best management practices (BMPs) using the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's (USDA's) Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) Model. In combination with the
existing capabilities of WEPP for assessing the effectiveness of management practices, WEPPCAT
also can  evaluate the effectiveness  of strategies for managing the impacts of climate change. It has
the pre-processing capability to create climate change scenarios for temperature and precipitation
using the Cligen weather generator. It also has the capability for representing agricultural BMPs
including grass and forested riparian buffers.  The model manages input to WEPP hillslope-scale soil
erosion model. WEPPCAT was developed through an interagency agreement with the USDA ARS
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    67

-------
Southwest Watershed Research Center and is available at:
http://typhoon.tucson.ars.ag.gov/weppcat/index.php.

The ICLUS tool is an ArcGIS application that provides a capability to derive benchmark land use
change scenarios for  housing density and impervious cover for the conterminous United States
consistent with the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) storylines. ICLUS outputs are
derived from a demographic model and a spatial allocation model that distributes the population as
housing units across the landscape for the four main SRES storylines and a base case. It uses the
SERGoM cohort-component model with a gravity migration model, which includes data on county-
level demography, housing density, and impervious cover. The benchmark scenarios developed for
IPCC SRES: A1, A2, B1, and B2 for each decade from 2000 to 2100, allows users to run new
scenarios reflecting different assumptions about population growth and density of development. Dr.
Johnson concluded that although subject to uncertainty, we know enough about future climate
change to start identifying the range of potential impacts and, if necessary, developing strategies for
managing risk.

Click here to view Dr. Johnson's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Dr. Johnson's remarks.
Metropolitan Water Availability Forecasting Methods and Applications in South Florida
Dr. Ni-Bin Chang, P.E., University of Central Florida, NRMRL-UC WRAP Team

The availability of adequate fresh water is fundamental to the sustainable management of water
infrastructures that support both urban needs and agricultural uses in human society. Recent
drought events in the United States have threatened drinking water supplies for communities in the
Chesapeake Bay area in Maryland from 2001 through September 2002, Lake Mead in Las Vegas
from 2000 through 2004, the Peace River and Lake Okeechobee in South Florida in 2006, and Lake
Lanier in Atlanta, Georgia,  in 2007. There is a renewed interest to develop a water availability
forecasting platform that serves for short-term water availability assessment and long-term water
availability forecasting for large metropolitan regions. This quantitative information is critical to
assist water planning agencies and utilities in water supply planning, operations, and adaptation
(POA) to climate changes.

Existing drought indices include meteorology-based drought indices, such as the Palmer Drought
Severity Index (PDSI). There are satellite-derived drought indices, such as the modified
perpendicular drought index (MPDI) and the Keetch-Byram  Drought  Index (KBDI). The  weaknesses
of these indices include coarse spatial and temporal  resolutions and no water quality information.
The ideal future drought index would use multi-scale sensing and monitoring. It would contain  a
spatial and temporal CIS analysis of water supply availability, future supply-demand imbalance, and
impacts on water quality and ecological systems. It would have remote sensing and satellite imagery
available for spatial assessment of drinking water source quality and quantity, and evaluation of
program effectiveness and outcomes. Finally, it would  contain water utility infrastructure conditions
and SDWA compliance assessment under predicted future global change  scenarios (climate,
demographic, and economic).

Similar to the drought ultraviolet (UV) index and air quality indices that have been widely used, the
metropolitan water availability index (MWAI) presents  a near real-time, risk-informed and forward-
looking instrumental message in terms of both the quantity  and quality of available fresh water in

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   68

-------
major metropolitan regions. The forecasting platform has two imbedded components. The first
component is the use of multi-scale and multi-dimensional databases of optical and microwave
satellite images, such as the NASA GOES, MODIS Terra and Aqua, etc., and ground-based radar
stations, such as the NOAA NEXRAD system. It is intended to provide short-term (days to weeks)
water availability forecasting in the form of a MWAI. The second component is the long-term
precipitation periodicity analysis with assistance from hydroclimatic GCM/RCM modeling. This effort
incorporates the hydroclimatic modeling with integrated ground-based sensor networks and  remote
sensing technologies, and aims at short-term to long-term forecasts. It is designed to forecast the
future trend. Different from the existing methods, MWAI  forecasting uses decision science and
artificial intelligence, and incorporates both water quantity and quality information in a simple
numerical  range from -1 to 1.

The MWAI must be able to reflect various sources of water quantity and/or water contamination
conditions in a water supply system. The index should not have any seasonality (i.e., the index
should be  able to indicate a drought and/or contaminant event irrespective of seasons). The index
should consider water sources from reclaimed wastewater and stormwater reuse. The MWAI index
should be  spatially comparable, irrespective of climatic zones (humid or arid).  Ni-Bin Chang
concluded that the Tampa Bay, FL region was chosen in part because of its fast economic
development, fast population growth,  global climate change impact, and multiple sources of water.
The case study demonstrates that MWAI can reflect the water quantity and quality collectively
without having seasonality impact. The MWAI can account for the site-specific features from city to
city region wide.

Click here to view Dr. Chang's presentation.

Click here to read the transcript of Dr. Chang's remarks.
Summary of Discussion Session

A member of the water management community offered some suggestions to EPA on siting of
wastewater plants. It is difficult to find locations for wastewater plants due to the smell and
pollution. They should be considered an asset for their treatment and recovery; we currently
undervalue wastewater and should work on the many benefits of wastewater.

A member of the water management community wanted to know about aquifer storage and
recovery (ASR). A local water manager responded that ASR is not being done in Florida on
wastewater,  but it is possible on potable water, up to 10 mgd.

A water manager asked about wastewater reuse, and if its demand is consistent or seasonal. And if
it is seasonal, is there the ability to store the water? A local water manager responded that they
have excess  capacity in a surface water reservoir. By connecting all three sources, they can improve
reliability. But storm surges can cause a substantial problem and they have to turn to deep well
injections.

A member of the water research community commented that new indices are needed to tie in to the
climate change discussion. Quality parameters have units that are difficult to add together. How do
we add quality and quantity together? Dr. Chang answered that a formula designed to normalize
terms (0-1) so they are all  comparable would do this.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   69

-------
A local water manager asked how we model for local government decision makers. Who are these
tools geared to? A water manager answered that these models are open to anyone. It is important
to work with small communities and make the tools very simple to use. A water researcher added
that the HOPS model is very tricky to use and there is a learning curve with these models. A local
water manager added that we must keep in mind who these end users are.

A water manager asked what is the experience engaging these conversations at this level with the
gatekeepers of dialogue around issues such as  water quality and stream flow? A water manager
answered that they have engaged activist communities and used them to take ownership of the
issues. An example is the Friends of the Chicago River. They paid them to do inspections of CSO,
and while there was some resistance, it turned  out to be an effective way to engage the community.

A water researcher commented that it takes a long time for people to accept that the government is
here to help. We have set up remote sensors in small communities in Puerto Rico to monitor water
quality. We established relationships and  now organize the local community to take ownership of the
watershed. They protected the watershed with  warning signs near the wastewater treatment plant.

A water manager asked,  "How do we use models to communicate with stakeholders?" OASIS is an
interactive tool that can show a group of  people how a community can use a limited water resource.
It was a dramatic experience that enabled people to see the consequences of their actions
throughout the community. To what extent do the people  question the model itself?

Another water manager asked if we need new tools for wells, such as groundwater ASR. For storage
and recharge, what tools are available now? A water manager responded that this illustrates the
importance of front-end work. Florida already stores reused and recycled water.

A water consultant added that ASR projects are all unique  and there is no general tool available that
can be applied to varied situations. Modeling is a great learning  exercise, but we must make sure
that there is training and education when moving models out to the general public.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   70

-------
7.     Moving Forward in Adaptation

Mike Shapiro, EPA Office of Water, and Pai-Yei Whung, EPA Office of the Science Advisor, provided
insights on moving forward in adaptation at the concluding session.  That same afternoon,
participants were divided into four breakout sessions to discuss the needed techniques, tools, and
research as they relate to the two workshop tracks.  Two breakout groups comprised of participants
in the Climate Change Impacts on Hydrology and Water Resources Management track were
moderated by Karen Metchis, EPA Office of Water, and Joel Smith, Stratus Consulting, Inc. Two
breakout groups comprised of participants  in the Adaptive Management and Engineering,
Information and Tools track were moderated by Jim Goodrich and Jeff Yang, EPA Office of Research
and Development, Elizabeth Corr, EPA Office of Water, and John Cromwell, Stratus Consulting,  Inc.
A subsequent discussion was held with a cross-section of participants from both tracks to reflect on
the workshop and to explore some of the concepts and needs heard during the workshop. These
three sessions provided an extensive list of suggestions and ideas  for moving forward  in adaptation.
7.1    Concluding Remarks

Before adjourning the workshop. Dr. Pai-Yei Whung and Dr. Michael Shapiro commented on the
significance of the workshop and potential opportunities and next steps that came out of the
presentations and discussions, including collaboration, research, and data collection.

Dr. Pai-Yei Whung, Chief Scientist, EPA Office of the Science Advisor

Pai-Yei Whung provided concluding  remarks on the significance of the discussions at this workshop
in the context of EPA's overall  approach to building sound science and technology. Dr. Whung
highlighted the importance of ensuring that the real costs of water are considered in decision
making, and that financing is a key element of water resource planning. If we consider financing in
the early stages of our planning processes, we will have more beneficial outcomes.

Dr.  Whung provided a brief overview of EPA's activities under its  national water program. The goals
of the program include:

    1.  Use core water programs to contribute to GHG mitigation.

    2.  Adapt implementation  of core water programs to maintain and improve  program
       effectiveness in the context of a changing climate and assist states and  communities in this
       effort.

    3.  Strengthen the link between EPA water programs and climate change research.

    4.  Educate water program professionals and stakeholders on climate change impacts on water
       resources and water programs.

    5.  Establish the management capability  within the National Water Program to engage climate
       change challenges on a sustained basis.

Dr.  Whung explained that the activities in support of decision making need to consider two key
technical factors: incorporating full cost accounting and lifecycle analysis of water used for energy
development, and using climate information gathered through coordinated and  comprehensive

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   71

-------
observations to inform decision making. The Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS),
which is a platform for bringing together integrated climate observations to meet user needs, is an
example of a resource that can be used to make informed decisions in the face of climate changes.

Dr. Whung addressed the importance of building collaborative relationships between the science and
technology communities, emphasizing the  importance of leveraging resources from the private and
public sectors and academia. In addition, in water management planning, there needs to be explicit
inclusion of climate change adaptation considerations. Dr. Whung also stressed the importance of
monitoring and modeling priorities, such as strengthening the data network, and creating a water
data portal. Lastly, she highlighted the  importance of integrating science and technology in clear
policy actions,  and for incorporating into these policy actions  feedback from practitioners on what
information they need from the science community.

Dr. Whung concluded by reminding the group that this stakeholder workshop  is a first step, and that
there will be continuing action. EPA is making these activities a priority for the Science Policy Council
Subcommittee  for Agency Science Priorities.

Click here to view Dr. Whuna's presentation.
Dr. Michael Shapiro, Deputy Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of Water

Michael Shapiro made the observation that despite the many uncertainties, he was extremely
impressed with the amount of work that has already been done on these issues. We are moving
forward simply by acknowledging the problems. However, we cannot wait for the perfect answers to
our questions. We need the research to move forward toward policy immediately. We are ready to
build upon the lessons learned through current activities. Climate change has caused us to reflect
back on other hidden needs in the water world. We need a suite of tools to help us make decisions,
both in the short-term and long-term. Figuring out how to proceed from here will be difficult.
Immediate steps that EPA plans to take to continue the momentum built at this workshop include:

•   Posting presentations on the EPA WRAP Web Site.

•   Making proceedings from the  workshop available.

•   Follow up this workshop by evaluating the information generated in the discussions from these
    past two days to identify actions that can be pursued in the next phase.

Mr. Shapiro explained that the products of this workshop will help EPA revisit the strategy it set forth
in its National Water Program Strategy Response to Climate Change, and will allow EPA to leverage
its resources in the most effective manner.
7.1    Suggested Ideas and Recommendations for Moving Forward in Adaptation

Participants in the breakout sessions on climate change impacts on hydrology and water resource
management were asked to comment on the following three questions:


•   What techniques and tools do water utility  managers and engineers need from the research
    community for decision making and vulnerability assessments?


Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   72

-------
•   What information is available now or can readily be made available to support water utility
    decision making and adaptation efforts?

•   Where are the gaps that need to be filled to enable water utilities to undertake adaptation
    actions?

For the breakout sessions on adaptive management and engineering, participants were asked to
comment on the following three questions:

•   What techniques, tools, and information are needed for decision making would utility decision
    makers and engineers like from the  research community?

•   What policy relevant information can the research community provide now or in the near term?

•   Given what is known, unknown, and likely/possible to be known in the near term, how should
    decisions on infrastructure be made?

During the small group work session, participants were asked to provide recommended ideas
relative to research, tools, and information in order for EPA to:


•   Gather individual perspectives and understanding of who is doing what and where gaps and
    challenges exist.

•   Provide individual feedback on the research activities of the EPA Office of Research and
    Development (ORD)  as presented during the workshop in order to inform EPA's future research
    directions.

•   Assist EPA and other federal agencies and research organizations in evaluating opportunities to
    help meet the needs of water and wastewater utilities.

•   Identify possible next steps in developing tools, projects, or programs that could help water and
    wastewater infrastructure managers prepare to adapt to climate change in the near term.

Participants in the breakout sessions and the post-workshop discussion provided numerous
suggestions, ideas, and comments on models, data, decision tools,  uncertainty, case studies, and
other issues, as identified below. Those ideas that appear in italics wwe those that were suggested
during the half-day work session that followed the workshop.

Participants in the breakout sessions on climate change impacts on hydrology and water resource
management were asked to comment on the following three questions:

•   What techniques and tools do water utility managers and engineers need from the research
    community for decision making and  vulnerability assessments?

•   What information is available now or can readily be made available to support water utility
    decision making and adaptation efforts?

•   Where are the gaps that need to be filled to enable water utilities to undertake adaptation
    actions?

For the breakout sessions on adaptive management and engineering, participants were asked to
comment on the following three questions:
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    73

-------
•   What techniques, tools, and information are needed for decision making would utility decision
    makers and engineers like from the research community?
•   What policy relevant information can the research community provide now or in the near term?
•   Given what is known, unknown, and likely/possible to be known in the near term, how should
    decisions on infrastructure be made?
Participants in the breakout sessions and the post-workshop discussion provided numerous
suggestions, ideas, and comments on models,  data, decision tools,  uncertainty, case studies, and
other issues, as identified below. The points raised are organized by themes and topics within these
themes and topics:
•   Difficulty of adaptation under uncertainty about climate change
•   Information needed by water managers, including:
           Information relating to current hydrology and climate, including paleoclimate,
           hydrometeorological information needs, and reference data.
           Information relating to climate change projections, including GCM downscaling archive
           and standards, model outputs and actionable science, and model inputs and the use of
           models.
•   Adaptations in engineering practices and decision making, including:
           Use of climate change information in decision-making, risk management, and
           vulnerability assessment.
           Engineering practice.
           Multi-factor hydro modeling, and
           Economic tools.
•   Technologies and Management, including:
           Drinking water supply and demand management, and
           Reuse and aquifer storage and  recovery.
•   Clearinghouse that includes and addresses:
           Case studies and best management practices.
           Tools and technical assistance.
           Regional and local information and tools, and
           Special needs of small utilities.
•   Federal role and interactions with federal agencies.
•   The role of EPA, including implications to water quality programs.
•   Water, energy, and greenhouse gas emissions.
•   Communication, education, and public outreach.
Those ideas that appear in italics were those that were suggested during the half-day work session
that followed the workshop.

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    74

-------
Difficulty of Adaptation under Uncertainty about Climate Change

•   In the workshop, two paradigms emerged for looking at the nexus of climate science
    management and water engineering. The Lettenmaier - Behar - Estes-Smargiassi paradigm
    holds that engineers and utilities know the cost-benefit analysis of different adaptation options
    and need probabilistic forecasts to determine which approach to take. The Brown - Waage
    paradigm holds that there is irreducible uncertainty in all forecasting, and the decision processes
    and tools need to be changed.

•   There is a failure in that uncertainty is not included explicitly in many models.

•   On the idea of a "cone of uncertainty," Dr. Lettenmaier used to throw out some scenarios, but
    now keeps all of them within the cone. Some of the scenarios might be less credible than
    others.
•   With more models, there is a greater range, but it is a mathematical lowering of the lower
    bound. With more models, we will have more models that are credible. For example. El Nino is
    included in some models, with a lot of uncertainty.

•   We do not know enough from the climate science community to be moving ahead with much
    certainty. There is an immediate need for greater certainty with respect to precipitation
    forecasts. The climate community needs to stop providing too much information that is lacking
    in specifics.

•   There needs to be more focused research on decision-making under uncertainty in the water
    resources management context. We need a system whereby the uncertainty in modeling can be
    managed appropriately. This will require alterations in decision-making protocols and different
    means of quantifying uncertainty (e.g., decision scaling).
•   Guidance is critical for communicating uncertainty in model projections to decision-makers.

•   We will not do away with uncertainty, but we need to understand it better. Research will not
    take away uncertainty, and utilities have discretion in light of uncertainty.

•   Hydrology is already uncertain and climate change adds more uncertainty. We need to consider
    what lessons could be learned from how hydrologists deal with uncertainty now, as well as the
    implications for additional uncertainty.

•   How do utilities integrate all the issues with different temporal horizons and variable levels of
    uncertainty? How do they decide on critical impacts to infrastructure over the long-term?
    Decisions are  being made today, so we need this information quickly.
•   We need a different model for decision-making under uncertainty. We cannot get away from
    uncertainty, and we cannot get hung up on it. Robust decision-making will enhance  risk
    management, as we will  be held accountable for our decisions. Uncertainty is inherent in
    planning.

•   There is less confidence regarding uncertainty. When uncertainty is larger, we may need to use
    the second band of uncertainty when there is no consensus trendline.
•   There are many tools out there, which need to be deployed appropriately, as well as be robust
    and explicitly incorporate uncertainty. We need better general information on the potential
    consequences, based on probability and taking into account the cost of not taking adaptation
    actions.

•   Uncertainty is a moving target until the Federal government sets a rule; then the utilities do not
    have to deal with it on their own.

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    75

-------
           We are not there yet. Each state/locality must make its own determination.
           We are at a point of transition on how to cope with this uncertainty on a systemic basis.

•  A primer on uncertainty should be developed and utilities should have access to it. The U.S.
   Climate Change Science Program and the IPCC have developed such a primer.

•  Utilities should  have a primer on uncertainty.

•  There are a number of gaps in understanding uncertainties inherent in model projections that
   are already available. The expert community needs to provide guidance in layman's terms for
   non-climatologists so they can understand what variability exists in model projections. The
   question is, "How do we communicate the uncertainty and pass it along to the decision-
   makers?" From storylines to emissions - down to models and downscaled outputs - there is
   much uncertainty. Guidance is critical.


Information Needed by Water Managers - Current Hydrology and Climate

Paleoclimate

•  Paleoclimate reconstructions is not being used. When we look at historical variability of climate,
   the reconstructions are there, especially in tree rings, going  back more than 500 years. If we
   can build systems using that variability, we  will have greater resiliency.

•  Model data exist and are being used, but paleoclimatic data  could be better used.  Data on
   Colorado River stream flow have changed the paradigm; general circulation model (GCM) and
   stream flow data should be combined.


