Infrastructure Risk and Renewal

:
The Clash of Blue and Green

Issues and Ideas Papers Presented During a PERI Internet Symposium
January 2008

Public Entity Risk Institute
On the Web at www.riskinstitute.org

This material is provided free of charge, as a public service of the Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI), 11350 Random Hills Rd., Suite 210, Fairfax, VA 22030. Phone (703) 352-1846. Web: www.riskinstitute.org. The Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI) provides these materials “as is,” for educational and informational purposes only, and without representation, guarantee or warranty of any kind, express or implied, including any warranty relating to the accuracy, reliability, completeness, currency or usefulness of the content of this material. Publication and distribution of this material is not an endorsement by PERI, its officers, directors or employees of any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained herein. This material was prepared by independent authors, and PERI has not verified the information provided. PERI will not be liable for any claims for damages of any kind based upon errors, omissions or other inaccuracies in the information or material contained on these pages. PERI is not engaged in rendering professional services of any kind, and the information in these materials should not be construed as professional advice. Users bear complete responsibility for any reliance on this material, and should contact a competent professional familiar with their particular factual situation if expert assistance is required.

PERI 2008 Symposium: CONTENTS Infrastructure Risk and Renewal – The Clash of Blue and Green
About the Symposium Summary and Conclusions About PERI i iii v

1. INTRODUCTION: THE CLASH OF BLUE AND GREEN
….. Dr. Lewis J. Perelman, Consultant and Symposium Moderator. (7 pp)
Monday 1/14

2.

BLUE VERSUS GREEN: CONFLICT AND RESOLUTION ….. Eric Holdeman, Principal, Emergency Management and Homeland Security, and Melinda Harris, Senior Economist, ICF International. (6 pp) PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT AND SECURITY AT THE US-MEXICO BORDER ….. Elaine Koerner, Senior Environmental Protection Specialist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (9 pp)

3.

Tuesday 1/15

4.

TRADE-OFFS OF WATER AND POWER: ANALYSIS OF THE EVOLUTION OF THE ELECTRIC GRID UNDER WATER SUBSTITUTION DRIVERS ….. Dr. Steven Fernandez, Research Scientist, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, G. Loren Toole and Marvin L. Salazar, Los Alamos National Laboratory. (14 pp) TELEWORK: A WIN-WIN SOLUTION TO THE BLUE AND GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES ….. Chuck Wilsker, President/CEO, and Jack Heacock, Senior Vice President, The Telework Coalition. (8 pp)

5.

Wednesday 1/16

6.

MAKING RATIONAL CHOICES IN IRRATIONAL TIMES: ARE SECURITY AND SUSTAINABILITY MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE? ….. Richard Little, AICP, Director, The Keston Institute for Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy, School of Policy, Planning, and Development, University of Southern California. (11 pp) SUSTAINABILITY AND SAFETY OF LONG-TERM CARE FACILITIES ….. John Berenyi, Managing Director, EcoCité Developments. (4 pp)

7.

Thursday 1/17

8.

NEW PARADIGMS TO SIMULTANEOUSLY ACHIEVE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND SECURITY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE ….. Rae Zimmerman, Professor of Planning and Public Administration and the Director of the Institute for Civil Infrastructure Systems at Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, New York University. (8 pp) NEW AND INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT: SEEKING SUSTAINABILITY ….. Gary Hamer, AICP, Capital Planning and Research Analyst, City of Tulsa, Oklahoma. (7 pp)

9.

Friday 1/18

10. “SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT” VERSUS “SUSTAINABILITY”: IS THERE A CONFLICT?
….. C. Richard Baker, PhD, CPA, Professor and Chair, Accounting, Finance and Economics, Adelphi University. (5 pp)

11. THE RESILIENCE IMPERATIVE
….. Jeff Gaynor (Colonel, U.S. Army, ret'd), Chief Operating Officer, Entegriti Inc., and former Director, Critical Infrastructure Task Force, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (8 pp)

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

The PERI Virtual Symposium on Infrastructure Risk and Renewal
Exploring Infrastructure Policy and the Conflicts Between Homeland Security and Environmental Sustainability Neglect of our nation’s infrastructure is making America ever more vulnerable to man-made and natural disasters warns author Stephen Flynn, senior fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, in The Edge of Disaster. Meanwhile, a recent United Nations conference in Bali initiated an international effort to impose stringent and costly new measures to protect the planet from the long-range threat of climate change. These urgent imperatives prompt public demand that government, business, and community organizations “do something”—even as the national price tag for the recommended solutions is measured in trillions of dollars. As a result, government, business, and civic leaders are confronted with troubling questions: Can we afford to make our communities safe? Can we afford not to? In search of practical answers to these challenging questions, the Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI), a nonprofit research institute, hosted a week-long, Virtual Symposium on Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green, during the week of January 14-18, 2008. The free, publicly open program was conducted entirely online on the PERI Website, www.riskinstitute.org, and engaged several hundred particiants from throughout the United States as well as Canada and several other countries. The Symposium attempted to find practical steps to reconcile the demands of two largely independent but increasingly competitive infrastructure policy movements:

the “sustainability” movement, aimed at environmental protection and resource efficiency and particularly concerned with “green” designs for buildings and other infrastructure; and the homeland/national security movement, focused on responding to the threats of attack or disaster and particularly concerned with infrastructure security—which we identified with the color “blue” (a common symbol of reliability, security, trust, etc.).

-i-

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

The introductory concept paper by Symposium Moderator Dr. Lewis Perelman provides further background on the issues raised by these competing demands. The ten authors who contributed discussion papers for the Symposium represent diverse disciplinary, professional, and geographic interests. This collection of Symposium papers will be of particular interest to those involved in public or private infrastructure policy, planning, design, architecture, construction, or operations; individuals concerned with safety, security energy/resource efficiency, environmental protection, economics, finance, and other pertinent topics; and policymakers at all levels of government. The individual papers also are available and may be downloaded from the Symposium Center on PERI’s Website (www.riskinstitute.org). Further information about this or other PERI Symposiums may be obtained from symposium coordinator Jessica Hubbard at: jhubbard@riskinstitute.org, or (703) 352-1846. About the Moderator This PERI Symposium was planned and moderated by Dr. Lewis J. Perelman. Dr. Perelman is a policy and management consultant in the Washington, DC area. He has over thirty years of professional experience focused on the processes of innovation, transformation, and sustainability; including strategic intelligence, policy development, planning, and assessment—as a consultant, analyst, author, publisher, and teacher. In the past, Dr. Perelman worked on federal renewable energy programs at the Solar Energy Research Institute and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. More recently he has been a Fellow at the federal Homeland Security Institute and a Senior Fellow of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University. Contact: kanbrain@post.harvard.edu or phone (703) 490-4030.

- ii -

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Summary and Conclusions
In reviewing the results of the PERI Symposium, I want first to thank PERI for hosting the Symposium as well as all the authors who contributed this collection of insightful and provocative papers. Thanks too go to participants who added comments and feedback, and to all who registered for the symposium and invested their time to read and ponder this discussion of critical, emerging policy issues. I see some general lessons that can be drawn from the analysis and discussions that have been contributed to this Symposium:  The conflicts between blue and green—security and sustainability—infrastructure demands are not just hypothetical. They are real, immediate, tangible, and already having important practical and financial impacts.

“Dual-benefit,” synergetic solutions are at least sometimes possible. Some, such as telework, are immediately available, while others can be foreseen through further research, development, and implementation efforts. However, tradeoffs between competing blue and green infrastructure imperatives cannot be always or even generally avoided—especially in light of budget limits. Often these require making difficult, emotionally charged choices between long-term and short-term risks, benefits, and costs. In the absence of effective mechanisms to resolve these dilemmas we now commonly observe in many locales a stalemate of contending political and economic interests—perpetuating the slide toward infrastructure decay and rising vulnerability. Despite insightful analysis and a number of valuable, practical suggestions, I think all of our authors would agree that we have raised more questions than answers. The highly complex, difficult, and urgent issues this Syposium has illuminated clearly warrant more extensive analysis to understand and more substantial effort to resolve.

When I moved to Washington 25 years ago, a friend warned that

- iii -

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

I was moving to a city where "the important is chronically sacrificed to the urgent." The same could be said of many state capitals and city halls. I thought of that lately as the news was filled with urgent demands and proposals to salvage a US economy, already afflicted with financial crises, that seems to be sliding toward recession. The fiscal constraints on governments at all levels that we noted in the introduction to this Symposium now are rapidly getting even harsher. Private investment is being choked by tightening credit and market anxiety. Budgets once again are likely to shift toward immediate pain and away from the strategic, potential, or long-term risks of disaster, attack, or environmental decay. Investments can be deferred. But consequences cannot be avoided. — Dr. Lewis J. Perelman, Moderator

- iv -

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

About Public Entity Risk Institute
The Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI) is a nonprofit research institute that develops risk management education and training resources for local governments, school districts, small businesses, nonprofits and others. PERI’s website serves as a clearinghouse and library with information on a wide range of topics including disaster management and hazard mitigation, environmental liability, risk financing and insurance, education, safety and health protection, workers’ compensation and technology risks. PERI also operates a national performance measurement and benchmarking database known as the PERI Data Exchange, which allows local governments to compare liability and workers’ compensation data with their peers and identify strategies to reduce losses and control costs. To learn more about publications and services available from PERI, go to www.riskinstitute.org. Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI) 11350 Random Hills Road, Suite 210 Fairfax, VA 22030 Phone: (703) 352-1846 Fax: (703) 352-6339

-v-

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

I N F R A S T R U C T U R E R I S K A N D R E N E WA L : THE CLASH OF BLUE AND GREEN

SYMPOSIUM INTRODUCTION
BY: DR. LEWIS J. PERELMAN

More of the Same

Security

Sustainability

Resilience

Remarkably, between chapters of the ongoing saga of Britney Spears’ collapse and deconstructions of the latest election campaign debate, the once blah topic of infrastructure increasingly has been wedging itself into the news. An admittedly simplistic but still indicative measure of this trend, the number of Web pages listed in a Google News search on the term “infrastructure,” has mushroomed from 181,000 in 2002 to 553,000 in 2006. Bomb blasts, falling bridges, bursting steam pipes, crumbling levees, massive power grid outages, tsunami devastation, reservoirs emptied by searing drought, whole towns razed by brush fire conflagrations, chlorine tankers spilled by train derailments—all feed the rising stream of spectacle that galvanizes media attention. The cascade of such teachable moments has stoked public awareness that the fabric of America’s economy and society, whose threads increasingly stretch across the globe, is progressively unraveling under the combined assault of attacks, disasters, accidents, and the grinding rot of obsolescence and neglect. And the gathering wave of public anxiety stirs political demands to “do something.” Overlaid on economic and cultural interests that traditionally have shaped infrastructure development, the rising demand for sweeping infrastructure

Symposium Introduction

1

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

renewal—even reinvention—is being driven by the risk management agendas coming now from two, largely independent policy movements: • the “sustainability” movement, aiming at environmental protection and resource efficiency and particularly concerned with “green” designs for buildings and other infrastructure; and the homeland/national security movement, responding to the threats of attack or disaster and particularly concerned with infrastructure security—which I’ll identify with the color “blue” for contrast. *

While spawned by largely separate political interests, and although there is potential synergy between the two, the demands of the blue and green agendas are substantially competitive and dissonant. In the practice of risk management in infrastructure development and management, the friction between the two agendas bodes to become increasingly costly, even counterproductive. Yet the relationship between these agendas, the conflicts and costs they create, and the possibilities to reconcile their competing demands, to date have gotten little attention from either policymakers or infrastructure professions. The aim of this PERI symposium, then, is to begin illuminating the conflicts and contradictions between the blue and green infrastructure agendas, as well as the potential opportunities for positive synergies that might be realized through better collaboration. The ultimate objective, beyond this initial forum, is to begin developing a new infrastructure doctrine that can integrate the positive features of the green and blue architectural agendas while pragmatically resolving necessary tradeoffs between the two—hence getting to something like a “turquoise” design theory.

THE CLASH
As I write, the governors of Georgia, Florida, and Alabama are enmeshed in an increasingly nasty, drought-induced fight over water. The city of Atlanta faces the dire prospect of its water supplies running dry in less than three months unless rains return to the parched Southeast. Yet the Army Corps of Engineers continues to drain a billion gallons of water a day from the city’s main Lanier reservoir—complying with environmental regulations aimed at protecting endangered species of mussels and fish downstream in Florida. Compounding this disastrous clash between urban survival and environmental protection, the governor of Alabama claims that keeping the water in Georgia will force him to shut down the Farley nuclear power plant in his state for lack of cooling water—

While color symbolism varies across cultures and contexts, the color blue—particularly in Western society and as a corporate color—commonly is identified with trustworthiness, security, safety, law, reliability and such. The contemporary identification of the color green with environmental and resource conservation interests is, of course, well established.
*

Symposium Introduction

2

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

thus either cutting off power to 800,000 homes or shifting their load to an overburdened power grid. Patrick Moore, co-founder of the Greenpeace environmental advocacy organization, is one of a number of environmental activists who now advocates nuclear energy as necessary to supply electric power while reducing the “carbon footprint” in the name of climate protection. Other green advocates continue to oppose nuclear power as too risky. Coming from a blue perspective, authors Stephen Flynn and Charles Perrow, in two recent books on infrastructure security, * also worry about the dire risks posed to national/homeland security by nuclear power—particularly the threat from an attack or accidental dispersal of its growing, dubiously secure pools of acutely radioactive wastes. Also in service of national security, the U.S. and its allies are pressing Iran to prevent the development of nuclear energy and the potential production of nuclear weapons in that country. Yet an expatriate Iranian engineering professor argues that Iran will need nuclear power to reduce its carbon footprint. Meanwhile, a pending agreement between the U.S., its allies, and North Korea would reward the latter for dismantling its nuclear energy facilities by guaranteeing a supply of oil to power Korean electric plants—the parties evidently willing to trade increased carbon emission to reduce the risk of nuclear warfare. Columnist and author Thomas Friedman and former CIA director James Woolsey are among those who present a case for reducing consumption of petroleum and natural gas that commingles climate concerns with national security interests. That is, replacing oil and gas consumption with “renewable” or nuclear energy could cut the immense flow of money going to countries—in the Middle East, and perhaps also including Venezuela and Russia—that use their income from selling these fossil energy sources to threaten American security interests. The list of cases in which the blue, security agenda and the green, environmental agenda entangle, abrade, and often confound can be extended indefinitely: • In order to make defense workers more secure, in 2005 the Base Realignment and Closing Commission ordered over 20,000 Defense Department jobs relocated from leased offices in Northern Virginia’s Crystal City (easily accessible by mass transit) to the Army’s Fort Belvoir, several miles to the south. Citizens and public officials in

* Stephen Flynn, The Edge of Disaster (New York, Random House, 2007); Charles Perrow, The Next Catastrophe (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007).

Symposium Introduction

3

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Fairfax County, where the fort is located, protested vigorously that the move would gridlock the area’s already snarled highways with massive traffic, wasting energy and polluting air already on the bubble of EPA violations. • A new high school in New Haven, Connecticut, was planned to be a “green” building according to the LEED certification standards of the U.S. Green Building Council. But the site planned for the school was in the middle of the intersection of five busy highways, a location with some of the worst air pollution in the region. To satisfy LEED requirements, the school was to have a heavily filtered indoor ventilation system that required keeping all windows sealed. And students would not be permitted to play or exercise outdoors. At a public hearing, citizens, parents, and environmental scientists from nearby Yale University decried the plan as irrational, complaining that students would be isolated from the community, deprived of normal recreation, and might be trapped in the sealed building in event of fire or other emergency. A civil engineer in the Bostitch division of Stanley Tools developed the Hurriquake® nail after observing that wooden houses and other buildings destroyed during a windstorm or earthquake usually collapsed because of nails that pulled loose or sheared off under stress. Tests show that structures constructed with the new nail are twice as resistant to wind damage and 50% more capable of surviving earthquake. Yet an architecture professor known as a proponent of “sustainable” design, and who was leading a team building a “green” house to replace a home in the Gulf coast region that was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, decried the Hurriquake® nail as environmentally unacceptable—because it would make it more difficult to recycle the materials of collapsed buildings. The Environmental Protection Agency has a Smart Growth program aimed at encouraging community developments that have reduced environmental impact and higher resource efficiency. But because the designs of such developments often feature compact density with narrow streets, police, fire, and other public safety officials often oppose them because they constrain access and delay response of emergency vehicles. A federal homeland security plan to construct fences along the U.S. border with Mexico—to thwart the entrance of illegal immigrants and potential terrorists—has been challenged by litigation from environmental organizations who claim the barrier will damage a vulnerable environment and obstruct the natural movement of wildlife, while doing little to solve the immigration problem.

Symposium Introduction

4

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

The clash of such competing interests is not the only dynamic that undermines the ability of the blue and green agendas to achieve their espoused goals. In several, often common ways, they tend also to be self-defeating. First, the ambitions of each agenda’s most dogmatic proponents can be utopian in the impracticality of their uncompromising requirements. Their truest believers also are prone to distorted perceptions of risks, and of the costs and benefits of defending against them—focusing on one or a few presumed apocalyptic threats to the neglect of a broad “all hazards” perspective in which other dangers might loom larger or alternate mitigation measures seem more beneficial. Most disabling is the determination of current leaders of both the national security and the environmental sustainability agendas to resist and prevent the occurrence of their respective nightmare scenarios. This is despite broad agreement among sober analysts across both fields that dire risks, either to or from the environment, never can be completely resisted or entirely prevented. Instead, pragmatists advocate systematic design solutions that are sufficiently adaptive to adjust to a variety of stresses and that are resilient enough to endure diverse, sometimes surprising disasters. Still, the dissonance and competition between the blue and green agendas only amplifies these self-inflicted liabilities and deters the analysis and dialogue needed to resolve them.

SYNERGY
The green and blue agendas do not always need to be in conflict. There even are opportunities for positive synergy. For example, zero-energy buildings—which generate their own power from sun, wind, or geothermal sources—could enable police or fire stations, shelters, hospitals, communications facilities, embassies, and such to keep functioning in the wake of a disaster even when electrical or fuel supplies are interrupted. “Green roofs”—composed of soil and vegetation—might, when properly maintained, make buildings less vulnerable to fire. Green solutions even may aid military missions. According to recent reports, U.S. Marine units operating in Anbar province in Iraq are looking to apply solar, renewable, and recycling technologies on site, to reduce the need for vulnerable truck convoys to supply fuel and water. Moreover, green infrastructure investments can offer near-term, tangible returns from efficiencies in energy and resource use that just-in-case investments in hazard risk mitigation often do not. To the extent that the design features of both can be integrated, the economics of hazard mitigation could

Symposium Introduction

5

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

become more attractive while sustainability could become more truly equivalent to survivability. But to realize that potential, the “sustainability” agenda needs to become a “resilience” agenda, by adding a fourth element to its “triple bottom line”—to incorporate the requirements of security and survivability. *

FUTURES
Playing out the churn of security and sustainability imperatives into the future points to four possible, alternative scenarios, summarized in the chart.
More of the Same Security

Sustainability

Resilience

The most ambiguous, and likely, is the gray scenario of more of the same business as usual. Increasingly contentious security, environmental, economic and cultural demands will produce stalemate, sluggish development, compromised suboptimal designs, progressive decay, occasional marquee projects, and periodic disasters followed by ad-hoc responses, proclamations of ambitious goals, and faltering follow-through. The most zealous green scenario would sacrifice human security, safety, prosperity, and even life in pursuit of a bucolic, agrarian, global society subsisting solely on solar energy and renewable resources. Ultimately, green zealotry will ruin the environment to protect it—as is happening in Brazil now, where forests are being cleared to grow “renewable” biofuel to feed engines, ostensibly to help prevent climate change. The most ruthless blue scenario would plunder resources, environment, and human rights in pursuit of a global fortress impervious to attack, disaster, or human error, and purged of any threat from the darker spirits of human nature. Blue zealotry already has shown a proclivity to erode democracy to protect it and to destroy not only villages but whole countries to save them. The fourth scenario challenges pragmatists to design and build practical solutions that balance security, environmental, economic, and cultural needs in
* The triple bottom line is generally construed as a way of reporting corporate or organizational value in terms of (a) economic benefit, (b) environmental benefit, and (c) the broad umbrella of “social responsibility.” The equation of this metric with “sustainability” is in the sense that the organization protects or at leasts does not degrade the sustainability of its external environment; not necessarily the sustainability of its own infrastructure, assets, or operations.

Symposium Introduction

6

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

harmonious architectures that have the resilience to endure a wide range of stresses and shocks.

ISSUES
To begin working toward reconciling blue and green infrastructure imperatives, the PERI Symposium will address several initial, core issues: 1. Tradeoffs in practice. How do planners, architects, or engineers resolve conflicts and establish priorities between demands for security/safety and demands for environmental efficiency within budget limitations? 2. Potential for synergy. What design elements or solutions produce, or could produce, benefits that simultaneously serve both security/safety and environmental efficiency demands, again within budget limitations? 3. Economics. What are the relative risks, costs, and benefits of competing blue and green agendas for infrastructure renewal? What capital resources are available to meet either or both demands? How reliable is the accounting for the risks, costs, and benefits of each? What accounting improvements are needed? 4. Real politics. What are the actual political interests and conflicts surrounding the blue and green policy agendas? What specific initiatives are most likely and least likely to be politically do-able? 5. To Do. Beyond this symposium, what further should be done to resolve intersecting blue and green infrastructure development issues by (a) the public sector? (b) the private sector? (c) philanthropy? (d) academia? (e) nongovernmental organizations?

