Hey guys -

As usual, I find myself standing somewhere in the middle on an issue that should not be subject to political extremism, but somehow is anyway.

All of the new legislation introduced this year regarding the NWS seems to relate back to the decision by NOAA last year to change the 1991 public-private partnership policy. There are people on both sides of the issue that have a stake, particularly from the perspective of the billion-dollar private sector.

Five years ago, to address the debate we're having right now, NOAA had the National Academy of Science's National Research Council take an objective look at roles and responsibilities of government, academia and the private sector in climate services. The study (by scientists for scientists) concluded, among other things, that the 1991 policy needed to be abandoned in favor of a "policy that defines processes for making decisions on products, technologies, and services, rather than rigidly defining the roles of the NWS and the private sector" (National Academy Press, 2003 here). As soon as NOAA started implementing the recommendations of the study, industry started making noise and lobbyists went to work in Washington - hence the flurry of paper.

Personally, I like what the report recommended. It seems to be a lot less politically motivated than any thing else I've read so far, including the proposed legislation. So I am not in favor of any of the current bills under consideration. I am in favor of NOAA, industry and academia implementing the recommendations of the 2003 National Academy report. This would mean that NOAA and the NWS would continue to offer the services I currently enjoy.

I wish I were in charge... just for a week or so.