Geospatial Data Act Sets Table for Performance and Accountability
Legislation would benefit taxpayers and entire geospatial community
By Cy Smith | June 26, 2017
There simply is no change to professional licensing requirements and no expansion of the Brooks Act or other changes to the federal procurement process in the Geospatial Data Act.
For as long as NSGIC has been around – more than 25 years now – we’ve encouraged effective and efficient government through the coordinated development of geographic information and technologies to ensure that information may be integrated at all levels of government.
The Geospatial Data Act (S.1253) does just that. It establishes a clear vision, assigns responsibility, provides authority and ensures oversight by Congress of federal geospatial activities. These improvements will help ensure that the United States is able to build and sustain a robust national spatial data infrastructure (NSDI). Support of this legislation is a critical step toward building more resilient communities by ensuring they will have access to the consistent high-quality data they need.
Despite robust efforts around the country to create and sustain geospatial data, there are still substantial and significant unmet needs. A large portion of the unmet needs is attributable to a failure to harness and coordinate existing efforts at a national level. This failure to bring it all together is evident in a critical GAO review reporting the lack of a comprehensive view of federal geospatial spending due to incomplete and unreliable responses to prior data calls.
The finding is further supported in the 2015 NSDI Report Card produced by a panel of national experts for the Coalition of Geospatial Organizations (COGO). The expert panel assigned an overall grade of “C” to the status of framework data and an overall grade of “C-” for the infrastructure required to support the data. It’s clear that more is needed.
The Geospatial Data Act has support from both sides of the aisle, having been introduced by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Mark Warner (D-VA), Dean Heller (R-NV) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) in early May. NSGIC supports this legislation because it will set the table for performance and accountability. The Geospatial Data Act will make the following improvements that will positively impact the framework data layers and other resources that constitute the NSDI:
-
Codify the existing executive orders and other guidance documents that direct work by the FGDC toward the NSDI.
-
Provide FGDC with the authority to make other agencies following existing common sense rules.
-
Require federal agencies to partner with state, local and tribal governments, higher education and the private sector to develop the data and programs that comprise the NSDI.
-
Require reporting that will enable Congress to track progress on the NSDI and ensure wise spending.
-
Provide a great deal more clout to input developed by the multi-sector membership of the National Geospatial Advisory Committee.
NSGIC worked with staff from the offices of Senators Hatch and Wyden to craft the definition of geospatial data and services in Section 2 of the bill. The language there comes directly from the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) model law and model rules for surveying that the surveyor, geospatial, and photogrammetric community agreed upon in 2004. These documents set the ground rules for the geospatial activities that require a licensed professional and those that do not. Section 2(5)(C)(i) of the Geospatial Data Act lists the geospatial activities that do not require a licensed professional and subsection (iii) lists the geospatial activities that do.
NSGIC was asked by Senate staff to help craft language in Section 11 centered on procurement by federal agencies of geospatial data and services. We insisted that references to U.S. Code Title 40 (Brooks Act) must relate to the definition of geospatial data and services refer to Section 2 of the Geospatial Data Act.
Because Section 11 refers to Section 2, which clearly delineates the difference between geospatial data and activities that require and don’t require a licensed professional, and because the Brooks Act only applies to those geospatial data and activities that require a licensed professional, this bill does NOT alter or expand the scope of the Brooks Act. This bill will not require a licensed professional to be in responsible charge of the geospatial activities that are listed in Section 2(5)(C)(i). The Brooks Act already requires the use of a licensed professional for those geospatial activities listed in Section 2(5)(C((ii).
In our efforts to work with Congressional staff to develop the language in Section 11, and properly reference Section 2, we drew from the vast geospatial policy experience in the NSGIC community, including legal and legislative experts. We know our interpretation of the language in the Geospatial Data Act is correct. There simply is no change to professional licensing requirements and no expansion of the Brooks Act or other changes to the federal procurement process in the Geospatial Data Act.
A robust national spatial data infrastructure has never been more important than it is now. The Geospatial Data Act will put us on the path to building this critical infrastructure. NSGIC encourages our members, and others in the greater geospatial community, to contact lawmakers in support of this important legislation.
|
