Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Summary: The Navy began procuring a small surface combatant called the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) in FY2005, and a total of 35 LCSs have been procured through FY2019, including three in FY2019. The total of 35 LCSs is three more than the 32 the Navy says are required under its 355-ship force-level goal. The Navy wants FY2019 to be the final year of LCS procurement, and it has not requested the procurement of any additional LCSs in its FY2020 budget submission.

Summary: The Navy wants to shift procurement of small surface combatants in FY2020 to a new frigate called the FFG(X). The Navy's proposed FY2020 budget requests funding for the procurement of the first FFG(X). Five industry teams are currently competing for the FFG(X) program. Two of these teams are offering designs for the FFG(X) that are modified versions of the two LCS designs that the Navy has procured in prior years. The other three industry teams are offering designs for the FFG(X) that are based on other existing ship designs. One of these three other industry teams is proposing to build its design at one of the LCS shipyards. The Navy plans to announce the outcome of the FFG(X) competition in the fourth quarter of FY2020. The FFG(X) program is covered in detail in another CRS report.

Summary: The Navy's 355-ship force-level goal is the result of a Force Structure Analysis (FSA) that the Navy conducted in 2016. The 2016 FSA established a force-level goal for a 355-ship Navy with 52 small surface combatants, including 32 LCSs and 20 frigates. The Navy conducts a new or updated FSA every few years, and is currently conducting a new FSA that is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2019. Navy officials have stated that this new FSA will likely not reduce the required number of small surface combatants, and might increase it. Navy officials have also suggested that the Navy in coming years may shift to a new fleet architecture that will include, among other thing, a larger proportion of small surface combatants.

Summary: The LCS is a relatively inexpensive surface combatant equipped with modular mission packages. The LCS program includes two very different LCS designs. One, called the LCS-1 or Freedom-class design, was developed by an industry team led by Lockheed. The other, called the LCS-2 or Independence-class design, was developed by an industry team that was then led by General Dynamics. LCS procurement has been divided more or less evenly between the two designs. The LCS-1 design is built at the Marinette Marine shipyard at Marinette, WI, with Lockheed as the prime contractor. The LCS-2 design is built at the Austal USA shipyard at Mobile, AL, with Austal USA as the prime contractor.

Summary: The LCS program has been controversial over the years due to past cost growth, design and construction issues with the first LCSs, concerns over the survivability of LCSs (i.e., their ability to withstand battle damage), concerns over whether LCSs are sufficiently armed and would be able to perform their stated missions effectively, and concerns over the development and testing of the modular mission packages for LCSs. The Navy's execution of the program has been a matter of congressional oversight attention for several years.

Summary: A current issue for Congress is whether to procure any LCSs in FY2020, and if so, how many. Opponents could argue that the total number of LCSs procured in prior years exceeds the Navy's stated requirement, and that adding funding to the Navy's FY2020 shipbuilding account for procuring one or more additional LCSs could reduce FY2020 funding for other Navy programs. Supporters could argue that procuring additional LCSs in FY2020 could provide a hedge against delays in the FFG(X) program and help the Navy achieve its small surface combatant force-level goal more quickly. Another issue for Congress concerns future workloads and employment levels at the two LCS shipyards if one or both of these yards are not involved in building FFG(X)s.

This report provides background information and issues for Congress on the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program. A total of 35 LCSs have been procured through FY2019. The Navy wants FY2019 to be the final year of LCS procurement, and it has not requested the procurement of any additional LCSs in its FY2020 budget submission.

The Navy wants to shift procurement of small surface combatants in FY2020 from the LCS to a new frigate called the FFG(X). The Navy's proposed FY2020 budget requests funding for the procurement of the first FFG(X). The FFG(X) program is covered in detail in CRS Report R44972, Navy Frigate (FFG[X]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress , by Ronald O'Rourke.

A current issue for Congress regarding the LCS program is whether to procure any additional LCSs in FY2020, and if so, how many. Another issue for Congress concerns future workloads and employment levels at the two LCS shipyards if one or both of these yards are not involved in building FFG(X)s. Congress's decisions on the LCS program will affect Navy capabilities and funding requirements, and the shipbuilding industrial base.

For an overview of the strategic and budgetary context in which the LCS program and other Navy shipbuilding programs may be considered, see CRS Report RL32665, Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress , by Ronald O'Rourke.

Navy's Force of Small Surface Combatants (SSCs)

In discussing its force-level goals and 30-year shipbuilding plans, the Navy organizes its surface combatants into large surface combatants (LSCs), meaning the Navy's cruisers and destroyers, and small surface combatants (SSCs), meaning the Navy's frigates, LCSs, mine warfare ships, and patrol craft. SSCs are smaller, less capable in some respects, and individually less expensive to procure, operate, and support than LSCs. SSCs can operate in conjunction with LSCs and other Navy ships, particularly in higher-threat operating environments, or independently, particularly in lower-threat operating environments.

In December 2016, the Navy released a goal to achieve and maintain a Navy of 355 ships, including 52 SSCs, of which 32 are to be LCSs and 20 are to be FFG(X)s. Although patrol craft are SSCs, they do not count toward the 52-ship SSC force-level goal, because patrol craft are not considered battle force ships, which are the kind of ships that count toward the quoted size of the Navy and the Navy's force-level goal.

At the end of FY2018, the Navy's force of SSCs totaled 27 battle force ships, including 0 frigates, 16 LCSs, and 11 mine warfare ships. Under the Navy's FY2020 30-year (FY2020-FY2049) shipbuilding plan, the SSC force is to grow to 52 ships (34 LCSs and 18 FFG[X]s) in FY2034, reach a peak of 62 ships (30 LCSs, 20 FFG[X]s, and 12 SSCs of a future design) in FY2040, and then decline to 50 ships (20 FFG[X]s and 30 SSCs of a future design) in FY2049.

The LCS is a relatively inexpensive Navy surface combatant that is to be equipped with modular "plug-and-fight" mission packages, including unmanned vehicles (UVs). The Navy announced the start of the LCS program on November 1, 2001. The first LCS was procured in FY2005, and a total of 35 have been procured through FY2018, including three in FY2019. As noted above, of the 35 that have been procured through FY2019, 16 had entered service as of the end of FY2018.

The LCS was designed to operate in contested littoral waters in conjunction with other Navy forces. The LCS's primary missions are antisubmarine warfare (ASW), mine countermeasures (MCM), and surface warfare (SUW) against small boats (including so-called "swarm boats"), particularly in littoral (i.e., near-shore) waters. The LCS program includes the development and procurement of ASW, MCM, and SUW modular mission packages. Additional potential missions for LCSs include peacetime engagement and partnership-building operations; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) operations; maritime security and intercept operations (including anti-piracy operations); support of Marines or special operations forces; and homeland defense operations. An LCS might perform these missions at any time, regardless of its installed mission package, although an installed mission package might enhance an LCS's ability to perform some of these missions.

The LCS program has been controversial over the years due to past cost growth, design and construction issues with the first LCSs, concerns over the survivability of LCSs (i.e., their ability to withstand battle damage), concerns over whether LCSs are sufficiently armed and would be able to perform their stated missions effectively, and concerns over the development and testing of the modular mission packages for LCSs. The LCS program has been modified or restructured several times over the years, in part to address these issues. The Navy's execution of the program has been a matter of congressional oversight attention for several years, particularly for a period of about 10 years starting around 2007, when significant cost growth in the program came to light.

