31 March 2011

GWater, part 2: Hidden Dimensions

One of the questions I have received, on more than one occasion after explaining the "GWater" idea, has been an obvious one: "What does that look like?" Well, it looks a lot like Google Maps or (eventually) Google Earth, actually, and I'll get to that in part 3 of this series on the GWater concept. The important part is the content of the maps, the information that is made available for display in a visual and spatial setting, that is focused and organized on the topic of interest. Water is, inherently, a topic defined by its variability in space and time. It just makes sense, at least for me, that massive amounts of information about water should therefore be presented in just such a spatial context. Maps are an intuitive method of organization that already hold two or three dimensions, out of the four or more dimensions that we need, that help convey this information load in a comprehensible manner.  I don't remember who I heard say it, whether it was on Twitter or in a project or class somewhere, but the quality and detail in the base-map is crucial to our understanding of the issues in water and many other Earth sciences.

And yes, there are at least four dimensions to talk about here.  In much of the work that I've done, and in the hydrologic processes that hold my interest, there are at least four normative dimensions.  Then there are also the variables actually being examined, each of which is a "degree of freedom" or a "dimension of variability."  I'm really not trying to make this more complicated, so let us go with a concrete example instead of the more abstract conceptual model of thinking.  Let us decide to place a precipitation gauge in the backyard in order to keep track of rainfall amounts (which I actually want do right now).  In order to contribute the information we collect from this gauge to a larger body of knowledge, such as the CoCoRaHS Network that is now nationwide, we need to know the location of the gauge in space, and then we can provide rainfall amounts over specified time periods (one day, in their case).  Space, as you know, is not just latitude and longitude on the surface of the Earth but also elevation, or altitude or depth depending on the measurement taken.  However, we'll just work with the standard three-dimensional (x-y-z or longitude-latitude-elevation) space for now.  Add the factor of time, and that's four dimensions thus far - these are what I am calling the four normative dimensions.  Add any number of variables to be measured, in this case a precipitation amount that changes over time, and that's at least a five-dimensional problem.

Two dimensions, say a flat representation of the Earth, is called a plane.  In three dimensions, it becomes a surface.  In general, these are called "manifolds."  Can you visualize a four-dimensional manifold?  Yes, actually, you can--just watch an airplane fly overhead.  It is moving in space, over time.  You might even be able to trace its path from one side of the horizon to another, especially if it is leaving a visible contrail.  Can you visualize a five-dimensional manifold?  Hmmm...yes, you can still do that, in a way.  That airplane contrail is dispersing over time because of the winds and turbulence in the atmosphere, so the contrail is probably a fine line just behind the airplane but, where the airplane was ten minutes ago, its contrail in the sky is now a wide, cloud-like brush-stroke.  Along the path of the airplane, that character differs, with a wiggle here and there and maybe places that the contrail is no longer visible, depending on all kinds of atmospheric variables including wind and temperature and humidity...and so we can see all of this complexity, and our brains can take it in and store it for later so that we can say at another time to our kids "Oh, yeah, that's what happens when an airplane goes overhead sometimes, it's called a contrail, and sometimes you can see lots of them all at once. Cool, huh?"  But breaking it down to the fundamentals of what is really happening, physically, to form and then alter that contrail is not something our brains do so well.  So this is where we need to begin reducing the complexity of the phenomenon in order to convey information in a way that remains understandable.  "Why is the sky blue?" Oh, that's an easy one, but did my daughter ever ask that?  Ha!  No...I got "How does a tornado happen?"  Bring nine or so degrees of freedom (including the four normative dimensions) into the process of system construction, even just conceptually, and maybe you can do that.

Think of it this way:  for a single precipitation gauge sitting in a field somewhere, maybe your backyard near the garden, you really just want to know two things, (1) "when did it rain?" and (2) "how much did it rain?" If the last rainstorm occurred a week ago, instead of just last night, then you might need to water those vegetables.  If it just drizzled last night, instead of pouring down in buckets, then you might still need to add water to the garden.  So you're really only interested in two variables, and you have essentially two dimensions of variability.  You already know where the information is located in space, but you really just want time and amount.  This is our basic time-series, a simple graph with bars or points that show the amount of rainfall over a known period of time, or a p-t series.  Here is an hourly precipitation time series from some of my M.S. work a few years ago:

But this is the data for a single gauge, for which we know its location in space, and we have a few more in our area of interest.  So you might have different information, such as the hourly or daily rainfall at several locations around an area of interest, but not right at your garden.  Using the given information in a basic form, you have three variables: location (x-y) and rainfall (p). With some analysis, we can visualize these three dimensions as a contour map, similar to a topographic map, but for rainfall:

If you have the time-series of rainfall at several locations, it becomes a four-dimensional problem: x-y-p-t.  Working forward from the above 3-D example, it would become an animated series of contour maps over our area of interest.  This is, essentially, several individual x-y-p contour maps, each specific to a desired t, in sequence over multiple t.  In the following surface weather analyses from Unisys Weather, we see a lot of information at specific times, with data locations repeated over the time spanned by the event I was examining in that work (for your orientation, my area of interest was in eastern Colorado):

Now, we've already introduced the spatial dimensions that make such presentation easier.  From there, it's a matter of proper combination of available dimensions and variables that allow for accurate interpretation.  Often that required building an analysis by layers, starting with the lowest dimensionality of data combination, 2-D time series and 3-D contour plots, and building our way up to more complex representations using base maps and ancillary information to aid in the analytical process.  As it turns out, the base map then becomes our guide - quite often the hierarchy of information is turned on its head, and the more complex representation is the first we see before "drilling down" to the local and specific detail that the 2-D and 3-D variable combinations provide.  We'll look at some information systems with that order-of-operations, using examples that are already out there on the web, in part 3 of this series...

