Streamgauge data collection on both USGS gauges on the Big Piney may be discontinued on January 1, 2017

[fishinwrench]

If it is a government site then we are already paying a fee. Even the folks that couldn't care less what the rivers are doing are paying.  So let's not be TOTAL suckers about it.  

The fact that you have a few extra dollars a year that you COULD afford to pay shouldn't make you feel guilty or indebted just because you are one that uses it.  Trust me, you are paying for plenty of other government stuff that you DO NOT use....So it's ok. ?

If they want more money then I'm sure a local outfitter would gladly sponsor a guage site in exchange for some advertising.  

"This Realtime River Guage Monitoring resource is brought to you by......"

[Greasy B]

Much of the flood control myth and other reservoir follys were caused by a lack of long term stream flow data. The best defense against stream development and for watershed improvements is the data produced by our local gages. Though I use the gages for every trip there are far more important reasons for them than my convenience. 

[MOPanfisher]

The cost will vary depending upon the type of gauge, i.e. whether its stage only, or provides a CFS flow calculation as well.   While I don't disagree with the sentiment from FW, with each Government Agency being pushed to reduce/cut spending, the USGS is looking at all those gauges they maintain nationwide and saying, if the state or other agency wants to sponsor one they will maintain it, I want to say but am not sure that the last one we agree to take over the cost of was a simple stage only river gauge and the annual cost is someone around 10-12 K per year, for maintenance, calibrations repairs etc.  While I would love to see private gauges by Ben Gillespie or someone, the USGS gauges have many many years of data stored and accessible, providing a wealth of long term flow data, is very interesting to go back after a high flow event and see how it compared to the peaks from years past, is particularly useful when agencies try to determine the frequency of flood events and whether or not they are increasing or whether it is simply a matter of more and more stuff being built within a floodplain, also get used in the flood predictions for crest heights for rivers and lakes when we get a precip event.  Someone asks how high is the lake going to get, without a measured inflow there is no way to make a prediction.  I know here at Pomme our Water Control guys in KC look at the inflow from both the Lindley and Pomme Rivers, then add a percentage for unknown or unmeasured inflows to predict the lake elevation.  Usually they are on the high side simply because they would rather over predict than under as it affect many things from private docks to marinas to downstream conditions allowing an increased release etc.

[Kelroy]

MoPan, you seem to have a pretty good handle on this. For those who would like to learn more about gage installation and operation activities, there is a downloadable PDF at this site: https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3025/

USGS is one of the only Gov't agencies that is not fully funded- they must find cooperators to help fund everything they do, which is why you see all those other agencies' banners and logos listed. They have had to work with a flat or reduced budget for the past few years, but it is not a lack of USGS money that causes gage closures, it is a lack of cooperator funding. Now that there is a short-term CR in place, maybe this situation will be resolved quickly.

The USGS fiscal year runs from October-September. If this was a matter of USGS funding, they would have been shut down October 1.

[fishinwrench]

So they are funded by other GOVERNMENT agencies ? 

Or private businesses ?

[MOPanfisher]

I only have knowledge of the 5 that our office is involved with.  our agency pays the USGS for the installation (if we requested an additional gauge which we did recently) plus a yearly maintenance and upkeep fee.  I do not know who or what agencies fund the others.  

[Jerry Rapp]

this level of government spending is like the lowest of a minor league baseball team.  It is minor league to say.  The Feds piss away more money in the month of Sept that all would be amazed.  Because if you don't spend your allocated money by the end of the Fiscal Year(Sept 30), you will not get as much the next FY.  Not their fault, congress fault.  And as mentioned, the CR budget thing has every agency in panic mode.  Remember the ramp "closings" a few years ago because there was no budget passed.  Now impose this same philosophy all the way up to the Dept of Defense budget($500 hammers anyone). It is the same, but at a Hall of Fame plus level.  Hopefully some common sense will prevail in the next 4 years,  I lived with it for 32+ years, and have been part of it, sadly.  Money could be spent much more wisely if it could be held in reserve for the next Fiscal Year.  And yes, as MOPANFISHER has said, river gauges are co opted with other agencies.  I worked for the Corps in STL.  If we got shafted in the budget, then we had to pass the cuts down, which often included the co op program to the USGS for river gages, rain gages, etc.  It is a very sad mess, but it starts in Congress.  Don't even get me started about Obama's 1 trillion dollar stimulus plan......

