State budgeting for natural resources programs

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Coastal Zone
Information
Center Coastal Zone OCT 10 1974
Information Center

State Budgeting for Naturat

Resources Programs

NASBO Institute on

Natural Resources

1968

HC National Association of State Budget Officers
103.7
S73 Council of State Governments
1968 Chicago, 1968

State Budgeting for Natural
Resources Programs
property of CSC Library

NASBO Budget Institute
PROPERTY OF THE University of Kentucky
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT May 1968
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
For Retention

When no longer needed, please
return to: Technical Processes
Branch - D823

Institute Director: James W. Martin, Lexington, Kentucky
Coordinator for Association: George A. Bell, Council of State Governments

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTh HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON , SC 29405-24 13

SPONSORED BY

Office of Development Services and Business Research
University of Kentucky

Kentucky Department of Finance

and

National Association of State Budget Officers (Publisher)
Council of State Governments
Chicago, 1968

PREFACE

The major presentations by invited discussion leaders are presented
in this volume. The record should be of continuing value to budget and
natural resources administration personnel, whether for use in group
training within particular states or for individual perusal. Unlike
the previously published "proceedings" of institutes, this volume
places at the end a significant dinner address which was not integrated
with the program but which was generally parallel.

The editorial policy leads to transcribing here the principal
papers substantially as the speakers presented them with only editorial
changes--reviewed by the speakers if more than formal-to omit such
valuable adjuncts of oral presentation as jokes, analogous anecdotes,
and occasional "asides" or connectives, all of which seem inappropriate
to a record such as this. on rare occasions, the editor adds explanatory
or cross referencing notes each signed: "Ed."

The Institute Director and editor is indebted to a wide range of
cooperation. The first obligation is to the participants in the
institutes, especially the speakers. The sponsors noted on the title
page contributed significantly. The Ford Foundation and the states con-
tributed financial support. The NASBO Committee on Professional
Development and Training, its secretary Dr. George A. Bell, and the
Association's Training Advisory and Evaluation Committee and its
members assisted at every opportunity. The editor is grateful for the
counsel of Joseph M. Robertson, Administrative Assistant to the U. S.
Secretary of Agriculture and William D. Carey, Assistant Director of
the U. S. Bureau of the Budget. Immediate aides Miss Anne Davis,
Ars. Judy Holladay, Miss Betty Rae King, and Mrs. Martha Whiteside
have assisted with such cheerfulness and generosity as to render
this acknowledgment wholly inadequate.

James W. Martin
Institute Director

Lexington, Kentucky
November 1968

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NATURAL RESOURCES AND THEIR ADMINISTRATION: AN INTRODUCTION TO
THE SUBJECT by Roscoe C. Martin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Characteristics of Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Environmental Conditions of Resource Use . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The Administration of Natural Resources: Preliminary
Considerations . . . . . * * - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Public and Private Roles in Resou;ce Administration . . . . . 7
Government and Natural Resources Management: An
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

MANAGEMENT COORDINATION--PREREQUISITE TO RATIONAL BUDGETING
by Freeman Holmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . 13
Management of Natural Resources and Ecological Unity . . . . . 13
Institutional Arrangements in Natural Resources Adminis-
tration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Coordination of Natural Resources Agencies in Wisconsin . . . 15

THE POLITICS OF FEDERAL RESOURCES ORGANIZATION by Harold Seidman 17
Organization and Policy of Federal Resources Programs . . . . 17
Consolidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
The Sharing of Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

PROGRAM BUDGETING TO COORDINATE RESOURCE USE by Adrian M. Gilbert . 23
Program Budgeting: What It Is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Program Budgeting: What It Does . . . . . . . . . . 23
Program Budgeting: How To Do It . . . . . . . . . . 23
Program Budgeting: Who Makes It Run . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Other Pieces of a Larger System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Program Budgets as a Unifying Device . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

RESOURCE BUDGETS--FISCAL AND ECOLOGICAL ESTIMATES by
Freeman Holmer . . * ' * * 28
Budgetary Issues in N;tu*ral*Resou;c;s'Manag;m;n@ 29
Other Kinds of Budgetary Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Conciusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

DETERMINATION OF SUPPORT ALLOCATIONS AMONG THE STATE'S NATURAL
RESOURCES ACTIVITIES by Jack Booher . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Historic Appropriation of Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
The Reorganized Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

ALLOCATION CRITERIA FOR NATURAL RESOURCE PROGRAMS by
Adrian M. Gilbert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

DEFINITIONS--SYSTEMS--PROBES by T. P. Field . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Natural Resources: Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . 40
The Future: Philosophy of Development and Use of Natural
Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

PEOPLE IN THE RECREATION ENVIRONMENT by Allen J. Worms . . . . . . 46

PREPARING AND CARRYING OUT EFFECTIVE STATE RESOURCE PLANS by
Lawrence L. Durisch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Role of Planning . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
The Development Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Evolution of State Planning Agencies . . . . 0 6 . . . . . . . 52
Planning and Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @52

A DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT FOR THE NORTHERN GATEWAY TO LAND BETWEEN
THE LAKES by Peter M. Stern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
What and Where Is Land Between the Lakes and Its Northern
Gateway? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . 55
TVA Has a Program for Land Between the Lakes . . . . . . . . . 56
What is the Appropriate Development Concept . . . . . . . . . 57

APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES IN ARKANSAS
by George E. Tannous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES IN SOUTH
DAKOTA by Steve Gomez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

LIST OF FIGURES

USDA Program Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Crosswalk--Budget Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
organization c(f Indiana Department of Natural Resources . . . . o 36
Land Between the Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Design Concept for Northern Gateway to Land Between the Lakes . . 60

Arkansas Water Resources Administrative Structure . . . . . . . . 65

South Dakota Natural Resources Agencies organization Chart . . . 67

NATURAL RESOURCES AND THEIR ADMINISTRATION: AN
INTRODUCTION TO THE SUBJEEC-Ta

Roscoe C. Martin
Professor of Political Science
Maxwell Graduate School, Syracuse University

What are we talking about, in respect of natural resources? We
are not talking about the simple concept set forth in the American
College Dictionary. That authority says that a natural resource con-
sists of the wealth of a country, including land, forests, mines, water,
and energy resources. That's a rather simplistic definition; so let me
modify or amplify, trying my own definition. A resource is a commodity,
thing, or attribute which is, or which may be made, available for human
use; and a naturai resource is one which exists as a bounty of nature.
So far so good.

But when you start enumerating these res-ources, you soon get into
trouble# at least you soon get into a controversial area. There is no
difficulty so long as you stick with the standard enumeration--land,
forest, water--for this is the time-honored trilogy which all accept.
These are basic resources; but, to my way of thinking, not the basic
resources, only some basic resources, I would add quickly minerals and
fuels. I would also add wildlife, which we have recognized for a good
many years as a natural resource. Then I would add three or four
categories of resources that only recently have begun to find their way
into discussions like these. How about the air about us as a basic
resource? The air we breathe has always been a fundamental resource, of
course, but only recently have we begun to pay any attention to it. As
a matter of fact, only in the last 20 years has the city of Los Angeles,
with its admittedly grave pollution problem, been forced to pay serious
attention to the air its people breathe; and only in the last five years

aProfessor Roscoe C. Martin opened the institute with four addresses
entitled: "Natural Resources and Their Administration: An Introduction
to the Subject"; "Public Administration and Natural Resources: General
Considerations"; and "Organization for Natural Resources Administration,"
the last of which comprised two lectures. Because of taping failure
only the first of the presentations is available in more or less com-
plete form. This paper is the substance of that discussion except for
omission of an enumeration of several resource-s administration problems.
If the record of the institute must suffer the loss of much of Professor
Martin's text it is especially fortunate that the present paper is sub-
stantially intact, as it lays out an approach to the management of
natural resources which can very helpfully introduce the materials that
follow.--Ed.

has the national government taken any serious interest in air quality.
Yet anyone will allow, once he gets it in his bombsight, that air is
a basic resource.

I would name space as a natural resource, The question remains as
to whose natural resource it is; but with the experimentation going on
in our own space program and in the Russian space program, surely space
has emerged in the last ten years as a resource. I would also list the
ocean as a basic natural resource. So long have we taken the ocean, the
high seas, for granted as a natural resource that we paid no attention
to such problems as pollution of the ocean until just recently.

Finally, I would list people as a natural resource. People, shall
I say, are a concomitant resource, a resource without which no other
resource is of any consequence. All other resources are relevant to our
consideration only as we incorporate into our thinking population as a
resource. Populations are of varying numbers and densities and of
varying qualities in the sense of differing stages of economic develop-
ment; but I choose to pass over these variations in favor of emphasis on
people as such. They are what make'hatural resources" meaningful.

Here, then, is a list of the natural resources which I propose to
talk about. Scanning my notes I see ten or twelve, and the list could
easily be expanded. Any one of you could add another one, two, or
three to the inventory.

Characteristics of Natural Resources

When we define natural resources in this broad fashion, we discover
that they have certain general characteristics--but only very general
ones--in common. We need to get these characteristics in mind if we
are to address the problem of natural resources administration with
intelligence and purpose.

Among the characteristics of natural resources which I identify (and
again you may identify-others) is their physical and geographical dis-
tribution. Natural resources occur without any reference to political
or national jurisdictions and without any reference to recognized or
accepted geographic limits. Natural resources are freakish and
illogical in their distribution; they are totally noncooperative so far
as the institutions of mankind are concerned. They occur--or seem to a
layman to occur--without much reference each to any other. This, of
course, is not totally true, but it is true that natural resources are
quite capricious in their physical or geographic distribution.

A second characteristic which might be noted is the interdependence
of natural resources, not the interdependence of each and every natural
resource with all the rest, but the interdependence in their totality of
natural resources: "the seamless wealth of nature," some quasi-poet
has called it.

Let me also mention the variable utility and accessibility of
natural resources. Some potential natural resources lie hidden, unrecog-
nized, or unidentified, while some which we know exist are of no use
because we can't get at them. Thus, for example, the vast iron ore

deposits of Labrador have been known to exist for many, many years; but
only in the last decades have those deposits come to be made available.
So we may mentionin relation to variable utility, that some resources
are potential only; they are raw (or latent, or inert, or underdeveloped)
resources. The vast uranium deposits of the American Rocky Mountain
area and of Canada have been there for, I suppose, millions of years.
They became resources subject to, or available for, human use only in
the last twenty years.

Resources become available as technology develops and as population
grows. Inert or raw resources become actual resources through a process
which I want to discuss briefly in a moment. Let's note that some
resources are actual resources--they are available or they are converted
or are readily convertible; they are improved; they are operational
resources. My adopted state of New York has magnificent water resources
which, one can see without being very well versed in the subject, lend
themselves to human utilization or to development for human utilization
rather readiiy. Resources are of variable utility; they are also variable
in quality and quantity.

Resources are exhaustible. We have operated in the United States as
though our natural resources were limitless. The lumber interests of
three-q uarters of a century ago conducted themselves and their businesses
as though the timber supply were inexhaustible. Under this philosophyr
there appeared no need to give thought to the future.

if resources are exhaustible, they are also destructible. For-
tunately, they are at the same time elastic. Thus in deep East Texas
65 years ago, a great oil field was brought in at Spindletop in the
Beaumont area. Shallow wells produced vast quantities of oil. Presently
the Spindletop field, pretty well drained, fell almost dormant. Some
little oil continued to come, but not a great deal. Then machinery for
deep drilling came in, and development interests came back to Spindletop,
drilled through the old oil bearing stratum to a greater depth, and
produced vast new quantities of oil. The elasticity of resources is
demonstrable in many ways. We increase the yield of coal mines by
improving the technology of coal extraction; we increase the utility of
water resources by improving the devices for bettering the quality of
water; and so forth.

.Again, natural resources are replaceable, they are substitutable.
This is something that twenty or thirty years ago escaped the notice of,
among others, John L. Lewis, who supposed that he could jack up prices
of coal indefinitely because it was at that time a basic fuel. It
turned out that natural or manufactured gas is a very good substitute.
The coal business went into the doldrums because substitutes were found,
and not in natural gas alone.

Natural resources are also convertible, they may be changed from
one character to another. Thus coal can be converted into gas, while
natural gas contributes to a great variety of materials ranging from
fabrics to fertilizers. It follows that resources are improvable; their
quality can be upgraded. The simplest illustration is to be found in
developing technologies for improving the quality of water resources.

From this enumeration of their principal characteristics, it is
clear that natural resources are uneven and unequal in practically all

respects, and that, in addition, they are highly unstable. Poets speak
of the bounty of nature, of a kindly nature. I'lore realistic observers
point out that, over much of the world, nature is not particularly*
bountiful, and it certainly is not very kind, with recurring droughts,
floods, earthquakes, and hurricanes. If mankind did not intervene to
convert natural resources into commodities available for human use at
the place where people need them, at the time when they need them, in
the form in which they need them, then, nature and its bounties would
not be of very great benefit to mankind. This is particularly true with
respect to the growing numbers of urban dwellers, whose very lives depend
upon the day to day availability of vast quantities of converted natural
resources.

Environmental Conditions of Resource Use

This comment brings us to some observations on the changing environ-
ment and its relations to natural resources and their management. I will
mention four or five points familiar to all of you but necessary to get
our subject in focus. On the one hand, we have a series of natural
resources which answer to the description which I have sought to give
you here. On the other hand, we have an environment which determines--
or largely determines--the significance of these natural resources.
What are the environmental factors which we have to keep in mind, and
what are the most significant of the current environmental changes?

In the first place we must list population growth. This is one of
the most traumatic of all factors confronting human kind today. This
country has 200 million and a few thousand people. There was a time
back in the 1930's when a project with which I was associated found
that there were 120 million, and we predicted with high confidence,
because our population experts told us this is what would happen, that
the population would level off at about 150 million. That, thank
goodness, is in a report not under my signature. We will have 225
million within perhaps one or two decades and another 25 million, or
a total of 250 million, by the end of the century. And, of course, we
are nowhere near the world's champions in reproduction!

The significance for our purpose of the world's unprecedented
population growth is to be found in the increasing demands on natural
resources and more particularly on land. Chemists,say that we will not
always be dependent upon the Products of the world's land. Nevertheless,
we are now so dependent, and there are 3 billion people in the world,
with 5 billion in prospect by the end of the century. This is the most
starkly realistic and dramatic environmental development of all. The
city of Calcutta,'India, now has about 6 million people. It draws on a
water supply devised by the British many years ago for a population of
750,000. Those who observe such things say that Calcutta will have 25
million people by the end of the century, and Bombay, 30 million. I
am suggesting that this population "explosion" is a worldwide phenomenon
and that it will have increasing significance for the world's natural
resources.

