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. 

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?

Federal Water Interests

Seems our federal government is getting much more active in water these days. Last year two bills were introduced to work on the process of developing a national water policy. S. 2728 and H.R. 135 both propose the creation of a new group called the "Twenty-first Century Water Commission" - a group of federally appointed folks who are to study and develop recommendations for a comprehensive water strategy for future water needs. Similar in scope and nature, S. 2728 calls for a 9-member commission appointed by the President, Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader. They are provided $9 million and are given 3-years to make their recommendations.

H.R. 135 is an 11-member group appointed by the President, the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate who are to be provided $12 million and be given 5 years to work their magic. While there is much borrowed language between these bills, H.R. 135 has far more detail as to what is to be studied. In both cases, there is much that the states and local water folks should be concerned about.

And just making its way into the process this year is the current working draft of a new bill (not numbered as of yet) called the "Sustainable Watershed Planning Act". This calls for a new federal agency - the Office of Sustainable Watershed Management (OSWM) to do much the same stuff - only with far more layers of boards and commissions, and a lot more money - $30 million/yr for the OSWM, and $250 million/yr for this group to entice their partners (states, locals, tribes, stakeholders and other interested entities) to see their vision. The Director of OSWM is slated to become the new and singular, federal water czar. There is even more to be concerned about in this draft bill.

There is the expected obligatory language that the planning groups (3, nested layers) are to consider state & local management activities, and are to be respectful of state water laws and state water jurisdictional responsibilities, but it never says these are exclusive to the states as they virtually are now. It even mentions that personal water rights cannot be affected - from transboundary aquifers only. This bill draft actually looks eerliy familiar to the earlier (failed) Western Water Policy Review Commission (WWPRC) effort of 1997. It also has a long way to go in my opinion.

On the positive side, if the federal OSWM and its nested boards could be trusted to share your state's water visions, there will be a lot of money available to implement many worthwhile programs - for the 10 pilot basins selected by the Director. This selection process probably won't be political at all, so it's a no-brainer that we should all jump on board and support this bill. Oh, and in his or her spare time, the Director is also charged with crafting a national water policy overarching everything. If you are interested in water, you should have a look.

One last point. As H.R. 135 was being debated, some wanted to revisit the work of a similar effort back in the late 1960's - that of the National Water Commission (NWC). The following is from that report:

While many support better coordination of federal water activities and a clearer national “vision” for water management, Congress has not enacted overarching water policy legislation since the 1965 Water Resources Planning Act. Instead, water policy has largely evolved through executive and judicial actions, in many cases in response to piecemeal legislation. Congress continually modifies federal water projects through amendments to existing projects and programs through Water Resources Development Acts (WRDAs), Reclamation acts, water quality legislation, and appropriations decisions. Incremental and ad hoc evolution of water policy, however, is not surprising. Water management is complicated by past decisions and investments affecting a wide range of stakeholders pursuing different goals. Specifically, federal and state laws and regulations, local ordinances, tribal treaties, contractual obligations, and economies dependent on existing water use patterns and infrastructure all affect water management. Attempts to untangle such complexities involve many constituencies with differing interests, and success is difficult to achieve. Expectations for a commission to achieve change in a complex system resistant to transformation may be unreasonable; instead, the influence of a commission may lie in how its recommendations combine with other drivers to support policy evolution.

I have to ask what has changed since 1973 and 1997 that makes me feel comfortable that a new, Twenty-first Century (federal) Water Commission has got the right handle on the complexities of water?