Water Quality Monitoring: Where's the Beef?

By: Robert C. Ward 1

ABSTRACT: Water quality monitoring, as a function of society's efforts to manage the environment, is the contact mechanism management, and the public, has with the actual water quality in the environment. Water quality monitoring has been studied extensively for many years in an effort to insure that it produces information about water quality conditions. Current efforts to reduce government spending will have negative impacts on those government functions deemed to be non-responsive to the needs of the public. How well does water quality monitoring inform taxpayers about the status and trends in water quality conditions in the United States? This paper reviews a number of past efforts to "improve" water quality monitoring, discusses barriers to such improvement, and suggests ways that monitoring can be made more accountable for the information it should be producing for public understanding of water quality conditions. In particular, the need for standardization in data analysis and reporting of information to the public, is highlighted.   (KEY TERMS: monitoring; water quality; accountability; information)

INTRODUCTION

Five separate, taxpayer sponsored, sampling efforts measured water quality of the South Platte River at Henderson between March 6 and March 10, 1994, and the resulting data, in many ways, are comparable! (Woodling, 1995). The chemical laboratory analysis budget for the Colorado Water Quality Control Division has been reduced to $35,000 for FY 1995 (for monitoring within the entire State of Colorado for a year)! (Anderson, 1995) Thirty-eight separate legal requirements demand information on the quality of ground water in the San Luis Valley of Colorado (Bagenstos, 1994). Watershed "Forums", groups of citizens with a variety of reasons and missions, are forming in a number of river basins in Colorado to better connect their interests with those of the rivers near their homes.

These facts and events, along with the initiation of the Water Resources Bulletin's dialogue section, have prompted me to discuss a topic that has concerned me for a number of years - how is water quality monitoring held accountable for the information it produces? More specifically, how do water quality monitoring staff define their information "products"; who determines if it is acceptable; and, more generally, what "benefit" does monitoring provide those who pay for it? In other words, where's the information "beef" in water quality monitoring?

What is the purpose of all the water quality monitoring performed in the United States (or the world for that matter)? I've seen many lists of why we monitor water quality, but I still hear the public, the taxpayer if you will, stating that they don't know what the quality of the water is, and, consequently, they don't know if they are getting good value for the tax money being expended for water quality management. This fact is especially obvious when a special interest group issues a "scare" report stating that the nation's water quality is in terrible condition - and there is no well accepted, scientifically based water information system against which the public can interpret or balance the claims in the "scare" report.

Current, and popular, efforts to curtail public spending will, undoubtedly, affect budgets devoted to monitoring water quality. I am concerned that some monitoring programs will be unable to document and/or disseminate the water quality information produced in a manner that will satisfy the public and their elected representatives. I'm sure we can document the collection of data; but where is the "water quality" information? If we are unable to justify, in the minds of the public, the use of tax money for the acquisition of water quality information, will water quality monitoring, as we know it today, cease to exist? The Colorado budget for monitoring definitely indicates a trend in this direction.

While funding for "professional" monitoring is declining in many organizations, there are a number of "volunteer" water quality monitoring efforts being initiated in the United States. These efforts, in many ways, are providing the public with the information they want. To get some idea of today's volunteer monitoring efforts, refer to The Volunteer Monitor (1995) and Texas Watch (1995).

Most, if not all, water quality monitoring efforts funded by government agencies have some form of legal mandate behind them. These mandates range from writing a discharge permit, to areawide planning, to deciding if a new wastewater treatment plant is needed. The most comprehensive mandate demanding water quality information for the public is the report to Congress produced by the U.S. EPA every two years - the 305(b) report. Meeting the mandates requires information about water quality behavior in the environment. As Koorse (1990) states, "...regulatory agencies rely on monitoring data to develop and determine compliance with the environmental standards they have been mandated to enforce." Water quality management today has an insatiable need for scientifically sound information about water quality. The current movement from a prescriptive form of water quality management to one based more on performance further adds to the need for accurate information about water quality conditions.