Table 1 shows past annual procurement quantities for LCSs. The Navy wants FY2019 to be the final year of LCS procurement, and it has not requested the procurement of any additional LCSs in its FY2020 budget submission.

The LCS program includes two very different LCS designs (see Figure 1 ). One, called the LCS-1 or Freedom-class design, was developed by an industry team led by Lockheed. The other, called the LCS-2 or Independence-class design, was developed by an industry team that was then led by General Dynamics. The LCS-1 design is based on a steel semi-planing monohull (with an aluminum superstructure), while the LCS-2 design is based on an all-aluminum trimaran hull. The two LCS designs also use different built-in combat systems (i.e., different collections of built-in sensors, computers, software, and tactical displays) that were designed by each industry team. The Navy states that both LCS designs meet the Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) for the LCS program.

LCS procurement has been divided more or less evenly between the two designs. The LCS-1 design is built at the Fincantieri/Marinette Marine shipyard at Marinette, WI, with Lockheed as the prime contractor; these ships are designated LCS-1, LCS-3, LCS-5, and so on. The LCS-2 design is built at the Austal USA shipyard at Mobile, AL, with Austal USA as the prime contractor; these ships are designated LCS-2, LCS-4, LCS-6, and so on.

Ships 1 through 4 in the program were procured with single-ship contracts. The next 22 ships in the program (ships 5 through 26) were procured under two 10-ship block buy contracts that the Navy awarded to the two LCS builders in December 2010, and which were later extended in each case to include an 11 th ship. The Navy sought and received legislative authority from Congress in 2010 to award these block buy contracts.

Current Navy plans call for procuring a total of 44 LCS mission packages (10 ASW, 24 MCM, and 10 SUW). The Navy has not announced whether the figure of 44 mission packages will be adjusted upward to account for the procurement of a total of 35 rather than 32 LCSs. LCS mission packages have been under development since the early days of the LCS program. The Navy's plan is to develop and deploy initial versions of these packages, followed by development and procurement of more capable versions. The development, testing, and certification of LCS mission packages has been a significant and continuing oversight issue for Congress for the LCS program. The Navy states that

The Navy achieved Initial Operating Capability (IOC) of the final component of the SUW Mission Package (MP), the Surface to Surface Missile module. The Navy worked with the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation to improve the test design, employ best practices, and make data driven decisions. The team jointly delivered a fully compliant test outcome, while simultaneously reducing the number of developmental test and operational test raid events. As a result, the Department reduced costs while completing operational tests of the SUW MP two months early. The ASW Mission Package Pre-Production Test Article was delivered in November 2018 and ASW MP conducted end-to-end testing at the Navy's Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center in January 2019. All of the MCM Mission Package aviation systems have reached IOC and are being delivered to the Fleet. The modular nature of the Mission Packages enables the Navy to deliver these capabilities now, while continuing to mature the remainder of the systems. Additionally, the Navy continues to evaluate employment of the MCM Mission Package off of Vessels of Opportunity.

The LCS employs automation to achieve a reduced-sized crew. An LCS with an embarked MCM mission package and an aviation detachment to operate the ship's embarked aircraft might total about 88 sailors, compared to more than 200 for a Navy frigate and more than 300 for a Navy cruiser or destroyer. In general, most LCSs are to be operated with alternating dual crews so as to increase the percentage of time they can be deployed. For additional information on the manning and deployment of LCSs, see Appendix A .

Industry has marketed various modified versions of the LCS to potential foreign buyers. Saudi Arabia has purchased four modified LCSs.

The Navy wants FY2019 to be the final year of LCS procurement, and it has not requested any finding for the procurement of additional LCSs in its FY2020 budget submission. The Navy's proposed FY2020 does request $14 million in procurement funding to cover cost growth on LCSs procured in prior fiscal years. And as shown in Table 2 in the " Legislative Activity for FY2020 " section of this report, the Navy's proposed FY2020 budget requests funding for the procurement of LCS mission packages. The Navy's FY2020 budget submission estimates the combined procurement cost of the three LCSs procured in FY2019 at $1,571.2 million, or an average of about $523.7 million each.

One issue for Congress is whether to procure any LCSs in FY2020, and if so, how many. As noted above, the Navy wants FY2019 to be the final year of LCS procurement, and it has not requested the procurement of any additional LCSs in its FY2020 budget submission.

Opponents of procuring one or more LCSs in FY2020 could argue that the total number of LCSs procured in prior years exceeds the Navy's stated requirement, and that adding funding to the Navy's FY2020 shipbuilding account for procuring one or more additional LCSs could reduce FY2020 funding for other Navy programs. Supporters of procuring one or more LCSs could argue that it could provide a hedge against delays in the FFG(X) program and help the Navy achieve its small surface combatant force-level goal more quickly.

Future Workloads and Employment Levels at the Two LCS Shipyards

Another issue for Congress concerns future workloads and employment levels at the two LCS shipyards if one or both of these yards are not involved in building FFG(X)s. As noted earlier, the Navy wants to shift procurement of small surface combatants in FY2020 to a new frigate called the FFG(X). The Navy's proposed FY2020 budget requests funding for the procurement of the first FFG(X). Five industry teams are currently competing for the FFG(X) program. Two of these teams are offering designs for the FFG(X) that are modified versions of the two LCS designs that the Navy has procured in prior years. The other three industry teams are offering designs for the FFG(X) that are based on other existing ship designs. One of these three other industry teams is proposing to build its design at the LCS-1 shipyard. The Navy plans to announce the outcome of the FFG(X) competition in the fourth quarter of FY2020. The FFG(X) program is covered in detail in CRS Report R44972, Navy Frigate (FFG[X]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress , by Ronald O'Rourke.

If a design proposed for construction at one of the LCS shipyards is chosen as the winner of the FFG(X) competition, then other things held equal (e.g., without the addition of new work other than building LCSs), workloads and employment levels at the other LCS shipyard (the one not chosen for the FFG(X) program), as well as supplier firms associated with that other LCS shipyard, would decline over time as the other LCS shipyard's backlog of prior-year-funded LCSs is completed and not replaced with new FFG(X) work. If no design proposed for construction at an LCS shipyard is chosen as the FFG(X)—that is, if the winner of the FFG(X) competition is a design to be built at a shipyard other than the two LCS shipyards—then other things held equal, employment levels at both LCS shipyards and their supplier firms would decline over time as their backlogs of prior-year-funded LCSs are completed and not replaced with FFG(X) work.

The Navy's current baseline plan for the FFG(X) program is to build FFG(X)s at a single shipyard. One possible alternative would be to build FFG(X)s at two or three shipyards, including one or both of the LCS shipyards. One possible approach for doing this, for example, would be to select a winner in the FFG(X) competition and begin procuring that design in FY2020, as the Navy currently plans, but also build FFG(X)s at one or both of the LCS yards. Supporters of this option might argue that it could

boost FFG(X) production from the currently planned two ships per year to as many as many as four to six ships per year, substantially accelerating the date for attaining the Navy's small surface combatant force-level goal; permit the Navy to use competition (either competition for quantity at the margin, or competition for profit [i.e., Profit Related to Offers, or PRO, bidding]) to help restrain FFG(X) prices and ensure production quality and on-time deliveries; and complicate adversary defense planning by presenting potential adversaries with multiple FFG(X) designs, each with its own specific operating characteristics.

