Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,I <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />,I <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ii <br /> <br />Western States Water Council <br />Water Resources Committee Minutes <br /> <br />Sheridan, Wyoming <br />October 5, 2006 <br /> <br />enough money to maintain the network, some gages have to be discontinued. This CWP challenge is one of <br />the reasons for pushing hard to increase funding for NSIP, and we are make some incremental progress. <br /> <br />(7) Fund Data Collection First - USGS has historically not only collected data, but has also provided an <br />interpretation of the data through studies. Ultimately, that is the federal responsibility and mission of USGS, <br />to improve the understanding of the Nation's water resburces, and to provide assessments of water quantity <br />and water quality. Thus, that data collection is the stakeholders' first priority is a sobering and a difficult <br />message for USGS to hear. Historically, there has been a marriage of data and interpretive work. USGS <br />looks to their Water Science Centers to strike the proper balance within their individual states between studies <br />and data. We can't be heavy handed with top-down decisions, but we have heard the message. <br /> <br />Ward added another detail on in-kind partnerships. Some folks have asked what it takes for them <br />to run a stream gaging station. It can be done, but must be done correctly, to be included in the national <br />streamgaging effort. It's called a "furnished records report." It requires an institutional and technical <br />commitment. Some data cannot be accepted without the requisite quality assurance and quality control <br />(QAQc) procedures. <br /> <br />Ward encouraged members of the WSWC to read through the letter. <br /> <br />Lastly, he mentioned a National Research Council (NRC) study that will be started to take a look at <br />the USGS Water Resources program as a whole. The last such report was in 1991. The report will take a <br />look at USGS programs today and in the future. A panel of experts will conduct a through review, and it will <br />probably be done over a two-year time frame. There will be public meetings in the West, and you will be <br />invited. <br /> <br />Questions and Answers <br /> <br />Tom Maddock: "What percentage of the budget goes to data collection and what amount goes to the <br />interpretivl: side?" <br /> <br />Ward Staubitz: "It is mainly 60% - 40%. However itcan vary widely." <br /> <br />Sue Lowry: "Regarding other federal sources, I think that this would be a very useful area where the <br />Council's scope of work could be expanded. Getting the federal partners together in advance of gages being <br />cut or limited." Sue referred to the sudden cuts in stream gage funding by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and <br />a couple of gages by the Corps of Engineers in the Wino River area. We need as much lead time as possible <br />to address alternatives. <br /> <br />Ward noted that he was meeting in the Missour:i River basin about the possibility of recovering some <br />gages dropped due to a lack of funding. He believes the federal agency partners need to meet in the future <br />at least annually to discuss and anticipate changes in funding, but often they don't know. <br /> <br />Phil Ward,: "Can you give us a sneak preview of the costs report?" <br /> <br />11 <br />