[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
coastal Zone Information Center NERBC tj COMMENTS ON THE STAFF REPORT 2/1 STRATEGIES FOR NATURAL RESOURCE DECISION-MAKING Prepared by New England River Basins Commission TECHNICAL SERVICES December 6, 1972 S 932 .N38 U5 1972 v,2 Property of Library TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents U. S . DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOA A i COASTAL SERVICES CENTER Introduction 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE iv CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413 I Summarized Proceedings of the Conference on Opportunities for Coordinating Natural Resource Planning Programs. Morning Session A National Overview of Federal Natural Resource 1 Policies. William Reilly, Task Force on Land Utilization and Urban Growth Policy Land Use and Coastal Zone: A Federal Per- 3 spective Lance Marston, Director, Office of Regional Planning, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Program Policy, U. S. Depart- ment of the Interior 1972 Water Quality Amendments- Joseph 5 Krivak, Chief, Planning and Standards Branch, Division of Planning, Office of Air and Water Programs, Environmental Protection Agency Afternoon Session Organizations and Programming for Federal- 7 State and Interstate Coordination of Resource Planning, Helen Ingram, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Arizona State Organizations and Programming for 10 Coordination of Resource Planning. Richard Slavin, Council of State Governments Reactions - Panel of State and Local Officials 12 William R. Adams, Maine Department 12 of Environmental Protection Ho n. Audrey Beck, Connecticut State 14 Representative Joan Flood, League of Women Voters, 17 Inter-League Committee on the Connecticut River Basin Robert H. Marden, Massachusetts 19 Assistant Secretary for Planning and Intergovernmental Relations TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Reactions - Panel of State and Local Off icials (cont. ) I James Mitchell, Special Assistant to 21 Maine's Go-%r. Curtis Charles Tucker, Southeastern New 22 Hampshire.Planning Commission - Steve Weems, Connecticut Department 24 of Environmental Protection Other Comments on Staff Report* Charles H. W. Foster, Secretary, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Bart Hague, Chief, Office of Special Environmental Studies, Region I, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . Joan Flood, League of Women Voters Inter- League Committee on the Connecticut River Basin John W. Neuberger, Chairman, Missouri River Basin Commission Henry L. Diamond, Commissioner, State of New York Environmental Conservation Agency Hon, Deane C. Davis, Governor, State of Vermont Donald G. Burbank, New Hampshire State Con-* servationist, Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture Walter M. Newman, Chief, Water Quality Branch, Region I, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency T'erry Davies, Senior Staff Member, Council on Environmental Quality, Office of the President Horace H. Brown, Director, Office of State Planning, State of Connecticut Depart- ment of Finance and Control Daniel W. Varin, Chief, Statewide Planning Program, State of Rhode Island Depart- ment of Administration Nathan Tufts, Executive Director, Connecticut River Valley Flood Control Commission Col. John H. Mason, Division Engineer, New England Division, Corps of Engineers Including comments on preliminary drafts TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Recent Resolutions on Natural Resource Planning and Management Third Annual Coastal Zone Management Conference, Durham, New Hampshire, October 30-31, 1972, sponsored by The New England Council Second New England Coastal Zone Workshop, Newport, Rhode Island, November 8-10, 1972, sponsored by the New England Regional Commission and the Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program Selected Items from Statements of Policy Adopted by the Interstate Conference on Water Problems, Austin, Texas, November 27-29, 1972 Appendix -- Complete Text of Dr. Helen Ingram's Organizations and Programming for Federal - State and Interstate Coordination of Resource Planning INTRODUCTION At its July 7, 1972 Conference, the New England Governors, noting that then-pending federal legislation (coastal zone management, water quality amendments, land use policy)would provide important new resources for managing natural resources, requested the NERBC to: it . . . prepare a report identifying ways in which these programs might be most effectively applied to-the resource planning and management needs of each state and the New England region as a whole. 11 1 The Commission gave high priority to this request. Several months of effort led to the completion of a staff paper, Strategies for Natural Re- source Decision-Makin , which analyzed the new legislation, reviewed on-going state and federal natural resource planning activities and relationships, and suggested alternative approaches to organization and management of decision-making processes at state and regional levels. A day-long conference on Opportunities for Coordinating Natural Resource Planning Programs, sponsored by the NERBC, was held in Boston on September 14. Participating were knowledgeable lay citizens; specialists in several disciplines; and local, state, regional and federal public officials. The Conference sharpened the Commis sion's percep- tions in many ways. Letters of comment were invited, following the Conference, from the Governors' offices,, from all members and alter- nates to the Commission, and others. The staff report has been preparedto, reflect responses to earlier drafts, the Conference, and the provisions of the Coastal Zone Manage- ment Act of 1972 (PL 92-583) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500) recently approved by Congress. iv This document, Comments on the Staff RePort, summarizes the proceedings of the Conference; and includes response.s received to date from the Governors, members and alternates to the Commissio4 as well as resolutions adopted by two recent conferences on coastal zone management. V I.* Summarized Proceedings of the Conference on Opportunities for Coordinating Natural Resource Planning Programs A National Overview by William Reilly Executive Director, Task Force On Land Utilization and Urban Growth Policy Executive initiatives at the federal level are conceived, evaluated and presented on the basis of a determination of how well they fit the following objectives: Reestablishing respect and credibility for governmental institutions. Making the federal bureaucracy responsive to the people. With respect to strategies for natural resource decision making, these objectives are being strengthened by the following actions: Implementation of a comprehensive strategy of problem solving by disencumbering federal grants from detailed federal requirements. Performing in ways that return effective control to the elected state officials. The principal expression for dealing with these objective's is embodied in a series of reorganizational proposals. They include the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and the proposal for a Department of Natural Resources (DNR). These reorganizational efforts were designed to accomplish three natural resource decision making goals: To facilitate the establishment of unified natural resource policies; To create the capability of centralized evaluation of performance by someone other than the President's staff; To create forums for conflict resolution at the.departmental level, rather than at the interagency level. It should be recognized that these reorganizational efforts form only a part of the evolving federal policy towards environmental and natural resources concerns, The other form of expression of these concerns is embodied in imple- mentation efforts. Perhaps the most significant of these, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), illustrates a strong Executive commitment towards environmental affairs and represents a significant benchnaark in the evolution of a national policy for the environment. The impact of the Act is all the more significant because it establishes through the Council on Environ- mental Quality an extremely powerful action-forcing mechanism. It requires that every federal action significantly effecting the quality of the environment be subject to a five-point detailed statement analyzing its environmental impact. The act as now interpreted by the Courts, requires careful assessment and full disclosure of impact. Consideration of the full range of all alternatives to a particular proposal is required. This includes not merely the alternatives within the power of the federal agencies, but also-iteration of the alternatives that are available to the federal government at large that may be able to deal with the issue at hand. Similarly, the land use and coastal zon.e-bills provide for implementation of these policies. There are three main objectives that the National Land Use Policy Act poses that have their roots in the overall objectives. To provide for protection of areas that have important aesthetic, recreational, historic, cultural and/or environmental significance to a greater than local population. To ensure that local governments do not unduly restrict or exclude development of regional benefit by requiring the states -to have an enforcing mechanism. To institute checks and balances over decisions associated with key public facilities (major airports, highway interchanges, and national parks) that may be disruptive of local plans. Although there are great environmental expectations-of this bill, it does not declare a federal policy for protecting any-thing. Significantly, there are developmental as well as environmental provisions. The bill does, however, require the states to have a process for assuring that development is controlled and regulated in accordance with comprehensive policies. Thus, the National Land Use Policy Act is very much like NEPA. Obviously, the impact to be made by this legislation depends on how the states respond. Land Use and Coastal Zone A Federal Perspective by Lance Marston The National Land Use Act establishes a grant-in-aid program which involves about $100 million per year over the next eight years for the purpose of helping states develop land use programs. -* It represents a significant federal concern over state-local relations and is designed to be an integral part of comprehensive state planning. It attempts to strengthen the state control mechanism for overcoming two principal restraints that prevent local governments from dealing effectively with regional issues. First the bill recognizes the simple fact that local governments have limited juris- diction and lack economic incentives to conserve the environmentally critical areas. Second, it recognizes their dependence for about two-thirds of their resources on property tax. While the revenue sharing and property tax issues are extremely important to the accomplishment of the objectives, they are not dealt with in the National Land Use Policy Act. It is apparent that the states, if they are to be successful in implementing the bill, are going to have to deal with the problem squarely when, for example, they reverse or deny a local government decision to allow development of a wetland that might otherwise bring in local revenues. The land use bill is a regulatory bill; it does not contain provisions for acquisition. It does not create new means for public control over private land use decisions. The bill is a conscious attemi)t to strengthen existing means of public control. However, given the reality that additional lands are needed for public recreation, for example, the possibility of linking acquisition with the land use bill is encouraged, especially at the state level where other federal programs are being funded. The land use bill provides for adequate provisions at the state level for assuring the same kind of environmental review, public participation and so forth that is now required at the federal level by NEPA. Although the National Land Use Policy Act is specifically alluded to herein similar remarks are appropriate for the Coastal Zone Management Act. -3- The land use bill only alludes to the interstate issue. There is no interstate conflict resolution mechanism, and thus it does not effectively deal, for example, with the problems of small states where major metro- politan areas are under the. control of more than one state. This particular area needs to be the subject of a great deal more attention. To be effective the state land use program must involve an honest reconciliation of environmental interests with social concerns. The environ- mental protection orientation cannot be allow ed to become a cover for exclusion- ary objectives. Should this happen the very legitimacy of the environmental movement will come under severe questioning, resulting in a ten year step backward. The bill requires state attention to the following: state authority over land use and development in areas of critical .environmental concern state authority over land use impacted by h2y facilities state authority over large scale sub-divisions and large .scale developments state authority over land use of regional benefit The bill clearly calls upon state governments to concern themselves with matters of interregional and statewide significance. However the legis- lative history is quite clear in that the Congress will not tolerate delays on the part of the states. The Congressional mood is to get something that will work and if it takes federal intervention then Congress will take these kinds of steps. The introduction of legislation like the bill to promote public access to beaches by declaring the maximum federal interest says something about where the Congress is headed. and more importantly how patient they are going to be concerning implementation of the land use bill by the states. -4- 1972 Water Quality Amendments by Joseph Krivak Chief, Planning & Standards Branch, Division of Planning, Office of Air and Water Programs Environmental Protection Agency The water quality bill establishes a national policy for the elimination of pollution discharges into navigable waters by 1985. In order to achieve the objectives the bill provides for financial aid for both plan preparation and facilities construction. The bill requires preparation of several types of plans and a statewide planning process. The allocation of grants for treatment works along with a permit system for discharges are linked to the various plans. The planning mandate is woven throughoui the entire pollution abate- ment strategy. The greatest emphasis, at least initially, will be on major urban areas with heavy concentrations of industrial activity and/or population. The bill requires near term attention by the states to these areas by requiring submittal of planning processes in a relatively short period of fime. The purpose of this emphasis is to ensure through state efforts that the planning is sufficiently underway to enable it to be used as the principal decision- making tool at the local and state levels for program implementation. It is envisioned that the planning process will be the decision-making tool for both the financial assistance afforded by the federal government and the regulatory permit program of the state. The thrust of the 1972 amendments is to reenforce the state activities by delegating to the states the responsibility for the enforcement of the 1899 Refuse Act. The states will be required to develop a state permit system for point discharges. This will provide the full opportunity for the states to be the enforcement agency. Federal enforcement will occur only when the state's permit program is violated to the extent that federal action is required to bring about the objectives of the bill. This view by EPA emphasizes the need for each state to tie together all the land use implications relate d to the environment and natural resource allocations. The states will be given the entire responsibility for environ- mental planning, including solid and liquid -wastes, recreation, flood control and flood plain management. Consequently it is in the best interest of the states to develop a totally coordinated program regardless of what federal actions there are. There will be real rewards since implementation must lie at the state and local levels. -6- Organizations and Programming for Federal-State and Interstate Coordination of Resource Planning Dr. Helen Ingram* Associate Professor of Political Science Several alternatives exist for coordinating federal-state and interstate resource planning. State by state, agency by agency, and program by program approaches to these three bills will run into environmental problems. A fourth, and more promising approach is to review and improve present regional arrangements to determine what roles they can play in the planning and implementation of these bills. To be effective, a revised regional apprbach must include the following: 1. Integration at a regional level. Single-purpose approaches to the environment are not adequate. Instead, what is needed is the development of multi-purpose natural resource relationships at the regional level. 2. Integration at a geographical level. Federal programs must be planned and administered with the participation of states and local areas to minimize the problem of different levels of government working at cross-purposes. This kind of coordination should be initiated in the planning stage rather than the implementation stage. 