Comments on SWMM Version 1 from 1971

 Here is the requested information summarized in a table format from this history post about SWMM from 2001 https://www.openswmm.org/Topic/2045/swmm-origins:

Volume	Title	Reference Number	Pages	Year
Volume I	Final Report	11024DOC07/71 (NTIS PB?203289)	352 pp.	1971
Volume II	Verification and Testing	11024DOC08/71 (NTIS PB?203290)	172 pp.	1971
Volume III	User’s Manual	11024DOC09/71 (NTIS PB?203291)	359 pp.	1971
Volume IV	Program Listing	11024DOC10/71 (NTIS PB?203292)	249 pp.	1971

The original SWMM proposal was submitted by three groups:

Group	Key People
University of Florida	Ed Pyatt (deceased) and John Schaake (now NOAA-NWS)
Water Resources Engineers (now Camp, Dresser and McKee)	Bob Shubinski (deceased) and Carl Chen (not sure where now!)
Metcalf and Eddy (Palo Alto)	John Lager (retired)

The primary EPA project officer was Darwin Wright.

Responsibility for SWMM blocks was as follows:

SWMM Block	Responsibility
Runoff, quantity	WRE
Runoff, quality	M&E
Transport	UF
Storage/Treatment	M&E
Receiving Water	WRE

Significant contributors to SWMM over time:

Name	Contribution
Larry Roesner	Developer of the WRE Transport Model (EXTRAN)
Richard Field	Long-time EPA SWMM master, benefactor, and visionary
Bob Dickinson	The code effectively became his after about 1980
Bill James	First interactive version
Alan Peltz	Worked on the code before Bob Dickinson
Several UF grad students (notably Steve Nix, Miguel Medina, and Don Polmann)	Various contributions

Note: This list is not exhaustive and may not include many other valuable contributors.

EPA SWMM versions in table format:

Version	Year
Version 1	1969 to 1971
Version 2	1975
Interim Release	1977
Version 3	1981
Version 4	1988
Version 4.04	1989
Version 4.05	1990
Version 4.20	1992
Version 4.30	1994
Version 4.40	1997
Version 4.4g	1998

Why Validation in InfoDrainage, ICM SWMM and ICM InfoWorks is great for Good Model Building

 The built-in validation tool in InfoDrainage is an exceptional feature that significantly enhances the user experience and overall performance of the software. Here's why this feature is so beneficial:

1. Efficiency: The validation tool speeds up the troubleshooting process by quickly identifying errors and potential issues that could affect the simulation. Instead of manually checking every aspect of the model, users can rely on this tool to pinpoint exactly where the problems lie. This can save a considerable amount of time, especially in large or complex models.

2. Accuracy: By providing a list of problematic errors and warnings, the validation tool ensures that no issue goes unnoticed. This increases the accuracy of the simulations by reducing the risk of undetected errors that could skew the results.

3. Guidance: Perhaps the most valuable aspect of the validation tool is its ability to provide suggestions for fixes. In certain situations, such as issues associated with levels, InfoDrainage doesn't just identify the problem; it also suggests a potential solution. This guidance can be invaluable, particularly for less experienced users who might struggle to determine the appropriate corrective action.

4. User-friendly: When a suggested fix is available, users can implement it with the click of a button. This ease of use makes InfoDrainage more user-friendly and allows users to correct issues more quickly and easily.

5. Improved results: By facilitating the identification and correction of errors, the validation tool can lead to more accurate and reliable simulation results. This can ultimately lead to better decision-making and improved outcomes in the real-world applications of the software.

In essence, the built-in validation tool in InfoDrainage is like having a built-in expert that's always ready to help you identify and fix issues, making the process of running and analyzing simulations significantly smoother and more efficient.