Let me allude to a second environmental development--already men-
tioned in another connection--the growth in urbanism. This subject is
a specialty of mine and a hobby which I ride whenever the opportunity
presents itself and sometimes when it doesn't; so I have to be careful

not to take more than two or three minutes to call attention to the fact
that in the last 40 years we have become an urban nation.- Seventy
percent of all our people now reside in urban places, not in the five
largest cities with more than a million people, but in those cities and
in scores of other sizable population centers. Moreover, this is a
worldwide trend, as my references to Bombay and Calcutta suggest. Tokyo
is now the largest city in the world. A central fact about Tokyo is
that only 18 percent of that city is sewered. This is another overwhelm-
ing fact which has to do with the preservation and the management of
natural resources, preservation in particular of the purity of water
supplies. Water supply and sewage disposal are central problems of an
urban society which involve natural resources; air pollution is
another.

I am suggesting that the furious trend toward urbanism is a'factor
which must condition our thinking about natural resources. In New York
State, our governor recently sponsored a bond issue of a billion dollars
to make available to the cities financial assistance for the purification
of water. The steady growth of the cities in New York has made it neces-
sary for the state to take a hand in the business of water pollution.

A third, highly significant development is the technological
revolution. Technological changes are of many descriptions, one of
which makes it possible to transmit electric power long distances.1
Developments of the last 15 or 20 years have therefore radically changed
the character of the electrical industry. The very simple adaptation
of aluminum pipe,to irrigation uses has led to the marked increase
of irrigation in New York State during the last 15 years. The permanent
energy revolution ushered in with atomic fission is well known to require
emphasis. There is, of course, no end to the technological changes
which have affected and which will affect natural resources.

Note next the worldwide national revolution. Observe the fact that,
in the last 20 years, the number of nations in the world has more than
doubled. Many of the new nations are on the African continent. Many
of these are small and weak; many have resources inadequate to support
their people; many are poorly equipped to govern themselves; but all
clamor for independent nationhood, each is jealous of its national
sovereignty; and all seek--and most receive--assistance from the
developed countries. This means a new kind of drain on our resources.
All countries which are even moderately prosperous share this drain
with, of course, Russia and the United States chief among them. The
emergence of the new nations is a highly significant aspect of the
changing environment.

Let us.see what we have said to this point. We have said that
resources occur in wide variety, without any kind of plan, and without
any intelligence beyond that of a fickle and unpredictable nature. We
have said that these resources are subject to important modifications
and influences because of changes in environment. All of this adds

lJust 15 years ago, New York State and the province of Ontario,
Canada, joined to construct a tremendous hydroelectric development on
the St. Lawrence River. The New York State Power Authority maintained
that electric power could not be economically transmitted more than
about 150 miles. So New York's share of St. Lawrence power is marketed
within a radius of 150 miles of the point of generation.

up to an ever-shifting pattern of resources and resource use. Resources
change substantively in response to expressed human needs. They change
also temporally, so that what was a resource at one time is not useful
as a resource at another time, while other things which formerly were not
useful suddenly become highly valuable through developing technology or
some other cause.

So we have an ever-varying pattern of resource identification and
resource use. It used to be supposed--and this country was guilty of
this supposition for much of its history--that natural resources were a
God-given thing with which mankind should not interfere. It was the
doctrine, furthermore, that if there were any need to interfere with
natural resources, that need should be answered by the private rather
than the public sector of the economy.

The Administration of Natural Resources:
Preliminary Considerations

Only belatedly did the federal government or the governments of the
states and localities, get into the business of resource development.
Let us now examine briefly the improvement, the conversion, the develop-
ment--in short--the admin-istration or the management of natural
resources.

I am suggesting now as another major aspect of the discussion that
resources may be improved, new resources may be brought into being, and
old resources may be brought into more profitable relationship--all
for the use of mankind. We call the means by which these adaptations
are brought about resource management, or development, or administration.

Let us discuss for a moment the conversion process--the process by
which water, for example, a raw commodity, water flowing uncontrolled
down the Columbia River or the Tennessee River is made available for
home, factory, and farm, for navigation and flood control. Consider,
also, how water is made available for pollution abatement, for sewage
disposal, for low-flow augmentation, or for hydroelectric power. Forty
years ago the Tennessee River yielded only a modicum of electric power--
some little bit was produced by private utilities, but not very much.
Or consider the utilization of a river for low-flow augmentation. The
Delaware River is regulated to guarantee a minimum flow at Trenton,
New Jersey--a very important factor for industry in the Trenton vicinity
and for the city of Trenton as well.

Water as a significant element in recreation is largely a new
development so far as water resources management is concerned. People
have enjoyed fishing and bathing in streams for a long, long time, but
only recently did the United States government plan its facilities in
such fashion as to make recreation a fundamental purpose of development.
Only a few years ago the Folsom Dam was finished on the American River
above Sacramento, and on completion the announcement was made with a
flourish that the dam would be open for public visitation. Those who
made the announcement were quite unprepared for what happened. Twenty-
five thousand people turned out in mass, many of them bringing boats
along behind their cars. As they approached the dam they found traffic
backed up for 15 miles and, once on the grounds, they found an almost
wholly inadequate boat ramp, and for the 25,000, two portable johns.

The nation's thinking has progressed rapidly since that day; still, we
are inclined to give only incidental attention to recreation.

I have said enough, perhaps, to suggest that, with respect to one
resource alone, there are-many and varied and sometimes conflicting
interrelations among uses. This is a fundamental factor witil respect
to resource administration. Fortunately we are rarely called upon to
range over the whole spectrum of water usage in any one project. The
requirements of water for municipa4 industrial, or agricultural supply;
for recreation; for navigation, flood control, or drainage; for sewage
disposal, hydroelectric power, or low-flow augmentation do not often
converge into harsh and unavoidable collision. Even sol it may be seen
that there are many interrelations within this one field of water
resources, and that not all of them are mutually compatible. In the
business of administering natural resources, or even water resources
alone, hard choices have to be made including many value judgments
concerning the uses to be made of the resource.

Let us pursue the subject further by introducing the topic, the
agencies of conversion. Who does (or who do) all these things? Where
does the leadership come from? Where does the developmental capital come
from? Who develops, who conceives, establishes, and supports the social
institutions necessary to management? Who provides the administrative
skill? Who, in short, does the administering: who is responsible for
it? These are the kinds of questions I propose to raise and to try to
answer.

Public and Private Roles in Resource Administration

The agencies of development may be either private or public, a fact
well known to you through observation; but let us explore some of the
implications. Let me call attention to the significance of private
development in the United States, to the American tradition and practice
of free enterprise. This American stress on private rather than public
action stemmed largely from American experience under the British Crown
in the years just preceding 1775. That experience caused the colonists
to think in terms of personal freedom, but also, in terms of freedom of
use and enjoyment of property; and both kinds of freedoms were written
into our Constitution. The American system of democracy imbedded in
this charter rests upon the doctrine of individual worth, the importance
of the individual entity--and that's what most of the shooting is about
these later days: That's what the poor people's mar@h on Washington
meant. Such action means that individual citizens have been denied, or
feel they have been denied, the personal liberties implicit in the
democratic ideal. But there's another kind of democracy to--at least we
relate this other side of the coin to our concept of democracy. It
resides in the doctrine of free enterprise.

The notion is that a,man is free not only in his person, but also
in the control of his property. He is free to own, utilize, and develop
his property in any legitimate manner he may see fit. And this was
literally true in the early days. One hundred and fifty years ago he did
in fact develop and use his property as he wished without any kind of
public regulation, and indeed, without recognition that there might be
some need for public regulation. So in New York the lumber industry
developed as it pleased: it destroyed the forests; it polluted the

streams. A little later the paper mills came along to complete the
process. They clogged the streams with industrial wastes--mostly
forest material wastes. They operated with very little public over-
sight or constraint.

