CEPA and Pierce Claims: What’s the Difference?
The Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”) is a New Jersey statute which protects employees who face retaliation for blowing the whistle on their employer’s illegal activities. N.J.S.A. 34:19-1. A Pierce claim is a common law cause of action for whistleblower retaliation, which was defined by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical. 84 N.J. 58, 72 (1980). Although CEPA claims and Pierce claims both protect employees who suffer retaliation for their whistleblowing, there are several key differences between the two claims.
Statute of limitations. The statute of limitations for CEPA is one year. N.J.S.A. 34:19-5. The statute of limitations for Pierce claims is two years for tort claims and six years for contract claims. Montells v. Haynes, 133 N.J. 282 (1993); Pierce, 84 N.J. at 72.
Whistleblowing activity covered. While Pierce claims may require an employee to report the employer’s illegal conduct to a public agency, CEPA also protects employees who blow the whistle to a supervisor. N.J.S.A. 34:19-2(d).
Attorney’s fees. A prevailing plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees under CEPA. N.J.S.A. 34:19-5e. However, a Pierce claimant can only collect attorney’s fees under certain circumstances, such as a retaliatory discharge in violation of the Civil Rights Act. N.J.S.A. 10:6-2.
Retaliatory Actions protected against. CEPA claimants only need to suffer an “adverse employer action” in order to have a valid claim. N.J.S.A. 34:19-3. An “adverse employer action” is defined in CEPA as discharge, suspension, demotion, and adverse change in conditions of employment. N.J.S.A. 34:19-2(e). In contrast, Pierce claimants must be terminated in order to have a common law claim. Pierce, 84 N.J. at 72.
Despite the fact that CEPA claimants can bring a claim for retaliation which is short of termination, they are generally required to complain about the retaliatory action internally to their employer. N.J.S.A. 34:19-4. There are two exceptions to CEPA’s internal complaint requirement. An employee does not have to complain to her or his employer internally if the employee is reasonably certain that one or more supervisors already know about the problem, or if the employee reasonably fears physical harm or that the situation is emergent. N.J.S.A. 34:19-4. In contrast, Pierce claims do not require an internal complaint but usually do require a complaint to an outside agency. Young v. Schering Corp., 141 N.J. 16, 27 (1995). However, some courts have determined that Pierce complaints only require an internal expression of a disagreement with a corporate policy, directive, or decision based on a clear mandate of public policy. New Jersey, 6 Emp. Coord. Employment Practices §62:32. Thus, although external complaints are often evidence of an employee’s disagreement with corporate policy, it is not the exclusive method. For example, Pierce claims have been sustained where an employee was terminated for refusing a random illegitimate drug test and for requesting a personnel file to prove discriminatory and retaliatory practices on behalf of the employee. Hennessey v. Coastal Eagle Point Oil Co., 129 N.J. 81, 92, 93 (1992); Velantzas v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. Inc., 109 N.J. 189 (1988).
CEPA claims and Pierce claims are substantially similar in principle, but there are key differences that would make one cause of action more favorable than the other, depending on the circumstances of the case. Thus, whether the Plaintiff brings a Pierce claim or a CEPA claim for whistleblowing activity will depend upon a number of factors.
By Malcolm Thorpe and Jennifer Vorih, Esq.
Can CEPA Co-exist With Other Claims?
The Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”) is a New Jersey statute that protects employees who are subjected to adverse employment actions for taking part in whistleblower activity. N.J.S.A. § 34:19-1. CEPA was enacted to codify prior common-law causes of action for whistleblower retaliation, defined by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical, 84 N.J. 58, 72 (1980) (commonly referred to as a “Pierce” claim).. Young v. Schering Corp., 141 N.J. 16, 26, (1995).
CEPA contains a waiver provision, which forces a plaintiff to choose whether to pursue a CEPA claim or another claim for retaliation under the same set of facts. N.J.S.A. § 34:19-8. Pierce claims are thus often dismissed because of the legislature’s intent to codify all common law retaliation claims within CEPA. Id. at 29. However, both CEPA and Pierce causes of actions may be pled in the complaint, as long as one cause of action is dropped before trial. In Maw v. Advanced Clinical Communications, Inc., the Appellate Division held that it is inappropriate to dismiss a Pierce claim until the plaintiff has had an opportunity to take discovery in order to determine which cause of action is applicable. 359 N.J. Super. 420, 440-41 (App. Div. 2003), rev’d on other grounds, 179 N.J. 43 (2004).
The CEPA waiver provision has also been interpreted to prevent an employee from pursuing other statutory causes of action. Young, 141 N.J. at 27. It is important to note, though, that this waiver does not prohibit employees from asserting other independent claims, because it excepts those rights, privileges and remedies which are not afforded by CEPA. N.J.S.A. § 34:19-8. CEPA’s waiver provision was intended to waive all parallel claims, but not to prevent other causes of action stemming from the employee-employer relationship. See, Casper v. Paine Webber Grp., Inc., 787 F. Supp. 1480, 1509 (D.N.J. 1992). As a result, if an asserted claim is substantially unrelated to a retaliatory discharge, then the CEPA wavier provision does not preclude the claim and it may be included without error. Young, 141 N.J. at 31.
So, can CEPA co-exist with other claims? Yes. CEPA in no way precludes a plaintiff from pleading additional claims which do not require a finding of retaliation. Further, a plaintiff can plead both CEPA and another retaliation claim, but must drop one prior to trial.
A case pending before the New Jersey Supreme Court poses the question of whether “watchdog employees” are protected under New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”). CEPA protects employees from retaliation if they expose their employer’s illegal practices. The term “watchdog employees” refers to workers who are hired to ensure the employer’s compliance with the law. The Appellate Division has come to different conclusions on whether a “watchdog employee” is covered by CEPA. In Massarano v. New Jersey Transit, the Appellate Division held that an employee whose job was to report security breaches was not a “whistle-blower” under CEPA. 400 N.J. Super. 474, 491 (App. Div. 2008). The Plaintiff in Massarano was not protected by CEPA because her decision to go over her supervisor’s head, rather than the reporting of a security breach, was what led to poor treatment. Id. In Lippman v. Ethicon, Inc., the Appellate Division refused to adopt Massarano, finding that an employee’s job responsibilities are not outcome-determinative for a whistle-blower claim under CEPA. 432 N.J. Super. 378, 381 (App. Div. 2013). The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certiorari to review this unsettled issue. Lippman v. Ethicon, Inc., 2014 N.J. LEXIS 317, 1 (N.J. 2014).
Lippman’s attorney, Bruce McMoran, argued that all employees are protected under CEPA, since whistleblowing serves as a check on employers. He also argued that, because plaintiffs bear the burden of proof in maintaining a CEPA claim and causation is not automatically established, employers’ fear of “untouchable employees” is unsubstantiated.
It is difficult to predict how the Supreme Court will rule on this issue. The Lippman and Massarano cases present two very different contexts. Joel Lippman sat on a quality control board and the Appellate Court expressed concern over an employer’s interest in removing such a watchdog employee who engages in whistle-blowing. Unlike Joel Lippman, Barbara Massarano reported the security breach to individuals higher up in the company rather than to her immediate supervisor. Massarano, 400 N.J. Super. at 478. This angered her immediate supervisor, who subsequently treated her poorly and refused to speak with her for weeks. Id. at 480. However, the trial court found and the Appellate Court affirmed that her supervisor’s subsequent treatment of Massarano was not due to any whistle-blowing activities, but rather because she went over her supervisor’s head before approaching him. Id. at 491. Thus, due to the substantially different factual circumstances, whether or not the Supreme Court affirms the decision in Lippman, finding that Joel Lippman was a whistle-blower employee under CEPA, it may limit its holding to similar contexts.
By Yoana Yakova and Jennifer Vorih, Esq.


text:
One decade after the first publications on multiobjective hydrological calibration, we summarize the experience gained so far, by underlining the key perspectives offered by such approaches to improve parameter identifiability. After reviewing the fundamentals of vector optimization theory and the algorithmic issues, we link the multicriteria calibration approach with the concepts of uncertainty and equifinality. Specifically, the multicriteria framework enables recognizing and handling errors and uncertainties, and detecting prominent behavioural solutions with acceptable trade-offs. Particularly in models of complex parameterization, a multiobjective approach becomes essential for improving the identifiability of parameters and augmenting the information contained in calibration, by means of both multiresponse measurements and empirical metrics (“soft” data), which account for the hydrological expertise. Based on the literature review, we also provide alternative techniques to treat with conflicting and non-commeasurable criteria, and hybrid strategies to utilize the information gained towards identifying promising compromise solutions that ensure consistent and reliable calibrations.
1. E. Rozos, A. Efstratiadis, I. Nalbantis, and D. Koutsoyiannis, Calibration of a semi-distributed model for conjunctive simulation of surface and groundwater flows, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 49 (5), 819–842, doi:10.1623/hysj.49.5.819.55130, 2004.
2. A. Efstratiadis, I. Nalbantis, A. Koukouvinos, E. Rozos, and D. Koutsoyiannis, HYDROGEIOS: A semi-distributed GIS-based hydrological model for modified river basins, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 12, 989–1006, doi:10.5194/hess-12-989-2008, 2008.
3. A. Efstratiadis, and D. Koutsoyiannis, Fitting hydrological models on multiple responses using the multiobjective evolutionary annealing simplex approach, Practical hydroinformatics: Computational intelligence and technological developments in water applications, edited by R.J. Abrahart, L. M. See, and D. P. Solomatine, 259–273, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-79881-1_19, Springer, 2008.
4. A. Efstratiadis, and D. Koutsoyiannis, On the practical use of multiobjective optimisation in hydrological model calibration, European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2009, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 11, Vienna, 2326, doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.10445.64480, European Geosciences Union, 2009.
