Proposal for a Quid Pro Quo Model for Geographic Data Exchange

Quid pro quo (Latin for “something for something” [1]) indicates a more-or-less equal exchange or substitution of goods or services.

Long time hindrances to the development of Statewide Spatial Data Infrastructures (SSDIs) and the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) have been financial, organizational, and political (most believe technical issues have already been overcome). High quality data produced by local government is often encumbered by restrictive local government licensing policies. Those same local governments are faced with the reality of large price tags for geospatial data development and maintenance and shrinking budgets. As regional, statewide, and national driving issues increasingly identify the essential need for integrated SSDIs and an NSDI, many local governments are justifiably concerned that their participation will become an unfunded mandate. In the face of these obstacles, many funding options have been proposed to help offset the high costs of data programs at the local government level and encourage their participation.

However, few programs at the state level have been successful in establishing programs where sustained funding flows among multiple jurisdictional and levels of government for geospatial data development and maintenance. In fact, most states still struggle to establish adequate funding for state-level programs, let alone funding that would flow to other entities. I believe that a Quid Pro Quo approach to developing SSDIs and the NSDI could be a successful one from the standpoint of establishing a funding mechanism for cost sharing among stakeholders and managing the real constraints of local government to participation. Under this model, those essential data sets to local, state, and federal government, i.e. Framework data (such as orthophotography, elevation, and hydrography), that can efficiently be produced over broad areas would be maintained by capable state and federal entities. Those data appropriately maintained by local (city and county*) jurisdictions would continue as such.

An equitable cost share for SSDIs and the NSDI could be realized in a required quid pro quo exchange of framework data that support the majority of stakeholders’ data requirements. The concept of data stewardship at different levels of government is not new. What is uncommon among current business models is a structuring of a quid pro quo data exchange such that all parties clearly recognize and are responsible for a shared funding model for development and maintenance of Framework data (while uncommon, there are limited examples that demonstrate this can be a successful approach, such as Ohio’s Location Based Response System). I suggest that we are well on our way to such a model as an effective means of developing SSDIs and the NSDI if the National States’ Geographic Information Council’s (NSGIC) Imagery For The Nation (IFTN) program is implemented as proposed. However, if we leave out key aspects of this model up front, namely the unequivocal recognition of a quid pro quo exchange, then we are destined to failure once again.

For example, let us assume the development and maintenance costs of parcel, address and street centerline mapping is roughly equivalent to the development and maintenance costs of orthophotography and elevation mapping (of course exact figures depends on the methods of data acquisition, accuracies, etc.). If state and federal government took on the responsibility for orthophotography and elevation layers, as is proposed by the Imagery For The Nation (IFTN) program, this would offset substantial costs to local government to build and maintain their own geospatial programs. If however, the imagery and elevation are provided in the public domain without explicit and agreed upon recognition of a quid pro quo data exchange, then we face the very real possibility that local governments will not recognize it as such and will not recognize their responsibilities to contribute to the whole. In other words, local governments remain free to use the public domain data without recognizing the cost sharing aspects to their own programs.

Many (I would argue most) will be left to continue to view the external requests for their data as unfunded mandates. Without a clear plan for recognition of a quid pro quo data exchange, thus an equitable cost share in a shared public resource, we will continue to face the same financial, organizational, and political obstacles that we do today. It is not enough to “build it and they will come.” We must be prepared to recognize and agree upon, formally, our shared roles and responsibilities. Indiana is about to embark on a social experiment that would equate to such a quid pro quo data exchange. Under a new GIS statute, Indiana’s Framework data layers are formally defined, as is a provision for “data exchange agreements” meaning an agreement concerning the exchange of any GIS data or framework data.

While political subdivisions maintain the right to control the sale, exchange, and distribution of any GIS data or framework data provided by the political subdivision to the state through a data exchange agreement, a political subdivision may agree, through a provision in a data exchange agreement, to allow the sale, exchange, or distribution of GIS data or framework data provided to the state. As a condition in a data exchange agreement for any GIS data or framework data provided by the state to a political subdivision, the state Geographic Information Officer may require the political subdivision to follow the state GIS data standards and the statewide data integration plan when the political subdivision makes use of the GIS data or framework data as provided by the state. (Note, this does not apply to data that is otherwise required by state or federal law to be provided by a political subdivision to the state or federal government.)

As they have not yet been developed, the details of the data exchange agreements remain to be seen. I would assert that to enable a successful SSDI in Indiana, the data exchange agreements and the statewide data integration plan should explicitly define two important quid pro quo provisions: 1. Assurance that the state will maintain an ongoing high-resolution orthophotography and elevation data program, akin to Indiana’s 2005 successful orthophotography project and the proposed IFTN program (this will require a state funding commitment), that the data will reside in the public domain, and 2. That in exchange for receiving state provided framework data, political subdivisions will provide specific locally maintained framework data (e.g. parcels, addresses, and street centerlines), absent of personal/private information such as land owner names, and that the data be integrated into derivative data sets that reside either in the public domain or under a commercially restricted Creative Commons license (this is a policy issue that should be further reviewed).

