Resources
Congressional Testimony

Geographic Information
Building a Strong Foundation for the 21st Century

Statement of
Lawrence F. Ayers, Jr.
National Academy of Public Administration
Project Panel Member

before the
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
U.S. House of Representatives

June 9, 1999

Chairman Horn and Members of the Subcommittee:

My name is Lawrence F. Ayers and I am currently Executive Vice President of Intergraph Corporation. In the past two years, I have had the privilege, along with several very distinguished colleagues, of serving on two expert Project Panels of the National Academy of Public Administration (Academy). Those panels wrestled with a number of complex geographic information issues. The first panel addressed the issue of the most appropriate roles for all levels of Government, academia, the private sector, and the public in creating, distributing and using national geographic or spatial data. The second panel addressed the limits on access to and disclosure of spatial data, particularly as it is needed in disaster operations. It is in my capacity as an Academy Panel member that I come before you today.

The role of the U. S. government has moved from an era of exploration and expansion using the tools of map making and surveying instruments, to an era of immediately updated spatial digital data derived in real time from precise navigation and imaging satellites, aircraft, and transactional databases. This transition is forcing all segments of the nation that create, distribute and use spatial data, to come together and address the issues of common projections, feature definitions, source, and quality of data. Addressing these issues is critical as we embrace on-line decision-making in areas such as public safety, land use, preservation of natural resources, commerce and transportation, and disaster preparedness. In other words, the data needed to run our national infrastructure.

The Academy Panels have produced two significant reports that focus directly on the issues we are
discussing. They are:

• "Geographic Information for the 21st Century Building-a Strategy for the Nation" - January 1998, and
• "Legal Limits on Access to and Disclosure of Disaster Information" - April 1999

Together these reports focus on the themes of my testimony today, namely:

• Policy and structural changes that would enhance the nation's ability to integrate geographic information among government agencies and across different government levels-as well as with the private sector, and
• Actions needed to resolve various data access and disclosure issues that, left unattended, will
  impede the development of useful and reliable information networks.
  I would like to submit executive summaries of both reports for the testimony record.

ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Mr. Chairman, let me begin by emphasizing what the participants in these Academy Panels found as one of the most compelling points-the growing importance of geographic information.

• Geographic information is pervasive. It has notable effects at all levels of government and in economic sectors affecting over one-half of the nation's economic output-from real estate transactions to voting rights, from family farm management to national forest preservation, from truck routing and automobile navigation to provision of emergency services.
• Geographic information systems are changing how government does business as the complexity of societal interactions and the ease of data manipulation increase. The information age makes it possible and desirable to do many things with geospatial data that were previously impossible, and to gain new insights on a variety of public policy issues.
• The U.S. is in a highly advantageous competitive position internationally, and is well situated to export the information-rich tools its strong commercial geographic information industry has developed. It also has companies that are recognized as worldwide leaders in the development and marketing of geographic information capabilities and products.

Thus, the future importance of geographic information-to the nation, to the economy, and to governance-is not in doubt.

BUILDING A NATIONAL STRATEGY

The Academy Panel that produced the January 1998 report found that the United States needs a truly national geographic information strategy for the 21st Century, and policies to support it. Technological developments, such as the Global Positioning System, satellite remote sensing data and orthoimagery, computerized geographic information, and the Internet, are revolutionizing cartography, surveying, and geospatial data collection, production, and analysis. New institutions, policies, and intergovernmental and public-private relationships are needed that support greater relevance and more rapid implementation of a coordinated geographic information database.

The Academy Panel strongly endorsed the creation of a truly national spatial data infrastructure. This infrastructure-the nation's geographic information system-was seen as the critical building-block for the creation of a 21st Century geographic database. National- not just federal-standards and policies, increased data accessibility and technical skills, and intergovernmental cooperation were considered essential. Geographic information was not seen as the responsibility of any one level of government nor of any one sector of the economy.

Therefore, the Panel recommended that-a new statute be drafted in cooperation with state and local governments and other organizations to create a National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI), establish a National Spatial Data Council (NSDC), and better define federal agency roles and responsibilities for NSDI so as to meet the participating organizations' programmatic needs. The Panel recommended that this statute include:

• a list of congressional findings about geographic information
• a statement of national goals and a definition for the national geographic data infrastructure
• a charter for the NSDC
• consolidation of federal base geographic information functions
• modifications to existing law to facilitate geographic information partnerships, cooperative research and development agreements, and private-sector procurements
• amendments or rescissions of current law to modernize and conform existing program authorizations to the national spatial data infrastructure concept

The acceptance of an NSDI continues to grow among members of the geographic information community who seem naturally attracted to the idea of combining the resources of the various levels of government and the private sector to develop and maintain automated databases of geospatial information. The Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) continues to be a useful resource to integrate activities at the Federal level, and recent steps to include nonfederal representatives from the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities and the International City-County Management Association, the National States Geographic Information Council, the Open GIS Consortium, and the University Consortium for Geographic Information Science in the work of the federal committee are helpful. But, it seems clear that federal entities as presently constituted are not the best vehicles for enhancing the nation's capacity to make the most effective use of geographic information in the future. This is why the Academy's Panel called for the creation of an extra-governmental National Spatial Data Council that would more easily be able to bridge the gaps among governmental levels, with the private sector, and with academia. This Council was seen as a private, nonprofit group that would have a greater role in developing and coordinating national standards, operating a metadata and data clearinghouse, and promoting a research and training agenda for geographic information.

CONSOLIDATING CRITICAL FEDERAL FUNCTIONS

The Academy's Panel concurred that there is a continuing need for federal geographic data integration. The federal government is establishing standards vital to integrating both data and analysis, has a lead role in structuring compatible international standards, and is also the leader in developing a clearinghouse for geographic information. The Panel strongly reaffirmed the need for coordinating these activities among the more than 40 federal agencies engaging in geographic information activities, even if limited to federal as opposed to national considerations. The Panel felt very strongly that, at least, the federal base cartographic functions should be centralized to provide a firm geographic foundation on which other data could be confidently and consistently geo-referenced. It voted to combine geodetic control, elevation, and orthoimagery responsibilities in a single federal entity on the basis that a "critical mass" would better organize the base cartographic foundation data needed to create a national spatial data infrastructure more rapidly and assuredly.

Therefore, the Academy Panel recommended that:

• legislation forwarded to Congress to transfer the National Geodetic Survey to the U.S. Geological Survey and to authorize the establishment of a Geographic Data Service, contingent upon submission of a reorganization plan prepared by a task force mandated by Office of Management and Budget.
• consideration be given to creating a performance-based organization in Department of Interior for federal surveying and land-title records activities.
• a reorganization plan be developed in cooperation with the NSDC to implement the Geographic Data Service and realign the federal field structure for basic geographic information.

At the same time, the Panel recognized that the widespread utility and integration into multiple public and private purposes of geographic information illustrated the necessity for increasingly decentralized geographic information system applications.

GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION PARTNERSHIPS

No magic formula was identified to easily sub-divide the responsibilities for geographic data across public-private and intergovernmental lines. The federal government is usually thought to be interested in smaller scales, such as the standard 1:24,000 national topographic map. But, its land management agencies have domain over one-third of the nation's land area in the form of national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, dams, and other public lands that require larger scale maps similar to those needed by counties and cities. Geographic data for business reside alongside public voting and street address files needed for mail, census, tax, and emergency service delivery. The Panel was therefore reluctant to draw clear lines between public and private use of data, or among intergovernmental jurisdictions, responsibilities, and functions. The Panel deliberately chose not to devolve significant geographic information responsibilities to the states or local governments, to privatize major functions, or to mandate specific contracting out goals.

Instead, the Panel endorsed geographic information partnerships as the preferred mechanism in which both mutual interests and conflicting priorities should be accommodated and resolved. It particularly favored broad multilateral approaches that engaged multiple geographic partners in consortiums based on specific geo-based problems and experiences. The Panel wanted the major components of the geographic information community to work out these issues cooperatively in the coming years. It saw the proposed NSDC playing an essential role in developing a new consensus on how geographic information roles should emerge.

The Panel's specific recommendations were:

• Geographic information resource managers should increasingly emphasize multilateral partnerships-interagency, inter-governmental, and with the private sector-to promote a robust NSDI and be a source of savings. Broad consortiums that involve multiple governmental levels and engage the private sector should be favored, and U.S. Geological Survey's unique authority to engage in innovative partnerships should be extended to other agencies.
  
• Multilateral partnering, including partnering modeled on that used in cooperative research and development agreements with the private sector, should be extended to agency operational activities and should be increased. Government agencies should avoid engaging in value-added activities beyond the research & development phase when they can be provided by the private sector at or near government cost.
• Outsourcing decisions should be made on the basis of the respective roles, responsibilities, and competencies of the governmental and private sectors. Cost-effectiveness is one of several factors that needs to be considered. On the other hand, arbitrary percentage targets for contracting out should be avoided.

I want to commend the Secretary of Interior for the actions taken in the FY 2000 budget to initiate a new program of Community/Federal Information Partnerships and for identifying almost $40 million to support these efforts. These efforts supplement a small program of community demonstration grants previously funded by the FGDC and are, I believe, responsive to the Panel's recommendations for promoting multilateral partnerships in developing the national spatial data infrastructure.