Hydrometeorological Information Needs

•  There is a need to identify and elaborate the linkages between natural flow regimes (i.e.,  natural
   water quality) and best  management practices (e.g., low impact development, reforestation,
   afforestation). We need to determine the scale of the relationship between these factors  and
   what critical masses for change may be necessary before one affects the other.

•  Improvements on some models (such as runoff, water quality) are necessary before they can be
   used within new climate change models (meta-models). We can both improve models and
   encourage use of existing models.
•  There is a need for better information about the impacts of climate change on the hydrological
   cycle at sufficient resolution to be actionable,  and efforts toward this objective are not moving
   forward fast enough.

•  With respect to watershed or regional planning, large-scale solutions are the focus of research.
   Researchers need to be engaged in regional planning. GCM data need to be reassessed in the
   light of stream  flow and groundwater information. Environmental interests encourage focusing
   only on the impact of climate change, but water infrastructure research can help the
   environment.

•  With  respect to the variable infiltration capacity (VIC) and Stanford models, hydrologic modeling
   tends to be watershed specific,  which requires energy to develop.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    76

-------
    Up-to-date hydrologic and climatological data at the local and regional levels, with downscaled
    models, are needed.
    Improved forecasts on precipitation and climate variability
    GCM data need to be reassessed in the light of observed stream flow and groundwater
    information.
    Reasonable and accurate local and regional precipitation models are needed, particularly given
    the peaking factors at some plants as a result of storm events.
    We lack data on small watersheds, as there are fewer monitoring stations. Climate change is
    complex and overwhelming to small water systems. We need to downscale notjust climate
    models, but operational models as well so that utilities can plan for adaptations.
    Need better indicators to track progress.
Reference Data

•   As for documenting precipitation frequency, it would be interesting to consider a Bulletin 17B-
    equivalent for climate change. U.S. Geological Survey administers Bulletin 17B, which establishes
    a set of procedures for estimating flood frequency and  magnitude from coast to coast, with a
    purpose of establishing uniformity. There is a need for  guidance of this sort for practitioners,  but
    there is also an apparent lack of data.

•   Intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) curves are an example of another need.
•   Updated precipitation frequency estimates are needed.

•   Probability distributions for changes in parameters, rainfall intensity, and frequency (by decade)
    for the next WO years

•   There is a need for model-based probability functions for temperature and precipitation.

•   Need to narrow the uncertainty on precipitation, drought, and storm intensity, which will be
    used in design standards
•   Revised flood hazard data that account for climate change and imperviousness are needed.

•   Utility managers should have access to an updated analysis of relative hydroclimatic variables
    such as 24-hour rainfall and 100-year flood. As  the perspectives on these variables change, we
    should  have updated metrics with the most recent data methods and also a usage document
    that discusses the potential for non-stationarity perspectives.
•   Hydrometerological characterization of risk: 7Q10, WO-yr flood, and rainfall intensity duration.
    Develop up-to-date methods and data, along with peer-reviewed discussions of what we know
    and what we think about what are the likely trends in risk characterizations at the high and low
    end of hydrometerological systems

•   Quantitative data are needed to show the potential impacts of climate change;  otherwise it
    cannot be taken into account.
•   There  is no consensus with respect to the available data. Additional data sets are needed.
    Models are limited by the data available.

•   There  is a  lot of data out there, but there is a disconnect between data in the science/academic
    world and the utilities.  Data are needed in the short-term, downscaled modeling will come later.

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    77

-------
•   From a local utility standpoint, there is a need for observed data sets. Some of the lowest cost
    adaptation measures are operational changes that require real-time data feedback.  Local
    governments want to respond to climate variability in real-time. There is a certain amount in
    forecasts now, but we need to know how reliable they are.

•   It would be helpful to have a  tool and to run some forecasts through it, and then be able to
    enter observed data to test its effectiveness. A one-week lead time would be helpful, but it
    would be a good idea to have "now-casting" capabilities with two or three hours of  lead time.
•   There needs to be more information on thresholds of significance. Maybe there should be some
    testing to flesh out these thresholds.

•   The country's efforts in monitoring  environmental changes need attention. We are losing
    monitoring stations at a rapid pace. We need to modernize and update the environmental
    monitoring infrastructure, and we need to encourage comparable action in other countries. We
    are notjust looking at water impacts, but we are primarily focused on temperature,
    precipitation, and stream flow.

•   Better environmental monitoring, including not losing current capability and developing new
    systems (satellites and surface monitoring)

•   Ecosystem Impacts and biological research (e.g., in the West, habitat/species drive  water
    management)


Information Needed by Water Managers - Climate Change Projections

GCM Downscaling Archive and Standards

•   With the next generation of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios, more
    effort  needs to be put into archiving data, at least for those GCMs that are based on IPCC
    emissions scenarios.

•   There needs to be more information available regarding the  collection method, results  of peer
    review, etc. Standardized data are  important.

•   There are a number of gaps in understanding uncertainties inherent in model projections that
    are already available. The expert community needs to provide guidance in layman's terms for
    non-climatologists so they can understand what variability exists in model projections.  The
    question is, "How do we communicate the uncertainty and pass it along to the decision-
    makers?" From storylines to emissions - down to models and downscaled outputs - there is
    much  uncertainty. Guidance is critical.

•   Many decision-makers, including those on water boards, need a translation of models.  Some
    utilities must have the translation already. It is not that the translation does not exist. Where
    does the translation come from?

•   There is a need for  better climate information and forecasting, and the need to be rid of
    generalities and handicapping uncertainties.  Those uncertainties that cannot be gotten rid of
    need to be factored into planning. Given a specified emissions scenario, utilities want to know
    the uncertainties in  each model. There are still improvements that can be made in the  tools to
    help narrow this variability.

•   Credential a set of forecasts and tools that have been peer reviewed, that are workable, and in
    which there is some confidence.  Key questions include:

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   78

-------
           What data do you use?
           What are the directions of the changes?
           What is the timing?
•   Utilities should know the progress and expected future progress of the precision and accuracy of
    GCMs so that they may know whether to make a decision now based on existing models or wait
    a given amount of time for certainty to improve.
•   Do users know what to do with the downscaling? There is confusion. How do you work with the
    information you have? How do you make decisions?
•   At the OSTP meeting, it was discussed that the next general circulation models will be at the 50
    km grid size. In the next five months, they will want water resource input.
           We need to tell modelers what decisions are being made, and what outputs are needed,
           Downscaling by objective
           NOAA did not really talk with water resource agencies
•   Given uncertainty of climate model scale, NAS needs to conduct a study on the state of science
    and practices,

Model Outputs and Actionable Science

•   What data are actually tangible, and what science is actionable?
•   When receiving outputs from models and research,  we need to know about their inputs. How
    certain  is the projection, and can it be used in formulating new projections? What is the
    certainty of the output? We need to know the quality, certainty, assumptions, and
    appropriateness of the data.
•   At the NYC DEP, a climatologist is always in the room to interpret information to engineers,
    person-to-person.  How can we make that happen more often?
•   Better mechanism to provide climate science expertise to users of downscaledproducts (i.e.,
    how to use and interpret models).  This is possibly a role for a national climate service.
•   What research is available that is  valid?  In what ways can it be used?
•   There is a  need for standardization of downscaled model output, looking toward the next
    generation of statistical downscaling.
•   Perfect models are desired at the expense of using good, but not perfect models. The question
    is whether a  model can provide output that is good  enough to  be actionable.
•   Having  the tools to process the model outputs is important for use in hydrologic models. Many
    municipal utilities have models set up that could use the GCM outputs, but they do not know
    how to  do  it. Guidance on what models to run, and  what input to use, would  be very useful.
•   Identify the relationship of climate parameters and model outputs to impacts and geographic
    differentiation
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   79

-------
Model Inputs & Use of Models

•   When multiple models are available, often the approach is to choose a single model. There are
    approaches, such as Bayesian models, that use several models simultaneously.
•   Engineers do not want to use an ensemble of models.
•   A set of accepted guidelines is needed for creating scenarios for model inputs.
•   There is a significant amount of redundancy in existing databases. Tools are needed to simplify
    the process of importing data into the databases to make the data directly and easily accessible
    for watershed modeling purposes.
•   The stakeholder process is very much affected by assumptions. The models often do not give an
    answer, or inform us about uncertainty. How do we get the process to the stakeholder level
    (i.e., going through the model with the stakeholder)? Stakeholders will engage and understand if
    they can vary inputs and learn how inputs change. We have observed this using the OASIS tool.
Adaptations in Engineering Practices and Decision Making

Use of Climate Change Information in Decision-Making / Risk Management / Vulnerability
Assessment

•  Need information to help more sophisticated utilities with decision making and risk management
   in the face of uncertainty
•  Policy-makers need more research than utility managers  and engineers;  the Chesapeake Bay
   was used as an example.

•  There is a need to find out why people make decisions contrary to tools' recommendations.
   What barriers exist in the decision-making process at the human level and the institutional level?
   Why do ratepayers and politicians, for example, make decisions that contradict the tools?
•  With the management paradigm, information should be sought on "no-regrets" or robust
   solutions that lead to  greater flexibility and efficiency. (Do these solutions exist? How many are
   there? How well do they work under climate change? What methods are there for determining
   whether a solution is  robust or no-regrets?)
•  Risk management needs simple decision trees to help integrate climate change into planning.

•  What utilities most need help with is developing flexible adaptation pathways. For example, if
   sea levels rise a half-meter by 2050, utilities might not need to build retaining walls immediately,
   but they need to be able to plan to leave space for a wall in the future.

•  Would like to better synthesize a way to provide information on what the available options are,
   and  how to choose  among them.
•   If there are 10 GCMs, and 8 predict  that there will be increased water, but the greatest risk \s on
   the storage side, that risk should be considered.

•  We need to explore the costs of 100% reliability. People  are reluctant to use a new method if it
   increases the risk of failure, as we have seen with seasonal climate forecasting. We need to get
   rid of the risk of catastrophic failure.
•  A risk management framework opens  the question that something is not 100% fail safe

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   80

-------
           Risk management has always been around, and always evolves
           Risk management framework is part of education

•   There is a downside of more information - costs associated with increased precision and
    reducing uncertainty

•   Appropriate tools and data exist for us to begin risk management projections today,  including
    probabilistic analysis. We need a formalized approach for implementing water management risk
    analysis, from the water utility standpoint.
•   With respect to actionable data versus risk management frameworks, both types of tools are
    needed

•   With regard to the notion of having two overarching  paradigms, the goal should not  be to
    reconcile the two paradigms, but to make progress using both approaches.  (The Lettenmaier -
    Behar - Estes-Smargiassi paradigm vs. the Brown - Waage paradigm)
•   With respect to the various assessment tools that are needed, utilities are doing a lot of these
    kinds of assessments already. The lack of tools is not a justification for a lack of action. Instead
    of talking about tools that need to be developed, utilities need to have more money, the
    technical expertise, or a legal requirement to act. Utilities' willingness, not their ability to act, is
    the  problem.
           Should these be decision tools or scientific tools? Both risk and adaptation response
           tools exist, but they are not being applied.

           Utilities that are doing these assessments are doing them more as experiments than as
           routine processes.

•   Many of the techniques and decision support tools exist. Capacity building, information transfer,
    and support services to implement and apply the tools are needed.
           Unsure if the tools exist for utilities because there are still information/data needs (e.g.,
           storm intensity, precipitation).

           Utilities cannot wait for the information and a scenario-based approach must be used.

•   In applying decision tools, we are always trying to maximize flexibility and resiliency. To do this,
    we need shorter planning horizons. Traditionally, utilities prepare 30-year plans and  make some
    adjustments along the way. However, the changes required could become more drastic. Utilities
    practice adaptive management,  but they do not communicate  [the decisions] well.

•   Is there a  way to tier recommendations for major things? That is, long-term design decisions vs.
    near-term tier one decisions (e.g., those actions that are affordable, doable in near term for next
    summer, etc.)
•   Flexibility is expensive and compliance with the current, known environment is already
    expensive. Cost analysis and risk assessment tools for decision support are needed,  along with
    some consideration of what the error might be.

•   Improved tools are needed to assess whether a risk is significant to a particular utility.
    Benchmarks and metrics should be used, so that assessors and utilities can compare the risk
    with other uncertainties. In other words, we need the ability to determine whether a utility is
    particularly vulnerable to climate change compared to other stressors.

•   Every community  will make a different decision based on local circumstances

•   Utilities put off decisions as much as possible in hopes of being more certain, but at  some point
    must make the decisions
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                     81

-------
           Tendency is to design with as much flexibility/capability as they can afford
•   In California, there is concern that the state department of water resources will issue
    publications detailing projected climate change impacts and expect the local  utilities to act on a
    state-sanctioned set of projections. The utilities believe that they are better positioned to do this
    themselves.

•   Risk, probabilistic, or actuarial information should be used in these assessments so that we can
    have input on how insurance companies will use it and be able to convey the information to the
    public.

•   Studies should be reconfigured to consider climate impacts only in the context of adaptation.
    The implicit objective of climate studies is to inspire climate change mitigation  and to spur us
    into action. Therefore, they emphasize negative results. We are using the same studies,
    including model output, that were  intended to spur us into action for the purpose  of projecting
    how utilities must adapt to change. Instead, we need studies that are focused  more on
    adaptation and sector-specific vulnerability, and move into climate change secondarily. As a
    result of the current process, we ignore too many vulnerabilities.

Engineering Practice

•   Where do these small engineers get their information now?

           1046 training is dying out, but a new way to educate them and provide new information
           has not been given to them
           There are training centers and professional associations  available for training.

•   Could include information on how engineering schools incorporate the shift in stationarity, and
    use of resilient design. For example, University of Cincinnati has a course in "design for
    uncertainty,"

•   Engineers should be better educated on uncertainties in order for them to overcome reluctance
    to use these tools.

•   It is a challenge to persuade an engineer to expand his/her awareness or comfort zone.
           Rate payers will pay when risk reaches unacceptable level.

           Engineers need tools to understand what they need to adapt to.

           Our job is to deliver that,

•   Water systems (especially the smaller systems) are struggling with standards,  particularly with
    how engineering standards need to be modified because of climate change.  Standards also need
    to be defensible and hold up in court (e.g., justification for why a pipe was engineered to be
    larger than it normally would). Standard methodologies and/or adjustment factors for existing
    standards that could be widely accepted would be helpful.

•   Would like to distribute information in the form of new manuals or textbooks. Managers  and
    engineers need to know  new, updated information, not  necessarily in the form of  case studies.
•   The big shift is away from stationarity.  This issue is similar to the growth issue.

•   Stationarity is dead, and we need  manuals and guidebooks forjunior engineers. There is also a
    need to keep guidebooks up-to-date. Engineering firms  provide a good design for downscaling.
    They require that scenarios are appropriate for regional levels.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    82

-------
•   Having information on the implications for the design of plants and operational protocols would
    be helpful. The operational response to climate change is the most important. We need to look
    into developing guidance to help utilities understand how variability affects infrastructure design
    and planning.

•   How do we change design standards to build resilience?

•   There is uncertainty in engineering design, e.g., Milwaukee's cryptosporidiumproblem was
    caused by a storm and improper operations
•   The end of percentage-based reliability as a concept would be useful in the future assessment of
    adaptation.  Utilities should accept that there may be extreme, outlying climate events, and they
    should develop a continuous cost curve to account for all years. Flood control, interconnectivity,
    and design for failure all need to be considered.

•   There needs to be a training program for engineers and practitioners (possibly an online training
    program) that focuses on the mechanics of water supply impacts, so that engineers can
    characterize impacts. Many engineers are  being tasked to do such projects but lack the
    necessary training to do it effectively.

•   Green infrastructure's long-term capabilities need to be measured more accurately, particularly
    how communities might benefit. It would be good to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a
    grey infrastructure vs. green infrastructure comparison to contrast the differences.

•   It is important to make it possible for communities interested  in green infrastructure to be able
    to get earmarked funds.

•   Big utilities are well staffed and aware  of issues, but these issues need to be  translated to
    medium-  and small-sized utilities. Developing best practices would be the best option,
    particularly with engineering.
•   We have  been adapting to climate change for thousands of years; we need to market increased
    robustness to withstand the challenges of  climate change

Multi- factor Hydro Modeling

•   There is a need for a broader focus on hydrologic changes as opposed to climate change.
    Climate change is one element of hydrologic change (in addition to changes in land use and
    water management structures). When  you look at the trends in stream flows, the reasons are
    not all well understood, but we have huge signatures of land cover change. Some argue that
    this is a bigger issue than climate change. We need a  broader focus on hydrological changes,
    vis-a-vis the "stationarity is dead" concept.

•   There is a great deal of evidence showing that stream temperature changes significantly with
    land use changes.

•   There are numerous feedbacks in hydrological models, and it is impossible to separate
    hydrological changes from land cover changes. One affects the other.
•   Watershed-based models that are linked to comprehensive land-use impacts  are needed. This
    linkage could then inform design standards. Utilities typically respond to, rather than shape,
    land-use decisions.

•   Since  they look out into the future, the models are not mindful of socioeconomic  changes and
    issues. These issues often overwhelm water-specific issues.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   83

-------
•   Reliable forecasting of various parameters, including human habitability, natural systems needs,
    and water availability, is needed. How much water will be available to utilities considering
    projected population  and other factors?

•   Utilities should not be using modelsjust for climate change indicators. They should also consider
    demographic, water quality, and sea level indicators. In Denver's decision process, only one
    scenario incorporates climate change. Of all these agents of change,  climate change is the last
    of the utilities' priorities. Climate projections alone might not change  a utility's decision process,
    but climate projections  in addition to the other projections might change the decision process.

Economic Tools

•   Economical tools/approaches are needed to assess the impacts of climate change

•   Financial and economic tools should be used  in an engineering approach (e.g., the future cost  of
    action, willingness to  pay by rate payers, and the relative price of current inaction and
    alternative approaches). Integrating economics is a very complex issue, and managers and
    policy-makers are making complex decisions without all the  available economic information.
•   A holistic financial model that allows for pricing different scenarios is needed. Utilities are good
    at pricing projects, but they need to begin  to think more broadly to put a price on adaptation.

•   Research is needed on customer attitudes,  perceptions, desires,  and  willingness to pay for
    adaptation. These results could then be taken to elected officials, as  their constituents are the
    utilities' customers.
•   We price the variables of climate forecasting that we are able to price, and  do not price the
    variables that we are  not able to price. Existing climate models have  precisely priced all variables
    that can be priced, but there are fundamental ranges of uncertainty and other unpriced items
    that at least need to be inventoried (examples include the El Nino-Southern Oscillation and
    methane evaporating from permafrost).

•   If a water manager wants to value more  intense events, are there cost-effective risk reduction
    measures that can be applied (e.g., paradigm; no-regrets strategies)? Decision-makers need to
    know the cost of building versus the cost of catastrophe. Water districts do not do this because
    the information is not available.  In the case of the Water Security Act, we had no certainty that
    water supplies would  be targeted in a terrorist attack, but we enacted it anyway

•   Need definition of the costs and economic impacts of extreme events, as well as the costs of
    corrections
•   We need to calculate the environmental benefits. We need to quantify the environmental
    benefits between  green and grey infrastructure. We also need to quantify the net environmental
    benefit between centralized and decentralized systems.