The major instrument of this development was the corporation--
a legal entity created by law which consisted, not of the people who
owned the stock nor of the people who managed the business, but which
was rather an intangible, incorporeal being which existed only in law.
It was, in short, nothing more than a legal concept, but it was perhaps
the principal instrument in the forging of the free enterprise system.
By mid-19th century, virtually all of the big developers were corporations.
The railroads were major developers of natural resources. The vast coal
interests were early developers, as were the lumber companies; and,
toward the end of the century, the so-called "public utiiities." This
term, by the way, represents one of the neatest of sleight of hand
tricks I know; for the "public utilities" are not public utilities at
all, but rather private utilities which serve the public. Virtually
all the great developers in the fields mentioned, and in many others
besides, were (and are) corporations.

There is a vast body of law which has grown up around the concept
of the corporation. The Constitution itself, which does not include any
reference to corporations, has been turne.d to the protection of the
corporations. The corporation has been the principal bastion of American
free enterprise and under its cloak most of natural resource administra-
tion in this country has taken place. This is a cardinal fact which
must be recognized.

At the same time, we need to note that there has been growi 'ng
interest on the part of government in the development and management
of natural resources and in the regulation of private companies vis-a-vis
that field. There was an early emphasis on laissez-faire--which means
in effect, a policy under which government will leave private interests
alone to develop their concerns as they will. Our commitment to
individual liberty required that there be as little government as we
could get along with. You all know the old aphorism that that govern-
ment is best which governs least. This was literally the national
doctrine for the first quarter or third of a century after the estab-
lishment of the nation. since that time, let us say for some 150
years, there has been a steady progression away from raw laissez-
faire in the direction of a more active, a more concerned government.

About the middle of the last century, it came to be seen that
reliance upon the marketplace to take care of economic equities in an
emergent industrial state--to say nothing of other social equities--
standing alone, would not suffice. So we began to get government
regulation--to begin with, government regulation of hours, then, of
working conditions, of wages, of health conditions in the tenements,
of fire conditions, etc. And so from laissez-faire in the early days
we progressed gradually in the direction of more, rather than less,
government. The progression was from simple protection to regulation
to positive concern for economic and social well-being.

This evolution is highly significant for the decision on the
issue, who develops and manages natural resources? Natural resources and

the public use and enjoyment thereof were beneficiaries of this trend
from little government to more government and presently to the welfare
state. A short 20 years ago the term "welfare state" was a phrase of
scorn, employed for the purpose of showing contempt for the subject
referred to. No longer so. Mr. Goldwater's quixotic campaign is
instructive on this point, for he would have stripped government back to
nineteenth (eighteenth?) century "essentials." As the saying goes,
,the people of the United States didn't "buy" that proposition, nor
did they buy Senator Goldwater. The country has in fact come to wide
acceptance of the proposition that we need, not less, but more govern-
ment.

You will ask a little later what is the end to this trend; so I
will ask the question now and give you my answer. There will be more
government--more governmental involvement in natural resources admin-
istration in all countries of the world. This will be particularly
true in the underdeveloped countries, because they have little, and
sometimes almost no, private enterprise. They have an insufficient
infrastructure, an inadequate institutional base of a private nature
for the management of their resources. So they turn to government
almost entirely, as to joint public-private ventures.

The question then is not whether there will be a large measure
of public participation in the management of natural resources, but
rather, what the relations will be between public action and private
enterprise in the natural resources field--that, at least, is the
problem in this country, although not so much so in underdeveloped
countries which have less choice. There are numerous illustrations
to suggest that this is by no means a foreclosed issue or a problem
that will solve itself. Atomic energy is under the direction of the
Atomic Energy Commission, a United States government agency. In the
beginning it was bexclusively under the direction of that agency. This
is so no longer. The Tennessee Valley Authority, which was originally
exclusively a federal regional agency, has developed a vast network of
business and intergovernmental relationships in its 35 years of
history. The space communications corporation, Comsat, is part
private, part governmental in management. The Hells Canyon controversy
between proponents of public and private power resulted in a triumph
for the privately owned Idaho Power Company, which is now developing
the Hells Canyon hydroelectric power project on the Snake River. In
every instance, from total governmental development through mixed
public-private development to wholly private development, there was a
battle on the question of who does the developing--the government,
private industry, or both. In every case, however, the influence of
government was preferred. The point I seek to make here is that there
is a broad and expanding role for government in the development and
administration of natur'al resources.

bIt is now reported that the Atomic Energy Commission's 1962
estimate, that by 1980 40,000 megawatts of electrical capacity would
be atomic powered, has been raised to 150,000 megawatts in private
business installations.--Ed.

Government and Natural Resources Management:
a-n Introduction

What are the methods of government in natural resources admin-
istration? They graduate from the simple to the complex, from little
involvement to maximum involvement. Let me suggest ten or a dozen
major methods employed by government in natural resources administra-
tion, private and public.

(1) At the least controversial end of the spectrum the government
renders services to private enterprise in the development of natural
resources. It provides water supplies, sewage disposal, schools,
police and fire protection, and recreation facilities to name but a
few of the more common services.2

(2) Government may provide special educational services to private
enterprises involved in natural resources development. The University
of Kentucky is a public institution maintained by the taxpayers of
the state. Its business school conducts short courses for many
businessmen involved in the development of natural resources. The
Agricultural Extension Service offers another example of government
sponsored educational service to private enterprises. This sort of
illustration could be multiplied many times over.

(3) Government conducts research in natural resources problems and
makes its findings available to private enterprise. The work of the
National Fertilizer Development Center at Muscle Shoals in this field
is internationally known.

(4) Government officials may give advice and information to the
developers of natural resources. Again-the technical assistance
rendered by TVA in such fields as forestry, power systems, and fertilizer
technology is well known.

(5) Government may regulate development of natural resources. Regu-
lations to be effective usually must be accompanied by a system of
inspection. This represents a modest shift from services, education,
research, advice, and information--all available to natural resource
developers at their option--to a service performed in behalf of all
of the people at the option of government. This is something different,
and here private enterprises may begin to complain. They seldom com-
plain as long as the government is building roads, supplying water,
running educational programs, or providing protection for them. This
is the point at which natural resources corporations begin to resist;
their enthusiasm for government action decreases from this-point
forward.

(6) An important method of government in respect of natural
resource administration is taxation. A tax may be designed to produce

2some years ago the Wolverine Tube Division of the Calumet and
Hecla Consolidated Copper Company set up a big new plant in the vicinity
of Decatur, Alabama. The vice president in charge of that operation
wrote a little pamphlet in which he recognized the importance of the
services provided by the state of Alabama and the city of Decatur to
his company.

revenue or to provide an incentive or it may have regulation as its
purpose.

(7) Government may also utilize its control over the public
purpose to subsidize private development. On the outskirts of
Meridian, Mississippi, there used to be a roadside sign, as big as the
side of a barnt which read something like this: "Meridian, City of
Opportunity, Free Plant Site, No Taxes." This is an extreme illustra-
tion of a general practice, for government assists in the financing of
private businesses in a variety of ways.

(8) Government may contract with private enterprisers. We are
really getting into deep water here, and very interesting water. An
illustration that comes immediately to mind is provided by the larger
manufacturers of airplanes, which are heavily dependent.on their con-
tracts with the United States government. A full-page advertisement
by a major company in the New York Times some years ago conveyed a
message of optimism and good cheer. It ran to some such effect as
this: "Last year was a great year at Aircraft'Company.
We produced X hundreds of aircraft and sold them all: 9 percent to
foreign governments, 6 percent to American carriers, and 85 percent to
the United States government." The condition so starkly portrayed by
the advertisement speaks volumes for the relations between government
and private enterprise. It suggests that it is becoming increasingly
difficult to tell the difference between the two, and indicates the
growing importance of government activity to the private sector.

