Hydrologic data and the USGS Strategic Plan Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 12:10:07 -0400 To: "E - All WRD Employees" From: "Robert M Hirsch, Chief Hydrologist, Reston, VA" (Robert M. Hirsch) Subject: Hydrologic data and the USGS Strategic Plan Cc: "Gordon P Eaton Reston, VA" , "Bonnie McGregor Reston, VA" , "Barbara J Ryan Reston, VA" , "Robert M Hirsch, Chief Hydrologist, Reston, VA" , "P. Patrick Leahy, Chief Geologist, Reston, VA" , "Richard E Witmer Reston, VA" , "William F Gossman Jr. Reston, VA" , "Linda D Stanley Reston, VA" , "Pamela R Malam Reston, VA" , "Katherine F Lins Reston, VA" , "Douglas R Posson Denver, CO" , "Thomas J Casadevall Menlo Park, CA" Over the past few weeks since the USGS Strategic Plan was released there has been a lively debate within the Division and around the whole of the USGS about what the Plan is saying about the future of water data activities within the USGS. As a result of this debate Tim Hale wrote down his thoughts on this subject and shared them with me and many others. Tim is well qualified to discuss the subject. He is the a former data chief and now District Chief of the Georgia District, he is a well known and articulate advocate for the data program, and is a member of the USGS Strategic Planning Team. I wanted to share his thoughts with you. I agree with them 100%. The collection of basic hydrologic data must remain a very significant part of the overall WRD program, but at the same time we must be working with others to enlarge the overall body of reliable hydrologic data that are available to all. My hope is that his thoughts will help us focus our discussions on the real issues raised by the Plan and the actions that we should be undertaking to keep us a strong and well-balanced organization into the future. Bob Hirsch *************** Text of message from Tim Hale to Bob Hirsch **************** Bob, I am writing to express some of my thoughts about a portion of the USGS Strategic Plan that seems to be causing a great deal of controversy. I refer to the Strategic Action BA1-A, "Encourage other organizations to collect data to USGS standards, with the purpose of substantially supplementing USGS maintained data bases," and the sub-part actions that follow (BA1-A-1 through BA1-A-5). These recommended actions are not intended to "lower the USGS Water-data collection flag." The actions do not call for a shift from WRD's willingness to collect water resources data in cooperation with our highly-valued State, local, and OFA partners. However, the actions do acknowledge that "Powerful forces in the world are driving a dynamic, uncertain environment . . . " and that the USGS must live and hopefully prosper in this uncertain environment. The analyses of driving forces in the world today and three scenarios of possible future worlds contributed to the inclusion of the questioned actions. For instance: o Devolution of Federal government functions (including size and authority) to states is occurring. Some states are further devolving (e.g., Georgia Gov. Miller has appointed a "privatization czar"). If devolution continues, other Federal agencies will experience budget reductions. Often such agency cuts are not accompanied by one for one personnel cuts and, thus, result in the affected agency having to hold money and work internally to accomplish what they previously had "contracted out." Only time will tell if work lost by USGS in this manner will return as the affected agency "right-sizes" its workforce. Serious waves of Federal privatization efforts may be expected as a by-product of serious devolution excursions. To date the USGS-WRD has appropriately, eloquently, and effectively argued against further privatization (Wahl and others, 1990). This report is still extremely relevant and our conclusion can be effectively argued. However, we should never shrink from a willingness to encourage standardized, high-quality hydrologic data collection no matter who the collector might be. o New technologies not only raise expectations of cost reductions but also embolden customers to try "home remedies" when costs rise. After all, how hard could it be to stick a probe in the water every few days? WRD knows better and we should say so -- who is better prepared to explain the steps associated with collection, assurance and storage of reliable data. In an information society it could be argued that he who has the information and knows its worth is the one to be valued and respected. The USGS would do well to house the Nation's "good" hydrologic data. In an information society, rarely will one organization be the sole collector of "good" information. Currently, two Federal hydrologic data base models predominate . . . EPA's Storet and USGS's WATSTORE (anything goes versus exclusivity). I believe WRD should be prepared to explain what it takes to produce USGS-like QA/QC'ed data. Dogmatic data base exclusivity will not serve us well. We should be prepared to tell others how to produce data worthy of USGS-grade status (i.e., ISO 9000 type specs). This will free us of wasteful "contracting out" exercises and rear-ended QA/QC at the request of cooperators. If USGS will not take the lead for housing the Nation's "good" hydrologic data, who do we recommend to take the job? o Demographic change is occurring, with population increasing in sunbelt, coastal, and urban communities. As people concentrate in these areas, hydrologic problems will intensify. If the USGS is somewhat smaller than current we cannot hope to address all (or even most) of these problems without abandoning (or nearly so) other areas of the country. However, we may be able to capitalize upon project-specific work of others and capture the information for future (as yet unspecified) needs. o Environmental issues appear to be near-unknowable, emerging almost overnight. Couple this uncertainty with the high cost of water-quality data gathering and the frustration of never having enough reliable data to begin the "issue of the week or year." Many NAWQA study teams found that little readily available, adequately assured water-quality data existed outside USGS historic records. Wahl and others (1990) reported similar findings in OFR 90-184. In a rapidly growing, highly sophisticated information society where populations are concentrating, a level or somewhat smaller USGS cannot expect to remain in command of hydrologic data/information unless it - demonstrates and maintains its preeminence in data collection, including promoting its standards and methods as the most appropriate, - demonstrates its dedication to maintaining a relevant hydrologic data base, readily accessible to all, and - demonstrates a sincere desire to see good science (impartial and high quality) conducted at all levels and that the resulting good, consistent data be preserved for the use of those who care to know. The Strategic Plan BA1-A recommendation is in no way suggesting that the USGS must deliberately reduce its data collection and analysis functions. In fact, the reverse is recommended within human, financial, programmatic balance (data, interpretation, research), and customer-support limits. Nor is it a mandate to contract our data collection out or to encourage our cooperators to contract out. Nor does the recommendation focus evenly on a particular discipline. Streamgaging is considered a near-exclusive USGS function whereas water-quality and ground-water level data frequently are collected by others. Similarly, USGS's role as a long-term, continuous-record (systematic) data collector and provider is undiminished. The recommendation merely acknowledges the realities of the present and possible realities of the future (it should play well in any of our likely futures) and supports the belief that WRD's long-term health depends on a proper balance of data collection, interpretive studies, and hydrologic research. I am gratified that WRD managers and cooperators are vigorously defending our data collection work. We must remain an agency that collects and provides data in order to have the right to manage and maintain the Nation's hydrologic data information. I urge WRD to interpret the questioned actions in light of the entire strategic planning document (especially the driving forces, core competencies, and introduction to the business activities) and not as a set of actions that can be done to the exclusion of the other recommendations. Reference cited: Wahl, K.L., and others, 1990, Feasibility of Privatization of the Hydrologic Data Collection and Analysis Functions of the U.S. Geological Survey: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 90-184, 64 p. ********************************************************** * Robert M. Hirsch Phone: 703/648-5215 * * Chief Hydrologist Fax: 703/648-5002 * * 409 National Center Internet: rhirsch@usgs.gov * * U.S. Geological Survey * * Reston, VA 22092 * **********************************************************