3. Source of expert information. Regional structures should serve as a vehicle for identifying and evaluating regional environmental natural resource conditions, trends, problems in order to recommend appropriate changes in federal, state and local policies and programs. 4. Leadership. To assure positive coordination, that is, planning independent of any one program interest, the regional entity must have the capacity to exercise leadership. A substantial information base and a first rate staff are requirements for this necessary leadership quality. The complete text of Dr. Ingram's report can be found in Appendix A of this report. 5. Responsive and representative structure. Electing agency members does not necessarily result in responsive and representative structure since candidates often have built-in interests. Competition between diverse interests is a better way of operationalizing repre- sentation. It provides more access to bargaining arenas, generates information and alternatives and can alert interested parties that might be involved in the decision. 6. Action. This is not to say that a regional body be given implementing authority; to do so violates the federal assistance system. Instead, if the planning body is both representative and responsive, i. e. both citizens and public officials participate in the planning process, commitment to implementation of the plan is facilitated. It also 'helps if there are links to the sources of funding -- that is, political support in the Office of Management and Budget and Congress. 7. Political viability. This involves developing a regional consciousness within the effected states -- a sense of common goals. Furthermore, the regional agency itself can improve its political viability by providing inducements and rewards to encourage partic- ipation byboth federal agencies and the states. There are too many regional agencies in New England for any kind of unified regional focus based on these criteria to develop. The NERBC and New England Regional Commission both have a broad scope@ but NERBC would appear to be the best cornerstone for building a more adequate regional institution. That is not to say that the NERBC doesn't have some fundamental problems. For one thing, water is too narrow a subject even though 11water and related land resources" has been an elastic kind of concept. Ultimately, what is needed is a natural resource commission with a broader environmental emphasis, of which river basins is a part. Also, in terms of geographical integration, NERBC has to do a better job of serving the states, not federal agencies particularly in the light of the three new bills. Achieving this integration is a two-way street and the states will need to help support the regional agency financially. Further- more, representation and participation is still a problem. NERBC has made real efforts toward public participation in the planning processes in Southeastern New England Study and Long Island Sound Study but the public doesn't really take regional organizations seriously enough to become meaningfully involved. This problem, of course, relates directly to the criteria of political viability and action orientation. The key to achieving these goals is for NERBC to broaden its scope beyond water to other resource problems. State Organizations and Programming for Coordination of Resource Planning by Dr. Richard Slavin Effective coordination of state resource planning involves essen- tially five areas of concern: 1) citizen participatory planning. Now that the concept of citizen participation in resource planning has been accepted, the real problem is how best to open up the planning process to permit meaningful citizen particiDation. 2) policy planning vs. program planning Planning is gen- erally characterized by a combination of incremental changes. The best way to achieve this kind of change in state planning is through the budget structure. The ongoing evolution of programs represents roughly 8876 of the total planning effort. However, the most chal- lenging part of planning, and the part the governors are primarily interested in, is the other 12% -- policy planning -- the intro- duction of new concepts (whether they be federal or their own) into the state establishment. The big question with particular reference to the new bills is where@ institutionally, should this 121/o of the planning process be located? To what extent should the governors be involved? Should there be commissions? These mechanisms need to be worked out since the bills allude to none of this. 3) multi-county or areawide plannin . Local officials are often suspicious of areawide resource planning -Luiits because they view them as encroaching upon their own jurisdictions. For areawide planning groups to be effective they need financial support from state and federal governments to keep them out of a position of subservience to local governments. In addition, the areawide planning unit requires a mandate from the state legislature to be- come truly effective. _10- 4) interstate planning. In the f ederal- state -local relation- ship, the main concern of this Conference, there are three regional groups with potential: river basin commissions, regional commissions (Title V ), and regional councils. As currently structured in New England, none of these units have the scope to handle the new bills. NERBC, as indicated in your staff report, will have to be expanded considerably, though it obviously comes the closest. It is limited by its water and related land orientation. The Title V New England Regional Commission's federal representation is limited to Commerce and its scope is even more narrow. The third group, the regional councils, are the most ignored but could, if strengthened by the states and provided with the authority, staff, expertise, and responsibility required for the states to implement the new bills, also provide a viable alternative. 5) local planning. Local governments have to be convinced that zoning and planning are two different things and that state plan- ning will not necessarily supercede local powers of zoning. 6) the entrance of lawyer.s, with model codes. At least one state has adopted ALI model codes as a quasi-judicial planning solution to the zoning relationships between state and local govern- ments. However, this represents only a small part of the total plan- ning involved in land use and its relationship to the federal and state governments. Reactions - Panel of State and Local Officials William R. Adams Maine Department of Environmental Protection In Maine we are viewing these new bills, particularly the land use bill, as a last opportunity to establish decent controls. We have had and survived our own state reorganization. We have a new Department consisting of Bureaus of Water Quality Control, Air Quality Control and Land Quality Control. In short, we are ready for these bills, we want them, and we think we can run with them if the federal government gives us the field and the equip- ment to implement them. Within this framework, I want to make three points which apply to Maine and, I am sure, to the other New England states as well. First, the public is ready. It wants to be heard and it wants its views reflected in planning and implementation 'of resource programs. It has been our experience that meaningful public participation 'must occur at the grass roots level. It cannot be accomplished in Washington; it is difficult to achieve at the regional level; and, quite frankly, it is just as difficult at the state level. Second, both the public and the state officials are tired of taking inventories and framing plans. The public is no longer interested in endless rounds of planning and meetings. They want action. I hope that we at the state level, and those at the regional and federal levels, can keep our goals clear. Even my own people begin to forget what they are there for which is to establish viable and enforceable land use, water quality, and coastal zone controls and not to see how many rules, plans, and guidelines we can prepare. Third, with specific reference to these bills, I would hope that when the federal officials begin to construct guidelines for _1Z_ these bills, they back them with sufficient implementation funds. And if the dollars don't come, I would hope that they will recognize the need to modify their guidelines in line with the funding available. In short, let's recognize that without the proper equipment we have to crawl before we can walk and walk before we can run. -13- Reactions - Panel of State and Local Officials The Hon. Audrey Beck Connecticut State Representative I would like to address myself to several issues which have importance when we view the impact of regional resource planning on the states. Economic Development vs: Environmental Considerations To begin with, when we talk about coordinating the powers of the state at the interstate level it must be admitted that, by and large, regional planning has not gone where we who were most devoted to it should have brought it. This state of affairs has come about largely because we, the states, have not backed those agencies with sufficient funding to provide the thrust to combine planning and development activities and facilitate the coordination of resource plan- ning at the state and regional level. At issue'is not merely the question of who integrates the planning actions, but the whole qu estion of resource development in general. The NERBC in its staff report acknowledges these issues when it suggests that it is not enough to combine responsibility for water quality, land use and coastal zone planning in one agency within the state but that it would be necessary to establish some kind of agency with comprehensive respon- sibility in order to integrate social, economic and natural resource considerations into a single set of statewide policies. In other words, how can we expand beyond the framework of river basin planning into land use planning and, beyond that, to the fundamental struggle of economic development versus resource cons ervation- environmental consideration. -14- Political Viability It is necessary to move away from what has traditionally been an adversary situation between Title V regional commissions and groups like the NERBC to one of coordination at the inter- state level. Furthermore, in order to have effective plans, i. e. , plans that are politically viable, it is necessary to have good relationships, that is, meaningful ongoing feed- back, with the politicians at the state level, including repre- sentatives of the governors, on the one hand, and the legis- lature on the other, so that these plans are acceptable with- in the.state, thereby providing support in dealing with the various federal departments. Public Participation The major roadblock to effective and open public participation is the difficulty of determining who, represents the public. The question, at the commission level, is not so much one of appointment vs. election of these representatives required by federal guidelines, but rather the determination of who constitute s the "public" -- is the "public" only those who are.directly affected by a proposed. plan or is it also a larger regional population. The federal guidelines must take into account this central question of who constitutes a representative public at the public hearing process. Planning Credibility Finally, this conference has also raised the question of the credibility of planners, and of planning for what purposes. We have to bring together the ends and the means so that the public, governor and the legislatures don't feel as if the money for special projects has been thrown away. In this -15- regard, and by way of conclusion, the most critical contribution NERBC could make to the process of land use policy is to build expertise to bring these divergent groups together. -16- River Basin Commissions The President is authorized to declare the establishment of a river basin commission upon request by the Water Resources Council or a request addressed to the Council by a State within which all or part of the basin or basins concerned are located, if the request by the Council or by a State (1) defines the area, river basin, or group of related river basins for which a commission is requested; (2) is made in writing by the Governor or in such a manner as State law may provide, or by the Council ;and (3) is concurred in by the Council and by not less than one-half of the States within which portions of the basin or,basins concerned are located, and, in the event the Upper Colorado River Basin is involved, by at least three of the four States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, or, in the event the Columbia River Basin is involved, by at least three of the four States of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. Each river basin commission is composed of a chairman; one mem- ber from each designated Federal department or agency having substantial interest in the work of the commission; one member from each State lying wholly or partially within the area, river basin, or group of river basins for which the commission was established; one member representing any interstate agency created by a Congres- sionally approved interstate compact, whose jurisdiction wholly or partially coincides geographically with that of the commission; and, when deemed appropriate by the President, one member representing any international commission whose jurisdiction extends into those areas for which the river basin commission is established. Each commission is to: (1) Serve as the principal agency for the coordination of Federal, State, interstate, local, and nongovernmental plans for the develop- ment of water and related land resources in its area, river basin, or group of river basins. (2) Prepare and keep up to date, to the extent practicable, a compre- hensive, coordinated, joint plan for Federal, State, interstate, local, and nongovernmental development of water and related land resources. (3) Recommend long-range schedules of priorities for the collection and analysis of basic data and for investigation, planning, and con- struction of projects. 1-3 (4) Foster and undertake such studies of water and related land resources problems in its area, river basin, or group or river basins as are necessary in the preparation of the comprehensive, coordinated, joint plan. (5) Submit to the Council and the Governor of each participating State a report on its work at least once each year. (6) Submit to the Council a comprehensive, coordinated, joint plan, or any major portion thereof or necessary revisions thereof, for water and related land resources development in the area for which such commission was established. (7) Submit to the Council, at the time of submitting such plan, any recommendations it may have for continuing the functions of the commission and for implementing the plan, including means of keeping the plan up to date. Notices of initiated investigations should be sent to the-. chairman of the appropriate commissions: Great Lakes Basin Commission City Center Building 220 East Huron Street Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108 (Z copies) New England River Basins Commission Room 205 55 Court Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (2 copies) Ohio River Basin Cornmission 36 East 4th Street, Suite 208-20 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 (2 copies) Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission P.O. Box 908 I Columbia River Vancouver, Washington 98660 (2 copies) Souris -Red-Rainy River Basins Commission Suite 6, Professional Building Holiday Mall Moorhead, Minnesota 56560 (Z copies) 1-4 Missouri River Basin Commission C/o U.S. Water Resources Council Suite 800 2120 L Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20037 Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission c/o U.S. Water Resources Council Suite 800 2120 L Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20037 R-6/72 1-4A RIVER BASIN COMMISSIONS . ..... .. SOURIS-RED RAINY ............... c .. .. .......... o .... @T LAK S GRE M I-S S 0 U R I . . .... ER UPF ... ... B A ... .......... s I S I.PP I GREA 7- BA @/N UP ...... PE 0 H I COLORA Do CALIFORNIA X 0 ARKANSAS-WHITE-RED oKLARomA ARM TiXAS LOWr7p "I f s j j4 GIA R's"iA COLORADO RIO -OWE N -T H Soo GRANDE tst A P'NTIc GUI ,TL FLORIDA TEXAS GULF ALASKA HAWAII ESTABLISHED ...00 vrpw PF rvrwrl"wr" 'OFF"" Inter-Agency Committees The field inter-agency committees are under the aecris of the W Water Resou rces Council. The committees' objecti'ves are to provide, in their particular area, improved facilities and procedures for the coordination of policies, programs, and activities of their members in the field of water and related land resources investigations, planning, construction, operation, and maintenance; to provide means by which conflicts may be resolved; and to provide procedures for coordination of their interests with other Federal, local governmental, and private agencies in the water and related land resources field. The committees coordinate the following: (1) Collection and interpretation of basic data, (Z) investigation and planning of water and related land resources projects and programs, and (3) programming and scheduling of water and related land resources construction and development. Copies of notices announcing the initiation of investigations should be sent to the current chairman of the appropriate committee: Copp Collins Brig. Gen. Frank A. Camm. Chairman. Chairman Arkansas -White -Red Basins Pacific Southwest Inter-Agency Inter-Agency Committee Committee 40301 Federal Building Corps of Engineers, South Albuquerque, NewMexico 87101 Pacific Division (Z copies) 630 Sansome Street, Room lZ16 San Francisco, California 94111 (Z copies) J.W. Woodruff, Jr. Chairman Southeast Basins Inter-Agency Committee Room 402, Walton Building Atlanta, Georgia 30303 V R-6/72 1-5 WATER RESOURCES COUNCt INTERAGENCY COMMITTEES MIR DaorA Li, IN f Sol & SOUTH wiscamig 0007A @t(fllsm j 7 --- ---- - IOWA CRAVA XASAS PACIFIC 3 s 0ujH WES ARKAN5AS'WH&t!RED 'BAsit4s-- 00 L A S K. A Q-N '2 v v wr pow Financial Grants to States Under Title III of the Water Resources Planning Act, the Council can make financial grants to the States, Puerto Rico, the Vi rgin Islands, and the District of Columbia "to assist them in develop- ing and participating in the development of comprehensive water and related land resources plans. " The authorization ceiling is $5, 000, 000 per year over a 10-year period ending June 30, 1976. From monies appropriated for this purpose, the Council makes allotments to the States on the basis of (1) population, (2) the land area, (3) the comparative need for comprehensive water and re- lated land resources planning programs, and (4) the financial need of the respective States. "From each State's allotment under this section for any fiscal year the Council shall-pay to such State an amount which is not more than 50 per centum of the cost of carrying out its State program approved under section 303, including the cost of training personnel for carrying out such program and the cost of administering such program. Under Section 303 of the Act, the Council is required to approve any program for comprehensive water and related land resources planning submitted by a State, if the program conforms to six statutory provisions. One of these provisions requires the State to designate a State agency to administer the program. The Rules and Regulations for Title III of the Act define the "State agency" as a permanent agency of the State designated by State law or, in the absence of such State law, by the Governor to ad- minister and coordinate a State comprehensive water and related land resources planning program, and to act as liaison with the Council. The following list shows the designated agencies for the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the 50 States that made applications for fiscal year 1 971. 