California Needs 42 Cubic Km of Water

December 16, 2014
RELEASE 14-333
NASA Analysis: 11 Trillion Gallons to Replenish California Drought Losses

It will take about 11 trillion gallons of water (42 cubic kilometers) — around 1.5 times the maximum volume of the largest U.S. reservoir — to recover from California’s continuing drought, according to a new analysis of NASA satellite data.

 

The finding was part of a sobering update on the state’s drought made possible by space and airborne measurements and presented by NASA scientists Dec. 16 at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco. Such data are giving scientists an unprecedented ability to identify key features of droughts, data that can be used to inform water management decisions.

A team of scientists led by Jay Famiglietti of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California used data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites to develop the first-ever calculation of this kind — the volume of water required to end an episode of drought.

Earlier this year, at the peak of California’s current three-year drought, the team found that water storage in the state’s Sacramento and San Joaquin river basins was 11 trillion gallons below normal seasonal levels. Data collected since the launch of GRACE in 2002 shows this deficit has increased steadily.

“Spaceborne and airborne measurements of Earth’s changing shape, surface height and gravity field now allow us to measure and analyze key features of droughts better than ever before, including determining precisely when they begin and end and what their magnitude is at any moment in time,” Famiglietti said. “That’s an incredible advance and something that would be impossible using only ground-based observations.”

GRACE data reveal that, since 2011, the Sacramento and San Joaquin river basins decreased in volume by four trillion gallons of water each year (15 cubic kilometers). That’s more water than California’s 38 million residents use each year for domestic and municipal purposes. About two-thirds of the loss is due to depletion of groundwater beneath California’s Central Valley.

In related results, early 2014 data from NASA’s Airborne Snow Observatory indicate that snowpack in California’s Sierra Nevada range was only half of previous estimates.

The observatory is providing the first-ever high-resolution observations of snow water volume in the Tuolumne River, Merced, Kings and Lakes basins of the Sierra Nevada and Uncompahgre watershed in the Upper Colorado River Basin.

To develop these calculations, the observatory measures how much water is in the snowpack and how much sunlight the snow absorbs, which influences how fast the snow melts. These data enable accurate estimates of how much water will flow out of a basin when the snow melts, which helps guide decision about reservoir filling and water allocation.

“The 2014 snowpack was one of the three lowest on record and the worst since 1977, when California’s population was half what it is now,” said Airborne Snow Observatory principal investigator Tom Painter of JPL. “Besides resulting in less snow water, the dramatic reduction in snow extent contributes to warming our climate by allowing the ground to absorb more sunlight. This reduces soil moisture, which makes it harder to get water from the snow into reservoirs once it does start snowing again.”

New drought maps show groundwater levels across the U.S. Southwest are in the lowest two to 10 percent since 1949. The maps, developed at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, combine GRACE data with other satellite observations.

“Integrating GRACE data with other satellite measurements provides a more holistic view of the impact of drought on water availability, including on groundwater resources, which are typically ignored in standard drought indices,” said Matt Rodell, chief of the Hydrological Sciences Laboratory at Goddard.

The scientists cautioned that while the recent California storms have been helpful in replenishing water resources, they aren’t nearly enough to end the multi-year drought.

“It takes years to get into a drought of this severity, and it will likely take many more big storms, and years, to crawl out of it,” said Famiglietti.

NASA monitors Earth’s vital signs from land, air and space with a fleet of satellites and ambitious airborne and ground-based observation campaigns. The agency develops new ways to observe and study Earth’s interconnected natural systems with long-term data records and computer analysis tools to better see how our planet is changing. The agency shares this unique knowledge with the global community and works with institutions in the United States and around the world that contribute to understanding and protecting our home planet.

Climate Change, Differentiation and Money

December 14, 2014

The United Nations climate change conference in Lima ended with a less than comprehensive accord.

There’s an anecdote from the age before radar that illustrates where the world stands today with respect to climate change:
A brand new dreadnought-class battleship is steaming at 15 knots in thick fog. The lookout spots a barely visible light straight ahead, at an indeterminate distance, and reports it to the captain. Based on the growing intensity of the light, the captain assumes a fast-approaching small vessel, as of yet invisible to the lookout, is unaware of the impending collision. Hastily he blows the horn and sends a wireless ordering it to move. A swift response comes in, short and blunt, “You move.” Incensed, the captain responds, “No, you move. I’m a dreadnought; it takes us much longer to turn and there’s no time. If you don’t we’ll crush you.” To which the light replies, “No, you move. I’m a lighthouse on dry land and you only have a few minutes before you hit the jagged rocks and boulders around me.”