Opponents of this plan might argue that it could

weaken the FFG(X) competition by offering the winner a smaller prospective number of FFG(X)s and essentially guaranteeing the LCSs yard that they will build some number of FFG(X)s; substantially increase annual FFG(X) procurement funding requirements so as to procure as many as four to six FFG(X)s per year rather than two per year, which in a situation of finite Department of Defense (DOD) funding could require offsetting reductions in other Navy or DOD programs; and reduce production economies of scale in the FFG(X) program by dividing FFG(X) among two or three designs, and increase downstream Navy FFG(X) operation and support (O&S) costs by requiring the Navy to maintain two or three FFG(X) logistics support systems.

Another possible alternative to the Navy's plan to end LCS procurement in FY2019 and shift to FFG(X) procurement starting in FY2020 would be would be to select a winner in the FFG(X) competition and begin procuring that design in FY2020, as the Navy currently plans, but shift Navy shipbuilding work at one of the LCS yards (if the other wins the FFG(X) competition) or at both of the LCS yards (if neither wins the FFG(X) competition) to the production of sections of larger Navy ships (such as DDG-51 destroyers or amphibious ships) that undergo final assembly at other shipyards. Under this option, in other words, one or both of the LCS yards would be converted into feeder yards supporting the production of larger Navy ships that undergo final assembly at other shipyards. This option might help maintain workloads and employment levels at one or both of the LCS yards, and might alleviate capacity constraints at other shipyards, permitting certain parts of the Navy's 355-ship force-level objective to be achieved sooner. The concept of feeder yards in naval shipbuilding was examined at length in a 2011 RAND report.

Navy Plans for Retrofitting LCSs with Additional Weapons

Another issue for Congress concerns the Navy's plans for retrofitting LCSs with additional weapons, so as to give them capabilities more like those of the FFG(X). The Navy states that it "is beginning to retrofit an Over the Horizon Weapon System (OTH WS) on all LCS for increased lethality. The award in May 2018 of the Naval Strike Missile contract for OTH WS brings a technologically mature weapons system and extends the offensive capability of the ship."

Survivability, Lethality, Technical Risk, and Test and Evaluation Issues

A broad oversight area for Congress for the LCS program for the past several years concerns survivability, lethality, technical risk, and test and evaluation issues relating to LCSs and their mission packages. Over the years, the annual report from DOD's Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) has contained extensive comments, many of them very critical, regarding numerous aspects of LCSs and LCS mission packages. DOT&E's January 2018 report for FY2017 contains such comments. Similarly, over the years, GAO has provided numerous reports and testimony about the LCS program that have raised a variety of issues with the program. GAO also provides a summary assessment of risk in the LCS mission packages in an annual report it publishes that surveys selected DOD weapon acquisition programs. A July 25, 2018, DOD Inspector General (IG) report on LCS MCM mission package systems stated that "the Navy declared IOC [initial operational capability] for the three MCM mission package systems reviewed prior to demonstrating that the systems were effective and suitable for their intended operational uses."

Summary of Congressional Action on FY2020 Funding Request

Table 2 summarizes congressional action on the Navy's FY2020 procurement funding request for the LCS program.

Appendix A. Manning and Deployment of LCSs

This appendix provides additional background information on the manning and deployment of LCSs.

The Navy originally planned to maintain three crews for each two LCSs, and to keep one of those two LCSs forward deployed—an approach Navy officials referred to as the 3-2-1 plan. Under this plan, LCSs were to be deployed at forward station (such as Singapore) for 16 months at a time, and crews were to rotate on and off deployed ships at 4- to 6-month intervals. The 3-2-1 plan was intended to permit the Navy to maintain 50% of the LCS force in deployed status at any given time—a greater percentage than would be possible under the traditional approach of maintaining one crew for each LCS and deploying LCSs for seven months at a time. The Navy planned to forward-station three LCSs in Singapore and additional LCSs at another Western Pacific location, such as Sasebo, Japan, and at Bahrain.

In September 2016, the Navy announced a new plan for crewing and operating the first 28 LCSs. Key elements of the new plan include the following:

the first four LCSs (LCSs 1 through 4) will each by operated by a single crew and be dedicated to testing and evaluating LCS mission packages (though they could be deployed as fleet assets if needed on a limited basis); the other 24 LCSs (LCSs 5 through 28) will be divided into six divisions (i.e., groups) of four ships each; three of the divisions (i.e., 12 of the 24 ships), all of them built to the LCS-1 design, will be homeported at Mayport, FL; the other three divisions (i.e., the remaining 12 ships), all of them built to the LCS-2 design, will be homeported at San Diego, CA; among the three divisions on each coast, one division will focus on MCM, one will focus on ASW, and one will focus on SUW; in each of the six divisions, one ship will be a designated training ship, and will focus on training and certifying the crews of the other three ships in the division; the other three ships in each division will each be operated by dual crews (i.e., Blue and Gold crews), like the Navy's ballistic missile submarines; the crews for the 24 ships in the six divisions will be permanently fused with their associated mission package crews—the distinction between core crew and mission package crew will be eliminated; the 24 ships in the six divisions will experience changes in their mission packages (and thus in their mission orientations) infrequently, if at all; and at program maturity (i.e., by about FY2023), 13 of the 24 ships in the six divisions (i.e., more than 50%) are to be forward stationed at any given point for periods of 24 months, with 3 at Singapore, 3 at another Western Pacific location, such as Sasebo, Japan, and 7 at Bahrain.

The Navy states that this crewing and operating plan is intended to

reduce disruptions to the deployment cycles of the 24 LCSs in the six divisions that under the 3-2-1 plan would have been caused by the need to test and evaluate LCS mission packages; improve training and proficiency of LCS crews; enhance each LCS crew's sense of ownership of (and thus responsibility for taking good care of) the ship on which it operates; and achieve a percentage of LCSs in deployed status, and numbers of forward-stationed LCSs, similar to or greater than what the Navy aimed to achieve under the 3-2-1 plan.

The Navy further states that as the fleet continues to accumulate experience in operating and maintaining LCSs, elements of this new plan might be modified.

Appendix B. Defense-Acquisition Policy Lessons

In reviewing the LCS program, one possible question concerns what defense-acquisition policy lessons, if any, the program may offer to policymakers, particularly in terms of the rapid acquisition strategy that the Navy pursued for the LCS program, which aimed at reducing acquisition cycle time (i.e., the amount of time between starting the program and getting the first ship into service).

One possible perspective is that the LCS program demonstrated that reducing acquisition cycle time can be done. Supporters of this perspective might argue that under a traditional Navy ship acquisition approach, the Navy might have spent five or six years developing a design for a new frigate or corvette, and perhaps another five years building the lead ship, for a total acquisition cycle time of perhaps 10 to 11 years. For a program announced in November 2001, this would have resulted in the first ship entering service in between late 2011 and late 2012. In contrast, supporters of this perspective might argue, LCS-1 entered service on November 8, 2008, about seven years after the program was announced, and LCS-2 entered service on January 16, 2010, a little more than eight years after the program announced. Supporters of this perspective might argue that this reduction in acquisition cycle time was accomplished even though the LCS incorporates major innovations compared to previous larger Navy surface combatants in terms of reduced crew size, "plug-and fight" mission package modularity, high-speed propulsion, and (in the case of LCS-2) hull form and hull materials.

