Environment, Coasts, Oceans, & Infrastructure

         Having recently completed the ASCE Continuing Education course on Hydrologic Trespass and Nuisance Considerations in Stormwater Management Design, I found its legal insights invaluable, though its scope remains primarily grounded in the U.S judicial system , introduces valuable risk-management insights, yet its application is limited to the U.S. legal context. In light of the increasing complexity of transboundary hydrologic systems, there is a compelling need to extend ASCE's codes, standards, and policy frameworks to incorporate legal and ethical accountability across riparian jurisdictions.

 Supporting References from ASCE and International Bodies:

- UN-Water 2024: Identifies major gaps in operational arrangements in shared basins and advocates for institutional frameworks that include dispute resolution, climate resilience, and cooperative sovereignty.

- ASCE Standard 78-24, Security of Water Facilities: Does not address cross-jurisdictional liability mechanisms.

- ASCE Standard 33-23 – Interparty Water Quality Coordination: Offers collaborative tools but lacks enforceable provisions for transboundary accountability.

- Policy Statements PS441, PS506, PS509: Promote responsible engineering across borders, with emphasis on sustainability and environmental justice.

- GEOSTRATA magazine (August, 2025 ): Links engineering failures like Malpasset, Teton, and San Francisco to systemic governance limitations; highlights institutional roles of ICOLD, ASDSO, and others in shaping accountable water infrastructure practices.

These references affirm that the evolution of codes must go beyond technical calibration. What's needed is the integration of governance principles that reflect shared basin realities and ethical design practices.

Proposed Areas for Standard Expansion:

- Embedding multi-jurisdictional liability into hydrologic design standards.

- Establishing ethical frameworks for riparian coordination and upstream/downstream equity.

- Codifying legal clarity in cross-border project execution and basin-wide risk assessment.

Such expansion would not only strengthen the applicability of ASCE standards globally, but also enhance proactive mitigation strategies in high-risk zones, elevate community protections downstream of water infrastructure, and increase ASCE's trust index in international project environments.

🛡️ Institutional Insight from Practice

       As a Strategic advisor in Infrastructure Governance, and founder of the Regional Dams Safety Unit (RDSU), a Proposal design to foster a regional platform for cross-border cooperation in dam safety, engineering ethics, and hydrologic risk mitigation between Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia. I believe true engineering advancement occurs when technical standards reflect principles of justice, sovereignty, and foresight.

Water does not recognize political borders. Our codes must learn to listen, and respond with dignity, duty, and distributive fairness.

Call to ASCE Technical Committees and Members

I invite ASCE task forces, standard developers, and policy committees, including those engaged with EWRI, COPRI, and SEI, to consider this proposal as part of ASCE's larger mission: not just to build infrastructure, but to build trust, justice, and societal value through ethical engineering.

So far :

What frameworks have you seen succeed in cross-border water governance, and how might ASCE codes evolve to support a more just and resilient future?

With professional regards and enduring respect,

Abubakr Elfatih Ahmed Gameil

Thanks for a thought-provoking post. I'm not knowledgeable enough to offer specific ideas but reading about the watershed issues between Mexico and the USA, Pakistan and India, and others suggest that the issues are deep and intractable.

Is an ASCE Task Committee a suitable approach to addressing the potential need for policy and code updates?

Bill Mc

         Having recently completed the ASCE Continuing Education course on Hydrologic Trespass and Nuisance Considerations in Stormwater Management Design, I found its legal insights invaluable, though its scope remains primarily grounded in the U.S judicial system , introduces valuable risk-management insights, yet its application is limited to the U.S. legal context. In light of the increasing complexity of transboundary hydrologic systems, there is a compelling need to extend ASCE's codes, standards, and policy frameworks to incorporate legal and ethical accountability across riparian jurisdictions.

 Supporting References from ASCE and International Bodies:

- UN-Water 2024: Identifies major gaps in operational arrangements in shared basins and advocates for institutional frameworks that include dispute resolution, climate resilience, and cooperative sovereignty.

- ASCE Standard 78-24, Security of Water Facilities: Does not address cross-jurisdictional liability mechanisms.

- ASCE Standard 33-23 – Interparty Water Quality Coordination: Offers collaborative tools but lacks enforceable provisions for transboundary accountability.

- Policy Statements PS441, PS506, PS509: Promote responsible engineering across borders, with emphasis on sustainability and environmental justice.

