And I Thought No One was Listening!

Just got off the phone with my long time USGS friend Walt Aucott in Lawrence, KS.  I called him to ask what he knew of the new WaterSMART initiative within DOI.  After finishing our discussion of WaterSMART, which was most informative to me, Walt asked me if I was reconciling all my issues with the USGS? 

I knew instantly what he was referring to - my past Blog posts regarding the USGS involvement in the WICP and ACWI efforts (December 7, 2009 and January 5, 2010).  As it turns out, someone in a USGS position above him called to ask about the posts and to decide if my federal "conspiracy" bent was something to be concerned about.  There you have it - someone actually reads this stuff!

I explained to Walt that my posts were written fairly provocatively for a reason - to get folks thinking very clearly about the issue of a federal, scientific agency being involved in the actual framing of policy - especially when it's that very agency's job to collect the data needed to support that policy.  If the USGS is NOT engaged in framing or influencing policy, the matter is closed.  I just have not been able to discern this from the tracking I have done thus far in this specific process, and quite frankly I believe it's a valid question.  I certainly do NOT believe every USGS employee is actively engaged in or advocating a secret, agency water policy, or that every USGS activity is policy-oriented.  However, I'd like to make sure no one in the agency is doing so, and that none of their activites are policy-specific.

As a matter of fact, I have made my concerns known in writing to the participants of ACWI and WICP and have asked to be dropped from their process.  The agency will either walk the data/policy line appropriately,  or they won't.  I'm glad to know they are aware of my questions, though.

I learned two things today.  First, that if I ever have an issue with USGS I should call Walt Aucott and discuss it with him.  He is a credible scientist and an all-around gentleman.  He also shares my belief that the agency should NOT be advocating policy.  Secondly, there is always someone watching you in and around the web.  And this is how it should be. 

Kansas' Largest Earthquake

Just read that central Oklahoma (where I lived before moving to Kansas) had another small earthquake this morning - 3.7 in the Jones, OK area.  In reviewing the technical info on this quake from a USGS site, I traveled over to the Kansas site out of curiosity (Kansas Earthquake Info) and looked at the largest quake (of record) to hit Kansas - a 5.1 quake that struck the Riley County Area (Manhattan, KS) on April 24, 1867.  This quake is noted here because its USGS record has 3 references to water as follows:

This earthquake inflicted several minor injuries, cracked walls, and loosened stones from buildings. At Manhattan, a 0.6-meter wave was observed moving south to north on the Kansas River. Chimneys were downed in Louisville (Pottawatomie County) and Leavenworth. One side of a large building that houses a newspaper office was knocked down at Paola, south of Kansas City, in Miami County. East of Manhattan, the earth opened and ejected much water on a farm about 5 kilometers south of Wamego.  Additional minor damage occurred in Iowa at Dubuque (plaster fell); in Kansas at Junction City (a well being dug was destroyed),..

 

It's comforting to know that there has been little earthquake activity in Kansas since 1990 - I count only 13 or so.  (Map from the same USGS site linked above).  Now tornadoes - quite a different matter!

Separation of Data and Policy

In the Kansas water world agencies like the Kansas Geological Survey (KGS) are responsible for scientific data collection that the regulatory and policy agencies have access to.  These guys are very well-heeled and make double sure that the data they collect and store is scientifically "top notch" (completely supported by scads of meta data) and is basically unquestionable.  While they are very good at what they do, they do NOT offer up policy recommendations or management approaches.  These decisions are in the realm of the state regulatory agencies who rely on the data to make the right policy decisions. 

This is the same with the United States Geological Survey (USGS), or so I thought.  I recently ran across a federal government sponsored (OMB) group directly under the chair of the USGS that is working on a number of data issues - including a national data procedure that will easily accept all other data the USGS can get its hands on.  While this effort is appropriate, the committee has other subcommittees that are working on issues much closer to policy-like efforts - most notably sustainable water directions.  This places the USGS out of character at the very least, and possibly in an inappropriate role. 

The committee?  The Water Information Coordination Program (WICP).  You have to look pretty deep into the group before you find the policy issues being developed.  One sub group sanctioned by WICP is the Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI).   This group has 8 sub committees - one of which is the sub committee (Roundtable) on Sustainable Water - whose mission statement is:

"Serve as a forum to share information and perspectives that will promote better decision making in the U.S. regarding the sustainability of our nation's water resources."

ACWI's alternate chair and two executive secretaries are USGS employees.  Why is the USGS coordinating discussion on policy issues?  There are two other sub committees under the WICP that are also expressly chaired by USGS personnel.  From the OMB resolution forming the entire shebang: 

"At the national level, the procedures shall include an Interagency Coordinating Committee for Water Information and a Federal Advisory Committee on Water Data for Public Use. The U.S. Geological Survey shall chair and provide support services for these committees. OMB shall be a member of the national committees."

I don't know what these folks are working on yet - data or policy.  It should be noted that the ACWI mission statement above does not say who will be making the better decisions their discussion will be promoting, so it's too early to break down the doors.  However, traditional separation of data and policy doesn't even come close to this arena.  Traditionally the USGS would stand completely down and develop the data required by a regulatory agency only upon direct and specific request.  Their being directly involved in the framing of the data needs would too easily allow a USGS policy agenda to manifest itself.

Anyway, this arrangement should be looked into in my opinion.  I'm not so sure the whole national water policy and sustainable watersheds efforts are not related to these activities, too.  If they are, the USGS is clearly stepping beyond its data responsibilities and is promoting national water policy.

** Update:  January 27, 2010:  From USGS Circular 1261, Anderson & Woolsley, 2005:

"The new role of science will be to support environmental decisionmaking to achieve some new level of sustainable use that will provide an assured supply of good-quality water for humans and for stream and riparian ecosystems."

Who doesn't think this statement is supporting a specific policy agenda by the USGS?