THE BOTTOM LINE
The costs of meeting the demands of either the blue or green infrastructure separately loom large. Both Flynn and Perrow cite an estimate from the American Society of Civil Engineers that $1.6 trillion needs to be spent over a span of five years just to moderately mitigate the danger to public safety posed by America’s crumbling, brittle, and hazardous infrastructure. While the real costs and potential benefits of the green agenda just for “climate protection”—mitigating the expected future impacts of global warming— are debated, even the more modest estimates imply infrastructure renovation costs to the U.S. on a similar scale of hundreds of billions of dollars annually. All this comes at a time when David Walker, Comptroller General of the United States (the nation’s chief financial officer), warns that America now stands

Symposium Introduction

7

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

at the edge of a fiscal cliff, beyond which stretches an abyss of economic disaster. In short, as the first of America’s 70 million baby boomers is about to start retiring, the country faces the prospect that 70% of the federal budget by 2030 will be spent on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other entitlement programs. By 2034 those programs will consume 20% of the nation’s entire gross domestic product. Add in the cost of servicing the trillions of dollars of debt the U.S. government has already racked up and there will be virtually no money left to pay for defense, education, public health, transportation, environmental protection, law enforcement, or any of the myriad other things citizens expect the government to do. Other analysts point out that, if the federal government had to adhere to the same Generally Accepted Accounting Principles followed by business and other organizations, and thus had to include the costs of such “unfunded liabilities,” the real current federal deficit would be measured in trillions, not billions of dollars. Walker and others explain that closing the gap between inadequate revenues and the cost of existing government commitments will require some combination of massive tax increases and drastic reductions in promised benefits. And the burden of federal insolvency is bound not just to trickle but cascade down to state and local governments and ultimately all taxpayers. Blue and green optimists would like to believe that America is rich enough to pay the price tag for each of their agendas simultaneously—and that there is no “zero-sum game” between the demands for greater security and sustainability. But the warnings from Walker and others suggest that the country may be hard pressed to pay for either. It clearly cannot afford duplicative, contradictory, or wasteful efforts. All of which underscores the urgency to come up with a new doctrine of infrastructure renewal that is effective, efficient, affordable and politically realistic.

Symposium Introduction

8

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

About the author
Dr. Lewis J. Perelman is a policy and management consultant in the Washington, DC area. In the past, he worked on federal renewable energy programs at the Solar Energy Research Institute and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. More recently he has been a Fellow at the federal Homeland Security Institute and a Senior Fellow of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University. Contact: kanbrain@post.harvard.edu.

About the Symposium
Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green is presented as a public service of the Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI), 11350 Random Hills Rd., Suite 210, Fairfax, VA 22030. Web: www.riskinstitute.org. The Public Entity Risk Institute provides these materials "as is," for educational and informational purposes only, and without representation, guarantee or warranty of any kind, express or implied, including any warranty relating to the accuracy, reliability, completeness, currency or usefulness of the content of this material. Publication and distribution of this material is not an endorsement by PERI, its officers, directors or employees of any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained herein. PERI will not be liable for any claims for damages of any kind based upon errors, omissions or other inaccuracies in the information or material contained here. ***

Symposium Introduction

9

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Blue versus Green: Conflict and Resolution
By: Eric Holdeman and Melinda Harris

While two wrongs rarely make something right, two rights may in fact be in conflict with one another. Taken to their extreme, each may counter the positive impacts of the other. Such is the debate that is coming to life as individual communities and regions start to grapple with issues of environmental sustainability (the “green” agenda) alongside issues of security from all forms of disasters or attacks (the “blue” agenda). For most of the existence of the United States we have lived a life of plenty. Our natural resources seemed inexhaustible: abundant forests, plentiful water and land that literally does stretch from sea to shining sea. It is only in the last fifty years or so that our consumption of resources and expansion of our population began to come in conflict with one another. Even the oceans, which seemed to take everything we could toss into them, do not appear to be as resilient as we once thought. There are limits to everything and today we appear to be straining to find the resources not only for today, but are becoming worried about tomorrow. Some are concerned about the ability of future generations of Americans to enjoy life, with economic vitality and a land that was once plentiful, but may be stretched to provide even the very basics of what we need to survive—clean, drinkable water, and air that is safe to breathe. As one of the primary roles of any government is to protect its citizens, a new urgency emerged after the 9/11 terrorist attacks to take measures to better protect our nation. Given the openness of our society the potential for terrorists to do harm to people and infrastructure is significant in the United States. Since 2003, billions of dollars have been spent here in the United States on a combination of measures to provide for a more secure America. A substantial share of those expenditures has been focused on threats associated with weapons of mass destruction (WMD). A significant amount of money has been allocated to providing equipment for first responders at all levels of government to manage WMD threats. While the allocation of funds between states and jurisdictions has been hotly debated over the years, few question the appropriateness of properly equipping our first responders to protect themselves and to allow them to function in a WMD environment. Advocates for Green and Blue each look at how funding is being spent in various programs and question, “Is that the wisest use of the funds? Could we not do more for our ‘_____’ if we had the funds being spent on ‘_____? How we

Blue versus Green

1

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

allocate time and resources to address Green versus Blue issues is the crux of the matter.

Sustainability
Sustainability in another era might have been called maintenance. Today sustainability evokes images of being environmentally friendly, going “green” and all that it entails, from energy efficiency to recycling, and husbanding of our natural resources. The green movement has brought with it a recognition that our natural resources are not unlimited. Yet another “green” category that is finite is the amount of funding that is available for public and private projects. Throughout the United States road and bridge systems are crumbling. In the East, older infrastructure systems are nearing or have surpassed their average life spans. With strong public pressure to keep taxes low, one easy and invisible cut to public system budgets has been maintenance. In many cases, public agencies and jurisdictions have deferred maintenance to the point where our maintenance strategy appears to be fix or replace only on failure. One challenge to this “fix-on-failure” strategy is that when the costs of deferred maintenance come due, the substantial bill for repairs and reconstruction well may be compounded by the potential loss of lives as well as the economic costs of business interruption following infrastructure failures and through the period needed to replace or restore these structures. In replacing infrastructure there will be those arguing for it to be done in a sustainable manner. And there will be those agreeing with the concept, but also advocating a strategy to build the infrastructure to new standards to face natural hazards that are better understood now than they were at the time of original construction—seismic risk being but one example. (Modern seismic standards for bridges, for instance, only date from the early 1970s.) In the Seattle area, there is a classic confrontation that has been ongoing since the Nisqually Earthquake of 2001 exposed the weakened condition of the Alaskan Way Viaduct that runs north-south through the city and is one of only three such north-south routes spanning the Central Puget Sound area. All of these three routes are exceeding the traffic capacity for which they were designed. Loss of any one of those routes will cause traffic congestion in the region that exceeds the ability of people and business to function with any sense of normality. The viaduct is an elevated structure which exists in a weakened state that requires the Washington State Department of Transportation to close it twice a year in order to assess its condition and make critical repairs. How to replace the viaduct has been the topic of (so far) interminable debate. The proposed alternatives have included: another elevated structure, a surface solution, a dig and cover tunnel approach, eliminating the route all together, and most recently a “deep” tunnel option has been proposed. While the estimated costs of replacing the roadway is perhaps the most debated aspect of the entire discussion, there are other forces at play.
Blue versus Green 2

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Green activists in the region have advocated an urban development strategy aimed at opening up access to the Seattle waterfront and bringing the full force of being a city “on the water” to bear. Closing the viaduct route would eliminate a physical barrier and also promote a pedestrian-friendly environment; the resulting congestion supposedly would be helped by forcing people to use the available mass-transit alternatives. On the other hand, port- and marine-based industries, along with general industrial companies, are advocates for keeping the route intact, seeing it as critical for their business. The “blue” aspect of the route is not being debated at all. Highway 99 is a vital route both for the evacuation of people in the event of disaster and as a conduit for incoming emergency supplies and equipment. While marine terminals also could serve these purposes in case of disaster–for instance, should other land routes not be available due to other bridge failures in a seismic event— emergency transport by water generally would be slower than by land; and marine facilities may be as prone to being damaged or disabled in a disaster as ground, rail, or air transportation infrastructure. As it is, the Seattle area’s transportation lifelines are barely able to cope with normal demands, much less those of a catastrophic emergency.

Livable Communities
Making modern communities livable has been a major thrust of urban design. There is a resurgence in our urban centers as large cities revitalize their urban cores. People are once again living in urban villages that at their heart have condos, and all the amenities of restaurants, shopping, and the arts. These urban centers allow people to live near their places of employment and allow a much higher density of people and services. The suburban sprawl is contained and families can “survive” with only one car or even none because they have access to mass transit for their transportation needs. One’s carbon footprint is drastically reduced by living and working in such an urban center when compared to the suburban dream that dominated our postWorld War II culture. There are no green lawns that must be mowed each week with carbon polluting lawn mowers, the commute is reduced, single occupancy vehicle commutes eliminated, heating and cooling larger buildings is more efficient, etc.

Urbanization Brings Increased Risk
There is a continuing population shift from rural areas to urban zones. People and families are migrating to the coasts and to areas of the nation that are seen as offering more favorable climate conditions. Significant population gains are being seen by coastal states. This movement will continue as the baby boomer generation now entering retirement wants to live out their dream of sunshine, golf, and warmer temperatures. Unfortunately this “rush to sea” by people is taking place without regard for the natural hazards that abound, or with little thought about the potential for their urban center to be a target for terrorism. All coastal areas in the nation
Blue versus Green 3

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

potentially have greater natural hazard risks that will impact larger segments of populations and their infrastructure than most of the interior areas of the nation. Hurricanes, earthquakes, and the associated tsunami waves are three of the most devastating natural hazards our coastal communities face. With climate change, rising sea levels will over time provide a multiplication factor to storm surge brought on by hurricanes. Scientists predict that a category four hurricane would cause a 20-foot storm surge over John F. Kennedy airport in New York. A major hurricane that hit New York City in 1938 caused damage valued at some $18 billion in today’s currency; the loss from a similarly severe storm striking the city in the near future has been estimated at close to $50 billion. The probability of such a disaster occurring in New York sometime in the next 50 years is about 25 percent. As we concentrate our populations into these dense urban areas, the impacts of disasters will become much more severe. The modern infrastructure required to support these urban centers is at its core the vulnerable aspect of the economic well being of the city. Without a functioning transportation, water, communications or electrical power system the economy of a region will grind to a halt. Additionally, we are building and maintaining systems that operate daily at or near peak demand. The flexibility and adaptability of systems is being eroded as public and private sectors cut costs in the attempt to become leaner and more efficient. Redundancy is not valued until there is a systems failure. When looking to cut costs from a project the areas that are first to be sacrificed are excess capacity and redundant systems—just those that provide flexibility to meet demands that are outside the spectrum of “normal” daily operations. As we continue to pile people and our economic eggs into larger economic zones we are becoming a nation at risk of losing large urban areas to a future catastrophe. What happened in New Orleans will be but a shadow of what is to come when an urban center that is an economic engine to the nation takes a serious natural disaster hit. Urban centers are becoming geographically larger and are pushing out of their traditional urban settings into suburban and even rural areas. A case in point would be the development of the Kent-Auburn Valley in the Seattle metropolitan area. These valley areas were once home to farms that sustained the region in the first half of the last century. Now the farms are gone and large tilt-up warehouses are being planted instead. Cheaper land values have led to an economic boom in light industrial development in the region. Being in a valley, farmers sought to protect their agricultural lands from repeated flood events and over time built many miles of levees that line multiple river systems in the region. These flood protection structures which were built 80 to 100 years ago were sufficient to protect agricultural lands, but are now in danger of failing every year during flood events. They no longer protect crops

Blue versus Green

4

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

worth thousands of dollars, but now protect business investments and critical infrastructure worth tens of millions of dollars. The “green” solution would be to eliminate the levee systems, releasing the rivers and letting them return to their natural meandering ways—which would be ideal for the protection of endangered salmon species that occupy the river systems. Given the development that has occurred over time this is not economically possible. In fact, just finding the public funds to repair and maintain the existing flood-control structures will prove difficult. A new King County Flood Control District has been put in place to fix these discrepancies. However, it will take ten years of funding to accomplish the work. Timing repairs so as not to impact spawning fish species further limits the timely repair of flood damaged levee systems from one year to the next. Meanwhile the risks created by the flood hazard continue to escalate. The estimates for global warming in the Northwest predict larger and more frequent rain and substantial flood events of the type that puts increased strain on the levees. Just this year, Lewis County, Washington, experienced a two-hundredyear flood with levees failing and being overtopped. There were scenes reminiscent of Hurricane Katrina, with people being rescued from their rooftops. This followed a hundred-year flood 13 months ago.

Balanced Approach
There has been a polarizing of American opinions and view points across the spectrum of human activities. There are the economic haves and the have-nots, people with healthcare and those without. Education is clearly a discriminator within our society. Citizen and immigrant communities are seen as being in conflict with one another. Even our states have been color coded into blue and red when considering political party strengths. Which leads us to wonder: Is this what must happen in the blue-green debate? In the future, will we have a map of the United States with blue and green states categorized on how they are perceived? Do we have to resort to a polarization of opinions in how we approach our collective future? Can we achieve a more coordinated and better future by collaborating for the sake of our local communities and regions? Does it have to come to a fight? The first step in an amicable process will have to be the establishment of an ongoing relationship between the two efforts to protect people and resources. Both have admirable goals that do not have to be mutually exclusive. For example, improving air traffic management infrastructure at the nation’s airports will reduce delays, cut carbon emissions, and make it easier to respond to a security crisis; thus serving both blue and green purposes. Finding similar opportunities to simultaneously contribute to blue and green goals could provide the basis for relationships that can lead to a true dialogue and potential compromise and ultimately trust between proponents of the two philosophies.
Blue versus Green 5

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Flexibility and leadership by both camps will be needed. Partnerships involve participation by two or more parties. The definition of “winning” will need to be redefined to mean that no single philosophy prevails. To achieve a new and better America will require all of us to value the other person’s opinions and values. Safety and security does not necessarily trump living in harmony with our environment, and balancing human and nature’s needs is an appropriate goal. One (blue) is more short term, and the other is multi-generational in its impact (green). Together we can find a way to live in harmony with our environment while providing for our security. Conflict between the two views does not have to be considered in opposition, rather in the end they can be complementary, but only if their respective advocates make it so.

About the authors
Eric Holdeman joined ICF International www.icfi.com in 2007 and is a Principal, serving in the Emergency Management and Homeland Security Practice. His areas of expertise include building regional coalitions between agencies, governments, the private sector and non-profits. Regional planning, Emergency Operations Center (EOC) design and construction, multi-media public education programs, Joint Information Center (JIC) formation and operations, media relations, and integration of technology into emergency management and homeland security programs are just a few of the areas in which he has extensive experience. Pandemic flu planning and exercises is another area in which he has experience. In March 2007 he was recognized by Government Technology Magazine as one of the Top 25 people in the nation who, “Challenge convention, confront entrenched bureaucracy and promote innovation.” Eric has a blog at www.disaster-zone.com He has also authored numerous articles for professional journals and opinion pieces for local, regional and national newspapers. An experienced and accomplished public speaker he is sought after to present at national and regional conferences. Prior to joining ICF he was a local emergency management director for King County Washington which is the metropolitan Seattle area. In this position he established the King County Office of Emergency Management as a national leader in many areas emergency management and homeland security. In 2005 King County was given a national award by the National Association of Counties (NACo) for establishing a “Regional Approach to Homeland Security.” Additionally, the 9/11 Commission recognized the King County Regional Disaster Response Plan as a “Best Practice” for integrating the private business sector into community-wide disaster planning.

Blue versus Green

6

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Melinda Harris is a senior economist and project manager with ICF Consulting. Over the past 20 years, Ms. Harris has developed expertise in a broad range of environmental and economic policy issues and has more than 10 years of experience managing large scale projects and contracts for clients in the public and private sectors. She has directed large teams of subject area experts drawn from government, academia, research organization, and environmental NGOs. Her background includes analyses of the impacts of global warming on important sectors of the U.S. economy, including work in the areas of human health impacts, impacts of climate change on the amenity value of climate, and sea level rise implications for U.S. coastal communities. In the past three years, a significant portion of her project work has entailed addressing issues relating to adaptation to climate change. She directed and participated materially in several global change related projects for USAID and was one of the primary authors of GCRP’s synthesis report on the interim results of three place-based assessments. Her project work has also included evaluating GHG mitigation and stabilization policy, the use of market-based mechanisms in environmental policy, and she is one of ICF International’s in-house experts on emissions trading.

About the Symposium
Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green is presented as a public service of the Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI), 11350 Random Hills Rd., Suite 210, Fairfax, VA 22030. Web: www.riskinstitute.org. The Public Entity Risk Institute provides these materials "as is," for educational and informational purposes only, and without representation, guarantee or warranty of any kind, express or implied, including any warranty relating to the accuracy, reliability, completeness, currency or usefulness of the content of this material. Publication and distribution of this material is not an endorsement by PERI, its officers, directors or employees of any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained herein. PERI will not be liable for any claims for damages of any kind based upon errors, omissions or other inaccuracies in the information or material contained here. ***

Blue versus Green

7

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Protecting the Environment and Security at the U.S.Mexico Border
By: Elaine M. Koerner, M.A. The U.S.-Mexico border region offers a particularly rich context in which to probe the potential clash between homeland security activities and environmental protection efforts. It also offers a compelling case in point for how “win-win” scenarios for both types of initiatives can be created if everyone decides to work a bit smarter. Environmental degradation and the depletion of natural resources remain major challenges for the region despite steady progress in recent years, according to The 2007 Mid-Term Report of the U.S.-Mexico Environmental Program: Border 2012. 1 Sewage and other contaminants continue to pollute both surface waters and underground aquifers. In addition, air quality is compromised by pollutant sources such as aging cars, dust from unpaved roads, and open burning of trash. Makeshift waste dumps, large piles of scrap tires, and inadequate waste management infrastructure also remain a feature of the environmental landscape. These conditions can be linked to many factors, including rapid population growth, increased industry, and a lack of municipal infrastructure. Since 1996, the report says, the population of the 24 U.S. border counties has increased nearly 30 percent. And by 2020, the population is expected to jump to approximately 16.8 million, up from 11.8 million in the year 2000. Alongside these environmental challenges are daunting security challenges. The U.S.-Mexico border region has come under especially close national scrutiny in recent years as pressure has mounted to make both the northern and southern borders of the nation more secure. Several actions have been taken to address these concerns, with attendant potentially negative effects on the environment. One such action is the passage of the Real ID Act of 2005. 2 This Act allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive all legal requirements determined necessary to ensure expeditious construction of barriers and roads needed to prevent illegal immigration. The waiver covers a host of legislation, including NEPA, Endangered Species Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, Clean Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Migratory Bird Act, Clean Air Act, and Administrative Procedures Act. Another mechanism put into place is the Secure Border Initiative (SBI). Launched by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in late 2005, SBI was created to “secure the nation’s borders and reduce illegal migration.” 3 The initiative has three primary goals: increase the number of Border Patrol agents in the field, upgrade surveillance technology, and increase investment in infrastructure such as fencing.

Protecting the Environment and Security

1

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Under the high-technology component of the initiative, called SBInet, DHS awarded a contract the following year for installation of 1,800 high-tech towers. 4 And on December 12, 2007, DHS announced that SBI was moving forward steadily to achieve its mission: First, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) had exceeded the initial goal of 145 miles of new fencing. Second, it had taken conditional possession of nine towers equipped with radar and communications systems and automated ground sensors linked to a command and control center and Border Patrol vehicles. And finally, a new task order had been issued to upgrade software for the systems, actions that would supplement the 284 miles of pedestrian and vehicular fencing already in place, and also enable construction of roughly 670 miles of additional fencing by the end of 2008. 5

Potential clashes between environmental protection work and homeland security work along the U.S.-Mexico border have an added dimension -- the presence of an international boundary line. Source: Environmental Protection and Border Security on the U.S.-Mexico Border: Tenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States, March 2007 p.5.