6 _4L, DESIGNATED STATE AGENCIES Alabama Connecticut Mr. R. C. Bamberg Director Mr. Dan W. Lufkin, Commissioner Alabama Development Office Department of Environmental Protection State Office Building Room 539, State Office Building Montgomery, Alabama 36104 165 Capital Avenue (A. C. 205 - 269-7171) Hartford, Connecticut 06115 (A. C. 203 - 566-4255) Alaska Delaware Mr. Charles F. Herbert, Com. Yyonorable Austin N. Heller, Secretary Dept. of Environmental Conservation Dept. of Nat. Res. & Environmental Pouch M Control Juneau, Alaska 99801 Natural Resources Building (A. C. 206 - 442-0150, ask for Dover, Delawar(@ 19901 586-6352) (A. C. 302 - 678-4000) Arizona District of Columbia Mr. Wesley E. Steiner Mr. Paul V. Freese, Director Executive Director Water Resources Mgmt. Admin. Arizona Water Commission Dept. of Environmental Services 34 West Monroe Street, Suite 707 415 - 12th Street, N. W. Phoenix, Arizona 35003 Washington, D. C. 20004 (A. C. 602 258-7561) (A. C. 202 - 629-4496) Arkansas Florida Mr. J. P. Saxton Mr. Randolph Hodges Acting Director Executive Director Department of Commerce Department of Natural Resources Div. of Soil and Water Resources Larson Building Little Rock, Arkansas 7ZZ01 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (A. C. 501 - 371-1611) (A. C. 904 - 224-7141) California Georgia Mr. William R. Gianelli Mr. Tom Linder, Jr. , State Planning Director and Community Affairs Officer Department of Water Resources State Plannina, Bureau P.O. Box 388 270 Washington Street, S. W. Sacramento, California 95802 Atlanta, Georgia 30334 (A. C. 916 - 445-6582 (A. C. 404 - 524-1521) Colorado Hawaii Mr. Felix L. Sparks, Director Honorable Sunao Kido, Chairman Colorado Water Conservation Bd. Dept. of Land and Natural Resources 1845 Sherman Street Box 373 102 Columbine Building Honolulu, Hawaii 96809 Denver, Colorado 80203 (A. C. 808 548-7533) cc: Gov. John A. Love (Chairman) (A. C. 303 22Z-9911 Ext. 2333) R- 6/7Z 1-7 Idaho Maine Dr. Robert R. Lee Mr. Philip M. Savage State Planning Director Director Idaho Water Resource Board State Planning Office ,-ROW State House 189 State Street Boise, Idaho 83707 Augusta, Maine 04330 (A. C. Z08 - 384-ZI70) (A. C. 207 - 289-3261) Illinois Ma ryland Mr. Ray C. Dickerson, Director Mr. Thomas C. Andrews Illinois Department of Business Administrative Officer and Economic Development Md. Department of Natural Resources 222 South College Street State Office Building Springfield, Illinois 62706 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 (A. C. 217 - 525-6135) (A. C. 301 - 268-3371 Ext. 508) Indiana Massachusetts - Mr. John R. Lloyd Mr. Charles F. Kennedy, Dir. & Ch. Eng. Director Water Resources Commission Indiana Department of Nat. Res. Leverett Saltonstall Bldg. , Govt. Center 608 State Office Building 100 Cambridge Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Boston, Massachusetts 02202 (A. C. 317 - 633-6344) (A. C. 617 - 727-3267) Iowa Michigan Mr. Othie R. McMurry, Director Mr. Ralph W. Purdy Iowa Natural Resources Council Executive Secretary James Grimes Bldg. Water Resources Commission East 14th and Grand Avenue Stevens T. Mason Building Des Moines, Iowa 50319 Lansing, Michigan 48926 (A. C. 515 281-5913) (A. C. 517 - 373-3560) Kansas Minnesota Mr. Keith S. Krause, Ex. Director Mr. Gerald W. Christenson Kansas Water Resources Board Director 4th Floor, Mills Bldg. Minnesota State Planning Agency 109 West 9th St. St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Topeka, Kansas 66612 (A. C. 612 - 221-6662) (A. C. 913 - 296-3185 Kentucky Mississippi Mr. James S. Shropshire Mr. Jack W. Pepper Commissioner Water Engineer Commonwealth of Kentucky Miss. Bd. of Water Commissioners Department of Natural Resources 416 North State Street Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 Jackson, Mississippi 39ZO1 (A. C. 502 - 564-3350) (A. C. 601 - 354-7236) Louisiana Missouri Mr. C. H. Downs Mr. Clifford L. Summers Director Executive Director La. State Dept. of Public Works Water Resources Board Capitol Station - P.O. Box 44155 P.O. Box 271 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804 Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (A. C. 504 389-6287) (A. C. 314 635-9251) R- 6/72 1-8 M ontana North Carolina Mr. Gary J. Wicks , Director Col. George E.' Pickett, Dir 'ector Dept. of Nat. Res. & Conservation N. C. Dept. of Water & Air Resources Mitchell Bldg. P.O. Box 27048 v4W Helena, Montana 59601 Raleigh, North Carolina Z7611 (A. C. 406 - 449-3648) (A. C. 919 - 829-3003) Nebraska North Dakota Mr. Dayle Williamson Mr. Milo W. Hoisveen Executive Secretary Engineer -Secretary Nebr. Soil & Water Conservation Com. North Dakota State Water Comm. P.O. Box 94725 900 E. Boulevard Lincoln, Nebraska 68509 Bismarck, North Dakota 58501 (A. C. 402 - 471-2311) (A. C. 701 - 224-2753) .Nevada Ohio Mr. Elmo J. DeRicco, Director Mr. William B. -Nye Department of Conservation Director and Natural Resources Department of Natural Resources 201 South Fall Street Ohio Departments Building Carson City, Nevada 89701 Columbus, Ohio 43Z15 (A. C. 702 - 882-7482) (A. C. 614 - 469-3770) New Hampshire Oklahoma Miss Mary Louise Hancock Mr. Forrest R. Nelson Planning Director Executive Director Office of State Planning Oklahoma Water Resources Board State House Annex 2241 N. W. 40th Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 7311Z (A. C. 603 - 271-ZI55) (A. C. 405 - 528-7800) New Jersey Oregon 34r. Richard J. Sullivan Mr. Fred D. Gustafson, Director Commissioner Oregon Water Resources Board Dept. of Environmental Protection 1158 Cherneketa N. E. P.O. Box 1390 Salem, Oregon 97310 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 (A. C. 503 - 378-3671) (A. C. 609 - 292-2886) New Mexico Pennsylvania Mr. S. E. Reynolds Dr. Maurice K. Goddard Secretary Secretary Interstate Stream Commission Dept. of Environmental Resources State Capitol P. 0. Box 1467 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 (A. C. 505 - 827-2128) (A. C. 717 787-2814) New York Puerto Rico Mr.* Henry L. Diamond Mr. Cruz A. Matos Commissioner Executive Director New York State Department Environmental Quality Board of Environmental Conservation P.O. Box 11785 50 Wolf Road Santurce, Puerto Rico 00910 Albany, New York 12201 (A. C. 809 725-5140 (A. C. 518 457-3446) R_ 6/72 1-9 Rhode Island Virginia Mr, Robert B. Russ Mr. M.M. Sutherland, Director Chief Engineer & General Manager Department of Conservation and Water Resources Board Economic Development 265 Melrose Street 911 E. Broad Street Proviaence, Rhode Island 02907 Richmond, Virginia 23219 (A. C. 401 - Z77-ZZ17) (A. C. 703 - 770-2121) South Carolina Virgin Islands Mr. Clair P. Guess, Jr. No designation Executive Director S. C. Water Res. Commission 2414 Bull Street Columbia, S. C. 29201 (A. C. 803 - 758-2514) South Dakota Washington Mr. J.W. Grimes Mr. John A. Biggs Chief Engineer Director Water Resources Commission Department of Ecology State Office Bldg. 335 General Administration Bldg. Pierre, South Dakota 57501 Olympia, Washington 98504 (A. C. 605-ZZ4-3584) (A. C. 206 - 753- 2240) Tennessee West Virginia Mr. Leonard K. Bradley, Director Mr. Ira S. Latimer, Jr. Office of Urban & Federal Affairs Director Suite 1025 Department of Natural Resources Andrew Jackson State Office Bldg. State Office Building 3 Nashville, Tennessee 37219 Chayleston, WestVirginia 25305 (A. C. 615 - 741-2714) (A. C. 304 - 348-Z754) Texas Wisconsin Mr. Harry P. Burleigh Mr. Lester P. Voigt, Secretary Executive Director Wisc. Dept. of Natural Resources Texas Water Development Board Box 450 P. 0. Box 13087, Capitol Station Madison, Wisconsin 53701 Austin, Texas 78711 (A. C. 608 - 266-2121) (A. C. 512 - 475-3187) Utah Wyoming Mr. Daniel F. Lawrence Mr. Floyd A. Bishop, State Engr. Director Wyo. Water Planning Program Department of Natural Resources State Office Building 435 State Capitol Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 cc: Mr. Frank J. Trelease, Director (A. C. 801 - 328-5401) (A. C. 307 777- 7354) Vermont Dr. Martin L. Johnson Commissioner Dept. of Water Resources Agency of Environmental Conservation State Office Bldg. Montpelier, Vermont 05602 (A. C. 802 - ZZ3-231 I-Ext. 238) R-6/72 1-10 Reactions - Panel of State and Local Officials Joan Flood League of Women Voters Inter-League Committee on the Connecticut River Basin As the representative of the League of Women Voters, I have naturally been particularly concerned with today's discussion on the issue of citizen participation in the planning process. I don't think it is any secret that, while everybody is talking about it, no one has come up with the best formula for assuring the public a meaningful role in resource planning. We are still trying to define what is meant by "meaningful participation", and we are still trying to determine how the public can best be represented. In this regard, I would like to inject a few comments. It has generally been the case that public hearings and meetings are held when the planning unit feels it has something in the way of a prelimi- nary plan to discuss. . That is too late. A far more useful alternative is to hold that meeting at the very beginning -- at that point where a problem has been identified and everyone simply sits around to determine what they are there for and why. Such a procedure could very well eliminate the adversary roles which hamper hearings held later on. Start early and don't worry about polished phrases. Furthermore, more consideration needs to be given to who should represent the ''public". More often than not the citizens who receive notice of and participate in the hearing process consist of middle to upper class professional types. Since resource planning and development affects everyone, citizens at every socio-economic level should be represented whenever possible, particularly those from the area where the problem is most imminent. In addition, my colleagues in the League and I feel very strongly that you can have far more meaningful citizen participation action at the regional planning level than at the state level. The same comment holds -17- for really thoughtful and adequate utilization of the resources of the region. Finally, I would simply like to say that I am impressed with the kind of assistance the NERBC is giving to the states through the vehicle of this kind of conference. The resource of information, communication and expertise that the Commission has to offer is vitally needed by the states. -:18- Reactions - Panel of State and Local Officials Robert H. Marden Massachusetts Assistant Secretary for Planning and Intergovernmental Relations The new Land Use, Coastal Zone Management and Water Quality bills represent an exciting challenge and a great opportunity for integrated resource planning at the state level. However, a great deal of groundwork will be required to disentangle the byzantine administrative structures that we have inherited from the past. First, translating new policy into concrete programs will require extensive state reorganization -- within the institutional structure and within the budget system. Thus, perhaps the most immediate need is for the states individually to put their resource planning and management houses in order before we can expect to cope with the problems of how to deal with out federal brethren. This does not mean putting off the issues of federal-state coordination. It means simply that the first priority at the state level shoul d be administrative reorganization. Second, I think that there is no question that the role being envisaged for sub-state or areawide entities, whatever we may call them, will be far different, far more operational than has been the case previously. If they are to accomplish the goals which have so kindly been delegated to them, we are going to have to strengthen them considerably. We will have to deal more effectively with water quality management, with trans- portation planning, with public and regional inputs, with land use and residential development, with projected waste production and treatment. These are the issues which have all come together at once. Third, just as the areawide planning groups must coordinate the various planning programs dealing with these issues, the same is true -at the interstate level. It has previously been mentioned that we have more than enough regional entities in New England. We do not need any- -19' more. What we need to do is organize and strengthen existing regional entities to work effectively with the states. Fourth, it is also quite clear that a great deal more effort will need to be made in opening the planning process at every level. to citizen participation. While this has long been a clear policy in Massachusetts, it is not easily accomplished. And it willnot be accomplished. by a few makeshift public hearings. That will no longer suffice. For one thing, there are lawyers out there now who will take us to court if we do not consider citizen inputs. Finally, -after all the reorganization, planning, participation and coordination, a base line will have to be drawn. We must make decisions. By whatever process is developed, action must result. -20- Reactions - Panel of State and Local Officials James Mitchell Special Assistant to Maine's Governor Curtis This Conference has been divided essentially into two parts: the study of pending federal legislation and the study of the regional organizations required to implement that legislation. I have two very simple points to make, one related to each section of the Conference. The first is that if the federal government does not give us the moneywe will not be able to meet the guidelines. We're $14 million behind today in our water quality bill. If you give us guidelines and do not back them up with money, we are going to end up in court that is our only recourse. Secondly, there is still no single really viable regional organization. The three regional groups suggested by Dr. Slavin -- the New England Regional Commission, the New England River Basins Commission, and a Federal Regional Council -- will not work as currently structured. The New England Regional Commission, though its organization is ideal- -- a cochairman appointed by the governors, a cochairman appointed by Washington, and seats for the governors on the Commission -- is still too narrowly oriented because its inputs all come through Commerce. The New England River Basins Commission does not have enough money to give out and thus is not program oriented enough. The Federal Regional Councils are probably the worst of all: each of the representatives of federal agencies to the Council reports back to his own agency. Only when the head of the Regional Council has to report directly to Washington is he going to be more responsive to that Council than to his home agency. However, the elements of proper organ- ization bxist in each of these organizations. The River Basins Commission has a Washington appointed chairman; the Regional Council has wide repre- sentation; and the Regional Commission has enough gubernatorial input. What needs to be done to have a viable regional