I believe the panel's approach was to say that there are some fundamental principles that should guide a world-class monitoring system, and while we said the current situation was lacking, we also were very quick to say it could be fixed.
In my mind the primary issue is not one of time but one of willingness to come together in a comprehensive and coherent way so that individual jurisdictions can do what they are mandated to do, but they do so within a framework and with a common vision about what direction they're headed in. That way everyone knows what the ground rules are, and they can also harness the best resources they have. In some cases, on some elements of monitoring in some geographic locations, industry is vital, and the contribution it makes to the development of technology is crucial.
On the other hand, you may in fact want to effectively use the resources you have in a local community, not in an ad hoc way and not as part of a patchwork quilt, but rather with a coherence so that people know what vision they have, what they're working toward, and what part they play in achieving that.
Some of the kinds of principles we suggested had to do with transparency and accessibility, so that in fact each person knows what the others are doing. They don't know now, and consequently there are gaps not only in what we are monitoring but in people's understanding. Consequently, I think the fundamental part, the fundamental premise of our work, was that if we want effective policy for the environment and for the economy and for the well-being of our citizens, we need to make sure we're all operating with good data. You are going to have that data only if you have a sound monitoring system in place.