2. J. A. P. Pollacco, B. P. Mohanty, and A. Efstratiadis, Weighted objective function selector algorithm for parameter estimation of SVAT models with remote sensing data, Water Resources Research, 49 (10), 6959–6978, doi:10.1002/wrcr.20554, 2013.
3. A. Efstratiadis, I. Nalbantis, and D. Koutsoyiannis, Hydrological modelling of temporally-varying catchments: Facets of change and the value of information, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 60 (7-8), 1438–1461, doi:10.1080/02626667.2014.982123, 2015.
4. I. Tsoukalas, and C. Makropoulos, Multiobjective optimisation on a budget: Exploring surrogate modelling for robust multi-reservoir rules generation under hydrological uncertainty, Environmental Modelling and Software, 69, 396–413, doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.09.023, 2015.
5. I. Tsoukalas, and C. Makropoulos, A surrogate based optimization approach for the development of uncertainty-aware reservoir operational rules: the case of Nestos hydrosystem, Water Resources Management, 29 (13), 4719–4734, doi:10.1007/s11269-015-1086-8, 2015.
6. I. Tsoukalas, P. Kossieris, A. Efstratiadis, and C. Makropoulos, Surrogate-enhanced evolutionary annealing simplex algorithm for effective and efficient optimization of water resources problems on a budget, Environmental Modelling and Software, 77, 122–142, doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.12.008, 2016.
7. E. Savvidou, A. Efstratiadis, A. D. Koussis, A. Koukouvinos, and D. Skarlatos, A curve number approach to formulate hydrological response units within distributed hydrological modelling, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, doi:10.5194/hess-2016-627, 2016.
8. A. Tegos, N. Malamos, A. Efstratiadis, I. Tsoukalas, A. Karanasios, and D. Koutsoyiannis, Parametric modelling of potential evapotranspiration: a global survey, Water, 9 (10), 795, doi:10.3390/w9100795, 2017.
9. E. Savvidou, A. Efstratiadis, A. D. Koussis, A. Koukouvinos, and D. Skarlatos, The curve number concept as a driver for delineating hydrological response units, Water, 10 (2), 194, doi:10.3390/w10020194, 2018.
10. K. Risva, D. Nikolopoulos, A. Efstratiadis, and I. Nalbantis, A framework for dry period low flow forecasting in Mediterranean streams, Water Resources Management, 32 (15), 4911–1432, doi:10.1007/s11269-018-2060-z, 2018.
1. Booij, M. J., and M. S. Krol, Balance between calibration objectives in a conceptual hydrological model, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55(6), 1017-1032, 2010.
2. Moussa, R., When monstrosity can be beautiful while normality can be ugly: assessing the performance of event-based flood models, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55(6), 1074-1084, 2010.
3. Moussu, F., L. Oudin, V. Plagnes, A. Mangin, and H. Bendjoudi, A multi-objective calibration framework for rainfall-discharge models applied to karst systems, Journal of Hydrology, 400(3-4), 364-376, 2011.
4. Guinot, V., B. Cappelaere, C. Delenne, and D. Ruelland, Towards improved criteria for hydrological model calibration: Theoretical analysis of distance- and weak form-based functions, Journal of Hydrology, 401(1-2), 1-13, 2011.
5. Peel, M. C., and G. Blöschl, Hydrological modelling in a changing world, Progress in Physical Geography, 35 (2), 249-261, 2011.
6. Ford, D. E., and M. C. Kennedy, Assessment of uncertainty in functional–structural plant models, Annals of Botany, 108 (6), 1043-1053, 2011.
7. #Shinma, T. A., and L. F. R. Reis, Multiobjective automatic calibration of the storm water management model (SWMM) using non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II (NSGA-II), Proceedings of the 2011 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress: Bearing Knowledge for Sustainability, 598-607, 2011.
8. Mediero, L., L. Garrote and F. J. Martín-Carrasco, Probabilistic calibration of a distributed hydrological model for flood forecasting, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 56(7), 1129–1149, 2011.
9. Kennedy, M. C., and E. D. Ford, Using multicriteria analysis of simulation models to understand complex biological systems, BioScience, 61(12), 994–1004, 2011.
10. #Van Hoey, S., P. Seuntjens, J. van der Kwast, J.-L. de Kok, G. Engelen, and I. Nopens, Flexible framework for diagnosing alternative model structures through sensitivity and uncertainty analysis, In: Chan, F., D. Marinova, and R. S. Anderssen (eds.), MODSIM2011, 19th International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand, December 2011, pp. 3924-3930, ISBN: 978-0-9872143-1-7, 2011.
11. Reed, P. M., and J. B. Kollat, Save now, pay later? Multi-period many-objective groundwater monitoring design given systematic model errors and uncertainty, Advances in Water Resources, 35, 55-68, 2012.
12. Pushpalatha, R., C. Perrin, N. Le Moine, and V. Andréassian, A review of efficiency criteria suitable for evaluating low–flow simulations, Journal of Hydrology, 420-421, 171-182, 2012.
13. Ruelland, D., S. Ardoin-Bardin, L. Collet, and P. Roucou, Simulating future trends in hydrological regime of a large Sudano-Sahelian catchment under climate change, Journal of Hydrology, 424-425, 207-216, 2012.
14. Andréassian, V., N. Le Moine, C. Perrin, M.-H. Ramos, L. Oudin, T. Mathevet, J. Lerat, and L. Berthet, All that glitters is not gold: the case of calibrating hydrological models, Hydrological Processes, 26(14), 2206-2210, 2012.
15. Kollat, J. B., P. M. Reed, and T. Wagener, When are multiobjective calibration trade-offs in hydrologic models meaningful?, Water Resources Research, 48, W03520, 2012.
16. Dumedah, G., A. A. Berg, and M. Wineberg, Evaluating autoselection methods used for choosing solutions from Pareto-optimal set: Does nondominance persist from calibration to validation phase? Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 17(1), 150-159, 2012.
17. Hill, M. C., D. Kavetski, M. Clark, M. Ye, and D. Lu, Uncertainty quantification 2012: Uncertainty quantification for environmental models, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, 45(9), 2012.
18. Rye, C. J., I. Willis, N. S. Arnold, and J. Kohler, On the need for automated multi-objective optimization and uncertainty estimation of glacier mass balance models, Journal of Geophysical Research, 117, F02005, doi: 10.1029/2011JF002184, 2012.
19. Rothfuss, Y., I. Braud, N. Le Moine, P. Biron, J.-L. Durand, M. Vauclin, and T. Bariac, Factors controlling the isotopic partitioning between soil evaporation and plant transpiration: assessment using a multi-objective calibration of SiSPAT-Isotope under controlled conditions, Journal of Hydrology, 442-443, 161-179, 2012.
20. Peng, W., R. V. Mayorga, and S. Imran, A rapid fuzzy optimisation approach to multiple sources water blending problem in water distribution systems, Urban Water Journal, 9(3), 177-187, 2012.
21. Flipo, N., C. Monteil, M. Poulin, C. de Fouquet, and M. Krimissa, Hybrid fitting of a hydrosystem model: Long term insight into the Beauce aquifer functioning (France), Water Recourses Research, 48, W05509, DOI: 10.1029/2011WR011092, 2012.
22. Pollacco, J. A. P., and B. P. Mohanty, Uncertainties of water fluxes in SVAT models: inverting surface soil moisture and evapotranspiration retrieved from remote sensing, Vadose Zone Journal, 11(3), vzj2011.0167, 2012.
23. Muleta, M. K., Model performance sensitivity to objective function during automated calibrations, Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 17(6), 756-767, 2012.
24. Dumedah, G., Formulation of the evolutionary-based data assimilation and its implementation in hydrological forecasting, Water Resources Management, 26(13), 3853-3870, 2012.
25. Reichert, P., and N. Schuwirth, Linking statistical bias description to multiobjective model calibration, Water Resources Research, 48, W09543, doi:10.1029/2011WR011391, 2012.
26. Price, K., S. T. Purucker, S. R. Kraemer, and J. Babendreier, Tradeoffs among watershed model calibration targets for parameter estimation, Water Resources Research, 48, W10542, doi:10.1029/2012WR012005, 2012.
27. Krauße, T., J. Cullmann, P. Saile, and G. H. Schmitz, Robust multi-objective calibration strategies – possibilities for improving flood forecasting, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 16, 3579-3606, 2012.
28. Koskela, J. J., B. Croke, H. Koivusalo, A. Jakeman, and T. Kokkonen, Bayesian inference of uncertainties in precipitation-streamflow modeling in a snow affected catchment, Water Resources Research, 48, W11513, doi: 10.1029/2011WR011773, 2012.
29. Jarvis, N., and M. Larsbo, MACRO (V5.2): Model use, calibration, and validation, Transactions of the ASABE, 55(4), 1413-1423, 2012.
30. Hallema, D. W., R. Moussa, P. Andrieux, and M. Voltz, Parameterisation and multi-criteria calibration of a distributed storm flow model applied to a Mediterranean agricultural catchment, Hydrological Processes, 27(10), 1379-1398, 2013.
31. Gharari, S., M. Hrachowitz, F. Fenicia and H. H. G. Savenije, An approach to identify time consistent model parameters: sub-period calibration, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 17, 149-161, 10.5194/hess-17-149-2013, 2013.
32. Kasprzyk, J. R, S. Nataraj, P. M. Reed, and R. J. Lempert, Many objective robust decision making for complex environmental systems undergoing change, Environmental Modelling & Software, 42, 55-71, 2013.
33. Reed, P. M., D. Hadka, J. D. Herman, J. R. Kasprzyk, and J. B. Kollat, Evolutionary multiobjective optimization in water resources: the past, present, and future, Advances in Water Resources, 51, 438-456, 2013.