Another possible perspective is that the LCS program demonstrated the risks or consequences of attempting to reduce acquisition cycle time. Supporters of this perspective might argue that the program's rapid acquisition strategy resulted in design-construction concurrency (i.e., building the lead ships before their designs were fully developed), a practice long known to increase risks in defense acquisition programs. Supporters of this perspective might argue that the cost growth, design issues, and construction-quality issues experienced by the first LCSs were due in substantial part to design-construction concurrency, and that these problems embarrassed the Navy and reduced the Navy's credibility in defending other acquisition programs. They might argue that the challenges the Navy faces today in terms of developing an LCS concept of operations (CONOPS), LCS manning and training policies, and LCS maintenance and logistics plans were increased by the rapid acquisition strategy, because these matters were partly deferred to later years (i.e., to today) while the Navy moved to put LCSs into production. Supporters of this perspective might argue that the costs of the rapid acquisition strategy are not offset by very much in terms of a true reduction in acquisition cycle time, because the first LCS to be equipped with a mission package that had reached IOC (initial operational capability) did not occur until late FY2014—almost 13 years after the LCS program was announced. Supporters of this perspective could argue that the Navy could have avoided many of the program's early problems and current challenges—and could have had a fully equipped first ship enter service in 2011 or 2012—if it had instead pursued a traditional acquisition approach for a new frigate or corvette. They could argue that the LCS program validated, for defense acquisition, the guideline from the world of business management that if an effort aims at obtaining something fast, cheap, and good, it will succeed in getting no more than two of these things, or, more simply, that the LCS program validated the general saying that haste makes waste.

A third possible perspective is that the LCS program offers few if any defense-acquisition policy lessons because the LCS differs so much from other Navy ships and the Navy (and DOD generally) consequently is unlikely to attempt a program like the LCS in the future. Supporters of this perspective might argue that the risks of design-construction concurrency have long been known, and that the experience of the LCS program did not provide a new lesson in this regard so much as a reminder of an old one. They might argue that the cost growth and construction delays experienced by LCS-1 were caused not simply by the program's rapid acquisition strategy, but by a variety of factors, including an incorrectly made reduction gear from a supplier firm that forced the shipbuilder to build the lead ship in a significantly revised and suboptimal construction sequence.


U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Streamgaging Network: Overview and Issues for Congress

Summary: Streamgages are fixed structures at streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs that measure water level and related streamflow—the amount of water flowing through a water body over time. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in the Department of the Interior operates streamgages in every state, the District of Columbia, and the territories of Puerto Rico and Guam. The USGS Streamgaging Network encompasses 10,300 streamgages, which record water levels or streamflow for at least a portion of the year. Approximately 8,200 of these streamgages measure streamflow year round as part of the National Streamflow Network. The USGS also deploys temporary rapid deployment gages to measure water levels during storm events, and select streamgages measure water quality.

Summary: Streamgages provide foundational information for diverse applications that affect a variety of constituents. The USGS disseminates streamgage data free to the public and responds to over 670 million requests annually. Direct users of streamgage data include a variety of agencies at all levels of government, private companies, scientific institutions, and recreationists. Data from streamgages inform real-time decisionmaking and long-term planning on issues such as water management and energy development, infrastructure design, water compacts, water science research, flood mapping and forecasting, water quality, ecosystem management, and recreational safety.

Summary: Congress has provided the USGS with authority and appropriations to conduct surveys of streamflow since establishing the first hydrological survey in 1889. Many streamgages are operated cooperatively with nonfederal partners, who approach the USGS and sign joint-funding agreements to share the cost of streamgages and data collection. The USGS Cooperative Matching Funds (CMF) Program provides up to a 50% match with tribal, regional, state, and local partners, as authorized by 43 U.S.C. §50. The average nonfederal cost-share contribution has increased from 50% in the early 1990s to 63% in FY2018. In the early 2000s, the USGS designated federal priority streamgage (FPS) locations based on five identified national needs. The SECURE Water Act of 2009 (Title IX, Subtitle F, of P.L. 111-11) directed the USGS to operate by FY2019 no less than 4,700 federally funded streamgages. In FY2018, 3,640 of the 4,760 FPSs designated by the USGS were operational, with 52% of their funding from the USGS.

Summary: Congressional appropriations and agreements with 1,400 nonfederal partners funded USGS streamgages at $189.5 million in FY2018. The USGS share included $24.7 million for FPSs and $29.8 million for cooperative streamgages through CMF. A dozen other federal agencies provided $40.7 million. Nonfederal partners, mostly affiliated with CMF, provided $94.3 million. In FY2019, Congress appropriated level funding for FPS and CMF streamgages. Congress directed an additional $8.5 million to pilot a Next Generation Integrated Water Observing System (NextGen), establishing dense networks of streamgages in representative watersheds in order to model streamflow in analogous watersheds. The President's budget request for FY2020 does not include NextGen system funding and would reduce CMF for streamgages by $250,000.

Summary: The USGS uses appropriated funding to develop and maintain the USGS Streamgaging Network. The USGS and numerous stakeholders have raised funding considerations including user needs, priorities of partners, federal coverage, infrastructure repair, disaster response, inflation, and technological advances. Some stakeholders advocate for maintaining or expanding the network. Others may argue that Congress should consider reducing the network in order to prioritize other activities and that other entities operate streamgages tailored to localized needs. Congress might also consider whether to invest in streamgage restoration and new technologies.

Summary: Congress may consider outlining the future direction for the USGS Streamgaging Network through oversight or legislation. As the USGS faces a deadline by the SECURE Water Act of 2009 to operate no less than 4,700 FPSs by FY2019, Congress directed the USGS through appropriations legislation to invest in the NextGen system. Congress may consider such policy options as pursuing both the FPS mandate and the NextGen system simultaneously, amending the SECURE Water Act of 2009, and the relative emphasis of the NextGen system.

Streamgages measure water level and related streamflow at streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs across the country. Streamgages provide foundational information for diverse applications that affect a variety of constituents. Congress has supported a national streamgage program for 130 years. These streamgages operate in every state, the District of Columbia, and the territories of Puerto Rico and Guam; therefore, national streamgage operations garner interest from many Members of Congress. Data fro m streamgages informs real-time decisionmaking and long-term planning on issues such as hazard preparations and response, infrastructure design, water use allocations, ecosystem management, and recreation. Direct users of streamgage data include a variety of agencies from all levels of government, utility companies, consulting firms, scientific institutions, and recreationists.

Streamgages are operated across the globe with national programs in North America, Europe, Australia, and Brazil, among others. In the United States, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Department of the Interior's (DOI's) lead scientific agency, manages the USGS Streamgaging Network ( Figure 1 ). The network encompasses 10,300 streamgages that record water height or streamflow for at least a portion of the year. Approximately 8,200 of these streamgages measure streamflow year-round and are part of the National Streamflow Network. This subnetwork includes 3,640 Federal Priority Streamgages (FPSs), which Congress and the USGS designated as national priorities (see section on " Federal Priority Streamgages "). Some entities, such as state governments, operate their own streamgages separate from the USGS Streamgaging Network.