•   There are better data available about the impacts of smart growth and run-off. There is a  need
    to better quantify the true costs of urban sprawl and communicate these costs to the public. The
    public does not grasp these issues of the built environment.  There is no disclosure on the
    impacts of sprawl.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    84

-------
Technologies and Management
Drinking Water Supply and Demand Management

•  A national inventory of drinking water sources needs to be modeled relative to expected
   demographic shifts. Planners need to know if the drinking water supply will be in balance with
   the population. In the Great Lakes region, utilities are already seeing a decreased payer base.
   There is water, but no one to drink it.
•  There needs to be more research on building climate change explicitly into water supply impact
   studies. There has been work on this topic, but we need to broaden the base of practitioner use.
•  There is less uncertainty with respect to water demand,  relative to the uncertainty of climate
   change processes.
•  There are currently no good tools for estimating the levels of change in demand based on
   different factors. For each sector involved, we should have tools that can consider both physical
   and  natural factors which can affect demand.
•  Document the demand-side effects of climate change.  The science and data associated with the
   impacts of climate change on demand are pathetic.  There is little interest.
•  Need ability to forecast effects of conservation, climate,  and population.  The Federal
   government's ability to forecast demand has crumbled.
•  Need good data on the effect of conservation
           Who does the generalization? (EPA ? USGS?)
           Nationwide water use projections are wrong
           COE used to be the powerhouse, but not anymore
           Bureau of Reclamation punted on demand in a recent study, as it did not have science or
           methods under a climate scenario
•  Public responds to heat by watering more versus less landscaping
•  Institute for Water Research has developed a model, now in use by COM
•   There is a  WRF RFP on water demand on water utilities under different climate scenarios
•  Pricing mechanisms and designing rate structure as a demand-side management tool exists. It
   should be disseminated to managers and political leaders.
Reuse and Aquifer Storage and Recovery

•  Need more information on conservation and water use/reuse
•  The  current NAS study on water reuse is partially funded by EPA. A plan for a sustainable water
   supply would be wide in scope, including water reuse.
•  In New York, the media dubbed water reuse as "toilet to tap" and the approach quickly lost
   momentum. Public response is largely driven by the media, as well as reports of pharmaceutical
   risks in  outflows. This represents risk, which makes people uncomfortable.
•  Water reuse has been successful in some places.
•  New Jersey is the first state to use aquifer storage and recovery (ASR), which takes surface
   water and injects  it into the ground to use later. In New England, there is limited information
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    85

-------
    available for this type of injection; the quality of the water to be injected may not match the
    quality of the water underground.
•   We are limiting ourselves environmentally by not using wastewater. Regulations and
    technological obstacles are in the way, but research and development (R&D) would be money
    well spent to try and overcome these hurdles.

•   Individual managers do not know about wastewater reuse and water plant managers need more
    training on this subject. We need to influence these issues.
•   EPA could play a leadership role with respect to sustainable water supplies. There have been
    improvements recently in Los Angeles County and good outreach as well. Water reuse is
    underappreciated as a strategy and is always considered a last resort, largely based on public
    perception.  Research, advocacy, and leadership on water reuse are needed to ensure a
    sustainable  water supply.


Clearinghouse

•   Establish a clearinghouse of information, which would allow for better coordination and
    organization.  There are a lot of workshops and they are not moving things forward,

•   A national data portal of water information from all government agencies is needed. A single
    portal would facilitate easy public access. Interagency coordination would be critical given that
    this issue is broader than EPA's realm.  Information is too scattered across the federal
    government, and there is a need to link to and access information that is housed in various
    agencies.

•   Need guidance on how utilities can adapt to climate change

              How to use climate change model output

              Review of tools that can help in adaptation

•   Need peer-reviewed information and an understanding of how to use the information (its limits,
    etc.)

•   Clearinghouse should include success stories

•   Distribute annual bulletin summarizing critical information and studies that have come out for
    last year. Then, the IPCC can summarize it all every five years.

•   There should be a  web-based forum for sharing case studies and ideas. This could serve as a
    centralized,  reliable source  of information. The Association of Metropolitan Water Agenciesjust
    created a catalog of federally funded publicly available information on climate change and water.
    They are looking for ways to continue the project, including maintaining and updating the
    database.

•   The Water Research Foundation is creating a climate change clearinghouse to make information
    available to  utilities in a single location.

•   Approach the clearinghouse concept with caution: think about how to design it well, and make
    sure stakeholders do it together or it will not succeed.

•   It will be a challenge to coordinate efforts (e.g., both WRF and AMWA issued clearinghouse
    RFPs)
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    86

-------
Case Studies and Best Management Practices

•   Case studies of adaptation practices for utilities are needed.

•   Develop case studies

           Case histories of planned development to show what works, which can then be used to
           explain to taxpayers why certain projects are needed

           Case studies on extreme events and effects on wastewater treatment plant operations

           Case studies on how much is saved by planning ahead, instead of by catching up, which
           will help sell adaptation (e.g., build in adaptation during the rehab cycle)

•   It would be good to start  assembling case histories where projects have been implemented that
    are driven by climate change. This would be helpful for utilities to be able to learn from each
    other (e.g., with respect to how they can communicate with their ratepayers about the need for
    adaptation).  Climate change best management practices  are key.

•   Case studies are typically  of large utilities and  written by/for university researchers, which
    should  be more accessible.
•   We should seek examples of projects and activities that have worked, based on case studies
    rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

•   Case studies will help illustrate many of the issues, particularly with respect to extreme events
    and effects on  wastewater treatment operations (collection and treatment).
•   Effort should be put into building success stories. For instance, you can set one aside as a
    demonstration  site, which takes  advantage of the latest technologies.

•   Conduct case studies on three large utilities that went from General Circulation Models to plans:
    King County, Boston,  and New York City

•   It would help to get other utilities who are taking action with respect to adaptation to make
    presentations to decision-makers in other locales.  Information  from this conference should be
    distributed to a larger group.

•   Having access  to best management practices is key.

•   Best management practices for better operation of existing infrastructure, including reservoirs
    and wastewater infrastructure

•   WRF work: Philadelphia and New York City had modern water systems by 1840s, but now they
    are aging

           Articulate different issues for the old East versus  the new West

           Learn from each other

           Explore the common elements, differences

•   Australians/British include adaptation in their asset management, but they only use the Hadley
    model (that is a defect)

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    87

-------
•   San Francisco's asset management model has no feedback loop to climate change

 Tools and Technical Assistance

•   Need tools and training to help local governments and utility decision makers understand
    uncertainties of forecasts and help them make/implement decisions (a new kind of uncertainty).
    Need better ways of making decisions,

•   Modeling community talks to each other, but there has been little demand by the water
    community in the past for guidance

           There is an opportunity to do more on this, and we need an affirmative effort as
           opposed to waiting to be asked
•   Identify the elements for decision tools.  They should incorporate:

           Low frequency extreme events

           What do we do about what we see going on?

           The paleoclimate record which gives a wider ranger of variability beyond the
           instrumental record,

•   A toolbox of climate tools (compendium) is being put together by the Global Water Research
    Coalition.
•   Tool box and guide needed for navigating climate change terminology, metrics, and protocols,

•   A glossary should be developed so that when decision-makers are being educated, uniform
    definitions are used.

•   A primer on uncertainty should be developed and utilities should have access to it. The U.S.
    Climate Change Science Program  and the IPCC have developed such a primer.

•   Utilities should  have a primer on uncertainty.

•   Would like to see training materials made available to elected officials, especially regarding
    decision-making mechanisms.

•   We need to develop a comprehensive summary on climate change for water infrastructure,
    including sustainability indicators for financial, social, and programmatic factors. MWCOG issued
    a climate change  report in November 2008 that provides context and expectations.

•   A taxonomy of  approaches that are unique to different situations is needed. We need to
    outreach those that are lacking in knowledge.

•   Not confident that local utilities have available standard guidelines or recommended strategies
    for addressing climate change. Such guidelines should  include forming a team, developing a
    plan, doing an assessment, and implementing a plan. In addition, there needs to be a
    communication strategy and tool kit for utilities, including documents, case studies, terms,
    metrics, and protocols. Some information is out there from the Water Research  Foundation and
    King County, but  it needs to be centralized and packaged. This would give utilities a framework
    for thinking through the issues.

•   Coastal states are beginning to realize the importance of looking at water, but interior  states are
    lagging behind  and are still concentrating almost exclusively on energy. There is a need for
    broad assessment screening tools to determine what certain climate  change processes will do
    for water impacts in addition to all the other impacts.

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    88

-------
•   Help is needed for smaller municipalities. A checklist might be too simple, but something to
    outline the process and considerations would be useful. The King County local government
    guidebook is a good place to start, but it lacks consensus. A centralized clearinghouse to provide
    resources for utilities is needed. There should be a local focus, and the clearinghouse would be
    helpful to more than just the utilities.

•   What should we do with small regional utilities? There should  be an easy to use "cookbook" that
    has information which  is readily available and contains centralized data. We would then use the
    tools and data for better communication.

•   There  is a disconnect between universities and utilities. We need better application of research
    to the  real world. There are opportunities for researchers and students to help with this.

•   There  needs to be a stronger link between the research and the utility operations communities,
    and we need to transfer knowledge of water management strategies to climate change.

•   Is there  a standard modeling technique  used in developing a water footprint? The Peoria,
    Arizona planning  commission presented their water footprint at the American Water Works
    Association (AWWA) Annual Conference and Exposition (ACE) in Atlanta.

•   Do decision tools exist? Not in practice. [Delete because this observation is incorrect?]

Regional and Local Information and Tools

•   A very simple web-based, location-specific tool should be developed that would allow a user to
    see the range of  predictions of how precipitation and temperature might change over the next
    century. Projections could include a confidence interval of this tool's projections.
•   There  is a need for population, economic, and land cover forecasts at the state and local levels
    that are  consistent with emissions scenario storylines. Information on state demography can be
    used to figure out where populations might be moving given certain climate change impacts.

•   A detailed list of how climate change can affect a utility (e.g.,  storage tanks, water quality)
    needs  to be developed.
•   It would be helpful to have a tool and to run some forecasts through it, and then be  able to
    enter observed data to test  its

•   Probability-based models that help utility managers with planning are needed (e.g., water
    quality or quantity models in a specific region).

Special Needs of Small Utilities

•   What are the real needs of small systems? How much is climate change going to impact them?

•   Small systems may be more resilient,  as they do not need 50-year investments, so there is not a
    lot to move
•   Where do these small  engineers get their information now?

           1046 training is dying out, but a new way to educate them and provide new information
           has not been given  to them

           There are training centers and professional associations available for training.

•   Develop a checklist for small utilities derived from larger utilities' work
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   89

-------
•   To address the gap between small-, mid-, and large-size utilities, develop guidance structured to
    be useable by thousands of smaller utilities
•   Intermediate size is small in a climate change context
•   Help is needed for smaller municipalities. A checklist might be too simple, but something to
    outline the process and considerations would be useful. The  King County local government
    guidebook is a good place to start, but it lacks consensus. A  centralized clearinghouse to provide
    resources for  utilities is needed. There should be a local focus, and the clearinghouse would be
    helpful to more than just the utilities.
•   CUPSS asset management tools, for example, was developed for small systems
•   Homeland security was a similar issue for utilities.
           First, vulnerabilities must be identified and risk assessment conducted.
           Then, specific, tailored tools were developed for small utilities
           They did not just downscale what the big utilities do, a simple, structured tool was
           created that met their needs.
           A workforce  was hired to work with small utilities to get it done.  Would that make sense
           for climate change? Or hire a regional authority to do this?
           But, homeland security issues were addressed by regulation, which meant it had to be
           done.
•   For small systems, do research at a regional level and provide it as a consumable information
•   Is climate change a way to re-stimulate small system sustainability?
           Limited physical boundary
           Cannot be physically interconnected
           Bring sophisticated management, technical expertise, and financial support to disparate
           small systems; enforcement needs to get somewhat more aggressive to raise the stakes
           (typically enforcement gives them a by)
•   What should we do with small regional utilities? There should be  an easy to use "cookbook" that
    has information which is readily available and contains centralized data. We would then use the
    tools and data for better communication.
•   Need a delivery mechanism for market penetration for small and medium utilities
•   States  are the mechanism for reaching small utilities
•   Rural electrical cooperatives are buying small wastewater/drinking water systems to increase
    population to sell electricity to.  They have money and technical ability to care for smaller
    systems.   They are a player.
•   Big utilities are well staffed and aware of issues, but these issues need to be translated to
    medium-  and  small-sized utilities. Developing best practices would be the best option,
    particularly with engineering.
•   Medium to large utilities are aware of the issue, but we need to figure out how to engage the
    small to medium utilities.  The last few years were focused on better management, and now
    climate change considerations need to be included while managing day-to-day responsibilities.
    We need to incorporate awareness of long-term factors.
•   Big utilities tackle issues first and the challenge is to communicate the issues to smaller systems.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                     90

-------
           Information flows down through associations and then picked up by medium size
           utilities.
           Information from associations has minimal impact on smaller facilities, though Rural
           Water representatives eventually pick up the information.
           Discussion of climate change and sustainable infrastructure are long-term projects and
           we need to keep talking.  The National Rural Water Association needs to believe this
           first.
    There is the issue of demographics, where people are moving to areas where there is  no water.
    With the density in some urban areas, the infrastructure is not sustainable. Can small  utilities be
    successful, or do we need to centralize them into larger utilities?
           We have too much invested in wastewater treatment plants.
           We have not had serious discussions about this; having these discussions may end  up
           saving a lot of money.
Federal Role and Interactions with Federal Agencies

•   There  is a need for an ongoing stakeholder conversation that includes multiple feedback loops
    and helps guide research for the utility community. This present workshop is insufficient. There
    could be a standing committee, such as a standing advisory body or an earth systems science
    agency. There needs to be a much more forceful mandate.

•   Figure out how the multiple mission agencies can talk together with the multiple communities,
    not one at a time.
•   Develop a steering committee or small group to keep the ball moving in the right direction,
    rather than the research community going off for three years without coordination.
•   It needs to be a process, not a workshop, with a product at the end that builds.
           This does not exist currently in the CCSP
•   The process must not be too onerous. There are many different associations.  Federal agencies
    need a way to listen to them all together.  Coordination is needed on both sides.
•   To turn the "fleet," the CCSP agencies should act in a coordinated fashion, and divide the labor
    reasonably.
           This should be a coordinated effort
           It should be transparent to the outside
           It should be an ongoing, evolving, meaningful stakeholder process
•   As CCSP evolves, we need to revisit this discussion to inform their work
•   Coordination of agencies and transparency: as chairman ofOSTP/SWAC, make sure this user
    community communicates with EPA
•   NOAA, EPA, USGS, Bureau of Reclamation, and Corps of Engineers are interested in how they
    can serve the community of users. As an avenue of coordination and discussion, SWAC can
    help.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    91

-------
•   The federal government should consider a Bulletin 17B equivalent for climate change. This
    document was published to establish a set of procedures for estimating flood frequency and
    magnitude from coast to coast, with a purpose of establishing uniformity.

•   Utilities need a coordinated and strategic federal science effort and  this effort needs to be
    transparent. There needs to be a transparent plan for research that includes an organization
    chart detailing who is involved and what their roles are - this is currently indiscernible - and the
    people in the field need to  understand what the federal government is doing.

•   Interagency coordination is key, but such coordination might require a Congressional mandate,
    especially the creation of a national clearinghouse of information  on climate change.

•   There is a need for the federal government to provide an overview  of information to top state
    agency people demonstrating why they should or should not be focused on the water side of
    climate change impacts.

•   There is a need for a national climate service with a proper mission, subject to cooperative
    planning  between all agencies. This service could provide a place to assemble and disseminate
    information, research, and  tools and could be a repository  for data. Much of the needed
    information that we  have identified in this session (e.g., the need for collection  and distribution)
    could be  housed under a central "national climate service." This idea has been proposed in
    Congress.

•   It appears that the rules in the approach of the Army Corps of Engineers to reservoir
    management are overly rigid and need more flexibility. We also need to balance the needs for
    recreational, drinking water, and other  uses. Watershed management is the larger issue.
•   We need  to streamline processes for implementing alternate  sources for water storage and
    supply. For  instance, it is hard to control flooding with shallow reservoirs. Stricter zoning is also
    needed,  in addition to funding for capital  improvements.

•   Utility managers (including federal  managers such as the Bureau  of Reclamation and the Army
    Corps of Engineers) need to increase their familiarity with risk-based decision tools rather than
    inflexible  regulatory approaches. The risk-based tools need to be  on timescales  of days and
    decades.

•   Need regulatory flexibility - What are the regulatory implications associated with climate change?


The Role of EPA

•   Target the right projects in order to move the "ship" in the direction of what is beneficial. Do
    not just research the old portfolio.  Identify what EPA should do,  on what it should partner, and
    where it should get out of the way.

•   The two prevailing paradigms from this workshop (i.e., the Lettenmaier - Behar -  Estes-
    Smargiassi paradigm and the Brown - Waage paradigm) need to be reconciled  with EPA's role,
    which is risk assessment, most of the time.

•   EPA should  be looking at the question,  "How does climate  change interface with the continuing
    implementation of Clean Water Act programs?"

•   Regulators are accustomed to using the Clean Water Act regulations as their tool. The question
    is, therefore, "How does climate change interface with the  continuing implementation  of Clean
    Water Act programs?" For example, for monitoring programs, do  we need guidelines for climate
    change? For water quality standards (e.g., in terms of temperature), do we revise the
    temperature standards?
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   92

-------
•   It will be difficult and complex for EPA to modify standards, and the discussion needs to start
    now.
•   Often utilities are working under 20-year consent decrees. There needs to be a paradigm shift
    for regulators that allows for shorter timeframes and the opportunity to reevaluate plans and
    designs periodically.

•   For negotiating consent decrees, permits,  etc., what do EPA and state regulators need to be on
    same page with regard to climate change endpoints?
•   The traditional  model of following consent degrees is inappropriate.  There will need to be a shift
    from traditional infrastructure to sustainable infrastructure. It  is possible that the current
    approach of following consent decrees will be counter-productive in  the long-term.

•   EPA needs to be funding a variety of impact studies and distribute the findings of these studies
    to the water community. All water quality  parameters should be evaluated  under different
    climate change scenarios.

•   EPA should be  supporting efforts to update precipitation frequency estimates.

•   There is a need for better communication  of standards of practice. A member of the climate
    modeling community seconded this sentiment, adding that there is also a need for sanctioned
    tools for water quality permits that puts the burden of uncertainty (liability) on the government.
•   There is a need for assessments on changes to receiving waters as a result of climate change
    (e.g., acidification), and how that affects NPDES compliance for water quality. Regulatory
    changes will  be needed, particularly in light of population changes.

•   It would be helpful if EPA would develop a process for sanctioning tools for water quality and
    stream flow analysis (sanctioned in the sense that if a permittee agrees to  implement the tools,
    the permittee will be deemed to be  in compliance with the appropriate standards for a specified
    period of time). This would allow the government to specify that climate change parameters be
    included in analyses in some rational form. It would also allow individuals to be creative in
    developing solutions to problems and having a way to get them implemented  and avoid the
    legal liability associated with tool uncertainty.
•   EPA could  conduct seminars and develop case studies of adaptation  practices  for utilities.

•   EPA should be  looking into developing climate protection levels for future time-slice projections.
    For example, EPA should be working towards being able to tell coastal cities what they can
    expect, and what they should protect against,  in 2050, 2075,  and 2100. EPA could say, for
    example, "If you are a coastal city you should  plan for half a meter of sea level rise by 2050 as a
    conservative estimate."

•   The drivers of the watershed approach (including EPA and other federal agencies) should
    formulate strategies by looking at not only intake but also at impacts and solutions. These
    drivers should consider institutional mandates and education to encourage  action by utilities.

•   There are significant regulatory impacts of climate change (e.g., more violations), so will we
    need a new MCL? What will be the compliance issues?
•   Concentrate  on information to feed into the regulatory program (wetlands, water quality, aquifer
    systems)

•   EPA in the 1970s was facing the same issues we are today. There is no money available and
    there are no  federal mandates. Economic incentives can give utilities the motivation to engage in
    energy efficiency and low impact development (LID) techniques.