34. Spaaks, J. H. and W. Bouten, Resolving structural errors in a spatially distributed hydrologic model using ensemble Kalman filter state updates, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 17, 3455–3472, 2013.
35. Wöhling, T., L. Samaniego, and R. Kumar, Evaluating multiple performance criteria to calibrate the distributed hydrological model of the upper Neckar catchment, Environmental Earth Sciences, 69(2), 453-468, 2013.
36. Ghimire, S. R., and J. M. Johnston, Impacts of domestic and agricultural rainwater harvesting systems on watershed hydrology: A case study in the Albemarle-Pamlico river basins (USA), Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology, 13(2), 159-171, 2013.
37. Hartmann, A., T. Wagener, A. Rimmer, J. Lange, H. Brielmann, and M. Weiler, Testing the realism of model structures to identify karst system processes using water quality and quantity signatures, Water Resources Research, 49(6), 3345-3358, 2013.
38. Hill, M. C., C. C. Faunt, W. R. Belcher, D. S. Sweetkind, C. R. Tiedeman and D. Kavetski, Knowledge, transparency, and refutability in groundwater models, an example from the Death Valley regional groundwater flow system, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 64, 105-116, 2013.
39. Muñoz, E., J. L. Arumí and D. Rivera, Watersheds are not static: Implications of climate variability and hydrologic dynamics in modeling [Las cuencas no son estacionarias: implicancias de la variabilidad climática y dinámicas hidrológicas en la modelación, Bosque, 34 (1), 7-11, 2013.
40. Hrachowitz, M., H.H.G. Savenije, G. Blöschl, J.J. McDonnell, M. Sivapalan, J.W. Pomeroy, B. Arheimer, T. Blume, M.P. Clark, U. Ehret, F. Fenicia, J.E. Freer, A. Gelfan, H.V. Gupta, D.A. Hughes, R.W. Hut, A. Montanari, S. Pande, D. Tetzlaff, P.A. Troch, S. Uhlenbrook, T. Wagener, H.C. Winsemius, R.A. Woods, E. Zehe, and C. Cudennec, A decade of Predictions in Ungauged Basins (PUB) — a review, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 58(6), 1198-1255, 2013.
41. Xu, C., H. Chen, and S. Guo, Hydrological modeling in a changing environment: issues and challenges, Journal of Water Resources Research, 2, 85-95, 2013.
42. Ramin, M., and G. B. Arhonditsis, Bayesian calibration of mathematical models: Optimization of model structure and examination of the role of process error covariance, Ecological Informatics, 18, 107-116, 2013.
43. Dumedah, G., and P. Coulibaly, Evaluating forecasting performance for data assimilation methods: the Ensemble Kalman Filter, the Particle Filter, and the Evolutionary-based assimilation Advances in Water Resources, 60, 47-63, 2013.
44. Wöhling, T., S. Gayler, E. Priesack, J. Ingwersen, H.-D. Wizemann, P. Högy, M. Cuntz, S. Attinger, V. Wulfmeyer, and T. Streck, Multiresponse, multiobjective calibration as a diagnostic tool to compare accuracy and structural limitations of five coupled soil-plant models and CLM3.5, Water Resources Research, 49(12), 8200–8221, 2013.
45. Romanowicz, R., M. Osuch and M. Grabowiecka, On the choice of calibration periods and objective functions: A practical guide to model parameter identification, Acta Geophysica, 61(6), 1477-1503, 10.2478/s11600-013-0157-6, 2013.
46. Rientjes, T.H.M., L.P. Muthuwatta, M.G. Bos, M.J. Booij, and H.A. Bhatti, Multi-variable calibration of a semi-distributed hydrological model using streamflow data and satellite-based evapotranspiration, Journal of Hydrology, 505, 276-290, 2013.
47. Guerrero, J. L., I. K. Westerberg, S. Halldin, L.-C. Lundin, and C.-Y. Xu, Exploring the hydrological robustness of model-parameter values with alpha shapes, Water Resources Research, 49 (10), 6700-6715, 2013.
48. Hsie, M., S. W. Yan and N. F. Pan, Improvement of rainfall-runoff simulations using the Runoff-Scale Weighting Method, Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 19(7), 1330-1339, 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000921, 2014.
49. Gharari, S., M. Shafiei, M. Hrachowitz, F. Fenicia, H. V. Gupta, and H. H. G. Savenije, A constraint-based search algorithm for parameter identification of environmental models, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 18, 4861-4870, doi:10.5194/hess-18-4861-2014, 2014.
50. Shinma, T. A., and L. F. A. Reis, Incorporating multi-event and multi-site data in the calibration of SWMM, Procedia Engineering, 70, 75-84, 2014.
51. Coron, L., V. Andréassian, C. Perrin, M. Bourqui, and F. Hendrickx, On the lack of robustness of hydrologic models regarding water balance simulation – a diagnostic approach on 20 mountainous catchments using three models of increasing complexity, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 18, 727-746, 2014.
52. Dumedah, G., and J. P. Walker, Evaluation of model parameter convergence when using data assimilation for soil moisture estimation, Journal of Hydrometeorology, 15(1), 359-375, 2014.
53. Black, D. C., P. J. Wallbrink, and P. W. Jordan, Towards best practice implementation and application of models for analysis of water resources management scenarios, Environmental Modelling and Software, 52, 136-148, 2014.
54. Loukas, A., and L. Vasiliades, Streamflow simulation methods for ungauged and poorly gauged watersheds, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 14, 1641-1661, doi:10.5194/nhess-14-1641-2014, 2014.
55. Brauer, C. C., P. J. J. F. Torfs, A. J. Teuling, and R. Uijlenhoet, The Wageningen Lowland Runoff Simulator (WALRUS): application to the Hupsel Brook catchment and Cabauw polder, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences , 18, 4007-4028, 10.5194/hess-18-4007-2014, 2014.
56. Kloss, S., N. Schütze, and U. Schmidhalter, Evaluation of very high soil-water tension threshold values in sensor-based deficit irrigation systems, Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 140 (9), 10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000722, 2014.
57. Brauer, C. C., A. J. Teuling, P. J. J. F. Torfs, and R. Uijlenhoet, The Wageningen Lowland Runoff Simulator (WALRUS): a lumped rainfall–runoff model for catchments with shallow groundwater, Geoscientific Model Development, 7, 2313-2332, doi:10.5194/gmd-7-2313-2014, 2014.
58. #Hörmann, G., N. Fohrer, and W. Kluge, Modelle zum Wasserhaushalt, Handbuch der Umweltwissenschaften, 2014.
59. Zeff, H. B., J. R. Kasprzyk, J. D. Herman, P. M. Reed, and G. W. Characklis, Navigating financial and supply reliability tradeoffs in regional drought management portfolios, Water Resources Research, 50(6), 4906–4923, 2014.
60. Minville, M., D. Cartier, C. Guay, L.-A. Leclaire, C. Audet, S. Le Digabel, and J. Merleau, Improving process representation in conceptual hydrological model calibration using climate simulations, Water Resources Research, 50(6), 5044–5073, 2014.
61. Gao, W., F. Zhou, Y.-J. Dong, H.-C. Guo, J.-T. Peng, P. Xu, and , L. Zhao, PEST-based multi-objective automatic calibration of hydrologic parameters for HSPF model, Journal of Natural Resources, 29(5), 855-867, 2014.
62. #Houle, E., and J. Kasprzyk, Investigating parameter sensitivity for management in snow-driven watersheds, Proceedings of 7th International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software, Daniel P. Ames, Nigel W.T. Quinn and Andrea E. Rizzoli (eds.), San Diego, CA, USA, 2014.
63. #Kasprzyk, J., J. Kollat, and C. Danilo, Balancing conflicting management objectives using interactive, three-dimensional visual analytics, Proceedings of 7th International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software, Daniel P. Ames, Nigel W.T. Quinn and Andrea E. Rizzoli (eds.), San Diego, CA, USA, 2014.
65. Zhang, Y. Y., Q. X. Shao, A. Z. Ye and H. T. Xing, An integrated water system model considering hydrological and biogeochemical processes at basin scale: model construction and application, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., 11, 9219-9279, 10.5194/hessd-11-9219-2014, 2014.
66. Mayr, E., M. Juen, C. Mayer, R. Usubaliev and W. Hagg, Modeling runoff from the Inylchek glaciers and filling of ice‐dammed Lake Merzbacher, Central Tian Shan, Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography, 96(4), 609–625, 10.1111/geoa.12061, 2014.
67. Matos, J. P., M. M. Portela, and D. Juízo, Uma forma alternativa de enfrentar a escassez de dados na bacia do rio Zambeze com vista à calibração de modelos hidrológicos (An alternative approach to face the scarcity of data in the Zambezi River basin aiming at calibrating hydrological models), Revista Recursos Hídricos, 35(1), 37-52, 2014.
68. Asadzadeh, M., B. Tolson, and D. H. Burn, A new selection metric for multiobjective hydrologic model calibration, Water Resources Research, 50(9), 7082–7099, doi:10.1002/2013WR014970, 2014.
69. Haghnegahdar, A., B. A. Tolson, B. Davison, F. R. Seglenieks, E. Klyszejko, E. D. Soulis, V. Fortin, and L. S. Matott, Calibrating environment Canada's MESH modelling system over the Great Lakes Basin, Atmosphere-Ocean, 52(4), 281-293, 2014.
70. Hrachowitz, M., O. Fovet, L. Ruiz, T. Euser, S. Gharari, R. Nijzink, J. Freer, H.H.G. Savenije, and C. Gascuel-Odoux, Process consistency in models: The importance of system signatures, expert knowledge, and process complexity, Water Resources Research, 50(9), 7445–7469, doi: 10.1002/2014WR015484, 2014.