The purpose of this dialogue is to examine connections between current water quality monitoring efforts and public understanding about water quality conditions. More specifically, the discussion will: (1) briefly examine historical efforts of human endeavors in other fields to communicate complex scientific and economic information to the public; (2) note past efforts to make water quality monitoring more coordinated and relevant to public understanding; and (3) examine barriers to improving water quality monitoring information accountability, primarily for the purpose of better understanding such limitations so that they can be removed in the future.

This paper does not directly address the data needs of specific management functions such as establishing a standard or writing a discharge permit. Nor does it address the monitoring performed to study physical, chemical and/or biological "processes" in the environment. It could be argued, however, that accountability to the public (or their elected representatives) should be a major information purpose of any tax supported monitoring effort.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

In many ways, today's concern that water quality monitoring results (information) are not widely known nor understood, is similar to the situation that developed in the mid 1800s with geological and economic information. Rabbit (1969) notes that during the mid 1800s, "American science matured rather rapidly". Rabbit (1969) goes on to say that "The geological sciences made especially rapid progress in America because of the opportunity and the necessity to explore the vast western territories." It could also be suggested that water quality sciences made rapid progress in America during the late 1900s because of the necessity to control the rampant pollution that developed during and after World War II.

To illustrate further, consider the lack of a standard way to present water quality information. In the early years of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), there was a constant battle to obtain public funds for geologic surveys of the West. John Wesley Powell, the second director of the USGS, was extremely adept at making his science relevant to, and understood by, the public and their elected representatives.

In the USGS's "Second Annual Report" (1880-1881), John Wesley Powell noted that a large amount of geological data was ready for publication, and, in his words, "it seemed wise to adopt a common system of general nomenclature, a uniform color scheme for geographic geology, a system of conventional characters for diagrams, and a form for geologic and topographic charts and atlases." (Rabbit, 1969). Further, he notes, "Cartographic colors and diagrammatic characters constitute the geologic alphabet, and its value will depend, first on simplicity; second, on systematic consistency; third, on general usage." Rabbit (1969) states that the value of the system proposed by Powell in the Second Annual Report is shown by the fact that, although it has been modified in detail since its adoption, basically it is still in use today.  

Also during the late 1800s there was considerable development of means to communicate economic information. Charles Dow and Edward Jones recognized the need to report business news in a timely, accurate, and concise manner. Perhaps most importantly, they determined that the news had to be reported without "fear or favor". They formed a company to gather business news and, through the use of handwritten copies, delivered the "slips" or "flimsies" to subscribers (Rosenberg, 1982).

Charles Dow, a longtime student of financial cycles, realized the need to track the status and behavior of the market in a very concise format. In 1884, Dow developed what was primarily a transportation average. In 1896 the Dow Jones Industrial Average was compiled and published (Rosenberg, 1982).

Upon introduction, these indices were not necessarily well received. How could an "index" capture the complexity of the stock market? As the need for market information continued to expand, the Dow Jones Index took on the role we see today in almost every newspaper published.

Where are the standardized "Cartographic colors and diagrammatic characters" and Dow Jones Index of water quality? How is water quality information developed and reported to the pubic and their elected representatives? Have we as water quality monitoring professionals focused so strongly on those parts of the monitoring system that relate most to us and our expertise (eg sampling, laboratory analysis, data handling, Quality Assurance/Quality Control), that we have lost sight of the need to convert our data into information and share it with those paying us?

The two examples above bracket the water quality information situation from a time scale perspective. Geology changes very slowly while economic conditions change rapidly. The time scale of water quality changes must be carefully incorporated into any information system designed to inform the public.

EFFORTS TO "IMPROVE" WATER QUALITY MONITORING

Wolman (1971), in a paper examining the status of the nation's river quality, concluded "water quality data was oriented toward managing a particular use of water rather than managing water quality in general". Therefore, he could not draw conclusions on general water quality trends.

Hines et al (1977) noted "In many basins it has proven difficult to use existing river-quality data for analysis of temporal and spatial trends.... Major reasons for this problem are the arbitrary nature of sampling programs that generate the quality data and a general failure to account for the background variability in quality resulting from hydrologic phenomena."