■■■ The effects of such security measures on environmental quality in the border region are analyzed in a March 2007 bilingual report titled “Environmental Protection and Border Security on the U.S.-Mexico Border.” 6 Produced by a Presidential advisory group called the Good Neighbor Environmental Board (the GNEB), its Tenth Report is the latest of its annual reports to the President and Congress on the status of environmental conditions in border communities. The GNEB was created under federal legislation in 1992 to provide advice on how the

Protecting the Environment and Security

2

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

federal government can most effectively support U.S. residents of the border region in their efforts to create a healthy environment in their communities. In its report, the GNEB examines the intersection of environmental protection work and border security work in two types of locations: isolated rural settings, and congested urban border crossings. In each case, it identifies a specific set of potential clashes as well as strategies to minimize the clashes and maximize the collaboration. According to the report’s findings, a significant portion of undocumented migrants and smugglers now attempt to make their crossing in the more rural portions of the region. This shift is the result of improved inspection technology at the ports of entry and more effective enforcement strategies in cities. To address this shift, border security activities in rural areas are intensifying dramatically. Much of this phenomenon is occurring on public land managed by agencies such as the Department of the Interior National Park Service and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. It also is occurring on private land and on tribal land, including tribal land that spans both sides of the border. One such example is the Tohono O’odham Nation in Arizona. Within the rural scene, there are three primary groups of actors— undocumented crossers; the security agencies charged with apprehending them; and the environmental protection agencies that seek to mitigate damage from the other two groups. And the nexus of these three groups produces mixed environmental results, says the GNEB. For instance, although the Border Patrol’s chase vehicles may create unofficial paths and roads that are prone to erosion and may damage sensitive ecosystems, undocumented migrants and smugglers also may cause environmental damage. Under these circumstances, risks to the environment can be reduced if undocumented crossers are apprehended quickly and, therefore, prevented from leaving behind tons of trash and abandoned vehicles as well as creating their own unofficial paths. Another example of security work bringing about environmental benefits cited by the GNEB is the story of the return of the endangered, lesser long-nosed bats: Initially driven from their national wildlife refuge cave by smugglers who decided to use it for themselves, the bats subsequently returned after border security was tightened and the smugglers fled the scene. In other cases, however, the potential negative environmental impacts of security activities along the border are much more straightforward. One such instance is the erection of physical barriers. “Fences may disrupt hydrologic patterns, causing flooding and erosion,” says the GNEB. “Wildlife migration routes and territories for some species may be truncated, fragmenting habitats and causing declines in region populations of large animals such as deer, black bear, pronghorn antelope, mountain lions, and jaguar, as well as small animals such as snakes, lizards, turtles, and foxes. Migratory birds, as well as bird and mammal breeding behavior, will be affected by lights associated with fences in some areas.” 7

Protecting the Environment and Security

3

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

To minimize risk both to the environment and to security, the GNEB calls for several actions: • Strengthen communication and collaboration between security agencies and environmental protection agencies, including land management agencies, on both sides of the border. Early and ongoing cooperation will contribute to effective solutions that serve the core agency missions of both types of agencies, while also addressing quality of life concerns. (For instance, assembling border fencing in one location on a wildlife refuge rather than another that is more ecologically sensitive can help to minimize environmental damage.) Strategically employ a mix of technology and personnel to meet the security and environmental needs of different sections of the border region. Vehicle barriers (unlike solid fencing used as pedestrian barriers, vehicle barriers are a series of intersecting struts that permit some wildlife migration) and sensor technology (rather than physical fencing) are two examples of employing a strategic approach. 8

Having provided recommendations for minimizing clashes between security work and environmental protection work in rural border region settings, the GNEB then turns to analyzing the dynamics at congested ports of entry. It is quick to point out that there appears to be more of a natural dovetail effect between border security work and environmental work at ports of entry than in rural areas: “Proper handling of hazardous materials being transported in commercial vehicles near and at official ports of entry is mission-relevant to both types of agencies. Although border security officials are focused on accurate materials identification and the potential terrorist threat should the materials get into the wrong hands, they share with environmental officials the concern about potential risk to human health and the environment through accidental releases or explosions.” 9 Yet despite these somewhat related missions, says the GNEB, the potential for clashes remains strong. Perhaps one of the most daunting problems is that emergency responders are not able to easily cross the border at ports of entry to respond to chemical spills or other environmental emergencies. And while some of the barriers are not linked to security procedures – insurance coverage and liability concerns are just two examples – others, such as protracted customs and border crossing procedures, are. Here again, the GNEB calls for more problemsolving dialogue between security and environmental agencies within the U.S. as well as with their neighboring institutions across the border.

Protecting the Environment and Security

4

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Security within the U.S.-Mexico border region often takes the form of physical barriers. Source: Environmental Protection and Border Security on the U.S.-Mexico Border: Tenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States, March 2007, p.4.

■■■

Protecting the Environment and Security

5

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

The GNEB is not the only group that has delved into the U.S.-Mexico border security/border environment conundrum. Defenders of Wildlife, a 500,000 member strong national environmental organization dedicated to preserving the nation’s native wildlife species and habitats, released a report in 2006 called On the Line: The Impacts of Immigration Policy on Wildlife and Habitat in the Arizona Borderlands. 10 The document focuses largely on the Arizona borderlands, in particular Arizona’s two largest wilderness areas: the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. The Defenders’ report found, too, that immigrant traffic and border patrol activities have severely damaged these areas in ways that could take decades to repair. Besides broadly recommending greater care for the environmental impacts of border security activities, the report called for the use of advanced technology—such as high-tech surveillance equipment—and innovative construction designs to minimize environmental damage. Academia also continues to weigh in on the topic, one example being the Southwest Consortium for Environmental Research and Policy (SCERP). Founded in 1989, SCERP is a collaboration of five U.S. and five Mexican universities located in all ten border states. The five U.S. universities are Arizona State University, New Mexico State University, San Diego State University, the University of Texas at El Paso, and the University of Utah. The Mexican universities are El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, Instituto Tecnológico de Ciudad Juárez, Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, and Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez. In September 2007, SCERP hosted the latest in its series of think-tank-style policy institutes, Border Institute IX. The theme was “Security, Development, and the Environment in the Binational U.S.-Mexican Border Region.” Co-sponsors included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; la Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales de México (Mexico’s environmental agency), the Border Trade Alliance, and the U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce. The springboard for discussion was the following framework question: How can security concerns at the border be harmonized with the transborder region’s need for environmental quality and sustainable development? Draft proceedings from the event suggest that forthcoming recommendations may include concepts such as linking “green infrastructure” to security. Green infrastructure is defined as the network of open space, woodlands, wildlife habitat, parks, and other undeveloped areas that sustain clean air, water and natural resources and provide a highly under-appreciated form of security that is vital to human life. Earlier in the year, SCERP had laid the groundwork for Border Institute IX by co-hosting a conference in Washington, D.C. on January 30th with the Center for Strategic and International Studies titled, “Perspectives on Security and the Environment in the Binational U.S.-Mexican Border Region.” One of the more stimulating presentations was by Dr. Carlos de la Parra, a professor at El Colegio de la Frontera Norte in Tijuana. In his paper, “The

Protecting the Environment and Security

6

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Interdependency of Security and the Environment,” Dr. de la Parra asserts that the relationship between security and the environment can be viewed from within three frameworks: national security measures’ impact on the environment; elements of the environment that contribute to national security such as energy and water; and nature’s impact on national security such as environmental risk and vulnerability. 11 In the first scenario, he maintains, security trumps environment; in the second, security includes environment; and in the third, they are co-dependent. The key environment-security challenge, he says, is how to make the two converge. ■■■ Perhaps one of the greatest ironies of attempting to reconcile security concerns and environmental concerns along the border is that the condition of security infrastructure in the region stands out in sharp contrast to that of its municipal environmental infrastructure, infrastructure such as wastewater treatment facilities. If infrastructure in this instance is defined as any set of structural elements that provide the framework for an operating system, then border security infrastructure’s future looks very bright indeed. Funding for new physical barriers, for the surveillance and communications technology used to create “virtual” barriers, and for the personnel who build and operate the equipment as well as patrol the land appears to be readily available. By contrast, despite the municipal infrastructure improvements brought about by groups such as the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American Development Bank (NADBank), environmental infrastructure in the border region remains inadequate. In fact, in a white paper published in April 2007, BECC conveyed that it had identified and documented nearly $1 billion in additional drinking water and wastewater infrastructure needs in the region. 12 In order to right the imbalance, and thereby ensure that environmental infrastructure along the U.S.-Mexico border receives its due alongside security infrastructure, policymakers may be well served by referencing the definition of border environmental security developed by the GNEB in its report mentioned earlier: “To encourage a productive national policy discussion …, the Board offers a broad view of border environmental security as the mitigation and prevention of potential threats at U.S. borders to public health, environmental quality, and social infrastructure or economy. Border environmental security includes eliminating threats from undocumented human crossings as well as improper, unauthorized, or undocumented transport of hazardous, toxic, radiological, or pathological materials that could potentially cause any harm to the public and/or existing infrastructure or could potentially be used to threaten the security of the United States or its border allies. In addition, border environmental security involves ensuring the ability of communities to respond to nearby and border emergencies involving those substances or any other threat.” 13

Protecting the Environment and Security

7

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Endnotes

1

U.S.-Mexico Environmental Program: Border 2012 Implementation and Mid-Term Report: 2007, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-909-R-06-005.

2

P.L. 109-13, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005.
3

Department of Homeland Security Fact Sheet: Secure Border Initiative, Release Date: 11/02/05. DHS Press Briefing by Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and Boeing CEO of Integrated

4

Defense Systems Jim Albaugh on the Awarding of the SBInet Contract, Release Date: September 21, 2006
5

Fact Sheet: Select Department of Homeland Security 2007 Achievements, Release Date: December 12,

2007: “Protecting the Nation from Dangerous People.”
6

“Environmental Protection and Border Security on the U.S.-Mexico Border: Tenth Report of the Good

Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States,”, EPA 130-R-07-003, March 2007.
7

Ibid, p. 22. Ibid, p.17. Ibid, p.27.

8

9

10

"On the Line: The Impacts of Immigration Policy on Wildlife and Habitat in the Arizona Borderlands,"

Principal Author: Brian P. Segee, Staff Attorney, Defenders of Wildlife.
11

http://www.csis.org/images/stories/Americas/070130_border_parra.pdf. United States-Mexico Border Program: An Analysis of Program Impacts and Pending Needs, Prepared

12

by the Border Environment Cooperation Commission, April 2007, p.1
13

“Environmental Protection and Border Security on the U.S.-Mexico Border”, pp.9-10.

Protecting the Environment and Security

8

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

About the author
Elaine M. Koerner currently is employed as a Senior Environmental Protection Specialist at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Washington D.C. She is the Designated Federal Officer for the Good Neighbor Environmental Board, a Presidential advisory committee that provides recommendations to the President and Congress on environmental and infrastructure protection along the U.S. border with Mexico. The committee includes senior officials from nine federal agencies as well as representatives from state, local, and tribal government; academic; the private sector; and nongovernmental organizations. It forthcoming report, due to be released in March 2008, will focus on the effects of natural disasters on the environment along the U.S.-Mexico border. Prior to her career at EPA, Ms. Koerner worked as Staff Writer for Resources for the Future, an environmental research think tank also located in Washington, D.C. Other former employers include Engineering Index in New York and the Institute of Petroleum in London. As a former member of the National Coalition of Independent Scholars, she carried out research on the role of women’s clubs in shaping early U.S. environmental history and presented her findings to the American Society for Environmental History and the National Women’s Studies Association. She holds a Master of Arts degree from the University of Massachusetts.

About the Symposium
Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green is presented as a public service of the Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI), 11350 Random Hills Rd., Suite 210, Fairfax, VA 22030. Web: www.riskinstitute.org. The Public Entity Risk Institute provides these materials "as is," for educational and informational purposes only, and without representation, guarantee or warranty of any kind, express or implied, including any warranty relating to the accuracy, reliability, completeness, currency or usefulness of the content of this material. Publication and distribution of this material is not an endorsement by PERI, its officers, directors or employees of any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained herein. PERI will not be liable for any claims for damages of any kind based upon errors, omissions or other inaccuracies in the information or material contained here. ***

Protecting the Environment and Security

9

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Trade-offs of Water and Power: Analysis of the Evolution of the Electric Grid under Water Substitution Drivers
By: Dr. Steven Fernandez, Research Scientist, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, G. Loren Toole and Marvin L. Salazar, Los Alamos National Laboratory

Abstract
Fresh water and electric power supplies are connected in ways that make them virtually substitutable commodities. Both water and energy are frequently transported considerable distances, and their transport systems are integrally connected. Power systems use fresh water in the course of electricity production, and electric power is used for water delivery and management. Thus, the impact on water resources and their quality by the evolution of the electric power grid is a potential area for clashes between blue and green policies. Proposals for the needed investment in the nation’s transmission corridors over the next 20 years have long strived to assure the blue objectives that the national electric grid is safe, reliable, resilient, and operated efficiently and economically. These investments have been proposed based on (1) cost/benefit analyses and (2) stability, reliability, and resilience of the resulting grid. However, only recently have these blue considerations been balanced against the additional green benefits that could arise from transporting high volumes of power from geographic areas or generation locations that are not dependent on net fresh water withdrawals. Provided that power is produced either in areas of abundant water resources or using generation technologies that are inherently low water consumers (wind, solar, dry-cooled thermal), efficiently transmitting power to areas with limited water resources and substituting for locally produced power can ease water demand through long-distance, high-volume, power transmission. However, the capacity of the current transmission grid to wheel this power to chronically dry areas is limited by transmission system bottlenecks needed for safety and reliability. These bottlenecks in the transmission system were purposely designed to assure that disruptions and blackouts started in one part of the grid do not spread throughout the other parts of the grid. We will examine in this paper how the national grid might benefit from investments that could efficiently ship power through the transmission system of the Western Electric Coordinating Council under water-substitution drivers.

Trade – offs of Water and Power

1

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

A key finding of our analysis is that achieving “green” goals of reducing water consumption and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources is likely to conflict with the “blue” goals of improving the resilience and reliability of the critical, power-transmission grid.

INTRODUCTION
By modifying and applying current infrastructure and system modeling and simulation tools, one can provide science-based recommendations for future U.S. electric power transmission upgrades. These improvements can increase the availability of imported power to these areas without sacrificing energy reliability and still reduce transmission costs. These tools have been used to analyze the few known critical transmission bottlenecks in the absence of new water-based requirements and to explore optimal configurations for transmission.

WECC model as currently exists
•17000 nodes and links
ÃÃà à à à à à Ãà à à à à à Ãà à à à à Ãà Ãà Ãà à Ãà Ãà à à à à à à à à Ãà Ãà à à ÃÃà Ãà Ãà ÃÃà à à Ãà à Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà à à à à à à à à ÃÃà à Ãà Ãà à à à Ãà à à à à à Ãà à à à à ÃÃà à Ãà Ãà à à Ãà ÃÃÃà à à à à à à à à à Ãà ÃÃà Ãà Ãà à Ãà à à à à à à à ÃÃÃÃà ÃÃà à à à à à à Ãà à à ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà à Ãà à à à à Ãà à ÃÃà à à à à à à à à à à ÃÃà à Ãà Ãà à à à à Ãà à à ÃÃà ÃÃÃà à Ãà ÃÃà à à à Ãà à ÃÃà à à à à à à à à à Ãà à à à à Ãà à à à ÃÃà à Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà ÃÃà ÃÃÃà Ãà à ÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃà à à à ÃÃà à à à à à Ãà à Ãà à à à à à à à ÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà ÃÃà à à à à ÃÃÃÃÃÃà ÃÃÃÃà à à ÃÃÃÃà à à à Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà à ÃÃÃà Ãà à Ãà à ÃÃÃà ÃÃÃÃÃà ÃÃÃÃà à à à à Ãà à ÃÃà à ÃÃÃà à à à Ãà Ãà à à ÃÃà à à Ãà ÃÃÃà à ÃÃÃÃà à ÃÃà à à ÃÃÃà Ãà à à Ãà à à Ãà à Ãà à Ãà à Ãà Ãà à à à à Ãà ÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà à à Ãà à Ãà à Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà à à à à à à à ÃÃà ÃÃà à ÃÃÃà à ÃÃÃà ÃÃà à à à ÃÃà ÃÃà à à à à à Ãà à à ÃÃà ÃÃà à à Ãà à à à à ÃÃà à à à à ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà à à ÃÃà à Ãà à Ã% ÃÃà à à à Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà à à à ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà à à Ãà à à ÃÃÃà Ãà à ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà ÃÃÃÃà Ãà à Ãà ÃÃÃÃà ÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà à Ãà à à à à à à à Ãà à Ãà à à à ÃÃà à Ãà à Ãà Ãà à à à Ãà à ÃÃà à à à Ãà ÃÃà à à ÃÃÃà à à à Ãà à ÃÃà à ÃÃà à ÃÃÃà Ãà à à à à à Ãà à à ÃÃÃà Ãà à Ãà à à ÃÃà à à à Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà ÃÃÃÃÃà à à à Ãà à ÃÃà à Ãà ÃÃà à Ãà à ÃÃà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà à à à à Ãà à à Ãà à à à à à à à à à ÃÃà à à Ãà à à à ÃÃÃà Ãà à à à à à à Ãà à à à à à à à à à à Ãà Ãà Ãà à Ã%à ÃÃà à à à ÃÃÃà ÃÃà à à ÃÃà Ã%à Ãà à ÃÃÃÃÃà ÃÃà Ãà à ÃÃÃÃÃà à Ãà Ãà à à à à Ãà à Ãà à à à ÃÃÃà à à à à ÃÃÃà à Ãà à à à Ãà à Ãà à à à ÃÃÃà à à à Ãà à Ãà Ãà à à à à Ãà à à à à Ãà Ãà à ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà à à à à à à ÃÃÃà Ãà à ÃÃÃà à à à ÃÃà ÃÃÃà Ãà à à Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà à Ãà à à Ãà à ÃÃÃÃÃÃà à à à à à à Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà à à à à ÃÃÃÃÃÃà à à Ãà à ÃÃÃÃà à à ÃÃÃÃà à Ãà Ãà à ÃÃà à Ãà à à à Ãà à ÃÃÃÃÃÃà à ÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà à ÃÃÃÃà à à à à à ÃÃà à Ãà ÃÃÃÃà à Ãà ÃÃÃÃà à à Ãà ÃÃà à ÃÃÃÃà Ãà ÃÃÃà à à ÃÃÃÃÃà à à à Ãà Ãà à à à ÃÃÃà Ãà à à ÃÃÃà à à à Ãà à à Ãà à à ÃÃÃà à Ãà ÃÃÃà à à à à à à à à à Ãà Ãà à Ãà ÃÃà à à à à à ÃÃÃÃà à Ãà à à à à à à ÃÃà à Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃà Ãà Ãà à Ãà ÃÃÃà ÃÃà Ãà à ÃÃà ÃÃÃÃÃà ÃÃà à à à à % DC Intertie ÃÃÃà ÃÃà ÃÃà à ÃÃÃÃà à à à à à à à Ãà à à ÃÃÃà ÃÃÃÃÃà à à à Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà à Ãà à Ãà à ÃÃÃÃà à Ãà à à à ÃÃÃÃÃÃà à à Ãà à à à à Generation à à Ãà à à ÃÃà à à à Ãà à à ÃÃÃÃà Ãà à à Ãà à Ãà à à à à Ãà à à à Sub or Bus ÃÃà ÃÃÃà à à Ãà ÃÃÃà à à à à Ãà Ãà à à ÃÃà à ÃÃÃà à ÃÃÃà à à ÃÃÃà à à à % à Ãà Ãà Ãà à à ÃÃÃà à à Load Bus Ãà à à ÃÃÃà à à à à à à à à Ãà à à à à Ãà Ãà % Ãà à à Ãà Ãà Ãà à Ãà à Ãà à ÃÃà à à Ãà à Ãà à Ãà Ãà à à à à à à à No-Load Bus Ãà ÃÃà à Ãà Ãà à à à à à ÃÃà à Transm. Lines (kV) Ãà Ã
1-34.5 35-72 115-161 230 345 500

To examine how the national grid might benefit from investments that could efficiently ship power to water-constrained areas, we used a model of the Western Electric Coordinating Council transmission system that is resident in a suite of decision-support tools. This model contained more than 17,000 nodes and links and identified the key power-import points to the electric grid (marked in the figure above with green boxes).

Trade – offs of Water and Power

Ù ÙÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙ ÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙÙ ÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙ ÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ ÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙ ÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ ÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙ ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙ ÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙ ÙÙÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙÙÙ Ù ÙÙ ÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙÙ ÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù ÙÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙÙÙ ÙÙÙ Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù ÙÙ ÙÙ ÙÙ Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù ÙÙ Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù Ù

•Identify interties as illustrated by geen boxes as well as power import points

2

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

These import points intentionally have low transmission capacity, to promote grid stability. They have served safety and reliability planners well over the years. However, because these inter-ties are low-capacity connections, they would be the first area to look for conflicts over balancing reliability against strengthening the grid’s ability to transmit power to areas of water stress. There is considerable controversy about whether imported power can be increased without sacrificing electricity reliability or increasing transmission costs. Our analysis of the grid attempted to determine if the increase in imported power could be accomplished without sacrificing electricity reliability, and still reduce transmission costs. The goal of this task was to analyze transmission bottlenecks—currently known and likely to arise—in the Western Electric Coordinating Council (WECC) system, and determine where improvements are required as well as the investments needed to implement them. We analyzed four scenarios, incorporating different green proposals related to using power transmission as a factor for water management in the West. The first scenario is the baseline case, where the growth of electric power demand follows the WECC’s current projections through the year 2025. (Although WECC currently projects only 10 years, we extrapolated from the WECC plan for the subsequent decade.) The second scenario places all new generation growth at the current location of WECC nuclear generation plants. This corresponds to the addition of dry-cooling nuclear generation and will identify those bottlenecks associated with moving the power from these additional generation locations to the areas of increased electrical demand. The third scenario assumes that 25% of the required power is mandated to be supplied by renewable generation technologies. Because the grid would be required to transmit power generated from centralized power stations, it is likely that the location of this additional generation will be in areas of maximum potential for wind-driven power. So we analyzed the bottlenecks to shipping the power from these areas of maximum wind potential to areas of increased demand. In the fourth scenario, we analyzed the ability to import electricity from areas outside the WECC region to the areas of highest demand.

SCENARIO BASE CASE
In scenario 1 we analyzed the case of normal growth in the demand for electric power in the western United States using WECC current projections. These projections do not assume any increase in demand or changes in the demand patterns caused by substituting electric power usage for fresh water usage.

Trade – offs of Water and Power

3

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

2015 Scenario 1
Highlighted in blue are the lines loaded over 150 percent (bold blue color) for scenario 1 (business as usual) by the Year 2015. The major areas where additional investment is required in the transmission system are in the areas around Tucson and Phoenix, Northern New Mexico, and Eastern Idaho.