Proceedings of the  First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to  Climate Change                                   93

-------
•   ORD research is about aging infrastructure and the correlation between aging infrastructure and
    climate change adaptation.  There will be opportunities over the coming decades.
           The task for this generation is to set up the research problem correctly

           Per Doug Owen, the real challenge is to get the direction of change and range of
           uncertainty. This is more important than timing.

•   Water quality research is EPA's role.   There is very little research in the literature on this.  EPA
    needs to fund significant basic research on what is going to happen to water quality.
•   Water/Energy nexus: EPA has an important role on wastewater treatment emissions of nitrous
    oxide and methane. Utilities can work on mitigation and adaptation with one lever.  Use EPA's
    regulatory authority.

Water Quality Implications

•   There should be a characterization of a minimum base flow regime to support aquatic
    ecosystems. There is a nominal water supply,  which is a limiting factor. It is important to
    establish a metric  before putting it in  place.
•   There is a significant dearth of information available in through EPA that  relates water quality
    impacts to climate change.

•   There is a need for a standardization  or sanctioning of tools for analyzing water quality and
    stream flow (sanctioned in the sense  that if a  permittee agrees to implement the tools, the
    permittee will be deemed to be in compliance with the appropriate standards for a specified
    period of time).
•   Environmental  groups  are likely to sue if water regulators relax any regulations. We need to look
    closely at climate change  vis-a-vis the practical implementation of supporting policies.

•   There is very little literature on translating water quality parameters that  utilities can  use for
    operations under different climate change scenarios. Predicting total organic compounds in a
    river based on  various climate change impacts, for example, would be a useful capability. Utility
    mangers would need such information to make decisions. We have some data that can be used
    (e.g., if climate shifted in  this direction,  here is what the impact would be), but the kind of
    information that is going to be necessary if water quality managers are going to be able to take
    action is not yet available.

•   Need analysis of wastewater and drinking water interactions (e.g.,  Cincinnati)
           Water quality,  drinking water, public health impacts

           Stormwater/wastewater discharges

•   There are Global Change  Research Program (GCRP) projects that are looking at several issues
    such as pH and sediments in hydrological modeling runs. There is a two-year timeframe before
    this information will be available. But  there is an immediate need for hydrological water quality
    models that will offer users an ensemble of water quality parameters.
•   There is concern at the local level over increasing invasive species prevalence as a result of
    climate change. How will these species spread over time and how should utilities handle them?

•   Any place that  has to meet total maximum daily load  (TMDL) requirements has an
    understanding  of certain standards. Otherwise, the understanding of these metrics is not as
    systematic.

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    94

-------
•   Water providers fear that they will be blamed for any changes in the watershed, such as the
    rising temperature of a river. There is a need to better understand the watershed impact of
    utility decisions

•   Research on treatment that is available and affordable is needed.


Water, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

•   Irrigation measures that are not maladaptive should be developed.  If there is adaptation to
    mitigate greenhouse gases (GHGs), what will this exacerbate?

•   For the most part, state agencies are not focused on the water side of climate change. Rather,
    they are focused on achieving GHG emissions reductions because the public is most concerned
    about this issue  in the present.

•   The water footprint concept should be developed
•   There is a need  for tools which  can link adaptation  and  mitigation so that a utility can perform
    benefit-cost analyses  which consider both types of  options.

•   Identify best practices on how to fit adaptation and mitigation together.

•   There is a need  for all involved  stakeholder communities to  reevaluate how they think about
    these issues. Should we be looking more closely at the water-energy nexus, for example?
    Regulators are eliminating  electric utility disincentives for investing in energy efficiency and
    conservation measures by  setting utilities' rates based on the amount of revenue they need to
    operate, regardless of ratepayer demand — essentially decoupling rates from demand. Should
    water utilities be looking at similar options? Also, looking at building codes as an example, are
    there ways to address water consumption at the building level that utilities can promote?
•   Utilities should limit their carbon impact by minimizing the carbon used for the energy needed in
    their process. There is a need to optimize performance  on energy conservation.

•   Utilities look to fund a number of solutions with each dollar, including future regulations, CO2
    footprint, etc. We need to foster this.

•   Per EPRI, power is the #1  user of water, followed by irrigation then supply.  Where can they
    partner, collaborate, or lead?
•   An analysis that shows the carbon-related impacts  to compliance with  water quality standards is
    needed. This should include both drinking water and wastewater. This will help analyze the "big
    picture" and  promote discussions with  regulators. This relates more to mitigation than
    adaptation,  but  some mitigation relates to adaptation in that mitigation affects options for
    adaptation.
•   We  need better  models for post-discharge nitrification and denitrification to help determine the
    impacts.

•   Need protocols on how to measure emissions from wastewater treatment plants (e.g., nitrogen
    emissions)

•   Need a water use metric for energy technologies
•   Decentralized waste treatment and on-site treatment could be a strategy for adaptation

           Need to verify IPCC assertions that they are a major source of methane

           But package treatment plants were a problem, and  would need vigorous operations and
           maintenance programs
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    95

-------
•   Identifying the linkages in soft infrastructure between drinking water and wastewater facilities at
    the local level (e.g., capital improvements planning).  Climate change could be a translating
    mechanism about common interests, such as adaptation and mitigation challenges.


Communication, Education, and Public Outreach

•   Environmental  groups need to be better represented  in integrated resource planning  processes.
    In  California, a proposition was passed that motivated water agencies to include environmental
    groups in planning processes (e.g., by using grants).  Climate change adaptation was  a common
    ground for the two communities.

•   Looking at the  connection between climate change and water infrastructure leads to the
    question of financing. We have not yet connected to the public to explain the value of clean and
    stable water supplies. It is politically difficult to raise rates, yet customers prefer to go to the
    store to buy bottled water.
•   Regional water master plans need to consider all affected groups and  all stakeholders need to be
    involved in planning processes.

•   There needs to be a two-phased approach based on answering the following questions: (1)  Do I
    have a problem here? (2) If yes, what do I do about it? We need to determine who the target
    audience for outreach materials is - either the utilities themselves or their consulting  engineers.

•   With better outreach we can express investment as it relates to consumers. Financial
    information needs to be provided  in a transparent manner, and the relationship between
    adaptation and capital  investment needs to be made.

•   We need to provide information on new technologies for water treatment, supply, and energy
    generation to local municipalities. Some technologies are mitigation driven,  but they relate to
    adaptation.

•   We need to better communicate all risks and risk management strategies, and improve
    communication with both management and stakeholders.

•   More public communication in the form of a basic discussion on climate change is needed. For
    example, a local progressive water utility explained what they were doing, but did not bring up
    the subject of climate change. Very basic information is needed so we can relate climate change
    to other issues such as  population growth.

•   Conduct market research at the local level on perceptions about adaptation

           CCAP's Winkleman coined the term: NIMTO (not in my term of office)
           Toronto, Chicago, New York City, and San Francisco have city-wide adaptation plans

           Marketing is about selling vulnerabilities - health,  transportation, planning, and land use

           Cincinnati does a market research survey every two years and found that customers are
           willing to pay if they know where the money is going (i. e., to ensure a healthy, safe,
           plentiful water supply)

•   Climate change is not on the  radar for sewer authorities. It is important to get information out,
    not in the form of textbooks,  but in smaller mediums, such as state conferences, presentations,
    and small community training (particularly for design engineers).

•   Utilities need to embrace education. Climate change should  also be integrated with other  issues,
    and all of these issues should be communicated to the public.

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                    96

-------
    Communication needs to become more visual. When you engage the community, you can show
    them how to correctly value their water.
    The stakeholder process is very much affected by assumptions. The models often do not give an
    answer, or inform us about uncertainty. How do we get the process to the stakeholder level
    (i.e., going through the model with the stakeholder)? Stakeholders will engage and understand if
    they can vary inputs and  learn how inputs change. We have observed this using the OASIS tool.
    Promote the concept of boundary organizations to help translate climate science into useable
    information by working with local governments
          For example, Arizona Water Research Institute and Colorado University Western Waters
          Assessment
    There is grassroots, municipal interest with greenhouse gas plans that are uniquely focused on
    the CO2 footprint.  This offers a point of entry for raising questions about adaptation.
           What can a utility do to contribute to a community's mitigation goals? Or to contribute to
          adaptation?
    Maybe we need a FACA for structured, consistent guidance from non-federal employees.
    Organize communities of practice and gather stakeholder input.
Other Recommended Ideas and Suggestions

•  We need to learn more about the effects of the frost line and the roles utilities play during heat
   waves.
•  Some areas will not have water (e.g., groundwater).  This is a fundamental water supply
   problem that cannot be fixed at a small scale
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   97

-------
Appendix A      List of Workshop Participants
Vahid Alavian
Water Advisor
World Bank
valavian@worldbank.org
202-473-3602

Steve All bee
Project Director, Gap Analysis,
Municipal Support Division
EPA
allbee.steve@epa.gov
202-564-0581
Geoff Bonnin
Chief, Hydrologic Science and Modeling
Branch
NOAA National Weather Services
geoffrey.bonnin@noaa.gov
301-713-0640x103

Linda Boornazian
Director, Water Permits Division
EPA OW Office of Wastewater Management
boornazian.linda@epa.gov
202-564-0221
David Behar
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Staff Chair, Water Utility Climate Alliance
dbehar@sfwater.org
415-554-3221

Nancy Beller-Simms
Program Manager
NOAA Climate Program
nancy.beller-simms@noaa.gov
301-734-1205

Erika Berlinghof
Director of Congressional Relations
National Association of Water Companies
erika@nawc.com
202-833-8383

Rona Birnbaum
Chief, Climate Science and Impacts Branch
EPA OAR Climate Change Division
birnbaum.rona@epa.gov
202-343-9076

Pratim Biswas
Chair, Professor
Washington University
pratim.biswas@wustl.edu
314-935-5482
Levi Brekke
Professional Engineer
Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service
Center
LBREKKE@do.usbr.gov
303-445-2494

Barbara Brown
P.E., Strategic Leader
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
brownbs@cdm.com
617-452-6411

Casey Brown
Assistant Professor of Civil and Environmental
Engineering
University of Massachusetts
CBrown@ecs.umass.edu
413-577-2337

Erica Michaels Brown
Director, Regulatory Affairs
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies
brown@amwa.net
202-331-2820

Ed Buchan
Environmental Coordinator
City of Raleigh, North Carolina
Edward.buchan@ci.raleigh.nc.us
919-857-4540
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change
                                       98

-------
Steven Buchberger
Professor
University of Cincinnati
Steven.Buchberger@uc.edu
513-556-3681

Brian Busiek
Senior Project Engineer
LimnoTech
bbusiek@limno.com
202-833-9140

Bob Cantilli
EPA OW Office of Science and Technology
cantilli.robert@epa.gov
202-566-1091

James Carleton
Lead Environmental Scientist
EPA OW Office of Science and Technology
Carleton.Jim@epa.gov
202 566-0445

Keith Cartnick
Director Water Quality and Compliance
United Water
Keith.Cartnick@UnitedWater.com
201-599-6031

Ni-Bin Chang
Professor
University of Central Florida
nchang@mail.ucf.edu
407-7547521

Jim Chelius
American Water Services

Robert Clark
Consultant
NRMRL-UC WRAP Team
rmclark@fuse.net
513-891-1641

Ann Codrington
EPA
codrington.ann@epa.gov
202-564-4688
 Carol Collier
 Executive Director
 Delaware River Basin Commission
 carol.collier@drbc.state.nj.us
 609-883-9500, ext. 200

 Elizabeth Corr
 Associate Director, Drinking Water Protection
 Division
 EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking
 Water
 corr.elizabeth@epa.gov
 202-564-3750

 John Cromwell
 Environmental Economist
 Stratus Consulting Inc.
jcromwell@stratusconsulting.com
 202-741-1243

 Andy Crossland
 Sustainable Infrastructure Coordinator
 EPA OW Office of Wastewater Management
 crossland.andy@epa.gov
 202-564-0574

 Mark Crowell
 FEMA
 202-646-3432

 Joshua Dickinson
 Deputy Executive Director
 WateReuse Foundation
jdickinson@watereuse.org
 703-548-0880, ext. 104

 Dennis Diemer
 General Manager
 East Bay Municipal Utility
 dennisd@ebmud.com
 510-287-0102

 Cynthia Dougherty
 Director
 EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking
 Water
 dougherty.cynthia@epa.gov
 202-564-3750
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change
                                        99

-------
Jane Downing
Chief, Drinking Water Branch
EPA Region 1
downingjane@epa.gov
617-918-1571
Mark Fulton
Global Head of Climate Change Investment
Research, Deutsche Asset Management
mark.fulton@db.com
212-454-7881
 David Easterling
 Chief, Scientific Services Division
 NOAA National Climatic Data Center
 david.easterling@noaa.gov
 828-271-4675

 Mikaela Engert
 Planner
 City of Keene, NH
 mengert@ci.keene.nh.us
 603-352-5474

 Stephen Estes-Smargiassi
 Director
 Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
 Stephen. estes-smargiassi@mwra. state, ma. us
 617-242-6000

 Lauren  Fillmore
 Program Director
 Water Environment Research Foundation
 lfillmore@werf.org
 703-684-2470, ext. 7153

 Cynthia Finley
 Director, Regulatory Affairs
 National Association of Clean Water Agencies
 cfinley@nacwa.org
 202-296-9836

 Mike Finn
 EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking
 Water
 finn.michael@epa.gov
 202-564-5261

 Josh Foster
 Manager of Climate Adaptation
 Center for Clean Air Policy
jfoster@ccap.org
 202-408-9260, ext. 221
Alice Gilliland
Chief, Applied Modeling Research Branch
EPA ORD National Exposure Research
Laboratory
Gilliland.alice@epa.gov
919-541-0347

Peter Gleick
President
Pacific Institute
pgleick@pipeline.com
510-251-1600

James Goodrich
Acting Director
EPA ORD National Risk Management Research
Laboratory
goodrichjames@epa.gov
513-569-7605

Walter Grayman
Consultant; Principal, Owner
U. Cincinnati/Grayman & Assoc.
grayman@fuse.net
513-761-1722

Benjamin Grumbles
Assistant Administrator
EPA Office of Water
grumbles.benjamin@epa.gov
202-564-5700

Sally Gutierrez
Director
EPA ORD National Risk Management Research
Laboratory
gutierrez.sally@epa.gov
513-569-7683

Jim Hanlon
Office Director
EPA OW Office of Wastewater Management
hanlonjim@epa.gov
202-564-0748
 Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
 Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change
                                      100

-------
Roy Haught
Water Quality Management Branch Chief
(Acting)
EPA ORD National Risk Management Research
Laboratory
haught.roy@epa.gov
513-569-7067

Steve Heare
Director, Drinking Water Protection Division
EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water
heare.steve@epa.gov
202-564-7992

Chuck Hennig
Research Coordinator
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
chennig@do.usbr.gov
303-445-2134

John Henz
Atmospheric Group Leader
HDR Engineering
John.Henz@hdrinc.com
303-764-1582

Robert Hirsch
Research Hydrologist
U.S. Geological Survey
rhirsch@usgs.gov
703-648-5888
 Laura Jacobson
 Manager, System Operations, Planning
 Division
 Las Vegas Valley Water District
 Laurajacobsen@lvvwd.com
 702-258-3186

 Tom Johnson
 Scientist
 EPA ORD National Center for Environmental
 Assessment
johnson.thomas@epa.gov
 703-347-8618

 Ernest Jolly
 Energy Manager
 DC Water and Sewer Authority
 Ernest.Jolly@dcwasa.com
 202-787-2370

 Pamela Kenel
 Associate Vice President, Global Water
 Resources and Sustainable Planning Practice
 Black & Veatch Corporation
 kenelpp@bv.com
 301-921-2885

 Jim Kern
 Environmental Engineer
 EPA Region 3
 kernjim@epa.gov
 215-814-5788
Rick Holmes
Director, Environmental Resources
Southern Nevada Water Authority
Richard.Holmes@snwa.com
702-862-3706

Heather Holsinger
Senior Fellow
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
holsingerh@pewclimate.org
703-516-0631

Raymond Jack
Director, Public Works, Town of Falmouth, MA
Town of Falmouth / Massachusetts Water
Works Association
capejack@capecod.net
508-457-2543
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change
Joan Kersner
Manager
Drinking Water Planning and Peformance
Management Section
Seattle Public Utilities
joan.kersnar@seattle.gov
206-684-0839

Ephraim King
Office Director
EPA OW Office of Science and Technology
king.ephraim@epa.gov
202-566-0430
                                      101

-------
Paul Kirshen
Professor
Tufts University
paul.kirshen@tufts.edu
617-627-5589

Chet Koblinsky
Director
NOAA Climate Program Office
chesterj.koblinsky@noaa.gov
301-734-1263

James LaGro
AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow
EPA National Center for Environmental
Assessment
lagrojames@epa.gov
703-347-8615

Cynthia Lane
Regulatory Engineer, Government Affairs Staff
American Water Works Association
clane@awwa.org
202-326-6122

Dennis Lettenmaier
Professor
University of Washington
dennisl@u.washington.edu
206-543-2532

Audrey Levine
National Program Director for Drinking Water
Research
EPA Office of Research and Development
levine.audrey@epa.gov
202-564-1070

Sylvana Li
Branch Chief, Rural Development and Natural
Resources
USDA
Sylvana.Li@usda.gov
202-690-2868

David Major
Professor
Columbia University
majorhart@earthlink.net
dcm29@columbia.edu
212-255-8329
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change
Robert Marlay
Department of Energy
Robert.Marlay@hq.doe.gov
202-586-3949

Robyn McGuckin
Director of Strategic Planning
MWH Global  Inc.
Robyn.mcguckin@mwhglobal.com
303-533-1976

Linda Mearns
Senior Scientist
National Center for Atmospheric Research
lindam@ucar.edu
303-497-8124

G. Tracy Mehan
Principal, Drinking Water and Water Quality
Group
Cadmus,  Inc.
gmehan@cadmusgroup.com
703-247-6106

Karen Metchis
EPA Office of Water Transition Coordinator
EPA OW Office of Wastewater Management
metchis.karen@epa.gov
202-564-0734

Jami Montgomery
AAA Fellow
EPA ORD Office of Science Policy
montgomeryjami@epa.gov
202-564-0693

Dean Moss
General Manager
Beaufort-Jasper Water and Sewer Authority
DeanM@bjwsa.org
843-987-9210

Peter Mulvaney
Assistant Commissioner
Chicago Department of Water Management
peter.mulvaney@cityofchicago.org
312-744-3436
                                      102

-------
Armin Munevar
Professional Engineer
CH2M Hill
armin.munevar@ch2m.com
619-687-0110

Daniel Murray
Senior Advisor for Water Quality
EPA Office of Research and Development
murray.dan@epa.gov
513-569-7522

Mike Muse
EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water
muse.mike@epa.gov
202-564-3892
Jill Neal
Environmental Engineer
EPA ORD National Risk Management Research
Laboratory
nealjill@epa.gov
513-569-7277
Kenan Ozekin
Senior Project Manager, Research
Management
Water Research Foundation
kozekin@awwarf.org
303-734-3464

Andrew Parker
Director, Water Resources Group
Tetra Tech Inc.
and rew. parker@tetratech .com
703-385-6000

William Perkins
EPA Office of Air and Radiation
perkins.william@epa.gov
202-343-9460

Jeff Peterson
Senior Policy Advisor
EPA Office of Water
petersonjeff@epa.gov
202-564-5771
 Chuck Noss
 National Program Director for Water Quality
 EPA Office of Research and Development
 noss.charles@epa.gov
 919-541-1322
Jan Pickerel
Environmental Protection Specialist
EPA OW Office of Wastewater Management
Pickrel.Jan@epamail.epa.gov
202-564-7904
 Rachel Novak
 ORISE Intern
 EPA OW Office of Science and Technology
 Novak.Rachael@epa.gov
 202-566-2385