The National Academy of Sciences (1977), in a study of environmental monitoring, noted a general lack of the use of statistics in designing what is, in reality, a statistical sampling process. They noted that the designers of monitoring systems are arguing over statistical design criteria, when the information users should be defining such criteria.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1977) describes a basic state water monitoring program that was developed in response to a need to improve monitoring programs operated by state water quality management agencies.

The Council on Environmental Quality (1980) called for more coordination in monitoring to prevent duplication of effort. The report noted that a large amount of money was being spent on monitoring with little information to show for it.

The General Accounting Office (1981), noting the above problem, recommended the elimination of routine, fixed-station monitoring since it does not produce information. In its place, they called for short-term surveys conducted in each basin every five years.

Loftis and Ward (1982) and van Belle and Hughes (1983) both argued that routine monitoring provides information on water quality that can not be obtained via exclusive use of special surveys (eg background hydrologic variability, seasonality and trends). Both acknowledged the past problems with routine water quality monitoring (ie the lack of purpose and ad hoc nature of designs), but argued that instead of elimination, we should develop better designs.

The Congressional Committee on Science and Technology (1983) held hearings on monitoring which pointed out many problems and suggested some solutions.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1984), in discussing the planning and management of cooperative monitoring projects, explained how local participation in water quality management may be enhanced through cooperative monitoring projects. Several case studies are described.

Ward et al (1986) described the "data rich but information poor syndrome" in water quality monitoring. The symptoms of this condition were described as large amounts of data stuffed in file cabinets or computer files, but little or no information being produced.

The General Accounting Office (1986) critiqued five efforts in the United States to measure national water quality related trends, but, contrary to its 1981 report, calls for such information to be obtained in a well planned and coordinated manner.

The National Research Council (1987a) also critiqued national water quality monitoring efforts and called for better water quality information for decision making.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1987) discusses the need to improve water quality monitoring and suggests a framework for such improvements.

The National Research Council (1987b) discusses the need for a national water quality monitoring and assessment program and the major concerns should such a program be developed and implemented. Hirsch et al (1988) present and discuss the concepts for a national water quality assessment program to be operated by the USGS. The National Research Council (1990b) reviews the USGS pilot program that tests the concepts for a national water quality assessment program. The USGS's National Water Quality Assessment Program was implemented beginning in 1991.

The National Research Council (1990a) prepared a report on "managing troubled waters" that has the purpose to "improve the usefulness of monitoring information". This report lists the 25 laws that call for some form of marine environmental monitoring and notes that five federal agencies are responding to the maze of legislation. The bottom line was that data are not converted into information and better monitoring system designs are needed.

Ward et al (1990) outlined an approach they proposed would address the problems of water quality data being collected without a clear information purpose. Several case studies are presented to illustrate application of the approach they are proposing.

Currently, 1992-1995, the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring (ITFM) Water Quality (1992, 1994) is examining ways to improve monitoring in the U.S. The reports being produced through this effort are documenting the many current efforts to monitor water quality and are proposing ways to better coordinate these many, often apparently duplicative, monitoring efforts. These reports inventory a large number of water monitoring programs. Powell (1995) summarizes the findings and future plans of the ITFM.

The National Academy of Sciences (1994) notes the challenge facing the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water Quality Assessment Program as it attempts to synthesize data into a national water quality picture. The implication is that we don't know how to report water quality on a national scale. There seems to be a problem between what the public wants to know about "water quality" and the models scientists use to study specific water quality issues.

Efforts to improve the information accountability of water quality monitoring are not limited to the United States. Smith et al (1989), which describes the design of the national water quality monitoring program for New Zealand, identifies what information is sought and how the data will be analyzed to obtain that information, before the data are collected. Adriaanse et al (1995) contain the proceedings of a European conference entitled "Monitoring Tailor-made". As the name implies, the focus of the meeting was on being accountable for the water quality information produced by a monitoring system.

While this litany of calls for improvement in water quality monitoring system design continues (and the above review is by no means complete), other developments punctate the problems of today's "professionally" designed and operated monitoring systems. In 1991, Senate Bill 1114, introduced in Congress to reauthorize the Clean Water Act, contained an entire section entitled "Water Quality Monitoring". It seemed Congress had reached the point where they felt the need to try, themselves, to better guide us on how to monitor water quality (since all the studies and reports reviewed above seemed unable to find the information "beef" and move monitoring toward the efficiency and effectiveness desired by the public). In addition, in April of 1994, the Fourth National Volunteer Monitoring Conference was held in Portland, Oregon. Volunteer monitoring, as a way to assist the public in gaining understanding of water quality, is a maturing concept.