It’s no secret that a handful of nations own, or control by proxy, most of the fossil fuel reserves in the world. Collectively they also produce and consume the lion’s share of the fuels, therefore their wealth and power are linked to them. That of course poses a dilemma as it conflicts with the urgent need to fight climate change. For that reason their goal seems to be a finely tweaked reduction, but not outright elimination, of fossil fuels as a principal component of the world’s energy supply. For example, if they were to assist poor nations that lack domestic sources of hydrocarbons (captive clients) make the transition to solar to generate all their electricity, three things would likely decline: the demand for fossil fuels, their price, and the need for dollars to pay for them. Conversely, poor nations would benefit greatly. They would pay nothing for fuel to generate electricity and they would save their hard-earned dollars for other priorities. This would amount to nothing less than a tectonic shift in the world order.

While better than nothing, it’s simply not enough to limit the average atmospheric temperature increase to an “acceptable” level. Already we’re experiencing catastrophic storms and devastating droughts; many if not most of the world’s great aquifers are being depleted at an alarming rate and entire rivers no longer reach the sea. Worse, there’s no global forum, not even a discussion to create one, to address a crisis that may well ignite wars and famine in the not too distant future.

Collectively, individually or in groups, countries should very seriously consider the possibility of creating an alternate binding mechanism within the context of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to:

  • use solar energy to eventually generate all our electricity;
  • use excess electricity to produce hydrogen by electrolysis of seawater;
  • use the hydrogen expressly to manufacture pure water wherever it’s needed or desired, domestically or for export;
  • generate additional electricity using hydrogen and gravity as described in Plan A above.

The technology exists, and it should improve. As for money, there’s plenty of idle private capital worldwide which could be tapped under the right terms and conditions.
Several variants of Plan A, designed for a variety of regions, are available. The question is, will the dreadnought change its course?

Sao Paulo’s Water Crisis

December 9, 2014

Sao Paulo, a city of 20 million people, has water for 60 days. Whether the cause is global warming, deforestation in the Amazon, or something else is irrelevant. The point is that the city depends on rainfall to replenish its reservoirs. Well, it’s not raining, and there’s no guarantee that the situation will improve. The truth is that despite all our technological achievements, we’re still as dependent on the natural water cycle as our Neanderthal and Homo Erectus ancestors. The difference is that now there are more mouths to feed and industries to supply, and that consumes far more water per person than ever before.

Let Sao Paulo’s predicament ring loud and clear. Perhaps our elected leaders will realize that it is unsustainable and preposterous, in this day and age, to rely on prehistoric technology. We must emulate agriculture: cease collecting water and start “growing” it. Of course, that requires hydrogen,  the one element in water that is not found in the atmosphere.

The principle is simple. If Lima, Los Angeles (currently enduring the worst drought, by some measures, in 1,200 years), Beijing, Teheran, or any city in a similar situation were to use hydrogen instead of fossil or nuclear fuels to generate their electricity, they might well become water self-sufficient and greatly reduce their greenhouse emissions. Better yet, hydrogen is renewable; unlike fossil fuels, we’ll never deplete the ocean.

Swiss Water Splitter – 2014

December 8, 2014

The ongoing worldwide effort to improve the efficiency of using solar energy to split water to produce hydrogen -electrolysis- has added a new milestone. Scientists from Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL) in Switzerland have achieved a solar energy to hydrogen conversion efficiency of 12.3 percent using nickel and iron electrode catalysts and perovskite solar absorbers, all common materials.

Only once, in 1988, was the 10% conversion efficiency rate -considered exceptional- exceeded, and that system used expensive platinum electrodes. In addition to its lower cost, perovskite cells can generate higher average open circuit voltages than silicon cells. As a result, only two perovskite cells are needed to generate the required 1.7 V for water electrolysis. Silicon systems require three cells.

One drawback: perovskite PVs are unstable. Photocurrent degradation occurs in a matter of hours. While the cause is not yet fully understood, scientists hope to solve this problem soon to enable scaling up or production.