30 March 2011

MGhydro on Twitter, 20110329 edition

Yesterday (Tuesday, 29 March) seemed to be a really good day for water-related news on Twitter, at least through the many outlets and friends that I follow there.  I had already been thinking of a way to transfer some of that here to the blog, since there is so much great news that passes through Twitter.  Though I do read the things that I pass on to my followers, I can't blog substantively about everything, even just the water-related stuff!  It's just way too much to think about in order to generate individual, substantive blog posts.  I really don't want to ask my readers to follow yet another site on the web by starting a mini-blog outlet like Tumblr or Posterous, or even necessarily a daily collection like Paper.li, in between the full blog (here) and the micro-blog (Twitter).  The web is our tool, we are not it's minions and lackeys, so I really think you should be able to get it all here.  And before you suggest that I add my Twitter feed to the sidebar here, you should know that I tried that, and it's both too inclusive (everything shows up, including stuff not water- or blog-related) and not yet correctly programmed on Blogger (when you click on a tweet, it doesn't open properly in a new browser tab or even it's own page).

So, following Aquadoc's relatively new example with his TGIF ("Tweets Galore - It's Friday!") posts on WaterWired, I'm going to list things appropriate to this blog that I have tweeted, RT'd (re-tweeted, from someone that I follow), MT'd (a modified RT), or HT'd (a "hat-tip" in the parlance, usually sourced from friends, also sometimes "h/t") in the past few days up through the evening of the date in the post title, which I will try to keep consistent in upcoming editions.  Note, this is not a substitute for more substantive blog posts that you've come to expect from me and seem to appreciate more every month - there are still plenty of those in my research and writing queue.  I'd go back to the beginning of my time on Twitter, but that's a few months now, so let's just pick up here with the last four days, and I'll do my very best to keep the coverage consistent (I'd estimate every 2-5 days, depending on activity) and gap-free.  And remember, you can follow me on Twitter to get these in real time, and I welcome contributions by comment, e-mail and @MGhydro!

26 March (Saturday)
27 March (Sunday)
28 March (Monday)
29 March (Tuesday)
So there you have it, the relevant part of four days' activity on Twitter, and that last was kind of an amazing day for water and related news and posts around the interwebs.  Watch for more soon!

28 March 2011

Worth the paper it was printed on?

Author's Note: the following may not be appropriate reading for flag-waving conservatives, or even flag-waving liberals for that matter, especially those currently taking medication for high blood pressure.  This commentary is almost certainly not in the avowed interests of set-minded neoconservative imperialists or, quite the opposite, Americans who disavow interest in or knowledge of foreign policy.  Americans who believe without question every news item they read and hear about our government and its intentions in the world should stop right here and read something else.  If you don't want to bother having to dig into the roots of your own and the larger American ethos, and taking the chance that you might be offended at what you find, go read instead my friend John Sauer's well-written and far more civil take on the events of this past World Water Day in Washington, DC.  He does cover the same points I make here...in another way.  If you choose to read past the line immediately below, I'm not trying to be overdramatic, I just want you to remember: you've been warned.

It was a little while after last year's World Water Day that I posted an article on the Indus River Basin in which I called out US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for some confusion surrounding her statements around that time on US policy regarding foreign aid, water issues, the India–Pakistan dispute over Indus River waters, and some generally obvious contradictions in statements issued from Foggy Bottom over the span of a couple months.  As I quoted then, on 22 March 2010 Secretary Clinton delivered her remarks on the purposes of American foreign aid in the water sector:
''Access to reliable supplies of clean water is a matter of human security. It’s also a matter of national security. And that’s why President Obama and I recognize that water issues are integral to the success of many of our major foreign policy initiatives... 
In the United States, water represents one of the great diplomatic and development opportunities of our time. It’s not every day you find an issue where effective diplomacy and development will allow you to save millions of lives, feed the hungry, empower women, advance our national security interests, protect the environment, and demonstrate to billions of people that the United States cares... 
Water is actually a test case for preventive diplomacy. Historically, many long-term global challenges – including water – have been left to fester for years until they grew so serious that they could no longer be ignored. If we can rally the world to address the water issue now, we can take early corrective action, and get ahead of the challenges that await us. And in doing so, we can establish a positive precedent for early action to address other serious issues of global concern.''
I wrote at that time that the statement seemed earnest, especially as Congress seemed to be working on an update and expansion to the original Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005 that had just expired.  However, I didn't take into account the glacial pace (pre-global-warming, when they moved slower) at which Congress was moving then, and the mid-term election that was coming up in which entitlement-friendly but science-hostile Republicans ultimately took control of both House and Senate.  What was the Senator Paul Simon Water for the World Act of 2010 (S.624) died in transition to the House, after being passed by unanimous consent in the Senate several weeks before the elections.  With the end of the 111th Congress, all outstanding bills were wiped clean from the slate, and it was left to the new Congress to take up old issues.

By the end of the winter, a great deal of upheaval arrived in the halls of American science when the new Congress was sworn in and began to hold budget hearings for both the continuing resolution, on which our federal government is (barely) operating now, and the FY2012 federal budget.  In the midst of the fight over science funding, such as that for our most fundamental Earth science activities including the very mission of the USGS and even NOAA's weather forecasting capabilities, Senator Durbin of Illinois has re-introduced the Senator Paul Simon Water for the World Act of 2011 (S.641).  Its purpose, as in previous incarnations, remains:
"to provide 100,000,000 people with first-time access to safe drinking water and sanitation on a sustainable basis within six years by improving the capacity of the United States Government to fully implement the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005."
A hundred million people with new access to sustainable drinking water and sanitation facilities!  It would be just plain amazing to behold, one country making a commitment that huge and then doing whatever it takes to follow through on it.  And don't get me wrong, I fully believe that the USG has the capacity and know-how to do exactly that.  For that matter, I believe that the number could be half-a-billion or more, and that the USG could mobilize the necessary workforce between now and the end of the Millennium Development Goals (only four years to go!) to do more than even that commitment helping developing nations meet Goal 7C.  What I doubt, however, is the commitment and continuity of leadership within the USG to appropriate and manage the funds and workforce as consistently and efficiently as needed to do the job.  And I'm not suggesting that one branch or another is at fault here - the problems are in both the Congress and the Executive Departments and Agencies. 