Displayed above and highlighted in blue are the lines loaded to over 150 percent of their rated capacity (bold blue color) for scenario 1 (business as usual) by the Year 2015. The major areas where additional capacity is required in the transmission system are in the areas around Tucson and Phoenix, Northern New Mexico, and Eastern Idaho. These areas are in the vicinity of the power import points that were illustrated earlier and these capacity limitations are well known to power planners.

Trade – offs of Water and Power

4

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

2025 Scenario 1
By 2025, the baseline case develops additional overloads extendind\g along the North-South New Mexico corridor, West of Denver and in the Pacific Northwest West of Spokane.

By 2025, these overloaded lines further increase the need for additional capacity. However, the lines are concentrated in about the same geographic locations. In this baseline, the new investments will be required in the south and eastern quadrants of the WECC service region.

SCENARIO NUCLEAR GENERATION WITH DRY COOLING
Dry cooling refers to the discharge of heat from the nuclear power plant by substituting air for water in large cooling towers. While significantly reducing the usage of water, the use of dry cooling reduces the efficiency and maximum capacity of the generating station. Therefore, there is usually an economic penalty to the power producer for using dry cooling. The second scenario places all new generation growth at the current location of WECC nuclear generation plants using only dry cooling. This corresponds to major additions of dry-cooling nuclear generation and will identify those bottlenecks associated with moving the power from these additional generation locations to the areas of increased electrical demand.

Trade – offs of Water and Power

5

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

2015 Scenario 2
By 2015 under this scenario, additional congestion is developed north of Phoenix, in Eastern Wyoming, and the corridor north of Idaho Falls extending into Montana. In this scenario, we begin to see capacity limitations transmitting power between the Pacific Northwest and Northern California.

The locations of these nuclear power generation stations are concentrated in the Western ring of California, Oregon and Washington. By 2015 under this scenario, additional congestion develops north of Phoenix, in Eastern Wyoming, and the corridor north of Idaho Falls extending into Montana. In this scenario, we begin to see capacity limitations to transmitting power between the Pacific Northwest and Northern California. These represent the major lines for exporting power out of California to the east.

Trade – offs of Water and Power

6

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

2025 Scenario 2
By 2025 within this scenario, Wyoming corridors, the Phoenix and Tucson areas , and the Four Corners generation areas have increased capacity limitations. In Eastern Idaho and the Pacific Northwest corridors continue to show additional limitations.

By 2025 within this scenario, the Wyoming corridors, the Phoenix and Tucson areas, and the Four Corners generation areas have increased capacity limitations. In Eastern Idaho and the Pacific Northwest, corridors continue to show additional limitations. Overall, the power that needs to be “wheeled” around the transmission system from the Western area into the eastern half of the WECC “loop” is greater than the capacity of the transmission system. By 2025, additional investments would be required to strengthen almost all of the power import points identified earlier.

SCENARIO OF MANDATED ALTERNATIVE GENERATION
This scenario represents the requirement that 25% of new power generation be provided alternative or renewable energy sources. Although a portion of this generation might be created through distributed sources, these distributed sources typically do not significantly impact the transmission system. Even so, significant centralized generation will still be required to fulfill the mandate. To simplify this analysis, we considered only wind-generated renewable energy. This allows existing wind farm sites in each WECC sub-region to serve as the location for expansion, given that sufficient wind resources exist to support the assumed expansion. The mapping below demonstrates the area of greatest wind-power potential, which is the assumed generating area under this scenario.

Trade – offs of Water and Power

7

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Wind Power Potential

In contrast to the nuclear generation locations, which are concentrated in the western half of the loop, the wind generation areas are concentrated in the eastern portion of the WECC grid, with only a few potential sites in southern California, and in the Pacific Northwest, extending south into northern California. Under this assumption, the table shown below summarizes top-level allocation of renewable energy production by sub-region and year.

Trade – offs of Water and Power

8

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Renewable Generation Required

The California sub-region is designated CAMX, the Arizona sub-region is designated AZPP, the Pacific Northwest sub-region is designated NWPP, and the Rocky Mountain Sub-region is designated RMPA. The results of this analysis are shown below.

Trade – offs of Water and Power

9

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

2015 Scenario 3

As shown in this case, the transmission bottlenecks are concentrated in the areas of the maximum wind fields as placement of this much generation in is a significant shift in required transmission.

As shown in this case, the transmission bottlenecks are concentrated in the same geographic areas of the maximum wind fields. This result is not surprising, since placement of this much new generation in sparsely populated areas constitutes a significant shift in required transmission patterns. It is an open question whether the required generation exceeds the total that could be feasibly delivered from these wind fields. By 2025, the transmission bottlenecks under this scenario will be concentrated in the same geographic area but the amount of transmission investment will be significantly increased. The increased demand exacerbates the under-capacity of the local transmission system.

Trade – offs of Water and Power

10

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

2025 Scenario 3

By 2025, the transmission bottlenecks will be concentrated in the same geographic area but the amount of transmission investment will be significantly increased.

SCENARIO MASSIVE EAST TO WEST TRANSMISSION
In the case of power shipments from points east of the WECC transmission grid to southern California—aimed at reducing fresh water withdrawals—the main bottlenecks include the northern plains inter-ties and the main north-south corridors of the WECC region. Under this scenario, excess wind generation from the Northern Plains, along with fossil generation, is marketed into the Southern California area, replacing fresh-water-consuming generation. The areas of the overloaded lines are shown below and the resulting case is essentially identical to the results for scenario 1, the base case. This is because the power still enters through the low-capacity import points and is distributed according to existing WECC projections.

Trade – offs of Water and Power

11

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Case of Power Import to Southern California
6.3 GW Import

DC Interties

Voltage (kV)

Area of Power Generation Decrease

Overload

BLUE-GREEN TRADESPACE
As shown in the Table below, the estimated costs of making the investments in the transmission system under the four scenarios vary between less than one billion dollars in most cases to a little less than six billion dollars in the case of upgrading the transmission system in the areas of maximum wind generation. In any of the cases, these investments are quite modest compared to the investments planned for the increased resilience and reliability of the electric grid. However, the impacts of the clash between safety and reliability and water substitutions will extend beyond the direct investment in the transmission grid. On the electricity supply side, the examined changes will affect generation and transmission costs resulting in changes in spot electricity prices that, in turn, will affect wholesale and retail electricity rates. These changes will also affect water costs in the western United States. As transmission feasibility affects the choice of generation mode it will impact fuel costs. Moving from water-intensive electricity generation will likely change the fuel mix for electricity generation.

Trade – offs of Water and Power

12

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Line and Transformer Expenditure Estimates in Millions of 2006 dollars
Year Scenario Line Cost Transformer Costs Total Costs 2015 2015 2015 2015 2025 2025 2025 2025 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 185.0 1265.6 5742.7 185.0 209.0 1982.0 5902.4 209.0 145.8 83.3 55.8 145.8 122.7 78.1 66.2 122.7 330.8 1348.9 5798.5 330.8 331.7 2060.0 5968.6 330.8

The shift towards less water-intensive electricity generation will also have environmental impacts, including impacts on water quality and air quality. To the extent that the proposed investments decrease demand for local hydroelectric power generation, they could lead possibly to positive, downstream, environmental and ecological impacts. To the extent that these changes affect the regional distribution of hydroelectric power generation, changing dam operations could have impacts on downstream water supply and quality, and could have additional impacts on downstream ecosystems as well as impacts on recreational uses of the downstream environment. As we discussed earlier, these transmission investments will degrade the inherent stability of the grid. Disturbances in one area of the grid will be much more difficult to isolate now that the inter-ties are more robust. Once the inherent passive stopgaps have been designed out of the system, there will need to be a greater emphasis on the development and deployment of “smart” grid technologies that allow system operators to use active measures to detect, mitigate, and recover from disturbances. The tradespace between blue and green solutions is sure to be played out repeatedly as the electric transmission grid evolves over the next 20 years.

Trade – offs of Water and Power

13

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

About the Symposium
Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green is presented as a public service of the Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI), 11350 Random Hills Rd., Suite 210, Fairfax, VA 22030. Web: www.riskinstitute.org. The Public Entity Risk Institute provides these materials "as is," for educational and informational purposes only, and without representation, guarantee or warranty of any kind, express or implied, including any warranty relating to the accuracy, reliability, completeness, currency or usefulness of the content of this material. Publication and distribution of this material is not an endorsement by PERI, its officers, directors or employees of any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained herein. PERI will not be liable for any claims for damages of any kind based upon errors, omissions or other inaccuracies in the information or material contained here. ***

Trade – offs of Water and Power

14

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Telework: A Win-Win Solution to Blue and Green Infrastructure Issues *
By: Chuck Wilsker and Jack Heacock

INTRODUCTION
This paper will address the roles of telework as a synergetic solution that can contribute: • environmental benefits—less pollution, saving energy, etc.; • societal benefits—work/life balance, reduced stress, etc.; • benefits for greater infrastructure resilience—better continuity of operations (in the public sector), better business continuity (in the private sector); and • an overall reduced vulnerability to both naturally occurring disasters and man-made incidents that affect large segments of the population. Perhaps a background on the evolution of modern telework systems is in order before we proceed. Although the term “telework” was coined in the 1970s, truly efficient telework—and telecommuting—started to gain a wider acceptance in the early to middle 1990s as more people had access to the Internet and more sophisticated personal computers were developed. By the late 1990s these computers became more affordable and, due to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, there was a proliferation of broadband Internet access offered by phone companies, cable companies, and many independent Internet service providers. An initial motivator on the corporate side was compliance with the Clean Air Act—fewer cars on the roads meant less pollution. The reduction in traffic congestion was seen as an added benefit. Then there was the realization by employees that they were able to have more time for themselves and their families because they no longer had to spend time sitting in their cars or on public transportation. There was a better work/life balance. And their costs relating to commuting were reduced: gas costs went down as they had to fill their tanks less frequently, parking costs were eliminated on telecommuting days, wear and tear on their vehicles was less, and even dry cleaning bills were reduced. Employers found bottom-line benefits, including: reduced real estate costs and the ability to grow the business without the need for additional office space, higher employee morale with increased retention, easier recruiting with the ability

*

©The Telework Coalition, 2008

Telework: A win-win solution

1

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

to do so from a much wider field of applicants, and reduced costs relating to absenteeism. One point to note before proceeding: The benefits that have been mentioned and those that will be discussed are cumulative. One benefit does not replace another; they all come with the implementation of a well thought-out program incorporating the necessary policies, processes and procedures. Things progressed at a steady pace in the telework space until 9/11. Then, all of a sudden, many people didn’t want to spend all of their time confined to a highrise office building; employers saw the necessity of distributing their intellectual capital and divesting their personnel vulnerabilities, and there were new thoughts concerning just what business continuity, continuity of operations, disaster avoidance, and disaster recovery meant. Prior to 9/11 these were usually thought of as what had to be done if there was a fire in the offices. Now terrorism was included in the mix. Over the following several years, additional factors added to this concern of continuity and contingency planning. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita showed a previously understated vulnerability to the affects of weather on the business community; SARS and the possibility of a worldwide avian flu pandemic present an entirely different yet even more frightening scenario. Events such as subway bombings in Europe, a transit strike in New York, a collapsed bridge between Minneapolis and St. Paul, and ever growing traffic congestion brought out even more concerns. Then there are increasing gas prices that are starting to affect the ability of many workers to drive long distances to get to work. There are a growing number of disabled workers, including troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan that need to be incorporated into the workforce. The graying of America is threatening to create a skilled labor shortage as many of our brightest and smartest workers from the baby-boom generation approach retirement. (The federal government estimates that 40% of their workforce will be eligible to retire by 2010.) All of these have a common thread: with new and ever more potent technologies, work can be brought to people instead of people having to go to their jobs. And, coming full circle, we are back to concerns for our environment including global warming, melting ice caps, and air and water pollution. For the first time in a long time, employers are looking at telework not just as something that might increase bottom-line benefits, but as a way to address these concerns as well.

ONE SOLUTION, MANY BENEFITS
Whether it’s called telework, telecommuting, virtual work, mobile work, distributed work, or ‘just work,’ the idea of people being able to work independently of

Telework: A win-win solution

2

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

location is here to stay. From a distributed workforce serving as part of a disaster avoidance program to the mobility we are now seeing as an integral part of the growing global economy, to worldwide environmental concerns, it is both the present and the future.

The Environment
It appears that a considerable share of the Earth’s environmental problems are a direct result of the increased burning of carbon fuels with byproducts of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and other volatile organic compounds. There are a couple of ways to address this problem. One is to immediately stop driving cars with internal combustion engines. This is, of course, impractical. It will be many years until there is an alternative that will be used by a majority of drivers that will make a significant difference. The other is simple, shows an excellent return on investment, and can be implemented for a majority of knowledge workers—those who spend their days working on computers, talking on the phone, etc.—in a relatively short period of time. We estimate that of the 135 million employed in the US 65% are knowledge workers and 75% of them could be potential teleworkers. We are, of course, talking about telecommuting—using our existing technologies to eliminate a physical drive to one’s primary place of employment and, instead, working from home—or, in some cases, a satellite office or telework center close to home. This can be done from one day a week to full time. Nothing will save gas and reduce pollution from vehicular emissions more than leaving the car parked.

Infrastructure Resilience
Whatever you call it, it’s needed if you want to have a comprehensive Continuity of Operations (COOP) or Business Continuity Plan (BCP). Dealing with the inability of personnel to access the workplace is an often neglected part of these programs. Our informal surveys have found that less that half of the organizations with whom we spoke had incorporated telework into their plans. Employers go to great lengths to back up their data and infrastructure, but the inability of workers to get to either their offices or other assigned, alternate work locations—whether the offices are destroyed or rendered unusable, or the staff itself might be quarantined—will have a devastating impact on an organization’s ability to survive. For example, a transit workers’ strike in New York City on December 20, 2005, shut down service on all of the city’s subways and buses. Though the strike lasted only two days, the local economy lost an estimated $400 million a day, in

Telework: A win-win solution

3

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

addition to the cost to the city government of $22 million in lost tax revenue and overtime pay for police. Investment Technology Group, Inc., a specialized brokerage and technology firm headquartered in the city was able to endure the strike at little cost by relying on its established telework infrastructure. ITG employees who were unable to get to the office simply logged into the firm’s virtual private network (VPN) and, using the tools and data accessible through the VPN portal, continued to conduct business as usual. Similarly, on June 30, 2006, a severe storm sent a wall of water up to four feet high streaming down Constitution Avenue in Washington, DC, ultimately filling the sub-basement and basement of the Internal Revenue Service’s headquarters’ building with up to 24 feet of water. Although many computers and files were destroyed, along with other office furnishings and equipment, the IRS’s constellation of remote data servers was unaffected. Activating its Enterprise Remote Access Project VPN, along with its business resumption plan, the IRS maximized reliance on telework and telecommuting to allow its staff to continue performing its duties during the nearly six months that its headquarters was closed for repairs. Attitudes towards telework need to change from regarding it as a “take it or leave it,” flex-work type of employee benefit to, instead, embracing it as a survival tool. Telework must no longer be used for employees and activities that have satisfied a lengthy laundry list of criteria, but it must be assumed that all employees and activities can be teleworked unless convincing reasons are provided as to why not. In other words, turn present, commonly followed practice on its head. We need to follow the lead of employers who have established a policy that requires personnel from every department to regularly work from an alternate location, whether from home, a supplier’s office, a library, or a telework center as practice in case some event makes their traditional offices unusable or inaccessible. While telework is only a part of a COOP or BCP, it is invaluable on an ongoing basis and has a positive affect on an organization’s bottom line. A telework program usually pays for itself in reduced real estate needs, increased employee productivity, improved employee retention, reduced absenteeism, and the opportunity to recruit from a larger talent pool. In 2004 at AT&T, for example, almost one third (30%) of all their management employees worked full-time outside of the traditional office. The company realized an estimated $180 million in bottom line benefits. And those benefits clearly were “green” as well as “blue.” Just in the Atlanta metropolitan area alone, AT&T estimated that telework reduced driving by half a million miles over a 10-year period, saving some 500,000 gallons of fuel and 4,700 tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

Telework: A win-win solution

4

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Infrastructure Resilience: Suggested Guidelines
Buy-in from senior management is critical. They should take the lead by appointing a working group to plan the telework program and put it into action, develop policies, processes, and procedures for implementation, monitor and evaluate progress, and assess the need for refinements that will make the strategy more effective. Representatives from HR, IT, the Business Continuity team, legal, real estate, senior management, and the employees themselves should be included. The working group will then: • Appoint a telework program manager. • Screen potential teleworkers for their ‘Attributes of Telework Success.’ • Put together a written contract outlining the responsibilities of both the organization and the employees. • Establish a training program to help managers understand how to manage a remote workforce, i.e. manage to objectives and by metrics—what is actually being accomplished—not by how much time is spent in the office. • Determine what, if any, equipment will be provided by the organization and what, if any recurring expenses will be covered by the employer or the employee such as broadband Internet access, a second phone line for business calls, ergonomic furniture, lighting etc. • Establish security levels that must be maintained such as virus protection, firewalls, data backup, lockable file drawers, etc. • With IT taking the lead, evaluate remote access systems and/or software. Make sure you have capacity and/or licenses to accommodate all of the users that might need to have simultaneous access to your network. • Determine how voice communications will be handled. Calls to your office may need to be rerouted in the event of a total system outage. • Review other collaboration technologies such as web based file access, spreadsheet and word document sharing, and web-based video conferencing. • Establish protocols on when and how to advise employees not to come to the office and what alternative measures to take. • Establish contact directories and systems, between colleagues and with family members to ensure on-going communication between them, wherever they are. • Establish practice and simulation programs for both managers and employees, and then practice, simulate, practice, simulate and practice again. • Provide and continually reinforce a home office health and safety checklist. Issues to address should include proper seating, lighting, electrical capacities, smoke detectors, etc. Include FEMA’s survival kit guidelines that include supplies of water, canned and dried foods. • Establish goals and objectives for both the program and its participants.

Telework: A win-win solution

5

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Maintain an internal communications plan so that all participants remain engaged, informed, and enthusiastic.

With the flu season here, the capability to telework can eliminate another cause of disruption within an organization—the rapid spread of infection throughout the workforce. There is a term called ‘presenteeism.’ It is, in a sense, the opposite of absenteeism, where an employee does not come to work when ill. With presenteeism, an employee with an ailment such as the flu goes to the office and spreads his or her infection among coworkers. Such employees should be counseled to take advantage of the telework option and remain home. And, let them know that they will not be charged sick leave when working from home in this situation. We cannot emphasize enough the need to practice. This is a key factor to having a successful telework program available when needed. There is no better way to do this than to have a program in place and use it regularly. Use it when a family member is ill and needs care or a trip to the doctor, or you feel under the weather, work from home instead of taking the whole day off. When a service call is scheduled at home, do the same.

Summing Up
The Telework Coalition’s top 10 reasons for adoption of this alternative work style: 1. Reduce carbon footprints and greenhouse gas emissions. 2. Significantly reduce dependence on foreign energy, especially petroleum products. 3. Decrease the impact of terrorist and natural ‘high-profile’ incidents and/or events. 4. Emphasize the use of technology and promote innovation in the workplace. 5. Minimize threats to and reliance upon expensive transportation infrastructures. 6. Ease traffic congestion and improve highway safety (reduced fatalities and injuries). 7. Improve recruiting and retention of skilled labor. 8. Enhance productivity and creativity. 9. Provide a means to enhance rural economic development. 10. Provide hope and economic opportunity for service-disabled veterans, others with disabilities, both domestically and globally, and for older workers who desire to remain in or reenter the workforce. Remember, as stated earlier, all of these are cumulative. An organization that adopts a plan for telework, whatever the initial reason, will realize many benefits,

Telework: A win-win solution

6

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

as have those TelCoa has recognized with its ‘Telework Hall of Fame Awards’: http://www.telcoa.org/id223.htm . If you have ever wondered what a state, commonwealth, or province can do to encourage telework, consider ‘Leadership by Example’—the reason why TelCoa recognized Governor Tim Kaine of the Commonwealth of Virginia for his bold initiative to have 20% of his state’s employee’s teleworking by 2010!