 Rolf Olsen
 Senior Scientist
 USAGE Institute for Water Resources
j.rolf.olsen@usace.army.mil
 703-428-6314

 Doug Owen
 Vice President and Chief Technology Officer
 Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
 DOwen@PIRNIE.COM
 914-641-2700
Tony Quintanilla
Assistant Director of Maintenance and
Operations
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of
Greater Chicago
antonio.quintanilla@mwrd.org
207-247-8024

David Rager
Director
Greater Cincinnati Water Works
david.rager@gcww.cincinnati-oh.gov
513-591-7700

Rob Renner
Executive Director
Water Research Foundation
rbrenner@awwarf.org
303-347-6150
 Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
 Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change
                                      103

-------
Matt Ries
Managing Director of Technical and
Educational Services
Water Environment Federation
mries@wef.org
703-684-2400, ext. 7255

Frank Roth
Senior Policy Manager
Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility
Authority
froth@abcwua.org
505-768-2511

Kellie Rotunno
Director of Engineering & Construction
Northeast Ohio Sewer District
216-881-6600

Mary Ann Rozum
Program Leader, Conservation and
Environment
USDA CSREES
MROZUM@CSREES.USDA.GOV
202-401-4533

Suzanne Rudzinski
Deputy Office Director
EPA OW Office of Science and Technology
rudzinski.suzanne@epa.gov
202-566-0430

Paul  Rush
Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Water
Supply
New York City Department of Environmental
Protection
PRush@dep.nyc.gov
845-340-7514

Carol Russell
Climate  Change and Water Coordinator
EPA Region 8
russell.carol@epa.gov
303-312-6310

Greg Sayles
Associate Director
EPA ORD Homeland Security Research Center
sayles.gregory@epa.gov
513-569-7607
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change
Joel Scheraga
National Program Director
Global Change Research Program
EPA Office of Research and Development
scheragajoel@epa.gov
202-564-3385

Peter Schultz
Director
U.S. Climate Change Science Program
pschultz@usgcrp.gov
202-223-6262

Chi Ho Sham
Vice President
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
CSham@cadmusgroup.com
617-673-7156

Mike Shapiro
Deputy Assistant Administrator
EPA Office of Water
shapiro.mike@epa.gov
202-564-5700

Daniel Sheer
President
Hydrologies, Inc.
dsheer@hydrologics.net
410.715.0555

Mark Simpson
Water Division Manager
Manatee County Utilities Department
mark.simpson@mymanatee.org
941-792-8811  Ext.  5258

Joel Smith
Vice President
Stratus Consulting  Inc.
jsmith@stratusconsulting.com
303-381-8218

Thomas Speth
Director, Water Supply Water Resources
Division
EPA ORD National Risk Management Research
Laboratory
speth.thomas@epa.gov
513-569-7208
                                      104

-------
 Neil Stiber
 Environmental Scientist
 EPA Office of the Science Advisor
 stiber.neil@epa.gov
 202-564-1573
Betsy Valente
EPA OW Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water
valente.betsy@epa.gov
202-564-9895
 Nancy Stoner
 Clean Water Project Director
 NRDC Clean Water Network
 nstoner@nrdc.org
 202-289-2394
Paula VanHaagen
Manager, Grants & Strategic Planning Unit
EPA Region 10
vanhaagen.paula@epa.gov
206-553-6977
 Susan Sullivan
 Deputy Executive Director
 New England Interstate Water Pollution
 Control Commission
 ssullivan@neiwpcc.org
 978-323-7929
Alan Vicory
Execuitve Director and Chief Engineer
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission
avicory@orsanco.org
513-231-7719
Jim Taft
Executive Director
Association of Drinking Water Administrators
jtaft@asdwa.org
703-812-9507
Marc Waage
Manager of Water Resource Planning
Denver Water / Water Utility Climate Alliance
Marc.Waage@DenverWater.org
303-628-6572
 Claudio Ternieden
 Assistant Director of Research
 Water Environment Research Foundation
 cternieden@werf.org
 703-684-2470, Ext. 7907

 Ed Thomas
 Engineer
 National Rural Water Association
 ruralwater@gmail .com
 443-739-1358

 Ed Torres
 Director of Technical  Services
 Orange County Sanitation District
 etorres@ocsd.com
 714-593-7080

 Brad Udall
 Director
 Western Water Assessment
 bradley.udall@colorado.edu
 303-497-4573
Chris Weaver
Physical Scientist
EPA ORD National Center for Environmental
Assessment
weaver.chris@epa.gov
703-347-8621

Laura Wharton
Supervisor, Comprehensive Planning and
Asset Management
Program Development
King County  (Washington) Department of
Natural Resources and Parks
Laura.Wharton@kingcounty.gov
206-684-1238

Pai-Yei Whung
EPA Chief Scientist
EPA Office of the Science Advisor
Whung.Pai-Yei@epa.gov
202-564-0789
 Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
 Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change
                                      105

-------
Allison Wiedeman
Chief, Rural Branch, Permits Division
EPA OW Office of Wastewater Management
wiedeman.allison@epa.gov
202-564-0991
David Yates
Project Scientist
National Center for Atmospheric Research
yates@ucar.edu
303-497-8394
Jeff Yang
Scientist
EPA ORD National Risk Management Research
Laboratory
yangjeff@epa.gov
513-569-7655
Doug Yoder
Deputy Director
Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department
yoderd@miamidade.gov
786-552-8979

Phil Zahreddine
Chief, Municipal Technology Branch
EPA OW Office of Wastewater Management
Zahreddine.Phil@epa.gov
202-564-0587
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change
                                      106

-------
Appendix B     Workshop Agenda
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
7:30
Registration and Continental Breakfast
                                 Welcome and Introduction
                                     Location: Ballroom A
8:00
Welcome and Administrative Remarks
Jim Hanlon, Director, EPA Office of Wastewater Management
Cynthia Dougherty, Director, EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
8:10
Welcome, Workshop Objectives, and ORD's Commitment to Climate Change
Sally Gutierrez, Director, EPA ORD National Risk Management Research Laboratory
8:20
The EPA National Water Program's Support for Climate Change Adaptation
Benjamin Grumbles, Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of Water
                                      Plenary Sessions
                                     Location: Ballroom A
                I - Challenges and Opportunities in Adapting to Climate Change
             Moderator: Dr. Pai-Yei Whung, Chief Scientist, EPA Office of the Science Advisor
8:30
Adaptation Challenges to the Nation and the Science Community
Dr. Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute
8:45
Perspectives from Utilities
David Behar, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission / Staff Chair, Water Utility Climate Alliance
9:00
When R&D Meets the Real World: The Challenges and Opportunities of Integrating
Water Resource Management for a Changing Climate
Dr. James Goodrich, EPA ORD National Risk Management Research Laboratory
9:15
Questions & Answers and Discussion
                11 - Applying Climate Science to Water Infrastructure Planning
        Moderator: Jim Taft, Executive Director, Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
9:30
Where the Research Meets the Road: Climate Science, Uncertainties, and Knowledge
Gaps
Dr. Dennis Lettenmaier, University of Washington
9:45
Information Needed for Infrastructure Adaptation Planning
Stephen Estes-Smargiassi, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
10:00
Accommodating Design Uncertainties: Past Practices and Future Needs
Doug Owen, P.E., Malcolm Pirnie Inc.
10:15
Holistic ORD Research to Ensure Water and Energy Efficiency through Drinking Water
System Sustainability
Dr. Audrey Levine, P.E., EPA Office of Research and Development
10:30
Questions & Answers and Discussion
10:45
Break
                        111 - R&D for Water Infrastructure Adaptation
             Moderator: Carol Collier, Executive Director, Delaware River Basin Commission
11:00
EPA's Global Climate Change Science Program and Water Infrastructure Adaptation
Research
Dr. Joel Scheraga, EPA Office of Research and Development
11:15
AWWARF Research Strategy for Climate Change Adaptation
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change
                                                                            107

-------
("Tuesday, January 6, 2009


11:30
11:45
12:00
12:30
David Rager, Greater Cincinnati Water Works
WERF's Climate Change Research Programs
Claudio Ternieden, Water Environment Research Foundation
Incorporating Climatic Uncertainties into Water Planning
Marc Waage, Denver Water/ Water Utility Climate Alliance
Questions & Answers and Discussion
Lunch (on your own at either the hotel restaurant or a nearby establishment)
Concurrent Session Track A Concurrent Session Track B
Climate Change Impacts on Hydrology Adaptive Management and Engineering:
and Water Resource Management Information and Tools
^^^^H Location: Ballroom B ^^H ^^^^^H Location: Ballroom C ^^^|
1:30
1:30
1:45
2:00
2:15
2:30
3:00
3:30
3:30
A.1. Projecting Hydroclimatic Changes -
Part I: Downscaling
Moderator: Linda Mearns, University Corporation
for Atmospheric Research
Downscaling or Decision-scaling? An
Overview of Downscaling
Dr. Casey Brown, University of Massachusetts
Dynamic Downscaling Efforts at EPA:
Regional Linkages to NOAA and NASA
Global Scale Models
Dr. Alice Gilliland, EPA National Exposure
Research Laboratory
Web-Archive of Statistically Downscaled
Climate Projections for the Contiguous
United States
Levi Brekke, P.E., Bureau of Reclamation
Technical Services Center
The North American Regional Climate
Change Assessment Program: A Brief
Overview
Linda Mearns, University Corporation for
Atmospheric Research
Questions & Answers and Discussion
B.1. National Infrastructure Condition
Assessment and Adaptability
Moderator: Dr. Neil Stiber, EPA Office of the
Science Advisor
Rehabilitation, Replacement, and Redesign
of the Nation's Water and Wastewater
Infrastructure as a Valuable Adaptation
Opportunity
Dan Murray, P.E., EPA National Risk
Management Research Laboratory
Flood Control and Surface Water
Management Infrastructure in the Age of
Climate Change
Dr. RolfOlsen, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Institute for Water Resources
Climate Change Readiness Assessment and
Planning for the Nation's Drinking Water
and Wastewater Utilities
Dr. Steven Buchberger, P.E., NRMRL-UC WRAP
Team
Assessing the Impacts of Climate Change
on Drinking Water Treatment
Dr. Robert Clark, P.E., NRMRL-UC WRAP Team
Questions & Answers and Discussion
Break
A.2. Projecting Hydroclimatic Changes -
Part II: Local Applications of Downscaling
Moderator: David Easterling, NOAA National
Climatic Data Center
Regional Modeling for the Pacific
Northwest
Dr. Dennis Lettenmaier, University of
Washington
B.2. Progressive Adaptation: Planning and
Engineering for Sustainability
Moderator: Steve Allbee, EPA Office of
Wastewater Management
Overview: Integrating Climate Adaptation
into Lifecycle Costing and Planning
Steve Allbee, EPA Office of Wastewater
Management
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change
108

-------
("Tuesday, January 6, 2009

3:50
4:10
4:30
5:30
Hydroclimatic Modeling for Water
Resources Planning in the City of New York
Dr. David Major, Columbia University
Predictive Capacity in the Colorado River
Basin
Brad Udall, University of Colorado - NOAA
Western Water Assessment
Questions & Answers and Discussion
(60 minute session)
Adaptation of Water I nfrastructure
Investments to Changing Demands and
Climate Variability: A Systems Approach
Dr. Vahid Alavian, World Bank
A Review of Quantitative Methods for
Evaluating Impacts of Climate Change on
Urban Water Infrastructure
Dr. Walter Grayman, P.E., NRMRL-UC WRAP
Team
Water Use and Re- Use in Energy
Technologies in a Carbon-Constrained
World
Dr. Pratim Biswas, P.E., Washington University in
St. Louis
Questions & Answers and Discussion
(40 minute session)
Adjourn
(Wednesday, January 7, 2009 I
8:00

8:30
8:30
8:50
9:10
9:30
Registration and Continental Breakfast
Concurrent Session Track A
Climate Change Impacts on Hydrology
and Water Resource Management
^^^^^H Location: Ballroom B ^^^|
A.3. Evaluating Hydroclimatic Change for
Water Infrastructure Adaptation - Part I
Moderator: Dr. Daniel Sheer, HydroLogics, Inc.
Hydrology and Climate Change: What Do
We Actually Know?
Dr. Robert Hirsch, U.S. Geological Survey
Precipitation Frequency Atlas of the United
States: Update and Issues
Geoffrey Bonnin, NOAA National Weather Service
National Hydroclimatic Change and
Infrastructure Assessment: Region-
Specific Adaptation Factors
Dr. Y. Jeffrey Yang, P.E., EPA National Risk
Management Research Laboratory
Questions & Answers and Discussion
Concurrent Session Track B
Adaptive Management and Engineering:
Information and Tools
^^^^^H Location: Ballroom C ^^^|
B.3. Adaptation Practices and Tools - Part I
Moderator: Josh Foster, Center for Clean Air
Policy
Alternative Water Supply and Drinking
Water System Operations: Preparation for
Climate Change Adaptation in East Bay
MUD
Dennis Diemer, East Bay MUD, CA
Stormwater Management and Extreme
Precipitation: Protecting Surface Water
and Source Water Quality in Ohio River
Watersheds
Alan Vicory, Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission
Case Study: Risk and Management
Analysis for Progressive Adaptation of
Water Supply in Metro Boston
Dr. Paul Kirshen, Tufts University
Questions & Answers and Discussion
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change
109

-------
(Wednesday, January 7, 2009 1
10:00
10:30
10:30
11:30
12:15
Break
A.4. Evaluating Hydroclimatic Changes for
Water Infrastructure Adaptation - Part 1 1
Moderator: Dave Behar, San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission / Water Utility Climate
Alliance
Climate Vulnerability Assessments
David Yates, National Center for Atmospheric
Research
(20 minute presentation)
Strategies for Assessing Impacts and
Adapting to Climate Change for
Wastewater Utilities
Laura Wharton, King County Department of
Natural Resources and Parks
(20 minute presentation)
Implicit Climate Change Adaption:
Modifying System Operations for Turbidity
Control
Paul Rush, NYC Bureau of Water Supply, and Dr.
Daniel Sheer, HydroLogics, Inc.
(20 minute presentation)
Questions & Answers and Discussion
B.4. Adaptation Practices and Tools - Part
II
Moderator: Mikaela Engert, City ofKeene, New
Hampshire
Integrated Water Management for
Sustainable Water Supply in SW Florida
under Global Changes: Water Reuse and
Energy Considerations
Mark Simpson, Manatee County Manatee County
Utilities Department
(15 minute presentation)
EPA Water Resource Adaptation Program
(WRAP) R&D Activities on Adaptation
Methods and Techniques
Roy Haught, EPA National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
(15 minute presentation)
BASINS CAT, WEPPCAT, and ICLUS:
Modeling Tools for Assessing Watershed
Sensitivity to Climate and Land Use
Change
Dr. Tom Johnson, EPA National Center for
Environmental Assessment
(15 minute presentation)
Metropolitan Water Availability
Forecasting Methods and Applications in
South Florida
Dr. Ni-Bin Chang, P.E., University of Central
Florida, NRMRL-UC WRAP Team
(15 minute presentation)
Questions & Answers and Discussion
Lunch (on your own at either the hotel restaurant or a nearby establishment)
^^^^^^^^| Break-Out Discussions ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H
1:15
1:30
Instructions for Breakout Sessions
Moderator: John Cromwell, Stratus Consulting
Location: Ballroom A
Break-Out Discussions
Participants will divide into four separate discussion groups, two to focus on Track A issues and
two on Track B issues. Each group selects a representative to summarize discussions and report
out to the final plenary.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change
110

-------
(Wednesday, January 7, 2009 1





Track A Break-Out Discussions
Moderators:
• Joel Smith, Stratus Consulting
• Karen Metchis, EPA OW
Locations: Crystal III & Crystal IV

Track B Break-Out Discussions
Moderators:


• John Cromwell, Stratus Consulting, and Jeff
Yang, EPA ORD
• Jim Goodrich, EPA ORD, and Elizabeth Corr,
EPA OW
Locations: Private Dining Room (1st Floor)
Crystal II

&
Plenary Session: Discussion and Concluding Remarks
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H Location: Ballroom A ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|
4:00
4:20
4:30
4:45
Report Out on Break Out Discussions
Break-out Discussion Moderators
Concluding Remarks
Dr. Pai-Yei Whung, Chief Scientist, EPA Office of the Science Advisor
Concluding Remarks
Benjamin Grumbles, Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of Water
Adjourn
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change
111

-------
Appendix C      Biographies of Workshop Speakers and Moderators

Dr. Vahid Alavian, World Bank
Vahid Alavian serves as the Water Advisor at the World Bank where he is responsible for advising on
complex investments in the water sector, leading dialogue on water resources management with
major World Bank clients, and for helping implement the Bank's water resources strategy. Dr.
Alavian has more than 30 years of experience in the water sector through work with international
financial institutions, governments, donor agencies, private sector, and academia. He has led water-
related projects and programs including water resources  management, water supply and sanitation,
hydropower, dam safety, and water quality and environmental compliance in a number of
developing countries. He currently leads an analytical and advisory study on the  potential impact of
hydrologic variability and climate change on the Bank's water investments and adaptation measures
to make these investments climate-smart. Prior to joining the World Bank in 2000, he served as the
Senior Water Advisor at the United States Agency for International  Development (USAID) Global
Environment Center, where he helped advance sustainable  management of freshwater water and
coastal resources. As a Senior Specialist at the Tennessee Valley Authority, he led some of the
agency's pioneering work on integrating water, energy, and environmental management for
sustainable development and growth.  He is a Fulbright Scholar and has  held faculty positions at the
University of Illinois, the University of  Tennessee, and the University of Zambia.

Steve Allbee, EPA Office of Wastewater Management
Steve Allbee has been with EPA for 28 years, during which time he has held several senior positions
in the Office of Water. Currently, as Project Director of the Gap Analysis, Mr. Allbee is the principal
author of The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis. The "Gap Analysis" is a
comprehensive national-level assessment, published by EPA in September 2002,  and is often cited
as a primary source document in articulating the challenges ahead for America's water and
wastewater systems.  Of late, the central point of his work is on promoting advanced asset
management approaches as a pathway toward sustainable  water and wastewater services for the
21st Century. During  his tenure at EPA, he has served as the Director of the Planning and Analysis
Division, the Acting Director of the Municipal  Construction Division, Chief of the Municipal Assistance
Branch, Expert Advisor to the Border Environment Cooperation Commission and the North American
Development Bank as well as undertaking several headquarters' staff assignments. Prior to joining
EPA, he managed the planning of a  large regional wastewater system with a service population of
approximately 2 million people. He had national leadership  responsibility for establishing the
innovative State Revolving Fund (SRF) Program as a means to provide Federal financial assistance to
wastewater infrastructure projects. He has also had the distinction of developing important special
infrastructure assistance programs targeted to underserved and economically disadvantaged
communities; including  Mexico border communities. Tribes  and Alaskan  Native Villages. In addition,
he has managed a broad network of technical assistance services that provide operations,
maintenance and related support to small communities. He frequently provides technical assistance
to international organizations on issues concerning water and wastewater organizations, project
development, finance and management. He received a Masters of Public Administration from
Harvard University, a Masters in Urban and Regional Planning from Mankato State University and a
Bachelors of Arts in Political Science from Winona State University.