A Congressional Budget Office estimate (available in html and pdf) prepared for the 2010 version of the bill noted that full implementation through the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which is now entirely under the direction of the Department of State, would cost $8B, which was broken down to an approximate cost per person of only $28 using the total US population estimate at the time.  I think that the CBO was underestimating the labor costs involved, especially as much of USAID's work is apparently outsourced now.  I wouldn't expect the overall cost to rise by much in the 2011 version of the bill and the revised CBO estimate that is still to be issued, but what trips me up is one line in the CBO analysis of the 2010 bill: "Section 5 would require the Secretary of State and the Administrator of USAID to designate staff in Washington, DC, to coordinate global water policy and to develop and oversee water strategies for each high-priority country."

Wait, hold up, stop right there: there's a global water policy?  When did that come about?  Did the US leadership decide (unilaterally, of course) to develop and administer this policy without consulting Congress, our overseas friends in NATO and the UN and various other "coalitions," or even the very countries (and their citizens, of course) on whom this policy is inflicted applied?  When did the US declare this war on thirst?  Oh, I see, we haven't done any of those things.  The US is just trying to bring the world a drink of water, as befits the standing and responsibility of a lone superpower in a chaotic world.  Right?

Now, I do agree that the US has a responsibility here.  It is, however, an elitist and illiberal and ultimately racist sense of responsibility.  It's this idea in the American mindset, possibly started with the (true) sense of having won World War II and then strengthened by a (false) sense of having won the Cold War, that America is "it," the pinnacle of human civilization.  It's this idea, my conceptual model of the American pathos:
"If we don't help these people, if we don't do for them what we think they need, if we don't define poverty and show them that they are the illustration, if we don't given them the brutal means to subsist at that level of development...then they'll never rise up to our own level of civil society, want our advice on government, ask us to bring democracy to their people, adopt the dollar as their de facto currency, become worthy and useful allies, develop adequate trade markets, incur a trade deficit with us, etc."
Those are my own words, trying to wrap my brain around this idea for the first time in my life, and not a quote from someone else.  I don't like the idea, for so many reasons, including its decadence.  But I will also tell you and anyone else that I personally don't feel that way.  You might not believe me; I am an American, after all.  That does not, however, make me necessarily elitist or illiberal or racist, but you'll just need to take my word for it...almost four years of words thus far, on this blog alone, and then there are the friends I have, the places I've traveled, the things I want to do with life...  You're smart enough to make your own judgment on my sincerity.

In the meantime, you may also recognize this:  the world can and will change, but not while the insincere and illiberal leaders currently running the so-called rich countries around the world (including the US) remain comfortable in their seats of power.  They will keep two-fifths or more of the world at a level of poverty and subsistence, just so that they can remain firmly planted in the richest percentile of the global population.  After all, no one person can be called rich and powerful if there isn't another, maybe even a whole country, poor and destitute, to complete the comparison.  How do we change that?  That's easy: make them uncomfortable.  Ask questions, demand answers, challenge assumptions, push at the status quo ante until it bends or breaks under the pressure of its own contradictions.  The leaders who get uncomfortable will either adapt or leave; the ones who answer the questions, who own their accountability, who admit to the contradictions, who present their choices transparently, who give thoughtful consideration to the vocal minority...they are the leaders we can learn to trust.  They are the leaders who understand that what America has, as a world leader, is instead a responsibility to protect the lives and livelihoods of people, everywhere, to the best of our ability.  Not just the US "homeland," not just Americans wherever they go in the world, but people, plain and simple.  There is no requirement of an oath, allegiance, citizenship, pax Americana...  There need be no genocide or famine or starvation, if those who are able would simply stand up and take onto ready shoulders their responsibility to protect those who are in need.  Atrocities would not go unpunished, with various national and international courts in place.  It may be an expensive, heart-wrenching, gut-tightening job to do, and it may require the resources of every rich country in the world, but it won't be thankless. 

There are many ways to take on such a responsibility: labor, funding, troops, materials, debt forgiveness, tariff reduction, information, etc.  One of the ways the US has tried to channel funding to the developing world is through official lending institutions.  The World Bank was founded by several countries, principally the US and UK, before World War II even ended in order to facilitate reconstruction funding.  Its primary purpose is to provide loans to developing countries for capital programs, such as infrastructure development, with the overall goal of reducing poverty.  As I pointed out in that previous post, "it is the US that nominates the President of the World Bank and holds a plurality of the votes, with the ability to block any opposing super-majority."  The subject came up then because the World Bank is the standing arbitrator for the Indus Waters Treaty, and rather than step in as yet another arbitrator in the most recent dispute, Secretary Clinton rightly (though by a round-about path) deferred to existing procedures.  In doing so, however, she made statements to a Pakistani delegation on which the Times of India quoted Secretary Clinton directly:
''We're well aware that there is a 50-year-old agreement between Pakistan and India concerning water... Where there is an agreement...with mediation techniques, arbitration built in, it would seem sensible to look to what already exists to try to resolve any of the bilateral problems between India and Pakistan... Let's see what we do to protect our aquifers. Let's see what we do to be more efficient in the use of our water. Let's see what we do to capture more rainwater; how do we actually use less of it to produce more crops? We think we have some ideas with our experts that we want to sit down and talk with your experts about and see where that goes''
At the time, I agreed wholeheartedly that "an exchange of technical knowledge will help build capacity in Pakistan, and might even teach us a thing or two about resource management in our own country..." However, I also pointed out that "setbacks in ethnic and territorial issues can quickly and easily unravel any technical and technological progress in water management and food security. The U.S. needs to form and stick to a clearer message in our approach to Pakistan's issues and helping them with their priorities, not just our own."

As the Wikipedia entry notes about the World Bank, "all of its decisions must be guided by a commitment to promote foreign investment [and] international trade and facilitate capital investment."  The World Bank has taken a lot of criticism in recent years, however, for the manner in which market reform policies (i.e. capitalism) are introduced in targeted developing countries.  For our purposes here, the Bank has taken specific criticism for its advocacy on behalf of international corporations that privatize resources, including water, in the developing economy.  Often, this privatization comes at the expense of the natural environment and indigenous peoples, as in the case of so many large dams recently built in Africa, South America and South Asia.  There has been great pressure on the Bank to develop what is known as a softer approach to development assistance.  Although this kind of approach should have been part of the Bank's strategies since the beginning of its activity, better late than never, right?  But then, teaching the people in developing countries to emerge from poverty on their own might have defeated the rich countries' efforts at keeping so much of the world dependent on their help...

