The author's interest concerns the design of lake and stream monitoring programs implemented by federal and state agencies in response to the Clean Water Act. Past, and most current, monitoring designs select sites using judgement criteria. Such designs provide data for assessing impacts of point source discharges. The Clean Water Act also requires a national assessment of all waters within the United States. The U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. EPA initiated two independent programs: the National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) and the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). These programs use two different scientific approaches for monitoring. In addition, states have competing monitoring requirement. When the academic community's scientific research perspective is added, the result is a natural adversity among the groups. The paper discusses the underlying cultural conflicts associated with monitoring and present mechanisms that have been used to expand the culture, especially with states.

"EPA 600-A-99-096"--Cover. "PB2000-102944"--Cover. "October, 1999"--Cover. "To be published in 1999 Proceedings Section on Statistics and the Environment"--Cover. Caption title. Includes bibliographical references.

My interest concerns the design of lake and stream monitoring programs implemented by federal and state agencies in response to the Clean Water Act. Past, and most current, monitoring designs select sites using judgment criteria. Such designs provide valuable data for assessing impacts of point source discharges. The Clean Water Act also requires a national assessment of all waters within the United States. The assessment is accomplished by compiling information obtained from state monitoring programs. Such data do not provide a defensible assessment. An impetus for change began in the late 1980s. The U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. EPA initiated two independent programs: the National Water Quality Assessment program (NAWQA) and the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). These programs use two different scientific approaches for monitoring. In addition, States have competing monitoring requirements. When the academic community's scientific research perspective is added, the result is a natural adversity among the groups. The paper discusses the underlaying cultural conflicts associated with monitoring and present mechanisms that have been used to expand the culture, especially with states.