71. Doppler, T., M. Honti, U. Zihlmann, P. Weisskopf, and C. Stamm, Validating a spatially distributed hydrological model with soil morphology data, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 18, 3481-3498, doi:10.5194/hess-18-3481-2014, 2014.
72. Newman, J. P., G. C. Dandy, and H. R. Maier, Multiobjective optimization of cluster-scale urban water systems investigating alternative water sources and level of decentralization, Water Resources Research, 50(10), 7915–7938, doi:10.1002/2013WR015233, 2014.
73. Werisch, S., J. Grundmann, H. Al-Dhuhli, E. Algharibi, and F. Lennartz, Multiobjective parameter estimation of hydraulic properties for a sandy soil in Oman, Environmental Earth Sciences, 72(12), 4935-4956, 2014.
74. Piscopo, A. N., J. R. Kasprzyk, and R. M. Neupauer, An iterative approach to multi-objective engineering design: Optimization of engineered injection and extraction for enhanced groundwater remediation, Environmental Modelling & Software, 69, 253-261, 2015.
75. Andréassian, V., F. Bourgin, L. Oudin, T. Mathevet, C. Perrin, J. Lerat, L. Coron, and L. Berthet, Seeking genericity in the selection of parameter sets: Impact on hydrological model efficiency, Water Resources Research, 50(10), 8356–8366, 2014.
76. Ficklin, D. L., and B. L. Barnhart, SWAT hydrologic model parameter uncertainty and its implications for hydroclimatic projections in snowmelt-dependent watersheds, Journal of Hydrology, 519(B), 2081–2090, 2014.
77. Yang, J., F. Castelli and Y. Chen, Multiobjective sensitivity analysis and optimization of distributed hydrologic model MOBIDIC, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 18, 4101-4112, 10.5194/hess-18-4101-2014, 2014.
78. #Matos, J.P., Hydraulic-hydrologic model for the Zambezi River using satellite data and artificial intelligence techniques, Communications du Laboratoire de Constructions Hydrauliques ISSN 1661-1179, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, 2014.
79. Dumedah, G., Toward essential union between evolutionary strategy and data assimilation for model diagnostics: An application for reducing the search space of optimization problems using hydrologic genome map, Environmental Modelling & Software, 69, 342-352, 2015.
80. Gao, W., H. C. Guo, and Y. Liu, Impact of calibration objective on hydrological model performance in ungauged watersheds, Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 20(8), 04014086, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001116, 2015.
81. Koch, J., K. Høgh Jensen, and S. Stisen, Toward a true spatial model evaluation in distributed hydrological modeling: Kappa statistics, Fuzzy theory, and EOF analysis benchmarked by the human perception and evaluated against a modeling case study, Water Resources Research, 51(2), 1225–1246, doi:10.1002/2014WR016607, 2015.
82. #Perrin , C ., M.-H . Ramos , V. Andréassian , P. Nicolle , L. Crochemore , and R. Pushpalatha, Improved rainfall-runoff modelling tools for low-flow forecasting: Application to French catchments, Drought: Research and Science-Policy Interfacing, J. Andreu Alvarez, A. Solera, J. Paredes-Arquiola, D. Haro-Monteagudo, and H. van Lanen (editors), Chapter 38, 259–265, CRC Press, doi:10.1201/b18077-45, 2015.
83. Seong, C., Y. Her, and B. L. Benham, Automatic calibration tool for hydrologic simulation program-FORTRAN using a shuffled complex evolution algorithm, Water, 7, 503-527, doi:10.3390/w7020503, 2015.
84. Wi, S., Y.C.E. Yang, S. Steinschneider, A. Khalil, and C.M. Brown, Calibration approaches for distributed hydrologic models in poorly gaged basins: implication for streamflow projections under climate change, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 19, 857-876, doi:10.5194/hess-19-857-2015, 2015.
85. Chang, C.-H., Development of ocean color algorithms for estimating chlorophyll-a concentrations and inherent optical properties using gene expression programming (GEP), Optics Express, 23(5), 5417-5437, doi:10.1364/OE.23.005417, 2015.
86. Hauduc, H., M.B. Neumann, D. Muschalla, V. Gamerith, S. Gillot, and P.A. Vanrolleghem, Efficiency criteria for environmental model quality assessment: A review and its application to wastewater treatment, Environmental Modelling and Software, 68, 196-204, doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.02.004, 2015.
87. Peel, M. C., R. Srikanthan, T. A. McMahon, and D. J. Karoly, Approximating uncertainty of annual runoff and reservoir yield using stochastic replicates of global climate model data, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 19, 1615-1639, doi:10.5194/hess-19-1615-2015, 2015.
88. Silvestro, F., S. Gabellani, R. Rudari, F. Delogu, P. Laiolo, P., and G. Boni, Uncertainty reduction and parameter estimation of a distributed hydrological model with ground and remote sensing data, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 19, 1727-1751, doi:10.5194/hess-19-1727-2015, 2015.
89. Thirel, G., V. Andréassian, and C. Perrin, On the need to test hydrological models under changing conditions, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 60(7-8), 1165-1173, doi:10.1080/02626667.2015.1050027, 2015.
90. #Simmons, J. A., L. A. Marshall, I. L. Turner, K. D. Splinter, R. J. Cox, M. D. Harley, D. J. Hanslow, and M. A. Kinsela, A more rigorous approach to calibrating and assessing the uncertainty of coastal numerical models, Australasian Coasts & Ports Conference 2015, Auckland, New Zealand, 2015.
91. Hublart, P., D. Ruelland, A. Dezetter, and H. Jourde, Reducing structural uncertainty in conceptual hydrological modeling in the semi-arid Andes, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 19, 2295–2314, doi:10.5194/hess-19-2295-2015, 2015.
92. Chiew, F. H. S., and J. Vaze, Hydrologic nonstationarity and extrapolating models to predict the future: overview of session and proceeding, Proc. IAHS, 371, 17–21, doi:10.5194/piahs-371-17-2015, 2015.
93. Lazzaro, G., and G. Botter, Run-of-river power plants in Alpine regions: Whither optimal capacity?, Water Resources Research, 51(7), 5658–5676, doi:10.1002/2014WR016642, 2015.
94. Bardsley, W.E., V. Vetrova, and S. Liu, Toward creating simpler hydrological models: A LASSO subset selection approach, Environmental Modelling and Software, 72, 33-43, doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.06.008, 2015.
95. Zhang, Y., G. Fu, B. Sun, S. Zhang, and B. Men, Simulation and classification of the impacts of projected climate change on flow regimes in the arid Hexi Corridor of Northwest China, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 120(15), 7429–7453, doi:10.1002/2015JD023294, 2015.
96. Piccolroaz, S., B. Majone, F. Palmieri, G. Cassiani, and A. Bellin, On the use of spatially distributed, time-lapse microgravity surveys to inform hydrological modeling, Water Resources Research, 51(9), 7270–7288, doi:10.1002/2015WR016994, 2015.
97. Gelleszun, M., P. Kreye and G. Meon, Lexicographic calibration strategy for efficient parameter estimation in highly resolved rainfall-runoff models, Hydrologie Und Wasserbewirtschaftung, 59 (3), 84-95, 10.5675/HyWa_2015,3_1, 2015.
98. Doncieux, S., J. Liénard, B. Girard, M. Hamdaoui and J. Chaskalovic, Multi-objective analysis of computational models, arXiv:1507.06877, 2015.
99. Serpa, D., J. P. Nunes, J. Santos, E. Sampaio, R. Jacinto, S. Veiga, J. C. Lima, M. Moreira, J. Corte-Real, J. J. Keizer, and N. Abrantes, Impacts of climate and land use changes on the hydrological and erosion processes of two contrasting Mediterranean catchments, Science of the Total Environment, 538, 64-77, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.08.033, 2015.
100. #Sun, N.-Z., and A. Sun, Multiobjective inversion and regularization, Model Calibration and Parameter Estimation for Environmental and Water Resource Systems, 69-105, 2015.
101. #Cho, H.-J., M. C. Hwang, and C. C. Hsu, A calibration framework of a mixed-traffic signal optimization model by multi-objective evolutionary approach, MSV'15 - The 12th International Conference on Modeling, Simulation and Visualization Methods, 44-47, Las Vegas, 2015.
102. Inzoli, S., and M. Giudici, A comparison between single- and multi-objective optimization to fit spectral induced polarization data from laboratory measurements on alluvial sediments, Journal of Applied Geophysics, 122, 149-158, doi:10.1016/j.jappgeo.2015.09.017, 2015.
103. Sikorska, A.E., D. Del Giudice, K. Banasik, and J. Rieckermann, The value of streamflow data in improving TSS predictions - Bayesian multi-objective calibration, Journal of Hydrology, 530, 241–254, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.09.051, 2015.
104. Zhang, Y. Y., Q. X. Shao, A. Z. Ye, H. T. Xing, and J. Xia, Integrated water system simulation by considering hydrological and biogeochemical processes: model development, parameter sensitivity and autocalibration, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 20, 529-553, doi:10.5194/hess-20-529-2016, 2016.
105. #Ward, A. D., S. W. Trimble, S. R. Burckhard, and J. G. Lyon, Environmental Hydrology, 3rd edition, CRC Press, 2016.
106. Hughes, J. D., S. S. H. Kim, D. Dutta, and J. Vaze, Optimisation of a multiple gauge, regulated river–system model. A system approach, Hydrological Processes, 30(12), 1955-1967, doi:10.1002/hyp.10752, 2016.