(9) There is a partnership concept under which government does part
of a job and private enterprise does the rest. Thus, the Tennessee
Valley Authority has spent a great deal of time and energy in setting up
conditions favorable to private development. TVA-industry collabora-
tion led the Bowaters Southern Paper Corporation to establish a major
plant at Calhoun, Tennessee.c President Eisenhowerevidently thought
that he had hold of something new in his advocacy of partnership, but,
in my view, the practice of partnership between government and business
is very, very old. In any evdnt, old or new, a partnership arrangement
represents another kind of relationship between government and private
enterprise.

(10) The device of intergovernmental fiscal transfers carries
important implications for governmental assistance to private enterprise
in the development of natural resources. If it were not for the federal
purse, a good many of the things the states do wouldn't get done; and
if it were not for the state purse, a good many of the things local
governments do wouldn't get done. Under the federal system each lesser
government is dependerit in considerable measure on the one higher up.
Many billions of dollars a year pass from the larger governments to the
smaller ones--from federal to state, from federal to local, and from
state to local. In the sense that governmental participation in the
development (direct or indirect) of resources is largely dependent on
fiscal strength, this is a very important aspect of natural resources
management.

CSee the paper below by Peter Stern.--Ed.

(11) Government may participate with private enterprise in the
administration of an undertaking. Comsat has a board of -15 directors
of whom AT&T and two or three kindred communications companies appoint
six, public investors appoint six, and the President of the United States
appoints three.

(12) Government may simply own and operate a@natural resource facility
outright. The most universal illustration I can cite is that of local
waterworks systems, most of which are publicly owned. Illustrations, of
course, do not stop there. The United States government owns and
operates many dams on streams throughout the country; many cities have
park and playground systems; most states have parks and forests; TVA
power is consumed by the customers of almost 160 cities, towns,
and cooperatives (all public agencies) as well as by a number ot major
private users.

More than enough has been said to indicate the variety and com-
plexity of the problems to which we have addressed ourselves. It is
not difficult to propose simplistic, armchair solutions to these
problems; that is done all the time. It is difficult, however, very
difficult,indeed, to come upon solutions--even partial solutions--that
wili meet the tests of logic on the one hand and political acceptability
on the other in the workaday world of reality.

MANAGEMENT COORDINATION - PREREQUISITE-TO RATIONAL BUDGETING

Freeman Holmer
Administrator
Division of Resource Development
Wisconsin

Art@ur W. Macmahon., for many years a professor at Columbia Uni-
versity, entitled one of.his books Federalism: Mature and Emergent.
It is probable that we are not yet ready to claim maturity for the
management of our natural resources,but certainly it is fair to say
that this function is emerging.

The nation used to operate on the theory that our resources were
so vast as to be virtually inexhaustible. Resource management con-
sisted'of slaughtering the "varmints," clearing the forests to make room
for the plow, and legislating about riparian rights.

Management of Natural Resources and Ecological Unity

Slowly and fumblingly we began to recognize that we were getting
into trouble; and we began (piecemeal) to protect (by law) our forests,
fish, game, water, and other resources. We tried, however, to deal with
one problem at a time. Like Hercules in his encounter with the Hydra,
we tended to find our troubles doubling--just when we thought we had
accomplished something.

We hailed the advent of DDT because it is persistent enough to
destroy a wide range of pests--then Rachel Carson wrote of a "silent
spring" in which fish and birds had turned out to be the inadvertent
victims of our inadequate knowledge.

We got rid of the excess foam from our detergents because the foam
was clogging our sewer treatment plants--then found that we should have
been even more concerned about the phosphate base from which the deter-
gents were concocted.

We built the Welland Canal to open the ports of the Great Lakes to
world commerce, and the lamprey destroyed our trout; we controlled the
lamprey, and the alewife (a perfectly useless fish) adorned our beaches.
Now we are planting trout and salmon--quite ignorant of the next danger.

We drain or fill our marshes to procure more farm land (or to take
it out of cultivation)--and wonder what has happened to our fish and
game.

We develop superb fertilizers for our farms and flowers--and are
surprised by the prolific growth of waterweeds.

In Herculean fashion, we believe that the world is ours to remake.
Like Hercules, we divert rivers, create lakes, move mountains. We
transplant trees and flowers and hearts. Then one Thanksgiving week-
end, the Governor of New York pleads with the people in our largest
-city not to drive their automobiles lest they suffocate. During those
three days, the Mayor of New York City barred the use of incinerators;
it took 200 men six weeks to dispose of the solid waste that wasn't
burned in those three days.

We are learning, slowly, someth ing about ecological unity. We are
learning that men and a1Z of nature are interrelated; that water pollu-
tion is not a problem but a series of problems. The solution of the
air pollution problem is not a solution but a comprehensive program.

Institutional Arrangements in Natural Resources Administration

There is a tendency--in a democracy--to rely on oversimplification
and slogans. But the span of public attention is limited both in scope
and in time. This adds another factor that complicates resource plan-
ning, organization, and management.

Perceiving the public interest--and acting in its support--is not
always easy. Our knowledge and understanding are limited. We fail to
comprehend what it is and what it means and often fail to apprehend the
consequences of our actions.

In this context, I am sure you will understand if I approach the
subject of management coordination in natural resources administration
with a huge dose of diffidence. As a nation, as states, and as local
governments, we have paid far too little attention to the kinds of in-
stitutional arrangements that will best identify and serve the public
interest, maximize the effectiveness of research, and create and main-
tain needed public support.

The management of our natural resources is not an exclusive respon-
sibility of the state government. The federal government is deeply in-
volved--in the national interest. Local governments have a substantial
share of the management problem. However, our primary concern is state
government so let us keep our focus there.

The substantive role of state government can be embraced in five
categories: (a) the development of our human resources; (b) the pro-
tection of the public safety; (c) the guidance of economic development;
(d) the provision of needed public works; and (e) the management of our
natural resources. The idea of creating large government agencies runs
directly counter to the folklore that a large department will be more
remote and less responsive to the people than a multiplicity of small
departments.

The reality, of course, is quite different. By simplifying the
structure of state government, public understanding of government
operations can be increased; state policy is more likely to be con-
sistent; and state administration is likely to be more responsive to
the governor, the legislature, and the people. When it comes to securing
policy change in response to popular desire, the shorter the lines of
responsibility, the better.

Coordination of Natural Resources Agencies in Wisconsin

Wisconsin, within the past year, made a substantial step toward
coordination of its natural resources management in a Department of
Natural Resources. However, two issues connected with the Wisconsin
reorganization are sufficiently typical to merit a footnote.

First, there is the question of inclusion. In Wisconsin reorgani-
zation, three agencies with substantive natural resources responsibili-
ties were omitted: the Department of Agriculture, the Soil and Water
Conservation Committee, and the State Geologist. The coordinative
response to this was to continue the Natural Resources Council of State
Agencies (on which these agencies and the university are represented)
and to make the council advisory to the Secretary of Natural Resources.
In addition, it should be noted that closely related functions, such as
control of septic tanks and control of air pollution within factories
are still the responsibility of the health agency and the labor agency
respectively. I

The second issue was over the abandonment of what is known in
Wisconsin as the "adversary system." It has been traditional in
Wisconsin for the Conservation Department to appear as a party to
hearings before other state agencies and to challenge decisions by such
agencies in the courts. The anomaly of state agencies, members of the
same executive branch, following uncoordinated policies has not seemed
strange to Wisconsinites. It does seem odd to me.

Many conservationists in Wisconsin felt that it would be a mistake
to put the fish management agency in the same department with the water
pollution control agency. There was a feeling that the fish interest
might be compromised. But the real question is where the compromises,
reconciling competing needs for water, ought to be reached.

It is my judgment that ecologically valid decisions are more likely
to be reached within the administrative structure--in collaboration
rather than in conflict. The appeal to public emotion in the course of
a quest for scientific truth is not likely to be as helpful as an
organizational structure that focuses administrative responsibility for
related functions.

Although these issues are, for the moment, settled in Wisconsin, it
is virtually certain that similar issues will appear from time to time.
The.administrative structure is a dynamic thing. The nature of activity
in state government reflects the changing multiplicity of needs in our
society and it will never be possible to establish neat, �elf-contained,
and mutually exclusive departments.

Natural resources management in state government will not be able
to avoid significant independent operations by state universities--as
in agricultural, water, or forest research. The challenge is to inte-
grate or coordinate the academic and administrative enterprises.

A more challenging organizational problem is that of providing the
mechanism by which seemingly unrelated programs are correlated whenever
correlation is appropriate. A recent magazine article was entitled
"Pollution and Poverty, A Strategy of Cross-Commitment." The thesis

was simple: that we should design our programs of pollution abatement
to make a maximum coincidental contribution to the abatement of
poverty.

This requires, in addition to a unified department of natural
resources, a mechanism (such as a governor's council) for interdepart-
mental coordination. And it may be facilitated by an alert and
imaginative budget staff.

It is not clear that Wisconsin has solved these problems, but at
least they have been recognized. If resource management in state
government is to become mature, it must surely address itself to an
approach managerially comprehensive enough to avoid the piecemeal
errors of the past.

THE POLITICS OF FEDERAL RESOURCES ORGANIZATION

Harold Seidman
National Academy of Public Administration

Sixty-one years ago President Theodore Roosevelt proposed to the
Congress that a single executive agency be established to coordinate
water resources development and.administration. President Roosevelt
argued that:

No single agency has been responsible under the Congress
for making the best use of our rivers, or for exercising
foresight in their development. . . . We shall not succeed
until the responsibility for administering the policy and
extending the plan is definitely laid on one man or group of
men who can be held accountable.

Roosevelt's words have a familiar and modern ring. His arguments have
been echoed time and again and expanded upon in various forms by count-
less distinguished study commissions, legislators, and scholars.
Presidents Harding, Hoover, and Eisenhower each went so far as to recom-
mend that the civil works functions of the Army Corps of Engineers be
transferred to the Department of the Interior, although it should be
noted that Presidents Hoover and Eisenhower did so shortly before they
were to retire from office.

We have made some progress with the establishment of the Tennessee
Valley Authority, enactment of the Outdoor Recreation Act of 1963 and
the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965, water pollution reorganization,
and the development of improved arrangements, short of consolidation,
for the management of public lands and forests. But we are no closer to
centralizing responsibility for resources planning and administration
than we were in 1907. Sponsors of bills now before the Congress to
establish a Department of Natural Resources are under no illusions about
the ultimate fate of their proposals.

Organization and Policy of Federal Resources Programs

If it were our intention in organizing federal resources programs
deliberately to violate each of the organizational commandments handed
down by Herbert Hoover, we could not have done a better job. Few would
dispute the Hoover Commission's findings that existing organizational
arrangements result in poor planning, overlapping and duplication,
working at cross-purposes, and wasteful competition. It by no means
follows, however, that the simple act of grouping water resources
agencies (the commission minority would have included land agencies) in
a single executive department would produce the result sought by the
commission--"elimination of disastrously wasteful conflict."

The myth persists that we can resolve deep-seated and intractable
issues of substance by reorganization. our organizational ills are the
reflection, not the cause, of our inability to come to grips with and
to reconcile basic conflicts concerning land and water rights, priorities
of use, cost sharing, method of congressional authorization, and local
vs. federal control. Probably in no other program area are the policy
and organizational issues so closely intertwined.

one of our elder statesmen, Dean Acheson, vice chairman of the
first Hoover Commission, has warned that "organization--or reorganization
in government--can often be a trap for the unwary." He went on to say
that

the relationships involved in the division of labor and
responsibility as well as the channeling of communications in
any activity is far more subtle and complex than the little
boxes which the graph drawers put on paper with their per-
pendicular and horizontal connecting lines.

organization is not neutral. Each of the resources boxes--
interior, agriculture, the Army Corps of Engineers, and a latecomer,
the Department of Housing and Urban Development--represent institutions
with divergent histories, legislative charters, sets of priorities,
administrative habits and, perhaps most important, separate although
sometimes overlapping constitutencies in the Congress and outside
community. Proposals to shuffle the boxes and straighten and simplify
the connecting lines immediately raise the questions: Who gains? Who
loses? Who contrdls?

The contestants are playing for high stakes. Federal outlays for
conservation and development of our natural resources are estimated at
almost $2.5 billion for fiscal year 1969. In determining how these
funds shall be allocated, hard choices must be made among competing and
often conflicting land and water uses. Cost benefit analyses and the
more sophisticated analytical techniques such as PPB can assist
materially in making discriminating choices among alternatives, but the
ultimate decision necessarily will require a political judgment. We
will never see the day when a computer can tell us whether lands should
be drained for flood control, reclaimed for agriculture, or maintained
as wet lands to preserve unique and valuable forms of aquatic life.

Whatever may be their philosophies as preservationists, conserva-
tionists, or developers, or their interests as farmers, stockmen and
cattlemen, sportsmen, power consumers or producers, or municipal and
industrial water users, each of the contestants has endeavored to
manipulate the organization structure and assignment of program
responsibilities so as to enhance his power and position in the
decision-making processes within the executive branch and the Congress.
Each has sought and found an advocate.

As early as 1905, the desire to influence organizational focus and
environment motivated the transfer of the national forest reserves from
the Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture. Con-
servationists deeply distrusted the Department of the Interior and com-
plained that it "is organized not to manage natural resources, but to
dispose of them." Gifford Pinchot argued that "land office business"

in common parlance had come to.mean large and rapid sales. The expres-
sion was derived from the Department of the Interior's General Land
Office. Secretary Ickes' attempt to recapture the Forest Service was
thwarted by the congressional committees and outside organizations
which had developed close and mutually supporting alliances with the
Forest Service in the pursuit of common objectives. These included
such diverse and influential groups as the Society of American Foresters
and the Association of State Foresters; the Izaak Walton League; the
American Farm Bureau Federation; the National Lumber Manufacturer's
Association; and the National Livestock Association.

The current organization of federal water resources functions re-
sults from a series of laws, each of which was directed toward a single
objective, such as improvement of rivers and harbors, reclamation,
flood control, and watershed protection. Given the original limited
missions, the logic of assigning rivers and harbors and flood control
functions to the Army Corps of Engineers, reclamation to interior, and
watershed protection to agriculture could not be reasonably disputed.
West Point was our first engineering school, and the corps alone among
federal agencies at the time possessed adequate engineering competence.
The lands to be reclaimed were mostly arid western lands under interior's
jurisdiction. Agriculture pioneered a watershed improvement program which
extended to the major watersheds of the Mississippi and its tributary
the Missouri.