Congressional appropriations and agreements with approximately 1,400 nonfederal partners funded the USGS Streamgaging Network at $189.5 million in FY2018. Some streamgages are funded solely through congressional appropriations for the USGS and other federal agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), and Department of Defense (DOD). Much of the USGS Streamgaging Network is funded cooperatively. Interested parties sign funding agreements with the USGS to share the cost of streamgages and data collection. The USGS Cooperative Matching Funds Program (CMF) provides up to a 50% match with tribal, regional, state, and local partners (see section on " Cooperative Matching Funds Program "). Other federal agencies, nonfederal governments, and nongovernmental entities may provide reimbursable funding for streamgages in the USGS Streamgaging Network without contributed funds from the USGS.

Evolving federal policies and user needs from diverse stakeholders have shaped the size, organization, and function of the USGS streamgage program. This report provides an overview of federal streamgages by describing the function of a streamgage, the data available from streamgage measurements, and the uses of streamgage information. The report also outlines the structure and funding of the USGS Streamgaging Network and discusses potential issues for Congress, such as funding priorities and the future structure of the nation's streamgage network.

A streamgage's primary purpose is to collect data on water levels and streamflow (the amount of water flowing through a river or stream over time). Streamgages estimate streamflow based on (1) continuous measurements of stage height (the height of the water surface) and (2) periodic measurements of streamflow, or discharge, in the channel and floodplains. USGS measurements are used to create rating curves, in order to convert continuously measured stage heights into estimates of streamflow. Selected streamgages may provide additional measurements, such as measurements of water quality (see box on "Supergages").

Streamgages house instruments to measure, store, and transmit stream stage height ( Figure 2 ). Stage height is usually transmitted every hour, or more frequently at 5 to 15 minute intervals for emergency or priority streamgages. Most streamgages transmit data by satellite to USGS computers; the data then are provided online to the public. Numerous streamgages also have cameras that capture and transmit photos of streamflow conditions.

Periodic streamflow measurements require USGS personnel to measure discharge at various sections across the stream. Streamflow measurements are made every six to eight weeks to capture a range of stage heights and streamflows, especially at high and low stage heights. Repeated measurements allow scientists to capture changes to the channel from vegetation growth, sedimentation, or erosion, which can affect the relationship between stage height and streamflow.

The USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) receives and converts all stream height data from USGS streamgages into streamflow estimates. An example of streamgage data from NWIS is shown in Figure 3 for a site capturing peak streamflow during a hurricane event. The free and publicly accessible data are frequently accessed online or by request to users. For example, the agency responded to over 670 million requests for streamflow and water level information in 2018. The NWIS website is the main repository for current and historical streamflow data, in addition to other water information. Tools such as WaterWatch summarize the current conditions of the nation's streams and watersheds through maps, graphs, and tables by comparing real-time streamflow conditions to historic streamflow from streamgages with records of 30 years or more.

The USGS Streamgaging Network provides streamflow information to assist during natural and man-made disasters, such as flooding and drought, and to inform economic and statutory water management decisions, such as the allocation of water supplies for irrigation. Individual streamgages in the network also can serve multiple uses. For example, a streamgage intentionally established for the purpose of reservoir management may provide data to inform water quality standards, habitat assessments, and recreational activities. Additionally, the value of a single streamgage is enhanced by the operation of the entire network, particularly for research, modeling, and forecasting.

Streamgages were first established in the United States to inform water use and infrastructure planning—applications that benefit from continuous, long-term hydrologic records (see box on "Evolution of Streamgage Uses"). Long and continuous periods of data are used to construct baselines for water conditions and to identify deviations in the amount and timing of streamflow caused by changes in land use, water use, and climate. Some stakeholders contend that the value of streamflow records increases over time, with at least 20 years of continuous coverage needed for many applications.

Technological advances allowing access to streamflow information in real time have expanded the uses of streamgages. Real-time forecasting and operational decisionmaking are used in many applications of streamflow data. Web and phone applications also have facilitated increased public use of water information.

Streamgage data is used for a wide range of applications, including supporting activities of federal agencies. There are also a variety of streamgages tailored for specific purposes. The following is a noncomprehensive selection of streamgage uses to illustrate the scope of applications.

W ater M anagement and Energy D evelopment . USACE, Reclamation, and various state and local water management agencies use streamgages to inform the design and operation of thousands of water management projects across the nation. Timely streamflow information helps water managers make daily operational decisions as they balance water requirements for municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses. Energy production and mineral extraction operations also rely on continuous streamflow measurements to comply with environmental, water quality, or temperature requirements. For example, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) requires hydropower companies to support USGS streamflow and water-level monitoring as part of their FERC licensing process.

Infrastructure Design . Transportation agencies use streamflow data to develop regional flow frequency curves for the design of bridges and culverts, stream stability measures, and analysis of bridge scour—the leading cause of bridge failure. Without adequate information, some observers contend that engineers may overdesign structures, resulting in greater costs, or may not make proper allowances for floods, compromising public safety.

Interstate and International Water Rights . Federal streamgages are used to collect streamflow information at U.S. borders and between states. Streamgage data informs interstate compacts, Supreme Court decrees, and international treaties (e.g., under the purview of the International Boundary and Water Commission and the International Joint Commission).

Water Science Research . Many federal agencies depend on consistent, long-term data from streamgages to conduct water research and modeling (e.g., USACE, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], DOI, U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], and National Aeronautic and Space Administration [NASA]). To monitor climate trends and ecological patterns, the USGS distinguishes a subset of streamgages that are largely unaffected by development to serve as benchmarks for natural conditions.

Flood Mapping . The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) uses floodplain maps to establish flood risk zones and requires flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) for properties with a 1% annual chance of flooding. Long-term streamflow records are used to determine 1% annual chance flood flows and to develop water surface profiles to map areas at risk of flooding. The USGS often works with FEMA to produce new inundation maps after streamgages record new streamflow peaks from weather events such as hurricanes.

Emergency F orecasting and Response. Streamgages inform flood forecasting and emergency response to protect lives and property. Real-time data from more than 3,600 streamgages allow NOAA's National Weather Service (NWS) river forecasters to model watershed response, project future streamflows, forecast monthly to seasonal water availability, and issue appropriate flood watches and warnings (see box on "National Water Model"). Flood warnings provide lead time for emergency response agencies, such as FEMA, to take effective action in advance of rising waters. In addition, the USDA National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) uses streamgages to forecast flows for water supply, drought management and response, hydroelectric production, irrigation, and navigation in western states.

Water Q uality . Streamflow data is important for measuring water quality and developing water quality standards for sediments, pathogens, metals, nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus), and organic compounds (e.g., pesticides). At select streamgages, the USGS also operates instruments recording water quality data (see box on "Supergages"). Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to develop total maximum daily load (TMDL) management plans for water bodies determined to be water quality impaired by one or more pollutants. When determining TMDL levels for specific pollutants, agencies may consider historic streamflow data, along with other factors, in their evaluations. Agencies may use current flow conditions when determining the proper release of wastewater to ensure compliance with TMDL standards and National Discharge Elimination System permitting.

Ecosystem Management and Species . Some water users and resource agencies use streamflow data to meet the flow requirements needed to protect endangered or threatened fish and wildlife under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq.). Natural resource agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), collect streamflow data to understand how threatened and endangered species respond to flow variations. The USGS operates streamgages to monitor ecosystem restoration progress, such as restoration of the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Recreation . Real-time streamgage data can help individuals and tourism businesses assess stream conditions for recreational outings. USGS data can be used to decide if conditions are suitable for recreational activities such as fishing, boating, and rafting. The USGS also partners with the National Park Service (NPS) to provide water science and data to help manage parks and to enhance interpretive programs.