Governor Tim Kaine Commonwealth of Virginia

Mr. Chuck Wilsker President & CEO, TelCoa

About the authors
Chuck Wilsker is the President and CEO of the Telework Coalition (TelCoa), www.TelCoa.org, a not for profit association headquartered in Washington, DC. TelCoa works to support and enable the advancement of Virtual, Mobile, and Distributed Work through Research, Education, Technology, and Legislation. Chuck’s interests include both promoting the benefits of Telework as a means of providing employment opportunities for older, rural, and disabled workers, including service disabled veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, and its use as a critical part of disaster avoidance, business continuity, and Continuity of Operations programs. Promoting the bottom line business benefits of Telework is also a primary initiative. He is a member of the Internet Society, the Association of Contingency Planners, and the National Council on Readiness and Preparedness. He was on the Transportation and Environment Committee of the Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade where he

Telework: A win-win solution

7

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium chaired the Telework Task Force, was the Executive Director of ITAC, the International Telework Association & Council, and is a member and Past President of MATAC, the Mid Atlantic Telecommuting Advisory Council. Chuck is on the committee that developed and promoted the Washington Area Conference on Telework, sat on both the Metropolitan Washington, DC and National Telecommuting and Air Quality Act (TAQA) Steering Committees of the e-Commute program run by the EPA and DOT and was its Lead Consultant in the DC region. He is also a Project Team member of a group funded by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health that has developed a program of Health, Safety, and Ergonomic training for Teleworkers. Chuck has addressed diverse groups ranging from the National Institute of Science and Technology and the Council of Scientific Society Presidents to the Association of Contingency Planners and the Peace Corps. He has been the featured guest on many radio interview shows, appeared on NBC Channel 4 in Washington, DC, was on Fox News' Fox Magazine, ABC’s World News Tonight, and NBC’s Nightly News. He has written many articles on Teleworking, and is often quoted in both local and National press, including the Washington Post, USAToday, the Wall Street Journal, Financial Week, Money Magazine, Kiplinger’s Personal Finance, Federal Computer Week, GovExec.com, Government Computer News, NetworkWorld magazine, and ABCNews.com. Recently, Chuck was invited to participate in a program that is an initiative of the United Nations to help promote “Accessible and Assistive Information and Communications Technologies for Persons with Disabilities”. Jack Heacock is Senior Vice President of the Telework Coalition (www.telcoa.org) a Washington, D.C. based non-profit organization ‘Supporting and Enabling Virtual, Mobile, and Distributed Work through Research, Education, Technology, and Legislation’ He is recognized as ‘the premiere expert on home agents for contact centers’ (Call Center Management Review’s 2006 Telework Report) and has received Call Center Magazine’s ‘Pioneer Award’, Jack was interviewed in the November 2007 issue of HR Executive Magazine. He has advised Fortune 500 companies in the creation and scaling of their distributed work programs, served as a call center general manager and a nationwide customer service improvement program director, and served two terms as the President of the Board of Directors of the International Telework Association & Council. Jack is a combat decorated and disabled former U.S. Army Signal Corps officer.

About the Symposium
Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green is presented as a public service of the Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI), 11350 Random Hills Rd., Suite 210, Fairfax, VA 22030. Web: www.riskinstitute.org. The Public Entity Risk Institute provides these materials "as is," for educational and informational purposes only, and without representation, guarantee or warranty of any kind, express or implied, including any warranty relating to the accuracy, reliability, completeness, currency or usefulness of the content of this

Telework: A win-win solution

8

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

material. Publication and distribution of this material is not an endorsement by PERI, its officers, directors or employees of any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained herein. PERI will not be liable for any claims for damages of any kind based upon errors, omissions or other inaccuracies in the information or material contained here. ***

Telework: A win-win solution

9

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Making Rational Choices in Irrational Times: Are Security and Sustainability Mutually Exclusive?
By: Richard G. Little, AICP

Introduction
Following the attacks on New York City and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, the civilian and military branches of the federal government accelerated on-going but fragmented efforts to thwart future acts of terrorism in the United States. Among other actions, this resulted in the formation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the largest consolidation of federal agencies since the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947. The mission of the DHS is to lead the unified national effort to secure America by preventing and deterring terrorist attacks and protecting against and responding to threats and hazards to the nation. 1 As a result of that mission, the way Americans live, work, and travel has been changed, possibly forever. The form and function of our cities and public spaces has been altered as well. This paper will briefly explore how the concept of “homeland security” has evolved since 2001 and how the policies developed and actions taken since that time have impacted the broader objectives of a sustainable and civil society.

Is It All About Risk?
The terrorist attacks of September 11th made us acutely aware that in addition to natural hazards such as earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, and wildfires, a threat also existed from intelligent beings whose goal was to destroy and kill to further a cause in which they believed. This was not new information. Terrorism had visited the United States as recently as 1995 in Oklahoma City and 1993 during an earlier attack on the World Trade Center in New York. Other parts of the world had long and bloody experience with acts of political, social, or religious violence. However, September 11th confirmed the reality that not even wide oceans, great wealth, and a powerful military could forestall direct attacks on the United States by those not concerned with their own safety and survival. The response was immediate. Armed guards and concrete barriers appeared almost overnight. Blast-resistant construction features, once the province of military installations and critical government facilities, were increasingly applied in commercial buildings, and changes to building codes to address terrorist threats were discussed and implemented. Development of systems to detect and interdict chemical and biological agents was also begun to protect cities and their occupants from the threat of an attack utilizing these weapons. Although the immediacy of the response to such frightening and unfamiliar events is certainly understandable, it appears reasonable to reassess these actions in the context

1

Securing Our Homeland, U. S. Department of Homeland Security Strategic Plan. p.4. 2004

Making Rational Choices in Irrational Times

1

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

of other hazards and policy issues that compete both for the public’s attention and its tax dollars. Risk management provides a useful basis for beginning this exercise. Risk is a concept that gives meaning to those uncertainties of life that pose a danger to people or what we value. 2 Risk is often expressed as a combination of the likelihood of an adverse event, the vulnerability of people, places, and things to that event, and the consequences should that event occur, i.e., the probability of an adverse event (threat and vulnerability) multiplied by the consequences of that event, or R = T x V x C. For example, if we consider the case of rising sea level, the risk is greater to people living in coastal areas than to those at higher elevations because of their increased vulnerability to lowland flooding and the greater consequences (to them) if flooding occurs. One of the inherent shortcomings of this simplified approach to risk is that the laws of multiplication can produce a similar value for risk for vastly different classes of events. For example, from a mathematical standpoint, a catastrophic event with extremely low probability can appear to carry the same “risk” as a relatively frequent event with far lower consequences. Although it is compelling to plan for some “maximum probable event” and believe that the issue has been addressed, the cost of doing this may be prohibitive. In addition, addressing just the worst that could happen may actually increase the vulnerability (and hence the risk) of more frequent but less damaging events. For this reason, a more formalized process of risk assessment has been developed. Risk assessment has classically been defined by three questions: 3 1. What can go wrong? 2. What is the likelihood that it could go wrong? 3. What are the consequences of failure? Closely related to risk assessment is risk management, the process by which the results of risk assessment are integrated with other information—such as political, social, economic, and engineering considerations—to arrive at decisions about the need and methods for risk reduction. Risk management seeks answers to a second set of questions: 4 4. What can be done and what options are available? 5. What are the associated trade-offs in terms of all costs, benefits, and risks? 6. What are the impacts of current management decisions on future options?

Limitations on Risk Assessment
The previous discussion tacitly assumes that the probabilities and consequences of adverse events are produced by physical and natural processes that can be objectively quantified by risk assessment. Slovic points out that much social science analysis rejects this notion, arguing instead that human beings have invented the concept of risk to help them understand and cope with the dangers and uncertainties of life. Although
National Research Council, 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 3 Kaplan, S., and Garrick, B. J., 1981. "On the Quantitative Assessment of Risk," Risk Analysis, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 11–27. 4 Haimes, Y. Y., 1991. "Total Risk Management," Risk Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 169–171.
2

Making Rational Choices in Irrational Times

2

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

these dangers are real, there is no such thing as “real risk” or “objective risk.” From his perspective, the theoretical models used by risk analysts to quantify risk are just as subjective and assumption-laden, and dependent on individual judgment, as the implicit value judgments reached by lay persons. Defining risk has been described as an exercise in power wherein whoever controls the definition of risk controls the risk management solution. 5 Thus, if the “risk” is defined as vehicle bomb attacks against buildings or as satchel charges on subways, the solutions will focus on the means to thwart that mode of attack. Other hazards, not to mention other objectives will likely fall to the wayside. In any event, there can be little question that current concerns about terrorism and the risk it poses to individuals or society are shaped as much by perception as by objective risk assessments.

Contemporary Urban Security
Current approaches to urban security as directed by U.S. government policy documents (and increasingly specified by commercial building owners) place a great deal of emphasis on reducing the risk of vehicle bomb attack by: • • maintaining safe separation of attackers and targets through vehicle control and perimeter security; providing strong, resilient construction to protect people and key building assets.

Because of the basic physics of an explosion, standoff distance 6 is extremely important. Despite the great strides that have been made in developing new materials and innovative strengthening techniques that will reduce building damage and occupant injury in the event of a bombing attack, the enormous amount of energy generated by even modest amounts of high explosives will still cause extensive building damage and personal injury if detonated at close range. As a result, armed security personnel involved in active perimeter control, together with landscaping, earthworks, and appropriately designed street furniture, planter boxes, bollards, and plinths to control vehicular access, have become common urban features, particularly in cities such as New York and Washington, DC. Blast-resistant features such as additional structural reinforcing details, composite fiber wraps to strengthen columns and slabs, and highperformance glazing materials which do not produce lethal shards have also become more common. These risk-reduction measures reduce vulnerability to bombing attacks by addressing the basic physics of an explosion. They attempt to protect people and building assets by keeping an attacker at bay through perimeter security and, if that fails, building features that resist the energy released in an explosion. In essence, they are the manifestation on the ground of the solution to a blast physics problem. Although these measures are vitally important in reducing casualties and damage in the event of an attack, their primary raison d’être is the threat of terrorism―they actually provide only
Slovic, P. 2003. Going Beyond the Red Book: The Sociopolitics of Risk. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 9: 1–10, 2003; Slovic, P and E. U. Weber. 2002. “Perception of Risk Posed by Extreme Events” presented at Risk Management Strategies in an Uncertain World, Palisades, New York, April 12-13, 2002. 6 Standoff is the distance between a potential target and the closest point of approach of a potential attacker.
5

Making Rational Choices in Irrational Times

3

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

marginal, ancillary benefit to guard against other hazards such as earthquakes or extreme winds. In fact, security features that limit access can delay emergency response and egress to non-terrorist events. If federal building location standards are rigidly enforced, the result could force the exodus of federal workers and offices, as well as the contractors who support them, from urban cores to suburban sites. This is the actual situation emerging in Northern Virginia, where the federal commission on Base Realignment and Closing recommended relocating some 20,000 defense-related jobs from urban office buildings near Washington, DC, to Fort Belvoir in suburban Fairfax County. When questioned about this, a member of the government panel that developed the facility guidelines for the Department of Defense admitted that they were based solely on blast effects and that the panel was unaware of the consequences for urban land use that the guidelines would have. Sucking life from urban downtowns and generating additional air pollution and congestion in an effort to protect potential targets from an undefined threat of terrorist attack is the kind of drastic action that demands public discussion of the economic, social, and environmental costs of reducing the risk to an acceptable level. There are many other examples of these blue-green conflicts that come to mind. The trend towards “green buildings” is bringing large, operable windows for day-lighting and natural ventilation back into vogue. Unfortunately, this runs counter to security requirements for small, sealed windows that resist blast energy and limit access by intruders. Site vegetation can provide natural shade and cooling but is often cut back or removed to improve sightlines for security cameras. A more serious example is the environmental devastation that resulted from the illicit dumping of toxic and radioactive waste from nuclear weapons production during the cold war. This egregious pollution went unreported for decades because of “national security” concerns. From a policy standpoint, such decisions must determine whether the total costs (and not just the monetary outlays) to reduce the risk of a particular hazard are justified. In addition to the overall effectiveness of physical protection measures as a risk reduction option, their impact on other goals for the urban environment (e.g., urban design, sustainability) must be carefully considered and evaluated.

Multi-Objective Decision Making
The risk management strategy described above is essentially an exercise in multiobjective decision making. This field has been well explored from both a theoretical and empirical standpoint, and many excellent references are available that venture far beyond the basic concepts presented in this paper. 7 However, this work all supports a general algorithm for decision making that incorporates the following five elements: 1. Define the problem. 2. Set objectives. 3. Develop a range of alternatives that meet the objectives.
7 Keeney, R., 1992. Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision Making, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.; Keeney, R., and H. Raiffa, 1993. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-offs, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.; Hammond, K. R., 1996. Human Judgment and Social Policy: Irreducible Uncertainty, Inevitable Error, Unavoidable Injustice, Oxford University Press, New York.

Making Rational Choices in Irrational Times

4

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

4. Identify and understand the consequences of the competing alternatives. 5. Evaluate the alternatives giving consideration to the necessary trade-offs. Although this algorithm appears to be relatively straightforward, in practice each step must be undertaken thoughtfully, with extra care taken to include the input and values of all stakeholders. The importance of meaningful stakeholder involvement cannot be overemphasized. If security is in fundamental conflict with sustainability or aesthetics it is most likely because this issue has been cast as a binary problem―some believe that security must be maximized regardless of the consequences for design, cost, or accessibility, whereas others demand attractive, accessible, and “sustainable” architecture while paying scant attention to real security issues. This debate fails to recognize the distinct differences between the technical elements of protecting buildings from hazards, (e.g., terrorist threat levels, tactics, bomb sizes and delivery methods, building construction) and the community value judgments (e.g., architectural aesthetics, sustainable design features, freedom of movement) that must be incorporated. A balance between technical elements and community values must be achieved if workable strategies are to be developed and implemented. Performance-based design may provide a framework for identifying and assessing the trade-offs inherent in this complex and often emotionally charged issue. At the least, it broadens the discussion to multiple stakeholders because questions of this import are not for engineers to answer alone. 8

Performance-Based Design as an Integrating Approach
The building regulatory process offers a means of addressing competing objectives. Building codes are increasingly moving toward a performance-based process that states what is desired from a building rather than prescribing what is to be constructed and how it is to be done. Performance-based design relates high-level societal goals to specific design solutions and allows the unique circumstances of each building to shape its design requirements—the multi-objective decision-making approach just described. Figure 1 is a model of a pyramidal performance-based building code process. 9

8 National Institute of Standards and Technology, 1994. 1994 Northridge Earthquake: Performance of Structures, Lifelines, and Fire Protection Systems, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. 9

Meacham, B.J., R. Bower, J. Traw, and A. Moore, 2005. “Performance-based building regulation: Current situation and future needs,” Building Research and Information, 33(2):91-106.

Making Rational Choices in Irrational Times

5

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

L ev e l I : G o al

L e v el II : F u n c ti o n al S t a te m e n t

L ev el II I: O p er a ti ve R eq u i re m e n t

L e ve l IV : P e r fo r m a n c e o r R is k G ro u p

L e ve l V : P e r fo r m a n ce o r R is k L ev el

L ev e l V I: P e rf o r m a nc e o r R is k C r it er i a ( M e as u r es )

L ev el V I Ia : D e em e d t o S a ti sf y S o l u ti on s

L ev el V I Ib : P e rf o r m a n ce -B as e d S o lu ti o n s

L ev e l V III : V er if ic a ti on M et h o d s

Figure 1: Elements of a performance-based building code process. Performance goals for buildings are society’s value statements regarding acceptable performance in terms of safety, security, sustainability, cost, and other factors. In the case of buildings subject to various exogenous risks, goals may also include mitigating the effects of the hazard while still providing desired performance in other categories. Once goals that address multiple performance objectives have been established, and related functional and operative requirements developed, they can be translated into design criteria. It is during this process that trade-offs between competing objectives can be identified and appropriate solutions developed. Success in this process depends on understanding the relationships between the various objectives and how design solutions can best implement them.

Learning from Failure
The design and performance of structures and other engineering works have improved continuously from the observation of past failures, assessment of their causes, and improvements in techniques and materials. 10 However, despite the value of this forensic approach to the advancement of engineering practice, it has very real limits. This is partially due to the emphasis on identifying causes and determining who was at fault rather than on preventing future failures.

Petroski, H., 1992. To engineer is human: The role of failure in successful design, Vintage, New York; Petroski, H., 1994. Design paradigms: Case histories of error and judgment in engineering, Cambridge University, Cambridge, U.K.
10

Making Rational Choices in Irrational Times

6

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

In a study of errors in the healthcare industry, the Institute of Medicine 11 noted that there are major conceptual concerns with commonly used forensic techniques in medicine: The people involved could rarely have foreseen the complex coincidences that cause systems to fail. As a result, they are reviewed only in hindsight; however, knowing the outcome of an event influences how we assess past events. Hindsight bias means that things that were not seen or understood at the time of the accident seem obvious in retrospect. Hindsight bias also misleads a reviewer into simplifying the causes of an accident, highlighting a single element as the cause and overlooking its multiple contributing factors. Given that the information about an accident is spread over many participants, none of whom may have complete information, hindsight bias makes it easy to arrive at a simple solution or to blame an individual, but difficult to determine what really went wrong. Kletz, 12 in a study of industrial accidents, also cautions about too much emphasis on causes: If we talk about causes we may be tempted to list those we can do nothing about. For example, a source of ignition is often said to be the cause of a fire. But when flammable vapour and air are mixed in the flammable range, experience shows that a source of ignition is liable to turn up, even though we have done everything possible to remove known sources of ignition. The only really effective way of preventing an ignition is to prevent leaks of flammable vapour. Instead of asking, ‘What is the cause of this fire?’ we should ask ‘What is the most effective way of preventing another similar fire?’ We may then think of ways of preventing leaks. This suggests that care needs to be taken in analyzing past failures so that proposed solutions address the real issues, not merely the obvious ones.

Achieving Meaningful Risk Reduction
Reducing risk to acceptable levels can be accomplished through a four-step process: 1. Prevention/Interdiction (Can the event be avoided?) 2. Advance Warning (Can the event be predicted and a warning raised?) 3. Hazard-resistant Construction (Can fixed and immobile structures or systems be designed with sufficient robustness to resist abnormal loadings? Conversely, the risk might be avoided by locating
11 12

Institute of Medicine, 2000. To err is human: Building a safer health system, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Kletz, T., 2001. Learning from accidents, Gulf Professional, Oxford, U.K.

Making Rational Choices in Irrational Times

7

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

somewhere else but this is not always an option for many place-based industries, iconic structures, or infrastructure networks. A more resilient approach might be to spread the risk by choosing multiple redundant locations for certain activities as the New York Stock Exchange and many businesses in New York and elsewhere did following the 9/11 attacks.) 4. Rapid Response and Recovery (Does the system possess sufficient resilience to recover quickly?) Steps 1-3 all address pre-event mitigation activities. Systems are designed and put in place on the best assumptions regarding what is likely to happen. However, history is littered with accounts of allegedly foolproof or failsafe protective technologies that failed spectacularly when tested. The ‘‘impregnable’’ Maginot Line is a good case in point. Designed after World War I to counter another German invasion of France, it failed utterly in practice. Although its designers assumed what was believed to be a rational threat scenario, then planned and designed for it, in World War II, the Germans simply chose not to confront these extremely formidable defenses on the French border and attacked through lightly defended Belgium instead. Similarly, physical security, although a key component of a risk reduction strategy, is only part of the solution. Improving the resilience of communities and systems may provide the basis of a more holistic approach.

Institutional and Systems Resilience
The recent events in New Orleans, both prior to the arrival of Hurricane Katrina and following the breach of the levees, underscored serious deficiencies in our ability to address the impacts of extreme natural events on developed urban areas. From planning and preparedness through response and recovery, the process has proved to be seriously flawed. It has been a basic tenet of our national preparedness that the principles underlying emergency management for all types of hazards are similar and that the response would be the same regardless of cause. However, the facts on the ground in New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast suggest that this is not the case. A fundamental question that needs to be answered is whether the ability of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to respond to natural hazards has been compromised by its incorporation into the Department of Homeland Security and the resultant intense focus on response to acts of terrorism. The many difficulties experienced in delivering humanitarian services following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 also demonstrates that the resilience of institutions and systems have a critical role in emergency response. Much of the breakdown in aid delivery was attributed to failures in the physical systems that disrupted power, water supply, communications, and mobility. However, the problem is not just one of technology. Although more robust and resilient systems are certainly necessary to withstand the forces of extreme events, I

Making Rational Choices in Irrational Times

8

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

have shown 13 that organizations and their internal cultures play a key role in the reliability of civil infrastructure systems and the delivery of services dependent upon them. Building on the losses of the Challenger and Columbia space shuttles, the August 2003 Northeast electrical blackout, and other less catastrophic and less known failures, a strong case can be made that organizations respond to cultural cues provided by upper management and peer groups. Even though public pronouncements and official documents may suggest that certain behaviors are desired, unless such public statements are nurtured and rewarded in practice, they are ultimately abandoned as operational guidance in day-to-day workflow. For example, despite ample experience with many previous hurricanes and tropical storms, and many days advance warning of the path and size of Hurricane Katrina, critical communication and coordination links failed when needed most. Whether these failures were rooted in technology or organizational culture is a critical question that must be answered if progress is to be made in dealing with future events. Replacing communications equipment so that everyone can talk on a common frequency will have little value if there are institutional obstacles to coordination that remain unaddressed. Human capital and institutional culture can play a critical role in the delivery of humanitarian aid in the hours and days immediately following an extreme event. Isolating the causes of failure will help to design more robust and resilient institutional arrangements that survive and function even if traditional physical systems become unavailable. O’Rourke, et. al. 14 found that New York City was able to recover relatively quickly following the September 11th attacks not only because of the inherent redundancy of its physical infrastructures (which is considerable) but because of its institutional resilience as well. Many of the service providers involved in New York’s recovery possessed considerable capacities in people who are considered international experts in their fields; in state-of-the-art equipment and configuration management; as well as in other physical and institutional resources necessary to assist in the recovery. Although the event itself had not been anticipated and many physical systems were out of service, strong cultural bonds and organizational ethos were able to offset the physical failures. Improvements to the public health infrastructure since September 11th also play a role in balanced mitigation and emergency response strategies. Although our public health system had suffered from years of neglect and crisis, 15 recent efforts to combat bioterrorism and the well coordinated response to the SARS epidemic suggest that the global public health networks are again becoming functional and effective. 16

Little, R., 2004. “The Role of Organizational Culture and Values in the Performance of Critical Infrastructure Systems.” Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. October 10-13, 2004, The Hague, The Netherlands. 14 O’Rourke, T.D., A.J. Lembo, and L.K. Nozick. 2003. “Lessons Learned from the World Trade Center Disaster About Critical Utility Systems,” in Beyond September 11th: An Account of Post-Disaster Research, M. F. Myers, Ed. Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO., pp. 269-290. 15 Garrett, L., 2000. Betrayal of trust: The collapse of global public health, Hyperion, New York. 16 Drazen, J. M.,2003. ‘‘SARS—Looking back over the first 100 days.’’ N.Eng.J.Med. 349(4), 319–320.
13

Making Rational Choices in Irrational Times

9

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Are Security and Sustainability Mutually Exclusive?
Unfortunately, we find ourselves in a time where former contexts of threat, vulnerability, and targets have all changed and continue to do so. Threats are unpredictable and the full range of threats probably unknowable. We will never be able to anticipate all possible threats and even if we could, there is not enough money to deploy technologies to address them. Security in this situation needs to be flexible and agile and capable of addressing new threats as they emerge. At the same time, it cannot be allowed to trump other worthwhile societal objectives. Protective technologies have a key role to play in making our cities safer, but only if supported by the organizations and people who can develop holistic and sustainable approaches to security, can provide the resilience to enable response to an attack, and can hasten recovery from it. Investments in emergency response technologies, strategies, and organizations have the potential to be particularly cost-effective because they are not tied to a place or event. The ancillary benefits from investments in this type of holistic approach are that these organizations and people will also be available to deal with natural disasters or other, yet unanticipated, crises should they occur. Single-purpose protective technologies will only be effective if the threat and design intersect. Otherwise they will constitute a formidable but ineffective defense—a sort of modern-day Maginot Line. On the other hand, well-designed and maintained infrastructure systems are likely to recover as quickly following an earthquake, landslide, or flood as a terrorist attack, as well as providing better, and more sustainable service over their lifetimes. In summary, security and sustainability need not be mutually exclusive. We possess the knowledge and capability to do both, and to do them well. However, this will not occur without a conscious and persistent effort to identify and achieve multiple objectives. The parts are all there, we just need the will to make them work.