107. Fernández-Rodríguez, S., P. Durán-Barroso, I. Silva-Palacios, R. Tormo-Molina, J. M. Maya-Manzano, and Á. Gonzalo-Garijo, Quercus long-term pollen season trends in the southwest of the Iberian Peninsula, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 101, 152–159, doi:10.1016/j.psep.2015.11.008, 2016.
108. Chang, C.-H., J. F. Harrison, and Y.‐C. Huang, Modeling typhoon‐induced alterations on river sediment transport and turbidity based on dynamic landslide inventories: Gaoping river basin, Taiwan, Water, 7, 6910–6930, doi:10.3390/w7126666, 2015.
109. Houska, T., P. Kraft, A. Chamorro-Chavez, and L. Breuer, SPOTting model parameters using a ready-made Python package, PLoS ONE 10(12), e0145180, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0145180, 2015.
110. Guo, S., C. Xu, H. Chen, and D. Liu, Review and assessment of interaction between watershed hydrology and society system, Journal of Water Resources Research, 5(1), 1-15, doi:10.12677/jwrr.2016.51001, 2016.
111. Oni, S. K., M. N. Futter, J. L. J. Ledesma, C. Teutschbein, J. Buttle, and H. Laudon, Using dry and wet hydroclimatic extremes to guide future hydrologic predictions, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 20, 2811-2825, doi:10.5194/hess-2016-7, 2016.
112. Le Bourgeois, O., C. Bouvier, P. Brunet, and P.-A. Ayral, Inverse modeling of soil water content to estimate the hydraulic properties of a shallow soil and the associated weathered bedrock, Journal of Hydrology, 541, 116-126, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.01.067, 2016.
113. Silva-Palacios, I., S. Fernández-Rodríguez, P. Durán-Barroso, R. Tormo-Molina, J. M. Maya-Manzano, and Á. Gonzalo-Garijo, Temporal modelling and forecasting of the airborne pollen of Cupressaceae on the southwestern Iberian Peninsula, International Journal of Biometeorology, 60(2), 297-306, doi:10.1007/s00484-015-1026-6, 2016.
114. Fowler, K. J. A., M. C. Peel, A. W. Western, L. Zhang, and T. J. Peterson, Simulating runoff under changing climatic conditions: Revisiting an apparent deficiency of conceptual rainfall-runoff models, Water Resources Research, 52(3), 1820–1846, doi:10.1002/2015WR018068, 2016.
115. Dariane , A. B., and M. M. Javadianzadeh, Towards an efficient rainfall–runoff model through partitioning scheme, Water, 8, 63; doi:10.3390/w8020063, 2016.
116. Fernández-Rodríguez , S., P. Durán-Barroso, I. Silva-Palacios, R. Tormo-Molina, J. M. Maya-Manzano, and Á. Gonzalo-Garijo, Regional forecast model for the Olea pollen season in Extremadura (SW Spain), International Journal of Biometeorology, 60(10), 1509-1517, doi:10.1007/s00484-016-1141-z, 2016.
117. #Tian, F., Y. Sun, H. Hu, and H. Li, Searching for an optimized single-objective function matching multiple objectives with automatic calibration of hydrological models, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, doi:10.5194/hess-2016-88, 2016.
118. Smith, A., C. Welch, and T. Stadnyk, Assessment of a lumped coupled flow-isotope model in data scarce Boreal catchments, Hydrological Processes, doi:10.1002/hyp.10835, 2016.
119. Rogelis, M. C., M. Werner, N. Obregón, and N. Wright, Hydrological model assessment for flood early warning in a tropical high mountain basin, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, doi:10.5194/hess-2016-30, 2016.
120. Senapati, N., P.-E. Jansson, P. Smith, and A. Chabbi, Modelling heat, water and carbon fluxes in mown grassland under multi-objective and multi-criteria constraints, Environmental Modelling & Software, 80, 201-224, doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.02.025, 2016.
121. Pathiraja, S., L. Marshall, A. Sharma, and H. Moradkhani, Hydrologic modeling in dynamic catchments: A data assimilation approach, Water Resources Research, 52(5), 3350–3372, doi:10.1002/2015WR017192, 2016.
122. Seibert, S. P., U. Ehret, and E. Zehe, Disentangling timing and amplitude errors in streamflow simulations, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 20, 3745–3763, doi:10.5194/hess-2016-145, 2016.
123. #Echevarría , Y., L. Sánchez, and C. Blanco, Assessment of multi-objective optimization algorithms for parametric identification of a Li-Ion Battery model, Hybrid Artificial Intelligent Systems, Vol. 9648, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 250-260, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-32034-2_21, 2016.
124. Charizopoulos, N., and A. Psilovikos, Hydrologic processes simulation using the conceptual model Zygos: the example of Xynias drained Lake catchment (central Greece), Environmental Earth Sciences, 75:777, doi:10.1007/s12665-016-5565-x, 2016.
125. Zhang, Y., Q. Shao, and J. A. Taylor, A balanced calibration of water quantity and quality by multi-objective optimization for integrated water system model, Journal of Hydrology, 538, 802-816, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.05.001, 2016.
126. Zhang, Y., Q. Shao, S. Zhang, X. Zhai, and D. She, Multi-metric calibration of hydrological model to capture overall flow regimes, Journal of Hydrology, 539, 525–538, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.05.053, 2016.
127. Hitsov, I., L. Eykens, K. De Sitter, C. Dotremont, L. Pinoy, B. Van der Bruggen, and I. Nopens, Calibration and analysis of a direct contact membrane distillation model using Monte Carlo filtering, Journal of Membrane Science, 515, 63–78, doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2016.05.041, 2016.
128. Fernández-Rodríguez, S., P. Durán-Barroso, I. Silva-Palacios, R. Tormo-Molina, J. M. Maya-Manzano, and Á. Gonzalo-Garijo, Forecast model of allergenic hazard using trends of Poaceae airborne pollen over an urban area in SW Iberian Peninsula (Europe), Natural Hazards, 84(1), 121-137, doi:10.1007/s11069-016-2411-0, 2016.
129. Yen, H., M. J. White, J. G. Arnold, S. C. Keitzer, M.-V. V. Johnson, J. D. Atwood, P. Daggupati, M. E. Herbert, S. P. Sowa, S. A. Ludsin, D. M. Robertson, R. Srinivasan, and C. A. Rewa, Western Lake Erie Basin: Soft-data-constrained, NHDPlus resolution watershed modeling and exploration of applicable conservation scenarios, Science of the Total Environment, 569-570, 1265–1281, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.06.202, 2016.
130. Yu, X., C. Duffy, Y. Zhang, G. Bhatt, and Y. Shi, Virtual experiments guide calibration strategies for a real-world watershed application of coupled surface-subsurface modeling, Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 04016043, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001431, 2016.
131. Davison, B., A. Pietroniro, V. Fortin, R. Leconte, M. Mamo, and M. K. Yau, What is missing from the prescription of hydrology for land surface schemes?, Journal of Hydrometeorology, 17(7), 2013-2039, doi:10.1175/JHM-D-15-0172.1, 2016.
132. Mendez, M., and L. Calvo-Valverde, Development of the HBV-TEC hydrological model, Procedia Engineering, 154, 1116-1123, doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2016.07.521, 2016.
133. Huo, J., L. Liu, and Y. Zhang, Comparative research of optimization algorithms for parameters calibration of watershed hydrological model, Journal of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering, 16(3), 653-669, doi:10.3233/JCM-160647, 2016.
134. #Hernández, F. and X., Liang, X., Hybridizing sequential and variational data assimilation for robust high-resolution hydrologic forecasting, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, doi:10.5194/hess-2016-454, 2016.
135. Pagel, H., C. Poll, J. Ingwersen, E. Kandeler, and T. Streck, Modeling coupled pesticide degradation and organic matter turnover: From gene abundance to process rates, Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 103, 349-364, doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.09.014, 2016.
136. Bisselink, B., M. Zambrano-Bigiarini, P. Burek, and A. de Roo, Assessing the role of uncertain precipitation estimates on the robustness of hydrological model parameters under highly variable climate conditions, Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies, 8, 112-129, doi:10.1016/j.ejrh.2016.09.003, 2016.
137. Vernier, F., O. Leccia-Phelpin, J.-M. Lescot, S. Minette, A. Miralles, D. Barberis, C. Scordia, V. Kuentz-Simonet, and J.-P. Tonneau, Integrated modeling of agricultural scenarios (IMAS) to support pesticide action plans: the case of the Coulonge drinking water catchment area (SW France), Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(8), 6923–6950, doi:10.1007/s11356-016-7657-2, 2017.
138. Piotrowski, A. P., M. J. Napiorkowski, J. J. Napiorkowski, M. Osuch, and Z. W. Kundzewicz, Are modern metaheuristics successful in calibrating simple conceptual rainfall–runoff models?, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 62(4), 606-625, doi:10.1080/02626667.2016.1234712, 2017.
139. #De Paola, F., M. Giugni, and F. Pugliese, A harmony-based calibration tool for urban drainage systems, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Water Management, doi:10.1680/jwama.16.00057, 2016.
140. #Meza, G. R., X. B. Ferragud, J. S. Saez, and J. M. H. Durá, Background on multiobjective optimization for controller tuning, Controller Tuning with Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization - A Holistic Multiobjective Optimization Design Procedure, Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering, Vol. 85, 23-58, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-41301-3_2, 2017.
141. Seiller, G., R. Roy, and F. Anctil, Influence of three common calibration metrics on the diagnosis of climate change impacts on water resources, Journal of Hydrology, 547, 280–295, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.02.004, 2017.
142. Chang, Y., J. Wu, G. Jiang, and Z. Kang, Identification of the dominant hydrological process and appropriate model structure of a karst catchment through stepwise simplification of a complex conceptual model, Journal of Hydrology, 548, 75-87, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.02.050, 2017.