[MOPanfisher]

Jerry, if you can figure out a way for us (generic for government agencies) to be able to "save" say even 10 percent of your annual budget to save for a larger project, say in 5 years maybe be able to replace a sewage treatment facility, or construct a large new day use area, I would buy a steak lunch and lobster dinner.  Sadly I am pretty sure you will have to buy your own as I don't see that happening in my lifetime for a lot of reasons.  As for throwing agencies in a panic, negative for this round or last roun, everyone knew it was a political game and nearly all employees were spectators.

[Jerry Rapp]

20 minutes ago, MOPanfisher said:

Jerry, if you can figure out a way for us (generic for government agencies) to be able to "save" say even 10 percent of your annual budget to save for a larger project, say in 5 years maybe be able to replace a sewage treatment facility, or construct a large new day use area, I would buy a steak lunch and lobster dinner.  Sadly I am pretty sure you will have to buy your own as I don't see that happening in my lifetime for a lot of reasons.  As for throwing agencies in a panic, negative for this round or last roun, everyone knew it was a political game and nearly all employees were spectators.

you are on your own now.  I am just sitting back watching now. I just keep voting anyone that is in office out of office, hoping maybe someone will figure it out sooner or later.  It is just common sense.

[Al Agnew]

So just to recap...USGS is not "fully funded".  In fact, as your tax dollars go, very little of them is going to the USGS as allocated by Congress (keep in mind, Congress passes budgets and spending, Presidents only "suggest" how much money to spend in a given department).  So USGS river gauges depend upon funding coming in from other sources.  Both government sources and non-government sources.  No government agency is going to send any more of "their" money to the USGS than they feel is necessary, so they have to see benefits to having USGS run river gauges, as MOPanfisher was talking about.  And of course any private agency that funds USGS river gauges have to see benefits as well.  So in cases like this, USGS is put into the position of basically having to beg for money, not because they've been spending it foolishly, but because they aren't getting enough tax dollars from Congress to keep things running.  In fact, I'd bet that USGS is pretty wise about spending money compared to many government agencies.  Most of the stuff they spend it on is fairly necessary or at least a good idea.

Still, it's a political game.  Get people riled up about possible closures of river gauges and they start making complaints that are hopefully heard up in Congress.

Look, we all know that the government wastes money.  ANY large agency or company wastes money.  We hate the government spending money on stuff that sounds stupid because, dang it, it's our tax money they are spending.  But stupid money making decisions are made by big, prosperous companies as well (and probably get passed on to consumers).  It should be no surprise that when you have bureaucrats with the ability to spend money that's not theirs in an agency or company that is big enough to have a lot of money to spend and not a lot of accountability, money gets spent on stupid stuff now and then.  And government is probably worse about it because of all the lobbyists representing the very people who are the recipients of much of the government spending.

But what to do about it?  The short term knee jerk reaction is to say, "don't give them money to spend and they won't spend it."  But the problem there is that ANY government agency performs a lot of valuable services that will be cut if their funding is cut.  The harder, but more effective thing would be to insist that they have people running the agencies that are going to hold the money spending decision makers in the agency accountable.  The CEO of a big company doesn't personally okay every dollar spent (nor do the stockholders), but a smart CEO hires people to oversee the spending and make the decisions who will make intelligent ones.  Same thing should be happening with government...the head of the agency should be making sure the people who actually spend the money are doing it intelligently--and not being influenced by the people who are the recipients of the spending.

Which, in a nutshell, is my philosophy of government...you don't want bigger government, you don't want smaller government, you want SMARTER government.  Now tell me how to get it.