Let us skip to March 2011.  On this past World Water Day in Washington, DC, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed a Memorandum of Understanding with World Bank President Robert Zoellick.  Press releases from both the US Department of State and the World Bank accompanied the announcement, Secretary Clinton wore her customary bright blue WWD dress suit, both leaders offered statements on the occasion, and both recognized the commitments of their respective organizations to the agreement.  Secretary Clinton's remarks at the ceremony called
"to all of you who are here because you know that this is such a critical issue that cuts across every single part of development that one can imagine, I thank you for helping to raise the visibility of water as one of the most important issues. Why? Because the water crisis is a health crisis, it’s a farming crisis, it’s an economic crisis, it’s a climate crisis, and increasingly, it is a political crisis. And therefore, we must have an equally comprehensive response.
"Now our experts in the United States Government are working on water issues at nearly two dozen agencies – of course, from State and USAID, but also the Millennium Challenge Corporation, NASA, NOAA, EPA, Treasury, and so much else. And many of our agencies are already working with the World Bank Group, but we want to enhance that collaboration, and that will be created by the memorandum of understanding that we sign today."
But what, really, did they agree to do?  A Department of State fact sheet on the MOU gives some elements of the agreement, but the language is noncommittal.  Several "potential activities" are listed, including "knowledge sharing, joint analytical work and harmonization of information."  A few "benefits to the US Government and the World Bank" and "benefits to the global community" are also listed, including one of particular note: "U.S. agencies can learn from global best practices and bring shared knowledge back to benefit U.S. communities." [Author's Note: could it be that someone in the right place read my comments from long ago and retained some of the message that I put forward?  I'd find that humbly difficult to believe, but one never knows...The MOU itself is a quick read as well, and offers at least some concise background on the agreement.  But in the end, what the USG and the World Bank really agreed to do was have more meetings:
"4(c) There is to be an annual 'High Level Review' of the progress made by both Participants under this Memorandum. The High Level Review is to be conducted by the United States Department of State, the United States Department of the Treasury, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the World Bank. At the first High Level Review, the first Program of Work jointly developed by the Senior Representatives is to be assessed and planned activities confirmed. Thereafter, the Program of Work is to be reevaluated annually at the High Level Review and altered as needed by the Participants. The Participants intend to hold the first annual High Level Review within one year of the signing of this Memorandum."
There is no Program of Work yet.  The senior representatives from each participating party have not been named, to the best of my knowledge.  There were two items in Secretary Clinton's remarks that piqued my interest, however:
"One year ago, I reaffirmed the United States’s [sic] commitment to water security, to ensuring that people have the water they need, when and where they need it, in a sustainable manner, while reducing the risk and impact of extreme water events like droughts and floods. So water security for us is a matter of economic security, human security, and national security, because we see potential for increasing unrest, conflicts, and instability over water. That is why I asked the National Intelligence Council to prepare an intelligence estimate on the national security implications of water security up to the year 2040."
You may note there that "climate change" was not mentioned outright, though the related "risk and impact of extreme water events" is noted explicitly.  I've already lamented the recent obfuscation of "climate change" in the present US Administration's rhetoric, so I won't belabor that again here, except to point out that the President's removal of the term from his own vocabulary has obviously worked its way into the statements of his Cabinet advisers as well now.  Second, that NIE is a process that I will likely bug a few friends about over the next few years (about as long as it takes to get one of those done) but, being a product of the US Intelligence Community, it's an inherently secretive process and there likely isn't much substance that will be permitted to see the light of day in the meantime.  Right from the beginning, this agreement is not simply bound in bureaucracy, but is the definition of bureaucracy itself.  It is a scourge upon the intended work, a bulwark against progress, set before those of us with interests in the water and sanitation sectors.  In the light of recent Congressional opposition to spending on domestic and international initiatives in science and education, and participation in international fora such as the IPCC, one part of the MOU is particularly foreboding:
"4(e) Each Participant is to be responsible for its own costs in implementing the Program of Work, unless otherwise mutually determined therein."
On the other hand, the MOU is also explicitly limited:
"This Memorandum is not legally binding and does not constitute an agreement or commitment by either Participant to enter into or provide support for any specific activity or project. Nothing in this Memorandum should be construed as creating a joint venture, an agency relationship, or a legal partnership between the Participants...This Memorandum is not intended to commit either Participant to the potential or actual commitment of funds." [emphasis preserved from the original]
For a moment there, it almost seemed like the USG actually did something for World Water Day, didn't it?  Alas, no.  The truth is stark and empty: the developing countries of the world are still in need, the MDGs that American leadership helped set are coming up fast, the US Congress would prefer to retreat from the outside world and the problems at hand, and the Executive arm of the USG is still just planning more meetings.

We supporters of MDG 7C, of the people who want help developing the basics of subsistence (let alone sustainability), and of our living planet without its own voice, have few choices remaining.  We can join the effort represented by such an Understanding, permit the bureaucratic machine to grind painfully down over the years our passion for the work, allow it to drain away from us our dreams of progress as those who are able, and simply give up the lives of those in need to this strange modern need for global leadership in government institutions.

Alternatively, we can join a non-governmental organization that is committed to alleviating poverty, saving the environment, and bringing water and sanitation and proper governance of common resources to the developing countries of the world.  That's a good choice, though not always as effective as an individual sometimes hopes.  Unless you lead your own NGO with your own interests and good funding support, chances are that your ambitions will be subsumed to the greater agenda of the organization.  That's not necessarily bad, mind you; there are thousands of NGOs that just need the people to carry out missions for which their funding is already in hand, and so very many of them want to do something good for the world.  Save a patch of forest, inoculate a child, help dig a community well, pass out mosquito nets, educate the people...they're all good, and some of them you can really only do effectively in a large group with a system of provision that the best NGOs provide.