143. #Zavala, G. R., and A. N. Urbaneja, QOM, Modelo hidrológico simple para abstraer volúmenes de Iluvia, XXVI Congreso Nacional del Agua, Córdoba, Argentina, 2017.
144. Jung, D., Y. H. Choi, and J. H. Kim, Multiobjective automatic parameter calibration of a hydrological model, Water, 9(3), 187, doi:10.3390/w9030187, 2017.
145. Pouget, D. P., A. Vera, M. Villacís, T. Condom, M. Escobar, P. Le Goulven, and R. Calvez, Glacio-hydrological modelling and water resources management in the Ecuadorian Andes: the example of Quito, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 62(3), 431-446, doi:10.1080/02626667.2015.1131988, 2017.
146. Chen, J., R. Arsenault, and F. P. Brissette, An experimental approach to reduce the parametric dimensionality for rainfall–runoff models, Hydrology Research, 48(1), 48-65, doi:10.2166/nh.2016.145, 2017.
147. Aphale, O., and D. J. Tonjes, Multimodel validity assessment of groundwater flow simulation models using area metric approach, Groundwater, 55(2), 219–226, doi:10.1111/gwat.12470, 2017.
148. Simmons, J. A., M. D. Harley, L. A. Marshall, I. L. Turner, K. D. Splinter, and R. J. Cox, Calibrating and assessing uncertainty in coastal numerical models, Coastal Engineering, 125, 28-41, doi:10.1016/j.coastaleng.2017.04.005, 2017.
149. Stahn, P., S. Busch, T. Salzmann, B. Eichler-Löbermann, and K. Miegel, Combining global sensitivity analysis and multiobjective optimisation to estimate soil hydraulic properties and representations of various sole and mixed crops for the agro-hydrological SWAP model, Environmental Earth Sciences, 76, 367, doi:10.1007/s12665-017-6701-y, 2017.
150. Kiesel, J., B. Guse, M. Pfannerstill, K. Kakouei, S. C. Jähnig, and N. Fohrer, Improving hydrological model optimization for riverine species, Ecological Indicators, 80, 376–385, doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.04.032, 2017.
151. Poncelet, C., R. Merz, B. Merz, J. Parajka, L. Oudin, V. Andréassian, and C. Perrin, Process-based interpretation of conceptual hydrological model performance using a multinational catchment set, Water Resources Research, 53(8), 7247–7268, doi:10.1002/2016WR019991, 2017.
152. Charizopoulos, N., A. Psilovikos, and E. Zagana, A lumped conceptual approach for modeling hydrological processes: the case of Scopia catchment area, Central Greece, Environmental Earth Sciences, 76:18, doi:10.1007/s12665-017-6967-0, 2017.
153. Gelleszun, M., P. Kreye, and G. Meon, Representative parameter estimation for hydrological models using a lexicographic calibration strategy, Journal of Hydrology, 553, 722-734, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.08.015, 2017.
154. #Li, H. X., Y. Q. Zhang, G. H. Qin, and L.R. Cao, Multi-objective calibration of Xinanjiang model by using streamflow and evapotranspiration data, Proceedings of 22nd International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, 1843-1849, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 2017.
155. Tang, Y., L. Marshall, A. Sharma, and H. Ajami, A Bayesian alternative for multi-objective ecohydrological model specification, Journal of Hydrology, 556, 25-38, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.07.040, 2018.
156. Fernández-Rodríguez, S., P. Durán-Barroso, I. Silva-Palacios, R. Tormo-Molina, J. M. Maya-Manzano, Á. Gonzalo-Garijo, and A. Monroy-Colin, Environmental assessment of allergenic risk provoked by airborne grass pollen through forecast model in a Mediterranean region, Journal of Cleaner Production, 176, 1304-1315, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.226, 2018.
157. Alipour, M. H., and K. M. Kibler, A framework for streamflow prediction in the world’s most severely data-limited regions: test of applicability and performance in a poorly-gauged region of China, Journal of Hydrology, 557, 41-54, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.12.019, 2018.
158. #Kumarasamy, K., and P. Belmont, Multiple domain evaluation of watershed hydrology models, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, doi:10.5194/hess-2017-121, 2017.
159. Kuppel, S., D. Tetzlaff, M. Maneta, and C. Soulsby, What can we learn from multi-data calibration of a process-based ecohydrological model? Environmental Modelling and Software, 101, 301–316, doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.01.001, 2018.
160. De Paola, F., M. Giugni, and F. Pugliese, A harmony-based calibration tool for urban drainage systems, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Water Management, 171(1), 30-41, doi:10.1680/jwama.16.00057, 2018.
161. Zhang, R., J. Liu, H. Gao, and G. Mao, Can multi-objective calibration of streamflow guarantee better hydrological model accuracy?, Journal of Hydroinformatics, 20(3), 687-698, doi:10.2166/hydro.2018.131, 2018.
162. De Lavenne, A., and V. Andréassian, Impact of climate seasonality on catchment yield: A parameterization for commonly-used water balance formulas, Journal of Hydrology, 558, 266–274, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.01.009, 2018.
163. Shokri, A., J. P. Walker, A. van Dijk, A. J. Wright, and V. R.N. Pauwels, Application of the patient rule induction method to detect hydrologic model behavioural parameters and quantify uncertainty, Hydrological Processes, 32(8), 1005-1025, doi:10.1002/hyp.11464, 2018.
164. Mostafaie, A., E. Forootan, A. Safari, and M. Schumacher, Comparing multi-objective optimization techniques to calibrate a conceptual hydrological model using in situ runoff and daily GRACE data, Computational Geosciences, 22(3), 789–814, doi:10.1007/s10596-018-9726-8, 2018.
165. Jehn, F. U., L. Breuer, T. Houska, K. Bestian, and P. Kraft, Incremental model breakdown to assess the multi-hypotheses problem, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 22, 4565-4581, doi:10.5194/hess-2017-691, 2018.
166. He, Z., S. Vorogushyn, K. Unger-Shayesteh, A. Gafurov, O. Kalashnikova, E. Omorova, and B. Merz, The value of hydrograph partitioning curves for calibrating hydrological models in glacierized basins, Water Resources Research, 54(3), 2336-2361, doi:10.1002/2017WR021966, 2018.
167. Huang, X., C. Wang, and Z. Li, A near real-time flood-mapping approach by integrating social media and post-event satellite imagery, Annals of GIS, 24(3), 113-123, doi:10.1080/19475683.2018.1450787, 2018.
168. Her, Y., and C. Seong, Responses of hydrological model equifinality, uncertainty, and performance to multi-objective parameter calibration, Journal of Hydroinformatics, 20(4), 864-885, doi:10.2166/hydro.2018.108, 2018.
169. Tweldebrahn, A. T., J. F. Burkhart, and T. V. Schuler, Parameter uncertainty analysis for an operational hydrological model using residual based and limits of acceptability approaches, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 22, 5021-5039, doi:10.5194/hess-2018-158, 2018.
170. Fowler, K., M. Peel, A. Western, and L. Zhang, Improved rainfall‐runoff calibration for drying climate: choice of objective function, Water Resources Research, 54(5), 3392-3408, doi:10.1029/2017WR022466, 2018.
171. Huo, J., and L. Liu, Application research of multi-objective Artificial Bee Colony optimization algorithm for parameters calibration of hydrological model, Neural Computing and Applications, 81, doi:10.1007/s00521-018-3483-4, 2018.
172. Yang, B., Y. Chen, X. Chen, M. Liu, and L. Gao, HSPF runoff simulation and optimization based on PEST automatic calibration, Science of Soil and Water Conservation, 16(2), 9-16, doi:10.16843/j.sswc.2018.02.002, 2018.
173. Kumarasamy, K., and P. Belmont, Calibration parameter selection and watershed hydrology model evaluation in time and frequency domains, Water, 10(6), 710, doi:10.3390/w10060710, 2018.
174. Rajib, A., V. Merwade, and Z. Yu, Rationale and efficacy of assimilating remotely sensed potential evapotranspiration for reduced uncertainty of hydrologic models, Water Resources Research, 54(7), 4615-4637, doi:10.1029/2017WR021147, 2018.
175. #Kavetski, D., Parameter estimation and predictive uncertainty quantification in hydrological modelling, Handbook of Hydrometeorological Ensemble Forecasting, Duan Q., Pappenberger F., Thielen J., Wood A., Cloke H., Schaake J. (eds.), Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40457-3_25-1, 2018.
176. Schattan, P., G. Baroni, S. Oswald, C. Fey, J. Schöber, & S. Achleitner, Vom punkt zur fläche in der messung des wasseräquivalents der schneedecke – Mehrwert von cosmic-ray neutron sensoren in der regionalen schneemodellierung, Österreichische Wasser- und Abfallwirtschaft, 70(9-10), 497-506, doi:10.1007/s00506-018-0500-x, 2018.
177. Hernandez-Suarez, J. S., A. P. Nejadhashemi, I. M. Kropp, M. Abouali, Z. Zhang, and K. Deb, Evaluation of the impacts of hydrologic model calibration methods on predictability of ecologically-relevant hydrologic indices, Journal of Hydrology, 564, 758-772, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.07.056, 2018.
179. Qi, W., C. Zhang, G. Fu, C. Sweetapple, and Y. Liu, Impact of robustness of hydrological model parameters on flood prediction uncertainty, Journal of Flood Risk Management, doi:10.1111/jfr3.12488, 2018.
180. Wang, Q., Q. Zhou, X. Lei, and D. A. Savić, Comparison of multiobjective optimization methods applied to urban drainage adaptation problems, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 144(11), 04018070, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000996, 2018.