In contrast to the early laws directed toward a single objective,
the Federal Power Act of 1920 expressed a multipurpose concept of river
basin planning and development. The clientele groups and congressional
committees who had come to identify their interests with those of the
corps, interior, and agriculture did not object to the new concept--
provided that it was carried out on their terms and by "their" agency.
Power was so evenly balanced among them that none could hope to wrest
control of multipurpose development. Instead of awarding custody to a
single agency or dividing the baby in three parts, the Solomon-like
decision was to produce triplets. The corps, interior, and agriculture
have obtained parallel, and in some respects identical, authorities for
multipurpose development of water resources, although reclamation's
jurisdiction is limited to the western states and agriculture's authority
by the 1954 act is limited in terms of the size of the structure for
watershed improvement. A somewhat comparable evolution has occurred with
respect to public lands and forests, which are also managed for multiple
purposes.

Except when all parties are agreed on the dominant project objec-
tive, the decisionas to which agency will undertake a particular multi-
purpose project requires a time-consuming, complex, and often bitter
collective bargaining process. At some point the President must make
a determination but it is rarely final and can be upset by appeal to the
Congress. Even the "peace treaties" negotiated by the corps and reclama-
tion under which one as'sumed responsibility for construction and the
other, responsibility for the operation and maintenance of certain
projects have been negated by subsequent congressional actions.

I have alluded from time to time to the Congress and congressional
committees. Congressional organization and executive branch organiza-
tion with respect to natural resources are so closely interlinked that
they cannot meaningfully be considered separately. Control over

projects and project authorizations and funding is the essence of con-
gressional power. Jurisdictional rivalries within the executive branch
pale by comparison with those among congressional committees. The
schism in the executive branch has its counterpart in the Congress
where the Public Works Committees exercise jurisdiction over the
corps, interior committees, over reclamation, and agriculture committees,
over soil conservation service and other agencies of agriculture. The
one exception is the assignment of responsibility for the Forest Service
to the Interior Appropriations subcommittee.

Congressional reorganization is much too sensitive even for the
boldest congressional advocates of a Department of Natural Resources.
Senator Edward Kennedy reassured the Congress that the sponsors of the
Aoss bill had no such intention and that because of the special ex-
pertise acquired by the committees and their staffs "legislative
authority should remain where it is, relying upon effective administra-
tion of the programs to provide essential coordination." with at least
six congressional "bosses," the position of the Secretary of Natural
Resources would be somewhat less than ideal.

Kings River project in California is often cited as a classic
illustration of the inherent weaknesses of federal resources management.
More significantly, this case history shows the linkages between organi-
zation and policy. The Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers
were in agreement on the design of the project. The differences resulted
from the conflicting water-use philosophies developed by the two agencies
in keeping with their individual legislative mandates. Reclamation
emphasized water conservation and maximum water use, and the corps,
local flood protection. This was no bureaucratic contest for power.
Economy and efficiency were not the issues. The significant disagree-
ments centered on the policy implications of the assignment of organi-
zational responsibility. These included differences with respect to
repayment and distribution of benefits, restrictions on acreage and
speculation, operation of irrigation facilities, power development,
and method of congressional authorization. Such issues cannot be
resolved by reorganization, and regardless of where the initial decision
is made, the final arbiters will have to be the President and the
Congress.

Former congressman and TVA director Frank Smith has concluded:

Ideally, the old concept of one single department of conserva-
tion and resource development, responsible for all Federal
planning and action in the field, might still work if it could
be achieved by waving a magic wand. It simply cannot be
achieved, however, without a bloody, bone shattering fight,
which would leave the landscape so scarred that the conserva-
tion cause would be lost in the critical years immediately
ahead.

What then are the alternatives?

The status quo has its strong defenders. Competition is believed
to stimulate initiative and greater responsiveness to state and local
needs. The diversity of federal resources agencies and programs in-
creases the options available to state and local authorities and
minimizes the potential for federal domination.

Consolidation

We have been able to achieve consolidation in two geographic
regions. The TVA was established in 1933 to carry out all federal
functions essential to a unified program of resource development,
use, and conservation. Efforts to duplicate the highly successful TVA
experiment in the Columbia and Missouri river basins ran afoul of the
same forces which have blocked a Department of Natural Resources.
Apparently when they created the TVA they broke the mold.

The Delaware River Basin Commission, established by interstate
compact in 1961, represents another and less drastic approach to
geographic consolidation. The commission enjoys a broad delegation of
federal and state powers, but it does not replace existing agencies.
Thus far it has not engaged in direct operations, but it has adopted
a comprehensive river basin plan to which actions by federal and state
agencies must conform. The Delaware River compact does take into
account the growing importance of state and local water resources func-
tions, particularly with respect to urban and industrial water supplies,
flood plain zoning, and water pollution prevention and control. Given
the difficulties of negotiating interstate compacts, the Delaware
River Basin Commission is also likely to remain one of a kind.

In the absence of central responsibility for resources policy and
management, the Bureau of the Budget has endeavored to fill the vacuum.
The budget process, however, is at best an awkward instrument for
developing a national resource program. For a time, under Bureau of
the Budget Circular No. A-47, the.bureau attempted to set uniform
standards and harmonize the inconsistencies and conflicts among federal
laws and policies concerning the planning and evaluation of water
resources projects. As might be expected, the circular was highly con-
troversial and in 1962 President Kennedy bowed to the congressional de-
mand that the circular be rescinded.

The Sharing of Power

Current approaches to improving resources planning and coordination
recognize that agencies can be persuaded to share powers, but not to
surrender them. Both the Council on Recreation and Natural Beauty and
the Water Resources Council are assemblies of equals and decisions are
to be reached by consensus.

The Outdoor Recreation Act of 1963 authorized the Secretary of
the Interior, in consultation with other federal agencies, to prepare a
nation-wide plan for meeting national needs, taking into account the
plans of other federal agencies and state and local governments. Co-
ordination among federal agencies is accomplished primarily through the
Council on Recreation and Natural Beauty established by executive order.
The council does not have authority to issue orders to an agency head,
but through it agency heads receive staff assistance in analyzing common
problems and come into agreement on policies, programs, and major
operating issues affecting their outdoor recreation activities.

The Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 was the culmination of 15
years of study, experimentation, and negotiation involving the Congress,
federal agencies, and the states.

Under the act state representatives are able, for the first time,
to participate in comprehensive river basin planning as equal partners of
the federal representatives. The act authorizes the establishment of
river basin commissions to be composed of a chairman, appointed by the
President, and representatives of interested federal agencies and the
participating states, appointed by the agency heads and governors re-
spectively. Four commissions are now in operation. The commissions
prepare joint, coordinated, and comprehensive plans for federal, state,
interstate, local, and private development of water and related land
resources and recommend priorities for action. The commissions, recom-
mendations are not binding upon any of the members, and the act directs
that their methods of operation be designed to achieve a consensus with
respect to their recommendations. Each member reserves the right to
present his views independently.

The act also established the Water Resources Council composed of
the Secretaries of Interior? Agriculture, Army, Health, Education and
Welfare, and the chairman of the Federal Power Commission. The chairman
of the council is designated by the President.

The council is responsible for (a) reviewing the plans and recom-
mendations developed by the river basin commissions and making such
recommendations to the President, the Congress, and the states as it
deems desirable in the national interest; (b) assessing, at least
biennially, the adequacy of water supplies in relation to requirements
in each region of the country, taking into account the national interest
as it is affected by conditions in the region; (c) maintaining a con-
tinuous study of the relation of regional and river basin plans to the
requirements of larger regions; (d) appraising the adequacy of federal
machinery for interagency coordination; (e) making recommendations to
the President with respect to federal policies and programs; and
(f) establishing, w-Lth the President's approval, principles., standards,
and procedures fo2@ federal participants in comprehensive regional or
ri-z)er basin pZanning and project formulation and 3vaLlation.