The third way is different, however.  It's not anarchic or antisocial, but neither does it conform to the institutional government approach, or even necessarily to the involvement of grass-roots NGOs.  Career scientists who are held in high regard know well this way: collaboration.  But it must be a true, no-boundaries, no-limitations, no-secrets, all-inclusive collaborative process.  There is a subtle but important difference between "cooperation" and "collaboration," and the MOU does not acknowledge this difference, but the participants and the public will see it right away.  It must not be limited to representatives from three USG representatives and the World Bank, but instead invite those experts from both within and outside of the other agencies that are party to the "sharing knowledge" called for in the MOU.  The process needs USG status employees, contract employees, academics, subject-matter experts, interdisciplinary specialists, citizens with specialized knowledge, etc.  Maybe that's part of the plan, but the documents and remarks don't say, and it will remain a closed process unless the leaders and participants themselves open it up to the world to see what they intend to do, and where, and how.  This is one critical area, knowledge transfer to and from the developing countries of the world on such an important subject as water and sanitation, in which transparency of operation could indeed be the best and most effective policy.  There is so very much potential to be realized here, and my own hope is that it doesn't remain as potential, but is instead transformed to real advancements in global information sharing on the issues of water and its uses.  The MOU signed on World Water Day may barely be worth the paper it was printed on, but only time and effort will tell us that for certain.  Can we hope that the Participants to that agreement will keep the process open, participatory, transparent, and progressive?

23 March 2011

Team to climb Kilimanjaro, raising funds to benefit the Water School

Beginning today, 23 March, with their arrival in Nairobi, Kenya, a multinational team have dedicated themselves to raise awareness of the water crisis and to helping the mission of the Water School by climbing Mount Kilimanjaro

The Water School is a Canadian-incorporated non-profit organization whose mission is to provide clean, sustainable water to villages around the world for life. There is more to this climb than just reaching the summit of Kilimanjaro. Each of the eleven climbers was responsible for raising one dollar for every meter of the climb.  In total, the climbers had hoped to raise $75,000 leading up to Water Climb 2011, all of which goes directly to the field work that Water School is doing in places like Sudan, Uganda, Kenya and Haiti to bring clean drinking water to villages and communities.  Although one of the easier of the Seven Summits of the World at an elevation of 5,858 meters (19340 ft), one can't say that Mount Kilimanjaro is a cakewalk.  With its more gradual slopes it is, however, less a mountaineering experience than an extended trek, and it is one of the few big mountains of the world on which fit climbers have a fighting chance at the summit.  Having hiked a half-dozen fourteeners in Colorado (of which CO boasts 54 summits over 14,000 ft, the most of any state in the US) in various weather conditions, I certainly envy this group at their intended accomplishment.  With this summit attempt soon after World Water Day, the $75,000 raised for the Water Climb would go toward ultimately saving the lives of 7500 people.

But I've had good news from a member of the communications team associated with the Water School and their climbing team (thanks, JF!) that, by World Water Day (yesterday), the team had far surpassed their goal and up to that time had been able to raise $90,000!  At an estimated cost of $10 per person for the provision of clean water on a village and community basis, these contributions will help save 9000 people from contaminated water over a lifetime of improved health, livelihood and productivity.  And what better and more fun way to help those in need of such a vital resource than by direct contact and adventure?  According to the Water School's blog post on the event:
"The proximity of the mountain to Water School projects in Kenya makes Mount Kilimanjaro the perfect destination because climbers get the opportunity to visit the projects and see first-hand the impact our program has on thousands of children. After a two-day visit to Water School projects in the Nairobi and Kajiado area, the climbers will ascend the mountain on Saturday, March 26th via the Machame route, also known as the 'Whisky Route.'  Machame is one of the most popular routes and is widely regarded as the most scenic route on the mountain. They will spend 6 nights and 7 days on the mountain."
Sounds like an awesome opportunity to me!

For a little context and background, Water Climb is an annual event which first took place in March 2010, raising almost $200,000 for Water School projects in Africa and Haiti.  And what methods does the Water School promote?  Sanitation and hygiene, of course, but also solar disinfection (SODIS), a proven way to neutralize bacteria in water that is almost embarrassingly simple!  It is easy to learn, easy to implement, almost labor-free, and requires little more resources than the equatorial regions already have in abundance.  And to be clear, I mean "embarrassingly" for us in the so-called first-world with all of our fancy, expensive, energy-hungry water treatment plants and HEPA-quality activated-charcoal reverse-osmosis buffered-solution filtration systems.

What is SODIS, you might ask?  Look at the picture provided by the Water Climb website.  That's it!  Bottled water, lying out in the sun!  With the right clarity of bottle plastic and enough space to lay them out, 24 to 48 hours of the natural UV rays in sunlight will disinfect any amount of water the village needs.  When I was contacted by the Water School communications team, I recognized immediately this method from my earlier viewing of the film "One Water" by the University of Miami but had no idea at that time what it was called.  BPA-free plastic bottles, recycled from those formerly filled with dubious "spring water" in the west, something disposable and undervalued (though far overpriced) that Americans throw away in abundance, can be devoted to a true lasting purpose for those who really need it.  The UV radiation kills the bacteria that cause diseases like cholera, typhoid, dysentery and life threatening symptoms like chronic diarrhea.  Water School provides the bottles and educates local people on proper health and hygiene practices.  In addition, by working with local businesses to provide the bottles necessary for the SODIS process, Water School is one of the few organizations to deliver a truly sustainable solution to developing nations around the world.  While this does not shorten the trek that people, usually women, must take to obtain the water itself, in areas with relatively local water (by stream or well) the SODIS process is an added insurance against the losses of health, livelihood and life that developing countries suffer for their present lack of clean water supplies, a resource that so many of us take for granted every day.