organization is to combine those three elements with program monies. Reactions - Panel of State and Local Officials Charles Tucker Southeastern New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission The regional planner, especially at the areawide level, faces pressures from several quarters. Perhaps the most difficult issues to resolve are those with inter-regional or interstate implications. As an example, the Southeastern New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission is presently involved in several conflicts of importance to the New England area. They include: drilling for oil 50 miles off the New Hampshire coast esta blishment of a large coastal oil terminal a proposal to dredge 9 million cubic yards of sand and gravel from our beaches to be uscd to expand Logan Airport a proposal to make Pease Air Force Base an alternative to Logan when the base is phased out as a military'facility the construction of two, perhaps four, atomic power plants on a site adjacent to our largest salt marsh These issues are less important or appropriate to this Conference than the question of what level of government should make these decisions decisions which obviously will have significant regional implications. If the decisions are made at the federal level, experience has shown us that the administrative agencies will move very slowly and the bureaucrats or their appointees will move in whatever direction the current executive deems correct and in the National Interest. If the decision is made at the other end of the scale, that is, at the local level, we can expect that anything which will contribute tax revenues to the town will pass, no matter what effect that might have on the environment in general and the coastal zone in particular. A decision at the state level in New Hampshire's best interest -2.2- might well mean no power plant, no off shore oil drilling, no oil terminals, no dredging and no Logan alternative. Obviously such a decision would leave Massachusetts in a difficult position and would place a major roadblock in front of future interstate planning - rograms. P It would appear that some better decision-making mechanism is required. The problem of who will make the decisions is also a thorny one. Should it be the voters, or their elected governor'? Will it be the individuals or corporations which finance political campaigns that will have the final say? Does the public hearing process really pro- vide a forurxY for meaningful citizen participation in such decisions ? These are the real issues at the areawide level that the regional planner is forced to deal with. 23- Reactions Panel of State and Local Officials Steve Weems Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection A principal theme running through this conference has been that of "interconnection, 11 a concept which is sound environmentally and one ' e should be cognizant of in planning and implementing these new pro- grams. But interconnection is not the only sound environmental and planning principle -- so is diversity. The trick is to find a balance between recognizing the interconnection between issues and yet allowing diversity of response to take place. With that as background, I would like to suggest-that there are four issues from the overall environmental perspective that are pertinent to this conference. First, there is the issue of public partici]2ation. There are two kinds of citizen participation: one takes place during the input or planning process to determine what people want and the other takes place during the policy and decision making process, though the commissioners of the state and the eletted representatives are ultirnately' responsible for any decision. Mechanisms to allow for this participation might in- clude a wide series of information briefings early in the planning process sponsored by the regional planning agency. Second, a comprehensive view is needed in land use planning. This is perhaps best served by a separate, non -functionally oriented agency. Third, there is the role of local government. In New England there is a long history of town meeting government which means that there is strong pressure for the major decision making authority to remain at the local level, though federal programs are appropriate when the implications are regional or national in character. And fourth, there is the link between functional planning and 2rogram implementation. In Connecticut we have an interagency comprehensive coordination mechanism in the form of a State Planning Council, though -24- frankly, up to now it has not been functioning and is in the process of being reactivated. Obviously, in the light of the new legislation, the State Planning Council will have a much more prominent role. 2.5 - I I I I I I I IL Other Comments on the Staff Report * I I I I I I I I I I * Including comments .on preliminary drafts. I I The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive office of Environmental Affairs CHARLES H. W FOSTER 18 Fremont Street Tel. 727-7700 Secretary Boston, Massachusetts 02108 August 10, 1972 R. Frank Gregg, Chairman New England River Basins Commission 55 Court Street Boston,Massachusetts 02108 Dear Frank: I have had a chance to look--over the staff document prepared by the Water Resources Council on the relationship of river basin commissions to land use planning. I found the analysis extremely informative, and am delighted that your next meeting will be de- voted to such a subject. I was particularly pleased with the suggestion that the New England River. Basins Commission could perform &.distinct service to the states in land use planning. This would be somewhat of a departure from previous experience which has found the states pri ily supportive of federal planning efforts, but entirely in accord with the basic philosophy of our own Commission. Arthur Brownell and I will discuss the possibilities in more detail, but in general I am. extremely supportive of your Commission playing a key role in the forthcoming land use planning programs. Sincere Charles H. W.Foster Secretary CHWF:hw ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 424 Trapelo Road Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 August 22, 1972 Mr. Frank Gregg, Chairman New England River Basins Commission 55 Court Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Dear Frank: Your analysis of the potential roles of river basin commissions in carrying out proposed legislation for water quality, land use and coast- al zone management explores fully the opportunities for the more active commissions such as yours to play a coordination role. The kind of nation- al land use' policy agency established and the vigor with which it acts will determine the need and opportunities for the c issions to exer- ciie strong leadership and regional policy formulation roles. Land use policy and its implementation at the state and regional level provide the common base for natural resource and development pro- grams, notably coastal zone management. Water quality management too, derives largely from decisions based on land use policy but, like land use policy, water quality management embraces evaluations of a host of complementary and competing uses. Thus, both land use and water quality management share a broad multiple-purpose prospective. Land use planning and the broader aspects of water quality management.then, provide a com- mon framework for objective setting, evaluation of alternative growth and conservation patterns, reconciliation of divergent uses, and decisions. As water quality programs move from remedial treatment measures to pre- ventive measures and alleviation of nonpoint sources, the interrelations with land use planning, density controls and other broad regulatory measures will become increasingly complex. The proposed water bills, for example, call for a regulatory program governing the location, mod- ification and construction of future discharges in an area. Likewise, this increasing dependence on land use policies holds for other resource management and development programs. For example, in developing better coordinated programs for both transportation and water quality planning, Massachusetts has asked for federal assistance through these programs to help fund the common land use planning base. It has,in fact, used some highway funds for such land use planning. Effective national land use policy requires giving a lead agency the responsibility to develop and coordinate a national land use policy, frame- work and common land use planning base to serve a number of client programs. If the functions of river basins commissions were expanded to embrace land use co-equal with water use as earlier proposed, they themselves might ex- ercise this strong leadership role systemiatitally throughout the country. If, however, the decision to establish an Office of Land Use Policy Admin- istration in Interior prevails, then the commission's role will depend on the relative vigor of leadership this office exercises coupled with the initiative and strength of the river basins c mission. The com- mission role-in New England might be relatively strong, but spotty and unsystematic throughout the nation as a whole. 2 In any event, c issions like yours could exercise the major respon- sibility in developing areawide Water Resources Council Level B to meet requirements for land use, water quality, and coastal zone management plans in major critical study areas such as Southeast New England and Long Island Sound where your c ission has been assigned study leadership. This pattern would continue to evolve for areas where critical multiple use conflicts are pending and the federal, state and regional agencies and citizens look to your commission for assistance in developing coor- dinated proposals for solutions. To be useful, Level B studies may have to go into the scope and detail called for in the land use, water quality and coastal zone management plans. in addition, many of the thorny issues such as power plantsiting are regionwide and common to land use, water quality and coastal zone planning. Your c@ission, for example, provides a vehicle for the complex federal, state local and private involvement in the proposed power plant siting study do direly needed. Lead agencies, such as EPA, Interior, Commerce and Transportation would, I believe, continue to keep (or assumd) the responsibility for planning and cootdi&ation with their respective missions. EPA, for example, would do the interagency as well as the intergovernmental coor- dination for these particulAr functions. EPA would coordinate the develop- ment and review of the required water quality management plans as well as monitor their implementation. The lead agency would exercise the responsibility for coordination of interstate standards. I look forward to following the evolution of your concept. FOR THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR: Sincerely yours, Bart Hague I// Chief Office of Special Environmental Studies P.S. Enclosed is a copy of Land, People and Recreation in the Potomac River Basin, which I have mentioned cc: Walter M. Newman August 28, 1972 R. Frank Gregg, Chairman New England River Basins commission Dear Frank: The Analysis of Potential Roles of River Basin Commissions in carrying out Proposed Programs of Natural Resource Planning (Draft August 2, 1972) is clear, concise and cogent. I am particularly concerned that pending federal legislation en- dorse, . enhance and accelerate the process (already underway) of coor- dination and integration of regional, state, interstate and federal agencies in land and water use planning. The necessary structure has been developed in the River Basin Commission and the sense of cooperation and mutuality of concern has emerged quite clearly. Building onthis will bring integrated planning and implementation to fruition in the near not distant future. Obviously, funding has been one of the major problems inhibiting close coordination and meaningful regional planning. Funding through the states will give these levels of government the satisfaction of leader- ship which they need. At the same time, by using the RBC they will have a built in regional viewpoint which will insure success. I second most heartily the sentiments expressed in the last para- graph on page 22 - by utilization of existing organizations (RBC) the regional coordination and cooperation called -for in the programs will be achieved. It seems to me that the development of federal guidelines will best be done in close cooperation with existing RBC's since they have been doing this on an ad hoc basis. One always worries about the intent and implementation of new legislation. It should build on the best in existing situations as well as raise the horizons of the affected agencies. I hope my thoughts have been helpful. Our water resource task force wrestled mostly with developing mechanisms for promoting integrated regional, state, interstate and federal management systems. Our report was responsive in part to the pending federal legislation. I'd have responded to your note sooner had I not been so involved in the task force report! Very truly yours, Isl Joan Flood Joan R. Flood Original hand written MISSOURI SUITE 403 RIVER BASIN 10050 REGENCY CIRCLE COMMISSION Omaha, Nebraska 68114 402/397-5714 September 6, 1972 Mr. R. Frank Gregg Chairman New England River Basins Commission 55 Court Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Dear Frank: I have reviewed with interest your analysis of the potential role of river basin commissions as it realates to the administration of coastal zone, land use and water quality legislation. It's my feeling that water quality planning has been anything other than comprehensive, coordinated and rational to date. Overall I was very much enlighteded by the interpretation which I felt added some new insights to my understanding of these bills. Certain interpretations you have made with relation to the potential rose of river basin commissions are music to a "planners" ear. When river basin commissions planning actually becomes a help in setting priorities for the expenditures of dollars for such things as sewage treatment plants, in my opinion that's when planning becomes effective. I would argue slightly harder than you have that planning is more than interpretation and coordination and should affect legislative budgets and programming. As a final thought and a very practial point, I hope that funds commensurate with responsibilities are provided if the charge is placed on river basin commissions to perform Level B studies for the entire USA by 1980! Appreciate your thoughtfulness in providing us a review copy of your draft analysis, it has been helpful to me and my staff. Keep up the good work. Sincerely, John W. Neuberger Chairman JWN/p FEDERAL RIVER BASIN COMMISION STATE: OF NF-w YORK "T,4@ DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION HENRY L. DIAMON 0 ALBANY COMMISSIONER September 7, 1972 Dear Frank: Governor Rockefeller has asked me to reply to y our request for comments on the document entitled "An Analysis of Potential Roles of River Basin C issions in Carrying Out Proposed Programs for Natural Resources Planning." The draft suggests that the river-basin commissions could provide coordination, technical assistance and advice to member states and Federal agencies in the proposed new programs for land use, coastal zone and water quality planning. Indications in pending legislation are that the states would be given the primary role to do the planning in these areas. In general, it appears that the states' involvement of river basin co issions in the three programs would require considerable additional time and staff effort on the part of the states, particularly for states such as New York which would be involved with many coffimissions. In some areas, such as those dealing with general interstate planning for water quality, flood plain manage- ment and other land use controls, and coastal zone manage- ment, the con issions could assist by providing advice and coordination. However, in these same areas the State agencies working with their Federal counterparts.would probably accomplish the detailed planning requirements more efficiently. The commission's work to date has been mostly genera .1 or reconnaissance type regional or basin studies, and not the more detailed project planning studies which are required for implementation. Also, much of the water quality, land use and coastal zoning planning wilL require studies in cooperation with regional planning and develop- ment organizations within the states and with other local entities. This State-local coordination is necessary for implementation, and New York has many cooperative arrange- ments of this nature established. Mr. Frank Gregg -2- September 7, 1972 We are not convinced at this time that it would be appropriate for the commissions to assume the additional responsibilities suggested in the draft document. With respect to the new water planning requirements, which appear to be the most imminent, the amount of detail expected to be necessary, and the direct relationship to implementation are particularly important aspects. Thank you for the opportunity to review the report. This is obviously very important. Sincerely, Commission Mr. Frank Gregg New England River Basins Commission 55 Court Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 DRANK C. DAVIS GOVENOR STATE OF VERMONT EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT MONTPELIER. VERMONT SEP 22 1972 Mr. Frank Gregg, Chairman New England River Basins Commission 55 Court Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Dear Mr. Gregg: This is to acknowledge your letter of August 7, and the analysis of pending legislation concerning water quality, land use and coastal zoning. I realize that current review must be somewhat speculative since the legislation is still pending; however, I believe at some point in time an analysis of what appears to be a growing diversity of federal requirements in regard to state planning programs would be most helpful to the states. While the Commission may be somewhat selective in the role it may fulfill, the states must respond to the planning requirements of all federal agencies. The pending legislation, from your report, appears to add additional programs. Sincerely, DCD:sa UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE Federal Building, Durham, New Hampshire 03824 @r. R. Frank Gregg, Chairman October 3, 1972 New England River Basins Commission 55 Court Street Boston, Massachusetts Dear Frank: We think your' staff did an exceptionally fine job in the preparation of a staff paper titled "Strategies for 'Natura Making." It provides a n-u-m-ge-r of principles in the planning and implementation of resource programs which should be of value to state and federal officials as well as the Commission. We have only several minor comments to make as to corrections that should be made in the report if it is ever redrafted. 