Compromise at the Convention on Climate Change, Lima 2014

December 7, 2014

As at previous similar conventions, there is agreement on the overall goal, not on who should do what, when, and pay how much. Rather than repeating the entire list of disagreements, the following might become the basis for a possible compromise.

The overall goal is to reduce global greenhouse emissions. The current mindset is that each country is responsible for curbing a percentage of its emissions, and that rich nations must help poor nations with $100 billion annually by 2020. So far pledges to the Green Climate Fund amount to $10 billion, understandable since no one likes or wants to pay.

There’s nothing to prohibit one country from investing in another to reduce the 2nd country’s emissions. For example, China, the world’s largest emitter, could finance (as a loan, possibly even in Chinese currency) the installation of solar panels on each and every building in Lima, the host city. Gradually, following a well-designed plan, conventional power plants serving Lima would be taken off line. That would reduce Peru’s emissions. Simultaneously, also with Chinese funding, a plant to produce hydrogen by electrolysis of seawater (and chlorine, a byproduct) would be built. Emulating the successful Hawaiian model, excess electricity generated by Lima’s new solar panels would be used to power the plant.

Benefits for China
China would have the right to buy the hydrogen at a discounted price for a specified period of time, enough to amortize the loan. At the end of the period the price would revert to market price. Back home, China would use the hydrogen to generate electricity and produce pure water (a priceless byproduct) whether at planned or existing coal-fired power plants. Thus, China would get credit for reducing emissions in both countries, 100% in China and 50% in Lima, which would help it meet its greenhouse gases reduction goal/pledge. The additional electricity and water would help China maintain or expand its economic growth, a boon for the global economy.

Benefits for Peru
It would become an important exporter of hydrogen and chlorine, and since hydrogen is renewable its reserves would never run dry. It could invest the income from the sale of hydrogen to build yet more plants for domestic use. The new water would eventually compensate for the shrinking Andean glaciers, and it would save all those dollars currently being spent to buy fossil fuels for conventional plants.

Of course, the system can accommodate similar arrangements between other rich and poor nations.

Australian Solar Panels 40% Efficient

December 7, 2014

Researchers at the University of New South Wales announced that they were able to convert more than 40% of sunlight hitting panels into electricity. The tests were replicated at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the United States.

A similar breakthrough (44.7%) at the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, ISE, Soitec, CEA-Leti and the Helmholtz Center Berlin was announced in September 2013.

Climate Change & Lima, Peru 2014

December 2, 2014
The ongoing United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (December 1 through 12, 2014) in Lima must not fail to slow, and eventually halt, the use of fossil fuels and nuclear energy to generate electricity. That would greatly reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the principal cause of climate change, and eliminate the threat of meltdowns and grid destruction whether by acts of nature, war or terrorism. The technology exists, it’s been tested and it works. Other than the influence of powerful monopolies, there’s no valid reason not to use solar energy to mass produce hydrogen by electrolysis. The potential demand is immense, for unlike other fuels, only hydrogen can produce pure, priceless water.

Hopefully the illustrious delegates will realize, while in Lima, that the majestic Andes, the Pacific Ocean and the sun can get the job done. They’re idle, put them to work! Plan A would stimulate the global economy and (eventually) conquer drought. It would create millions of jobs, increase the purchasing power of the poor and eliminate the dangerous competition for limited non-renewable oil and gas resources among the great (nuclear) powers. Improve the environment and make the world safer for your descendants. The time for talking, negotiating and bickering is over (the Secretary General of the United Nations agrees). Act!

UCLA Fees 1949-1950

Source: Registrar Archive, University of California at Los Angeles
Inflation conversion factor 1950-2014 = 9.8520; 2014 dollars in parentheses.

Incidental fee: $39 ($384.23)
Covers certain expenses of students for library books, athletic and gymnasium facilities and equipment, lockers and washrooms, registration and graduation, consultation, medical advice, dispensary treatment as can furnished on the campus by the Student Health Services, and for all laboratory and course fees. It also includes the rights and privileges of membership in the Associated Students, valued at $4 ($39.41). No part of this fee is remitted to those students who may not desire to make use of any or all of these privileges. If a student withdraws from the University within the first five weeks from the date of his registration, a part of this fee will be refunded. The incidental fee for graduate students is $35 ($344.82) each semester; it does not include membership in the Associated Students. Students who are classified as nonresidents of the State are required to pay, each semester, in addition to the incidental fee, a tuition fee of $150 ($1,477.80).