The USGS Streamgaging Network is part of the Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program under the USGS Water Resources mission area. The President's budget request for FY2020 proposes a restructuring of the mission area to create a Water Observing Systems Program that would combine the USGS Streamgaging Network and other water observation programs. The primary operators of streamgages are the regional and state USGS Water Science Centers, which maintain hydrologic data collection and conduct water research in the region.

Approximately 8,200 of the 10,300 USGS streamgages measure year-round streamflow (National Streamflow Network; see Figure 4 ), with the rest only measuring stage height or measuring streamflow on a seasonal basis. USGS streamgages are also differentiated based on cooperative funding (CMF) and federal interest (FPSs).

Much of the streamgaging program has been cooperative in nature as interested parties sign funding agreements to share the cost of streamgages and data collection. Through CMF, the USGS funds up to a 50% match with tribal, regional, state, and local partners. In 2018, CMF supported 5,345 streamgages (52% of the USGS Streamgaging Network).

The first cooperative agreement began in 1895 with the Kansas Board of Irrigation Survey and Experiment (now known as the Division of Water Resources of the Kansas Department of Agriculture). Funds from cooperative entities steadily increased in the early 20 th century. Congress passed legislation in 1928 stipulating that the USGS can share up to 50% of the costs for water resources investigations carried out in cooperation with tribes, states, and municipalities (see Figure 5 ). In 2016, this Federal-State Cooperative Water Program was renamed the Cooperative Matching Funds Program (CMF), which provides cooperative funding for programs across the USGS Water Mission Area.

To participate in the CMF, potential partners approach the USGS to discuss the need for a specific streamgage. The USGS determines its feasibility based on available funds and program priorities. If the USGS deems establishing the streamgage is feasible, the USGS and cooperator sign a joint funding agreement (JFA), which is a standard agreement that specifies how much each party will contribute to funding the streamgage and the payment schedule for the cooperator. These agreements span five years or less. During the agreement, the cost-share generally remains the same, but there is flexibility to alter the cost-share on an annual basis for multi-year agreements. Once a streamgage is operating, if a partner can no longer contribute funds, the USGS seeks to work with other partners that use the streamgage to augment funding. The USGS provides a website identifying streamgages that are in danger of being discontinued or converted to a reduced level of service due to lack of funding. The website also identifies streamgages that have been discontinued or are being supported by a new funding source.

Approximately 3,700 of the 10,300 USGS streamgages (36%) are funded by nonfederal and federal partners without matching funds from the USGS (i.e., not with CMF). Nonfederal partners sign JFAs, and federal partners share interagency agreements with the USGS (except USACE which uses a military interdepartmental purchase request). These gages are part of the USGS Streamgaging Network and are operated in accordance with the quality control and public access standards created by the USGS, with the agency assuming liability responsibility for the streamgages.

Public and private entities may also elect to own and operate streamgages tailored to their specific needs and not affiliated with the USGS. These independent streamgages may differ in various ways compared to streamgages in the USGS Streamgaging Network (e.g., capital and operating costs, operating periods, measurement capabilities, and data standards and platforms).

The SECURE Water Act of 2009 (Title IX, Subtitle F of P.L. 111-11 ) directs the USGS to operate a reliable set of federally funded streamgages. The law requires the USGS to fund no fewer than 4,700 sites complete with flood-hardened infrastructure, water quality sensors, and modernized telemetry by FY2019. Originally titled the National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP), the USGS now designates these streamgages as FPSs. Out of the 4,760 FPS locations identified by the USGS, 3,640 sites were operational in 2018. In FY2018, the USGS share of funding was $24.7 million for FPSs.

The idea of a federally sustained set of streamgages arose in the late 20 th century when audits revealed the number of streamgages declining after peaking in the 1970s (see decrease in Figure 5 ). In a 1998 report to Congress, the USGS stated that the streamgage program was in decline because of an absolute loss of streamgages, especially those with a long record, and asserted that the loss was due to partners discontinuing funding. Partners also had developed different needs for streamflow information. The USGS proposed the creation of an entirely federally funded NSIP to ensure a stable "backbone" network of streamgages to meet national needs. The USGS used five national needs to determine the number and location of these streamgage sites:

1. Meeting legal and treaty obligations on interstate and international waters. 2. Forecasting flow for NWS and NRCS. 3. Measuring river basin outflows to calculate regional water balances. 4. Monitoring benchmark watersheds for long-term trends in natural flows. 5. Measuring flow for water quality needs.

The original design included 4,300 active, previously discontinued, or proposed streamgage locations. The proposed program was to be fully federally funded, conduct intense data collection during floods and droughts, provide regional and national assessments of streamflow characteristics, enhance information delivery, and conduct methods development and research.

The SECURE Water Act of 2009 authorized the NSIP to conform to the USGS plan as reviewed by the National Research Council. The law required the program to fund no fewer than 4,700 sites by FY2019. The law also directed the program to determine the relationship between long-term streamflow dynamics and climate change, to incorporate principals of adaptive management to assess program objectives, and to integrate data collection activities of other federal agencies (i.e., NOAA's National Drought Information System) and appropriate state water resource agencies.

In FY2018, congressional appropriations and nonfederal partners provided $189.5 million for the USGS Streamgaging Network ( Figure 6 ). The USGS share included $24.7 million for FPSs and $29.8 million for CMF. Other federal agencies provided $40.7 million ( Table 1 ). Nonfederal partners, mostly affiliated with the CMF program, provided $94.3 million.

The appropriations bill for the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies funds the USGS share of the USGS Streamgaging Network. Funding for streamgages is included in the Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program under the USGS Water Resources Mission Area. The line item includes funding for the streamgage network and groundwater monitoring activities, as well as other activities. Congress provided $74.2 million in FY2018 and $82.7 million in FY2019 for the Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program. While maintaining level funding for FPS and CMF streamgages in FY2019, Congress directed increased funding of $8.5 million for the deployment and operation of NextGen water observing equipment.

The President's budget request for FY2020 proposes creating a new Water Observing Systems Program combining the Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program and elements of the National Water Quality program focused on observations of surface water and groundwater. The President's FY2020 budget requests $105.1 million for the proposed program, a decrease of $7.5 million compared to $112.5 million of FY2018 funding for a similar structure. The budget request would maintain funding for active FPS locations and provide no funding for the NextGen system. For CMF, the request proposes a decrease of $500,000 for Tribal Water, which would result in a loss of $250,000 for CMF streamgages, and a decrease of $717,000 for Urban Waters Federal Partnership, which would reduce water quality monitoring at select streamgages.

Other federal agencies contribute to whole or partial funding of streamgages for agency purposes ( Table 1 ). Since FY2012, funding from other federal agencies has doubled from $19.9 million to $40.7 million in nominal dollars. This increase may be due to meeting inflation and other streamgage cost increases; to new needs for monitoring data with existing cooperators (e.g., USACE in the Savannah and Jacksonville Harbor expansion projects); and to the introduction of additional funding partners (e.g., the EPA) that are supporting new streamgages.