181. #Xie, H., M. Matranga, and J. Mateo-Sagasta, The role of models, More people, more food, worse water? A global review of water pollution from agriculture, J. Mateo-Sagasta, S. M. Zadeh, and H. Turral (editors), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2018.
182. Read, M. N., K. Alden, J. Timmis, and P. S. Andrews, Strategies for calibrating models of biology, Briefings in Bioinformatics, bby092, doi:10.1093/bib/bby092, 2018.
183. Chilkoti, V., T. Bolisetti, and R. Balachandar, Multi-objective autocalibration of SWAT model for improved low flow performance for a small snowfed catchment, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 63(10), 1482-1501, doi:10.1080/02626667.2018.1505047, 2018.
184. Rajib, A., G. R. Evenson, H. E. Golden, and C. R. Lane, Hydrologic model predictability improves with spatially explicit calibration using remotely sensed evapotranspiration and biophysical parameters, Journal of Hydrology, 567, 668-683, doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.10.024, 2018.
185. Cheng, Q.-B., X. Chen, J. Wang, Z.-C. Zhang, R.-R. Zhang, Y.-Y. Xie, C. Reinhardt-Imjela, and A. Schulte, The use of river flow discharge and sediment load for multi-objective calibration of SWAT based on the Bayesian inference, Water, 10(11), 1662, doi:10.3390/w10111662, 2018.
186. Thornton, J. M., G. Mariethoz, and P. Brunner, A 3D geological model of a structurally complex Alpine region as a basis for interdisciplinary research, Scientific Data, 5, 180238, doi:10.1038/sdata.2018.238, 2018.
187. Hernández, F., and X. Liang, Hybridizing Bayesian and variational data assimilation for high-resolution hydrologic forecasting, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 22, 5759-5779, doi:10.5194/hess-22-5759-2018, 2018.
188. Pool, S., M. Vis., and J. Seibert, Evaluating model performance: towards a non-parametric variant of the Kling-Gupta efficiency, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 63(13-14), 1941-1953, doi:10.1080/02626667.2018.1552002, 2018.
189. Visser, A., L. Beevers, and S. Patidar, Replication of ecologically relevant hydrological indicators following a covariance approach to hydrological model parameterisation, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, doi:10.5194/hess-2018-536, 2018.
190. Safari , A. R., and A. R. Mostafaie, Using satellite gravimetric data for optimizing the performance of a simple hydrological model via multi-objective evolutionary algorithms, Journal of Geomatics Science and Technology, 8(1), 1-18, 2018.
191. Menegazzo, T.A.S., A.M. Soares Junior., B.T. Mota, Né. Henderson, and A.P. Pires, Application of an equation of state incorporating association to alcohols up to decanol, Fluid Phase Equilibria, 482, 24-37, doi:10.1016/j.fluid.2018.10.015, 2019.
192. Smith, K. A., L. J. Barker, M. Tanguy, S. Parry, S. Harrigan, T. P. Legg, C. Prudhomme, and J. Hannaford, A multi-objective ensemble approach to hydrological modelling in the UK: An application to historic drought reconstruction, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, doi:10.5194/hess-2019-3, 2019.
193. Knoben, W. J. M., J. E. Freer, K. J. A. Fowler, M. C. Peel, and R. A. Woods, Modular Assessment of Rainfall-Runoff Models Toolbox (MARRMoT) v1.0: an open- source, extendable framework providing implementations of 46 conceptual hydrologic models as continuous space-state formulations, Geoscientific Model Development Discussions, doi:10.5194/gmd-2018-332, 2019.
194. #Singh, R., and B. Biswal, Assessing the impact of climate change on water resources: The challenge posed by a multitude of options, Hydrology in a Changing World: Challenges in Modeling, Singh S., Dhanya C. (eds), 185-204, Springer Water, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-02197-9_9, 2019.
195. Obergfell, C., M. Bakker, and K. Maas, Estimation of average diffuse aquifer recharge using time series modeling of groundwater heads, Water Resources Research, 55(3), 2194-2210, doi:10.1029/2018WR024235, 2019.
196. Abbaszadeh, P., H. Moradkhani, and D. N. Daescu, The quest for model uncertainty quantification: A hybrid ensemble and variational data assimilation framework, Water Resources Research, 55(3), 2407-2431, doi:10.1029/2018WR023629, 2019.
197. Chilkoti, V., T. Bolisetti, and R. Balachandar, Diagnostic evaluation of hydrologic models employing flow duration curve, Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 24(6), 05019009, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001778, 2019.
198. Kreye, P., M. Gelleszun, and G. Meon, Parameter identification in hydrological models using groundwater-level measurements and satellite-based soil moisture, Hydrological Sciences Journal, doi:10.1080/02626667.2019.1599120, 2019.
199. Sauerland, V., I. Kriest, A. Oschlies, and A. Srivastav, Multi-objective calibration of a global biogeochemical ocean model against nutrients, oxygen, and oxygen minimum zones, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, doi:10.1029/2018MS001510, 2019.
200. Birhanu, D., H. Kim, and C. Jang, Effectiveness of introducing crop coefficient and leaf area index to enhance evapotranspiration simulations in hydrologic models, Hydrological Processes, doi: 10.1002/hyp.13464, 2019.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V.


text:
A National Guard officer was permanently injured when the ejection system of his fighter aircraft malfunctioned during a midair emergency. Although he was awarded a lifetime pension under the Veterans' Benefits Act for the injury, he brought a damages suit against, inter alia, the United States and petitioner, which had manufactured the ejection system pursuant to Government specifications and with components furnished by the Government. The serviceman claimed that the ejection system had malfunctioned as a result of the defendants' individual and joint negligence. Petitioner cross-claimed against the United States, alleging that any malfunction in the system was due to faulty Government specifications and components. The District Court granted the Government's motions for summary judgment against the officer and for dismissal of petitioner's cross-claim, on the ground that Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (wherein it was held that an on-duty serviceman injured because of Government officials' negligence may not recover against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act), barred both the officer's claim and petitioner's claim. Held: Petitioner's third-party indemnity claim cannot be maintained. Feres v. United States, supra. The right of a third party to recover in an indemnity action against the United States recognized in United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 340 U.S. 543 , is limited by the rationale of Feres where the injured party is a serviceman. Pp. 669-674.
(a) The relationship between the Government and its suppliers of ordnance is as "distinctively federal in character" as the relationship between the Government and members of its Armed Forces, and hence, if as in Feres it makes no sense to permit the fortuity of the situs of the alleged negligence to affect the Government's liability to a serviceman for service-connected injuries, it makes equally little sense to permit that situs to affect such liability to a Government contractor for the identical injury. P. 672.
(c) Where the case concerns an injury to a serviceman while on duty, the adverse effect upon military discipline is identical whether the action is brought by the serviceman directly or by a third party, since in either case the issue would be the degree of the Government agents' fault, if any, and the effect upon the serviceman's safety, and the trial would involve second-guessing military orders. P. 673.
BURGER, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEWART, WHITE, BLACKMUN, POWELL, REHNQUIST, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN, J., joined, post, p. 674.
Thomas J. Whalen argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner.
Thomas S. Martin argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Friedman and Acting Assistant Attorney General Jaffe.
We granted certiorari in this case to decide whether the United States is liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2674, to indemnify a third party for damages paid by it to a member of the Armed Forces injured in the course of military service.
On June 9, 1973, Captain John Donham was permanently injured when the egress life-support system of his F-100 fighter aircraft malfunctioned during a midair emergency. 1 Petitioner, Stencel Aero Engineering Corp., manufactured the ejection system pursuant to the specifications of, and by use of certain components provided by, the United States. 2 Pursuant [431 U.S. 666, 668] to the Veterans' Benefits Act, 38 U.S.C. 321 et seq., made applicable to National Guardsmen by 32 U.S.C. 318, Captain Donham was awarded a lifetime pension of approximately $1,500 per month. He nonetheless brought suit for the injury in the Eastern District of Missouri claiming damages of $2,500,000. Named as defendants, inter alia, were the United States and Stencel. Donham alleged that the emergency eject system malfunctioned as a result of "the negligence and carelessness of the defendants individually and jointly."
The United States moved for summary judgment against Donham, contending that he could not recover under the Tort Claims Act against the Government for injuries sustained incident to military service. Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. [431 U.S. 666, 669] 135 (1950). The United States further moved for dismissal of Stencel's cross-claim, asserting that Feres also bars an indemnity action by a third party for monies paid to military personnel who could not recover directly from the United States.
The District Court granted the Government's motions, holding that Feres protected the United States both from the claim of the serviceman and that of the third party. 4 Both claims were therefore dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Stencel appealed this ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 5 and that court affirmed. 536 F.2d 765. We granted certiorari. 6 429 U.S. 958 .
In Feres v. United States, supra, the Court held that an on-duty serviceman who is injured due to the negligence of Government officials may not recover against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. During the same Term, in a case involving injuries to private parties, the Court also held that the Act permits impleading the Government as a third-party defendant, under a theory of indemnity or contribution, if the original defendant claims that the United [431 U.S. 666, 670] States was wholly or partially responsible for the plaintiff's injury. United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 340 U.S. 543 (1951). In this case we must resolve the tension between Feres and Yellow Cab when a member of the Armed Services brings a tort action against a private defendant and the latter seeks indemnity from the United States under the Tort Claims Act, claiming that Government officials were primarily responsible for the injuries.
Petitioner argues that "[t]he Federal Tort Claims Act waives the Government's immunity from suit in sweeping language." United States v. Yellow Cab Co., supra, at 547. Petitioner therefore contends that, unless its claim falls within one of the express exceptions to the Act, the Court should give effect to the congressional policy underlying the Act, which is to hold the United States liable under state-law principles to the same extent as a similarly situated private individual. However, the principles of Yellow Cab here come into conflict with the equally well established doctrine of Feres v. United States. It is necessary, therefore, to examine the rationale of Feres to determine to what extent, if any, allowance of petitioner's claim would circumvent the purposes of the Act as there construed by the Court.