Tuition. The University charges a tuition fee to every student who has not been a legal resident of the state of California for a period of one year immediately preceding the opening day of the semester during which he proposes to enroll. Tuition in the academic colleges is free to students who have been residents of the state of California for a period of one year immediately preceding the opening of the semester during which they propose to attend the University. Students who are classified as nonresidents are required to pay a tuition fee of $150 ($1,477.80) each semester. This fee is in addition to the incidental fee.

Other Fees
Application fee, $5 ($49.26). This is charged every applicant for admission to the University, and is payable at the time the first application is filed. Applicants for graduate status must pay this fee, even though it may have been paid once in undergraduate status.

Medical examination: Original appointment, or deferment arranged in advance, no fee. Fee for a second appointment, $2 ($19.70).
Late filing of registration book, $2 ($19.70).
Late examination in Subject A, $1 ($9.85).
For courses added or dropped after date set for fling registration book, $1 (9.85) for each petition.
For reinstatement of lapsed status, $5 ($49.26).
For late application for teaching assignment, $1 ($9.85).
For late notice of candidacy for the bachelor’s degree, $2 ($19.70.
For late return of athletic supplies, $1 ($9.85) for each 24 hours until full purchase price of article is reached.
For failure to empty locker within specified time, $2 ($19.70).
Returned check collection, $1 ($9.85).
Deposit required of applicants for teaching positions who register with the Office of Teacher Placement, a deposit of $5 (49.26) to cover the clerical cost of correspondence and copying of credentials.

Refunds
Refund of a part of the incidental fee is made to a student who withdraws from the University within five weeks from the date of his registration.
Refund on the nonresident fee is made in accordance with a schedule on file in the offices of the Registrar and Cashier; dates are computed from the first day of instruction of the semester.
No claim for refund of fees will be considered unless such claim is presented during the fiscal year to which the claim is applicable. No student will be entitled to a refund except upon surrender to the Cashier of his registration certificate and receipt. Students should preserve their receipts.

UCLA 2-Semester Costs 1949-1950

Secretary Hagel & The New Arms Race

Outgoing Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s Keynote Speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Simi Valley, CA, November 15, 2014

Excerpt

The Department of Defense is undergoing a defining time of transition. After 13 years of war fought by an all-volunteer force, we’re facing a reshaping of our enterprise by a fiscal environment plagued by constant budget uncertainty and a large, continuing decline in resources, and by a historic realignment of interests and influences around the world.

Enduring and emerging powers are challenging the world order that American leadership helped build after World War II. In the Middle East, in North Africa, the order within and between states is being recast in ways that we’ve not seen for almost a century, often leaving dangerous ungoverned spaces in their wake. In West Africa, a virus 1,000 smaller than a human hair has in less than a year infected over 13,000 people, killed 5,000 people, and shook governments and health care systems alike. In Europe, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine represents one of the most blatant acts of state-on-state aggression on that continent since the end of World War II. And in the Asia-Pacific competition between rising powers threatens to undermine the stability that has allowed the region to prosper and thrive.

We are at the beginning, not at the end, of this realignment. And as Henry Kissinger recently put it in his new book, World Order, “only a subtle balance of restraint, force, and legitimacy will help forge a new order” – an order that will be years, and probably decades, in the making. This means that the missions and focus of the Defense Department will continue to be marked and defined by transition.

As these dynamics unfold, the U.S. military is engaging in today’s crises and security challenges around the world – degrading ISIL, helping stop the spread of Ebola, and reinforcing our NATO allies. Few would have predicted these missions a year ago, and as you all know well, uncertainty is the only certainty in an interconnected world of seven billion people.

DoD’s responsibilities are to be prepared to address a broad range of contingencies and unpredictable crises well into the future. That means we must prepare our defense enterprise – prepare our defense enterprise for the challenges of that uncertain future. We face the rise of new technologies, national powers, and non-state actors; sophisticated, deadly and often asymmetric emerging threats, ranging from cyberattacks to transnational criminal networks; as well as persistent, volatile threats we have faced for years.

Our long-term security will depend on whether we can address today’s crises while also planning and preparing for tomorrow’s threats. This requires making disciplined choices and meeting all our nation’s challenges with long-term vision.

