In 1966 and 1968, two cooperative studies delineated the Naylor Mill Paleochannel
as a future major groundwater supply source for the city of Salisbury, Md. Since
then, this abundant supply of groundwater has been crucial to Salisbury’s
growth into a thriving urban center on Maryland’s lower eastern shore.
In a more recent cooperative study — this one for the drought from the
summer of 2001 to October 2002 — a stream-gaging network documented the
drought’s impact on stream flow, and groundwater-level observation wells
tracked the drought’s impact on the water table aquifers. The data provided
key information for the Maryland governor’s drought policies.
Both the recent study and the one from the 1960s are examples of the power of
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Cooperative Water Program.
The Cooperative Water Program provides the foundation for adequate water monitoring
and research — as growing communities, industries, agriculture, energy
production and critical ecosystems depend on water being available in adequate
quantity and suitable quality. The project is a committed, joint effort by water
users, local governments, state agencies and federal agencies to implement the
appropriate combination of water planning and regulation.
From its inception in 1895, the Cooperative Water Program has historically been
funded on a 50-50 cost-share basis between USGS and nonfederal cooperators,
reflecting the shared benefits of the data and reports. These funding partners
include agencies such as the Maryland Geological Survey, the New York City Department
of Environmental Protection, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
and the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer. In recent years, however, federal
funding for the program has been level or slightly decreasing.
Because of inflation, federal cost-of-living increases and pay raises, the buying
power of USGS matching funds continues to decrease, while the need for these
funds continues to grow. In fiscal year 2000, $40 million in state and local
funds was unmatched, and that amount increased to $61 million in fiscal year
2004. In fiscal year 2003, funding partners supported about 68 percent of the
cost of stream gaging in the cooperative program. Because USGS stream-gaging
costs rise annually at about 4 percent a year (about the rate of mandated federal
pay raises), with no increase in federal matching funds, the cooperators must
raise their contributions about 8 percent per year for the program to maintain
its current level of production. This rate of increased costs to the cooperator
is not sustainable and threatens the viability of the 110-year USGS-cooperative
partnerships in stream gaging.
In Georgia, the Albany Water, Gas and Light Commission was not able to provide
additional funding to continue a project at its current level, and thus reduced
a groundwater-level monitoring network by 10 wells and discontinued monitoring
a nitrate contamination problem near a major well field. This funding shortage
reduces the state’s ability to track groundwater conditions during droughts
and makes it more difficult to protect drinking water supplies from nitrate
contamination.
In New Mexico, the Malaga Bend Salt Alleviation Project of the Office of the
Water Engineer had to restrict maintenance and repairs, and could not install
critical telemetry equipment on stream gages. As a result, water-data users
will need to wait several weeks to see data that could be transmitted in real-time
via satellite.
Despite these setbacks, however, partners continue to push forward water studies
and assessments, as evidenced by the continuing growth of unmatched funds (funds
contributed by state and local governments that are not matched by USGS). But
because of the stagnation in the Cooperative Water Program’s budget, the
increasing reliance on state, local and regional entities for funds reduces
USGS’ options to choose the studies that they undertake. Some studies have
been canceled or maintained at current levels because USGS cannot provide matching
funds.
More important, the loss of matching funds reduces the support available for
vital water investigations and water-monitoring networks that are increasingly
needed for water-supply planning management and regulation, as well as for water-quality
investigations (including studying MTBE, arsenic and radium in groundwater).
For example, a hypothetical two-year water study costing a total of $500,000
with no USGS matching funds would result in $250,000 invested in the scientific
objectives of the study and $250,000 being spent for necessary technical and
administrative support, such as equipment, maintenance, travel and rent. However,
if matching funds were provided at 50-50, the study could expand to a $1 million
effort, with more than $500,000 being invested in the study — more than
doubling the amount available to invest in scientific objectives, at no additional
cost to the cooperator.
Georgia and Arizona illustrate the issue. In the Piedmont Province of Georgia,
groundwater studies in the fractured rock have been put on hold until adequate
matching funds become available. Also, a storm-water quality program could not
be implemented for the city of Lawrenceville because matching funds were unavailable.
And in Arizona three rural watershed initiatives received limited USGS matching
funds which resulted in a reduction of the work that otherwise would have been
undertaken.
To ensure that these and other benefits continue into the future, the Cooperative
Water Program needs increased financial resources. I recommend that initially
$10 million in increased funds be requested for the upcoming fiscal year, and
that in future years incremental increases be requested so that the gap in unmatched
funds can be closed within six years.
Toward this goal, water resource issues need greater visibility at the federal,
state and local levels. At the federal level, the cooperators in the program
and the associations to which they belong need to carry the message to the senior
people in USGS, the Department of the Interior, the Office of Management and
Budget, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. They especially need
to communicate their concerns to key committees on Capitol Hill and their state
delegations.
 |
Geotimes Home | AGI Home | Information Services | Geoscience Education | Public Policy | Programs | Publications | Careers  |