About the author
Richard G. Little is Director of the Keston Institute for Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy at the University of Southern California where he teaches, conducts research, and develops policy studies aimed at informing the discussion of infrastructure issues critical to California and the nation. In this role he interacts extensively with California’s political, financial, and business leaders. Prior to joining USC he was Director of the Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment of the National Research Council (NRC). He has conducted numerous studies dealing with life-cycle management and financing of infrastructure, project management, and hazard preparedness and mitigation and has published extensively on risk management and decision-making for critical infrastructure. Mr. Little has over thirty-five years experience in planning, management, and policy development relating to infrastructure and public facilities, including fifteen years with local government. He has been certified

Making Rational Choices in Irrational Times

10

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

by examination by the American Institute of Certified Planners and is a member of the American Planning Association and the Society for Risk Analysis. He holds a B.S. in Geology and an M.S. in Urban-Environmental Studies, both from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

About the Symposium
Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green is presented as a public service of the Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI), 11350 Random Hills Rd., Suite 210, Fairfax, VA 22030. Web: www.riskinstitute.org. The Public Entity Risk Institute provides these materials "as is," for educational and informational purposes only, and without representation, guarantee or warranty of any kind, express or implied, including any warranty relating to the accuracy, reliability, completeness, currency or usefulness of the content of this material. Publication and distribution of this material is not an endorsement by PERI, its officers, directors or employees of any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained herein. PERI will not be liable for any claims for damages of any kind based upon errors, omissions or other inaccuracies in the information or material contained here. ***

Making Rational Choices in Irrational Times

11

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Sustainability and Safety of Long-Term Care Facilities
Possibilities, Risks, and Limits to Implementation
By: John A. Berenyi

Healthcare facilities can benefit from improving the efficiency with which they use energy, water, and other resources, as well as from improving their impact on environmental quality. At the same time, the safety and security of these facilities—in terms of risks that are posed both internally and to their surrounding communities—are of paramount importance to their mission. This is particularly true for long-term care facilities, whose residents are generally more vulnerable than the general population. Most long-term care facilities in the United States are regulated by state and local health departments, fire marshals, and by a variety of federal agencies. For example, facilities whose residents are military veterans are also regulated by the United States Department of Veteran Affairs. One of the primary objectives of the regulatory oversight imposed upon long-term care facilities by governmental agencies is to establish the safety and security required for frail, elderly persons who reside in private, non-profit, or publicly owned entities. The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations also demands that long-term care facilities, to obtain and maintain accreditation, must have an emergency management program to assure that patient care is sustained in the event of disaster. Safety has many components: They range from the temperature of the water for washing and bathing to alarm system reliability to emergency control systems operating at all times in the event of fire or smoke emergency. With the emphasis on safety and security as primary objectives in guarding the well-being of elderly residents, innovative “sustainability” technology and systems must be examined in light of these criteria. While it is possible to improve the energy efficiency and environmental efficacy of health-care facilities, a unique set of criteria must be developed which reflect the operational issues connected with these types of organizations.

Safety Systems
The following list represents some of the critically important criteria embedded in the operational management of long-term care facilities. In each area below, I note both (a) the current system that is used, and (b) alternative possible systems. 1) Alarms and Emergency Call Systems These systems must work all times. Reliability and continuity are of critical
Sustainability and Safety of Long-Term Care Facilities 1

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

importance. Alternative energy sources with questionable reliability will not be accepted by the regulators. 2) Emergency Lighting and Signals Exit lights and emergency evacuation signals must work at all times. The criteria for this are similar to alarm systems. 3) Telephone Hard-wire systems are preferred for reliability. Telephone systems using cable or cell systems may be acceptable as long as the emergency alarm signal travels through a highly reliable network. 4) Hot Water Provisions Primary heating source is generally used for this service. Alternative energy systems such as solar can be used to provide hot water at a facility in the event the primary installation does not provide adequate supply of hot water. The primary back-up system must work efficiently. 5) Heating Primary heating source is generally utilized. Alternative systems can be installed with a redundant back-up system. 6) Lighting for General Purposes Primary electric source is used but alternative energy resources can be implemented at the facility. 7) Transportation Services Standard fuel services must be utilized since transportation is used to transport residents to hospitals and doctors’ offices. Ethanol, diesel, and electric vehicles with questionable reliability as to the source of the fuel limits the value of alternative energy sources here. 8) Biohazard control and disposal systems State health departments regulate and inspect the use of needles, narcotics and other similar waste products used in healthcare facilities. In New York State for example, facilities must obtain a special license to store and dispense narcotics. Proper containers and "red bags" have to be used for the disposal of these items. The garbage haulers that ordinarily serve most communities are not permitted to take away these special waste items unless specifically authorized by responsible governmental agencies. Issues of recycling, eco-friendly garbage and resource-recovery systems have very limited applicability to these operational requirements of healthcare facilities.
Sustainability and Safety of Long-Term Care Facilities 2

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Risk assessment and the limits of incorporating sustainability programs within health facilities
In attempting to incorporate energy efficient and “green” designs, organizations must understand the limits associated with some of the advanced systems available in the marketplace. In the topology of safety and security systems inherent in long-term care facilities, there are several possible strategic options to consider. 1) Safety and security systems under the present conditions do not offer opportunities for an advanced sustainability program. In this area of operations, reliability is the most important criterion. Regardless of potential savings, an energy-efficient module or control system whose reliability is questionable simply will not be acceptable. 2) In taking risks with new systems, it may be possible to incorporate solar and similar heating systems which could provide domestic hot water for a facility. Even in this area, a fully operational back-up system must be in place for it to be accepted by state and local government regulators. 3) In the field of transportation, there are some unique opportunities to use ethanol-powered cars or bio diesel fuels for energy. Although these sources of energy may contribute to the reduction of global warming, be eco-friendly, or otherwise limit pollution, the ready availability of these fuel services is still a problem in most jurisdictions. Hence, ambulances and other transportation vehicles need to consider very carefully switching from a gasoline powered engine to other systems described here.

Opportunities with new facilities in incorporating sustainability programs
The previous discussion dealt for the most part with the modification and improvement of existing facilities using new eco-friendly energy technologies. Limitations imposed by governmental authorities to protect the safety and health of residents have only permitted marginal change possibilities. In designing new facilities, there are many alternative solutions which may be incorporated using commercially available energy technologies. These include but are not limited to: a) Location of facility. Site selection of a facility could have a great deal of impact on the feasibility of alternate energy sources. For example, geothermal energy as a heating source may be available in one location and not another; solar energy may be possible as an alternate source of energy depending on the contour of the land and the property. b) Building technologies. Construction of the foundation and the building may incorporate the latest sustainable materials. Insulation and window technologies could be developed appropriate for the location. The efficient use of water through a variety of water saving systems may be possible.
Sustainability and Safety of Long-Term Care Facilities 3

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Economic and financial analysis of sustainability as it relates to long-term care facilities
The cost of incorporating sustainable, eco-friendly features in facilities must be evaluated prior to implementing a program either of renovation or new construction. Initial costs, pay-back periods, tax benefits, and similar financial factors must be weighed in conjunction with the reliability and technical soundness of new technologies. In formulating an analytical framework for determining trade-offs between various levels of risks, a project must be evaluated within the real-world regulatory environment in which the facility operates.

About the author
JOHN A. BERENYI johnberenyi@yahoo.com John Berenyi has over 25 years of experience as financial advisor, technology and economic consultant and investment banker. His work has been at the intersection of engineering, management, economics and finance.
Infrastructure Systems and Finance Background

Focus of his activities: alternative energy projects, power systems, solid waste facilities, mass transit authorities, highways and bridges, affordable housing and mortgage finance, water and sewer systems, long term care facilities, non profit institutions such as universities, museums, stadiums, hospitals and nursing homes. Currently his clients include an award winning Canadian-American Eco Property Development Company which is developing “green building projects” and sustainable facilities in North America and Europe—see: www.ecocite.ca.

Sustainability and Safety of Long-Term Care Facilities

4

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

About the Symposium
Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green is presented as a public service of the Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI), 11350 Random Hills Rd., Suite 210, Fairfax, VA 22030. Web: www.riskinstitute.org . The Public Entity Risk Institute provides these materials "as is," for educational and informational purposes only, and without representation, guarantee or warranty of any kind, express or implied, including any warranty relating to the accuracy, reliability, completeness, currency or usefulness of the content of this material. Publication and distribution of this material is not an endorsement by PERI, its officers, directors or employees of any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained herein. PERI will not be liable for any claims for damages of any kind based upon errors, omissions or other inaccuracies in the information or material contained here.
***

Sustainability and Safety of Long-Term Care Facilities

5

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

NEW PARADIGMS TO SIMULTANEOUSLY ACHIEVE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND SECURITY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE *
By: Rae Zimmerman, Ph.D

Introduction
Security and environmental sustainability are not only compatible goals, but security is also a critical component and integral part of sustainability. Sustainability has been considered the broader, more encompassing category, and the role and importance of security as an element of sustainability is often not explicitly recognized. The two concepts, security and sustainability converge specifically in the area of urban infrastructure. Society cannot financially afford to consider these two important social goals separately. First, I will explore the issues and solutions within each of the two areas – security and sustainability – separately, and then evaluate how a more integrated perspective provides reinforcement and synergy for the particular issues that each area faces. I will review some illustrations of New York City’s reaction to the security problems created by the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center attacks as well as the emphasis on environmental sustainability as development moves forward in New York. Second, in the conclusion, I will identify key issues that need to be addressed in implementing such new paradigms.

Security
Issues Security connotes protection from harm, for example, from natural disasters, terrorism or accidents, and though it is related to other concepts such as safety, it is distinct from them (Zimmerman 2008, forthcoming). Security issues arise with respect to infrastructure in part due to highly dispersed, but interconnected facilities that are not easily amenable to surveillance. Development patterns and economies of production of infrastructure services— particularly in the provision of electric power that is utilized by other infrastructure sectors—have resulted in large distances between consumers and producers of

*

© Rae Zimmerman, 2008

New Paradigms

1

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

the services that infrastructure provides, which makes these facilities difficult to protect. The larger metropolitan regions in the country now consume land at a faster rate than the rate at which the population is growing (Yaro and Hiss 1986: Figure 34). In other words, the per-capita consumption of land is increasing, yet many of the production sites for conventional infrastructure services remain concentrated, underscoring the increasing distances between infrastructure consumption and production. A few examples of the extensiveness of infrastructure distribution facilities are noteworthy: The U.S. has over 4 million miles of highways in the interstate system, 600,000 bridges, and 880,000 miles of major water distribution lines. On the production side, the U.S. has 80,000 dams, 5,000 electric power production facilities, 726 gas processing plants, and 121 oil refineries (NRC 2002). Many of these facilities are concentrated in a relatively few locations, creating potential security problems. For example, about half of the ridership on transit systems (which are critical environmental sustainability infrastructure) is concentrated in only two states (Zimmerman 2002, 2006). Solutions Truly (2002: 1, 2) has suggested the following general characteristics of secure infrastructure: • • • • • • • • Independence from main systems (e.g., energy systems not connected to the grid or easily disconnected from it); Mobility/portability; Flexibility in deployment; Small in size for ease of transport and deployment; More conservative of resource utilization; Close to users and less vulnerable to destruction by virtue of fewer distribution lines; Reliance on less-vulnerable sources since they are ubiquitous or abundant, and/or natural—e.g., the sun, wind, water, biological materials, gases; Inaccessible to criminals (perpetrators, intruders).

The adaptability of physical systems in light of these attributes has been a common focus of security. The manner in which infrastructure in New York City responded to the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 illustrates many of the attributes cited above for secure infrastructure. Attempts to provide water for fire fighting made use of fire boats and piping extending from the Hudson River into the site; electric power lines were drawn over the streets in order to tap substations that were still functioning for power to the affected area; cell towers and electric generators were able to be brought into the area quickly

New Paradigms

2

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

from reserves throughout the country; the transit system was able to reroute trains to continue service by bypassing the affected area (Zimmerman 2003b, c).

Sustainability
General attributes for sustainability are very extensive and too numerous to list here, as are the areas in which the natural environment has come into conflict with infrastructure. General principles of sustainability, however, are noteworthy as a context for an evaluation of infrastructure in light of sustainability. Sustainability has been defined in a number of different ways that underscore balancing the environment, development, and social equity goals. First, the Brundtland Commission report, Our Common Future, defines it as: to ensure that humanity “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (National Research Council 1999: 23, citing World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). Second, over a decade later, the National Resource Council’s Board on Sustainable Development defined it as “the reconciliation of society’s developmental goals with its environmental limits over the long term” (National Research Council 1999: 22), and emphasizes that the elements to be sustained are in the areas of nature, life support systems, and community (National Research Council 1999: 23). Third, sustainability became the foundation for or was operationalized in a number of accounting frameworks. “Ecological footprints” analysis has been an important application area, defined as “the land (and water) area that would be required to support a defined human population and material standard indefinitely” (Wackernagel and Reis 1996: 158) and generally takes into account “the flows of energy and matter to and from any defined economy and converts these into the corresponding land/water area required from nature to support these flows” (Wackernagel and Reis 1996: 3). Similarly, sustainability has also been the foundation for reporting and accounting frameworks in the business environment. The “Triple Bottom Line” (TBL) standard was adopted in 2007 by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), founded in 1990, and the origin of the term is attributed to John Elkington in 1994 (Wikipedia). TBL is considered to be an expansion of “traditional reporting framework to take into account environmental and social performance in addition to financial performance,” and has been abbreviated in terms of three concepts, “People (Human Capital), Planet (Natural Capital) and Profit (Economic Benefit)” (Wikipedia). Changing environmental conditions have a number of effects on vital public services and the infrastructure that supports them, and potentially compromise security if not addressed in the initial stages of planning infrastructure. Global

New Paradigms

3

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

warming is an important example that illustrates many of these threats, and has produced changes or refinements in the application of principles of sustainability. Issues Areas in which infrastructure has affected the natural environment have been known for a very long time and have been the centerpiece of U.S. environmental legislation. However, the boomerang effects—those pertaining to the effects of the environment on infrastructure—are less often noticed and articulated. The issue of global warming has brought these issues to center stage. Effects associated with global warming, such as temperature increases and sea-level rise, pose a serious risk to the viability of infrastructure by straining the physical properties of the infrastructure as well as altering its use. A number of effects reviewed by the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) (April 2007) include: • • • Increasing severity and frequency of storms will compromise the physical integrity of some infrastructure. Changes in the use of and demand for infrastructure will be generated by changes in population location due to migrations, etc. Redistribution of water resources will occur due to rising temperatures and sea levels, changes in precipitation, increased evaporation, and increased droughts.

In addition, other factors associated with global warming will undermine infrastructure (Zimmerman 1996): Infrastructure facilities such as pipes, bridges, etc. are built with materials that withstand a certain temperature-tolerance limit— higher temperatures of longer duration can cause material degradation such as crumbling of concrete and melting of asphalt on road surfaces, reduced structural integrity of steel over time, and changes in electrical conductivity of transmission systems. Also, consistent with the work of CNA and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it is well known that the location of existing transportation and electric power infrastructure, particularly in a large city such as New York City, is often in areas potentially prone to flooding (Zimmerman 2003a, Zimmerman and Cusker 2001). Solutions Placing infrastructure underground is a possible means of reducing exposure to temperature extremes, reducing impacts on the surface environment, and useful as a means to store and channelize floodwaters. Temporary adaptation in the form of relocation of population and economic activity and the infrastructure that supports them, can work over the long term, as long as the adaptations take into account sea-level rise far into the future.

New Paradigms

4

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

The introduction of new temperature-tolerant materials could reduce the risk of damage from extremes of heat. Nanotechnologies may be applied in a variety of infrastructure sectors as solutions for energy storage problems that have stood in the way of the implementation of many renewable energy technologies. Conventional water infrastructure has adapted to development patterns, and is now changing dramatically to address problems of flooding and drought. Plants, animals, and insects are cleverer than people in their ability to store and utilize water when they need it, and some of the new, innovative mechanisms for storm water capture are taking advantage of these mechanisms. In addition, water systems—commonly dependent on power for pumping, treatment, etc.—may benefit from use of renewable energy technologies.

A Comprehensive Metric for Infrastructure: Simultaneous Optimization of Security and Sustainability
Strategies are emerging to simultaneously address sustainability and security. Sustainability, especially environmental sustainability, takes the options for security further, and vice versa. Mapping the two together specifically with respect to infrastructure produces some noteworthy synergies that are described below. This is particularly critical given that limited public resources are not likely to be able to support both of these critical goals. The key seems to be decentralization: distributed or dispersed, but noninterconnected systems for the provision of infrastructure services. This is not to be confused with the distributed nature of existing infrastructure utility distribution lines that are geographically dispersed but interconnected through central production locations. In order for synergy to be realized, a stronger market potential for renewable resources is needed. Great strides have been made in promoting these new technologies. For example, according to the Energy Information Administration, between 2004 and 2005, the consumption of renewable energy increased by 2% and the number of alternative-fuel vehicles increased by about 20% between 2003 and 2005 (EIA 2007). In spite of these increases, the use of renewables still accounts for only a small share of infrastructure – only 7% (EIA 2007), and most of this is consumed in a limited number of sectors and in a limited number of locations where renewable resources or the technologies to use them are available. In calculating common objectives, infrastructure interdependencies play a key role that is often not obvious. There are many intricate interconnections among infrastructure systems (Rinaldi, Peerenboom, and Kelly 2001) paralleled by an equally intricate and diverse management structure. In order to approach

New Paradigms

5

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

infrastructure security and sustainability comprehensively, all of these interdependencies and connections need to be considered. Alternatively, generic, global or system-wide ways of measuring vulnerability must be sought to identify and manage the potential adverse effects of interdependencies (e.g., drops in pressure in water and electrical lines). Sustainable systems may reduce the complexity somewhat at the end points but may be vulnerable at points of interconnection with more conventional infrastructure (e.g., the case of wells and septic systems being operated via electric pumps or the remote control of distributed communication systems). Interdependencies occur both functionally and geographically. Co-location is a common example of geographic proximity of infrastructure, bringing utility distribution lines closer together, magnifying the impacts of a single failure of one system, and hence, making them less secure.

Conclusions
Meeting the goals of both sustainability and security for infrastructure is possible if planned at the outset. These are not inconsistent goals; in fact security is an aspect of sustainability. Sustainable systems help achieve a certain amount of decentralization that can harden infrastructure for security as well. Sustainability and security of infrastructure share in common the fact that local disturbances can have regional and even global impacts because of the symbolic or cascading nature of highly localized events. Many of the same solutions can meet both objectives, such as decentralization and undergrounding of infrastructure and relying on resources that are ubiquitous and difficult to disable, such as the sun and the wind for energy. In order to achieve convergence for security and sustainability, substantial institutional changes will be required, since each of these areas are within the domain of very different government jurisdictions. Infrastructure providers typically have a more unified approach, but tend to be still highly specialized in their approaches to sustainability and security. At a governmental policy level, homeland security directives can incorporate sustainability among the security goals and strategies for their implementation. Likewise, environmental legislation and regulations should incorporate security goals as criteria for environmental protection. With all of these technologies and the institutional mechanisms to implement them, the accounting has to be undertaken. This will be quite a challenge, since the results may vary geographically and for different types of urban development.