David Behar, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission / Water Utility Climate Alliance
David Behar's career spans twenty years in environmental advocacy, policy analysis, and water
utility management. Mr. Behar currently serves as Deputy to the Assistant General Manager, Water
Enterprise, at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. The SFPUC  is the sixth largest municipal
water provider in the U.S. and manages water and power facilities and operations at Hetch Hetchy,
the regional system that delivers water 160 miles to 2.4 million Bay Area residents, and water,
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                 112

-------
wastewater, and stormwater facilities in San Francisco. At the SFPUC, he manages business
planning, local resource management strategies, and climate change adaptation planning. He led
development of the SFPUC-sponsored Water Utility Climate Change Summit held in San Francisco in
early 2007 and currently serves as staff chair of the Water Utility Climate Alliance  (WUCA).
Established formally in early 2008, WUCA is a coalition of eight water utilities dedicated to providing
leadership and collaboration on climate change issues affecting drinking water utilities by improving
research, developing adaptation strategies and creating mitigation approaches to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. WUCA is chaired  by SFPUC General Manager Ed Harrington and includes Denver
Water, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California,  New York City Department of
Environmental Protection, Portland Water Bureau, San Diego County Water Authority, Seattle Public
Utilities and the Southern Nevada Water Authority. Prior tojoining the SFPUC,  he was an
environmental policy consultant whose clients  included the Natural Resources Defense Council and
the Pacific Rivers Council. From 1991-97 he served as Executive Director of The Bay Institute of San
Francisco, and from 1989-91 he served on the staff of U.S. Senator Alan Cranston (D-CA).  In
November 2006 he was elected to the Board of Directors of the Marin Municipal Water District, a
200,000-customer water district just north of San Francisco  in Marin County, where he lives with his
two children. He has  a bachelor's degree in politics from the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Dr. Pratim Biswas, P.E., Washington University in St. Louis
Pratim Biswas received his B.Tech. degree from the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay  in
Mechanical Engineering in 1980; his  M.S. degree from the University of California, Los Angeles in
1981; and his doctoral degree from the  California Institute of Technology in 1985. After receiving his
doctoral degree, hejoined the University of Cincinnati as an Assistant Professor in the Environmental
Engineering  Science Division in 1985. He was promoted to Associate Professor in 1989, and became
Full Professor in 1993. He also served as the Director of the Environmental Engineering Science
Division at the University of Cincinnati for four years. In the interim,  he spent a year's sabbatical at
the National Institute of Standards and Technology in their Chemical Sciences and Technology
Division in 1994. Hejoined Washington  University in St. Louis in August 2000 as the inaugural Stifel
and Quinette Jens Professor and Director of the Environmental Engineering Science Program. In
2006, he became the Chair of the  newly created Department of Energy, Environmental and Chemical
Engineering  at Washington University in St. Louis. He has won several Teaching and Research
Awards: was the recipient of the 1991 Kenneth Whitby Award given for outstanding contributions by
the American Association for Aerosol Research; and the Neil Wandmacher Teaching Award of the
College of Engineering in 1994. He was  elected as a Fellow of the Academy of Science, St.  Louis in
2003. Dr. Biswas is a member of the Steering Committee of the McDonnell International Scholars
Academy, and the Ambassador to  the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay.

His research and educational interests are in aerosol science and technology, nanoparticle
technology, energy and environmental nanotechnology, air quality and pollution control and the
thermal sciences. He has published more than 170 refereed journal papers and presented more than
100 invited talks all across the globe.

Geoffrey Bonnin, NOAA National Weather Service
Geoff Bonnin is Chief of the Hydrologic Science and Modeling Branch of NOAA, National Weather
Service, Office of Hydrologic  Development. Mr. Bonnin manages science and technique development
for flood and stream flow forecasting, and water resources services provided by the National
Weather Service. The work of the  group includes development and maintenance of U.S. precipitation
frequency estimates. He initiated the development of NOAA Atlas 14 and was lead author for the
first three volumes. He graduated  with a B.E. (Civil) from the University of Queensland, Australia
and a M.S. (Engineering Management) from the University of Kansas. He is a Chartered Member of
the Institution of Engineers Australia and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers. He
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                  113

-------
has extensive experience in flood forecasting and flood forecast systems development with the U.S.
National Weather Service and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.  He also has extensive
experience in software engineering and systems integration in private industry. His primary areas of
expertise are in data management as the integrating component of end-to-end systems, the science
and practice of real time hydrologic forecasting, estimation of extreme precipitation climatologies,
and the management of hydrologic enterprises. He is one of the developers, and the primary
implementer, of Standard Hydrometeorological Exchange Format (SHEF).

Dr. Levi Brekke, P.E., Bureau of Reclamation Technical Services Center
Levi Brekke has been working with Reclamation since 2003 and currently works at Reclamation's
Technical Service Center in Denver. Dr. Brekke's work focuses on reservoir systems analysis,
technical team coordination, and conducting research on climate information applications. His
education  includes a B.S.E. in Civil Engineering (The University of Iowa), a M.S. in Environmental
Science and Engineering (Stanford University), and a Ph.D. in Water  Resources Engineering
(University of California Berkeley). His work experience also includes  consulting in the areas of
wastewater and water treatment engineering where his efforts focused on capital improvements
planning.

Dr. Casey Brown, P.E., University of Massachusetts
Casey Brown is assistant professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering at UMass, Amherst and
Adjunct Associate Research Scientist at the International Research Institute for Climate  and Society
of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. Dr. Brown specializes in climate risk management for
the water sector and sustainable management of water resources. His research focuses on
increasing the resilience of water systems to climate variability  and change through the use of
advanced climate science and hydrologic forecasting, in combination  with innovative water resources
management techniques and economic mechanisms, including  index  insurance. Another area of
interest is  the role of climate variability, infrastructure and water management in poverty reduction
and economic development. He is PI and co-Pi for several projects in the U.S. and abroad funded by
NOAA, the World Bank and other agencies and is a 2007 recipient of the Presidential Early Career
Award for  Scientists and Engineers. He is Associate Editor of the ASCE Journal of Water Resources
Planning and Management and has published in Water Resources Research, Natural Resources
Forum, International Journal of Climatology and the ASCE Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management, where a 2006 paper won the award for Best Policy-Oriented paper. He obtained his
PhD in environmental engineering science as a National Science Foundation Fellow at Harvard
University  in 2004.  He is a licensed professional engineer in the state of Colorado and a former U.S.
Air Force officer.

Dr. Steven Buchberger, P.E., NRMRL-UC WRAP Team
Steven Buchberger is a Professor of Civil  and Environmental Engineering at the University of
Cincinnati  where he has served on the  faculty for 21 years, including a recent stint as interim
department head. He earned his BS from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, his MS at Colorado
State University and his PhD from the University of Texas at Austin - all in Civil and Environmental
Engineering.

Dr.  Buchberger is a registered professional engineer in the State of Colorado and a member of
ASCE, AGU, AWWA, ASEE.  He served as Associate Editor of the Journal of Water Resources Planning
and ManagementTor ten years  and is a founding member of the organizing committee for the
international symposium on Water Distribution Systems Analysis, now entering its 11th year with the
ASCE  EWRI conference circuit. For the  past ten years Dr. Buchberger has managed a training grant
providing opportunities for over 100  university students in engineering and science to pursue
research at the EPA national laboratory in Cincinnati.

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                  114

-------
 Dr. Buchberger has over 115 publications in journals and proceedings, including chapters for a
 McGraw Hill Handbook on Water Supply Systems Security.  He has won Young Investigator Awards
 from the National Science  Foundation and from the  Department of Energy and he received the Neil
 Wandmacher Senior Faculty Teaching Award from the College of Engineering. Dr. Buchberger has
 advised 46 graduate students;  eleven have been recognized with best paper and/or best poster
 awards from ASCE, AGU, and AWWA.

 Dr. Buchberger's teaching  interests include surface water hydrology and reliability analysis in
 engineering design. His research interests are broad, but a favorite focus is mathematical modeling
 of water demands and water quality in municipal distribution systems. Here, Dr. Buchberger and his
 students demonstrated that many water demand patterns behave like a non-stationary Poisson
 rectangular pulse process. This led to the development PRPsym, the first computer code  capable of
 generating high resolution stochastic water demands for urban network  simulation. The PRPsym
 code has proven to be a valuable tool in studies of infrastructure vulnerability for homeland security.

 Dr. Ni-Bin Chang, P.E., University of Central Florida, NRMRL-UC WRAP Team
 Ni-Bin  Chang was educated at  the National Chiao-Tung University (NCTU)  in Taiwan where he
 received his bachelor degree in Civil Engineering in 1983. Later on. Dr. Chang came to the United
 States in 1987 and received his Master's and Ph.D. degrees in the field of Environmental  Systems
 Engineering at Cornell University in 1989 and 1991,  respectively in the US. At present, he is  a
 professor with Civil, Environmental, and Construction Engineering Department, University of Central
 Florida (UCF) in the U.S. He owns  those distinctions which  are the selectively awarded titles, such as
 the elected member of the European Academy of Sciences (M.EAS), the Board Certified
 Environmental Engineer (BCEE, formerly DEE), Diplomat of Water Resources Engineer (D.WRE), and
 Certificate of Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED). He  is also members  of 12
 professional associations. He was  one of the founding fellows of the International Society of
 Environmental Information Management in 2002. In recent years, the focus of his research brings
 well-rounded interdisciplinary efforts in the area of environmental informatics and systems analysis.
 It emphasizes fusion of environmental hydrology, environmental/ecological engineering processes,
 computational methods, and information technologies to advance our understanding of large,
 complex, and integrated environmental and hydrologic systems. He has  authored and co-authored
 over 130 peer-reviewed journal articles, 9 books and 7 book chapters, and 128 conference papers
 with more than 1,000  citations. He served as the guest editor for seven  special issues and also
 serves on the editorial board of 11 international journals and ad hoc reviewers of 68 international
journals.

 Dr. Robert Clark, P.E., NRMRL-UC WRAP Team
 Robert Clark received  a B.S. Degree in Civil Engineering from Oregon State University (1960), a B.S.
 Degree in Mathematics from Portland State University (1961), an M.S. in Mathematics from Xavier
 University (1964),  an M.S. in Civil  Engineering from  Cornell University (1968) and a Ph.D. in
 Environmental Engineering from the University of Cincinnati (1976). Dr.  Clark is a registered
 engineer in the State of Ohio and worked as an environmental engineer in the U.S. Public Health
 Service and the EPA from  1961 to  August 2002. He was Director of the EPA's Water Supply and
 Water  Resources Division (WSWRD) in the Office of Research and Development's (ORD)  National
 Risk Management Research Laboratory  (NRMRL) for fourteen years (1985-1999).  In 1999 he was
 appointed to a Senior  Expert Position in EPA with the title Senior Research Engineering Advisor
 (1999-2002). He retired from EPA in August of 2002 and is now an independent consultant.  He is an
 Adjunct Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the  University of Cincinnati and  recently
 completed service  as a member of the National Research Council's Committee on "Public Water
 Distribution Systems: Assessing and Reducing Risks." He has published over 375 papers and five
 books  and is a life member of the  American Water Works Association (AWWA) and the American
 Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
 Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                  115

-------
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). He has served on numerous professional and technical committees
and is currently a member the Water Supply Working Group (WSWG) for the Greater Cincinnati
Water Works (GCWW). The WSWR was convened by the City Manager for the City of Cincinnati to
evaluate the possibility of converting the GCWW to a regional water district. He has received
numerous awards for his work including: the Environmental and Water Resources Institute's
(American Society of Civil Engineers) Best Research Paper Award from the Journal of Water
resources Planning  and Management for 2006, the American Society of Civil Engineers
(Environmental and Water Resources Institute) Lifetime Achievement Award for 2004 in recognition
of a life-long and eminent contribution to the environmental and water resources engineering
disciplines through  practice, research and public service, and the U.S. EPA Distinguished Service
Career Award for lifetime accomplishments, and leadership as  a researcher and manager in the field
of water supply (2002).

Carol Collier, Executive Director, Delaware River Basin Commission
Carol Collier was appointed Executive Director of the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) on
August 31, 1998. The  DRBC is an interstate/federal commission that provides a unified approach to
water resource management without regard to political  boundaries.  Before joining DRBC, Ms. Collier
was Executive Director of Pennsylvania's 21st Century Environment  Commission. Governor Tom
Ridge formed the Environment Commission in 1997 to establish the  Commonwealth's environmental
priorities  and to recommend a course of action for the next century. At the time Governor Ridge
asked Ms. Collier to serve as executive  director for the 21st Century Environment Commission, she
was Regional Director  of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental  Protection (PADEP)
Southeast Region. Prior to PADEP, she served 19 years with BCM Environmental Engineers, Inc.,
Plymouth Meeting,  Pa., beginning as a student intern and  ultimately becoming Vice President of
Environmental Planning, Science and Risk. She has a B.A.  in Biology from Smith College and a
Masters in Regional Planning from the University of Pennsylvania. She is  a Professional Planner
licensed in the State of New Jersey, a member of the American Institute  of Certified Planners (AICP)
and a Certified Senior  Ecologist. She is  a member of her township's  environmental protection
advisory board, on  the Boards of the American Water Resources Association (AWRA) and the newly
formed Clean Water America Alliance (CWAA), teaches environmental management courses at the
University of Pennsylvania and has published on environmental and  water-related topics.

Elizabeth Corr, EPA Office of Water
Elizabeth Corr has been the Associate Director of the Drinking  Water Protection Division in the Office
of Ground Water and Drinking Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, since 2001. Prior,  Ms.
Corr served as Special Assistant for water issues in EPA's Office of the Administrator; led a team to
develop drinking water treatment regulations, for which she received EPA's Gold Medal; and worked
with states to protect ground water. She began her career in Washington DC as staff to the
Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials in the U.S. House of Representatives in
1987.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                  116

-------
John Cromwell, Stratus Consulting, Inc.
John Cromwell is an environmental economist with Stratus Consulting. Mr. Cromwell has over 30
years of experience specializing in the water and wastewater utility sector. In addition to recent
work in climate change, he has analyzed a broad range of national policy issues affecting the water
sector, including: costs and benefits of regulations governing water quality, infrastructure
rehabilitation and replacement investments,  regional collaboration schemes,  stormwater
management initiatives, combined sewer overflows, and utility management and financial planning
issues. Based in Washington, DC, he has been centrally involved in national policy issues affecting
the water industry as an advisor to Congress, federal agencies, state regulators, and industry
research  organizations. He holds BS degrees in biology and economics as well as a Master of Policy
Sciences  degree from the University of Maryland.

Dennis Diemer, East Bay MUD, CA
Dennis Diemer, General Manager of East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), has over 30 years of
experience with public agencies and engineering consulting firms in the planning, design and
operation of water and wastewater systems. Mr. Diemer has  served as EBMUD's General Manager
since 1995. He holds a BS in Civil Engineering from Loyola University in Los Angeles, and a Masters
in Civil and  Environmental Engineering from  Stanford University. He is a  registered  Civil Engineer
with the State of California. He is an active member of the Association of California Water Agencies
(ACWA),  American Water Works Association  (AWWA), Water Environment Federation, and California
Urban Water Agencies. He currently serves on EPA's National Drinking Water Advisory Council,
AWWA's Water Utility Council, the Water Education Foundation, and is the current Chairman of the
Water Environment Research Foundation.

Cynthia Dougherty, Director, EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
Cynthia Dougherty is the  Director of the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, DC. In that  capacity, Ms. Dougherty serves as
EPA's national program manager for implementation of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Prior to
her current position, she served as the Director of the Permits Division in the Office of Wastewater
Management. She has also served in EPA's Office of Enforcement and Office of Planning and
Management. She has a degree from Duke University and is the recipient of three Presidential
Meritorious Executive Awards for her federal service.

Dr. David Easterling, NO A A National Climatic Data Center
David Easterling is currently Chief of the Scientific Services Division at NOAA's National Climatic Data
Center in Asheville, NC. Dr. Easterling received his Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill in 1987 and served as an Assistant Professor in the Atmospheric Sciences Program,
Department of Geography, at the University  of Indiana-Bloomington from 1987 to 1990. In 1990, he
moved to the National Climatic Data Center as a  research scientist, was appointed Principal Scientist
in 1999, and Chief of Scientific Services in 2002.  He has authored or co-authored more than eighty
research  articles on climate change issues  injournals such as Science, Nature and the Journal of
Climate. He was a Lead Author for the Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, a Convening Lead Author for the  U.S. Climate Change
Science Program (CCSP) Synthesis and Assessment Product (SAP)  3.3 on Climate Extremes and was
a Contributing Author to the IPCC Second and Third Assessment Reports. He is a Fellow of the
American Meteorological Society and his research interests include the detection of climate change
in the observed record, particularly changes  in extreme climate events and the assessment of
climate model simulations for changes in extreme climate events.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                  117

-------
Mikaela Engert, City of Keene, New Hampshire
Mikaela Engert works as a city planner for the City of Keene, New Hampshire. Much of Ms. Engert's
professional experience and education in the field of planning focuses on community sustainability
issues. Specifically, her interests are in food security,  climate change,  and open space planning. She
earned a Master's of Urban Planning from the State University of New York at Buffalo and obtained
her Bachelor's from Green Mountain College in Vermont. She was also part of a team of graduate
students which earned the "Outstanding Student Project" awards from both the APA Western New
York Section, the APA New York Upstate Chapter, as well as from the  American Institute of Certified
Planners for the plan  entitled: Food for Growth: A Community Food System Plan for Buffalo's West
Side. She currently guides the City of  Keene's climate change and long-term sustainability initiatives.
In the summer of 2006, the City of Keene was selected as a pilot community to test and evaluate
ICLEI's latest program.  Climate Resilient Communities (CRC). The CRC program seeks to assist
municipalities in planning for the predicted impacts associated with global climate change in order to
improve a community's long-term preparedness for climate impacts. She led the team through the
CRC process to create one of the first municipal adaptation plans in the country.

Stephen Estes-Smargiassi, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
Stephen Estes-Smargiassi is a planner and an engineer with an interest in complex multi-disciplinary
projects. In his over 20 years at the MWRA, Mr. Estes-Smargiassi has  led or participated in all
drinking water quality and master planning initiatives.  He is active with the  AWWA Research
Foundation (now Water Research Foundation), is a QualServe peer review team leader, and has
actively participated in water quality regulatory development activities regionally and nationally. As
part of his responsibilities he oversaw and evaluated the MWRA's successful demand management
programs, reducing water demand by about one-third;  initiated its CIS system; and coordinated
protection planning studies for MWRA's watersheds, as well  as for about 40 other smaller supply
systems in the Boston metropolitan area. His group recently completed an integrated water and
wastewater master plan to prioritize and schedule improvements to the region's water and sewer
systems over the next 20 years. Over the  past few years, his priorities have been developing the
briefing materials  used by MWRA's Board of Directors to make the treatment technology decision for
the metropolitan Boston water system and then participating in the successful defense of that
decision in federal court; producing and distributing the MWRA's annual  water quality report to over
800,000 households;  and using the opportunity of both processes to reinforce the bridges built over
the past decade to the public health community. He is currently overseeing drinking water quality
and public health outcome research to understand and evaluate recent treatment improvements. He
has been involved in thinking about how water and wastewater systems can adapt to climate
change since EPA, the Army Corps and other agencies called together the First National Conference
on Climate Change and Water Resources Management in 1991. He continues to conduct research
and policy development activities at MWRA and regionally on how the changing climate ought to
affect planning and investment decisions.  He has a Bachelor's of Civil  Engineering from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a Master's in City and Regional Planning from Harvard
University. He lives in Boston where the streets do not follow old cowpaths, although they seem to,
loves maps,  and has two kids who also love maps. And he proudly drinks tap water, especially in
Boston.