1. Lines 9 through 15 on page B-12 seem to be referring to the Massachusetts Type 4 Study. In Line 12 we are not sure what "these studies" refer to. If it is intended to include waste disposal plans, this would be in error since the Massachusetts Type 4 has not dealt with this aspect of resource planning. 2. Type 4 river basin studies are a function of USDA with the Soil Conservation Service serving as lead agency. References made to Type 4 river basin programs such as the last sentence in the first paragraph on page B-12 should be regarded as USDA studies. 3. The word "resources" should be added after "natural" at the bottom of page B-11. 4. On page B-212 second complete paragraph, the "Soil Conservation Service" should be replaced with USDA since this is a planning function of SCS, FS and ERS. Sincerely, DonaltG.ABurbank State Conservationist UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION I JOHN F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING - ROOM 2303, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203 November 7, 1972 Mr. Frank Gregg New England River Basins Commission 55 Court Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Dear Frank, As we discussed,, I believe the River Basins Commission can make a substantial contribution to the effective implementation of the recently legislated Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Through the development of state guide plans for the northern states NERBC is currently actively involved in the coordination of State water quality management plans which can serve as the framework for the "continuing planning process" required of each state under Section 303(e) of the Act. In my opinion, two major provisions of the bill provide the key to additional NERBC contribution--Section 208 Areawide waste treatment management and Section 209 Basin planning. Under Section 208 areawide waste treatment management plans will be developed with integrated geographical coverage for entire states. NMC could provide the appropriate vehicle for interstate coordination in the development of these plans. This issue is particulaxly important in the development of plans for interstate rivers such as the Connecticut or Merrimack. The House of Representatives Committee Report indicatesthe importance with which the Committee views these plans as follows: "This section of the bill places emphasis on what the Committee considers the most important aspects of a water pollution control strategy.--- This planning process will provide a management concept to coordinate the many separate require- ments of this legislation in an effective attack for restoring our Nation's waters." Under Section 209 water and related land resources plans (level B) would be prepaxed for all basins in the United States with particular priority to those areas designated as areas of substantial water quality control problems under Section 208. Obviously, in New England these basin plans would be developed by NERBC. The House Committee Report clearly indicates that, "We can no longer act as if one environmental issue is not related to any other; ------ Even an issue as pressing as water quality cannot be considered or resolved without concurrent consideration of water quantity problems." These water resource plans would integrate water -2- quality plans into a total water resource management system. 'The issue of water related land management is of particular significance in the development of a sound water quality management program for New England. I believe that related land planning can be most effectively and successfully approached through NERBC. In simm ry then, I believe the Commission could be helpful in the effective implementation of the new water pollution legislation through (1) coordination of interstate water quality planning (2) development of water and related land resource plans in critical areas (3) coordination, integrati6n, and linkage of water quality plans to other water and related land resource plans with special emphasis on water related lands. A continuing effort on the northern state guide plans will provide a further major contribution. I hope these suggestions are helpful to you. Sincerely yours, /Y7, Walter M. Newman Chief Water Quality Branch L ER h6LANON A S; N S r, OM M IS'U;,' RECEIVED NOV 9 1972 EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT COUNCIL ON aNviptoNmawrAL QUALrry 722 JACKSON PLACE. N. W. WASHINGTON. D. C. 20006 November 7, 1972 Dear Mr. Gregg: Chairman Train has asked me to thank you for your letter of October 20 and the enclosed documents. The Council is generally in agreement with the points made by the staff paper. As noted by both the staff paper and by Dr. Ingram, the three major items of legislation all encourage regional coordination while placing primary emphasis on the States. The Council has encouraged the utilization of regional mechanisms to deal with natural resource problems. I should add two caveats. First, the implementation of the legislation will obviously shape the requirements contained in the bills, and it is too early to tell what form the implementing regulations and decisions will take. In the case of the land use bill, of course, we do not know what the legislation will contain. Second, we are not prepared to express a preference for the NERBC over other possible regional mechanisms in the New England area. We would be glad to be of whatever assistance we can to NERBC. If you would like to discuss this further please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, J Terry Davies Senior Staff Member Mr. Frank Gregg, Chairman New England River Basins Commission 55 Court Street RECE IVE D .Boston, Massachusetts 02108 0 1972 :-,r/kTE OF CONNECTICUT DE'PARTMENT OF FINANCE & CONTROL 4111 5yl@ OFFICE OF STATE PLANNING 340 C.xprroi AVENIT, IIARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 00106 November 10, 1972 Mr. Barry R. Lawson New England River Basins Commission 55 Court Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Dear Barry: This is in response to your letter of October 30, regarding the NERBC staff paper "Strategies for Natural Resources Decision-Making." Furthermore, I am re- sponding in light 'of having been provided a copy by Mr. Gordon Allen, Administrative Assistant to Governor Meskill, with a request that I respond from the viewpoint of a central state planning office. As you know, I was indeed deeply concerned with the writeup in Appendix B re- garding Connecticut in both it original and amended form. I hope as a result of your recent visit to the Office of State Planning that NERBC now has a clearer picture of the activities underway. In any event, I agreed during that visit to provide you a suggested rewrite of that part of the Connecticut section related to the Office of State Planning and will do so herein. However, I will also offer certain additional comments since I have reviewed the entire report exclusive of Appendix C which you indicated is being significantly changed. Page vii - I agree with the observation in the second paragraph that it is desirable for the states to attempt an integration of separately authorized exist- ing and new federal programB. I believe, however, that NERBC could materially assist the states by monitoring future legislation and where the potential for duplication or overlap or split administrative responsibility at the federal level is indicated, NERBC should so advise the federal establishment * Clearly, this re- port evidences a growing number of such federal programs and I think NERBC thus should continually ask itself if it is encouraging enactment of new programs or is it attempting to strengthen and maximize the use of existing programs. Page 2-2 - In the second paragraph in discussing departments of Environmental Affairs, the statement is made "In some, however, the activities of this department remain formally independent of the so-called state planning offices although inter- agency committees and task forces often bring these agencies together for coordina- tion." I fail to see why the term "so-called state planning offices" is used. They are called this or very similar terms and use of "so-called" is a put down, Further- more, I would anticipate that a central state planning office would indeed be inde- pendent from all line agencies yet linked through such things as interagency committees and task forces. Page 2-4 - In both the first and second paragraphs of this page reference is made to comprehensive planning. I respectfully suggest that in preparing this paper there needs to be more thought as to what is meant by "comprehensive planning." in the first paragraph it is said in part 11 . . . one may find it somewhat easier to consolidate the functional planning efforts in one state agency. To provide such Mr. Barry R. Lawson - 2 - November 10, 1972 comprehensive planning in one agency is another issue, especially in a larger state." I submit that indeed individual line agencies are the appropriate places that have the responsibility and expertise to do functional planning specifically related to their area of activity. I know of no state where there has been a consolidation of the multitude of functional planning efforts of state government into one state agency.. This does not mean, of course, that there is not a need for cOmmunication, coordination, policy planning and even interagency functional planning by a central planning office. I also urge you to think through very carefully what you mean 1)y the third sen- tence in paragraph 2 which reads: "Being closer to the citizens, this council could, through its own staff, prepare and continually update a comprehensive plan for the state and use it as a basis for formulating a recommended budget to the governor each year." While I obviously endorse a comprehensive planning process for the state, I seriously question what you may have in mind as a "comprehensive plan" which im- P plies a single doctiment. Furthermore, I wonder if you are saying that i-, should be the responsibility of this council to formulate a recommended budget to the Governor. I feel NERBC is getting into a very complex subject-that deserves far more thought than can be reflected here. I might say that what is entirely missing, other than for an oblique reference in this paragraph, is a discussion of linking state planning and state budgeting activities. Page 4-1 - I am not sure that I entirely agree with the second paragraph. I think that state planning is evolving on just about the same timetable as "planning of closely-related functions" and I think organizational revisions related to both are occurring at about the same time. Page 4-4 - In the last paragraph in discussing a "lead agency approach" there is a question as to 1%@hether a functional agency can lead in the development of com- prehensive state policy, and obtain the consent of other functional agencies It might be noted that the lead agency need not be a functional agency. It could well be the central state planning agency. Page 4-5 - In the first paragraph there is an indication that NERBC views "land usell as a functional planning activity. I submit that I would interpret land lise as being so broad as to be multi-functional, interdepartmental and indeed a key element of comprehensive state planning activity. Page 5-2 - In the first paragraph it is indicated that the NERBC "framework process" calls for "Guide Plans" for each state, under state leadership an,@ With Commission assistance and notes Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont Guide Plans are underway. Connecticut is devoting great efforts to statewide land and water policy planning admittedly without, to my knowledge, Commission assistance. Rhode Island is also engaged in land use and water planning to the best of my knowledge. I would think these activities should be recognized. Page 5-5 - Would it not be appropriate to mention the Interstate Sanitation Commission as well as those named? Page 5-10 - In the first paragraph NERBC contends that if it is going to provide a major service function, additional financial resources will be required. It ap- pears to me that the states will be competing for the same financial resources and Mr. Barry R. Lawson - 3 November 10, 1972 I would feel that NERBC would have to advance a strong case as to what it can and should do to benefit the states in order to obtain a portion of the funding. Page 5-11 - In the discussion of the role of the Federal Regional Council, I would wonder if it is possible that a subcommittee of the Federal Regional Council composed of natural resources oriented agencies could achieve the desired purpose instead.of creating a separate Federal Natural Resources Council. Appendix B - B-2 - Instead of discussing the text as offered, I am providing the following description of office of State Planning activities which I suggest you may wish to consider in lieu of the first and last paragraphs of the Connecticut section: A proposed State Plan of Conservation and Development is currently being com- pleted by the staff of the office of State Planning of the Connecticut Depart- ment of Financ e and Control. The resultant publication will propose statewide land and water policy and related mapped planning proposals. It is based on extensive inventory and analysis of existing land use, zoning, development trends , buildability of vacant land, accessibility, etc. The water resources management aspects will emphasize water supply, waste water disposal and water based recreation. The Office of State Planning is charged with preparing statewide plans in con- cert with other agencies, coordinating planning activities, assisting other state agencies in their planning activities, carrying out planning reviews, defining planning regions, promoting the establishment of regional planning agencies and providing technical and financial assista:nce to regional planning agencies. The Plan of Conservation and Development work is a key element in Office of State Planning activity and has been coordinated with the staffs of other state agencies and regional planning agencies. The water resources planning activities are carried out in concert with the Department of Environmental Protection and the State Health Department as di- rected by state law. The program is carried on by an Interagency Water Resources Planning Board. The same state statute has provided state financial assistance to regional planning agencies for sewer and water planning and programming work by regional planning agencies and such work has been coordinated with the state water resources planning program. Recently, the new office of Federal/State Relations, administratively satel- lited to the Office of State Planning, has assumed the state clearinghouse procedures of the A-95 project notification and review system. Both project applications and state plans, however, continue to receive technical review by the Office of State Planning. The Department of Finance and Control also includes the Budget Division which contains Budget and Management Sectiom Currently, reorganizational efforts are underway within the Department to strengthen the link between planning, budgeting, management and program evaluation. The State Planning Council includes an Environmental Planning Group comprised of the heads of the Departments of Transportation, Environmental Protection, Health, Community Affairs, Finance and Control, Agriculture and the Development Commission. Mr. Barry R. Lawson - 4 - November 10J. 1972 The Governor has charged the State Planning Council or a constituent unit there- of with reviewing environmental impact statements which will now be required for state programs under an Executive order from the Governor. The Governor has also directed that the Departments of Transportation and Environmental Pro- tection and the Office of State Planning undertake a land use/transportation planning program for the Capitol Region area. Thus, extensive land and water planning, coordination and review programs and processes are underway in Connecticut. I should clarify one matter with