Nonfederal partners funded approximately half the costs of the USGS Streamgaging Network from FY2012 to FY2018. Cooperative partners include tribal, regional, state, and local agencies related to natural resources, water management, environmental quality, transportation, and regional and city planning. Irrigation districts, riverkeeper partnerships, and utility agencies and companies also fund the program. Contributions by nongovernmental partners to streamgages are very limited (1% in FY2018) and are not eligible for cost-sharing through the USGS CMF program.

From FY2003 to FY2019, USGS funding for FPS streamgages increased from $11.7 million to $24.7 million (in 2018 dollars; Figure 7 ). However, USGS funding has not met the SECURE Water Act of 2009 mandate for an entirely federally funded suite of not fewer than 4,700 streamgage sites. In FY2018, 35% of FPSs were funded solely by the USGS FPS program funds. The USGS must rely on other federal agencies or nonfederal partners to fund the rest of the FPSs: 27% were funded by a combination of USGS CMF and partner funds, 24% were funded by a combination of other federal agencies and nonfederal partners, and 14% were funded solely by other federal agencies (not the USGS).

USGS funding for CMF has remained relatively level, ranging from $27.5 million to $30.7 million (in 2018 dollars) over 15 years, aside from a drop in FY2007 ( Figure 7 ). For the entire USGS Streamgaging Network, the nonfederal cost-share contribution has increased from near 50% in the early 1990s to an average of about 63% in FY2018. With CMF appropriations remaining level, and demand for streamgages from stakeholders rising, the USGS cost-share available has declined. Cost-share commitments for long-term streamgages are generally renewed at consistent percentages, but JFAs for newer streamgages may include less contribution from the USGS. Increasingly, the USGS may opt to only provide matching funds for installation and operation in the first year, with the agreement that the partner provides full funding in subsequent years.

Congress may consider funding levels and policy priorities for the USGS Streamgaging Network. Congressional appropriations may affect the size of the network and the design of streamgages. Congress may provide direction regarding the policy priorities when considering the mandates of the SECURE Water Act of 2009 and initiating the NextGen system.

Congress determines the amount of federal funding for the USGS Streamgaging Network and may direct its allocation to FPS, CMF, and other initiatives. The USGS and numerous stakeholders have raised funding considerations including user needs, priorities of partners, federal coverage, infrastructure repair, disaster response, inflation, and technological advances. Congress may consider whether to maintain, decrease, or expand the network, and whether to invest in streamgage restoration and modernization.

The USGS uses appropriated funding to develop and maintain the USGS Streamgaging Network. While some stakeholders advocate for maintaining or expanding the network, others may argue that Congress should consider reducing the network in order to prioritize other activities.

Congress may provide funding to maintain existing streamgages. The Administration continues to request funding for the Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program, which funds the USGS Streamgaging Network. The FY2020 budget request states that "one of the highest goals of the USGS is to maintain long-term stability of a 'Federal needs backbone network' for long-term tracking and forecasting/modeling of streamflow conditions." Some stakeholders may advocate to maintain the current network as it provides hydrologic information for diverse applications (see section on " Streamgage Uses "). The FY2020 budget requests FPS funding at FY2019 enacted levels. If inflation increases costs, level funding may not fully maintain the current operations of FPSs. In addition, 71% of the network, including some FPSs, are funded by other federal and nonfederal partners, which makes those streamgages potentially vulnerable for discontinuation. According to the Government Accountability Office, maintaining streamgages through partners can be a challenge due to both the changing priorities and financial limitations of the partners.

Congress may consider reducing the network, either for FPSs, cooperative streamgages, or both. The USGS has discontinued some streamgages because of other funding priorities or because cooperators decided to no longer fund them and alternative funding was not available for the operating costs. Closures may affect individual streamgages or a collection of streamgages. The Administration requested reductions for the Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program in FY2018, FY2019, and FY2020 compared to previous congressional appropriations. For FY2018, the Administration requested a decrease of $742,000 for the Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program, which the budget justification said would diminish the USGS's ability to execute its core activities including strengthening the national streamgaging and groundwater monitoring networks. For FY2019, the proposed reduction included a decrease of $160,000 for U.S.-Canada Transboundary Streamgages. The FY2019 and FY2020 requests proposed a decrease for Tribal Water CMF, which would result in a loss of CMF funding for select streamgages. Congress did not make these cuts in FY2018 and FY2019, and is considering appropriations for FY2020.

Reducing the USGS Streamgaging Network could alleviate federal spending on streamgages and allow other entities to operate streamgages tailored to their needs. On the other hand, discontinuing currently operational streamgages may result loss of data acquisition, discontinuation of long-term datasets, and decreased coverage in some basins. Some stakeholders have proposed that entities with specific needs build and operate their own streamgages separate from the USGS network. Some states, such as California and Oregon, already operate their own streamgaging networks. This approach may contain some challenges (e.g., the data may be of higher or lower quality, the data be restricted for public use, or the host may use different standards). However, if individual streamgages were operated at the same level of quality as USGS streamgages, the USGS could incorporate such data into the NWIS network. Some also argue that disparate data sets could be available on a shared platform with USGS streamgages; such a platform could include information on methods of collection, quality, and accuracy.

Congress may increase funding to expand the network, which could include establishing the remaining locations for FPS, providing more funds for cooperative streamgages, or pursuing new initiatives like the NextGen system.

Congress mandated completion of a national network of no less than 4,700 streamgages in the SECURE Water Act of 2009. At the close of FY2018, 3,640 of the 4,760 FPSs designated by the USGS were operational, with 52% of their funding coming from the USGS. The USGS estimates that $125 million in additional funding each year would be needed to complete the network; however, an average of only about $25 million (in 2018 dollars) was appropriated annually for FPSs between FY2014 and FY2019. While some stakeholders have advocated for Congress to provide full appropriations for FPSs to meet the mandate based on network needs, Congress may consider other funding priorities (e.g., the NextGen system). Congress may also consider if other federal agencies and nonfederal cooperative partners could provide more funding for FPSs. These entities may not be interested in financing some of the designated streamgages in the FPS network, particularly those in isolated river basins with little anthropogenic activity.

Some stakeholders advocate for more federal funding to expand the cooperative part of the network, which addresses more localized needs. Some may argue against more federal funding for cooperative streamgages as it lacks a direct statutory mandate (unlike FPSs). Others have proposed increasing nontraditional funding sources for streamgages. They suggest that businesses, homeowner associations, non-for-profit organizations, academic institutions, and other nontraditional entities could provide funding for streamgaging; therefore, increasing the amount of nonfederal investment. Contributions by nongovernmental partners to streamgages are currently relatively limited (1% in FY2018) and are not eligible for federal matching funds. Congress could potentially encourage wider participation by nontraditional partners through such means as authorizing cooperative matching opportunities for public-private partnerships. Traditional stakeholders may oppose making matching funds available to entities not currently eligible, which could result in more competition for limited funds.

Congress increased the Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program appropriations by $1.5 million in FY2018 and $8.5 million in FY2019. These increases were directed to streamgages for the NextGen system (see section on " NextGen System "). Congress may consider expanding the network through the NextGen system based on results from the pilot project. Increases solely directed to the NextGen system may intensify funding constraints for FPSs and CMF streamgages.