New Paradigms

6

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

References Cited
Center for Naval Analyses (CNA Corp.) National Security and the Threat of Climate Change, April 2007. Energy Information Administration (EIA), “Renewable Energy Trends,” July 2007. National Research Council (NRC), Board on Sustainable Development. Our Common Journey. A transition toward sustainability. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999. National Research Council (NRC), Committee on Science and Technology for Countering Terrorism. Making the Nation Safer. The Role of Science and Technology in Countering Terrorism. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2002. Rinaldi, S.M. Peerenboom, J.P. and Kelly T.K., “Identifying, Understanding, and Analyzing Critical Infrastructure Interdependencies,” IEEE Control Systems. December 2001. Truly, R. 2002. “New Energy Systems Enhance National Security,” U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, March 14. http://www.nrel.gov/director/trulyspeech_031402.html. Accessed in 2002. Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W. Our Ecological Footprint. Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, BC and Stony Creek, CT: New Society Publishers, 1996. Wikipedia. Triple bottom line. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_bottom_line. Accessed January 1, 2008. World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission). Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, 1987. Yaro, R. and Hiss, T. A Region at Risk. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1996.

References Cited to Author’s Works Zimmerman, R. “Critical Infrastructure and Interdependency,” Chapter 35 in The McGraw-Hill Homeland Security Handbook, David G. Kamien, ed. NY, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2006, pp. 523-545.

New Paradigms

7

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Zimmerman, R. “Global Climate Change and Transportation Infrastructure: Lessons from the New York Area,” in The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Transportation: Workshop Summary and Proceedings, Washington, DC: U.S. DOT (Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting) in cooperation with the U.S. EPA, U.S. DOE, U.S.GCRP, 2003a, pp. 91-101. Zimmerman, R. “Global Warming, Infrastructure, and Land Use in the Metropolitan New York Area: Prevention and Response,” in The Baked Apple? Metropolitan New York in the Greenhouse, edited by Douglas Hill. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1996, pp. 57-83. Zimmerman, R. “Making Sustainability and Security Compatible: New Approaches to Public Infrastructure Services for the 21st Century,” Invited Presentation, Sustainable Communities and Smart Growth panel at the ASCE 2002 national conference, Washington, DC, November 3-6, 2002. Zimmerman, R. “Managing Infrastructure Resiliency, Safety and Security,” Encyclopedia of Quantitative Risk Assessment, edited by B. Everitt and E. Melnick. New York, NY: John Wiley, accepted for publication, forthcoming 2008. Zimmerman, R. “Public Infrastructure Service Flexibility for Response and Recovery in the September 11th, 2001 Attacks at the World Trade Center,” in Natural Hazards Research & Applications Information Center, Public Entity Risk Institute, and Institute for Civil Infrastructure Systems, Beyond September 11th: An Account of Post-Disaster Research. Special Publication #39. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, 2003b, pp. 241-268. Zimmerman, R. “The Intersection of Sustainability and Security” with illustrations from Response and Recovery in Lower Manhattan. Invited Presentation for the Panel, Paradigm of Progress: Social Responsibility and Environmental Strategies. New York, NY: NYU School of Continuing and Professional Studies, 2003c (April 25). Zimmerman, R. and Cusker, M. “Institutional Decision-making,” Chapter 9 and Appendix 10 in Climate Change and a Global City: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. Metro East Coast, edited by C. Rosenzweig and W. D. Solecki. New York, NY: Columbia Earth Institute and Goddard Institute of Space Studies, 2001, pp. 9-1 to 9-25 and A11-A17.

Acknowledgements and Disclaimer
Part of this work was supported by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security through the Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE) under grant numbers N00014-05-0630 and 2007-ST-061-000001. This work was also supported by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security through the NYU Center for Catastrophe Preparedness and Response (CCPR)

New Paradigms

8

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

grant number 2004-GT-TX-0001. However, any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect views of the United States Department of Homeland Security. The use of this paper is limited to the PERI symposium (including subsequent archival of symposium materials on the PERI website). For all other uses, please contact the author at rae.zimmerman@nyu.edu.

About the author
Rae Zimmerman is Professor of Planning and Public Administration at the New York University Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, and since 1998, Director of the Institute for Civil Infrastructure Systems (ICIS), initially funded by the National Science Foundation for interdisciplinary research, education and outreach. She has been leading research projects on the protection and adaptability of critical infrastructures in the context of terrorism and natural hazards through U.S. DHS funded centers including leading NYU's co-partnership in CREATE, the first Science & Technology center of excellence at the University of Southern California. Zimmerman is also co-principal investigator of the "South Bronx Environmental Health & Policy Study," funded by the U.S. EPA, a researcher for the World Trade Center Evacuation study led by the Columbia University School of Public Health, and risk analyst for infrastructure engineering for government infrastructure projects. Her research and teaching areas incorporate urban infrastructure security, sustainability and socioeconomic dimensions of environmental, energy, and transportation infrastructure particularly in the context of extreme events, and risk communication. Her publications have appeared in numerous edited books as well as in planning, environmental and public administration journals including the Journal of Urban Health; Energy Policy; Risk Analysis; International Journal of Critical Infrastructures; Water Resources Research; Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment; the Journal of Urban Technology; Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology; and the Policy Studies Journal. Under her direction ICIS coproduced Beyond September 11th (Boulder, CO, University of Colorado, 2003) and Zimmerman co-edited Digital Infrastructures (Routledge 2004) and Sustaining Urban Networks (Routledge, 2005). She is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and past president and Fellow of the Society for Risk Analysis, and is currently a member of the U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board Homeland Security Advisory Committee. Former professional appointments and memberships include the Committee on the Review and Evaluation of the Army Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program (National Academy of Sciences (NAS)), the U.S. EPA Board of Scientific Counselors, the U.S. EPA National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) Working Group on Drinking Water Research, the Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment (NAS), and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Comparative Risk Committee. She holds a B.A. in Chemistry from the University of California

New Paradigms

9

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

(Berkeley), a Master of City Planning from the University of Pennsylvania, and a Ph.D. in planning from Columbia University.

About the Symposium
Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green is presented as a public service of the Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI), 11350 Random Hills Rd., Suite 210, Fairfax, VA 22030. Web: www.riskinstitute.org. The Public Entity Risk Institute provides these materials "as is," for educational and informational purposes only, and without representation, guarantee or warranty of any kind, express or implied, including any warranty relating to the accuracy, reliability, completeness, currency or usefulness of the content of this material. Publication and distribution of this material is not an endorsement by PERI, its officers, directors or employees of any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained herein. PERI will not be liable for any claims for damages of any kind based upon errors, omissions or other inaccuracies in the information or material contained here. ***

New Paradigms

10

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

New and Innovative Approaches To Infrastructure Management: Seeking Sustainability
By: Gary G. Hamer, AICP

The recent Minneapolis bridge collapse and steam pipe explosion in New York have put our nation’s aging infrastructure under scrutiny, and brought to light the overwhelming backlog of needed capital maintenance across the country. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that the nation needs to spend $1.6 trillion over the next five years just to maintain the current service level of our existing infrastructure 1 . Cities across the country are grappling with the fiscal realities of trying to address this mounting and never-ending cycle of construction and maintenance. Yet the issues that surround the debate on renewing our nation’s aging infrastructure often pit public safety and security concerns against environmental protection and conservation interests. For example, in 1984, Tulsa, Oklahoma suffered one of the most devastating floods in state history with resultant loss of life and costly structural damage. To secure the city and prevent future disaster, an award-winning, comprehensive stormwater management program was developed and several hundred million dollars was invested in flood control infrastructure. Although there have been no major flood events since program implementation, new flood control improvements are required to continually maintain the system. However, despite Tulsa’s success in flood hazard mitigation, some citizens question the need for these improvements—and in some instances have opposed them—as a threat to the region’s wildlife and natural environment. Meanwhile, reduced federal funding, growing anti-tax movements, and escalating energy costs have compounded local government efforts to improve their deteriorating infrastructure. In response to these conditions, communities across the country have begun to explore new and innovative strategies to generate revenue to meet these challenges. The recent local government strategies of leasing capital assets to private sector operators and the more radical alternative, vacating or legally abandoning underutilized infrastructure, are two approaches that have gained national attention and may prove to be useful case studies for communities striving to sustain infrastructure.

Historic and Projected Levels of Federal Funding
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently released a study which examines the level and types of infrastructure financing from 1956-2004. The

New and Innovative Approaches to Infrastructure Management

1

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

CBO data are telling and troubling for a number of reasons. The chart below illustrates the historic level of federal funding dedicated to the nation’s infrastructure as a percentage of total spending. As the chart demonstrates, federal funding levels peaked in the mid 1960’s and then began to decline to the present level. The only recent increase was the spike after the terrorist attacks in 2001 which was primarily directed toward hardening potential target sites. CBO data contained in the study
Infrastructure Spending As a Percentage of Total Federal Spending (CBO)
10.00% 9.00% 8.00% 7.00% Percent of Total Spending 6.00% Percentage 5.00% 4.00% 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00%
19 56 19 58 19 60 19 62 19 64 19 66 19 68 19 70 19 72 19 74 19 76 19 78 19 80 19 82 19 84 19 86 19 88 19 90 19 92 19 94 19 96 19 98 20 00 20 02 20 04 20 06

Year

Source: Congressional Budget Office (CBO) demonstrate that the level of financing borne by state and local governments increased to 76.5% in 2004 from 62.3% in 1980 while the federal share fell from 37.7% to 23.5% over the same period. 2 Study findings cite increased mandatory entitlement spending, such as Medicare and Social Security, as a major contributor in the decline of federal funds redistributed to state and local governments through the various transit and transportation programs historically financed by federal transfer payments. The chart below was constructed using CBO data from the most recent report on “The President’s Budgetary Proposals” and it clearly illustrates the projected impact of increasing mandatory spending as it is expected to rise to 63% of total spending by 2017. 3

New and Innovative Approaches to Infrastructure Management

2

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Source: Congressional Budget Office (CBO) The implications for local government are dire. As mandatory spending continues to rise, the level of funding local government is expected to contribute will continue to escalate. As an example, the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, currently has $3.3 billion of unfunded street maintenance and rehabilitation work identified in its Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) inventory. 4 Most major cities across the country have similar, unfunded maintenance backlogs. Achieving suitable and sustainable levels of funding will require either raising taxes by a sizable margin—which is progressively difficult in the increasingly antitax environment in which many local governments are finding themselves—or seeking new, “outside-the-box” strategies to address their needs.

Monetizing Assets
A number of state and local governments have gained national media attention recently with similar strategies of leveraging capital assets through long-term leases and outright sales, referred to as “monetizing assets” in the popular media. The City of Minneapolis, the State of Iowa, and the City of Chicago have all recently executed transactions that either provided up-front payments in exchange for multi-year leases or cash from the outright sale of governmentowned assets. The benefits of these transactions are two-fold: They provide a leveragable pool of capital which can be used to reduce debt or meet other
New and Innovative Approaches to Infrastructure Management 3

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

obligations, and they absolve the government of the ongoing maintenance associated with the leveraged asset. The City of Chicago completed the first precedent-setting lease of a public toll road in the U.S. in 2004. 5 Chicago issued a request for qualifications (RFQ) seeking bidders interested in a long-term lease on the 7.8-mile, “Chicago Skyway” elevated toll road, to which two companies responded. Ultimately, Cintra/Macquarie was the successful bidder with its $1.83 billion offer. The City of Chicago has chosen to fund a long-term reserve, a medium-term reserve, and a $100 million infrastructure fund with the proceeds from the lease. Chicago’s execution of this long-term lease has opened a new frontier on the infrastructure front. It has demonstrated that government-owned infrastructure has quantifiable value in the private market while it also provides the framework for new revenue streams. Governments could potentially leverage these revenue streams to address other pressing needs which might include financing the rehabilitation of its remaining, deteriorating infrastructure. Possibly more importantly, these lease agreements transfer maintenance responsibility to the more nimble and unencumbered private sector, which is better positioned to adjust cost and revenue structures to meet any maintenance challenges.

The Radical Alternative – Footprint Reduction
The challenges of the nation’s industrial Northeast “rust belt,” with its large concentration of manufacturing and steel production, has been discussed in numerous publications and acknowledged in many public forums. The City of Youngstown, Ohio is one of the many communities throughout the rust belt that was devastated by the collapse of its manufacturing and industrial base. Youngstown has found itself at the end of this long, rust-belt population decline with the infrastructure—such as roads, sewer lines, and water lines—that it needed to support a population twice its current size. From 1960 to 2000, Youngstown’s population declined from 167,000 to 82,000 and there were 3,300 excess vacant housing units in 2000 within its jurisdiction. Through a partnership with Youngstown State University and the City of Youngstown, the city has begun the process of examining how to deal with its large inventory of underutilized infrastructure. This effort has resulted in a new comprehensive planning effort, Youngtown 2010, which sought to reconfigure the city to eliminate blighted areas and re-purpose areas currently occupied by deteriorating and underutilized infrastructure. One of the first major challenges of the planning effort was dealing with the realization that Youngstown is a smaller city and that the city must develop a “strategic program to rationalize and consolidate urban infrastructure in a sociably responsible and financially sustainable manner.”

New and Innovative Approaches to Infrastructure Management

4

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

The planning process resulted in a comprehensive inventory, evaluation, and prioritization of the city’s assets, strengths, and weaknesses. A major plan element is re-purposing abandoned, blighted areas into parks and open space, and linking them to a regional greenbelt and trail system. Plan recommendations would also alter the percentage of land dedicated to residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Residential and commercial areas would be reduced 30% and 16%, respectively. In an attempt to re-purpose much of the infrastructure dedicated to former industrial uses, the plan calls for a new land use category entitled “industrial green.” The industrial-green category will set aside 3,300 acres of land dedicated to industrial uses which are non-polluting and incorporate open space into overall site design, seeking to capitalize on the extensive infrastructure along the Mahoning River while incorporating green elements which are harmonious with its broader greenbelt plan. 6 The planning exercise and visioning under taken by Youngstown has resulted in a number of innovative strategies that may prove to be useful in other communities. Reducing land areas dedicated to residential and commercial use would be a dramatic departure from the sprawl and drive mentality that pervades the United States. Re-purposing areas to redefine the city’s industrial past, and weaving that legacy into a greening strategy, is clearly on the cutting edge and should be studied carefully by any community seeking a more sustainable future.

Seeking Sustainability
Monetizing assets and reducing environmental footprints may prove themselves to be viable alternatives to communities across the country seeking sustainable infrastructure. The sustainability initiative has gained increasing public awareness and has been identified as a major focal point by many environmental and professional groups. There are a number of common, core elements that cut across the numerous sustainable agendas: achieving efficiencies, conserving resources, and reducing impacts. As federal funds decline further, as anti-tax sentiment often pervades the voting public, and as cities continue to struggle with their infrastructure burdens, maximizing existing resources and limiting the expansion of resource-depleting public facilities will become increasingly necessary. Cities that encourage efficiencies through the re-use of existing infrastructure by placing premiums on compact dense development and encourage the conservation of resources through green design code improvements will be positioned to overcome future fiscal challenges. The idea of a city seeking to shrink its size, to achieve efficiencies and conserve resources, runs completely counter to the imbedded paradigms most communities have come to embrace. And cities looking to leverage publicly financed capital assets may incur the wrath of taxpayers. But in the decades to come this may prove to be a paradigm shift.

New and Innovative Approaches to Infrastructure Management

5

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Communities do not have to adopt strategies like those of Chicago or Youngstown or even explore policies aimed at improving efficiencies and returns on invested tax dollars, but a couple of things are certain: Communities have come to depend on federal dollars to fund many of their operations and capital demands. And the current gap between infrastructure needs and available resources seems likely only to grow in the future.

Notes
1

“U.S. Infrastructure Found to Be in Disrepair”, The Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2007, page B4. “Trends in Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure, 1956-2004,” Congressional Budget Office, August 2007. “An Analysis of the President’s Budgetary Proposals For Fiscal Year 2008,” Congressional Budget Office, March 21, 2007. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, Annual Budget and Capital Plan Fiscal Year 2007-2008, City of Tulsa, Oklahoma 2007, page 8-29. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Public Private Partnership Case Studies: Chicago Skyway. Youngstown 2010 Citywide Plan, City of Youngstown, Ohio 2004, pages 18 and 3031.

2

3

4

5

6

New and Innovative Approaches to Infrastructure Management

6

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

About the author
Gary G. Hamer, AICP, is a graduate of Wichita State University with a Masters of Public Administration (MPA). Working in local and regional government agencies for over 11 years, he has held a variety of positions including planning and zoning administration, project management, and transportation planning. In 2006, he was admitted as a member of the American Planning Association’s (APA) American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP). Currently, Mr. Hamer is serving as manager of the City of Tulsa’s Capital Planning and Research section which maintains the City of Tulsa’s Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) and manages the funded capital improvements programs.

About the Symposium
Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green is presented as a public service of the Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI), 11350 Random Hills Rd., Suite 210, Fairfax, VA 22030. Web: www.riskinstitute.org. The Public Entity Risk Institute provides these materials "as is," for educational and informational purposes only, and without representation, guarantee or warranty of any kind, express or implied, including any warranty relating to the accuracy, reliability, completeness, currency or usefulness of the content of this material. Publication and distribution of this material is not an endorsement by PERI, its officers, directors or employees of any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained herein. PERI will not be liable for any claims for damages of any kind based upon errors, omissions or other inaccuracies in the information or material contained here. ***

New and Innovative Approaches to Infrastructure Management

7

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

“SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT” VERSUS “SUSTAINABILITY”: IS THERE A CONFLICT?
By: C. Richard Baker

Introduction
The topics of “sustainability” and “sustainable development” have achieved increasing prominence during the last thirty years. The concept of sustainable development can be conceived of in a general sense as a process through which there is a satisfaction of human needs while simultaneously preserving the quality of the natural environment. The linkage between economic development and the natural environment was perhaps first acknowledged in 1980 when the International Union for the Conservation of Nature published a pamphlet entitled World Conservation Strategy that included the term “sustainable development” (IUCN, 1980). The term, sustainable development, came into more general use following the publication of the Brundtland Commission report in 1987 (Brundtland Commission, 1987). The Brundtland Commission, which was formally known as the World Commission on Environment and Development, was created by the United Nations General Assembly. The Brundtland Commission established the most commonly used definition of sustainable development, as development which “meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Unfortunately this definition has been difficult to implement in practical terms; consequently, it has been necessary to search for more particular definitions of sustainable development. It is now generally recognized that sustainable development does not focus entirely on the environment. The notion of sustainable development encompasses three primary areas: the economic, the social, and the environmental. As such, sustainable development can be said to rest on three fundamental principles: economic development, social development, and environmental protection. Sustainable development can also be distinguished from “green development”, in that green development concentrates on saving the environment even to the exclusion of economic and social considerations. Sustainability often seems to be primarily concerned with protecting the environment from acts of human beings rather than protecting human beings and human organizations from the environment. However, it must be recognized that the protection of the environment from the acts of human beings is ultimately not sustainable, because the earth is dynamic and it cannot be locked into a constant state. Sustainability can therefore be more properly thought of as an effort to sustain the social and economic development of society, combined with an effort to protect the natural environment.

“Sustainable Development” Versus “Sustainability”

1

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Creating Sustainable Organizations
Proponents of sustainable development generally recognize that long-term sustainability can only be achieved through economic and social development, even though environmentalists strenuously argue that sustainable development is actually an oxymoron. They often claim that political policies based on economic and social development and growth are inherently unsustainable (Maniantes, 2007). Consequently, there has been an increasingly intense political debate developing in recent years, which has remained largely unresolved. Effectively the question is: Can the world achieve economic, social development in an environmentally sensitive way, or is sustainable development fundamentally unsustainable? For every organization, whether it be a business enterprise or a governmental entity, effectively managing its resources, both human and material, is essential to achieving sustainability. Business enterprises, as well as public service entities, have long sought ways to achieve long lasting success. In recent years, managers of such organization have also been increasingly concerned with social and environmental issues. The social and environmental questions that these organizations deal with range from reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the general carbon footprint, to reducing or recycling waste materials, to eliminating toxic and poisonous materials, to improving working conditions for all personnel. Effectively managing these sustainability-related issues is becoming a key element in an organization’s long-term success. In this context, Portland State University’s School of Business and Center for Sustainable Processes and Practices recently sponsored a Sustainability in the Supply Chain Conference (Center for Sustainable Processes and Practices, 2007). This conference brought together participants from industry and academia to share information and research about sustainability. A number of large business enterprises, such as Boeing, Nike, Intel, Wal-Mart, Toyota Motor Company and Columbia Forest Products attended this conference and described their companies’ activities targeted towards reducing their output of wastes and overall use of energy. These companies not only have found this to be helpful for the environment, but also useful in reducing costs. This is a progressive approach towards the sustainability. Sustainable development can therefore be seen as progressive, optimistic and forward looking, whereas radical sustainability is essentially conservative or even reactionary. In effect, and at the extreme, some of the advocates of radical sustainability suggest that there must be a significant reduction in the human population and a dismantling of capitalism, with a general reversion to lower levels of economic existence for everyone on the planet (Johnson, 2007).