18 March 2011

Canada Water Week: Climate Change in British Columbia

This post was chosen as an Editor's Selection for ResearchBlogging.orgIn support of Canada Water Week (14 - 22 March) I pledged to Water Canada that I would post an article on the status of hydro-electric projects in the western province of British Columbia (BC), including the potential impacts of climate change on the operation of current facilities and the feasibility of planned projects.  I may range a bit beyond that planned topic, however, with some more recent reading on several issues.  Instead of talking just about the energy productivity of the province's waterways, there is a growing discussion on the overall health of the Pacific Northwest of North America, including several states in the Northwest US, the western provinces of Canada, and the state of Alaska.  Though many topics cross such political boundaries, as natural resources so often do, I'll do my best to stick to the scientific (not political) perspective on these.  And for that matter, not being a Canadian myself, I welcome your comments to correct and/or support the information provided here.

credit David Nunuk/Pew Environment Group
I chose to focus on BC because...I like it!  No, I have not been there yet, but it appeals to me greatly: rugged mountains in the Rockies and Coast Ranges, unreal blue-green high mountain lakes, glaciers dropping into the Pacific, vast forested areas, wild salmon runs in amazingly fresh rivers, native populations of both people and animals in their sacred spaces, hiking and mountain biking trails by the hundreds of miles... And yet, these are almost all idealizations in some way or another, and sadly so: instead, there are old-growth and even second-growth forest areas now clear-cut by the hectare, fire scars across the landscape, mining and drilling in those massive stone cathedrals, streams and rivers polluted by chemical waste and sediment runoff, exploitation of oil sands in the northeastern province contiguous with extractive projects in northern Alberta, thousands of miles of all-weather logging and supply roads across an increasingly fragmented landscape, and the decimation of animal populations as native communities and their livelihoods are weathered away by relegation to subservient rights, land takings, and the invasion of "modern" civilization and its vices.  This is the land of the Golden Spruce, an ancient and sacred tree cut down by an activist logger, apparently in protest against the industrial ravages of the Canadian provinces.  This is the land of the Peace River, which is under threat from territorial disputes involving First Nations claims and BC Hydro's existing and planned hydropower projects.  This is a land through which flows the Upper Columbia, one of the most fragmented river basins in the world, passing out of the US on its tortuous course through the Rocky Mountains and eventually back into the US on its way to the Pacific Ocean.  This is the land of Whistler and the Inside Passage, Kamloops and Vancouver Island...snowboarding in the winter, mountain biking in the warm seasons, hiking all year, science and nature and our interactions with those all around!  It's the stuff dreams are made of, at least for this outdoorsy American boy. 

BC Hydro service area, almost all of the province
Unfortunately, decades of lax environmental stewardship and unenforced regulatory compliance at the federal and provincial levels have left a patchwork of legislation and litigation with massive holes exploited repeatedly by the extractive industries, especially for timber and minerals.  While these products are exported for finishing and use, the degraded landscape is left behind, and there are few better signals of environmental health than the provincial waters.  In this regard, BC holds abundant water quantities of increasingly threatened quality, and the manner with which riparian areas are treated will make a huge difference in the sustainability of these resources.  We have seen previously, and will explore again, how water and energy are connected.  It's not quite as complicated in BC as in the Colorado River basin, but it's still relevant here.

With abundant supplies of water but a need for electricity in growing populations centers, in addition to a few initial coal- and gas-burning power plants, Canadians in the western province of BC turned to an ostensibly "clean" source of energy.  The principal electric utility is BC Hydro, officially known as the BC Hydro and Power Authority (BCHPA), created in 1961 and regulated by the British Columbia Utilities Commission as a power (not water) provider.  BC Hydro operates 30 hydropower facilities (and shares operation of one more) for 86% of its energy portfolio, supplying electricity to ~1.8 million Canadians over 95% of the province.  The following table lists the numerous hydropower operators in BC with some of their infrastructure information, derived from a detailed list of hydropower stations throughout BC.

Company Hydropower
Capacity range
Total capacity
BC Hydro 30.5 1912 - 1984 2.6 - 2730 10,345.6
Brookfield Renewable Power 4.5 1911 - 2003 1.5 - 46 113.1
Capital Power Corporation 2 1996 - 2003 7 - 33 40
Capital Power Income 2 1990 - 1996 5.7 - 52 59.7
Cloudworks Energy 6 2010 16.7 - 33.5 151.8
Columbia Power Corporation 3 1944 - 2009 120 - 185 450
Fort Chicago Energy Partners 3 2004 - 2009 11 33
FortisBC 5 1907 - 1993 18 - 66 253
Innergex Renewable Energy 3 2004 - 2010 7.5 - 50 107.5
Macquarie Power & Infrastructure 2 1997 - 1999 3 - 17 20
Plutonic Power 2 2010 73 - 123 196
Renewable Power Corp. 2 2004 - 2009 9.3 - 9.8 19.5
Summit Power 2 1994 - 1996 5.6 - 14 19.6
Synex Energy Resources Ltd 2 2004 - 2009 2.8 - 3.8 6.6
TransAlta 2.5 1995 - 2005 10 - 45 47.5
Single-facility companies (22) 21.5 1905 - 2009 0.1 - 790 1140.6
Total/Composite: 37 companies 93 1905 - 2010 0.1 - 2730 13,003.5
*values of 0.5 indicate cooperative facilities: the facility at Waneta Dam is shared by BC Hydro and Teck;
the facility at Pingston Creek near Revelstoke is shared by Brookfield Renewable Power and TransAlta.

Buried in that table are some interesting figures.  First, BC Hydro's hydropower constitutes just under 80% of all the hydropower production in BC with just about one-third of all the facilities in operation.  BC Hydro operates more hydropower facilities than all of the single-facility companies combined, with a total generation capacity more than ten times that of the independent single-facility operators.  The single largest hydropower facility in BC is the 2,730 MW Gordon M. Shrum Generating Station at W.A.C. Bennett Dam, built in 1968 on the Peace River and operated by BC Hydro.  BC Hydro operates four of the top five and 7.5 of the top ten hydropower facilities (in terms of generating capacity) in the province; one of those facilities is the 490 MW Waneta Dam that is shared by BC Hydro and Teck (hence the 0.5 in my accounting here).  The fifth-largest facility in BC is the Kemano Power Station on the Nechako River at Kenney Dam, the largest earthfill dam in the world when it was built in 1953.  Kemano is now operated by Rio Tinto Alcan, an international mining conglomerate recently expanded from its global base in South America.