What can I conclude from the many studies and activities being undertaken to "improve" water quality monitoring? First, water quality monitoring is evolving very rapidly. The term "monitoring" means much more today than it did when the modern activity of water quality management was "born" right after World War II. We are not just checking sample results against a standard - we are providing information on status and trends in water quality with which the public wants to evaluate the accountability of the total water quality management effort. Monitoring can, and should, provide the public with this accountability information.

Second, there appears to be considerable duplication in monitoring efforts, which, truth be told, is not necessarily the fault of the designers and operators of the monitoring systems. The numerous laws that call for monitoring lead to duplication, in many cases. As already noted, Bagenstos (1994) discovered 38 separate State and Federal legal requirements to measure ground water quality in the San Luis Valley, Colorado; and the National Research Council (1990a) listed 25 Federal laws alone that called for marine environmental monitoring. We need to become much more efficient in the way our laws require, and we utilize, available monitoring resources. This will require reconsideration of the legal basis for many environmental management/monitoring efforts, as well as better coordination among monitoring staff.

Third, the many past efforts to "improve" water quality monitoring, while perhaps resulting in "in-house" changes, appear to have had little effect on inter-agency cooperation. Those monitoring water quality are caught in political turf battles that are almost impossible to overcome without some change in the legal basis for their existence. So while calls to better coordinate water quality monitoring will continue, the basis for real change will probably have to come from Congress. That seems to be what Senate Bill 1114 was attempting to do.

Fourth, the public wants to know the quality of water. Such information products need to be built into the design of monitoring efforts at all levels of government. Hopefully, a reconsideration of the legal basis for monitoring will permit those working in monitoring to supply the water quality information needs of the public while also obtaining the information they need to meet the legally defined missions that guide many of today's state and Federal agencies.

Fifth, the term "water quality" is used repeatedly in public requests to know what is happening with our nation's, state's, or community's water quality. Instead of providing water quality information, monitoring provides nutrient, sediment, toxics, metals, pesticide, conventional pollutant, etc. data. The information provided attempts to explain why the nutrients, for example, are or are not a problem. Complex models are suggested to synthesize the data into information. Somewhere in the synthesis a simple answer gets lost. Can an approach to providing indicators or indices of our nation's, state's or community's water quality be designed and implemented?

What are the implications of these conclusions? The "soft" parts of the monitoring system (ie the data analysis, interpretation and reporting) need to be firmed up considerably. We must define, up front, what information we want and then design the monitoring system to produce it. We must have water quality information that permits us to be more accountable for the entire management program (as well as that needed for its day-to-day operation). In other words, it is no longer acceptable for us to collect data and then "see what it says". The title of the Netherlands conference, "Monitoring Tailor-made", sums up this situation well.

In the process of producing water quality information, we must document what we are doing. How will the data be analyzed and the results of the analysis interpreted and presented? How will it be reported? What understanding do we seek? Without such documentation and peer review before initiation of data collection, we are open to charges of manipulating the data for our own purposes, or worse, for political agendas. This was one characteristic of Charles Dow and Edward Jones initial efforts to report business information that set them apart from their competitors. They sought to be impartial and accurate in reporting the actual conditions and trends of business. This same characteristic is contained in the New Zealand design described by Smith et al (1989).

WHY CAN'T WE "IMPROVE" WATER QUALITY MONITORING?

There are many limitations that seem to prevent improvements in water quality monitoring. Let's examine several of them with the intent of trying to determine what we need to do to define the information "beef" in water quality monitoring in the United States.

First, what is water quality? Do we have an agreed upon definition of the term "water quality"? Can't we develop one? Brown and McClelland (1970) asked this same question 25 years ago! The public, the taxpaying public, is not willing to tolerate our inability to agree on what it is we are measuring. We can't continue to say it is too complex and not even attempt to develop and agree upon some form of community, state and national water quality indicators and/or index designed specifically for public information. John Wesley Powell and Charles Dow have already shown us that it can be done.

While the term "water quality" seems ambiguous to water quality managers, its frequent use by the public would suggest a widely accepted understanding of its meaning. It is a concept that is "difficult to define and has different meanings for different people." (National Research Council, 1994) Any effort to determine and report water quality status and trends to the public will have to preface its information with a clear definition of what is being reported. Air quality indices and local weather prediction symbols have developed means to accomplish clear definitions of what is being reported.

In defining and producing "water quality" information, the monitoring manager has to take the lead and state clearly what is being measured, how it is being measured, how the data are being analyzed and interpreted and how the information is being reported, all in a manner that can, at any time, be audited.

Second, if we are going to design water quality information systems, do we agree on a definition of the system? In other words, what do we mean by "monitoring"? Do we have common components in our monitoring systems so that we can share, even standardize, the design and operation of modern water quality information systems? Do we agree on how we should approach designing a monitoring system? If we want to be accountable for the design of our monitoring systems, we must have standards against which we can be measured.

Third, too many people involved in water quality monitoring seem to be blinded by their discipline. Chemists, biologists, engineers, hydrologists, statisticians, and computer scientists each see the monitoring system as an extension of their particular science/technology. The wide variety of adjectives that appear in front of the word "monitoring" give some indication of this situation. We need to clearly define an information product of monitoring for public use and all work to that end. Without a clear, agreed upon, information goal, any monitoring system will do. That leaves us open to heavily leaning upon our own discipline to define the nature of the monitoring we will perform and, by default, the information product. Having said this, of course there are many times when a discipline-specific sampling effort is required to define a problem. However, when producing water quality information for the public, we must not let our discipline blind us to the more integrated information need.

Fourth, we are often vague or imprecise in what we say our monitoring system will produce. We promise that we will tell you what the water quality is and why it is that way - with one monitoring effort. I suggest that this is not possible, at least not without a lot more money devoted to monitoring. We can't determine what the water quality is, over a legally defined jurisdiction, with the same monitoring effort that says why it is that way. The time and spatial scales are vastly different. We need to be careful in defining what information we will produce, and what we won't produce. There are often a number of different water quality measurement efforts, operating at a number of time and spatial scales, contained within a total water quality information system of one agency or within one region. Goetz (1995) notes that 10 separate ground water quality studies/monitoring efforts (some routinely performed for 16 years) have been conducted in the San Luis Valley, Colorado, over the past 23 years. Where is the information "beef" for the citizens of the Valley? Who is responsible for compiling and analyzing the data from these 10 studies and providing the resulting information to the citizens of the Valley?

What would an information product of monitoring in the San Luis Valley, acceptable to the public, look like? Let's define it in public debate as part of designing a monitoring (or better yet, information) system. I realize that this is not easy as witness the environmental indicator and Bureau of Environmental Statistics debates taking place today. We in water quality monitoring, however, need to join in such discussions and begin to define what it is we intend to measure and report as the product of our information system. The efforts of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1993) in developing consistency in the annual state 305(b) water quality assessment reports is a step in the right direction, but much of the interpretation of success in this process is tied to the definition of water quality standards, which can change. This makes long term trend assessments in actual water quality conditions difficult, if not impossible.

Fifth, the movement toward more integrated watershed management (or ecosystem management or basin management) has obligated agencies, at all levels of government, to expand their monitoring system measurements to cover the full range of chemical, physical, biological and ecological factors related to water. This has resulted in the monitoring systems of many agencies looking almost identical. While many of these agencies have specific missions in their enabling legislation, the movement toward more integrated forms of environmental management has led to serious questions about the structure of current water/environmental management efforts and is contributing to the apparent duplication in monitoring programs. This fact, hopefully, will ultimately assist in achieving more coordination in monitoring efforts, especially if standardized protocols can be agreed upon so that data/information can be shared.

Sixth, and perhaps the most daunting challenge, is the politics of water quality information. Incumbents, up for re-election, will not want negative water quality information distributed to the public before an election. The public may want to know, but the incumbent may not want the public to know because such information can be used by a challenger for political advantage. The monitoring system manager is caught in the middle. I suggest that the lack of standardization in the design and implementation of water quality monitoring systems leads to fears of political agendas being carried out in the generation of water quality information. We simply have to get beyond the politics of the environment and, with detailed and peer-reviewed monitoring and data analysis protocols, to the business of reporting representative and accurate water quality conditions to the public. Thus, producing water quality information is difficult. It can be done, however. The economists have developed excellent measurement systems of the status and trends of our economies and regularly report the information to the public. They do this wit h well developed protocols, indices, and audiences that have been carefully crafted over the past 113 years. Geographers regularly produce easily understood maps, and they are steadily improving with the rapid incorporation of the latest Geographic Information System technology. Where is the "Water Information System" technology?

CONCLUSIONS

Water quality monitoring, as an effort to obtain information on water quality, either must become accountable for the information it produces or be prepared for large budget reductions. I personally don't think the latter is desirable nor sought; however, the public (ie taxpayer) wants to know what they are getting for their money relative to water quality management and it is water quality monitoring that should supply this information.

Lack of agreed upon definitions of: (1) "water quality" relative to public information; (2) data analysis protocols for generating such information; (3) standard means (formats, symbols, and indices) for reporting water quality information to the public; and, even, (4) monitoring system components themselves, prevents the information "beef" of water quality monitoring being developed. It is time for those involved in the business of gathering water quality information to organize, perhaps through professional societies, multi-disciplinary committees that can proceed to develop the definitions (standards) that will permit monitoring to clearly show its information "beef" to the public.

One means of gathering information that will support movement toward more standardization in producing public water quality information would be for those operating water quality monitoring programs, staffed by either professionals and/or volunteers, to prepare an AWRA paper describing their use of definitions in the design and/or operation of their monitoring system. Such papers would describe definitions of "water quality", data analysis methods, reporting methods, and components of their monitoring system that generate public information. Such papers, along with lessons learned, could be collected into a special issue of the AWRA Water Resources Bulletin.

Perhaps AWRA, as an interdisciplinary water resources professional society, could also serve as a home for efforts (in the form of Standards Committees) to create a dialogue that will assist in standardizing ways and means for developing public information about water quality. Such efforts should greatly facilitate the public seeing the "beef" in water quality monitoring.

The above comments recognize that there has been considerable standardization in monitoring relative to sample collection, laboratory methods, data storage and retrieval, and QA/QC. The call is for similar developments in data analysis and reporting information about water quality conditions to the public.

Hopefully, these comments and proposals provide a rationale for beginning to establish information accountability within water quality monitoring programs. The litany of studies and reports reviewed above (to which this paper may be considered the latest effort) indicate that there is little reason to believe that another study and report will improve the situation. It appears that those in charge of monitoring, with the skills and tools they currently have, will have to demonstrate to the public the value of the information they produce in order to "prove" that their monitoring program is worthy of continued financial support by taxpayers. I am firmly convinced that it can be done and hope the thoughts provided will prove helpful in meeting this challenge.

REFERENCES

Adriaanse, M., J. van de Kraats, P.G. Stoks and R.C. Ward (Editors). 1995. Monitoring Tailor-made. Proceedings of an international workshop on monitoring and assessment in water management, Held Sept. 20-23, 1994, in Beekbergen, The Netherlands, Published by RIZA, Netherlands Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment, Lelystad, The Netherlands. Anderson, D. 1995. Presentation to the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission, January 10, Denver, Colorado.

Bagenstos, D.J. 1994. Information goals for a regional ground water quality monitoring system for the San Luis Valley. Unpublished MS Thesis, Chemical and Bioresource Engineering Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, Summer.

Brown, R.M. and N.I. McClelland. 1970. A water quality index - do we dare? Proceedings of the National Symposium on Data and Instrumentation for Water Quality Management. Water Resources Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, Pages 364-383.

Committee on Science and Technology. 1983. National Environmental Monitoring. Hearings of the Natural Resources, Agriculture Research and Environment Subcommittee of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninety-eighth Congress, 1st Session, May and June, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Council on Environmental Quality. 1980. Final report of the interagency task force on environmental data and monitoring. Available from NTIS, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia

General Accounting Office. 1981. Better monitoring techniques are needed to assess the quality of rivers and streams. Report No. CED-81-30, 2 Vols, GAO, Washington, D.C., April 30.