That is what the Defense Department is doing today. We are not waiting for change to come. We’re not waiting for that change to come to us. We’re taking the initiative, getting ahead of that change – that change we know is coming – and making the long-term investments we need for the future.

I’d like to take few minutes to discuss two of the most important investments we’re making – and the leadership and the partnership that will be required to sustain them:

First, investing in our nation’s unrivaled capacity for innovation. Many industrial leaders are here today in this audience, and know exactly what is at stake in this challenge. This is important so that in the face of mounting challenges, our military’s capability, technological edge, strategy, and readiness will continue to stay ahead of any potential adversary.

And second, reforming our defense enterprise: to ensure that our military’s foundation is reliable, agile, accountable, and worthy – worthy of the men and women who serve in it. I know in some of the panels today that Secretary James, General Dunford, Admiral Greenert, and others talked about some of these issues, in particular readiness.

Today our military has nearly 400,000 personnel stationed or forward-deployed in nearly 100 countries around the world, from Afghanistan to the Philippines to Guatemala. This continued forward presence has helped anchor America’s global leadership for decades, with its unmatched technological and operation edge.

That superiority has never been guaranteed, and today it is being increasingly challenged. Technologies and weapons that were once the exclusive province of advanced nations have become available to a broad range of militaries and non-state actors, from dangerously provocative North Korea to terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and Hezbollah – all clear threats to the United States and its allies.

And while we spent over a decade focused on grinding stability operations, countries like Russia and China have been heavily investing in military modernization programs to blunt our military’s technological edge, fielding advanced aircraft, submarines, and both longer range and more accurate missiles. They’re also developing new anti-ship and air-to-air missiles, counter-space, cyber, electronic warfare, undersea, and air attack capabilities.

America must continue to ensure its ability to project power rapidly across oceans and continents by surging aircraft, ships troops and supplies. If this capability is eroded or lost, we will see a world far more dangerous and unstable, far more threatening to America and our citizens here at home than we have seen since World War II.

Without our superiority, the strength and credibility of our alliances will suffer. Our commitment to enforcing long-established international law, rules of the road, and principles could be doubted by both our friends and our adversaries. Questions about our ability to win future wars could undermine our ability to deter them. And our Armed Forces could one day go into battle confronting a range of advanced technologies that limit our freedom of maneuver. This would allow a potential conflict to exact crippling costs and put at risk too many American lives.

America does not believe in sending our troops into a fair fight. Bob Gates, Leon Panetta, all of our predecessors believe that – and were responsible for ensuring that didn’t happen.

But that is a credo we will not be able to honor if we do not take the initiative and address these mounting challenges now. DoD must continue to modernize our nation’s capabilities and sustain its operational and technological edge. And we must do so by making new, long-term investments in innovation.

We’ve accomplished this before. In the 1950s, President Eisenhower successfully offset the Soviet Union’s conventional superiority through his New Look build-up of America’s nuclear deterrent. In the 1970s, Secretary of Defense Harold Brown, working closely with Undersecretary – and future Defense Secretary – Bill Perry, shepherded their own offset strategy, establishing the Long-Range Research and Development Planning Program that helped develop and field revolutionary new systems, such as extended-range precision-guided munitions, stealth aircraft, and new intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms.

All these systems drew upon technological developments, such as the micro-processing revolution, that had unfolded over the course of a few decades. The critical innovation was to apply and combine these new systems and technologies with new strategic operational concepts, in ways that enable the American military to avoid matching an adversary “tank-for-tank or soldier-for-soldier.” Because subsequent leaders, including President Reagan, sustained these investments on a bipartisan basis – bipartisan basis, bipartisan basis – these investments helped America build and hold our military edge for decades.

Today I’m announcing a new Defense Innovation Initiative – an initiative that we expect to develop into a game-changing third ‘offset’ strategy.

This new initiative is an ambitious department-wide effort to identify and invest in innovative ways to sustain and advance America’s military dominance for the 21st century. It will put new resources behind innovation, but also account for today’s fiscal realities – by focusing on investments that will sharpen our military edge even as we contend with fewer resources. Continued fiscal pressure will likely limit our military’s ability to respond to long-term challenges by increasing the size of our force or simply outspending potential adversaries on current systems, so to overcome challenges to our military superiority, we must change the way we innovate, operate, and do business.

