As an extension of the PDF I sent yesterday summarizing the
questions/answers I received personally, I will just reference the most
recent legislative/regulatory/directive actions put in place to bolster the
philosophy of many Federal data distributions - directly or indirectly:
In the United States, a federal legal and policy framework requires
environmental data (including weather data) produced by federal agencies to
be f*reely, openly, and unobstructed available to the public*, including
non‑government entities. The mandate is not a single law, but a stack of
federal statutes, administrative orders, and agency directives that
together create a de facto requirement for open access. I am not assessing
the application of these legal instruments in the current Federal
government, but they exist as such.
Below is the precise, sourced breakdown.
*1. Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (a.k.a. the
Open Government Data Act)*
This is the strongest statutory mandate.
It requires federal agencies to make their data:
- Open by default
- Machine-readable
- Freely accessible
- Published under an open license
Environmental data produced by NOAA and other agencies falls under this
requirement unless covered by a FOIA exemption. NOAA explicitly cites this
Act as the legal basis for making environmental data available without fee.
*2. NOAA Administrative Order 212‑15 — Management of Environmental Data and
Information*
This NOAA-wide administrative order establishes that:
- Environmental data produced at public expense must be broadly
accessible to the public.
- NOAA must ensure discoverability and timely access.
- The NOAA Data Access Procedural Directive states:
*“NOAA environmental data are produced at public expense and should be
broadly accessible to the public… a mandate for public access is expressed
in both federal policy and in NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 212‑15.”*
This is an internal mandate but binding on NOAA operations.
*3. NOAA/NCEI Open Data Policy (2022)*
NCEI — NOAA’s archive — is required to make environmental data:
- Fully and openly available
- In the public domain
- Accessible unless protected by FOIA exemptions
The policy states:
*“Environmental data and information produced by NOAA or any Federal agency
are available fully and openly to data users unless explicitly exempt…
These data are in the public domain in the United States.”*
This is a direct, explicit statement of the open-access requirement.
*4. Fee Schedule Rule (2026) — Reinforces free access*
NOAA’s 2026 fee schedule rule reiterates that:
- NOAA environmental data are made available without any fee in most
instances
This is done consistent with the Foundations for Evidence-Based
Policymaking Act
*“NOAA continues to make its environmental data available to the public
without any fee in most instances consistent with [the Act].”*
Fees apply only to special access or custom products — not to standard
environmental data.
*5. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)*
FOIA is not an “open data” law per se, but it ensures that:
- Environmental data not proactively published must still be released
upon request unless exempt.
- NCEI policy explicitly ties FOIA obligations to environmental data
access.
*So is there a federal mandate for freely available environmental data
outside of NOAA?*
Yes. Environmental data — including weather data — produced by federal
agencies must be made freely and openly available, with only narrow
exceptions (national security, proprietary data, or specific FOIA
exemptions).
The legal foundation includes:
- Open Government Data Act (statutory law)
- NOAA Administrative Orders (agency mandates)
- NOAA Procedural Directives (operational policy)
- FOIA (statutory access mechanism)
Together, these create a clear federal requirement for free, unobstructed
access to environmental data for all users, including non-government
entities.
-
Stonie Cooper, PhD
Software Engineer III
NSF Unidata
cooper@xxxxxxxx
On Thu, Sep 3, 2026 at 7:02 PM Mike Zuranski <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Looks like I stirred up some opinions here...
>
> > But what I think people are missing is NOAAPort was never truly
> designed to serve anyone outside of NOAA. It is a service by NOAA, for NOAA
>
> When I wrote this it was to convey that I don't see an equatable
> replacement coming from NOAA because NOAA no longer needs it for their own
> interests. At the time I really thought it was designed with NOAA
> interests prioritized almost exclusively up-front, with external partners
> playing a larger role that ramped up slightly later on... a point that I
> stand corrected on. A sincere thank you to those who made that clear to me
> and helped to change my perspective. I need to brush up on my history here.
>
> I will stand on my larger point which is I don't think we should wait for
> any replacements to come. I do, however, still believe Unidata and this
> community can help lead that change like it's done before. While I was
> hoping to spark some conversation about that, I admit I probably could have
> found a better set of words. Thank you again to those who responded.
>
>
> Dan:
>
>> For those of us who remember back to the early 80s and the end of easy
>> data, this sounds very similar...
>>
>
> Those were the very stories I have been thinking of too. I might not have
> been around then myself, but Unidata's history sure seems to rhyme with the
> current times.
>
>
>>
>> I suspect we'll find [a solution] today. But it has me worried that the
>> days of the convenient one stop shop in NOAAPort are gone and we'll have to
>> work with a new paradigm.
>>
>
> I agree, and a big part of where I am coming from is wanting to get
> started on that work and being frustrated by not knowing how.
>
>
>
> Ryan H.:
>
> Thank you for taking your time to write out and share your perspective, I
> mean that.
>
> Your points are all well taken and I already agree with many of them.
> You're spot on that cloud services, WIS2, etc. are NOT at all replacements
> for NOAAPort, absolutely agree. And the idea that the state of the modern
> internet is even more of an argument for enhancing a public-facing service,
> for sure. And no doubt, the timing of this is all wrong in my opinion too;
> with no overlap to test a next-gen solution this is going to get bumpy.
> But thank you for pushing back and correcting me where I was wrong.
>
> What I was trying to convey was I don't see NWS/NOAA spearheading a
> sensible and fitting replacement, and to avoid complacency in waiting for
> that to come. I did not mean to cause any upset and I apologize if I did .
> Thank you for articulating your points so well.
>
>
> Ryan M.:
>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> I would counter with...
>>
>
> Those are solid counters.
>
>
> That said, we may fundamentally disagree and that's fine.
>>
>
> I don't think we disagree as fundamentally as you think. And like I said
> above, you're changing my perspective on this so thank you for the push
> back.
>
> This is part of why I share my opinions on these lists is for the dialog,
> to be corrected when I'm incorrect, and I will always try to come with an
> open mind. You are right, this is more of an open public service than I
> had in my head.
>
> What I fear is that it may not matter, what I fear is what could happen if
> we don't begin taking on the work ourselves and soon. I hope my fears are
> off.
>
>
>
>> What really matters to me is what happens over the next year. I think
>> there is an opportunity to build out a terrestrial version of NOAAPORT akin
>> to previous projects like CRAFT and CONDUIT;
>>
>
> YES, like this!
>
> to me it's the current tight timeline that makes things...tense.
>>
>
> Yup. yup.
>
>
> Alan:
>
>> I know Ryan said he is not interested in changing minds on the intent of
>> NOAAPort, but I would just say as someone who was in the NWS field when all
>> this started, NOAAPort was definitely always intended to serve both
>> internal and external users of NOAA data.
>>
> Hi Alan. Thank you for helping to change the way I look at this.
>
>
> Respectfully,
> -Mike
> _________________________________________________________
> NOTE: All exchanges posted to NSF Unidata maintained email lists are
> made publicly available through the web. Users who post to any of the
> lists we maintain are reminded to remove any personal information that
> they do not want to be made public.
>
> NSF Unidata ldm-users Mailing List
> (ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
> For list information, to unsubscribe, or change your membership options,
> visit: https://mailinglists.unidata.ucar.edu/listinfo/ldm-users/
>