# Presentation: 359433

## Overview of the Cooperative Water Program Task Force Findings

- Presentation for the
- Advisory Committee on Water Information
- Annual Meeting
- September 14, 2005

**Barney Austin,  Texas Water Development Board *****representing the Western States Water Council***

## Overview of the Cooperative Water Program

- Created in 1895
- _Combine resources_ of the Federal gov’t with other governmental units to collect and analyze water resources data
- In 1905 Congress appropriated funds specifically for cooperative studies
- Main objectives:
- To _collect data_ for the continuing determination and evaluation of the quantity, quality and use of the Nation’s water resources.
- To appraise _physical, biological and chemical characteristics_ of surface and groundwater through _data analysis and interpretive studies_.

**Notes:**
 Paraphrased main objectives
 Limited Federal financial contribution to 50%
 Previous Task Force recommended a Mission Statement for the Cooperative Water Program: “...to provide reliable, impartial, and timely information needed to understand the Nation’s water resources through a program of shared efforts and funding with State, Tribal, and local partners to enable decision makers to wisely manage the Nation’s water resources”. USGS adopted this Mission Statement.

## Overview of ‘99 Coop Task Force

- Task Force established by the ACWI at their August 1998 meeting in Denver, CO
- Terms of Reference:
- To assess the effectiveness of the Cooperative Water Program;
- To make recommendations;
- Provide a written report of the findings...

**Notes:**
Circular 1192 released in August 1999

## Overview of ‘99 Coop Task Force

- Membership: 21 individuals representing 21 organizations
- A total of 59 findings in areas of:
- Mission;
- Priorities for funding;
- Funding levels;
- A national streamgaging program;
- Collaboration and communication;
- Competition with the private sector;
- Quality of USGS work;
- Products
- Response letter by Secretary Norton to ACWI with enclosed USGS responses to report recommendations (10/3/01)

**Notes:**
No members present at today’s meeting???

## Overview of the 2004 Task Force

- ToR: To _review the progress_ of the USGS in implementing the recommendations of the 1999 Coop TF report.
- Report will serve as the basis for the ACWI to recommend _mid-course corrections_ to enhance the Program...form the basis for an internal USGS 5-year action plan for the Program.

## Task Force membership

| Barney Austin, Chair | 
Texas Water Development Board | 
Western States Water Council |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Fred Bloetscher | Public Utility Management & Planning Services | American Water Works Assoc. |  |  |  |
| Bill Cauthren | 
Oklahoma Water Resources Board | Assoc. of State & Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators |  |  |  |
| Tom Dietrich | 
NOAA, National Weather Service |  |  |  |  |
| John Jansen | 
Aquifer Science & Technology, Inc. | 
National Groundwater Association |  |  |  |
| Rick Johnson | 
Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. | 
Water Environment Federation |  |  |  |
| Sue Lowry | 
Wyoming State Engineer's Office | 
Interstate Council on Water Policy |  |  |  |
| Karl Muessig | 
NJ Geological Survey | American Association of State Geologists |  |  |  |

- ***Glenn Patterson**          USGS             Executive Secretary & Non-voting member

## USGS accomplishments since 1999

- Establishment of NSIP
- Identification and partial funding of core network
- Improved data collection and dissemination
- Development of the CWP web site
- Better communication
- Avoid competition with the private sector
- Several new cooperators
- Reports available online

## 2004 TF Report – Appendix B

- USGS response – Agree/disagree
- Status – Complete/adopted/implemented...
- 2004 TF Priority rating* – High/medium/low
- 2004 TF Progress Assessment
- USGS Implementation Plan

## Status of ’99 TF recommendations

- Status of recommendations in the ’99 report:
- 6 complete
- 50 agree, adopted, ongoing
- 2 partially agree, partially adopted
- Use of in-kind services (11.3)
- Proposals on the web (17.1)
- 2 disagree, not implemented
- Billing based on actual cost per station (8.2)
- Use of outside contractors for data collection (_11.2a_)
- TF assessment: 9 “Insufficient progress”

**Notes:**
Glenn - Do we comment on “disagreements” in 2004 report?

## Chapter III of 2004 TF report 

- Where the USGS does not fully agree (4)
- TF assessment: Insufficient progress (9)

## Chapter III of 2004 TF report

- Emphasis on long-term data collection and core competency (10.1, 15.2)
- Relationships with cooperators and the private sector (11.2a, 15.3)
- Use of in-kind services (11.3)
- Accessibility to information on proposals (17.1)
- Billing based on actual vs. average costs (8.2)
- Scheduling/timing of reports (25.1, 30.1)
- Funding issues (4.1)

## Prioritization

- ’99 Report did not prioritize
- Beyond TF ToR, but may be important to the USGS (limited funding & resources...)
- High, medium, low
- Rating of all recommendations by all members
- Secret formula to compile ratings (G. Patterson)
- 14 High, 44 Medium, 2 low

## High Priority & Insufficient Progress

- Full match for Coop stations including provision for inflation (4.1)
- NSIP...100% funding for national streamgaging network (9.1)
- Long-term data collection vs. interpretive studies (10.1)
- The CWP should concentrate on its core competency (15.2)
- Improve reporting (25.1)
- Improve timeliness of deliverables;
- Make transparent report procedure;
- Accessibility to data in ongoing projects;
- Maintain point of contact for long-term projects;
- Improve knowledge transfer within USGS.
- Increase the use of in-kind services (11.3)

**Notes:**
Note correction to handout...

NSIP is separate line item in USGS budget...
Funding is appr. $14 per year.
Full implementation would cost $95M, with upfront infrastructure costs of about $103M.
4,425 identified streamgages...appr. 500 are currently funded by NSIP.

## Funding issues!

- 4 of 6 “high priority, insufficient progress”
- Data quality has improved since 1895!
- Real time information invaluable
- Access to water info databases & stats
- High tech equipment and staff now required for developing rating curves...

## Slide 15

## Average rate of increase

**Average rate of increase**
**3.8 % per year**

## Funding issues

- Cooperators now pick up 68% of the total cost of running the cooperative program
- NSIP has not improved the streamgaging situation due to lack of funding
- CWP needs in excess of $71M to bring relationship back to 50-50 cost share
- NSIP needs $103M for full funding of core network

## Funding for NSIP and CWP...

- Signatories:
- WSWC
- ICWP
- NWRA
- Assoc. of State Floodplain managers
- etc...20 in total

## The streamgaging funding story!

- Peter Evans (Executive Director)
- Interstate Council for Water Policy
- (703) 243-7383 (office)
- (703) 622-6660 (cell)
- _phe@riverswork.com_
- _[www.icwp.org](http://www.icwp.org/)__  ____link!_

## For more information...

- About the Task Force Review:
- _[http://](http://water.usgs.gov/wicp/acwi/coop/)__[water.usgs.gov/wicp/acwi/coop](http://water.usgs.gov/wicp/acwi/coop/)__[/](http://water.usgs.gov/wicp/acwi/coop/)_
- About the Cooperative Water Program:
- _[http://water.usgs.gov/coop/](http://water.usgs.gov/coop/)_
- Barney Austin (WSWC/TWDB)
- _[Barney.austin@twdb.state.tx.us](mailto:Barney.austin@twdb.state.tx.us)_
- (512) 463-8856