W.A.C. Bennett Dam and Williston Lake on the Peace River,
operated by BC Hydro
What is not clear from this table, or the one on Wikipedia (though deeper research would reveal the answers), is the difference between large dams with massive reservoirs powering the hydroelectric generating station and smaller projects that operate on a run-of-the-river basis, where little impoundment is developed but power generation is more seasonally varied according to the river flows.  There are obvious advantages to the almost-instant power capacity of the large dam and reservoir configuration, which is especially useful for scheduling of generation for periods of peak demand.  The drawbacks, however, are massive and almost endless: massive flooding for reservoir creation, displaced peoples, and the emerging impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from biodegradation in hypoxic sediments at the reservoir bottom and edges.  Displacement of indigenous peoples is a particularly prevalent issue among BC hydropower and other industries in their negotiations with the First Nations over land, mineral and timber rights as well as rights-of-way for all-weather roads, power transmission lines and seismic testing instrumentation, each of which results in forest clear-cutting and fragmented habitat for animals and the humans who depend on the forest resources.  Climate change is, at this point, the added pressure of foresight on an already-stressed ecological dynamic between humans and nature.

Hugh Keenleyside Dam, a run-of-the-river hydropower station operated by
BC Hydro, and the newer Arrow Lakes Generating Station, owned by the
Columbia Power Corporation, on the Columbia River (Wikimedia Commons)
Not even considering the general trend of anthropogenic climate change, there are already studies indicating that well known multi-year climate cycles, such as ENSO and the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) [1], provide strongly correlated indications of temperature and precipitation cycles in the Pacific Northwest of the US, including the Columbia River Basin.  It is reasonable to extend some of the conclusions of that work northward into BC, though prudent to remember that such correlations do not always indicate causality and that the correlations change over both space and time, requiring individual analyses in individual locations for the time period of interest.  With knowledge of these correlations and their causal mechanisms, however, the dependence of regional climate on long-period indicator signals allows for long-term predictability of these necessary variables for water resources management [2].  With additional forcing, as from global warming and its regional variations, we can expect the predictability of such variables as temperature and precipitation and their derivative impacts on freshwater resources in such regions to become more complex, at least until some trends can be detected in the changing signals and more local studies can be completed [3].

In 2008, a group of eminent hydrologists declared in the journal Science that "Stationarity is Dead" [4]:
"Stationarity - the idea that natural systems fluctuate within an unchanging envelope of variability - is a foundational concept that permeates training and practice in water-resource engineering...
"The stationarity assumption has long been compromised by human disturbances in river basins. Flood risk, water supply, and water quality are affected by water infrastructure, channel modifications, drainage works, and land-cover and land-use change. Two other (sometimes indistinguishable) challenges to stationarity have been externally forced, natural climate changes and low-frequency, internal variability (e.g., the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation) enhanced by the slow dynamics of the oceans and ice sheets [5, 6]. Planners have tools to adjust their analyses for known human disturbances within river basins, and justifiably or not, they generally have considered natural change and variability to be sufficiently small to allow stationarity-based design...
"Stationarity is dead because substantial anthropogenic change of Earth's climate is altering the means and extremes of precipitation, evapotranspiration, and rates of discharge of rivers [7, 8]. Warming augments atmospheric humidity and water transport. This increases precipitation, and possibly flood risk, where prevailing atmospheric water-vapor fluxes converge [9]... Glacial meltwater temporarily enhances water availability, but glacier and snow-pack losses diminish natural seasonal and interannual storage [10]."
Their reference numbers (2 - 7) have been converted to my own [5 - 10] and listed below for your ease of searching.  One common area in which "prevailing atmospheric water-vapor fluxes converge" is on the seaward side of mountain ranges, as in southern BC on the Pacific side of the Coast Range and Rocky Mountains.  BC also hosts massive glaciers subject to thinning and melting, and is anticipated to experience new extremes in precipitation volume and frequency.  Most specifically, the group borrowed results of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 4th Assessment Report (AR4), Contribution of Working Group II (WG2) regarding the impacts of anticipated climate change on freshwater runoff [11]:

We see that BC, and much of Canada, is expected to see generally greater runoff volumes with climate change, though additional factors such as earlier melting times in the year must also be taken into account.  An accompanying figure in another part of the IPCC AR4 WG2 report [12] indicates that forested areas in BC will actually increase in coverage, though some areas in this part of the Canadian boreal forest will change in type (likely from evergreen to deciduous) and the southernmost fringes might dry out and disappear altogether.  The evidence of insect infestation and degraded forest area is already well known in the American Rockies and is creeping northward into BC and Alberta, an indication that the health of the forest ecosystem is already under stress and a harbinger of forest succession, potentially including more widespread forest fires.  The impacts of these changes could devastate the inherent ecological services of the region, including biodiversity in the boreal and coastal temperate rainforest ecosystems, carbon sequestration in the forest areas, and water quality in downstream areas.

So what do these climate changes mean for water supplies and utility operations in the province? In snow-dominated areas, including some watersheds originating in the Coast Range but primarily those in the Rocky Mountains, Barnett et al. (2005) provided a precise summary of the anticipated impacts [10]:
"In a warmer world, less winter precipitation falls as snow and the melting of winter snow occurs earlier in spring. Even without any changes in precipitation intensity, both of these effects lead to a shift in peak river runoff to winter and early spring, away from summer and autumn... Where storage capacities are not sufficient, much of the winter runoff will immediately be lost to the oceans."
On the Columbia River, we might not expect any missed winter and spring runoff to be "lost" given the massive storage capacity of so many dams downstream in the US.  In other major basins, such as the Yukon headwaters and on the Peace River, the volume of water is so abundant that the infrastructure seems oriented more on hydropower production and less on freshwater storage, such that the water is generally passed downstream in run-of-the-river project locations.  These projects may very well meet the needs of BC residents for the immediate future, but in the long term I can envision calls from outsiders to build and fill additional storage capacity for eventual transfer to the province's northeastern prairie areas and to its neighbors, including Alberta to the east and the US states to the south.  These areas are already water-stressed, and the anticipated concentrations of population and industry there over the next century will only increase human pressure on already-scarce resources.

