Notes to: Regional Resource Planning
by the Federal Government
by C. Girard Davidson
(1)
“Interstate Compacts”, Public Administration Review, vol. 12, No.2, pp.
152 ff (1952).
(2)
Over 250 bills have been introduced into the Congress since the passage
of the TVA providing for comprehensive resource development in one form
or another. There are many obstacles in the way of effective comprehensive
resource planning by the Government. Among the most formidable of these
obstacles are the character of our administrative organizations, which
leads to inevitable practical conflicts; divided responsibility in the
Congress; and pressure exerted by special interest groups. See Appendix
B for fuller explanation.
(3)
The Secretary’s order defined the principal responsibilities of the Program
Staff as follow: “The Program Staff, in order to enable the Secretary more
effectively to discharge his responsibility for formulating, recommending
and executing policies and programs within the jurisdiction of the nepartment,
is authorized to examine all policies and programs of the nepartment with
the objective of ascertaining that (a) they are integrated and internally
consistent; (b) they constitute a full utilization of the nepartment’s
power’s for carrying out the responsibilities of the nepartment; (c) they
are appropriately related to the programs and policies of other agencies
of government; and (d) they are in proper context with the current and
prospective needs of the national economy. Based upon the results of its
examinations under this section the Staff will make such recommendations
to the Secretary as will assist him in the performance of his responsibility”.
(4)
For a fuller discussion see Wolf. Alfred C. “The Blending of Area and Function”,
Public Administration Review, Autumn 1949, p. 2s3.
(5)
The Secretary’s order of 194s establishing field committees is summarised
as follows: l) Field committee regions are established in Alaska, Pacific
Northwest, California, Colorado River Great Basin, Missouri River Basin,
Southern-west, and Eastern United States (temporary ). 2) The purpose of
the field committees is to improve the facilities for assuring that the
department's programs in these regions are (a) integrated and internally
consistent, (b) appropriately related to the programs of other federal,
state, and local agencies of government in these regions, and (c) in proper
context with current and prospective needs of the regional and national
economies. 3) Each field committee is to consist of (a) a full-time chairman,
selected by and representing the Secretary, (b) a member from each agency
of the department engaged in field operations in the region, and (c) a
full-time committee staff. Each agency member is to be the ranking field
official of his agency in the region and is to possess as much authority
as is required to participate in carrying out the committee’s responsibilities.
4) Based on continuous observation of the requirements of its region, and
the relationship of the department’s responsibilities to these requirements,
each committee is to prepare a department-wide, long-range program adequate
to meet the region’s needs. This program is to be stated in terms of proposed
activities, is to be revised annually, and is to estimate yearly costs
at least six years in advance. Through this device, the committee is to
participate in annual appropriation estimates and allocation of funds,
so as to assist in achieving a balanced departmental program for the region.
In addition each committee is to serve, through its chairman, as a focal
point for the department in dealing with public and private agencies in
the region on matters related to the department’s interest; further, each
committee is to submit recommendations for effecting improvements and economies
in administration. 5) Program reports and other recommendations of the
committees are to be transmitted by the chairmen to the Secretary through
the chairman of the program committee in the Office of the Secretary”.
(6)
The proposal for an integrated Pacific Northwest program for the Interior
agencies was prepared annually by the regional committee. After review
by the Program Committee in Washington, this became the nepartment program
for the Pacific Northwest for the next six years. The programs so presented
were comprehensive in scope as well as specific in detail. The mechanism
of the 6-year moving ,program, revised annually, insured that plans were
kept current and flexible. No fundamental policy determination affecting
the area was made without consulting and considering the regional committees.
Many problems affecting the Pacific Northwest were solved within this administrative
framework. For example, it was through this method that the basis for the
solution of the controversial “fish versus dams” problem on the Columbia
River and its tributaries was reached. Theretofor, the Bureau of Reclamation
and Bonneville would insist on more and more dams for power and for irrigation;
These agencies were giants compared to the Fish and Wildlife Service, which
was fighting to preserve the $ 17,000,000 per year fish industry, whose
salmon must go upstream to spawn. After numerous studies it was agreed
that the lower tributaries of the Columbia would be preserved for fish
while the Fish and Wildlife Service re-routed the runs and otherwise increased
the propagation. nams would be constructed on the upper reaches of the
river to provide power and for irrigation needs. Later the Federal Power
Commission licensed power projects for non-federal operations in the lower
tributaries. In addition, Congress has failed to appropriate sufficient
funds to carry out the fishery program in the lower reaches of the river,
upon which the field committee agreed. But despite these temporary setbacks
this basic decision continues to govern administrative action relating
to Columbia River development in the Pacific Northwest.
(7)
Bessey, R. R., “Resource Conservation and nevelopment Problems and Solutions
in the Co1umbia Basin”., Vol. 13, The Journal of Po1itics, (1951), p. 41s.
(8)
“The Plan for nevelopment of Natural Resources of the Pacific North-west”,
The Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee (1952).
(9)
See also Missouri: Land and Water: the Report of the Missouri Basin Survey
Commission, 1953; Resources for Freedom, the report of the President’s
Materials Policy Commission; the studies, initiated by the President’s
Council of Economic Advisors on the South and on New England; and the Hoover
Commission Report on the Reorganization of the Executive Branch of the
Government.