The plot to steal your free marine weather service

I have a do-it-yourselfer friend who, when he saws a board too short or drills a hole in not quite the right place, eyes up the mistake with exaggerated care and then declares, “Close enough for government work.” Making fun of how the government and its bureaucrats do things is a popular sport, and much of the ridicule is deserved. Still, the federal government does some things right, and one that stands out is its system of gathering and distributing weather information.

The National Weather Service delivers weather information gathered by satellites, ground stations, buoys and more than 10,000 volunteer observers and interpreted by a corps of meteorologists to Americans by the ubiquitous NOAA Weather Radio and a splendid Web site. The service is supported by taxpayers and is free to the millions of Americans who use it. It is an example of not only the government doing something right but, contrary to the stereotype of wasteful government, providing substantial value to taxpayers.

Too good to be true? No, just too good. The government has no business being so helpful to the public. Free weather has to go. That’s nonsense, of course, but it’s serious nonsense coming out of the mouth of a United States senator. Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) has introduced legislation that would deny the public most free NWS services.

Santorum’s bill prohibits the NWS from providing services to the public that could be furnished by private companies. This means most of the free weather services now available from NOAA. (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration operates the National Weather Service.)

Don’t confuse this proposed law with an attempt to save taxpayers money. The opposite is true. It’s going to cost taxpayers more. Santorum is not proposing to cut back on taxpayer support of the NWS. He’s saying taxpayers should not get the product of that support free. He’s saying if they want it, they should pay private companies for it. In other words, taxpayers should pay again for something they’ve already paid for.

And don’t dignify it by thinking for a second that it’s a high-minded effort to protect the private sector from unfair competition from a government agency, as Santorum and his corporate sponsors claim. The private sector in this case is not a victim of government, but a beneficiary that is subsidized by taxpayers by having free access to weather data collected at taxpayer expense, which it then regurgitates and sells in its own products.

And please don’t confuse any of this with responsible public policy. This is merely local politics, albeit particularly odoriferous local politics: a number of the companies that would benefit from legislation are located in Santorum’s state; the biggest of them, AccuWeather, has been a generous contributor to Santorum’s political action committee; AccuWeather has been lobbying for years for the very same restrictions the senator now proposes; Santorum is running for re-election against stiff opposition.

Aviators and farmers benefit from NOAA reports specific to their needs, but I can’t think of any group that has a bigger stake in the survival of free NWS services than recreational boaters—a huge number of Americans whose enjoyment and safety on the water depend on the easy availability of reliable weather information.

Without paying for private weather forecasting services or subscriptions to computer weather providers, there are no good alternatives to the NWS for boaters. General weather forecasts on TV or radio, even in coastal cities, are pretty much clueless when it comes to weather on the water.

Not NOAA. Its maritime weather information is so good it’s used by the private weather providers. But anyone can have it. Boaters who want to study the weather can find a trove of information on the NWS Web site (see “Navigating NOAA” in this issue), but for those who just want to hear about it, NOAA Weather Radio is always on duty, like a steady shipmate.

While we should be wary of playing the safety card too readily (mariners, not the government, are responsible for their safety at sea), it certainly can be said that government-provided weather is a safety issue. Just as it’s appropriate that the government installs signs on roads, beacons at airports and navigational markers on the water, it is fitting that it gathers weather information and puts in the public domain.

As far as private weather companies are concerned, I say more power, and more success, to them. They’re a valuable resource. Many sailors pay (and, in my experience, get their money’s worth) for private weather routing services. Many subscribe to commercial weather services that deliver data and forecasts to their boats via satellite. These services are doing quite well without Senator Santorum’s help, no surprise since the taxpayers are footing the bill for much of the weather infrastructure they rely on to gather the data they package for their subscribers.

Meanwhile NOAA weather remains Everyman’s “private” weather service. Every VHF radio comes with a weather channel. All boaters, no matter how modest their means, have free access to all the weather information they need to be prepared on the water.

Santorum’s bill would steal a needed service that belongs to every American. It would force everyone who benefits from free NWS services to chip in to pay his political debts.

We would expect other members of the Senate to see that and bury what is called the National Weather Services Duties Act of 2005, but it would be naive to consider that a slam dunk. I expect many readers of this magazine will be writing to members of Congress, and I hope boating trade organizations will weigh in on an issue that affects everyone of their members. The nation’s largest boater advocacy organization, BoatU.S., is already on the case; you can find details at www.BoatUS.com/gov.

Sailors, powerboaters and pilots should be furious, but every citizen has a right to be incensed by this attempt to take away a government service that performs at a consistently higher standard than government work.