The new Innovation Initiative will draw on the lessons of previous offset strategies and ensure that America’s power-projection capabilities continue to sustain our competitive advantage over the coming decades. To achieve this, we are pursuing several lines of effort.

Our technology effort will establish a new Long-Range Research and Development Planning Program that will help identify, develop, and field breakthroughs in the most cutting-edge technologies and systems – especially from the fields of robotics, autonomous systems, miniaturization, big data, and advanced manufacturing, including 3D printing. This program will look toward the next decade and beyond.

In the near-term, it will invite some of the brightest minds from inside and outside government to start with a clean sheet of paper, and assess what technologies and systems DoD ought to develop over the next three to five years and beyond.

The Defense Innovation Initiative will explore and develop new operational concepts, including new approaches to warfighting, and how we balance DoD’s investments between platforms and payloads. It will focus on new approaches on war-gaming and professional military education – I know General Dunford talked about training and readiness today, work that has already begun in the area, that our military leaders started, professional military education. And it will focus on our most important asset – our people – by pursuing both time-honored leadership development practices, as well as emerging opportunities to re-imagine how we develop managers and leaders.

I’ve asked secretary – Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work to guide the development of this initiative, and he will lead a new Advanced Capability and Deterrent Panel to drive it forward. This panel will integrate DoD’s senior leadership across the entire enterprise: its policies and intelligence communities; the armed services; the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and research, development, and acquisition authorities.

I expect the panel to propose important changes to the way DoD diagnoses and plans for challenges to our military’s competitive edge, and I also expected to break with many of our usual ways of doing business, encouraging fresh thinking that is focused on threats and challenges to our military superiority, not simply adapting what is on the books today.

The panel must also face a new challenge ahead, and that is one of many, but the fiscal [sic] challenge: the fact that many, if not most, of the technologies that we seek to take advantage of today are no longer also in the domain of DoD development pipelines or traditional defense contractors. We all know that DoD no longer has exclusive access to the most cutting-edge technology or the ability to spur or control the development of new technologies the way we once did. So we will actively seek proposals from the private sector, including those firms, and from those firms and academic institutions outside DoD’s traditional orbit.

The Defense Innovation Initiative will shape our programs, plans, and budgets. As the initiative matures over time, I expect its impact on DoD’s budget to scale up in tandem.

Successfully investing in these long-term priorities requires the foundation of a sound, resilient, and accountable defense enterprise…because ensuring the health and vitality of DoD as an institution is critical to our ability to prepare for the future.

As the world in which we operate changes, we must change, too. We must revitalize, renew, and, when necessary, reform. That applies to everything we do, from special operations and airstrikes to health care for troops and their families.

As you all know, the Department of Defense is the world’s largest institution. Some of you here today who once had the responsibility for leading this institution know well how large and complex it is. This institution employs roughly one percent of America’s population. DoD’s property includes more than 560,000 buildings and structures at more than 520 facilities, stretching over 27 million acres of land.

Any institution of this magnitude and complexity – and breadth of mission and responsibilities – is slow to change. But the reality is that change will continue to be forces upon us – on terms not of our choosing – unless we take the initiative ourselves now.

So DoD must continue to engage in wide-ranging and often uphill reform. We will take the controls [sic] and work from there. The uncontrollables we’ll factor in, and we’ll deal with. Management is a key part of all of this. How will it be managed? Who will manage it? We’re pursuing reform not just for the sake of reform, but wise reform that makes the enterprise stronger and better prepared for the future. Everything else – everything else we do depends on it.

Yesterday I announced actions DoD is taking to revamp our nuclear enterprise, including new resources and shakeups in organizations, policy, and culture. It will take years of committed action to fix problems that have accumulated over many, many years. But we will fix them – and ensure that our nation continues to have a safe, secure, ready, and effective nuclear deterrent. As I told airmen at Minot Air Force Base yesterday afternoon, I will personally hold DoD’s leaders accountable to ensure that promises translate into action, and that action translates into real and sustainable improvements.

To further shift the department’s energy, focus, and resources toward supporting our frontline operations, I’ve ordered full reviews of DoD’s business and management systems. The first reviews are underway now, starting with the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

DoD must embrace better business practices, better business practices that are core to any modern enterprise, private or public. This means upgrading our business and information technology systems and processes, striking the right balance between civil service and contractor support, and avoiding duplication of support functions in OSD and the services.