regard to your second paragraph on the Depart- ment of Community Affairs. Regional planning agencies do receive state aid for regional planning through the Office of State Planning. OSP administers HUD 701 grants to "non-metropolitarill regional planning agencies. The Depart- ment of Community Affairs has made grants to several regional planning agencies permitting them to provide local assistance. I know of no regional planning agency receiving "transportation planning grants." I hope the above is helpful. If there is any question, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Horace H. Brown Director HHB:sb cc: Commissioner Carlson Commissioner Lufkin Mr. Gordon Allen Mr. Stephen Thomson State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations Department of Administration STATEWIDE PLANNING PROGRAM 265 Melrose Street Daniel W. Varin Chief Providence, Rkode Island 02907 A-.9 Code 401 -_77 1454 Jerome Lessuck November 1", 1972 Assistant ChLiej Mr. Frank Gregg Chairman New England River Basins Commission 55 Court Street Boston, Massachusetts 021o8 Dear Frank: . In accordance with your memorandum of October 26, 1 am trans- mitting herewith comments on the staff paper, Strategies for Natural Resource Decision Making. Generally, this paper provides a good summary of" the way in which each state is organized to make decisions concerning natural resources., and of most of the important related federal assistance programs. The review of pending federal legislation is particularly useful, It remains valuable for that legisla- tion which was not passed by the last session of Congress, since next year's efforts will probably begin with these bills as a starting point, at the least, One problem here is that states frequently do not make decisions, or carry out other activities, in the way one would assume they do from an examination of their statutes or organization charts. Comments on the four issues raised by your memorandum, numbered to correspond with the memo, are as follows: 1) The ways in which existing federal grants are administered do not encourage integrated decision making by the states. They promote fractionalization by imposition of "single state agency" requirements and by combining grants for planning and operations. These two combine to direct funds for both activities to the agency responsible for land acquisition, construction, or operation of facilities, and to segregate grant programs along functional lines. R L __` C"JE D Mr. Frank Gregg - 2 - Nov. 13, 1972 The Land and Water Conservation Fund provides a good example of this Droblem. Grants are available for planning, land acquisition,, and development., but tire limited to one agency in the state. Since most of the money is used for land acquisition and development, all of the funds are directed Uo the agency respon3ible for tnese 'Lunctions. if a dif- ferent agency is responsible for planning, J-*-'.- is difficult to redirect part of ihe Land and @Iat-er Conceirvation Fund grant to that agency. If this is done, the f"imids cannot be combined with TGD grant-s for tlile same purpose. And where it is rossible to fund an inteszrat-ed plannin- oneration, to support integrated decision-T-nakim7,, the credability of the planning is always questionable because it is done at the sufferance of the operating agency most directly concerned. Apparentlyj new JL-ederal programs in landuse, coastal zone, and water quality will continue 'u-111-is pattern., further agravating the problems of integrating. federally-su ported planning activities. Two potential problems can be iden- tified for the land use program. First, the responsible agency at the state level will probably not have adequate ability to integrate planning programs for other concerns to the degree necessary to plan for and guide future develop- ment: transportation, utilities, open space, and others. Second., land use planning will become another isolated func- tional. planning.effort., rather than providing the core or base for planning for water quality management, coastal zone planning, and related programs. 2) This issue continues the discussion above. Its resolution requires that the state la-nd use planning agency undertake planning for those facilities and services which are essen- tial comDonents of a co.-.iprehensive development proGram. Coordination between the land use planning agency and a variety of functional agencies is not adequate and should not be acceptable to the federal agency administering national land use policy legislation. I do not believe that most states are moving in this direction at this time. Appendix B of the staff paper supports this conclusion, 3) The need for interstate and regional coordination can be met through an agency such as the New England River Basins Commission, particularly since NERBC includes some federal agencies not usually considered in natural resources pro- grams., such as the Department of Transportation. It is Mr. Frank Gregg - 3 Nov. 13., 1972 essential that the federal government not create new Federal Regional Councils in the natural resources area or any other area. If this vehicle is to be used, the existing councils should be expanded to include federal agencies with these concerns, 4) Recognition of the role of the states as described here may be a policy objective of the administration, but it has been slow to filter out through the federal bureaucracy, or have much impact on program administration. Some comments on specific points in the paper are as follows: 1) Page 2-4: The hope that regional planning agencies can play an effective role in integrating planning programs cannot be realize-d as long as these agencies continue their present basis and structure, with their inherent and fatal weaknesses. These are described quite well in Babcock's recent article, "Letts Stop Romancing Regionalism". in Planning for July., 1972. Ifm not sure its worth going through changes of the magnitude required to make most of these agencies effective instruments. 2) Appendix A should include the Action Plan Process Guidelines of the Federal Highway Administration. These requirements will make each highway department a major natural resources agency in the structure of state governments by July, 1973. 3) Appendix B: The charts in Appendix B bring out the fact that most state planning agencies are funded by only one federal program, usually the IM 1170111 program. This is due in large part to the 11single state agency" requirements of many federal programs, which result in planning funds being directed to operating agencies rather than to planning agencies. While this condition continues, the state planning agencies cannot be expected to play a significant role in integrating federally- assisted planning programs. The problems which the states encounter in integrating planning programs reinforce the need for both strengthening of the ability of each state in this respect, and for development and use of regional coordinating mechanisms. The second need cannot be met by the Federal Regional Councils in then present form, with the states role limited to that of observer and commentator. The River Basins Commission., the Regional Commission, or some joint arm of these two provides a much better vehicle for regional action by the states. Mr. Frank Gregg 4 - November 13, 1972 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this paper. Yours 'very truly., Daniel W. Varin Chief.,, Statewide Planning DWV/jl cc: Mrs. Lorraine Sil-berthau, Mr. Robert Russ The Connecticut River Valley FLOOD CONTROL COMMISSION 28 MECHANIC STREET KEENE NEW HAMPSHIRE November 15, 1972 New England River Basin Comm. 55 Court Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Attention: Chairman, NERBC Subject: Comments on memoranda, recommendations and reports relating to Natural Res. decision making Following your October 26th communication in the nature of a request for comments: 1. This paragraph is highly favorable if joint state decisions are incorporated and the right of final approval to Federal planning included. 2. Joint state decision and priority planning should be required as well as implemented with funds. 3. NERBC should and must be the vehicle for action and accom- plishment. 4. There is 100% agreement on the Jominance of state approval and authority. Me Conn. River Valley Flood Control Commission Is awaiting NERBC conclusions from the two and one-half year study in order that it may approve and fortify a program that will bring about the con- struction and proper determination of additional Flood Control projects to meet the purposes and intent of the Compact. The six New England states should act as one regional entity and thereby disregard the boundary lines. On Page 4 we concur in James R. Smith's menorandum with respect to the role of River Basin Commission. This has particular reference to paragraphs a, b, c, d. The treatise of Helen Ingramls covering her recommendations ia an excellent forward looking insight into the future needs of New CONNECTICUT MASSACHUSETTS NEW HAMPSHIRE. VERMONT -2- England and the best of her suggestions should be implemented, Turning to the minutes of the Comm. meeting in Hanover, N. H. of August 1972, paGe 7 paragraph 3, no one in his right mind cOuld possibly fail to approve the recommendation at the top of page 8. What Is holding up the Coordinating group's action with respect to the Study Management Team? Funding should come easier since November 7. Money helps coordination. If between now and the next meeting of the Coordinating group this Commission can be of assistance in any specific way, we would appreciate your suggestons for consideration and action. Sincerely, CONN. RIVER VALLEY FLOOD CONTROL COMMISSION Nathan Tufts, Executive Director NT/mp Cc: Miss V. Thompson DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NEW ENGLAND DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 424 TRAPELO ROAD WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 02154 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: NEDED-R 17 November 1972 Mr. R. Frank Gregg Chairman New England River Basins Commission Room 205, 55 Court Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Dear Frank: We have reviewed your memo of 26 October 1972 which requests comments on STRATEGIES FOR NATURAL RESOURCE DECISION MAKING prior to your submission of a Commission file report at the next Governor's conference in December. We concur with the need to encourage and assist the States so that they may fully integrate State natural resource decision making processes -and in consensus with the effective control of elective officials. Certainly, the new legislation, as relates to the aims of the Water Pollution Control bills and the Coastal Zone Manage- ment legislation, places additional responsibility on all of us to assure the best possible collaboration of capabilities at Federal, State and local levels. In keeping with the spirit of this new legislation, my staff currently finds itself very heavily involved in coordination with State and regional planning people in our Wastewater Program leading to im- provement of water quality for both the Merrimack River Basin and in the Boston Eastern Massachusetts area. The regional planning agencies are being given an important supportive and directive role in this undertaking with particular assistance in the area of open planning. I look hopefully toward a plan that will be implementable at the local level and one which presents the State as the dominant partner. NEDED-R 17 November 197Z Mr. R. Frank Gregg There are certain aspects of your paper that concern me. For one thing, I envision the possibility of the development of a larger staff at the Commission level. This will tend to dilute the need and the responsibility of those agencies, who by Congressional statute have primary interest in their respective resource categories. Are we not treading the thin line between necessary coordination, and the actual accomplishment of the required work? If, in fact, we significantly increased the capabilities of the Com- mission staff to the point where efforts of the participating agencies of the Commission are reduced or not required, we could be circum- venting the*intent of the Water Resources Planning Act. It is my view that the real strength of the Commission comes from its par- ticipating agencies who, in effect, do the wcrk for the Commission and with only the requirement of a minimum of the Commission staff. Such a procedure not only assures coordination of agency efforts, but maintains capability in these line agencies and, at the same time, permits them to work with their counterpart State agencies. Certainly the mechanisms we have set up for the US Study and SENE have about precluded "a. one-on-one relationship" which may have been present in past study efforts.' In addition, this arrangement assures the accountability of the agencies to the service area by reason of the fact that the staff of that agency is likely to be of a career nature and not subject to the turnover that we have evidenced in the Commission to date. I believe the matter of this paper is important enoug h to suggest an executive meeting of the Commission so that we can better assess the view of other Federal representatives. Sincerely yours, H. MASON Colonel., Corps of Engineers Division Engineer &H. MA.1 I I I I I I I III Recent Resolutions on Natural Resource Planning I and Managei-nent I I . I I I t I I I I THE NEW ENGLAND COUNCIL STATLER OFFICE BUILDING @()SrC)N, VAScACHUSITTS 02110 (AREA CODE 617) 542-2580 November 1, 1972 Mr. R. Frank Gregg, Chairman New England River Basins Commission 55 Court Street Boston, MA 02lo8 Dear Frank: Enclosed are the two resolutions as approved by the Coastal Zone Conference in Durham, New Hampshire. I have contacted Chip Stockford of the New England Governors' Conference and will be meeting with him on Friday to determine the best method to present resolution II to the Governors' Conference. Sincerely, Warren R. Healey Director of Marine Resource WRH:jar Development Enclosure ADVANCING ALL FACETS OF NEW ENGLAND'S ECONONlY Resolutions ag reed to by the 3rd Annual Coastal Zone Management Conference Durham, N.H. - October 30 & 31, 1972 Resolved: That the New England Coastal Zone Management Conference commends the New England Congressional Delegation for-its support of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and strongly urges the funding of this act at the max@mum amount authorized early in 1973. II. Resolved: That the New England Coastal Zone Conference recommends to the New England Governors that they individually and collectively designate a regional agency appropriately related to existing regional institutions, agencies and natural resource management concerns, to accomplish the following: 1. Assess the regional needs, problems and priorities in the area of coastal zone management 2. Provide best available technical information to regional, state and local organizations and agencies involved in coastal resource development 3. Provide technical assistance support for coastal zone planning and management programs We recognize these functions and.services as essential to the implementation and success of coastal zone management programs in New England. We suggest that an appropriate portion of state monies designated as matching funds for federal coastal planning grants and an appropriate portion of such federal monies received be authorized for transfer to the so.des.ignated regional agency to accomplish the above'recom-mended purposes. State of ire New Hampsh Office of State Planning STATE HOUSE ANNEX, CONCORD, N.H. 03301 MARY LOUISE HANCOCK P LNNING DRECTOR November 20, 1972 Mr. R. Frank Gregg, Chairman New England River Basins Commission Room 205, 55 Court Street Boston, Massachusetts 021o8 Dear Frank: It was the sense of the second New England Coastal Zone Workshop, sponsored by the New England Regional Commission and the Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program in Newport, Rhode Island, November 8, 9, 10, 1972, that the attached resolution expresses a course of action to be followed by the New England states in carrying out state and Federally-funded natural resource planning programs. The resolution speaks for itself. However, emphasis by all participants urging Federal coordination of criteria and guidelines must be recognized as vital to every statels ability to cope with these new programs. With the aid of the New England River Basins Commission, the New England states represent a unified force in natural resources programs of the U. S. Department of Commerce (Coastal Management Act); U. S. Department of the Interior (Land Use Policy & Planning Act); Environmental Protection Agency (Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972); U. S. Department of Agriculture (Rural Development Act). Only the Land Use Policy & Planning Act has not been enacted, and passage is expected early in the forth- coming session of the Congress. It was the further sense of the Workshop that notifi- cation be given to those listed below. Sincerely, 4_0@ to 0-1& Mary Louise Hancock Planning Director MLH.:dh Enc. Letter & Resolution to: Secretary Peter G. Peterson, Commerce 2 Secretary Rogers C. B. Morton, Interior Mr. R. Frank Gregg, Chairman -2- November 20, 1972 Letter & Resolution to: (Cont1d) @fl Secretary Earl L. Butz, Agriculture 4 Director William D. Ruchelshaus, Environmental Protection Agency Mr. W. Don Maughn, Water Resources Council 6 Mr. Howard W. Pollock, NOAA, Commerce 7 Mr. Robert Knecht, NOAA, Commerce