- GEOSTRATA magazine (August, 2025 ): Links engineering failures like Malpasset, Teton, and San Francisco to systemic governance limitations; highlights institutional roles of ICOLD, ASDSO, and others in shaping accountable water infrastructure practices.

These references affirm that the evolution of codes must go beyond technical calibration. What's needed is the integration of governance principles that reflect shared basin realities and ethical design practices.

Proposed Areas for Standard Expansion:

- Embedding multi-jurisdictional liability into hydrologic design standards.

- Establishing ethical frameworks for riparian coordination and upstream/downstream equity.

- Codifying legal clarity in cross-border project execution and basin-wide risk assessment.

Such expansion would not only strengthen the applicability of ASCE standards globally, but also enhance proactive mitigation strategies in high-risk zones, elevate community protections downstream of water infrastructure, and increase ASCE's trust index in international project environments.

🛡️ Institutional Insight from Practice

       As a Strategic advisor in Infrastructure Governance, and founder of the Regional Dams Safety Unit (RDSU), a Proposal design to foster a regional platform for cross-border cooperation in dam safety, engineering ethics, and hydrologic risk mitigation between Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia. I believe true engineering advancement occurs when technical standards reflect principles of justice, sovereignty, and foresight.

Water does not recognize political borders. Our codes must learn to listen, and respond with dignity, duty, and distributive fairness.

Call to ASCE Technical Committees and Members

I invite ASCE task forces, standard developers, and policy committees, including those engaged with EWRI, COPRI, and SEI, to consider this proposal as part of ASCE's larger mission: not just to build infrastructure, but to build trust, justice, and societal value through ethical engineering.

So far :

What frameworks have you seen succeed in cross-border water governance, and how might ASCE codes evolve to support a more just and resilient future?

With professional regards and enduring respect,

Abubakr Elfatih Ahmed Gameil

Thank you for you, Dr. McAnally, Thank you sincerely for honoring the proposal with your thoughtful response. 

Your concern is both direct and deeply appreciated.

I fully agree, transboundary water governance is indeed complex, shaped by a multitude of factors, including political sensitivities, jurisdictional boundaries, and concerns over national sovereignty. Given this layered complexity, solutions are rarely straightforward.

In my humble view, a Task Committee alone may not be sufficient to resolve all dimensions of the issue. However, it can play a crucial role as a facilitator; helping to identify shared concerns among riparian states, especially in light of differing legal frameworks. Once a common ethical and procedural foundation is established, the appropriate standing committees may be better positioned to carry the work forward.

The encouraging part; is that ASCE's existing codes and policies are robust. With just a modest institutional push, they can evolve to become even more impactful, in addressing global challenges like this in very professional way.

Thank you very much, we always learning from you the importance of looking from many angles.

Warmest regard

Abubakr Gameil

Thanks for a thought-provoking post. I'm not knowledgeable enough to offer specific ideas but reading about the watershed issues between Mexico and the USA, Pakistan and India, and others suggest that the issues are deep and intractable.

Is an ASCE Task Committee a suitable approach to addressing the potential need for policy and code updates?

Bill Mc

         Having recently completed the ASCE Continuing Education course on Hydrologic Trespass and Nuisance Considerations in Stormwater Management Design, I found its legal insights invaluable, though its scope remains primarily grounded in the U.S judicial system , introduces valuable risk-management insights, yet its application is limited to the U.S. legal context. In light of the increasing complexity of transboundary hydrologic systems, there is a compelling need to extend ASCE's codes, standards, and policy frameworks to incorporate legal and ethical accountability across riparian jurisdictions.

 Supporting References from ASCE and International Bodies:

- UN-Water 2024: Identifies major gaps in operational arrangements in shared basins and advocates for institutional frameworks that include dispute resolution, climate resilience, and cooperative sovereignty.

- ASCE Standard 78-24, Security of Water Facilities: Does not address cross-jurisdictional liability mechanisms.

- ASCE Standard 33-23 – Interparty Water Quality Coordination: Offers collaborative tools but lacks enforceable provisions for transboundary accountability.

- Policy Statements PS441, PS506, PS509: Promote responsible engineering across borders, with emphasis on sustainability and environmental justice.

- GEOSTRATA magazine (August, 2025 ): Links engineering failures like Malpasset, Teton, and San Francisco to systemic governance limitations; highlights institutional roles of ICOLD, ASDSO, and others in shaping accountable water infrastructure practices.

These references affirm that the evolution of codes must go beyond technical calibration. What's needed is the integration of governance principles that reflect shared basin realities and ethical design practices.

Proposed Areas for Standard Expansion:

- Embedding multi-jurisdictional liability into hydrologic design standards.

- Establishing ethical frameworks for riparian coordination and upstream/downstream equity.

- Codifying legal clarity in cross-border project execution and basin-wide risk assessment.

Such expansion would not only strengthen the applicability of ASCE standards globally, but also enhance proactive mitigation strategies in high-risk zones, elevate community protections downstream of water infrastructure, and increase ASCE's trust index in international project environments.

🛡️ Institutional Insight from Practice

       As a Strategic advisor in Infrastructure Governance, and founder of the Regional Dams Safety Unit (RDSU), a Proposal design to foster a regional platform for cross-border cooperation in dam safety, engineering ethics, and hydrologic risk mitigation between Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia. I believe true engineering advancement occurs when technical standards reflect principles of justice, sovereignty, and foresight.

Water does not recognize political borders. Our codes must learn to listen, and respond with dignity, duty, and distributive fairness.

Call to ASCE Technical Committees and Members

I invite ASCE task forces, standard developers, and policy committees, including those engaged with EWRI, COPRI, and SEI, to consider this proposal as part of ASCE's larger mission: not just to build infrastructure, but to build trust, justice, and societal value through ethical engineering.

So far :

What frameworks have you seen succeed in cross-border water governance, and how might ASCE codes evolve to support a more just and resilient future?

With professional regards and enduring respect,

Abubakr Elfatih Ahmed Gameil

         Having recently completed the ASCE Continuing Education course on Hydrologic Trespass and Nuisance Considerations in Stormwater Management Design, I found its legal insights invaluable, though its scope remains primarily grounded in the U.S judicial system , introduces valuable risk-management insights, yet its application is limited to the U.S. legal context. In light of the increasing complexity of transboundary hydrologic systems, there is a compelling need to extend ASCE's codes, standards, and policy frameworks to incorporate legal and ethical accountability across riparian jurisdictions.

 Supporting References from ASCE and International Bodies:

- UN-Water 2024: Identifies major gaps in operational arrangements in shared basins and advocates for institutional frameworks that include dispute resolution, climate resilience, and cooperative sovereignty.

- ASCE Standard 78-24, Security of Water Facilities: Does not address cross-jurisdictional liability mechanisms.

- ASCE Standard 33-23 – Interparty Water Quality Coordination: Offers collaborative tools but lacks enforceable provisions for transboundary accountability.

- Policy Statements PS441, PS506, PS509: Promote responsible engineering across borders, with emphasis on sustainability and environmental justice.

- GEOSTRATA magazine (August, 2025 ): Links engineering failures like Malpasset, Teton, and San Francisco to systemic governance limitations; highlights institutional roles of ICOLD, ASDSO, and others in shaping accountable water infrastructure practices.

These references affirm that the evolution of codes must go beyond technical calibration. What's needed is the integration of governance principles that reflect shared basin realities and ethical design practices.

Proposed Areas for Standard Expansion:

- Embedding multi-jurisdictional liability into hydrologic design standards.

- Establishing ethical frameworks for riparian coordination and upstream/downstream equity.

- Codifying legal clarity in cross-border project execution and basin-wide risk assessment.

Such expansion would not only strengthen the applicability of ASCE standards globally, but also enhance proactive mitigation strategies in high-risk zones, elevate community protections downstream of water infrastructure, and increase ASCE's trust index in international project environments.

🛡️ Institutional Insight from Practice

       As a Strategic advisor in Infrastructure Governance, and founder of the Regional Dams Safety Unit (RDSU), a Proposal design to foster a regional platform for cross-border cooperation in dam safety, engineering ethics, and hydrologic risk mitigation between Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia. I believe true engineering advancement occurs when technical standards reflect principles of justice, sovereignty, and foresight.

Water does not recognize political borders. Our codes must learn to listen, and respond with dignity, duty, and distributive fairness.

Call to ASCE Technical Committees and Members

I invite ASCE task forces, standard developers, and policy committees, including those engaged with EWRI, COPRI, and SEI, to consider this proposal as part of ASCE's larger mission: not just to build infrastructure, but to build trust, justice, and societal value through ethical engineering.

So far :

What frameworks have you seen succeed in cross-border water governance, and how might ASCE codes evolve to support a more just and resilient future?

With professional regards and enduring respect,

Abubakr Elfatih Ahmed Gameil