“Sustainable Development” Versus “Sustainability”

2

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Green versus Blue
From another perspective, Perelman (2007) has recently suggested that sustainable development must be linked with considerations of and preparations for natural disasters and a variety of unexpected events that threaten human life and infrastructure, otherwise, sustainability cannot be achieved. It is essentially meaningless to speak about protecting the environment when a hurricane or tsunami destroys everything you hold dear. Perelman argues that sustainable development should be more properly referred to as “resilient development”, because periodic economic downturns and other disruptive events cannot be avoided or eliminated. However, a resilient form of development can help a nation or an organization recover from the debilitating effects of unexpected events if they plan in advance to achieve long term sustainability. According to Perelman, efforts to achieve sustainability in the public sector are increasingly being driven by two different policy movements, the “sustainability” movement, aimed primarily at environmental protection, and the “security” movement, which responds primarily to threats against human beings and infrastructure (Perelman, 2007). Perelman refers to this latter movement as being “blue”, and he suggests that the green and the blue should be melded together into a sort of “turquoise” which would produce synergies and useful collaboration. Perelman’s concepts, unlike those of the more radical proponents of sustainability, are pragmatic and directed towards practical steps that would help organizations integrate the positive aspects of the green and blue agendas while reaching compromises between two competing notions of sustainability.

Common Principles of Sustainability
Hargroves and Smith (2005) argue that a number of common principles can be found in most pragmatic programs that are intended to achieve sustainable development and practical sustainability. These include: • Dealing transparently and systemically with risk and uncertainty. • Ensuring appropriate valuation, appreciation and restoration of natural environments. • Integration of economic, social and environmental goals in policy formulations. • Providing opportunities for community participation. • Conserving biodiversity and ecological integrity. • Being cognizant of inter-generational equity. • Committing to best practices of sustainable development. • Avoiding the loss of human capital as well as natural capital. • Seeking continuous improvement. These principles might be usefully combined with Perelman’s ideas regarding a melding of green and blue in order to achieve both compromise and collaboration. The radical sustainability alternative seems to be more in the tone
“Sustainable Development” Versus “Sustainability” 3

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

of “black”, which would presumably involve social and economic de-evolution back to a primitive state in which human beings increasingly perish in an environmental paradise.

REFERENCES
Brundtland Report (1987). Our Common Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press, http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm, retrieved on December 11, 2007. Center for Sustainable Processes and Practices (2007), International Conference on Business & Sustainability, Portland, Oregon: Portland State University, (November 1-2), http://www.bizandsustainability.org/, retrieved on December 11, 2007. Hargroves, K. and Smith, M. (eds.) (2005), The Natural Advantage of Nations: Business Opportunities, Innovation and Governance in the 21st Century, London: Earthscan/ James & James. IUCN (1980), World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development, New York: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), http://www.iucn.org/dbtwwpd/edocs/WCS-004.pdf, retrieved on December 11, 2007. Maniantes, M. (2007), “Going Green? Easy Doesn’t Do It”, Washingtonpost.com (November 22, p. A37). Perelman, L.J. (2007), “Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green”, PERI Symposium, Fairfax, Virginia: Public Entity Risk Institute, http://www.riskinstitute.org/PERI/NEWS/, retrieved on December 11, 2007. Johnson, H.T. (2007), “A Conversation with H. Thomas Johnson”, International Conference on Business & Sustainability, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, November 1-2.

“Sustainable Development” Versus “Sustainability”

4

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

About the author
C. RICHARD BAKER, PhD, CPA C. Richard Baker is Professor and Chair of the Department of Accounting, Finance and Economics at the School of Business of Adelphi University, Garden City, New York. Prior to joining Adelphi University, he was Professor and Chair of the Accounting and Finance Department at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth. He has also been on the faculties of Columbia and Fordham universities in New York City. His research interests focus on the regulatory, legal, disciplinary and ethical aspects of the public accounting profession. He is the author of over 90 academic papers and other publications. He holds the Ph.D. from the School of Management at UCLA and is a Certified Public Accountant in New York State.

About the Symposium
Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green is presented as a public service of the Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI), 11350 Random Hills Rd., Suite 210, Fairfax, VA 22030. Web: www.riskinstitute.org. The Public Entity Risk Institute provides these materials "as is," for educational and informational purposes only, and without representation, guarantee or warranty of any kind, express or implied, including any warranty relating to the accuracy, reliability, completeness, currency or usefulness of the content of this material. Publication and distribution of this material is not an endorsement by PERI, its officers, directors or employees of any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained herein. PERI will not be liable for any claims for damages of any kind based upon errors, omissions or other inaccuracies in the information or material contained here. ***

“Sustainable Development” Versus “Sustainability”

5

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

THE RESILIENCE IMPERATIVE: RESOLVING “GREEN” (ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY) AND “BLUE” (INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY) REQUIREMENTS IN A STRATEGY FOR NATIONAL RESILIENCE
By: Jeff Gaynor Americans have a life and death stake in the operational resilience of America’s critical infrastructure. Critical infrastructure enables every activity in the nation and will be the foundation of any responsible application of “green” or sustainable technologies. Yet, despite being the most fundamental of national and homeland security capacities, years of neglect, efficiency measures, repair (rather than continuous modernization) have combined to create an American infrastructure that is highly efficient, profitable, theoretically protected, but decaying, and consequence-amplifying. America’s infrastructure is unacceptably vulnerable, and highly exploitable. And, as calamities including Hurricane Katrina, the I-35 bridge collapse in Minneapolis, and at least some of the recent fires in Southern California proved, it is a vector for inflicting severe and long-term physical, economic and social consequences on people, their communities, and the Nation. Thus, America’s infrastructure—rather than being an enabler of national security, prosperity, and progress—is very rapidly becoming the nation’s “Achilles heel.” Recognizing the essential role infrastructure services play in securing the homeland, almost immediately upon arriving at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Secretary Michael Chertoff asked his principal independent advisory body, the Homeland Security Advisory Council to: “Review current and provide recommendations on advancing national critical infrastructure policy & planning to ensure the reliable delivery of critical infrastructure services while simultaneously reducing the consequences of the exploitation, destruction, or disruption of critical infrastructure products, services, and/or operations.” 1 In response, the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) formed a Critical Infrastructure Task Force (CITF). 2
1 2

See Page 1, Paragraph 1, HSAC Critical Infrastructure Task Force Report at www.dhs.gov/hsac These groups included prominent Americans from both sides of the political aisle including: Former CIA and FBI Director, Judge William Webster (the HSAC’s Chair); 9/11 Commission member, former U.S. Representative Lee Hamilton; former Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Energy, James Schlesinger; and former Speaker of the House Tom Foley.

The Resilience Imperative

1

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

After almost a year of study that engaged infrastructure providers, business, public and private sector leaders from across the nation—and in the wake of the long-predicted catastrophic failure of the levee system that was supposed to protect New Orleans—on January 10, 2006, the CITF publicly released its findings and recommendations to the HSAC. The HSAC subsequently unanimously approved the CITF’s recommendations and consistent with it Charter forwarded them to Secretary Chertoff for his action. First and foremost among the HSAC’s recommendations was: “Promulgate Critical Infrastructure Resilience (CIR) as the top level strategic objective—the desired outcome—to drive national policy and planning.” Former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney very succinctly stated the logic for advancement in national infrastructure policy and programs from protection to resilience: “You know, protection is where we tend to focus in government, but it is very, very clear that protection is not enough . . .” While no action was taken by DHS, the CITF’s recommendations have since been reinforced in further studies conducted by The Infrastructure Security Partnership 3 and the Council on Competitiveness. 4 The latter noted: “Technological and Market Forces have created new potential for business disruption in every sector. The challenge is just not protection—it is resilience.” Most recently, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani wrote: “The next Administration’s approach to homeland security should be based on three core principles: prevention, preparedness, and resilience.” 5 As defined in Webster’s On-line Dictionary: re·sil·ience is: 1: the capability of a strained body to recover its size and shape after deformation caused especially by compressive stress 2: an ability to recover from or adjust easily to misfortune or change. In even simpler terms, as John Cameron Swayze used to describe Timex watches in the 1950’s, America’s infrastructure, and the people and society it empowers, must be able to “take a licking and keep on ticking.” As evident by the definition of resilience, these and other authorities are recommending a strategic shift to critical infrastructure resilience (CIR), and by extension, national resilience, as realistic and attainable goals far better suited to the nation’s post-9/11, post-Katrina, “all-hazards” risk environment.

3 4

See TISP Regional Disaster Resilience Guide See Transform. The Resilient Economy: Integrating Competitiveness and Security, 25 June 2007 5 Rudolph W. Giuliani, “The Resilient Society,” City Journal (18, 1) Winter 2008.

The Resilience Imperative

2

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

In addition to those discussed above, all-hazards events that that should have prompted national policy and program (i.e., taxpayer dollar expenditure) transformation to resilience including: • • • • • • The 2003 Northeast electrical blackout A steam pipe explosion in New York City in July 2007, Tainted food, defective products and continuing—if not increasing— Chinese attacks on the Nation’s cyber infrastructure, Drought in the Southeast threatening the provision of water to four million people in the Atlanta area and to a nuclear power plant in Alabama, Midwest and most recently West Coast storms cutting electrical power to over a million people, and Collapse of a levee in Fernley, Nevada, following a torrential storm— reportedly caused in part by burrowing gophers.

Yet the ongoing blizzard of such disastrous events so far has had no effect on the strategic direction of national infrastructure policy. Progress toward renewing America’s dangerously dilapidated infrastructure—to achieve greater resource and environmental efficiency as well as to assure a modicum of public safety—is obstructed by dogmatic and yet repeatedly failed iterations of Cold-War, “fed-centric,” critical infrastructure protection (CIP) policies. In the wake of 9/11, these policies have been—in no small measure— legitimized by the distribution of hundreds of millions of dollars each year in infrastructure protection programs and related grant funding. Infrastructure protection efforts called for in Homeland Security Presidential Directive-7 and the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP; a “Plan” recently recast as a “Framework”) often have appeared so cumbersome, stovepiped, and contradictory to the reality of infrastructure interdependence, that they have struggled to attain acceptance by the totality of state and local government and private-sector stakeholders whose willing collaboration is essential to their implementation. Additionally, their objectives, however necessary, aim at only the most basic needs to ensure the provision of critical infrastructure services. The infrastructure protection policies, strategies and expenditures pursued till now over several decades, have consistently failed to address the economic and national security costs of America’s dependence on foreign sources of energy. They have done nothing to address climate change; the continuing proliferation of foreign-produced, flawed and highly-exploitable software throughout both America’s cyber and physical infrastructures; and the steady—if not accelerating—deterioration of American infrastructure capacity and operational resilience.

The Resilience Imperative

3

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Further, “protective measures” have never been and are not an objective or goal unto themselves. In the worst case, as General George Patton sternly observed, “Fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man.” They are even more so in an interdependent infrastructure operating environment where an adversary can disable a target without any direct attack, but rather by attacking any of the brittle threads of infrastructure on which that target depends to function. For example, a Department of Energy experiment recently showed that an electric power plant could be destroyed by a cyber-attack on its operating software through the Internet. The fundamental failure in all iterations of infrastructure protection policy to date is that they have focused on identifying and assessing everything that is “critical” and then on applying counter-measures (e.g., gates, guns, and guards) to reach an un-definable and objectively un-measurable goal—“protection.” "There is no perfect security in life," said Secretary Chertoff in a televised interview. “I put my daughter in my car,” Mr. Chertoff noted in a later Senate hearing. “If I wanted my daughter to be 100 percent safe, I’d put a five-mile-an-hour speed limit cap on the car.” But that is not an option, he added, “because that’s more safety than we can afford.” 6 But the eminently reasonable observation that perfect security or protection is either impossible or unfeasible still begs the question: How much protection is enough? Saying that “enough” is what is “affordable” is hardly a practical answer: Affordable to whom? And, compared to what? A central problem with the policy obsession with “protection”—whether of infrastructure or the environment—is that it often aims not merely at mitigation but prevention of undesirable occurrences. Yet the tendency to associate protection with prevention—freedom from undesirable consequences—comes with an escalating cost. Insistently seeking to prevent things that both science and common sense know cannot be always or completely prevented—whether terrorism, drug abuse, or climate change—we risk depleting the economic base on which human security depends. In practice, we continually see that, beyond some reasonable threshold, ever more onerous protective measures yield diminishing returns in terms of the benefits achieved. In some cases, excessive preventive/protective measures actually may make us more vulnerable and less secure. One illustrative example is the growing threat of multiple-drug resistant bacteria—including staph and tuberculosis—resulting from the overuse of antibiotics. Even more pertinent to infrastructure strategy: As many of us learned in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe, the very system of levees and canals that was developed to protect New Orleans from disastrous flooding disrupted the flow of river silt to the Gulf coast, accelerating
6

“U.S. Can’t Protect All Targets, Chertoff Says,” The New York Times, September 12, 2006.

The Resilience Imperative

4

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

erosion of the wetlands that formerly buffered the impact of hurricanes on the city. Clearly then, Critical Infrastructure Protection—or any protection programs in this life—do not make a consequence-free environment.

The Advancement
Beyond necessary but clearly inadequate CIP efforts the nation needs to adopt a proactive and empowering, national preparedness and performance standard to assure infrastructure resilience. The particular metric for the “Operational Resilience Standard (ORS)” to design and develop more resilient national infrastructure is time—the time one can tolerate some interruption or degradation of infrastructure services, the time to recover, and/or the time to adapt to changed circumstances. The ORS is derived from the answer to a no-nonsense, risk-based, question: How long can you do without X (something important to you)? As a standard, time requirements, including time to reconstitute a business’s, community’s, state’s or nation’s infrastructure, must be settled before an “allhazards” event. Thus, the ORS is not—as some critics assert—a subset of protection or something describing a less than stellar disaster recovery effort (e.g., New Orleans). Unlike CIP, the ORS recognizes and respects the spectrum of challenges inherent in daily family, business, community and national life. Specifically: • • • • • • • • • • • • • Change is constant. Emergency response drills and national exercises virtually always begin with a failure of protective measures. (e.g., fire, flood, earthquake, biological attack, pandemic, dirty bomb detonation). When protection fails, it fails completely. Humans make mistakes. Technologies and structures fail. Surprises are—in fact—surprises. Nature is not controllable in real time. Things wear out, get old, and have to be replaced. Accidents happen. Viruses mutate. Bad things happen to good people and nations. Good things happen to bad people and nations; and There long have been and will long continue to be some sufficiently dedicated, patient, inventive, imbedded, resourced, and self-sacrificing enemies—regardless of whether they are labeled “terrorists,” “criminals,” “insurgents,” or “sociopaths”—who will be successful in inflicting harm.
5

The Resilience Imperative

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Beyond the initial impact of an “all-hazards event” where all protective measures are exhausted, resilience directly addresses infrastructure and societal interdependencies and the multi-level consequences of an incident. Additionally, a resilient infrastructure will be more reliable in providing the resources required to increase or at least ensure the effectiveness of mitigation efforts and emergency response capacities. Beyond addressing immediate issues, the implementation of advanced national policies and realignment of resources to support implementation of the ORS will spur investment in the development of responsible (i.e., resilient), and sustainable “green” standards and technologies. Together, and over time these investments will: • • • • Effectively address issues including energy independence and climate change. Promote thinking, infrastructure innovations and the development of capacities the nation requires within an environment that guarantees change and demands the ability to adapt. Spur a 21st Century “infrastructure revolution” to complement the 1990s “information revolution” and its related economic opportunities; and Eliminate the “Achilles heel” that America’s infrastructure has become.

Michael Balboni, the Deputy Secretary for Public Safety for the State of New York once termed resilience and discussions on dealing with life’s realities as “An adult conversation.” Given the apparent current [mis]understanding that protection is prevention, it is a conversation that today is long overdue.

A “Way Ahead”
With existing resources, government at all levels and the private sector can leverage the lessons of the nation’s highly-successful Year 2000 (Y2K) Transition. At that time, as the new millennium approached, many experts feared that millions of computers worldwide might “crash” because the software that controlled them was built with the assumption that, in all dates, the year began with 19__. Assuring the operational continuity of the world’s software, operating systems, and computer hardware—and most importantly, the spectrum of global activities those systems enabled—required a responsible, focused, aggressive, highly collaborative, international effort among government agencies at all levels, private companies of every size, academia, independent associations and organizations, and thousands of individual programmers, engineers, scientists, and millions of users. Substantial resources were invested in remediating or replacing obsolete components of the cyber-infrastructure. Information, knowledge, and expertise had to be openly and generously shared. It all worked.
The Resilience Imperative 6

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Similarly today, “green” objectives can be factored into all-hazard business and community preparedness plans, and incorporated into state, regional, and ultimately national “blue,” operational resilience, infrastructure requirements. Current technologies and proven processes including those used in the Y2K experience can be used to identify, prioritize, assess, instrument, and in real time, monitor and manage the components and performance of what could be called a “Minimum Essential National Infrastructure” (MENI). To mitigate the immediate and far-reaching, cascading consequences arising from infrastructure failure regardless of cause, the integration of sensor, situational awareness, and visualization technologies can provide cascade predictions, “intercept points”, and automated decision support to rapidly restore minimum essential infrastructure services for a business, community and/or the nation. Efforts to empower responsible green implementation, and specifically identify, attain and sustain blue capabilities would start with the MENI initiative. Then, as understanding of “The Resilience Imperative” grows (or additional—otherwise avoidable—consequences again demand), the nation could expand the MENI’s scope and create a “National Infrastructure Resilience Initiative (NIRI).” Against a list of national priorities, including application of sustainable and consequence mitigating green technologies, the NIRI would identify current and projected blue, security requirements and then assess the risks (threats, vulnerabilities and consequences) of current infrastructure capacities. This would be accomplished consistent with former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge’s vision and operational focus: “When America’s hometowns are secure, the homeland will be secure.” The NIRI (like the MENI initiative) would redirect identification of infrastructure performance standards, responsibilities and authorities from Washington to America’s communities and states. Doing so would give our communities and states a direct and effective voice in both focusing Washington’s efforts and in shaping their own destiny. Because of its national scope and an objective beyond the responsibilities of any single federal department, both the MENI initiative and NIRI, like the Y2K effort, will require a new, integrated leadership and management approach. Accordingly, it would be wise to establish a National Infrastructure Resilience Office (NIRO). The NIRO would create, lead and manage execution of a comprehensive national strategy and programs to identify infrastructure resilience requirements and provide for “ground-truth” assessments to accurately triage, renew, and ensure resilient infrastructure service provision throughout the 21st Century and beyond.

The Resilience Imperative

7

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

Bottom Lines
As history has repeatedly proved, America must advance beyond current traditional infrastructure protection programs and, in an all-hazards environment, rebuild America’s decaying infrastructure. To that end, the nation can either: • • Accomplish infrastructure modernization proactively, intelligently and with a coherent, disciplined standard and empowering objective, or It can continue the present modus-operandi and allow catastrophic protected infrastructure failure to be inflicted upon us with exponentially greater costs in lives lost, long-term human suffering, property and economic damage, and societal breakdown, as well as a further loss of faith in government.

A far superior 21st Century preparedness policy and program alternative— Infrastructure Resilience—is within our grasp. It will resolve the current conflict and symbiotically empower responsible green and blue imperatives. America can either guarantee validation of the words of Spanish philosopher George Santayana who wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” or we can follow the lead of Winston Churchill who said, “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.” The responsible choice is America’s to make. Beyond its protection, in renewing and making the American infrastructure operationally resilient, we will build a farbrighter future for our generation and generations to follow.

About the Author
Jeff Gaynor is the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of eNTEGRITI (www.entegriti.com). Prior to joining eNTEGRITI, Jeff directed the Emergency Response and Critical Infrastructure efforts of the Homeland Security Advisory Council—formerly the President’s Homeland Security Advisory Council—and served as a Senior Executive in the Defense Department as the Special Assistant for Homeland Security; the Acting Principal Director for Security and Information Operations; and the Defense Secretary’s Director of Year 2000 (Y2K) Operations. Prior to his Senior Executive appointment, Jeff served as a Special Assistant for Information Systems Security and co-authored the policies and developed programs enabling the creation of the Defense-wide Information Assurance Program. Mr. Gaynor retired from the Army as a Colonel. His service encompassed over 30 years of enlisted and commissioned, Armor, Infantry, and Military Intelligence experience. His assignments included: Communications Monitor, Counterintelligence Agent and Operations Officer; Infantry Advisor to Vietnamese Territorial Forces; Brigade Intelligence Officer and Secretary General Staff, 25th Infantry Division; Director of the Secretary of Defense/Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Current Intelligence Presentations Division, Defense Intelligence Agency;
The Resilience Imperative 8

Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green – A PERI Symposium

511th Military Intelligence Battalion Commander; Army Programs Officer, General Defense Intelligence Program; and Presidential Communications and Security Officer and Alternate Military Aide to the President during the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations. Mr. Gaynor is the recipient of: The Silver Star; Defense Superior Service Medal; Legion of Merit; three awards of the Bronze Star Medal two for Valor; Combat Infantryman’s, Joint Staff and Presidential Staff Identification Badges and two awards of the Department of Defense Exceptional Civilian Service Medal.

About the Symposium
Infrastructure Risk and Renewal: The Clash of Blue and Green is presented as a public service of the Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI), 11350 Random Hills Rd., Suite 210, Fairfax, VA 22030. Web: www.riskinstitute.org. The Public Entity Risk Institute provides these materials "as is," for educational and informational purposes only, and without representation, guarantee or warranty of any kind, express or implied, including any warranty relating to the accuracy, reliability, completeness, currency or usefulness of the content of this material. Publication and distribution of this material is not an endorsement by PERI, its officers, directors or employees of any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained herein. PERI will not be liable for any claims for damages of any kind based upon errors, omissions or other inaccuracies in the information or material contained here. ***

The Resilience Imperative

9

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful