Danielson, Leon E.

English

Research Papers in Economics

USING TECHNICAL DATA  FOR STATE  AND
LOCAL GROUNDWATER  POLICY MAKING
Leon E. Danielson
North Carolina  State University
Technical data provide information used  in groundwater  policy
making,  both defining problems  and issues  and evaluating  alter-
native  policies  and  consequences.  Data  and  information  needs  are
great because of complexities  in analyzing issues  related to ground-
water quality and potential  contamination.  A broad range  of data
and information is needed for sound policy making,  from very  basic
information such as descriptions of aquifers to highly complicated
evaluations  of the  risks of groundwater  contamination  and adverse
health effects.  Furthermore,  data needs vary depending  on the
stage  of the policy cycle and the audience  or level  of government
involved.
Technical  Data Considerations
Quantity of Technical  Data
The  supply of groundwater  quality  data is expanding  rapidly.  In-
formation  on  resource  use,  water modeling  and  monitoring  has in-
creased  in recent years because  of the high priority being given the
issue,  and states  are expanding their analyses,  water testing and
water monitoring programs.
This increase in data presents both problems and opportunities.  It
can improve  decision  making  if converted  to information  for  policy
makers,  but also  can swamp  offices  responsible  for organizing  and
evaluating the data.  Perhaps the main  challenge  for agencies and
policy makers  is  to establish  priorities  for  data  collection  and
analysis.
Diversity of Technical Data
More  multidisciplinary  involvement  by  hydrogeologists,  tox-
icologists  and soil scientists  is required  in groundwater  analyses  be-
cause  the  sources  of groundwater  contamination  are numerous  and
their impacts are complex.  As a result of this complexity,  data are
more  technical  and bigger  gulfs  may exist  between  data and useful
information  for policy making.  This makes information more difficult
131to provide.  Obtaining  policy  consensus,  that is,  "Getting  to Yes"
(Fisher and Ury),  also is more difficult because data may be inter-
preted differently  by different  policy makers.
Data Fragmentation
Groundwater  programs and data are both horizontally  and ver-
tically  fragmented,  being located  within different  agencies,  depart-
ments and sections and at local, state and federal levels.
In North Carolina's Department  of Environment,  Health and Nat-
ural Resources,  under the Resource Conservation  and Recovery  Act
(RCRA),  the underground  storage tank program is in the Ground-
water  Section,  the solid  waste monitoring  program is in the Solid
Waste Section  and hazardous waste  monitoring is  in the Hazardous
Waste Section.  Yet all of these programs  are relevant to ground-
water.  To obtain information  in North Carolina  about the five major
Environmental  Protection  Agency  (EPA)  laws  affecting  ground-
water,  it is necessary to go to eight different state agencies.
Data  often  are  not  computerized,  especially  local  government
data.  State agencies  may be computerized,  but the work often is
done  on mainframe  systems,  thus complicating  interagency data  ac-
cess and integration.  In addition to having a variety of different for-
mats,  state  agencies  rarely  have  data retrieval  organized  in  a  form
useful to  local governments  (e.g.,  by county).  For these reasons,  or-
ganizing  groundwater data for policy makers is  a monumental  task,
and the capacity,  in terms  of manpower  needed for data collection,
organization and interpretation,  is inadequate  in most situations.
Fragmentation provides an opportunity for someone,  perhaps pol-
icy specialists,  to provide educational efforts with an overall perspec-
tive. Additional  contributions could  include  improvements  in coordi-
nation and communication  through efforts  to bring  agency
representatives  together.
Data Versus Information
Roberts  and Butler differentiate between data and information.
Data  is  "a  representation,  often  numeric,  of facts.  Information  is
data evaluated in the context of a particular decision"  (p. 1041).  Data
become information only upon being used in the process of making a
decision  (Everest).  At that  point,  data  take on  value  (Danielson,  et
al.).
The  challenge  for public  policy  specialists  is  to distinguish  be-
tween,  and  focus upon,  data  that can  be  converted  to information.
The real question is whether  data or information  is provided.  Agen-
cies have reams of data.  Most are collected to meet regulatory,  per-
mitting and  reporting requirements  but are not  analyzed  and inter-
preted to be useful in developing  policy.  Generally,  agencies  at both
132the national and state  levels need help converting their groundwater
data to information useful to local policy makers.