After years of postponement and delay, we are making progress in moving DoD toward greater financial accountability. Much because my predecessors focused on this issue, the Marine Corps became the first service to earn a clean audit earlier this year, and DoD as a whole remains on track to be fully, completely, audit-ready by no later than 2017. That goal could not sound more dull, I know. But as you all know – especially those from the private sector who run big companies – that goal is essential for DoD’s effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability into the future.

To streamline the way the Pentagon does business, DoD is also continuing the large acquisition improvement and reform efforts led by Frank Kendall, who is sitting here in the front row today. As you all know, Frank Kendall is our Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. The aim of his effort is to – in partnership with the Congress – overhaul the legal framework for DoD acquisitions by reducing unnecessary paperwork so that we can focus on key, strategic priorities.

In addition to all of these efforts, we’re also pursuing concrete results and improvements through many other reform initiatives that are essential to the long-term health and readiness of the force. These include improvements to our military health care system, our military justice system, and accounting for our nation’s missing personnel. They also encompass a renewed focus on military ethics and professionalism, systems integration with the Veterans Administration, and eliminating sexual assault in the military.

We’re all committed to ensuring that the Defense Department sustains its focus on all of these efforts. At the same time, we are dealing with crises all over the world, and we’re reforming our processes, because they will ultimately shape – they will ultimately shape our ability to develop any new capabilities, strengthen our partnerships, and honor our enduring commitments to our people and their families. It is their service that makes possible everything we do. We must never lose sight of that.

The Department of Defense has been making the hard choices and mustering the flexibility required by new realities. But to succeed, we need the support and partnership of Congress, especially at a time when demands on our military are surging and our resources are shrinking, and our abilities to manage our institution are being more and more limited.

Since 2011, DoD has been forced to operate on continuing resolutions every year, impairing our ability to plan, invest, and reform. As I reminded Congress earlier this week before Chairman McKeon’s committee, you cannot run any institution on continuing resolutions. It will not work – especially the national security of this country.

We need actual budgets – budgets that give us certainly and predictability – and the flexibility to make the management internal decisions about what’s required to deal with current and future threats for this country. We have also been prevented from undertaking critical cost-savings measures, especially reducing excess basing and facilities.

Despite numerous efforts and almost 10 years since the last round, DoD has been unable to secure another round of base realignment and closure. Today, DoD has 24 percent excess capacity in our basing and facilities – excess capacity that is costing us billions of dollars every year, money that could otherwise be invested in maintaining our military’s edge. We need Congress to help end this excess spending.

We also need Congress to support proposed reform to military pay and compensation. No one who wears our nation’s uniform is overpaid – no one is overpaid for their service. But since 2001, DoD’s pay and benefits for service members has outstripped private sector compensation growth by about 40 percent. For military personnel, DoD has proposed continued but more moderate pay increases; continued but more moderate growth of tax-free housing allowances; and modest increases to insurance co-pays.

But again, we need Congress to act. And the longer we defer the tough choices, the tougher they will be to make down the road and the more brutal the outcome.

Without the ability to make programmatic adjustments like retiring aging aircraft, and without base realignment and closure, the department will face a bill of about $30 billion over Fiscal Years 2016 to 2020. Denying DoD the flexibility to make modest adjustments to military compensation is expected to cost tens of billions of dollars more. Factor in new bills arising from urgent investments – including our new effort to renew our nuclear enterprise, space infrastructure, and technological modernization – and the hole in our budget could grow to more than $70 billion over the 2016-2020 Future Years Defense Program. That is the equivalent of what our Navy – what our Navy will spend to buy all its battle force ships over the next five years. Or more than what the Air Force – more than what our Air Force will spend to buy all of its aircraft over the next five years.

Let me underscore that all of this comes before we address the possibility of a return to sequestration in Fiscal Year 2016. Sequestration is still the law of the land, and it will return unless the law is changed. The continuation of sequestration could impose nearly $1 trillion – $1 trillion in cuts to our defense budget over 10 years. As you all know, we have already begun taking those deep cuts over the last few years. That would devastate our military readiness and threaten our ability to execute our nation’s defense strategy.

WordPress theme: Kippis 1.15
Translate »