Full Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education, Issue ...

IWRM Curriculum in the United States113class, distance learning provides a viable substitute.It also provides a flexible option for a professionalworkforce that is either in the field for extendedperiods or working long hours. Some individuals,however, felt that it was simply not suited to thefield of IWRM.ObservationsThe responses to the survey, particularly thewritten ones, suggest a vibrant interest in IWRMin the U.S. In many instances, there are opposingviews as to where the discipline should be focusedand who bears responsibility for its design andexecution. There is a clearly recognized need topromote inter-disciplinary approaches to waterresources management. The recurring argumentbetween engineers, environmentalists, economists,and political science approaches to water resourcesmanagement was evident in the responses.Rivalries between these disciplines will in alllikelihood persist. The IWRM process provides ameans to achieve a balanced perspective, and itwas clear that many of those completing the surveyrecognize that strength. As always, the devil is inthe details, and further challenges exist in:• Gaining a fuller appreciation of what constitutesIWRM in the U.S.• Devising an IWRM curriculum that is trulymulti-disciplinary and addresses practitioner• Defining the roles of the public and privatesector in the educational process• Creating incentives that attract more studentsto the field of IWRM• Identifying research opportunities that promoteIWRM principles• Making more people aware of the importanceof IWRM and the various training opportunitiesthat exist.Possible Next StepsWhile some of the respondents maintained thatIWRM training should be market-driven, the vastmajority felt that further incentives are in order.In considering whether or not to build upon thefoundation laid by the Corps and a few universities,key questions emerge that merit further exploration,namely:• Is there a need to develop guidelines onwhat constitutes a given university’s IWRMprogram?• Which incentives, if any, should be promoted todevelop sustainable IWRM training programs?• What incentives are needed to sustain a multiuniversityapproach should it prove to bewarranted?• What exceptions are allowable to attracta broad-based network of researchers andpractitioners?Several respondents suggested that a workshop toaddress these issues is warranted, and the need toprepare a broadly acceptable approach definingand using IWRM. Ideally, such a workshop wouldbe attended by a balanced blend of academicianswho can address the course requirements, andpractitioners who can speak to the training needsof their respective organization. At the federallevel, agencies such as the Bureau of Reclamation,the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S.Geological Survey, the Department of Energy, theNational Resources Conservation Service, and theBureau of Land Management all play major rolesin water resources management. State and regionalinterest groups are also critical players in issuesframing IWRM training and educational programsthat more fully address practitioner needs.The primary focus of this particular surveyrelated to training and educational needs internalto the United States. International organizations,such as the Global Water Partnership, have madegreat strides in recent years in terms of advancingthe principles of IWRM. They also need to betaken into account as we struggle to customizeIWRM to suit needs peculiar to the U.S.Endnotes1.2.3.The participating universities include: the Universityof Arizona, the Johns Hopkins University, theUniversity of Florida, Southern Illinois UniversityCarbondale, and Harvard University.Those who developed the survey were: PaulBourget, David DeWalle, Richard Engberg, GeraldGalloway, and Ari Michelsen.The entire list of specialty areas consistedof: water quality, water supply and security,legal/institutional aspects, water resourcesJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR