Ask any working photographer what the one thing that they cannot fix in post is, and the answer will almost always be the same: light. It's easy to clean up skin, tweak color and contrast, and even swap skies or extend backgrounds. Still, bad light has historically meant a costly reshoot, hours of painstaking compositing, or the quiet disappointment of delivering something a client doesn't like. Stockholm-based startup Vividon is looking to change that, and today it has opened early access to its AI relighting plugin for Adobe Photoshop.

[Read More]

Blackmagic Design has released DaVinci Resolve 21 Beta 2, a quick follow-up to its recently introduced public beta. The update arrives less than a month after the initial announcement and focuses largely on stability, bug fixes, and refinements, particularly in the new photo editing tools.

[Read More]

Hasselblad unveiled the 70 finalists of Hasselblad Masters 2026, the company's first Masters competition since 2023. It didn't take long for controversy to emerge, including allegations that a finalist used generative AI to create one of their images.

[Read More]

Every chip fabricated in a semiconductor plant needs ultrapure water. Most nuclear reactors need water as a coolant and neutron moderator. Every artificial intelligence (AI) data center drinks between 1 million and 5 million gallons of water a day, with thirst often peaking during drought.

Water runs through every technology priority the United States has named, yet the word does not appear once in “Launching the Genesis Mission,” an executive order (EO) released in November 2025. As described in the EO, the Genesis Mission is a “dedicated, coordinated national effort to unleash a new age of AI-accelerated innovation and discovery that can solve the most challenging problems of this century.”

Led by the Department of Energy (DOE), the initiative aims to build an integrated AI framework that would harness federal scientific datasets to accelerate breakthroughs in advanced manufacturing, biotechnology, critical materials, nuclear fission and fusion energy, quantum information science, and semiconductor development. The scope of the mission is comparable to that of the Manhattan Project.

Since the announcement, the DOE has listed “Predicting U.S. Water for Energy” among its 26 Genesis Mission Science and Technology Challenges. The project is also soliciting proposals in three water-related focus areas.

This framework provides a foothold for hydrology in the Genesis Mission, but it is scoped narrowly around water as a supply variable for energy production.

In reality, water is a crosscutting constraint that will help determine whether the mission’s priorities translate into deployable outcomes. The hydrology community now has a seat at the table, and if it moves first and positions water security as one of the “most challenging problems of this century,” the Genesis Mission can become the sandbox in which AI reshapes how the country measures, models, and manages water.

Making this happen will require that the DOE and the Office of Science and Technology Policy charter a hydrology workstream inside the Genesis Mission, with interagency delivery involving the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), NOAA, the Bureau of Reclamation, the EPA, and partners at state, regional, and community levels. Here is what we think that workstream should look like:

While the existing challenges reflect some of these components, others will require coordinated effort from the hydrology community to bring into the Genesis Mission’s scope.

Build the Water Corpus Genesis Will Need

The Genesis Mission EO instructs the DOE to create an American Science and Security Platform to provide the public, scientists, agencies, and policymakers access to crucial scientific datasets.

The good news is that accessible water data systems already exist across several federal agencies and academic research centers. The USGS National Water Information System tracks real-time and historical water quality and use across the country. NASA’s Earth Science Data Systems Program provides open access to Earth science observations. NOAA’s National Water Center, the first federal facility dedicated to national water resource forecasting, operates the National Water Model, which continuously forecasts flows on 2.7 million stream reaches across the continental United States. The Catchment Attributes and Meteorology for Large-Sample Studies (CAMELS) dataset, currently hosted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research, provides data tailored for hydrological research on hundreds of river basins, and the Caravan framework pulls together multiple large-sample meteorological and hydrological datasets at a global scale.

What is missing is a unified, AI-ready repository that brings federal, state, and community data together. Building one is hard. Water data are fragmented, inconsistent, and often entirely absent. Consistent, reliable data for groundwater, withdrawals, reservoir operations, and water quality are especially difficult to obtain.

Local resistance to sharing data is real. In Texas, for example, landowners hold private property rights over groundwater and have opposed metering and reporting requirements imposed by groundwater conservation districts. In California, agricultural well owners fought metering mandates for years before the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act compelled local agencies to begin tracking withdrawals. Tribal nations face a different concern: Water data collected on Indigenous lands has been misrepresented in federal datasets that were modeled without accounting for Indian country, leading many nations to restrict access to their data as an exercise of sovereignty.

Practical steps toward building a unified AI-ready repository include tiered access and licensing for different stakeholders, clear provenance tracking for all data reported, financial and educational incentives for stakeholders for reporting, and targeted gap filling. Where measurements are missing, AI can fuse remote sensing with gauged records and operational logs—but only if the results carry honest uncertainty estimates tied to real decisions.

Get the corpus right, and it will outlive any single program name. It becomes infrastructure the country can lean on.

Develop Shared Hydrologic Foundation Models

The Genesis Mission EO directs the DOE to provide “domain-specific foundation models across the range of scientific domains covered.”

Hydrology has a head start. Long short-term memory (LSTM) networks are a key type of neural network designed to last thousands of time steps. Hydrology LSTMs trained on CAMELS data have already matched traditional conceptual models for daily streamflow discharge prediction. Open-source Neural Hydrology tools serve as baselines for regional runoff prediction. These predictions may serve as precursors to the foundation models the Genesis Mission envisions and building blocks from which they could be developed.

The process of scaling up these tools is not straightforward, however. A hydrologic investigation of snowmelt-driven streams in Colorado will not require the same spatiotemporal data as tile-drained fields in Iowa, for example. A hydrology-specific foundation model must take nuanced requirements into consideration and provide a clear path for managing and exploiting a variety of datasets.

Google’s Flood Hub shows what is possible: Its AI-enabled flood forecasts now cover more than 80 countries. However, Flood Hub’s core model code and trained weights remain proprietary, meaning researchers can use the forecasts but cannot rebuild or adapt the underlying models. Genesis, if well positioned, can fill that accessibility gap by producing foundation models for water that are reusable, reliable, and openly governed.

Build a National Water Digital Twin

The EO prescribes an integrated AI platform combining foundation models with simulation tools to stimulate AI-enabled innovations.

That architecture is exactly what a digital twin requires. Europe’s Destination Earth initiative is already building digital twins for weather extremes and nonstationary conditions on the Large Unified Modern Infrastructure (LUMI) supercomputer. The United Nations–led AI for Good initiative has prioritized water applications, warning that fragmented national efforts risk duplicating work.

If the United States aims for global strategic leadership in AI-accelerated science, water infrastructure cannot be an afterthought.

Rather than starting from scratch, a water-centric Genesis Mission would unite existing federal models—the National Water Model, reservoir simulators, and groundwater codes—in a single digital twin. AI can become the thread that stitches them together, correcting biases and providing numerical solvers to enforce mass and energy balance.

What should this twin actually do? Help a dam operator decide whether to release water ahead of a storm. Tell planners where a new data center can draw cooling water without drying up a stream. Flag which coastal defenses will fail first under rising seas.

A water digital twin earns its keep when it makes the consequences of choices visible, in terms of flows, levels, temperatures, and risks to people and ecosystems.

Turn Basins into AI Test Beds

The Genesis Mission promotes AI-directed experimentation and directs the DOE to keep a record of robotic laboratories and production facilities in which such experimentation could be conducted. Hydrological field sites belong in that inventory. The National Ecological Observatory Network already operates 81 sites with standardized measurements of meteorology, surface water, groundwater, and biodiversity. The Critical Zone Collaborative Network instruments catchments to track water-soil-vegetation interactions over decades.

Formalizing these networks as AI test beds would link field observations back into the water digital twin so that experiments and models continually sharpen each other. Imagine mobile sensors steered by AI agents during a storm or aquifer recharge experiments designed by algorithms and verified in real time. That feedback loop is what separates a useful model from a decorative one.

Expand Water Challenges on the Genesis Mission List

Earlier this year, the DOE released 26 Genesis Mission Science and Technology Challenges, and “Predicting U.S. Water for Energy” was among them. The accompanying funding call (DE-FOA-0003612) solicits proposals on cloud microphysics, coupled surface water–groundwater modeling, and seasonal to multiyear prediction, all framed around energy needs and flood resilience.

These inclusions are a significant win for a hydrology component to Genesis, but several urgent challenges sit outside their scope. Can AI close the gap between a flood forecast issued 12 hours out and the 48 hours emergency managers actually need? Can it map compound extremes, in which drought, heat, and infrastructure failure collide in the same week? Can it redesign monitoring networks so that coverage follows risk rather than where gauges happened to be installed a century ago? Integrating energy and water systems is equally urgent: Floods have caused 80% of major U.S. grid outages since 2000, while drought-driven water stress curtails cooling at thermoelectric plants and reduces hydropower output, exposing how deeply energy infrastructure depends on hydrologic extremes.

The water footprint of new AI infrastructure deserves a place on that list. A separate executive order (14318, “Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure”) is already fast-tracking expansion of data center construction, and a single hyperscale facility can consume 1 million to 5 million gallons of water daily. Emerging research shows how withdrawals at that scale can push streams below ecological thresholds during low flows.

Make Hydrology the Conscience of AI Governance

The EO directs the DOE to set data access rules and clarify policies for ownership, licensing, trade secret protections, and commercialization of products and tools associated with it.

Three principles should anchor such policies for AI use in water security.

First, Indigenous and community data rights must be embedded in every major AI water security effort, in line with the collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility, and ethics (CARE) principles for Indigenous data governance.

Second, AI’s own water footprint, through electricity generation and cooling, must be treated as a design constraint. Transparent reporting, stress-based siting, and efficiency targets will prevent hydrology in Genesis from being self-defeating.

Third, the DOE should define what failure looks like. Missing a flood crest portends loss of lives and livelihoods and breaches of treaties. Accountability standards must be measurable, and they must ask not just how accurate the forecast was on average, but who bore the cost when it was wrong.

A single executive order will not solve the country’s water security problems, and a single challenge topic will not either.

But the Genesis Mission has provided a seat at a table that did not exist 6 months ago. Whether the hydrology community treats it as a ceiling or a foundation depends on what happens next. Europe’s Destination Earth and the United Nations’ AI for Good water initiatives are already moving.

American hydrology now has a seat at the table. We should take it.

Author Information

Amobichukwu C. Amanambu (acamanambu@ua.edu), Department of Geography and the Environment, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa; and Jonathan Frame (jmframe@ua.edu), Department of Geological Sciences, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa

Citation: Amanambu, A. C., and J. Frame (2026), The Genesis Mission needs hydrology: Here’s how to incorporate it, Eos, 107, https://doi.org/10.1029/2026EO260131. Published on 28 April 2026.

This article does not represent the opinion of AGU, Eos, or any of its affiliates. It is solely the opinion of the author(s).

Text © 2026. The authors. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Saint Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago — The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) is grappling with a protracted period of regional tensions, tied to the new normal in international politics. In some respects, this moment is the bloc’s toughest test yet. 

At a time when the unity of CARICOM is under growing strain, marked by a discernible shift in respect of interactional norms and diplomatic coherence pertaining to the foreign policy realm, St. Kitts and Nevis took up the mantle of Chair of the bloc.  

Arguably, the impacts of that strain on the regional grouping have had a profound effect on how Prime Minister of St. Kitts and Nevis Terrance Drew has approached his leadership role in CARICOM — on behalf of his country. 

Drew is the Chairman of the Conference of Heads of Government of CARICOM — for a six-month term that got underway this past January. As the bloc’s constituent treaty notes: “The Conference shall be the supreme Organ of the Community.”

In this framing, regional priorities are the rotating chairmanship’s main focus. Perhaps most consequentially, Drew is discharging his regional leadership responsibilities at a juncture when CARICOM member states are facing up to emergent geopolitical dynamics that have driven a wedge between them.         

A wide (foreign policy) gap   

CARICOM member states’ duelling perspectives on the high-stakes “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine became a consequential, foreign policy-related sticking point that placed the bloc in a months-long diplomatic rut.

This situation has weighed down the regional grouping, making its members’ efforts to cohesively contend with an international order that is undergoing a seismic change that much more difficult. (The international system last experienced change on such a scale at the Cold War’s end, which also precipitated the demise of bipolarity and ushered in the now erstwhile unipolar moment.) 

While most CARICOM member states have responded to that Doctrine with suspicion and trepidation, some have offered full-throated support. The former subset of member states are standing their ground in respect of long-established CARICOM foreign policy-related principles, which hinge on the shared desire of such small states to respect processes of international cooperation and multilateralism.   

In contrast, Trinidad and Tobago has controversially thrown its support behind Washington in respect of the spiralling U.S.-Israeli war with Iran — which has been quelled by a tenuous cease-fire for now. Instructively, early on in that conflict, Barbados called for “restraint as Middle East tensions intensify.” 

United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres has raised serious concerns about the conflict, too, as have many other stakeholders. Of note, legal experts have been sounding the alarm about what has transpired in the Middle East.      

At the core of such concerns are breaches of the UN Charter — a document whose normative and legal standards are the traditional bedrock of the conduct of CARICOM member states’ international relations as small states. This is precisely why breaches of this Charter endanger these states in respect of the anarchic international system. 

Few dynamics in this system undercut the UN Charter more than great powers behaving as if they have a license to do what they want without fear of the consequences.

This is why the U.S. military campaign that, according to the U.S. administration, sought to target illegal drug trafficking in the Caribbean by going after alleged “narco-trafficking” boats raised so many eyebrows within the CARICOM fold. (All along, of course, Venezuela’s Maduro regime was in Washington’s crosshairs.)     

Trinidad and Tobago did not share those concerns, unequivocally supporting the U.S. military action that laid the groundwork for and resulted in the capture of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro.

The U.S. administration has rewarded Port-of-Spain for its foreign policy positioning, deepening security cooperation. This was a priority area of the most recent bilateral engagement between Trinidad and Tobago’s Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio — convened on the margins of the Fiftieth Regular Meeting of the Conference of Heads of Government of CARICOM.         

What also stands out is Trinidad and Tobago’s inclusion in the Shield of the Americas initiative. Indeed, Port-of-Spain is over the moon with its participation in the recently held Shield of the Americas summit. Guyana is the only other CARICOM member state that the U.S. has included in this high-profile initiative.

With the two camps of CARICOM member states being far apart on key demands of the U.S., the status quo has fuelled mutual mistrust among members of the now five-plus-decade old grouping. It did not help that Washington operationalized the aforesaid Doctrine in invasive, heavy-handed security and foreign policy-related terms.  

It is also the case that regional politics have focused intently on seeing the way forward, amidst widespread dissatisfaction with this difficult situation. Notably, upon the start of his term as CARICOM Chair, Drew sought to shift the situation in a positive direction. With an eye to preparing the ground for the success of the Fiftieth Regular Meeting of the Conference of Heads of Government of CARICOM, held under his chairmanship this past February, he piloted “a series of high-level engagements with regional leaders.”  

Drew’s intent was to build goodwill among his fellow regional leaders, with a view to creating the conditions for them to all gather at this summit. In effect, those high-profile, face-to-face bilateral meetings held the promise of building “trust” and “shared purpose” in respect of the region’s leaders. He said as much. 

Beyond ensuring that all CARICOM members’ respective leaders were at ‘the (summit) table’, Drew was also committed to having them primed for a productive exchange on key issues on the regional agenda.

Drew got his wish — at least in part. All his regional counterparts took part in the said summit; although, leaders of three of the bloc’s 14 sovereign member states departed early.

Consequently, closed-door deliberations that took the form of the leaders’ Retreat did not benefit from a full house.  

The Retreat was a key component of the summit’s proceedings. This one-day, all-important session partly focused on geopolitical developments. 

CARICOM member states did close ranks on some of the issues arising, which include Cuba policy. Their respective long-standing and wide-ranging bilateral relations with the Communist island have emerged as a diplomatic pressure point. In fact, several hold outs in the CARICOM fold have little choice but to accept Washington’s foreign policy line on how they should treat Havana vis-à-vis facets of those relations. 

One day prior to that leaders’ Retreat, and as part of the summit’s proceedings, Rubio met in-person with CARICOM leaders. One important take away from these talks is that they resulted in an agreement on a contemporary Cooperation Framework, which is now earnestly in the works. 

These developments had a direct bearing on regional leaders’ subsequent consideration of geopolitical developments — a priority matter at the summit — warranting the issuance of the ‘Joint Statement on CARICOM’s Engagement with Secretary Rubio’.    

The pre-eminence of the ‘sovereignty narrative’

Signals emanating from the summit in question also called attention to the limits of CARICOM-based regionalism, with member states reaffirming their pragmatic approach to integration.  

It is important to note that, with a nod to the Rose Hall Declaration on ‘Regional Governance and Integrated Development’, Prime Minister of Jamaica Andrew Holness drove this point home at the formal start of that very summit.

Regarding regional governance, the so-called Rose Hall Declaration states (in part): “The reaffirmation that CARICOM is a Community of Sovereign States, and of Territories able and willing to exercise the rights and assume the obligations of membership of the Community, and that the deepening of regional integration will proceed in this political and juridical context.”

Put differently, and as Terri-Ann Gilbert-Roberts notes in a 2013 scholarly work, there is a “strong aversion among political elites to delegating authority to supranational institutions — a legacy of the Federal Experiment.”

In his address to the Opening Ceremony of the summit under reference, Holness underscored the following: “For decades, an idealised narrative around Caribbean integration, while well-intentioned, has framed perhaps unrealistic expectations within our respective populations. It has also perhaps unintentionally diminished the genuine strengths of our existing arrangement, an association of independent states bound not by uniformity, but by shared purpose, mutual regard, and a deep history of collaboration.”

Yet it is equally important to recognize the tremendous achievements of a cohesively functioning CARICOM, as advanced (in large part) by regional summitry. Such summitry has long played a key role in member states’ broader efforts to coordinate with each other and partners, enabling dialogue that has paid off in spades over several decades.

Meetings of this kind are crucial for strengthening bilateral and multilateral ties and contributing to diplomatic solutions, now more than ever. 

Holness himself seemed to signal as much, conveying the following perspective at the opening of the 50th Regular Meeting of the Conference of Heads of Government of CARICOM: “We meet at a time when the speed of global change is outpacing the speed of regional coordination.” 

This summit, per its communiqué, represents an important win for St. Kitts and Nevis and CARICOM as a whole.    

Unity hopes suffer another blow

Yet what brought opportunity for coordination at a time of sharp tensions that are the cause of a foreign policy-related rift in CARICOM has also created yet another point of contention: The much-publicized controversy that has arisen surrounding the reappointment of the Secretary-General of CARICOM during the leaders’ Retreat.  

This controversy has been brewing ever since Drew’s initial statement — issued on March 25th — regarding the reappointment of incumbent Secretary-General of CARICOM Carla Barnett for a second term of office beginning in August 2026.

The impasse runs deeper than procedural concerns over the reappointment of the Secretary-General and attendant matters, with CARICOM’s governance and operations having also come under the spotlight. 

The headlines create the impression that there is little sign yet that a resolution is imminent. 

The parties out-front on the matter have apparently doubled down on their respective positions, which have only hardened. In this regard, the latest missives (as of this writing) penned by Trinidad and Tobago Foreign Minister Sean Sobers (dated April 9th) and Drew (dated April 11th), respectively, come to mind. Although dispatched via diplomatic channels, the correspondence in question is now in the public domain. 

While some political leaders are clashing publicly, others in the CARICOM fold are walking a tightrope on this issue.  

High-level diplomatic efforts to see a way forward on what has become a significant bone of contention — with the potential to stymie CARICOM regionalism — will no doubt continue.

Rising to the challenge

And yet, CARICOM has not a moment to lose in effectively marshalling member states to contend with the resurgence of great-power politics. This spheres of influence-related development carries serious risks, which undercut a cornerstone of the postwar international order: multilateral cooperation.  

These dynamics of contemporary international politics continue to turn the screws on CARICOM — and fast.  

We are already seeing a key consequence of this turn of events: A new reality now shapes CARICOM diplomacy — already under strain from the aforementioned foreign policy-related rift in the bloc.   

In short, the shift within the grouping in respect of interactional norms and diplomatic coherence pertaining to the foreign policy realm exposes seemingly deep divisions in relation to worldviews.   

History shows that such moments do not augur well for the bloc. One could draw a historical parallel with the U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983, which stoked tensions within and had far-reaching impacts on the region.      

Clearly, key foreign policy-related setbacks within today’s CARICOM fit a longer pattern. Even so, their ever-widening rifts ought not to become a fixture in the scheme of things either. 

While there was much-needed discussion at the summit under reference about geopolitical developments, along with a nod to the rationale qua nature of the bloc itself, CARICOM needs to work through how it can better rise to the challenge of navigating the return of great-power politics. 

In years ahead, the new normal in international politics will likely continue to undermine the UN Charter.

The stakes are high for such small states at this moment, and all concerned need to take a long, hard look at the issues arising.

There is increasing recognition in CARICOM foreign policy circles that, facing rising risks, the bloc needs to get a handle on the current state of affairs. 

When CARICOM foreign ministers meet next month, they will likely continue to try to work things through. 

Featured image: 50th Conference of Heads of Government of CARICOM. Photo of CARICOM Leaders with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Image credit: CARICOM

The post What is behind growing disunity in the Caribbean Community bloc? (Opinion) appeared first on Latin America Reports.