Josh Foster, Center for Clean Air Policy
Josh Foster manages CCAP's Urban Leaders Adaptation Initiative, designed to equip U.S. partner
cities and counties make effective policy and investment decisions to increase their resiliency to the
impacts of climate change. Mr.  Foster has 13 years of experience working on climate adaptation at
the National Oceanic and  Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate  Science Program Office as a
manager for climate research applications and services. His work focused on decision support,
drought and water resources management, local urban preparedness, and engagement with the
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                  118

-------
private sector. He was the project manager for NOAA's Climate Resilient Communities project from
2005-08 in collaboration with ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability. In the past he has also
worked on NOAA's Regional  Integrated Climate Sciences and Assessments (RISA) Program, the
International Research  Institute for Climate and Society (IRI), the Nobel Prize winning
Intergovernmental Panel on  Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations Development Program, and
the White House Office on Environmental Policy. He holds a Master's in International Relations and
Environmental Management  from Yale University, and a Bachelor's in International Relations and
Environmental Policy with a Minor in Latin American Studies from the University of Massachusetts at
Amherst.

Dr. Alice Gil I Hand, EPA National Exposure Research Laboratory
Alice Gilliland is from the EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD), and she is located in
Research Triangle Park, NC.  In the Atmospheric Modeling  Division, Dr. Gilliland is chief of the
Applied Modeling Research Branch. She earned her Ph.D. from the Georgia Institute of Technology
in the field of atmospheric sciences. Her  areas of expertise include climate influences on air quality,
regional scale air quality modeling, and evaluation of airborne emissions and models. Over the past
five years, she has led the ORD Climate  Impacts on Regional Air  Quality (CIRAQ) project. CIRAQ has
contributed to a USEPA Global Change Research Program  interim report (EPA/600/R-07/094) on
ozone impacts from future climate, the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) Synthesis and
Assessment Product 3.2, and several recentjournal articles. As the importance of climate impacts on
air quality and ecosystems increases in priority for EPA, she is expanding the CIRAQ program with
regional climate downscaling capabilities to extend the existing meteorological modeling expertise in
the Division. The regional climate scenarios can be used for assessments of air quality, water
quantity and quality, and other ecosystem  issues.

Dr. Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute
Peter Gleick is co-founder and President  of the Pacific Institute in Oakland, California. The Institute
is one of the world's leading  non-partisan policy research groups addressing global environment and
development problems, especially in the  area of freshwater resources. Dr.  Gleick is an internationally
recognized water expert. His research and  writing address the  hydrologic impacts of climate change,
sustainable water use, water privatization,  and international conflicts over water resources. His work
on sustainable management  and use of water led to him being named by the BBC as a "visionary on
the environment"  in its Essential Guide to the 21st Century. In  2008, Wired Magazine called  him
"one of 15 People the Next President Should Listen To." He is one of the nation's leading scientists
working on the implications of climate  change for water resources. He has also played a leading role
in highlighting the risks to national  and international security from conflicts over shared water
resources. He produced some of the earliest assessments  of the  connections between water and
political disputes and has briefed major international policy makers ranging from the Vice President
and Secretary of State of the United States to  the Prime Minister of Jordan on these  issues. He also
has testified regularly for the U.S.  Senate,  House of Representatives, and state legislatures, and
briefed international governments and policy makers.  He received a B.S. from Yale University and an
M.S. and Ph.D.  from the University of California, Berkeley. In 2003 he received a MacArthur
Foundation Fellowship for his work on  global freshwater issues. He was elected an Academician of
the International Water Academy, in Oslo,  Norway, in 1999. In 2006 he was elected  to the U.S.
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. and his public service includes work with a wide
range of science advisory boards, editorial  boards, and other organizations. He is the author of more
than 80 peer-reviewed  papers and  book  chapters, and six  books, including the biennial water report
The World's Water published by Island Press (Washington, D.C.).
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                   119

-------
Dr. James Goodrich, EPA ORD
James Goodrich has been employed by the EPA, Office of Research and Development (ORD) for 32
years. Dr. Goodrich has a Ph.D. and B.S. from the University of Cincinnati and an M.S. from Florida
State University. He has managed large multidisciplinary research programs relative to drinking
water, wastewater, and watershed management and has authored or co-authored several peer
reviewed journal articles,  EPA Handbooks, and book chapters. Currently, he is involved in the
development and implementation of the Water Resource Adaptation to Climate Change Program in
ORD.

Dr. Walter Grayman, P.E., NRMRL-UC WRAP Team
For the past 25 years, Walter Grayman has been owner of the  independent consulting engineering
firm of W.M. Grayman Consulting Engineer in Cincinnati, Ohio.  Dr. Grayman holds a PhD and SM
degree in civil engineering (specializing in water resources) from  MIT and a BS degree in civil
engineering from Carnegie Mellon University. He is a registered Professional Engineer in the State of
Ohio, a Diplomat of the American Academy of Water Resources Engineers,  and an Adjunct Professor
in the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at the University of Cincinnati. He is a
member of ASCE, AWWA, AGU, IWA and EWRI, and has chaired  national committees in both AWWA
and ASCE. He has over 130 publications including co-author of the AWWA book Modeling Water
Quality in Drinking Water Distribution Systems and contributing author for McGraw Hill Handbooks
on Water Distribution Systems and Water Supply Systems Security. He has won awards from both
ASCE and AWWA for his publications, research and service to the profession. He has specialized in
the development and application of models and quantitative analysis within the field of water
resources. He has performed pioneering work in the areas of managing, sampling, analyzing and
modeling hydraulics and water quality in water distribution systems and storage tanks. He has been
actively involved in the area of water system security as a certified RAM-W trainer,  in the
preparation of vulnerability assessments and in research on contamination  of water systems for EPA,
CDC, AwwaRF and  other organizations. He has worked extensively in the field of spatial data
analysis and geographic information system technology for over three decades including the
integration of hydrologic,  riverine and  infrastructure models with  CIS technology. As a consultant to
the United Nations  Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), he has served as an international
consultant on pollution prevention and stream modeling projects  in Turkey, Vietnam and Ecuador.

Benjamin Grumbles, Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of Water
Benjamin H. Grumbles was confirmed  by the United States Senate on November 20,  2004, as
Assistant Administrator for Water at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Prior to that Mr.
Grumbles served as Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water and Acting Associate Administrator for
Congressional and Intergovernmental  Relations. Before coming to EPA in 2002, he was Deputy Chief
of Staff and Environmental Counsel for the Committee on Science in the U.S. House of
Representatives. He also served for over 15 years in various capacities on the House Transportation
and  Infrastructure Committee, including Senior Counsel for the Water Resources and Environment
Subcommittee. From 1993 to 2004, he was an adjunct professor  of law at the George Washington
University Law School, teaching courses on the Clean Water Act,  Safe Drinking Water Act, Ocean
Dumping Act, and Oil Pollution Act. His degrees include a B.A.,  Wake Forest University; J.D., Emory
University; and LL.M. in Environmental Law, from the George Washington University  Law School. He
was born and raised in Louisville, Kentucky. He lives in Arlington, Virginia, with his wife, Karen and
their two water-loving kids.

Sally Gutierrez, Director, EPA ORD National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Sally C. Gutierrez is the Director of the National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) in
Cincinnati, Ohio. NRMRL is one of three Federal research laboratories within the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development. The Laboratory is responsible for

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                  120

-------
conducting engineering and environmental technology research to support the Agency in
development of policy, regulations and guidance to further environmental protection in the U.S. The
research staff consists of 400 environmental and chemical engineers, chemists, microbiologists,
economists, hydrologists and other scientists and support staff. Key areas of research include:
treatment and control of contaminants in drinking water, restoration of ecosystems, control of air
pollutants, remediation of contaminated sites, environmental sustainability and environmental
technology testing and development.

Ms. Gutierrez was born and raised in Houston, Texas. She received a Master of Science degree from
the University of Texas, School of Public Health in Houston. Her area of expertise is water resource
management. She was appointed NRMRL's Director in 2005. Prior to this  appointment she was the
Director of the Water Supply and Water Resources Division with the Laboratory. During her tenure
as Director of the Water Supply and Water Resources Division, she was responsible for leading a
national technology demonstration program for control of arsenic in drinking water. Prior to coming
to EPA, she was responsible for administering several water programs for the State of Texas
environmental agency in the areas of drinking water, water monitoring, wastewater treatment
permitting, and utility rates. She is a member of the American Water Works Association and the
American Society of Civil Engineers and is past President of the Texas Environmental Health
Association. She is a member of the Board of Directors for AIDIS U.S.A.

James A. Hanlon, P.E.,  Director, EPA Office of Wastewater Management
James A. Hanlon was appointed Director of the Office of Wastewater Management (OWM)  in the
Office of Water in April 2002. OWM is responsible for the management of the NPDES program which
permits municipal and industrial wastewater discharges,  and the administration of Federal financial
and technical assistance  for publicly owned wastewater treatment  works. Mr.  Hanlon is a career civil
servant with over 30 years of government service with the Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA).
In 1984, he was  appointed to the position of Director, Municipal Construction Division, and was
responsible for the management of EPA's national construction grants and state revolving fund
programs, providing assistance to municipalities in their wastewater infrastructure construction
programs. He was appointed to the position of Deputy Director of the Office of Science and
Technology in the Office of Water in 1991. In this capacity,  he was responsible for the scientific and
technical basis of the federal water quality and safe drinking water programs. From January 2001 to
April 2002, he served as Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water. He earned a
Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Illinois and a Master of
Business Administration Degree from the University of Chicago. He is also a registered Professional
Engineer in the State of  Illinois.

Roy Haught, EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Roy C. Haught has over 20 years of diversified and professional management experience in the
design, fabrication, testing, and evaluation of various research and development (R&D) innovative
treatment technologies. He is currently the acting chief of the Water Quality Management Branch,
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Officer  of Research and  Development.

Dr. Robert Hirsch, U.S. Geological Survey
Robert M. Hirsch currently serves as a  Research Hydrologist at the USGS. From 1994 through May
2008, he served as the Chief Hydrologist of the U.S. Geological Survey (in the later years of his
tenure the position was titled Associate Director for Water). In this capacity. Dr. Hirsch was
responsible for all U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) water science programs. These programs
encompass research and monitoring of the nation's ground water and surface water resources
including issues of water quantity as well as quality. Since 2003 he has served as the co-chair of the
Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality of the Committee  on Environment  and Natural

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                  121

-------
Resources of the National Science and Technology Council. He began his USGS career in 1976 as a
hydrologist and has conducted research on water supply, water quality, pollutant transport, and
flood frequency analysis. He had a leading role in the development of several major USGS  programs:
1) the National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA)  Program: 2) the National Streamflow
Information Program (NSIP); and 3) the National Water Information System Web (NWISWeb).
Previous leadership positions include: Acting Director of the USGS during an interim period between
Directors (August 1993 to March 1994); Assistant Chief Hydrologist for Research and External
Coordination (1989-1993); and Staff Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, U.S.
Department of the Interior (1987-1988). He received degrees from Earlham College (bachelor of arts
degree in geology, 1971), University of Washington (master of sciences degree in geology, 1974),
and The Johns Hopkins University (doctorate in geography and environmental engineering, 1976).
He has received numerous honors from the Federal Government and from non-governmental
organizations, including the 2006 American Water Resources Association's William C. Ackermann
Medal for Excellence in Water Management, and has twice been conferred the rank of Meritorious
Senior Executive by the President of the United States. He is co-author of the textbook "Statistical
Methods in Water Resources." He is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science and an active member of the American Geophysical Union and the American Water
Resources Association.

Dr. Thomas Johnson, EPA National Center for Environmental Assessment
Thomas Johnson is a hydrologist with the EPA, Office of Research and Development, Global Change
Research Program.  Dr. Johnson's research interests include the assessment  and  management of
climate and land use change  impacts on water and watershed systems, documenting and improving
the effectiveness of stream and watershed restoration, and the development of decision support
tools for adapting to climate change.  Prior to joining EPA he held positions with the Academy of
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia and was an AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow in
Washington, DC. He has  degrees from the University of Colorado (B.A. Environmental Biology),
Colorado State University (M.S. Watershed Sciences), and Penn State University  (Ph.D. Forest
Hydrology).

Dr. Paul Kirshen, Tufts University
Since 1996, Paul Kirshen has been a Research Professor in the Civil and Environmental Engineering
Department of Tufts University. Dr. Kirshen is also Affiliated Faculty in the Department of Urban and
Environmental Policy and Planning and  Adjunct Professor in the Friedman School of Nutrition Science
and Policy.  Since 2004, he has been Director and co-founder of the Tufts Water:  Systems,  Science,
and Society (WSSS)  Interdisciplinary Graduate Education Program. He is also presently a UCOWR
Fellow in support of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources in Integrated
Water Resources Management. He also recentlyjoined Battelle Memorial Institute in a part time
capacity as a Research Leader, and will assume a full time role with Battelle in June 2009.  He is an
expert in climate change  impacts and adaptation, and integrated water resources management. He
has carried out analyses  of climate change impacts on water resources systems and adaptation
actions on global, national, and local scales. He was  Principal  Investigator of one of the first
integrated,  risk-based assessments of climate change impacts and adaptation options for urban
infrastructure systems, the metro Boston CLIMB study. He was also the lead of the coastal flooding
team for the Union  of Concerned Scientists' Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment Report.
Presently he is leading a  NOAA funded  effort to develop an integrated, scenario-based, risk
assessment procedure for urban drainage management under a changing climate.  He is also
involved in  research on climate change  and environmental justice. His primary focus for international
research is West Africa where he has been working  with a team for many years on the use of
seasonal climate forecasting to improve agriculture and water management, a climate change
adaptation strategy (CFAR project). He  received both his doctorate and master's degree in holds
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                  122

-------
Civil Engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a bachelor's degree in engineering
from Brown University.

Dr. Dennis Lettenmaier, University of Washington
Dennis Lettenmaier received his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering (summa cum laude) at the
University of Washington in 1971, his M.S. in Civil, Mechanical, and Environmental Engineering at
the George Washington University in 1973, and his Ph.D. at the University of Washington in 1975.
He joined the University of Washington faculty in 1976. In addition to his service at the University of
Washington, he spent a year as visiting scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey in Reston, VA (1985-
86) and was the Program Manager of NASA's Land Surface Hydrology Program at NASA
Headquarters in 1997-98. He is a member of the American Geophysical Union, the American Water
Resources Association, the European Geosciences Union, the American Meteorological Society, and
the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the American Association for the Advancement of
Science. He was a recipient of ASCE's Huber Research Prize in 1990,  and the American Geophysical
Union's Hydrology Section Award in 2000.  He is a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, the
American Meteorological Society, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and
is a member of the International Water Academy. He is an author or  co-author of over 200journal
articles. He was the first Chief Editor of the American Meteorological Society Journal of
Hydrometeorology, and is currently  an Associate  Editor of Water Resources Research. He is the
President-elect of the Hydrology Section of the American Geophysical Union. His areas of research
interest are large scale hydrology, hydrologic aspects of remote sensing, and hydrology-climate
interactions.

Dr. Audrey Levine, P.E., EPA Office of Research and Development
Audrey Levine is the National Program Director for Drinking Water at EPA. Dr. Levine is an
environmental engineer with extensive research experience in water quality, water treatment and
distribution systems, treatment technologies, and water reuse. Prior to joining EPA, she was a
faculty member of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of South
Florida in Tampa. She is a Diplomat of Environmental Engineering (DEE) and a registered
professional engineer (P.E.). She has more than 20 years of broad-based, technical experience
within academic, government, industry, and consulting settings. She  has a doctorate in civil
engineering from the University of California at Davis, and a master's degree in Public Health from
Tulane University.

Dr. David Major, Columbia University
David Major is Senior Research Scientist at the Columbia University Earth Institute's Center for
Climate Systems Research. Dr.  Major completed his undergraduate work at Wesleyan University and
the London School of Economics, and received the Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard. He has been a
faculty member at MIT and at Clark University, a Visiting Fellow at Clare Hall, Cambridge, a senior
planner with the New York City Water Supply System, and Program Director for Global
Environmental Change at the Social Science Research Council. His principal scientific research focus
at Columbia is the adaptation of urban infrastructure to global climate change.  He is the award-
winning author, co-author or co-editor of twelve books on natural resources planning, environmental
management, biography and literary studies.

Linda Mearns, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Linda Mearns is the Director of the Weather and Climate Impacts Assessment Science Program
(WCIASP) within the Institute for the Study of Society and the Environment (ISSE) and Senior
Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric  Research, Boulder, Colorado. Dr. Mearns served as
Director of ISSE for three years ending in April 2008. She holds a Ph.D. in Geography/Climatology
from UCLA. She has performed research and published mainly in the  areas of climate change

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                  123

-------
scenario formation, quantifying uncertainties, and climate change impacts on agro-ecosystems. She
has particularly worked extensively with regional climate models. She has most recently published
papers on the effect of uncertainty in climate change scenarios on agricultural and economic impacts
of climate change, and quantifying uncertainty of regional climate change. She has been an author
in the IPCC Climate Change 1995, 2001, and 2007 Assessments regarding climate variability,
impacts of climate change on agriculture, regional projections of climate change, climate scenarios,
and uncertainty in future projections of climate change. For the 2007 Report(s) she was Lead Author
for the chapter on Regional Projections of Climate Change in Working Group 1 and for the chapter
on New Assessment Methods in Working Group 2. She is also an author on two Synthesis Products
of the US Climate Change Science Program. She leads the multi-agency supported North American
Regional Climate Change Assessment Program (NARCCAP),  which is providing multiple high-
resolution climate change scenarios for the North American  impacts community. She is a member of
the National Research  Council Climate Research Committee  (CRC) and Human Dimensions of Global
Change (HDGC) Committee. She was made a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society in
January 2006.

Karen Metchis, EPA OW Off ice of Wastewater Management
Karen Metchis works for the EPA Office of Water in Washington, D.C. Ms. Metchis began her career
at EPA in 1992, and has worked on various projects, including implementing the Montreal Protocol
on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, protecting the Florida Everglades from urban
encroachment, and developing regulations such as the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
rule. She has been in the Office of Wastewater Management for the past 10 years, and is an active
member of the EPA Office of  Water's Climate Workgroup. In addition to co-planning this workshop,
she is currently working as the Office of Water Transition Coordinator.

Dan Murray, P.E., EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Dan Murray is a Senior Environmental Engineer with the EPA Office of Research and Development
(ORD)  in  Cincinnati, Ohio, and has been with EPA for over 28 years. Mr. Murray is currently leading
EPA's Aging Water Infrastructure Research Program. He received his BS in Civil Engineering from
Merrimack College in North Andover,  Massachusetts and his  MS in Civil Engineering from
Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts. Prior to joining ORD, he worked in EPA Region 1
in Boston, and EPA Region 5  in Cleveland. He also worked for the Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority, leading the CSO control program. In 1995, he received the Gold Medal for Exceptional
Service, EPA's highest  honor, for his work in supporting the development of the Agency's CSO Policy.
He is a registered Professional Engineer in Massachusetts and Ohio and an active member of the
Water Environment Federation and the American  Society of Civil Engineers.


