Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Western States Water Council <br />Water Resources Committee Minutes <br /> <br />Sheridan, Wyoming <br />October 5, 2006 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Congress, and that is the most effective way to increase appropriations. We have had some success. Folks <br />from WSWC participated in a meeting about 18 months ago with other USGS stakeholders, and Mark <br />Limbaugh, the Assistant Secretary for Water at the Department of the Interior. That was very effective and <br />following that meeting, an additional $2 million was added to the USGS 2007 budget for the NSIP program. <br />This was the first increase to that program in about 4-5 years. It should fund approximately 130 streamgages <br />nationally. He also noted there was funding for a 2% federal cost of living allowance (COLA). He <br />encouraged folks to continue to talk to the Administration and Congress about continuing these programs. <br /> <br />(3) Expand In-kind Contributions - This implies USGS could work with partners to enlist support in terms <br />of a full partnership, rather than a funding partnership alone. Full partners would share the technical load and <br />work c10sely with the other partners. The idea was endorsed. Some cite this as a cultural shift for USGS. <br />However, USGS will likely move in this direction. We can't do it alone, and need good strategic <br />partnerships. There are a couple of examples under in the USGS response document. Ward mentioned there <br />would be a January meeting in New Orleans with all the USGS Water Science Center Directors (WSCDs), <br />who make a lot of the programmatic decisions. Needs vary widely state-by-state, and the WSCDs balance <br />the requests for funding between hydrologic studies and data collection. They determine where their CWP <br />allotted funding goes. NSIP is more directed fromUSGS headquarters. <br /> <br />(4) Improve Cost Effectiveness (particularly for the CWP) - USGS has certainly taken this to heart. Bob <br />Hirsch, the Associate Director for Water, charted two significant activities. First, he put together a . <br />streamgaging cost effectiveness workgroup within USGS to look atthe programs, processes, procedures and <br />technology. The group is to determine ifthere are ways to work more efficiently and still provide hydrologic <br />data that is of the same quality. USGS will not compromise the quality oftheir streamgaging network. That <br />said, there is a sincere effort to determine if there are ways to do things more efficiently, smarter, and less <br />expensively. This is a major ongoing effort, and an initial internal report will be completed by next spring. <br /> <br />(5) Conduct a Cost Comparison Study - This is designed to join with some of the state agencies that operate <br />their own streamgaging networks to compare products and costs. USGS was joined in this effort by the <br />Colorado State Engineer's Office, Washington Department of Ecology, and the Lower Colorado Water <br />Authority in Texas. Each of these groups operates a network of streamgages. An investigation was made <br />of what each of these organization's processes were, what their costs were for conducting their streamgaging <br />activities, and what type of product they produced. The report has been written. It is still in draft form and <br />has been provided to each of the Water Science Centers in Washington, Texas, and Colorado, and also to each <br />of the partners. USGS is awaiting their responses to the draft, and the report will then be available in the not <br />too distant future. This has been a somewhat difficult and enlightening effort. <br /> <br />(6) Encourage More Stakeholders to Contribute Their Fair Share - This is an ongoing process, and one that <br />is occurring more and more, though many stakeholders already fund gages. We can also look to other <br />agencies. There is always some resistance when asking for funding for a new gage. There is greater <br />organizational motivation when funding is actually cut and a gage will be lost, which is occurring somewhat <br />more frequently in the last couple of years. Then there is greater motivation to share in the costs. USGS is <br />broadening their cooperator base, which is up probably 50%. In many cases, however, USGS is not <br />successful in finding an agency [or non-governmental organization] to help fund gages, and when there is not <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />10 <br />