I assert that equitable shared funding through a formally defined quid pro quo data exchange would enable SSDIs and the NSDI. This will require revised policies and a clear well-coordinated strategy for implementation (I do not believe it can be implemented piecemeal). There are many other issues to be tackled, including developing data where none currently exist, accessing restricted public data where they do exist (e.g., Census address coordinate data), technical issues related to data integration, etc. Still, financial, organizational, and political constraints have been the most significant obstacles to our success. If we can find ways to overcome these obstacles, the payoffs will be high. If we continue to sidestep these issues in favor of incremental progress on individual data layers, I believe the vision of SSDIs and the NSDI will be difficult, if not impossible, to truly realize.

___________ *Every state is different, and this must be recognized in Statewide Spatial Data Infrastructure business plans (e.g. some states already manage statewide addresses and parcels; some states are currently unprepared to manage statewide orthophotography).

Decision in MAPPS Lawsuit: Courts Find in Favor of US Government

MAPPS loses lawsuit… Doug Richardson (Executive Director of the Association of American Geographers) informed the FGDC that a decision has been handed down by the judge presiding over the MAPPS v. USA motion that was filed in the Eastern District of the United States District Court. The following is from that decision – “For these reasons, the affidavits do not establish that an injury in fact was suffered by the individual surveyors or their firms, and accordingly, no standing exists. Accordingly, summary judgment must be granted in favor of the government. An appropriate Order will issue.” You can read more at the AAG website.

Progress on Indiana’s Water GIS Map Layer

The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) high-resolution map layer is complete for Indiana. “This is a great development, but is only the first phase. We now hope to find ways to improve, maintain, and expand use of the data,” says David Nail, USGS Geospatial Liaison for Indiana. The National Hydrography Dataset is now available in a new database design that allows better web-based access and query, as well as truly seamless data that can be downloaded in various extents. The new database design provides a distribution format called NHDinGEO. Data requests in NHDinGEO can be extracted by subbasin, county, congressional district or by topographic map quad.

Your Name on a Grain of Rice

Many who know me know my mom as the Rice Lady with “Your Name On a Grain of Rice.” Her secret? A “rice vice” of course! Here she is on this last beautiful weekend at the Tennessee Renaissance Festival! geo:lat=9.63 geo:long=-71.37

Indiana Governor Signs GIS into Law

I’m back! I had a two month hiatus spent largely on the Indiana legislative session, and boy am I glad it’s over. I have a new-found respect for our law makers who do that year after year – and I was following only one bill! I am very pleased to report that Governor Daniels signed the first Indiana GIS bill into law last Wednesday. Much thanks go to senate sponsor Sen. David Ford and house sponsor Rep. Scott Reske for their support, leadership, and faith in what we do. The law defines GIS framework data, institutes a governor appointed Geographic Information Officer, and establishes a framework for a statewide GIS Data Integration Plan and GIS framework data standards. Finally, it establishes a fund for GIS (though does not add dollars to the pot yet – we hope this is the first step in an incremental process!).

Quote of the day: “Maps can endanger freedom.”

In a story in the 3/13/07 edition of the Cape Gazette “Positive Growth Alliance: NEMO lacks balance”

Mr. Rich Collins, executive director of the Positive Growth Alliance (PGA), is quoted as saying “Maps can endanger freedom.” This is in reference to the Delaware Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO) program which educates municipal officials about the correlation in the percentage of impervious surface, stormwater management and the quality of watersheds that are nearby. Not surprisingly, Mr. Collins runs a pro-property rights group called the Positive Growth Alliance which is a property rights organization, “The PGA stands for effective solutions and gives people the freedom to do what they want.” Here, here.

Ironically, my second favorite quote today compliments this story: “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance,” which is the tag line of the Cape Gazette newspaper.

IndianaMap Legislation Making Progress

Indiana’s 2007 GIS Bill (SB461) is making progress. Yesterday it passed the senate unanimously and has been sent onto the house. Summary: “One map for Indiana. Provides that the state data center shall develop and maintain the Indiana map, an electronic map of Indiana. Provides that the state data center shall provide public access to Indiana map data, except for data that the governor designates as a security risk. Provides that the state data center shall serve as the state names authority for Indiana under federal law. Establishes the electronic map maintenance fund.”

Indiana GIS Legislation – 2007

There is a GIS Bill in the Indiana Legislature this year – SB461. Yesterday was the first hearing in the Senate Economic Development and Technology Committee. It went well and passed 8-0 with a significant amendment. I’ve attached a link, but here is my own summary: * the focus of the Bill is on maintenance of the statewide base map (e.g. focus on the framework data – IGIC’s main priority) for support of stakeholder applications * removes the creation of a new council, and points to IGIC as an advisory body * removes creation of an office within the State Data Center and simply assigns it to the State Data Center (at the State Library) * assigns responsibility for a Board on Geographic Names * includes that development of the framework data does not apply to electronic map data identified as posing a security risk by the governor Today Senators Kruse and Mrvan were added as coauthors. It sounds like there may be a few amendments that will get recommended – as per comments from Dave Coats, University Consortium (CUSIS), WTH Engineering, and Gerry Weaver (State CIO). I’m not sure the language that will be proposed or when that happens but will try and find out. Feb 28 is the last day for 3rd reading of bills in the Senate.