But, I also want to emphasize that the geographic data partnerships among federal agencies need greater attention. The Panel's examination of FGDC activities found many positive activities, but an overall lack of the strengths necessary to focus federal agencies effectively on rapid deployment of a robust NSDI. For example, some federal agencies that are active geographic information users and producers are not members of FGDC; some FGDC members are not actively participating in its activities; and some federal agencies are not using FGDC's standards. In addition, the Panel found that FGDC's strategy for implementing NSDI is not reflected in agency strategic plans and annual performance plans developed under the Results Act. The Panel recommended immediate action to "develop coordinated goals, strategies, performance measures, and budgets for federal agency geographic information programs and activities..., as required by the Results Act, to help move the NSDI toward further and faster realization." Congress should monitor this activity carefully each year, because it has the greatest potential for making progress short of enacting additional legislation. FGDC and the Office of Management and Budget should play facilitating roles in coordinating these federal agency activities.

DATA ACCESS POLICIES

The Academy Panel also strongly endorsed current federal government policies that support very open, low cost distribution of geographic data. Market pricing and copyright protection of government data are not in the American tradition. While other nations and even some states and communities have embarked on this course, the Academy Panel rejected this approach because it tended to impede public participation in the nation's democratic institutions and was potentially competitive with private-sector economic activities in geographic information. The Panel specifically recommended that:

• The federal government policy of promoting open access, especially for all data used in public policy decision-making, should be maintained and the states and localities should be urged to adopt similar policies.
• The federal government, possibly under the lead of the Federal Geographic Data Committee, should articulate a clear policy or draft legislation that allows the government to work cooperatively with the private sector to protect private-sector intellectual property rights for geographic information, particularly uniquely private and value-added data sets.

OTHER LIMITATIONS ON DATA ACCESS

In an April 1999 report on data access issues associated with the creation of disaster information networks to be used in natural disaster and other emergencies, a second Academy Panel examined the problems of proprietary data, security, liability, and privacy in such a network. While this research examined these issues in the context of disaster information, the Panel's findings and recommendations are applicable to geographic information generally. In this very preliminary study, the Panel recommended that there was a need to develop a series of "best practice" models to assist legislators, designers, and users of disaster information networks to simplify and mitigate data access and data disclosure issues. These models should be based on detailed studies, and should be designed to meet the special needs of each phase of disaster management.

The Panel believed that research is needed to identify good practices more precisely than was possible in its study. Further research should analyze current conditions, inventory the relevant laws and practices of the 50 states, analyze the pros and cons of alternative approaches, and highlight the most promising options. Some of the models that should be considered are:

• State Legislation. Suggested state legislation-and related policies and regulations-should be developed to amend differing state laws on freedom of information, privacy, trade secrets, geographic information systems, copyright, utility regulation, and electronic information security in ways that would facilitate the purposes of a disaster information network.
• Federal Laws and Policies. Amendments should be drafted to clarify and reconcile differing federal policies, laws, and regulations, including OMB Circulars and Executive Orders that relate to intellectual property, privacy, freedom of information, liability, and civilian use of information derived from classified sources.
• Positions on International Issues. Well-defined U.S. positions on the use of electronic databases and privacy protections should be developed to provide credible alternatives to the positions of other nations when negotiating international treaties on these issues.
• Data-Sharing Agreements. Model agreements-and models of supporting institutions, processes and practices-should be developed to facilitate fair, equitable, end effective data sharing, licensing, and pricing relationships among public and private data producers participating in a disaster information network.
• Data Quality Assurance. Models should be developed to facilitate adoption and maintenance of data quality assurance and certification programs to improve the accuracy, reliability, timeliness, relevance, completeness, and credibility of the information available through a disaster information network, and to help reduce the potential for liability of the network and its data suppliers and users.
• Liability Limits. To help limit liability, models should be developed concerning:
  • disclaimers
  • metadata standards to establish the accuracy, timeliness, and suitability for intended purposes of the data available through a disaster information network
  • the use of outside companies to certify the quality of disaster management data
  • legislation limiting liabilities resulting from the use of properly prepared and documented data
• Partnerships with the Private Sector. Models should be developed to facilitate the use of public data trusts, public-private partnerships, and other institutional mechanisms that could help to facilitate access to and disclosure of data through a disaster information network.

SUMMARY

Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by summarizing a few key points:

• geographic information is of rapidly growing importance in our economy and in governance
• federal entities operating with a constrained charter and within constrained resources have done a commendable job, but a truly national effort requires a new strategy for more directly involving all levels of government, the private sector, and academia.
• legislation setting forth national goals and establishing a National Spatial Data Council is needed to advance the development and maintenance of a national spatial data infrastructure
• consolidating similar federal activities in mapping and surveying in a federal Geographic Data Service would integrate basic geographic information functions and provide a stronger platform for building this infrastructure
• multilateral partnering among federal, state, and local governments, with the private sector, and with the academic community should be fostered whenever possible
• access to geographic data by the public should be facilitated, but there are critical issues involving proprietary data, security, liability, and privacy that need to be addressed by further study.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and other members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to present these views. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.