Mr. Russell F. Merriman, Cc-Chairman, N.E. Regional Commission (9) Mr. John A. S. McGlennon, Regional Director, EPA @ 10@ Mr. Chapman Stockford, N. E. Governors' Conference 11 Mr. A. Vincent Sicilianc, NOAA, Commerce 12 Mr. R. Frank Gregg, N. E. River Basins Commission New England River Basins Comrrrission State Members & Alternates (13) Mr. Lance Marston, Interior New England Coastal Zone Workshop Newport, Rhode island November 8, 9, 10, 1972 Resolved that the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Mass- achusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, recognizing that certain agencies (Commerce, EPA,. Interior, Agriculture) of the Federal Government must be encouraged to produce inte- grated planning and implementation guidelines; and recog- nizing that individual states are incapable of evaluating the total regional impact of the combined programs; and further recognizing that the state resource planning efforts allied with each of the programs must be meshed at the st-late level and tied into New England-wide action proposals, we ask that the New England River Basins Commission be designated by the states as the principal mechaniom for coordination and integration of federal and state natural resource programs at the regional and interstate levels. To achieve these objectives, the New England River Basins Commission should: 1) Co'nduct studies of regional needs, problems, and alternative solutions designed to assure .that the interests of the entire region are effectively considered in state and federal decision-making processes; 2) secure within the region the maximum degree of integration of federal natural resource programs, including federal grant programs for natural resources planning, in ways responsive to the needs of individual states and the region; 3) con;@olidate our demand to the affected Federal agencies that, insofar as possible and within the framework of specific statutory dictates, there will be one document setting forth the guidelines and -regulations for participation in the aforementioned programs; 4) analy-ze the methods by which the individual states can profit through joint use of finan- cial resources (e.g. New England Regional Commission); -2- assess the value of establishing a centralized technical aid team which either directly or through referral can be useful In the solution of problems vital to the success of the total New England-wide effort; and advise on how the individual state endeavors can best be unified - now and in the future to produce continuous cooperative planning and implementation programs. Selected Items from Statements of Policy Adopted by the Interstate Conference on Water Problems in Austin, Texas, November 27-29, 1972 Statement #6 -- Urge the Congress to: A. Extend Title III funding under P. L. 89-80 beyond 1976, which extension is necessary in order to maintain and strengthen the ability of the states in water resources planning in the mid 1970's; B. Fully fund Title III of P. L. 89-80 and to appropriate sufficient funds to permit development of policy and information by the Water Resources Council bene- ficial to both the states and the federal government. Statement #19 -- Support the development of comprehensive multiple purpose plans for appropriate river basins by 1980 in accordance with objectives of the Water Re- sources Planning Act of 1965 and Section Z09 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. The Water Resources Council is urged to seek modifications in the methods of managing and funding these studies to promote consistency with state natural resource policies and planning programs, and to assure ef- fective leadership and participation by the states. Statement #20 -- Urge the Federal government and the individual states to recognize the increasing complexity of federal-state natural resource management activities and the necessity of securing effective integration of land, water and related pro- grams to assure balanced use, protection and management of natural resources within each state, and interstate regions, and in the nation. In this regard, the Conference urges special effort to secure close coordination among water quality, water resources, land use, coastal and natural resource programs. The Conference notes that the Water Resources Planning Act provides machinery to help promote such coordination, through the Water Resources Council at the Federal level and the river basin commissions in interstate regions, and urges that the full capacity of these institutions to assist in coordinating water quality, land use and coastal zone programs be fully utilized by administering federal agencies and the states. I I I I I I I Appendix I I I I 1, I t I I I I I Recommendations for the Region: Organizations and Programming for*.Federal-Stat-e and Interstate Coordination of Resource Planning Helen Ingram* .Anytime someone assigns you th6 task of making recommenda- tions there is an immediate temptation to play Joan of Arc. There are satisfactions in being a visionary. You can enunciate the ultimate truths and you can rally the troops toward far off goals. On the other hand, you can settle for not being terribly -dramatic and take the pragmatic, practical approach where you make. a pitch for the best you think is possible'under the circumstances. I have chosen this second course in making recommendations for the New England region.- By nature,, and by training within ry discipline of political science, I am an incrementalist. This means that I believe that changes in institutions and policies in American government ordinarily occur in a disjointed and incre- mental fashion. When we run into difficulties, we make bit by bit adjustments. What we have been doing is the jumping off place for what we try next. Progresse when and if it occurs, is uneven and takes time. (David Braybrooke and Charles Lindblom, A StrategX for Decision, New York, The Free Press, 1963). There are probably lots of Joans who are not remembered! what they wanted was ignored as irrelevant. An incrementalist *Prepared for a Conference on Strategies for Natural Resource Decision-Making sponsored by the New England River Basins Commission September 14, 1972. Dr. Ingram was formerly staff political scientist of the National Water Commission and is currently Associate Professor of Government-at the University of Arizona. 2 nt believes that victory comes mainly to people who are persiste and take every opportunity to move things a small step forward. The basic argument that I want to make here is that the current pieces of Alederal legislation which are the focus of this con- fere'nce: The National Land Use Policy, The Coastal Zone Manage- ment Act, and the new Water Quality Amendments represent opport- .unities to improve the regional arrangements for natural re- sources decision making in New England. The challenge is to reflect upon what attr ibutes of regional institutions might serve to make things better, and-take a timely step towards 'establishing those attributes. The Federal System The federal system has certain imperatives. The states have a pivotal role in the federal system. All three new natural resource bills recognize thi s. The state is the basic political subdivision of the United States. The states have broad con- sIC.itutional powers, including taxing powers and police powers. The Gove rnors and legislatures are elected and can be removed. State natural resources and planning agencies are closely attuned to local interests and are directly accountable to elected officials. Appropriately the states are the primary actors under the proposed bills. States, with the aid of federal grants and under federal guidelines are to take central responsi- bility for developing and administering state land use,, water quality and coastal zone programs. 3 The Natural System The natural system. also has imperatives. The basic truth of ecology is that everything is tied to.everything else. This must be recognized in planning.and administering natural resource programs.. The're are two aspects of interrelationship. one natural resoui:ce program has implications for all other programs. Also, the natural resources pol icies pursued on one level of government affect thewprograms pursued by other levels of govern- ment. The nature of natural systems demands that at some point in planning and iaplementing natural resource programs an inte- grated, regional view needs to be applied. Regional implications To varying ex'tentso, the three.pieces of legislation under particular.examination in this conference recognize the need for a regional approach,-both in their provisions and their legislative records. The Coastal Zone legislation is most strongly cognizant of regional-implications. In its.declaration -of policy as passed by the House of Representatives, the Coastal Zone Management Bill states the intention to encourage regional agencies as well as federal, state and local governments to participate in the development of programs. Also, it is national policy, the bill declares, to encourage cooperation among the various state and regional agencies, including the establishment of interstate and regional agreements, cooperative procedures, and joint action particularly regarding environmental problems. 4 (Sec. 303) Further, under the section providing for Coastal Zone Xanaccnent P_-Ogram, Development Grants the legislation provides that the state may, with the approval of*the Secretary Of Co-_=erce, allocate to a regional-agency or to an interstate agency a portion of -he grant provided to the state. (Sec. 305g) Speaking in favor of the bill during House debatc@,Congress- man Michael Harrington of Massachusetts interpreted these pro-. visions to constitute a national policy to encourage cooperative, regional.,. joint action. Coastal waters, he argued, flow freely across State boundaries, affect-ing many jurisdictions. The p.rincipal of cc,-,.patible land uses applies to the entire stretch of coastal land, irrespective of legally created dividing lines. Clearly, he said,.the answer is coordination between various jurisdictions in the planning of coastal zone management. To Congressman Harrington, the legislation was a forthright and workable recognition of the fregional] problem. (U.S. Congress, Congressional Record, House of Representatives, H 7096, August' 2, 1972). A concern with regional implications is also evident in the Land Use Policy Bill. According to the report on the Senate bill, interstate coordination of land use planning and management is recognized as a significant problem. The Secretary of the Interior would be directed to conduct a review of existing interstate agencies, and to prepare recommendations to the Congress for imp1roving structures and procedures for coord4nating land use in. interstate areas. The Act would also authorize States to use funds -from the Act for inter- state coordination purposes, and subject to Congressional action to negotiate interstate compacts for such purposes. (U.S. Senate Resort on S632 of the Committee on Interior .f_:a_irs, Rept. No 92-869, 92nd Cong., 2d Sess. and insular Similarly, in the House. Land Use Policy bill, the Director pf the Off'&,.ce of Land Use Policy Administration is authorized to s-udy the need for and form of regional Federal-SICate land use, planning and coordinating councils. (Sec 302). The Water Quality Amendments-currently under consideration by the House and the Senate make a stronger commitment toward river basin planning, including basins comprising interstate regions)than any ofthe preceding legislation. Planning agencies are to prepare comprehensive pollution and abatement plans for basins. Planning agencies are eligible for EPA funding if they provide for adequate representation of appropriate state, intersta te, local, and when appropriate., international interests in the planning.area, and are capable of developl'r4g the plan. The Governor of each state is to designate areas requiring areawide planning, and appoint a single representative planning agency for each area. Funding p 'rovisiors provide grants to p'lanning agencies which meet eligiinlity criteria. All three pieces of legislation envision coordination bet- -ween states and existing federa I agencies engaged in natural resources programs. Federal agencies at field level are expected-to assist in the development of state program s and states are supposed to coordinate their program planning and management with federal agencies. The Coastal Zone Bill (sec 307 House Bill and 314 Senate bill)-provides that the Secretary not approve state management plans unless the views of federal agencies principally affected by such programs have been 6 adequately considered. Further,.federal agencies conducting activities in the coastal zone are to coordinate with state management plans. State land use plans (section 302 b Senate 1@ill) are to be coordinated with the planning activities of federal agencies. Federal agencies with responsibility for management of federal lands are supposed to coordinate with State land use planning programs. Under the land use bill, the Secretary may set up on his own, or with the request of the Governor (Sec. 403 Senate Bill@ joint,federal statecommittees ad cn an hoc basis 'or 2-year periods. The Present Opportunity in -he debate on the Coastal Zone Bill in the House, Congressman Harrington admitted that. it did not provide the strongest means for overcoming jurisdictional difficulties.- The same should be recognized about all three bills& In all the bills there is permission and encouragement for regional' coordination but little positive enducement and no enforcement. There is a recognition of the need for joint federal,-state coordination, but few explicit procedures and requirements. Nevertheless, if these pieces of legislation are passed, and it seennis to be more a matter of when than if, then New England is presented with three alternatives: 1. The New England states can ignore the regional aspects of the present legislation. On the one hand this alternative appears obvious. The language of the legislation is not really 7 compelling, and unless The Departments of Co.-,-,crce and Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency strongly pursue regional coordination, the matter may languish for the present. In the long @:un, however, I believe the natural imperatives I.spoke about will assert themselves. In time the basic facts of hydro- logy and ecology will require that planning and implementation of land use, water quality and coastal zones programs must have some regional perspective if they are to be at all successful. 2. Regionai'coordination may take place on a piecemeal, program by program basis. This approach is alt7ogether possible, and certainly it is typical of the regional coordination which has often taken place in the past. A web of relationships exists among agencies within different states and with various federal agencies. Certainly this kind of.coordination is preferable to a lack of coordination. At the same time, where programs are closely related, as is the case with these three bills, and often natural resources programs generally, it would be more efficient and rational to focus regional coordination in comprehensive areas,where all the relevant interests and factors can be considered. 3. The New England States may choose to take the opportunity which these three new bills present to reexamine and strengthen their regional institutions. it seems to me that this should be the most attractive alternative. Historically New England has had a strong sense oil regionalism. This has been reinforced by the relatively small size of New England states which prevents any from, being self-sufficient. Although the New England states vary significantly one from another,there is a good deal of social , economic and environmental interdependence. There are indication, or a growing sense of regionalism in New England reflected in the establishment of new regional institutions, such as the New England Energy Policy Staff, and a more cohesive regional stance; such as that presented by the Governors.and the Congressional delegations on oil imports. Criteria for Effective Regional Arrangements. Supposing the New England states take up the third alterna- tive and determine to re-examine and strengthen their regional arrangements, the first requisite is some sort of agreement', on goals. What are the appropriate characteristics of regional institutions engaged in natural resources planning and pro- gramming There are no established answers to this question, but a number of people ranging from academicians to the New England Governors-, have done some thinking on the question. I have borrowed Aheavily -from a number of sources in compiling the following list. 1. A regional institution should provide, a basis 'Or national resource program integration. The mission of an adequate regional organization should be broad enough the encompass the interrelation among programs which actually exist in the envir- onment. Some forms of pollution pose region-wide threats, and travel successively through land, air, and water. The siting and operation of power plants provide region-wide, multi-faced 9 problems to which an adequate regional agency should attend. The demand and supply of energy tend to be regional, and the produ- ction of energy affects land use, often in t he coastal zone, and-threatens air and water quality. if a regional agency is to perform adequately, its scope must be broad enough to relate and integrate a range of natural resource programs. 