Groundwater Quality Data vs.  Resource  Use Data
Since  all data related  to  the  groundwater  issue  cannot  be  col-
lected, efforts should concentrate  on data that will affect decision
making.  Roberts and Butler suggest that resource  use  data (land
data and water use data) are more useful than water  modeling  and
monitoring data for local policy making because  they are less costly
and because  they provide  information  for prevention  of ground-
water contamination,  not just for remedial efforts.  The resource use
approach  helps  identify,  characterize  and  set priorities  for  existing
or potential problems, and helps identify alternative management
options since  it focuses  on conflicts that may exist between  land use
activities  and groundwater contamination.
The Value of Coalitions
The activities of the Kellogg groundwater coalition  project have
provided access to personnel,  programs and data of state and feder-
al agencies.  It has  allowed  discovery  of,  and  access to,  a wealth  of
current and historical data, agency research and information,  and
developing policies.
Coalitions  help  set priorities,  help identify  state-specific  data and
informational  needs,  and  allow extension to improve  its role in
providing information to policy makers.
The  coalition process  also has fostered  development  of new audi-
ences such as the Southern Legislative Conference and local govern-
ment associations.  In many cases,  these new audience groups are
the people  who  will be  making  the  groundwater  quality  protection
decisions at state and local government levels.
Implications for Coalition  Building
Today's  extension  audiences  are broader  and include  many  non-
traditional vested-interest  groups that have larger and increasing
roles in policy making at state, local and national levels.  Under these
circumstances,  there is need for larger,  broader coalitions  to repre-
sent all sides of the issues more fully.  It is also advantageous to have
representation from agencies providing data for policy making.
These agencies  often  are interested in seeing their data used, have
analytical and educational needs and are willing to assist in the proc-
ess. However,  they may not be familiar with extension's mode of op-
eration, and we need to convey information  on extension's public
policy program.
133In  addition,  there is  need  for more  technical representation  on
coalitions  because  today's issues are  more complex.  Extension  spe-
cialists  cannot  and should  not try to be experts  on everything.  One
way  to  utilize  the  expertise  of others  is  to  involve  them in  the
coalition.
Implications for Extension and Policy  Specialists
Through contact  with federal and state agencies having respon-
sibilities in the rapidly  evolving area of groundwater  quality protec-
tion we perceive  a  lack of interagency  planning  and coordination
and  a lack of analytical  capacity  to handle the workload.  Though
they possess a wealth of technical data,  in these days  of tight bud-
gets, state and federal  agencies have a difficult time providing infor-
mation needed in making policy choices.
A  useful role  for public policy  educators  may be to help integrate
and interpret data from numerous sources,  to help ask critical ques-
tions  and to help convert technical  data into information  that can be
used by policy makers.
To fulfill  this  role,  policy  specialists must  1) overcome  the advan-
tage technical  disciplines appear to have in obtaining federal and
state  funds  for education  and research,  and  2)  recognize  that other
disciplines may not immediately embrace the public policy education
process.  At a recent extension water  quality work group meeting in
North Carolina one question asked was,  "What is this policy stuff
anyway?"  It takes effort,  communication  and a selling job on our
part,  to get extension involved  in groundwater  education programs.
Thus,  the task ahead for public policy educators  is to be able to  sell
the public policy process  as well as teach it.
REFERENCES
Danielson,  Leon  E.,  E.  Gaynell,  M.  Meij,  and  Charles  W.  Abdalla.  "Increasing  the Value  of Technical  Data for
Making  Groundwater  Policy  Decisions."  Proceedings, Conference on  Water: Laws and Management, pp.
10B-15-10B-22.  Tampa  FL:  American Water Resources  Association,  1989.
Everest,  Gordon  C.  "Database  Management  Systems  Tutorial."  Readings in  Management Information Systems,
eds. Gordon B. Davis  and Gordon  C.  Everest, pp.  164-187.  New York NY: McGraw-Hill  Book Company,  1976.
Fisher, Roger, and William Ury.  Getting to Yes. Boston: Houghton  Mifflin Company, 1981.
Roberts,  Rebecca  S., and L. Mathis Butler. "Information for State Groundwater  Quality Policymaking."  Nat. Res.
J.  24(1984):  1015-1041.
134

USING TECHNICAL DATA FOR STATE AND LOCAL GROUNDWATER POLICY MAKING

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics