U.S. Geological Survey
The USGS provides maps, reports, and information to help others meet their needs to manage, develop, and protect America's water, energy, mineral, and land resources. We help find natural resources needed to build tomorrow, and supply scientific understanding needed to help minimize or mitigate the effects of natural hazards and environmental damage caused by human activities. The results of our efforts touch the daily lives of almost every American.
Water-data collection is a necessary role of government. The costs and benefits of several alternative funding and management options are examined in table 1. The options shown in the table are funding and operations by a single Federal agency, funding and operations by each agency needing data, and a partnership between a central Federal agency and the major beneficiaries of the data. The third is the system in use in the United States today with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) acting as the central Federal agency.
Table 1. Options to fund and manage a national water data program; Option C is used at present
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation criteria A. Funding and operations in a B. Funding and operations C. Funded as partnership
single Federal agency centered in each agency that between a central Federal
needs the data agency and a variety of major
beneficiaries. Federal agency
operates the network
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational efficiency High---Single system of data col- Low---Many organizations need High---Single system of data col
lecting, processing, and dis to create their own duplicate lection, processing, and dis
semination; equipment capabilities semination; equipment
testing; and training of staff testing; and training of staff
Responsiveness to Moderate---Users do not have High---Network totally paid for High---Network design negoti-
needs of major users much influence over network by major users ated with major users
Accessibility of infor- High---Data available in a single Low---No assurance that data will High---Data available in a single
mation to secondary data base; free to all users, be entered into widely avail- data base; free to all users,
users or future users including users many years able data bases including users many years
after data have been collected after data have been collected
Quality Assurance High---National training and Uncertain quality and variable High---National training and
quality assurance can be methodologies quality assurance can be
required required
Likelihood of innova- High---Funded as small percent Low---Large percentage of pro- High---Funded as small percent-
tive research and age of network cost; successes gram cost to invest in research age of network cost; successes
development to quickly applied throughout and development, resulting in quickly applied throughout
improve effective- entire network isolated development and entire network
ness or accuracy of application
program
Ability to respond to High---Technology and methods Low---Technology and methods High---Technology and methods
emergencies (e.g. consistent; all staff work for differ among States. Deploy- consistent; all staff work for
floods)--rapid same agency ment of staff unlikely because same agency
deployment of of interstate work and travel
trained staff to other restrictions
parts of the country
Usefulness of data for High---Data are trusted because Low---Data would be associated High---Data are trusted because
adjudication of water the agency collecting them is a with one of the parties and may the agency collecting them is a
rights or settlement credible, disinterested third be distrusted by others credible, disinterested third
of disputes party party
Cost to Federal Gov- High---Whole program funded by Low---Cost covered by the major Medium---Cost shared by Federal
ernment Federal Government beneficiaries---State and local Government and State and
government plus Federal water local governments
management agencies
Total cost Medium---Single infrastructure High---Duplication of infrastruc- Medium---Single infrastructure
nationwide (computer systems ture and need to duplicate mea- nationwide (computer systems
and data-base structure). Net surements on either side of a and data-base structure). Net-
work coordinated across State jurisdictional boundary work coordinated across State
lines boundaries
Cost to major Low---Users are not asked to pay High---Major beneficiaries pay Medium---Major beneficiaries
beneficiaries any of the cost directly the whole cost pay a share of the cost
Conclusions High efficiency---High cost to Low efficiency---Low cost to High efficiency---Medium cost
Federal Government, medium Federal Government, high cus- to Federal Government, high
customer responsiveness, con tomer responsiveness, incon customer responsiveness, con-
sistent data available to all sistent data availability sistent data available to all
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The USGS provides much of the hydrologic information collected in the Nation. The USGS was established March 3, 1879, and began stream gaging in the West in 1888. The fact that the USGS neither designs, builds, nor operates water projects is, in large part, the basis for the impartiality that has characterized USGS work through the years. With time, a framework began to take shape that eventually led to a water program closely attuned to local data needs, yet sufficiently broad to provide the information required to plan and assess regional water-resources development and management.
USGS funding support for the hydrologic data program is derived from three major sources---the USGS Federal Program, the Federal--State Cooperative Program, and reimbursements from other Federal agencies. The sources of funds for operation of continuous surface-water discharge stations are shown in figure 1. A wide variety of agencies at Federal, State, and local levels furnish support to the Survey, and activities at a single data-collection site commonly are funded by a combination of sources. More than 600 agencies provide funding to the USGS for the operation of continuous-record stream-gaging stations.
Figure 1. Number of continuous-record surface-water-discharge stations operated by the USGS and sources of funding support in 1994.
Personnel assigned to USGS offices throughout the 50 States, Guam, and Puerto Rico currently (1995) collect data at many sites (table 2): more than 12,000 surface-water stage and discharge stations, about 32,000 wells where ground-water level and (or) pumpage data are collected annually or more frequently, and about 3,100 surface-water stations and 6,900 wells where water-quality information is collected.
Table 2. Number of USGS data-collection stations operated in 1994, by source of funds
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Types of Federal Federal- Other Combine Total
stations Progra State Federal d
m Cooper- Agency support
ative Program
Program
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface water:
Discharge 638 6,419 2,219 964 10,240
Stage-only-- 47 968 850 183 2,048
streams, lakes,
and reservoirs
.
Quality 778 1,666 426 228 3,098
Ground water:
Water levels 2,344 27,029 2,421 237 32,031
Quality 691 4,602 1,347 216 6,856
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground water was sampled and analyzed at 6,856 stations in 1994. To maintain information on the changes in quality of critical ground-water bodies, samples were collected at 2,756 stations as part of a scheduled long-term operation. Ground-water quality data also were collected at 4,100 stations to provide information needed for short-term studies.
Today, more than one-half of currently operating stream-gaging stations use automated earth-satellite telemetry equipment for the transmission of data from the collection site. Data are transmitted around the clock by means of two geostationary satellites operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. These data then are retransmitted through a domestic satellite, and the resulting data are received by the USGS and other users. The automated telemetry provides water-data users with provisional information in a time frame that meets water management needs. This system gives the USGS the capability to continuously monitor the operation of the hydrologic stations so that visits to the stations (for maintenance, instrument calibration, selective data collection) can be planned with maximum effectiveness.
During the 1993 Mississippi River floods, USGS personnel made more than 2,000 visits to stream-gaging stations in the flood-affected areas to verify that the instruments were working properly and to make direct measurements of the streamflow. Data from these stations were provided continuously to the NWS and the COE and formed the basis for flood forecasts that allowed people to be evacuated from areas about to be inundated. It also enabled the COE and others to focus flood-fighting activities where they were most needed. The USGS was able to move staff from other locations into the disaster area. These hydrologists and technicians were already familiar with the equipment and procedures so they could begin work immediately upon arrival.
from U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Fact Sheet FS-065-95
Conn., Del., D.C., Ill, Ind., Ky, Maine, Md., Mass., Mich, NH., N.J., N.Y., Ohio, Pa., R.I., Vt., Va., W.Va., and Wis.
Ala., Ark., Fla., Ga., La., Miss., Mo., N.C., P.R., S.C., Tenn., and V.I.
Colo., Iowa, Kans., Minn., Mont., Nebr., N. Mex., N. Dak., Okla., S. Dak., Tex., and Wyo.
Alaska, Ariz., Calif., Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Nev., Oreg., Utah, and Wash.>