BC physiography, credit Wikimedia Commons
Another part of BC is dominated instead by temperate rainforest or boreal forest, where snowmelt does not necessarily dominate the seasonal cycles of freshwater runoff.  In this case, it is instructive to look closely at the physiography of the province, as show in the figure at right.  In the southern province, on the western (Pacific) side of the Coast Range, temperate rainforests will likely see heavier rainfall in more frequent winter storms.  On the eastern side of the Coast Range, the rain-shadow effect already present will likely persist with some moderation by the spill-over of storms making landfall and moving east from the Pacific Ocean.  It is thus possible that the interior of the province will see a growing contribution in streamflows from the Coast Range, but not likely as great as the overall impact of precipitation increases on the Pacific side of the continental divide along the spine of the Rockies.  There, and especially in the northern province that seems dominated by a solid mountainous region, summer storms may become more intense and frequent, and winter storms may leave deeper snowpack for the melting season.  In terms of power production, the annual peak load is likely to increase as residents and businesses increase their uses of heating in the winter and cooling in the summer, so demand may increase overall while supply increases only in the spring melt season, and in fact is likely to diminish slightly in the autumn low-flow season.  Because of the mixed portfolio of hydropower based on both reservoir and run-of-the-river generating stations, BC Hydro is well-situated to adapt and account for climate-related changes in the magnitude and timing of peak power demands across the province with a variety of supply generation options.

Conceptual design of the proposed BC Hydro Peace River Site C project
Finally, the northeastern portion of BC lies in the rain-shadow of the Rocky Mountains and constitutes a portion of the Canadian Prairie of which Alberta, BC's provincial neighbor to the east, remains the country's exemplar. This is the region through which the Peace River exits the provincial interior, eventually joining the Mackenzie River on its way to the Arctic Ocean.  An apparent focal point of controversy between BC Hydro, the First Nations, provincial neighbors, extractive industries and conservationists over a large area is BC Hydro's planned Site C dam and hydropower project, officially known as the "Site C Clean Energy Project." BC Hydro proposes to construct a 60 m earth-fill dam, creating a reservoir 83 km long on the Peace River at an average width of 2-3x that of the natural river.  This means the flooding of ~5,340 hectares of land, including more than 3,000 hectares of wildlife habitats, heritage sites, and prime agricultural land.  Site C would be the third dam in a cascade along the Peace River, below the first at W.A.C. Bennett Dam (more details above) and the second at Peace Canyon Dam completed in 1980.  With a recent renewal of interest in the provincial government to see the newest project move forward, BC Hydro plans for Site C to be operating at its 900 MW design capacity by 2020, litigation and permitting challenges notwithstanding.  What is not made clear in the available information on Site C, located as it is planned on the edge of the BC/Alberta prairie region, is how much of the water stored and energy generated at the new facility would be put to use for petroleum extraction from oil sands and shale formations in that region, a practice that we know now has significant detrimental effects on water and environmental quality.

Earlier this week, the Pew Environment Group (PEG) released a landmark report entitled "A Forest of Blue: Canada's Boreal Forest, the World's Waterkeeper." It's no surprise to me that the connections between forests and water resources are finally being explored in detail.  I'll post an article soon on some of that research that I've done recently, as well as another article with an overview on the PEG report and its connections to a book that I've been reading (Vanishing Halo: Saving the Boreal Forest).  There is hope that the ecological wealth of the boreal forests that still stand in North America and Eurasia will be recognized and preserved for the sake of everyone, not just those who live there. Where the boreal forest band crosses northern British Columbia, and where other forests occur in the southern portions of the province, it is incumbent on the provincial and national governments and the people of Canada, the US, and conservation groups to work together to husband the forest and its resources, including its abundant freshwater, in a responsible manner.


[1] Hamlet, A., and D. Lettenmaier, 1999: "Columbia River Streamflow Forecasting Based on ENSO and PDO Climate Signals." Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, v. 125, no. 6, pp. 333 - 341. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(1999)125:6(333)

[2] Hamlet, A.F., and D.P. Lettenmaier, 2000: "Long-range climate forecasting and its use for water management in the Pacific Northwest region of North America." Journal of Hydroinformatics, v. 2, no. 3, pp. 163 - 182.

[3] Vörösmarty, C.J., P. Green, J. Salisbury, and R.B. Lammers, 2000: "Global Water Resources: Vulnerability from Climate Change and Population Growth." Science, v. 289, no. 5477, pp. 284 - 288. DOI: 10.1126/science.289.5477.284

[4] Milly, P., J. Betancourt, M. Falkenmark, R. Hirsch, Z. Kundzewicz, D. Lettenmaier, and R. Stouffer, 2008: "Stationarity Is Dead: Whither Water Management?" Science, v. 319, no. 5863, pp. 573 - 574. DOI: 10.1126/science.1151915

[5] Webb, R.H., and J.L. Betancourt, 1992: "Climatic variability and flood frequency of the Santa Cruz River, Pima County, Arizona." U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Supply Paper no. 2379, 40 pp. Available in djvu.

[6] Woodhouse, C., S. Gray, and D. Meko, 2006: "Updated streamflow reconstructions for the Upper Colorado River Basin." Water Resources Research, v. 42, no. 5. DOI: 10.1029/2005WR004455

[7] IPCC, 2007: "Summary for Policymakers." Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1 - 18. Available in html and pdf.

[8] IPCC, 2007: "Summary for Policymakers." Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 7 - 22. Available in html and pdf.

[9] Held, I., and B. Soden, 2006: "Robust Responses of the Hydrological Cycle to Global Warming." Journal of Climate, v. 19, no. 21, pp. 5686 - 5699. DOI: 10.1175/JCLI3990.1

[10] Barnett, T., J. Adam, and D. Lettenmaier, 2005: "Potential impacts of a warming climate on water availability in snow-dominated regions." Nature, v. 438, no. 7066, pp. 303 - 309. DOI: 10.1038/nature04141

[11] Kundzewicz, Z.W., L.J. Mata, N.W. Arnell, P. Döll, P. Kabat, B. Jiménez, K.A. Miller, T. Oki, Z. Sen, and I.A. Shiklomanov, 2007: "Freshwater resources and their management." Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 173-210. Available in html and pdf.

[12] Fischlin, A., G.F. Midgley, J.T. Price, R. Leemans, B. Gopal, C. Turley, M.D.A. Rounsevell, O.P. Dube, J. Tarazona, and A.A. Velichko, 2007: "Ecosystems, their properties, goods, and services." Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 211-272. Available in html and pdf.