2. A regional institution should provide the basis for geographi- cal among different jurisdictions. (Lyle Craine, ibid.,,) Participation in regional arrangements, either through formal membership or access to decision making should be broad enough to link together resource agencies on all levels of government. In the era of ecology, single purpose approaches to resource questions are no longer tenable. Federal programs planned and administered by different agencies for the same resource base must be related. More important,.decisions made by the federal government need to be-made with the participation of state and local gove.rnments. State and local goverranents have their own perspectives and their own tools to influence resource policy. If they are left out of federal decision making, the policies of different levels of government are apt to be at cross-purposes. In introducing the Land Use Planning Bill in 1970, Senator Jackson recognized the need for joint federal and state action. There are many land use decisions made by the Federal Government which require greater participation'by State and local governments. Often the federal government is seeking the use of a local communities mo st valuable asset-s: its land and environment. (Congressional Record, Jan. 29, 1970, (p. 5836-5837)- Th; most 10 e.Aective point at which to link different levels of government is at the planning stage before posi- tions are fir.-., and resources are co,-,.-nitted. Little real coordination is possible at the point which conf"Licting progra-ms are being 4__"emented. 3. An- adequate reg-ii-onal arrange-ment- should serve as a source of dependable and expert information about the condition of natural resources within the region. It must be a-regional belweather, which can be looked to by natural resources decision makers on all levels. Regional institutions should be able to identify and monitor trends concerning the regional state of the environment. Regional institutions should set out 4 .alternative means to facilitate, or when they are unfavo'rable,' to thwart observed trends. This is precisely.what the New England Governors said was necessary. In May of this year the Governors stated that regional structures should serve as vehicles for: . identifying and evaluating regional environmental-natural resources conditions, trends, problems and needs,-and reviewing and recommending appropriate changes in Federal, State and regional policies and programs. (New England Governors' Conference, Principles for National Policy Affecting Regional Environmental Programs, Approved May 21, 1971) An adequate staff with sufficient technical and scientific expertise is necessary to generate and transmit regional informa- tion.- it is import-ant.that the expert staff be employed by and have primary loyalties to the regional agency. While others express -federal agency,-state and 1CCal viewpoints, the task of the staff of the regional institution is to seek out and trans- mit a regional point of view. 4. An adequate regional institution must provide a leadership position and means for recruiting persons of ability to that position. Regional leaders need to be independent of particular area and program interests., Any number of interagency committees have foundered because coordination was attempted among a body .of peers where every axe was ground except the'one of making coordination work. The role of leadership is to make coord.ina- tion and a regional approach to natural resources a positive activity. 'Leadership is often a matter of facilitating a way of doing things which serves regional'interests, and at the same time accommodates rather than polarizes other interests. There is no certain way of finding leaders with the necessary region wide view and negotiating skills. The position needs to be an attractive one with scope, rewards"and possibilities. 5. A regional agency ought to be representative and responsible. To some commentators adequate representation occurs only on legislative bodies where members are elected on a territorial,* one man one vote basis. Representation on commissions such as the NERBC or the Delaware River Basin Commission, where each state has an equal vote is considered by some to be inadequate. (see for example: Edwin T. Haefle, "Environmental Quality as a Problem of Social Choice", Proceeding of Conference on Environ- mental Quality and the Social Sciences, June, 1970, R.F.F.; and Lyle E. Craine, Final Report on Institutional Arrangements for the Great Lakes March 15, 1972) To my way of thinking, direct voting for representatives on legislative bodies is too-narrow and simple a conception of the issue. Representativeness 12 is improved when competing interests are brought together in a bargaining area. Direct competition tends to generate informa- tion, illuminate alternatives and alert those affected 'by choices of their stake. Although I do not believe that an adequate regional in- stitution. needs to be directly tied to the electoral process, I believe that it should have some link.- Elected officials on the state and national levels who are directly accountable to the people should be members or informal participants. 6. if what a regional institution does is to be meaningfull it's decisions must be connected with real events and actions. A common short-coming of planning agencies at all levels of government is that plans are not related to real world actions and decision making. Much planning is done for plannings sake. Some observers have concluded that an adequate regional institu- tion must have implementing and management as well as planning authority. (Guy Kelnhofer, "Regional Water Resources Planning: One Man's Perspectives," paper presented to the Interstate Conference on Water Problems, Feb. 2, 1971). I'am not comfort- able with this conclusion because giving regional bodies the full range of planning and management authority does not square with the realities of the federal system in which states play a pivotal role. The lessons of regional bodies with planning and management authority are instructive. The Tennessee Valley Authority has had real difficulties in, fitting into the federal system. The New England States have repeatedly resisted the 13 establishment of sucha regional federal authority on the .Connecticut. The Delaware River Basin Commission has both planning and management authority. In practice, however, the Governors have chosen to leave most management and operating aiathority.with 'the states. I believe a more workable approach lies in forging links between regional plans and actions. This can be done partly through the planning process itself. Plans have a greater chance of becoming real if planning reflects major interests. agents ;4ith inpldmenting authority are represented in plan- ning and are co=itted*to making plans work, there will be a connection between plans and action. The connection between plans and action is strengthened if the flow of funds to implementing agencies is made dependent upon compliance to regional plans.- Regional bodies,can have review authority over proposed actions to be certain they conform to plans. 7. An adequate regional planning institution must be politically viable. (Roscoe C. Martin, et. al., River Basin Administration and the Delaware, Syracuse University Press, 1960, Chap 5) That is, a regional organization must have the political support to gain acceptance and consent for meaningful activities on a regional level. This is partly a function of the lev el of regional consciousness. Greater support is likely to be given to regional institutions when policy-makers are aware of the regional significance of environmental policies. Political viability is also associated with the sort of inducements or rewards a regional institution has with which to attract support and cooperation. There should be come incentive for federal agencies and state and local governments to work through river 14 basin commissions. There is the obvious service of a depository of expert information about the region and about environmental programs being pursued by agencies and levels of government within the region. A regional institution offers a valuable communications link. Beyond this, though, a regional institution ougt to serve as a conduit of full financial and political backing for actions which comply which comply with regional needs. Criteria Applied to New England Regional.Structure New England has a number of regional agencies engaged in one way or another with natural resources. In fact, there are probably too many regional organizations for there to be the necessary -local point of visible regional energy and concern about the environment. Some thought should be.given to con- s~qol~A~qida~6qti~qng regional institutions, and to which, if any of the existing institutions might best serve as the basis of a more unified structure. There are a number of compact commissions within New England for flood control, sanitiation and marine fisheries. Although these agencies have served useful functions, they are too limited in jurisdiction and membership to achieve the kind of program and geographic integration which the criteria set out earlier in this paper suggested was necessary. of the same limitations apply in this paper suggested was necessary. Some of the same limitations apply to the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission. Although it is currently seeking to broaden its authority, the scope of the commissiont will still be restricted to water. 15 quality. An institutional structure is needed to integrate' water quality with other environmental programs on a regional basis. The most comprehensive regional institutions involved in natural resources policy are the New England Regional Co.-zinission and the New England River Basins Commissions. In function and structure the two are similar institutions. Both are planning and coordinating bodies. Both have membership from the sitates.- in the case of the regional commission Governors and members, and in the River Basins Commission Governors are represented by designates. Both have gotten the strong support of the New England Governor's Conference.. The federal government is a member of each institution, though the NERBC represents ten'federal agencies directly, while in the regional commission the federal government is represented only by the federal cochairman. Although both regional agencies are involved in natural resources and environmental matters, it seems to me that the NERBC is rather better suited to natural resources program integration. The impetus for Title V regional commissions is regional development. The focus of the NERBC and its area of expertise is water and'related land resources. Also, the NERBC has more direct access through its membership to a wide range of federal agencies engaged in natural resource activites. -Limitations of the NERBC Supposing that the New England River Basins Commission were chos en to be, as I think is-logically, the focal point 16 for planning and coordination of the regional aspects of natural.resources programs including the new programs proposed; what difficulties will be encountered? What Are the short- cc-mings of tllle NERBC as measured by the criteria for an adequate regional institutional structure suggested? 1. The program mission of the NERBC is too narrow'. The title of River Basin commissions probably ought to be changed,to natural resources commissions. Jurisdiction should extend over all aspects of water, quantity and quality, and the organizations purview should also include all land, not just that related to water, and also air. 2. The NIERBC will need to do a more thorough job of geographic integration. The difficulty ib%all river basin commissions has been that although the Water Resources.Planning act talks of joint planning and envisions a full partnership of states, this has not materialized in practice. River basin commissions have typically served the interests of federal agencies far better than states. (See reports to National Water Commission by Garry Warren Hart and Helen Ingram on regional arrangements, and Guy Keinhofer, Ibid.) Federal agencies have far superior .resources ffor participation in river basin plans, and federal agencies directly benefit through plans-in project authorizations. The NERBC has attempted to make joint planning a reality by making particular efforts to serve states. The NERBC has emnhas4A..zed the state as a planning region in the framework and river basi.-. studies. in addition, a number of special studies 79 17 have been designed to meet the needs of states. In the end, though, the effectiveness,of geographic integration by the NERBC rests with the states. Governors, legislators and state planning and 'natural resource agencies must see enough benefit in the joint planning process to use it as a vehicle for plan- ning state programs. The opportunity exists in the new coastal zone, land use and water quality legislation for the states to use the NERBC in coordinating state plans and integrating state into regional plans. This will require a transfer of some state funds received under new programs to the NERBC. 3. The NERBC appears to me to meet or be capable of meeting many of the requirements of expertise and leadership. The adequacy of the institution in terms of representativesness and responsiveness is not so clear. Certainly there is open access to the organization for a number of interests. The ques- tion is whether all the relevant interests take the regional organization sufficiently seriously to take advantage of the relatively open forum. The NERBC has tried hard to develop programs of participation of local governments and citizens in the South East New England Study and the Long Island Sound Study. If there are indications that what the commission does has a realimpact upon what happens and how federal and state agencies and governors behavel then various inte;rests will relate to the XERBC a good deal more strongly than they presently do. 4. It wi-l-' probably be necessary to give real teeth to the planning and coordination re quirements if planning is to be firmly linked to action as the criteria suggest. It WOU141 be very useful if the OfEfice of Management and Budget were to re.fuse to budget projects of federal agencies which were un- planned and uncoordinated through the regional planning institutions. In natural resource legislation in,the future, Congress should provide greater inducements to the states to coordinate planning on a regional basis. State agencies should be strictly held to the implq@mentation of wate r quality, coastal zone and land use plans. Regional bodies ought to have. a role in this review procedure if the regional view is to be put into action. 5. The problem of,political viability is somewhat circular. Political support comes to institutions which serve and facili- tate broad interests and it takes political support to get the opportunity to do so. In my view the.long term political via- bility of the NERBC depends upon its involvement in regional resource matters broadly, not just matters of water resources. Water is no longer the central issue it once was in attracting a -tention and support. The continued backing of the New t England Governors is, I believe crucial to the long term political A. viab-'lity of the NEREC. Close links with the Governors Conference must be continued, and state delegates to the commission should be associate-d' with the governors and express their interests. New Alternatives. 19 Much thought and ef-f6rt will. be required to build an adequate regional structure for natural resources decision making in-New England. The question should be at least . . L 6. - I- raised as to whether it might not be better to qtart from scratch and build something new. 111here is the possibility of a New England Compact which builds upon the experience of the Delaware.. Resource economists are regularly suggesting some sort of.regional authorities, either under federal auspices and/or established by a compact, to plan and administer water pollution and other environmental programs. The Office of the President has recently favored the establishment of Federal Regional Natural Resource Councils as federal coordinating devices. My reaction to the vision of brand new improved regional institutions in New England derives from my perspective as an incrementalist. I am suspicious of brand new ideas and promises of -radical changes. Most ideas have a history, and the history .oAf interstate compacts, regional authorities and field interagency coordinating committees do not lead me to believe that the establishment of such institutions in New England would be intrinsically better than Title II River Basin Commissions under the Water Resources Planning Act. River Basin Commissions were the product of a long, slow evolution in water planning and the lessons learned about coordination and joint planning should not be lost. It should also be remembe.-ed that the establish-ment of new 20 organization and the disestablishment of old ones carries high decision cost. A great deal of energy, for instance, would be required to negotiate an interstate compact. There might be a time when the public demand for stronger regional Institutions were such that such decision costs could be easily borne. At present though, a greater return on energy invested can probably be gotten by incremental improvements of the present regional organizational structure in New England. DATE DUE CAYLORDINo. 2333 3 666 1410 05 9