Chuck Noss, EPA Office of Research and Development
Chuck Noss is the National Program Director for Water Quality at EPA and brings a strong and
diverse scientific background  to the water quality research program. He has  extensive water quality
expertise in wastewater collection and treatment systems, stormwater management, and
environmental impacts. Prior  tojoining EPA, he served as deputy executive director and director for
research at the Water  Environmental  Research Foundation.  He has a doctorate in science in
environmental health engineering from The Johns Hopkins University.
Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                  124

-------
Doug Owen, P.E., Malcolm Pirnie Inc.
Douglas M. Owen,  P.E., BCEE is a Vice President with Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. and is the Chief
Technology Officer for the firm. In that role, Mr. Owen is responsible for technology applications for
clients  and the firm, applied research programs, outreach to universities, and knowledge
management. Prior to 2007,  he served as Managing Director of Malcolm Pirnie's business unit
providing drinking water,  wastewater, and water resources services to municipal clients. He has
specialized in water and wastewater planning and design since he received his Bachelor's Degree in
Civil Engineering from Purdue University in 1980 and his Master's Degree in Environmental Sciences
and Engineering from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1982. He has led applied
research projects on advanced technologies, consulted with utilities on treatment and facility
planning for over 6 billion gallons per day of treatment capacity throughout the United States,  and
has provided technical and facilitation support to USEPA and AWWA on a range of policy issues since
1990 -  including drinking water regulatory development, advanced  technology implementation and
utility compliance. He is currently the Chair of the Editorial Advisory Board for the Journal of the
American Water Works Association, serves on EPA's National Drinking Water Advisory Council,  has
served  as  a Trustee for AWWA's Water Science and Research Division, and serves on advisory
boards for the University of Texas, Columbia University, and the University of North Carolina School
of Public Health. He has published widely on water planning and design topics in books, peer-
reviewed journals,  and at national and international conferences.

David Rager, Greater Cincinnati Water Works
As Director of the Greater Cincinnati Water Works, David  Rager oversees a utility that serves
approximately 1,000,000 people over about 800 square miles in southwestern Ohio and northern
Kentucky.  He has worked to  develop a strategic business plan, utilize employee work teams, have
regular customer surveys and focus groups for insight into service delivery, expand into new
services and service areas, and use technology to manage costs and activity-based resource
management, and work in innovative ways with other utilities in the region to solve regional water
supply  and utility services issues.

Nationally, he serves on the Board of Directors for the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies
where  he  recently served as  President, the American Water Works  Association
Manufacturers/Associates Council, and the Water Utility Council. In 2007, the Awwa Research
Foundation (AwwaRF), the leading nonprofit water research foundation dedicated to advancing the
science of drinking water, elected Mr. Rager as chairman of the board for the term of 2007 - 2010.

Paul Rush, P.E., NYC Bureau of Water Supply
Paul Rush presently serves as Deputy Commissioner for the New York City Department of
Environmental Protection's (DEP) Bureau of Water Supply and  is responsible for operating and
protecting New York City's upstate water supply system in order to deliver sufficient high quality
drinking water to the 9 million  New York State residents in  nine counties who rely on the City's
system. Until October 2006, Mr. Rush served  as Director of the West of Hudson (WOH) Operations
Division and was responsible for the operation and maintenance of all New York City water supply &
wastewater treatment facilities west of the Hudson River. In prior assignments, he served as the
Delaware  District Engineer and the Delaware  District Operations Chief where he focused solely on
the operation of the City's Delaware Water Supply System.  He has  worked for the New York City
Department of Environmental Protection since 1992. Prior to his employment with New York City he
served  on active duty in the Army as  an  Engineer Officer. He holds a Master of Science degree in
Civil Engineering from Michigan Technological University and Bachelor of Science degree in Civil
Engineering from the United  States Military Academy. He is a registered  professional engineer  in the
state of New York.


Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                  125

-------
Dr. Joel Scheraga, EPA Office of Research and Development
Joel Scheraga is the National Program Director for the Global Change Research Program and the
Mercury Research Program in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and
Development. Dr. Scheraga is responsible for managing a $20.0 million Global Change Research
Program, a $4 million Mercury Research Program, and over 40 personnel in five laboratories and
centers. He is also the EPA Principal Representative to the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP), which coordinates  and integrates scientific research on climate and global change supported
by the U.S. Government. He has participated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), which was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. He was Chair of the U.S. Global Change
Research Program's  National Assessment Workgroup from 2000-2002 and Vice Chair from 1998-
2000. The Workgroup was  responsible for managing the U.S. National Assessment process which
resulted in the report to Congress entitled, "Climate Change Impacts on the United States:  The
Potential Consequences of  Climate Variability and Change." He was a co-author of the 2005 Human
Health Synthesis Report that is part of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.  He has served as a
faculty member for the International Water  Management Course held by the Swiss Federal Institute
of Environmental Science and Technology in Switzerland. He was a co-editor and lead author of the
book. Climate Change and  Human Health: Risks and Responses, released by the  World Health
Organization in December 2003, and co-author of the 2003 WHO report. Methods of Assessing
Human Vulnerability and Public Health Adaptation to Climate Change. He co-authored a white paper
in 2003 on the effects of climate change on water quality in the Great Lakes Region for the
US/Canada International Joint Commission's Water Quality Board.

Dr. Scheraga received an A.B. degree in geology-mathematics/physics from Brown University in
1976, an M.A. in economics from Brown University in 1979, and a Ph.D. in economics from Brown
University in 1981. Prior to joining EPA, he was an Assistant Professor of Economics at Rutgers
University from 1981-1987, and a Visiting Assistant Professor of Economics at  Princeton University
from 1985-1986. He was named a Fellow of the Institute for Science, Technology and Public Policy
in The Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University in June 2008. He was
also the recipient of the 2004 inaugural Horace Mann Distinguished Graduate School Alumni Award
presented by Brown University. He was one of the 1,360 scientists from 95 countries honored with
the 2005 Zayed  Award for scientific  and/or technological achievement in  environment for their work
on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. He has also received six EPA Bronze Medals.

Dr. Michael Shapiro, Deputy Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of Water
Michael Shapirojoined the  Office of Water as the Deputy Assistant Administrator in November 2002.
Prior to that. Dr.  Shapiro was the Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER).  He has been in that position since February 1997, with a
brief nine months as Acting Assistant Administrator during the transition between Administrations.
Before that he was the Director of the Office of Solid Waste, where he had served since November
1993. Prior to that, he served first as Deputy Assistant Administrator and then as Acting Assistant
Administrator in EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, where he directed implementation of the  1990
Clean Air Act Amendments. From 1980 to 1989, he held a variety of positions in the Office of
Pesticides and Toxic Substances, where one of his responsibilities  was developing EPA's Toxic
Release Inventory. He has  a B.S. in  Mechanical Engineering from Lehigh  and a Ph.D. in
Environmental Engineering from Harvard. He has also taught in the public policy  program at the
John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Dr. Daniel Sheer, HydroLogics, Inc.
Daniel Sheer is the founder and President of HydroLogics.  Dr. Sheer has devoted his professional
career to improving water management. After receiving his Ph.D with honors from the Johns
Hopkins University in 1974, he became the Planning Engineer, and then the Technical Director of

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation  to Climate Change                                 126

-------
the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. In these capacities, he designed the
technical work plan for the Washington Metropolitan Area 208 Plan (water quality management),
and led the technical development effort that provided a  long term water supply solution for the
same region. He was the first Director of CO-OP, the new institution designated to implement that
plan.

 In 1985  Dr. Sheer founded Water Resources Management, Inc.,  now renamed Hydrologies.  He has
been directly involved in the majority of Hydrologies' projects, and was instrumental in the creation
of the Southern Nevada Water Authority and the Kansas  River Water Assurance District. For the past
decade. Dr. Sheer has been closely involved in planning and operations for the Everglades, Lake
Okeechobee, the Everglades Agricultural Area and the Lower East Coast through contracts with the
South Florida Water Management District. He has directed the modeling of the Delaware,
Susquehanna,  and NYC water supply systems, and is currently engaged in modeling the
Appalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint and Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa Basins for the Atlanta Regional
Commission and the South Saskatchewan River Basin in Alberta.

Dr. Sheer has done pioneering work in the development of water resources modeling technology
and the use of Computer Aided Negotiation and Operations Exercises. His work on Hydrologies'
OASIS modeling system led to a U.S. Patent. He has received Best Journal Paper citations from both
AWWA and ASCE, was a founding member of the National Research Council's Water Science  and
Technology Board, and serves on the NRC's Committee to review the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity
Study.

Mark Simpson, Manatee County Manatee County Utilities Department
Mark Simpson  is the Water Division Manager of the Utilities Department for the Manatee County
Government, Manatee County, Florida. Mr. Simpson has Bachelor's degrees in Chemistry and Biology
from the  University of South Florida and has been with Manatee County for 26 years. He has worked
in the Manatee County Utilities Department Quality Control Laboratory for the majority of his career,
with major focus on researching the prevention and removal of algal by-products from potable
source surface water. He is the author or co-author of over 25 technical papers, research reports,
and presentations to professional conferences covering subjects including water quality, treatment,
and laboratory techniques. He is member of the American Water  Works Association and the North
American Lakes Management Society. He is longtime member of the AWWA Taste and Odor
Committee  and of Standard Methods.  He is also the proud father of four enchanting and brilliant
daughters from the age of 10 to 22.

Joel Smith, Vice President, Stratus Consulting, Inc.
Joel Smith,  Vice President with Stratus Consulting, has been analyzing climate change impacts and
adaptation issues for over 20 years. Mr. Smith was a coordinating lead author for the synthesis
chapter on climate change impacts for the  Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change and was a lead author for the IPCC's  Fourth Assessment Report. He was recently
nominated to be on the National Academy  of Sciences "Panel on Adapting to the Impacts of Climate
Change." He has provided technical advice, guidance, and training on assessing climate change
impacts and adaptation to people around the world and for clients such as the EPA, the U.S. Agency
for International Development, the U.S. Country Studies Program, the World Bank, the UN, a
number of states and municipalities in the U.S., the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, the
Electric Power  Research Institute, the National Commission on Energy Policy, and the Rockefeller
Foundation. He worked for the EPA from 1984 to  1992, where he was the deputy director of  Climate
Change Division. He is a coeditor of EPA's Report to Congress:  The Potential Effects of Global
Climate Change on the United States,  published in 1989;  As Climate Changes: International Impacts
and Implications, published by Cambridge University Press in 1995; and Adaptation to Climate

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                  127

-------
Change: Assessments and Issues, published by Springer-Verlag in 1996, Climate Change, Adaptive
Capacity, and Development, published in 2003 by Imperial College Press, and The Impact of Climate
Change on Regional Systems:  A Comprehensive Analysis of California published in 2006 by Edward
Elgar. He joined Hagler Bailly in 1992 and Stratus Consulting in 1998. He has published more than
thirty articles and chapters on climate change impacts and adaptation in peer-reviewed journals and
books.  Besides working on climate change issues at EPA, he also was a special assistant to the
assistant administrator for the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation.  He was a presidential
management intern in the Office of the Secretary of Defense from 1982  to 1984.  He has also
worked in  the U.S.  Department of Energy and the U.S. Agency for International Development. He
received a BA (magna cum laude) from Williams College in 1979, and a Master's in  Public Policy
from the University of Michigan in 1982.

Dr. Neil Stiber, EPA Office of the Science Advisor
Neil A.  Stiber is an environmental scientist in the  EPA's Office of the Science Advisor (OSA)  where he
is Interim  Special Assistant for the Chief Scientist. Upon joining the EPA  in 2003, Dr. Stiber worked
in the Office of Research and Development (ORD) with the Council for Regulatory Environmental
Modeling (CREM) where he was a co-author of the Guidance on Environmental Models and the
primary developer of the CREM Models Knowledge  Base. Next, he served on  the Program Support
Staff of ORD's Office of Science Policy where he focused on waste, contaminated sites, asbestos,
and brownfields. Following that, he worked as staff to the Science Policy Council (SPC). While at the
SPC, he promoted collaboration among agency-wide and inter-agency asbestos workgroups,
supported the Expert Elicitation Task Force, coordinated activities between EPA and the NAS, and
worked on many issues at the nexus of science policy, including climate  change. Prior to joining the
EPA, he worked for several years as a consultant specializing  in environmental  risk assessment, site
investigation, and remediation. He received a B.S. in civil engineering from Duke University, a M.S.
in civil  engineering  from Northwestern University, and M.S & Ph.D. from the  Department of
Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon  University. His research interests include expert
elicitation  and environmental decision making.

James Taft, Executive Director, Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
James  Taft is the Executive Director of the Association of State Drinking  Water Administrators
(ASDWA).  The Association supports state drinking water programs in their various efforts to ensure
safe drinking water for the American public. Mr. Taft has over 30 years experience in water and
wastewater  policy and technical issues. Prior to joining the Association in 2003, he worked  for the
EPA (in the Office of Ground Water and Drinking  Water and the Office of Wastewater Management),
the U.S. Agency for International Development (in Central and Eastern Europe), the Virginia
Department of Environmental  Quality, the Ocean County (New Jersey) Utilities Authority, and the
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission. He has a  B.S. in Biology from Villanova University
and an M.S. in Environmental  Engineering from the University of Cincinnati.

Claudio Ternieden, Water Environment Research Foundation
Claudio Ternieden helps direct the research efforts of the Water Environment Research Foundation,
a nonprofit organization focused on the science and technology of water and wastewater
management. Mr. Ternieden helps lead WERF's climate change, energy,  wastewater treatment
operations and optimization research efforts and  works with federal, state and  local agencies,
academia  and the private sector to seek solutions to municipal challenges affecting water quality.
Previously, he worked on  climate change issues in the aviation and transportation industry  and
contributed to the National Academy of Sciences  Transportation Research Board's environmental
efforts. He also worked in environmental  regulatory issues at the US Environmental Protection
Agency and  the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. He  has  a law degree and a
certificate  in Environmental Law from Pace University School of Law, in White Plains, NY; a BA from

Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                  128

-------
Concordia College, Bronxville, NY; and graduate work in Public Policy (Climate Policy) from George
Mason University, Arlington, VA.


Brad Udall, University of Colorado - NOAA Western Water Assessment
Brad Udall is director of Western Water Assessment, one of seven RISA (Regional Integrated
Sciences and Assessments) programs funded by the Office of Global Programs at NOAA. These
programs are designed to develop partnerships with regional stakeholders and tailor NOAA data
products to meet their needs. Lessons learned here are also contributing to NOAA's emerging
"National Climate Service," the climate analog to the existing National Weather Service.

Alan Vicory, P.E., Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission
Alan Vicory serves as Executive Director and Chief Engineer for the  Ohio River Valley Water
Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO). Appointed to the position in May 1987 after previous
responsibilities with the Commission staff as Environmental Engineer and Manager of Technical
Services, Mr. Vicory directs the programs of the Commission, which include establishment of
regulatory requirements for discharges, water quality and biological monitoring systems, detection
and response to  spills, applied research, coordination of states and federal programs and public
education and involvement. ORSANCO, known worldwide for its accomplishments in water pollution
control on a watershed basis, was established in 1948 by state compact. Members of the
Commission represent Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West
Virginia and the United States. He received a B.S. degree in Civil Engineering from Virginia Military
Institute in 1974. He  is a Registered Professional Engineer and Board Certified in environmental
engineering (water and wastewater)  by the American Academy of Environmental Engineers. He is
current Vice-chairman of the  Board of the Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) a
former Chairman of the International Water Association's (IWA) Watershed and  River Basin
Management Specialist Group, and is currently a member of the Association's Strategic Council. He
also is a Past President of the American Academy of Environmental  Engineers (AAEE) and the
Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA). He has
provided contributions to published texts, published and presented numerous professional papers,
has provided keynote remarks at several technical and professional  conferences nationally and
internationally, and has served on many expert panels.

Marc Waage, P.E., Denver Water / Water Utility Climate Alliance
Marc Waage manages Denver Water's integrated resource planning and climate change planning.
Denver Water, the largest water utility in Colorado, serves 1.2 million people. Prior to managing
planning, he managed Denver's water collection system operations. Before his 22-year career at
Denver Water, he worked briefly for the Bureau of Reclamation and the Bureau of Indian Affairs on
agricultural irrigation  projects. He has a Bachelor's degree (with high distinction)  and a Master's
degree in Civil Engineering from Colorado State University and is a professional engineer. One of his
favorite activities is recreating in Denver's mountain watersheds.

Laura Wharton, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks
Laura Wharton is the Supervisor of Comprehensive Planning and Asset Management Development
for the King County Wastewater Treatment Division. Ms. Wharton and her staff are responsible for
near term and long-range planning for the wastewater conveyance  system and treatment plant
infrastructure for the greater Seattle  Metropolitan area. Combined Sewer Overflow control planning
within the City of Seattle and reclaimed water planning for the regional treatment system. She has
twenty-five years of experience leading major capital planning and siting projects for government
agencies. She has a Bachelor's of Science degree in Forestry from Michigan Technological University.


Proceedings of the  First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                  129

-------
Dr. Pai-Yei I/I/hung, Chief Scientist, EPA Office of the Science Advisor
As Chief Scientist, Dr. Pai-Yei Whung shares fully with the EPA Science Advisor in planning,
developing, and implementing cross-Agency scientific efforts.  This includes providing program
management and technical support to the Science Advisor by  independent scientific opinions and
through leading OSA staff and its multiple science-policy functions. Dr. Whung has a doctoral degree
in climate change, marine and atmospheric chemistry, a master's degree in oceanography and
marine chemistry, and a bachelor's degree in oceanography and geology. She has fifteen years of
field research experience and eight years of program management and leadership in bioenergy, air
quality, water quality, weather, sustainable ecosystems, climate change,  and agricultural research.
Her research has been published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at many professional
meetings. Prior tojoining EPA, she worked in the Agricultural  Research Service at UDSA and for
NOAA where she had a detail to the World Meteorological Organization. Through these positions she
has cultivated a broad perspective on science in the federal  government. In these positions, her
experiences with EPA included conducting water quality research  in bays, developing analytical
techniques, and initiating interagency science programs. She has successfully worked with the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), the Office of Science and  Technology (OSTP), Congress, and
private-sector stakeholders on scientific initiatives. In addition, she has led the development of
several policy documents with multiple federal and state agencies, governors associations and
universities (notably, the development of the National Science and Technology Council
Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction's strategic action plan  for implementation of a National
Integrated Drought  Information System.)

Dr. Y. Jeffrey Yang, P.E., EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Jeff Yang is an environmental scientist with the EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory
stationed in Cincinnati, Ohio. Dr. Yang has a broad range of professional knowledge and research
experience in water resources, drinking water, wastewater,  groundwater and storm water
engineering and management.  In his 26 years of professional  career, he  spent a half of the time in
private practice on large engineering projects and program management before coming back to the
research side. He  has a bachelor's degree, two master's degrees, and a Ph.D. degree from China
and U.S.  He is a licensed professional engineer and professional geologist in the states and  a
Diplomat of Water Resources Engineering (D.WRE) in the ASCE's AAWRE. At the EPA, he has
enjoyed in developing the Water Resources Adaptation Program (WRAP), participating in Agency's
research and  rule-making activities, having served as an ad-hoc peer reviewer for several
international journals and in several professional committees.  He  also has published extensively.

Dr. David Yates, National Center for Atmospheric Research
David Yates is a Project Scientist in the  Research Applications  Laboratory at the National Center for
Atmospheric Research, Boulder Colorado and Research Associate with the Stockholm Environment
Institute's US Center in Davis, CA. Dr. Yates research has focused both on local scale hydrologic
problems (flash floods, land use-land cover,  climate change),  as well as climate change impacts on
water and agricultural systems. He is PI on an EPA Office of Research and Development Project
which is developing  an analytic tool- the Water Evaluation and Planning model- for looking at the
combined effects of climate change and land-use on ecological resources and freshwater services.
This tool was partially developed with funding from the AWWA Research Foundation, to help water
utilities with long-range planning that includes climate change impacts. With  Kathleen Miller and
support from the AWWA Research Foundation, he has helped  develop an educational primer for use
by the drinking water utility industry that outlines  the current  state of scientific knowledge regarding
the potential impacts of global climate change on  water utilities, including impacts on water supply,
demand and relevant water quality characteristics.


Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on
Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change                                  130

-------