Landsats Aff

Inherency – Data Management

Landsat imaging is still managed haphazardly, this prevents effective use of the data
Wigbels et al 8 (Lyn, Senior Fellow/Assistant Professor at the Center for Aerospace Policy Research at George Mason University, a Senior Associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies Space Initiatives Program, G. Ryan Faith, adjunct fellow at CSIS, Vincent Sabathier, senior associate with the CSIS Technology and Public Policy Program, CSIS, July, http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/080725_wigbels_earthobservation_web.pdf, accessed 7-6-11, JMB)

There are also many questions and concerns surrounding the agency-level management of Earth observation systems, particularly space-based capabilities. NASA has traditionally procured space-based Earth observation systems, such as the weather and land imaging satellites, even when other agencies have been responsible for their operation. Under the new National Land Imaging Program, NASA will continue to procure Landsat satellites, although USGS for the first time is acquiring the ground segment under the Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM) program. A tri-agency approach was adopted for the NPOESS system. NOAA, NASA, and the Department of Defense are jointly responsible for developing, acquiring, managing, and operating NPOESS. The involvement of three federal agency bureaucracies in the acquisition phase has proven to be challenging. No clear answers have emerged suggesting the most effective and efficient division of roles and responsibilities for Earth observations programs during the research, transition, and operational phases. This planning shortfall becomes a critical issue with the potential implementation of the so-called cap and trade agreements for carbon emission management. Cap and trade agreements will both need strong verification mechanisms and as an understanding of how royalties from cap and trade programs will be managed. The management experiences associated with NPOESS and other programs will be important lessons when making decisions on the management of the next generation Earth observation system.

Inherency – No USGS Budget – Long-Term Damage

Landsat was transferred to USGS without increase in budget – compromises long-term science capability
Schiffries 4/15 (Dr. Craig M., Director for Geoscience Policy at the Geological Society of America, congressional testimony, http://www.geosociety.org/geopolicy/news/0411-HouseTestimonyOnUSGS.pdf, accessed 7-5-11, JMB)

President Obama’s FY 2012 budget request for the U.S. Geological Survey is $1.118 billion, a decrease of $15 million or 1.3 percent below the USGS budget request for FY 2011. Although there is a $6 million or 0.5% increase in the total USGS budget request for FY 2012 compared to the FY 2010 enacted level, the FY 2012 budget request contains $89.1 million in budget cuts in core science programs that would be offset by increases in other areas, including a $48 million increase in a new account for National Land Imaging. The proposed budget cuts would have significant negative impacts on the scientific capabilities of the USGS. Proposed reductions in the FY 2012 USGS budget request include -$9.8 million for Biological Information Management and Delivery, -$9.6 million for Mineral Resources, -$8.9 million for National Water Quality Assessment, -$6.5 million for Water Resources Research Act Program, and -$4.7 million for Earthquake Hazards. The Geological Society of America urges Congress to appropriate at least $1.2 billion for the USGS in FY 2012. It appears that responsibilities for Landsat satellites have been transferred from NASA to USGS without a corresponding transfer of budget authority. In the USGS budget request for FY 2012, a $48 million increase for National Land Imaging would be offset by budget decreases for core USGS science programs. This trend cannot continue without compromising the mission of the U.S. Geological Survey. Experience with other satellites indicates that the cost of operating Landsat is likely to rise significantly in future years with the launch of Landsat 8, 9, and 10. The USGS budget has been nearly stagnant in real dollars since 1996. The USGS budget for FY 2010 was below the USGS budget for FY 2001 in real dollars. The decline in funding for the USGS during this time period would have been greater if Congress had not repeatedly restored proposed budget cuts. Federal funding for non-defense R&D has increased significantly while funding for the USGS stagnated for more than a decade. During this time, natural hazards, mineral and energy resources, and water availability and quality have become increasing important to the nation.

No transfer of budgetary authority for Landsat now – dooms the future
Simpson 3/17 (Mike, Interior Subcommittee chairman, 2011, http://appropriations.house.gov/_files/031711InteriorUSGeologicalSurveySimpson.pdf, accessed 7-5-11, JMB)

Third, by inheriting the full funding responsibility for LandSat 9 and 10 from NASA without any of NASA's $19 billion budget, and by offsetting the $48 million increase for LandSat from other core science programs, this budget is a sign of the untenable situation we're likely to be in two years from now when the Administration sends up a budget request for LandSat that is nearly 10 times the increase proposed for FY12. We might just as well rename USGS to National Land Imaging Agency.

USGS has budgetary issues due to Landsat transfer now
GAP 3/29 (Government Affairs Program, summary of the 3/17/11 House hearing on the 2012 USGS budget request, http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis112/appropsfy2012_interior.html#hearings, accessed 7-5-11, JMB)

Ranking Member Jim Moran (D-VA) agreed “strongly” with the chairman’s points. He argued that the Landsat transfer included in the “deeply troubling” budget request does not make sense and that the proposed elimination of 230 full time employee positions is not acceptable. USGS Director Marcia McNutt began her statement with a description of USGS efforts that led to the safe capping and sealing of the runaway well in the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf last year. She expressed her sympathy to the Japanese people in the wake of a 9.0 magnitude earthquake and subsequent tsunami off the coast of Japan on March 11 that has caused severe devastation. She commended Japan for being the most advanced nation in the world in terms of earthquake hazards preparation and reduction. McNutt defended the Landsat program changes, comparing USGS’s proposed role to the responsibility that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has of its weather satellites. Representative Moran began by asking McNutt whether the $48 million increase to the Landsat program and the proposed future increases will come at the expense of vital USGS biological and geologic programs, such as mapping. McNutt agreed that USGS will need to communicate with the administration to ensure that a growing Landsat program would not “erode” the core missions of USGS. She told the committee that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) told USGS that the cuts in the FY 2012 request were not associated with the Landsat increase, though Representative Moran responded that the OMB claim could not be true. Chairman Simpson agreed that with added responsibility, USGS should have received additional funding from NASA’s budget. He recommended that USGS investigate extending the operational lifetime of Landsat 8, which is set to launch in December 2012, in order to delay the launches of Landsats 9 and 10. The extra time would allow USGS to resolve this budgetary issue, he suggested.