	Background and Legislative History

The federal government has recognized the need to organize and coordinate the collection and management of geospatial data since at least 1990. In that year, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) revised Circular A-16—which provides guidance regarding coordination of federal surveying, mapping, and related spatial data activities—to establish the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) and to promote the coordinated use, sharing, and dissemination of geospatial data nationwide. Past Congresses have recognized these challenges. Until enactment of the Geospatial Data Act of 2018, the executive branch had led nearly all efforts to better coordinate and share geospatial data within the federal government. Congress did not act on either bill. In September 2018, another version of the bill, the Geospatial Data Act of 2018 (GDA), was included in H.R. 302 , the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, as Subtitle F of Title VII. On October 3, 2018, Congress passed the bill. On October 5, 2018, President Trump signed it into law as P.L. Overview of the Geospatial Data Act of 2018

The GDA codifies aspects of Circular A-16, authorizing many of the circular's existing components and modifying or expanding upon other aspects. The GDA continues the Federal Geographic Data Committee and supports the goal of creating a National Spatial Data Infrastructure. It also adds several congressional oversight components; for example, it adds a requirement for annual performance reporting from each of the covered agencies to the FGDC, and it requires a summary and evaluation by the FGDC of each agency in fulfilling the responsibilities listed in the GDA. The annual summaries and evaluations must be made available to the National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC), and the law directs the FGDC to respond to comments from the NGAC. Further, it requires the FGDC to make available to Congress, not less than every two years, a report summarizing and evaluating agency performance, comments from the NGAC, responses to those comments, and responses to comments from the covered agencies themselves. 115-254 . In Section 752, the GDA defines the term Natio nal Spatial Data Infrastructure to mean "the technology, policies, criteria, standards, and employees necessary to promote geospatial data sharing throughout the Federal Government, State, tribal, and local governments, and the private sector (including nonprofit organizations and institutions of higher education)." Issues for Congress

Stakeholders have long recognized the need to better organize and manage geospatial data among federal agencies and among the federal government, local and state authorities, the private sector, and academia. Some observers have commented that the GDA has the potential to improve the extent and efficiency of executive branch agency coordination of geospatial activities and thus to help minimize duplication of effort in acquiring and using geospatial data, saving taxpayers money. However, others have argued that some level of duplication of effort, and of inefficiency in the management and sharing of geospatial information, will always exist across a vast federal bureaucracy in which a large amount of government information has some geospatial component. It also could be argued that the size of the federal bureaucracy is only one factor contributing to the challenges of organizing and managing geospatial data. Surveying and mapping activities themselves are prone to duplication of effort among the executive branch's different missions and goals. The GDA requires that covered agencies, for example, inventory and assess their geospatial data assets as part of their annual budget submissions. This requirement could address long-standing issues about the extent and valuation of geospatial data and associated infrastructure within each agency—namely, what it costs the federal government to acquire, manage, share, and use geospatial data. The GDA potentially could illuminate for Congress how each covered agency budgets for its geospatial activities and thus could allow Congress to better evaluate what portion of agency appropriations contributes toward the federal geospatial enterprise. This information may enable Congress to query the Director of OMB (a vice-chairperson of the FGDC), about the budgetary implications of agency expenditures on geospatial-related activities in each budget cycle.
In the 114th and 115th Congresses, several bills entitled the Geospatial Data Act were introduced in the Senate and House of Representatives. Congress did not act on legislation introduced in the 114th Congress; however, in September 2018, a version of the bill, the Geospatial Data Act of 2018 (GDA), was included in H.R. 302, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, as Subtitle F of Title VII. Congress passed H.R. 302 on October 3, 2018, and President Trump signed it into law on October 5 as P.L. 115-254.
The federal government has recognized the need to organize and coordinate the collection and management of geospatial data since at least 1990. In that year, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) revised Circular A-16—which provides guidance regarding coordination of federal surveying, mapping, and related spatial data activities—to establish the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) and to promote the coordinated use, sharing, and dissemination of geospatial data nationwide. Past Congresses have recognized the challenge of coordinating and sharing geospatial data from the local, county, and state level to the national level and vice versa. Until enactment of the GDA, however, the executive branch had led nearly all efforts to better coordinate and share geospatial data within the federal government.
Stakeholders have long recognized the need to better organize and manage geospatial data among federal agencies and among the federal government, local and state authorities, the private sector, and academia. Some observers and stakeholders have commented that the GDA has the potential to improve the extent and efficiency of executive branch agency coordination of geospatial activities and thus to help minimize duplication of effort in acquiring and using geospatial data, saving taxpayers money. However, it could be argued that some level of duplication of effort, and of inefficiency in the management and sharing of geospatial information, will always exist across a vast federal bureaucracy in which a majority of government information has some geospatial component. It also could be argued that the size of the federal bureaucracy is only one factor contributing to the challenges of organizing and managing geospatial data; surveying and mapping activities themselves are prone to duplication of effort among the different missions and goals of the executive branch.
The GDA codifies aspects of OMB Circular A-16, authorizing many of its existing components and modifying or expanding upon other aspects. The GDA continues the FGDC and supports the goal of creating a National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI), defined in the new law as "the technology, policies, criteria, standards, and employees necessary to promote geospatial data sharing throughout the Federal Government, State, tribal, and local governments, and the private sector (including nonprofit organizations and institutions of higher education)."
The GDA adds a number of congressional oversight components. For example, it adds a requirement for annual performance reporting from each of the federal agencies responsible for a specific geospatial topic (or theme), and it requires the FGDC to conduct a summary and evaluation of each agency in fulfilling the responsibilities listed in the GDA. The annual summaries and evaluations must be made available to the National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC, charged with providing advice and recommendations to the FGDC). Further, the law requires the FGDC to make available to Congress, not less than every two years, a report summarizing and evaluating agency performance, comments from the NGAC, responses to those comments, and responses to comments from the responsible agencies themselves.
One long-standing issue for Congress has been the cost of geospatial activities to the federal government—namely, what it costs to acquire, manage, share, and use geospatial data. To help address that concern, the GDA requires the responsible federal agencies to inventory and assess their geospatial data assets as part of their annual budget submissions. The GDA potentially could illuminate for Congress how each responsible agency budgets for its geospatial activities, which may allow Congress to better evaluate what portion of agency appropriations contributes to the federal geospatial enterprise. This information could enable Congress to query the Director of OMB (the vice-chairperson of the FGDC), about the budgetary implications of agency expenditures on geospatial-related activities in each budget cycle.