Streamgages are vulnerable to hazards if not properly hardened. The SECURE Water Act directed the USGS to ensure all FPSs were flood hardened by FY2019. According to the USGS, structural restoration is usually funded because of emergencies; for example, disaster supplemental appropriations may provide funds for hardening streamgages, or funds are diverted from operational budgets to repair affected streamgages. The 2017 hurricane season resulted in damage to more than 100 streamgages. In response, Congress provided $4.6 million in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 to repair, replace, and restore these streamgages and recover their data, and for hydrologists to reconstruct stream channel measurements. When the USGS does not receive disaster supplemental funding from Congress, the agency is not reimbursed for funding it redirects in order to provide around-the-clock monitoring during the events and equipment repair during and after the events. Some stakeholders have advocated for Congress to provide funds specifically for strengthening and restoring infrastructure, especially to withstand natural disasters. These stakeholders estimate that $238 million is needed to update half of the streamgages in the network to enable them to withstand major flood events and to meet new data transmitting requirements. Under budget constraints, increases in congressional appropriations are often prioritized to maintain or expand the network instead of restoration.

Modernizing the USGS Streamgaging Network

Congress might consider investments in new technologies for the USGS Streamgaging Network. While regarded as reliable, many of the current streamgage operations are based on labor-intensive and more expensive techniques. Some stakeholders suggest that investing in modern technological and computational capabilities could provide enhanced streamflow information with reduced costs. Others raise that these approaches may not provide the quality and consistency of data expected of USGS streamgages and may reduce funds available for existing operations.

Telemetry and Information Infrastructure

The SECURE Water Act of 2009 directed the USGS to equip all FPSs with modernized telemetry systems by FY2019. According to stakeholders, the current U.S. streamgage telemetry and information infrastructure may be vulnerable to failure, and the existing data collection platforms and computer networks might eventually be inefficient for real-time and detailed data. In September 2018, an error in telemetry equipment resulted in an outage of 11% of the network. The USGS stated that redundancy in telemetry using cellular signals or camera streaming could have alleviated the problem, which affected the network for weeks. The IMAGES Act of 2018 ( H.R. 4905 ) introduced in the 115 th Congress would have directed FEMA to work with USGS to modernize hardware and increase the speed of data transmittal, but the legislation did not specify funding amounts. Some stakeholders have suggested a figure of $112 million as the amount needed to upgrade the enterprise data management systems, information technology infrastructure, and real-time data delivery capabilities. Past increases of appropriations for streamgages have prioritized continued operation and network expansion over technological improvements. To mitigate costs for such upgrades, federal science agencies are considering cloud computing that could also benefit cloud providers if other users develop applications on the cloud network using the data already hosted there. The FY2020 budget request for the USGS outlines enhancement and modernization of NWIS with a centralized platform meeting the Federal Cloud First Computing Strategy. Some argue that Congress should fund alternative data infrastructure to ensure capacity and reliability of increased data while reducing the cost, though others may argue these strategies are not ready for full implementation.

The USGS suggests that modern models and computational methods to estimate streamflow in ungaged or sparsely gaged basins may provide an alternative approach to conventional streamgaging. These methods require more observational data, particularly for reference river basins, than that provided by the current streamgage network. In an effort to assess this approach, the USGS initiated a NextGen system pilot project in the Delaware River Basin with $1.5 million in FY2018 ( Figure 8 ), and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P.L. 116-6 ) provided $8.5 million for the NextGen system. Reports accompanying FY2019 Interior appropriations bills by the House and Senate in the 115 th Congress addressed the NextGen system. The Senate committee report encouraged the USGS to have a cost-effective strategy for the NextGen system ( S.Rept. 115-276 ), and the House committee report directed the USGS to provide the committee with a report on the NextGen system, explaining the limitations of the current water monitoring system, the enhancements and modernization needed, and costs to implement the system over a 10-year period and operate and maintain the system ( H.Rept. 115-765 ). The USGS says the funding will allow further the NextGen system implementation in the Delaware River Basin; continued progress in modernizing USGS data infrastructure; and the selection of the next basin. Advances by the NextGen system to estimate streamflow at ungagged locations based on modeling of highly measured reference basins could also result in reduced need for streamgages, lower costs, and expansion of coverage of streamflow data. Others may suggest that modeling streamflow may not provide adequate data as physical measurements, and initiating the NextGen system may result in decreased funding available for traditional operations.

Congress may also consider directing the USGS to pursue innovative observation technologies: satellite-based or airborne platforms, ultrasound sensors for river stage-height measurement, radar technology for stream velocity, and autonomous vehicles for Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) and other types of remote sensing. The USGS is currently evaluating combining cameras and radars with advanced imagery analysis and installing these combined technologies on drone platforms to collect streamflow in difficult or inaccessible areas. Data coverage could also potentially increase with high-density sensing and sensor networks that use miniaturization, artificial intelligence, and economy of scale. Statistical advances to estimate streamflow at locations without streamgages could also result in reduced need for streamgages. Some suggest that such technologies may eventually satisfy streamflow information needs at lower cost, while others caution that advanced technologies may not provide as robust and reliable data as traditional methods.

Congress may consider outlining the future direction for the USGS Streamgaging Network through oversight or legislation. At the close of FY2018, 3,640 of the 4,760 FPS locations designated by the USGS were operational, with 52% of their funding coming from the USGS. As the USGS faces a deadline by the SECURE Water Act of 2009 to operate no less than 4,700 FPSs by FY2019, Congress directed the USGS through appropriations legislation to invest in the NextGen system. Congress may consider pursuing both the FPS mandate and the NextGen system, amending the SECURE Water Act of 2009 to facilitate completion of FPSs, or replacing the FPS mandate with the Next Gen system.

Pursuing Both the FPS Mandate and the NextGen System

Congress may consider pursuing both FPS coverage and the NextGen system. This approach could allow the USGS to meet the SECURE Water Act mandate while fully exploring new methods to obtain streamflow information. Financial constraints may limit this approach and pursuing both initiatives simultaneously may result in duplication of resources and coverage.

Congress may consider revising the SECURE Water Act of 2009 to facilitate completion of FPSs (i.e., extending the deadline for FPSs, reassessing the program goals, and changing the number of FPSs). Extending the mandate may provide more time to complete the FPS network. Some suggest that the national interests have evolved and the national goals and FPS locations should be reassessed. For example, monitoring streamflow for ecological purposes was not considered in the original design but has become an increased priority. The SECURE Water Act of 2009 directed the USGS to incorporate principles of adaptive management by conducting period reviews of the FPSs to assess whether the law's objectives were being adequately addressed. An analysis of the network could reveal whether some currently funded FPS sites are no longer in the national interest and funding could be reallocated to complete other sites. Changes in the national goals may also result in the discontinuation of long-term streamgages or the need for new streamgages, and coverage may increase or decrease in various river basins.

Replacing the FPS Network with NextGen System

Congress may consider replacing FPSs with the NextGen system by authorizing the NextGen system as a pilot program or broader program. For example, the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act of 2017 ( P.L. 115-25 ) required NOAA to conduct a pilot program for commercial weather data. The act stipulated program criteria, authorization of appropriations, reporting requirements, and future directs for NOAA based on the success of the pilot program. Congress could provide similar mandates in legislation including which basins are chosen for NextGen system improvements and whether the basins are determined by an external study, the Administration, or Congress. While some acknowledge new streamgaging approaches are forthcoming, others may suggest that modeling streamflow may not provide as adequate data compared to traditional streamgages and altering the network design may result in loss of coverage at specific sites or across basins.