General Accounting Office. 1986. The nation's water: key unanswered questions about the quality of rivers and streams. Report No. GAO/PEMD-86-6, GAO, Washington, D.C.

Goetz, L.R. 1995. Data analysis and reporting protocols for ground water quality monitoring in the San Luis Valley, Colorado. Unpublished MS Thesis, Chemical and Bioresource Engineering Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, Summer.

Hines, W.G., D.A. Rickert and S.W. McKenzie. 1977. Hydrologic analysis and river-quality data programs. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol 49(9):2031.

Hirsch, R.M., W.M. Alley and W.G. Wilber. 1988. Concepts for a National Water-Quality Assessment Program. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1021, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality. 1992. Ambient water-quality monitoring in the United States: first year review, evaluation, and recommendations. U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Water Data Coordination, Reston, VA.

Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality. 1994. Water-quality monitoring in the United States: 1993 report of the Intergovernmental Task Force, U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Water Data Coordination, Reston, VA

Koorse, S.J. 1991. Monitoring water: The legal perspective. Proceedings of the Symposium of Monitoring Water in the 1990's: Meeting New Challenges, June 11, 1990, ASTM STP 1102, Jack R. Hall, G. Douglas Glysson, Editors, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.

Leahy, P.P., B.J.Ryan and A.I. Johnson. 1993. An introduction to the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water-Quality Assessment Program. Water Resources Bulletin, Vol 29(4): 529-532, August.

Loftis, J.C. and R.C. Ward. 1982. Routine, fixed-station sampling: an integral part of regulatory water quality monitoring. Environmental Management Vol 6(4):279-280.

National Academy of Sciences. 1977. Environmental Monitoring: Analytical Studies for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, volume IV. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.

National Academy of Sciences. 1994. National water quality assessment program: the challenge of national synthesis. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

National Research Council. 1987a. National water quality monitoring and assessment. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

National Research Council. 1987b. National water quality monitoring and assessment. Report on a Colloquium Sponsored by the Water Science and Technology Board, May 21-22, 1986, Reprinted by the U.S. Geological Survey.

National Research Council. 1990a. Managing troubled waters: the role of marine environmental monitoring. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

National Research Council. 1990b. A review of the USGS National Water Quality Assessment Pilot Program. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

National Research Council. 1994. National Water Quality Assessment Program: The Challenge of national Synthesis. Committee on U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Research, Water Science and Technology Board, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Payne, F.E. and J. Ford. 1988. The concept of TIME - Temporally Integrated Monitoring of Ecosystems (Supplement). Internal report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory,Corvallis, Oregon.

Powell, M. 1995. Building a national water quality monitoring program. Environmental Science and Technology, Vol 29(10): 458A-463A.

Rabbit, M.C. 1969. John Wesley Powell: Pioneer Statesman of Federal Science. Paper published in Geological Survey Professional Paper 669, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Rosenberg, J.M. 1982. Inside the Wall Street Journal. MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc. New York, pp 335.

Smith, D.G., G.B. McBride, G.G. Bryers, R.J. Davies-Colley, J.M. Quinn, and W.N. Vant. 1989. Design for a National Water Quality Monitoring Network for New Zealand. Consultancy Report 8016/1, Water Quality Centre, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Hamilton, New Zealand.

Texas Watch. 1995. Newsletter of Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Programs in Texas. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, August/September.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Basic Water Monitoring Program. Report Number EPA 440/9-76-025, Developed by the Standing Work Group on Water Monitoring, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Planning and Managing Cooperative Monitoring Projects. Report Number EPA 440/4-84-018, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C., July.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Surface water quality monitoring: a framework for change. Office of Water Enforcement and Permits, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, U.S. EPA, WH-553, Washington, D.C., September.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Guidelines for Preparation of the 1994 State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports). Report Number EPA841-B-93-004, Office of Water (WH-553), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., May.

van Belle, G. and J.P. Hughes. 1983. Monitoring for water quality: fixed stations versus intensive surveys. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation Vol 55(4):400-404.

Volunteer Monitor. 1995. The National Newsletter of Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring. Volume 7(1), 1318 Masonic Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94117, Spring.

Ward, R.C., J.C. Loftis and G.B. McBride. 1986. The 'data-rich but information-poor' syndrome in water quality monitoring. Environmental Management, Vol. 10(3):291-297.

Ward, R.C., J.C. Loftis and G.B. McBride. 1990. Design of Water Quality Monitoring Systems. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 231 pages.

Wolman, M.G. 1971. The nation's rivers. Science, Vol 174:905-918.

Woodling, J. 1995. Presentation to the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission, January 10, Denver, Colorado.

1 Director, Colorado Water Resources Research Institute,

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado

80523

Editorial February 1998

Avoiding the 'Tower of Babel' in Water Data

As the competition for Colorado's water resources grows ever stronger, the need to account for every drop of water, and every milligram of pollutant that enters the water, increases. Such accounting demands the acquisition of ever larger amounts of water quantity and quality data. As the volume of water data grows, its storage in a readily accessible manner becomes a major problem. Avoiding duplication in water data collection and storage also is an issue as data representing constantly broadening dimensions of our water environment must be acquired by each agency.

demand for ready access to water data and information, by both water professionals and the public, is an issue facing most water management agencies today. The response of agencies varies from holding the data 'close to the vest' to placing it on the internet in easily accessible formats. The U.S. Geological Survey is placing its data on the internet and discovering many non-traditional users of the data (eg rafters and fishermen accessing flow data to determine if conditions are optimum for their recreational activity). Volunteer monitoring programs are growing around the country as the public wants to know more about the quality of the water in their local stream or river. Congress is also including public 'right-to-know' provisions in water legislation (eg the 'Consumer Confidence Reports' required in the 1996 reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act). Implementation of the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) is also driving efforts to increase efficiency in data collection and improve water management performance information and evaluation.

To meet this growing demand for water information, agencies are examining new ways to supply and share water data and information. A number of water management agencies are following the lead of the U.S. Geological Survey and putting their water data and information on the internet.

The fear of many professionals is misuse of data by people who do not understand its original purpose and method of collection. Lack of standardization, or cross referencing, in the way water data are collected, analyzed, stored and retrieved contribute to this fear. To begin to address these fears and lack of opportunities to share data at the national level, a National Water Quality Monitoring Council has been formed with representation from a broad cross-section of Federal, state, and local governments as well as industry, academic and professional associations. I have the opportunity and responsibility of representing academia on the Council.

As water data are placed on the internet, there is increasing recognition that for data to be useful and accurately understood, the data sets must be carefully documented. The documentation that describes water data itself is often referred to as 'metadata'.

One goal of metadata is to 'standardize' to way data is documented so that the data's original purpose, collection methods and, thus, limitations are understood by future users. Developing a common, easily understood metadata template that meets the needs of both those who provide water data and those who use the data requires considerable dialogue among all parties involved.

What are the ramifications to Colorado water managers of this effort to enhance water data sharing and public access? Maryland has formed a state-based water monitoring council to address state issues surrounding sharing data. Other states have tried similar coordination efforts and failed. Should Colorado form such a council to address the water data sharing concerns and limitations unique to Colorado's water management system? Is there a strong need and enough support for such an effort in Colorado today?

A ramification to Colorado's higher education system is the fact that faculty and graduate students, who often collect outstanding water data sets as part of their education and research duties, are not rewarded for making their raw data readily available over the internet. How can university faculty be encouraged/rewarded to make their data available over the internet in a well documented manner?

The above remarks should not imply a lack of attention to this problem in Colorado. A quick visit to the home pages of many of Colorado's water management agencies reveals a rapidly moving trend in sharing data and information. The concern, however, is lack of a common framework for putting water data on the internet and the potential for creating a 'Tower of Babel' situation where water data sets appear in as many formats as there are agencies/universities/disciplines collecting data. If this happens, the true value of the internet as a tool for enhancing sharing of water data will be greatly diminished.

Return to References Page