"[T]he Government is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service. Without exception, the relationship of military personnel to the Government has been governed exclusively by federal law. We do not think that Congress, in drafting this Act, created a new cause of action dependent on local law for service-connected injuries or death due to negligence. We cannot impute to Congress such a radical departure from established law in the absence of express congressional command." Id., at 146.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court considered two factors: First, the relationship between the Government and members of its Armed Forces is "`distinctively federal in character,'" id., at 143, citing United States v. Standard Oil Co., 332 U.S. 301 (1947); it would make little sense to have the Government's liability to members of the Armed Services dependent on the fortuity of where the soldier happened to be stationed at the time of the injury. Second, the Veterans' Benefits Act establishes, as a substitute for tort liability, a statutory "no fault" compensation scheme which provides generous pensions to injured servicemen, without regard to any negligence attributable to the Government. A third factor was explicated in United States v. Brown, 348 U.S. 110, 112 (1954), namely, "[t]he peculiar and special relationship of the soldier to his superiors, the effects of the maintenance of such suits on discipline, and the extreme results that might obtain [431 U.S. 666, 672] if suits under the Tort Claims Act were allowed for negligent orders given or negligent acts committed in the course of military duty . . . ." We must therefore consider the impact of these factors where, as here, the suit against the Government is not brought by the serviceman himself, but by a third party seeking indemnity for any damages it may be required to pay the serviceman.
Clearly, the first factor considered in Feres operates with equal force in this case. The relationship between the Government and its suppliers of ordnance is certainly no less "distinctively federal in character" than the relationship between the Government and its soldiers. The Armed Services perform a unique, nationwide function in protecting the security of the United States. To that end military authorities frequently move large numbers of men, and large quantities of equipment, from one end of the continent to the other, and beyond. Significant risk of accidents and injuries attend such a vast undertaking. If, as the Court held in Feres, it makes no sense to permit the fortuity of the situs of the alleged negligence to affect the liability of the Government to a serviceman who sustains service-connected injuries, 340 U.S., at 143 , it makes equally little sense to permit that situs to affect the Government's liability to a Government contractor for the identical injury.
A compensation scheme such as the Veterans' Benefits Act serves a dual purpose: it not only provides a swift, efficient remedy for the injured serviceman, but it also clothes the Government in the "protective mantle of the Act's limitation-of-liability provisions." See Cooper Stevedoring Co. v. Kopke, Inc., 417 U.S. 106, 115 (1974). Given the broad exposure of the Government, and the great variability in the potentially applicable tort law, see Feres, 340 U.S., at 142 -143, the military compensation scheme provides an upper limit of liability for the Government as to service-connected injuries. To permit petitioner's claim would circumvent this limitation, thereby frustrating one of the essential features of the Veterans' Benefits Act. As we stated in a somewhat different context concerning the Tort Claims Act: "To permit [petitioner] to proceed . . . here would be to judicially admit at the back door that which has been legislatively turned away at the front door. We do not believe that the [Federal Tort Claims] Act permits such a result." Laird v. Nelms, 406 U.S. 797, 802 (1972).
Turning to the third factor, it seems quite clear that where the case concerns an injury sustained by a soldier while on duty, the effect of the action upon military discipline is identical whether the suit is brought by the soldier directly or by a third party. The litigation would take virtually the identical form in either case, and at issue would be the degree of fault, if any, on the part of the Government's agents and the effect upon the serviceman's safety. The trial would, in either case, involve second-guessing military orders, and would often require members of the Armed Services to testify in court as to each other's decisions and actions. This factor, too, weighs against permitting any recovery by petitioner against the United States.
[ Footnote 1 ] Captain Donham was at the time assigned for training to the 131st Tactical Fighter Group, Missouri Air National Guard.
[ Footnote 2 ] There is no contractual relationship between the United States and [431 U.S. 666, 668] Stencel. Stencel contracted with North American Rockwell, the prime Government contractor, to provide the F-100's pilot eject system.
[ Footnote 3 ] Stencel's indemnity claim is based upon the law of Missouri. See, e. g., Feinstein v. Edward Livington & Sons, Inc., 457 S. W. 2d 789, 792-793 (Mo. 1970); Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Payway Feed Mills, Inc., 338 S. W. 2d 1 (Mo. 1960). The FTCA, of course, insofar as it is applicable, fixes the liability of the United States with reference to "the law of the place where the [wrongful] act or omission occurred." 28 U.S.C. 1346 (b).
[ Footnote 4 ] Still pending in the District Court is Donham's action against Stencel and against Mills Manufacturing Corp., another alleged tortfeasor.
[ Footnote 5 ] The District Court had properly certified its judgment as final pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 54 (b), thereby making immediate appeal by Stencel appropriate.
[ Footnote 6 ] The Circuits have been far from uniform in their treatment of this issue. The view taken by the Eighth Circuit in this case was first adopted by the Ninth Circuit in United Air Lines, Inc. v. Wiener, 335 F.2d 379, 404, cert. dismissed, 379 U.S. 951 (1964), and has been recently reaffirmed in Adams v. General Dynamics Corp., 535 F.2d 489, 491 (1976), cert. pending, No. 76-220. Positions which appear inconsistent with this view have been adopted by the Tenth Circuit in Barr v. Brezina Constr. Co., 464 F.2d 1141, 1143-1144 (1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1125 (1973), and by the Fifth Circuit in Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. United States, 511 F.2d 159, 163 (1975).
[ Footnote 7 ] The Court considered two additional cases involving alleged negligence of army officials. Jefferson v. United States, O. T. 1950, No. 29, and United States v. Griggs, O. T. 1950, No. 31. It is unnecessary, for present purposes, to detail the fact situations involved in these two cases.
[ Footnote 8 ] Since the first Circuit case to hold such actions barred by Feres was decided in 1964, see n. 6, supra, petitioner no doubt had sufficient notice so as to take this risk into account in negotiating its contract for the emergency eject system at issue here.
The opinion of the Court appears to be premised on the theory that in any case involving a member of the military on active duty, Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950), displaces the plain language of the Tort Claims Act. I cannot agree that that narrow, judicially created exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity contained in the Act should be extended to any category of litigation other than suits against the Government by active-duty servicemen based on injuries incurred while on duty.
Even if Feres is not to be strictly limited, I do not agree that its extension to cover this case is justified. The Court's explanation simply does not differentiate this suit by a corporation against the Government from similar suits that the Tort Claims Act does allow. See, e. g., United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 340 U.S. 543 (1951).
The first factor relied upon by the Court is the "distinctively federal" relationship between the Government and "its suppliers [431 U.S. 666, 675] of ordnance." Ante, at 672. It is true, of course, that the military performs "a unique, nationwide function," ibid., but so do the Bureau of the Census, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and many other agencies of the Federal Government. These agencies, like the military, may have personnel and equipment in all parts of the country. Nevertheless, Congress has made private rights against the Government depend on "the law of the place where the act or omission occurred," 28 U.S.C. 1346 (b), and presumably the Court agrees that this provision governs the rights of suppliers to nonmilitary agencies. Nothing in the Court's opinion explains why it concludes that the relationship between the Government and those suppliers differs from its relationship to purveyors of military equipment.
The Court also concludes that compensation payments to an injured serviceman under the Veterans' Benefits Act, 38 U.S.C. 321 et seq., place an absolute upper limit on the Government's liability for service-connected injuries. Yet, nothing in that Act suggests that it is designed to place on third parties, such as petitioner, the burden of fully compensating injuries to servicemen when the Government is at fault. Indeed, the Veterans' Benefits Act does not even contain an explicit declaration that it is the exclusive remedy against the Government for a serviceman's injury. The comparable compensation program for civilian employees of the Government does contain such a limitation of liability. 5 U.S.C. 8116 (c). * Yet we have held that the broad language of the exclusivity provision in the civilian compensation [431 U.S. 666, 676] scheme does not affect "the rights of unrelated third parties," Weyerhaeuser S. S. Co. v. United States, 372 U.S. 597, 601 (1963), and the lower courts have allowed indemnity suits identical to petitioner's to proceed despite that provision. See, e. g., Travelers Ins. Co. v. United States, 493 F.2d 881 (CA3 1974). The Court fails to explain why the absence of an exclusivity provision in the Veterans' Benefits Act forecloses suits by third parties in cases involving injuries to military personnel when the existence of such a clause does not bar similar actions when the injured employee works for one of the Government's civilian agencies.
Finally, the Court claims to find in this action a threat to military discipline. It is clear that the basis of Feres was the Court's concern with the disruption of "[t]he peculiar and special relationship of the soldier to his superiors" that might result if the soldier were allowed to hale his superiors into court. See United States v. Brown, 348 U.S. 110, 112 (1954). That problem does not arise when a nonmilitary third party brings suit.
The majority's argument that whether petitioner or the injured serviceman sues is of no import because the trial would take the same form in either case proves far too much. Had the same malfunction in the pilot eject system that caused the serviceman's injuries here also caused that system to plunge into a civilian's house, the injured civilian would unquestionably have a cause of action under the Tort Claims Act against the Government. He might also sue petitioner, which might, as it has done here, cross-claim against the Government. In that hypothetical case, as well as in the case before us, there would be the same chance that the trial would "involve second-guessing military orders, and would . . . require members of the Armed Services to testify in court as to [431 U.S. 666, 677] each other's decisions and actions." Ante, at 673. Yet there would be no basis, in Feres or in the Tort Claims Act, for concluding that the suit is barred because of the nature of the evidence to be produced at trial. There is no basis for reaching that conclusion here.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.