Final judgments concerning the Council on Recreation and Natural
Beauty and the Water Resources Council must be withheld until we have
had more experience. If they are evaluated as embryo Departments of
Natural Resources, they certainly will be judged a failure. Even with
its far reaching authorities and responsibilities the Water Resources
Council remains an interagency committee with all the inherent
strengths and weaknesses of such bodies. The two councils should be
judged for what they are and what Congress intended them to be--not in
some other terms.

We are dealing here with politics in the most fundamental sense.
Politics is the art of the possible. In the words of Frank Smith:

The paths worn by the pork barrel process in both the
legislative and executive branches are too deep to be readily
erased. To make the most effective attack on the great
problems which demand immediate planning and the earliest
possible action, conservation forces cannot afford the luxury
of leisurely regrouping. The fight has to be made with the
tools at hand.

PROGRAM BUDGETING TO COORDINATE RESOURCE USE

Adrian 14. Gilbert
Director, Division of Programs and Special Projects
Forest Service, USDA

Natural resources are conceived of by men for men. The air, water,
soil, forest, fish, game,and man himself are conceived by man as a
heritage, which he uses to create wealth. Then, he uses some of this
wealth to conserve these resources for future years of his life and
for future generations.

This is a kind of cycling process, a system if you will, the
bounds of which may stagger the imagination. It is only man among all
resources who can conceive ideas and then articulate them. In this
talk, we will examine program budgeting to see if it could help coordi-
nate our use of natural resources.

Program Budgeting That It Is
IV

Program budgeting is the assembling of information into an orderly
structure according to agency objectives and grouped about endproduct
oriented programs. Program budgeting covers a multiyear programming
period; a typical budget may include three past years and five future
years. The program budget comprehends both outputs of the programs and
money and manpower costs. Whenever possible, the endproduct outputs are
quantitatively measured; the costs are total system costs, including
those contributed from outside the agency. Thus, program budgeting is
tailored to executive decision making. It is structured by defined
objectives, which are translated into quantitatively measured end-
products whenever possible, associated with the total of all costs.

Program Budgeting: What It Does

Program budgeting is the preparation of information for decision-
makers that enables them to allocate resources according to their
objectives, measured by the outputs of programs. The program budget
displays the long-term consequences of present-day decisions. It can
be the basis for determining mixes of activities of several agencies
or several locations to meet objectives. It can be the basis for
identifying gaps (3r overlaps in activities. Program budget puts the
plan and the program before the appropriation.

Program Budgeting: How To Do It

The program budget is built by a structure that coincides with
the agency's major mission. In the Department of Agriculture, for

example, Secretary Freeman has six major missions for the department by
the year 2000. In the jargon of the planning-programming-budgeting
system (PPBS), these missions are called program categories. These
major missions are in turn divided into more explicit program planning
packages, called program subcategories, each having its own statement
of objectives and output oriented t1rgets. An example of the program
structure is displayed in Figure 1.

A program structure is not a permanent thing. In its development,
the executive and his staff must tailor several structures, each time
considering agency objectives and the corresponding endproduct outputs.

Not all endproducts can be quantified. The attempt should be
made to identify endproducts of program packages that would give a
closer approximation of the success in attaining a particular objective
or mission. For some products, there are units of measure that are
both good proxies for estimating program success and for which data
are or could be collected.

Since the data to be assembled are ,not only endproduct outputs but
also costs, and over long periods of time, a modern information system
would be useful. Information systems often imply some kind of computer
capability. The important thing is to have a means of assembling
relevant output and cost information for a multiyear period at a degree
of accuracy that will satisfy the agency.

Although most agencies of the federal government have instituted
program budgeting as part of PPBS, the federal budget considered by
appropriation committees of Congress continues along the more conven-
tional lines. To-facilitate trarislation from the prograi-ft budget to
the conventional budget,.cross-walks are prepared. These are two-way
tables that display either inputs or outputs according to both budgeting
systems. An exampie of a crosswalk is shown in Figure 2.2

Program Budgeting: Who Makes It Run

Budgets are made by people; program budgets entail the work of
people with many kinds of talent. Activity planners within the agency
are closely acquainted with the work that produces the various products.
on a continuing basis, they plan the activities that contribute to the
effectiveness of an agency's program. They assess the effect on output
of a change in the mix of men or money; or the effect of a change in the
output target upon the number of men and the amount of money needed to
reach that new target level.

Cost accountants play an important role. The program budget depends
upon the availability of good estimates of unit cost of production. In

iWilliaLn A. Carlson, P@anning-Programming-Budgeting System in the
U. S. Department oj- AgricuZt;ure (Washington: U. S. Department of
Agriculture, 1968), p. 24.
21bid., p. 9.

FIGURE 1

USDA PROGRAM STRUCTURE
(Dollars in Millions)

PROGRAM CATEGORY FY 1967
Program Subcategory Actual

INCOME AND ABUNDANCE:
Farm income . . . . . . . $3,783
Agricultural Production Capacity . . . 591
Agriculturai Marketing and Distribution System . . . . . . . 79
Total, Income and Abundance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,453
GROWING NATIONS--NEW MARKETS:
Food for Freedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,618
Export Market Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Agricultural Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
international Agricultural Services . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Total, Growing Nations--New Markets . . . . . . . . . . . 1,662
DIMENSIONS FOR LIVING:
Diets and Nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823
Health . . . . . . . . . 73
Education and Training 24
Services for Living . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Total, Dimensions for Living . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 970
COMMUNITIES OF TOMORROW:
Community Development Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Housing . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Public Facility and Business Expansion 561
Resource Protection and Environmental Improvement . . . . . . 220
Recreation, Wildlife, and Natural Beauty . . . . . . . . . . 53
T imb e r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
Total, Communities of Tomorrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RESOURCES IN ACTION:a
Resources for Agricultural Production . . . . . . . . ( 416)
Resources for Timber . ( 302)
Resources for Recreation: Wildlife, and' Natural Beauty ( 53)
Resources for Community Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 58)
Resource Protection and Environmental Improvement . . . . . . ( 220)
Total, Resources in Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,049)
SCIENCE IN THE SERVICE OF MAN:a
Income and Abundance . . ( 178)
Growing Nations--New Marke ( 7)
Dimensions for Living . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 90)
Communities of Tomorrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 24)
Resources in Action . . . ( 61)
Total, Science in the Service of man* . . . . . . . . . . . 361
GENERAL SUPPORT:
General Ad-ministration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Program Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Total, General Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
TOTAL, USDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 8,401
aThe figures in these Categories are included for display purposes
only, and are not included in Department totals. They represent a re-
classification of certain programs included in the other Categories.

FIGURE 2

CROSSWALK--BUDGET YEAR
(Dollars in Millions)

Technical
Research Credit Assistance Statistical Land Mgt.
Programs A2ency Agency Agency Agency A2ency Total

Farm income $ 10 $2,500 $ 20 $ $ $2,530

Agricultural
production
capacity 230 100 26 15 11 382

Agricultural
marketing
and distri-
bution system 50 9 12 71

Total 290 2,600 55 27 11 2,983

most cases these estimates come from past experience; the data gathered
and assembled by cost accountants and turned over to the planners for
projecting future outputs.

Program budgeting needs program analysts and budget analysts.
While the program budgeting system requires a large amount of explicit
data, it also requires intelligent and thorough analysis. Tradi-
tionally, the budget analyst has been largely concerned with the input
side of the program budget. In programs, such as those in natural
resources, analysts who are educated or well acquainted with the field
of resources, as well as with economic analysis, are needed for
assessing the future demands for output of the various missions and for
considering alternate mixes of program packages.

Analysis, cost accounting, and activity planning would be of no
avail if not used by the decision maker. Program budgeting implies an
executive who is comfortable in a world of input-output relationships,
who is capable of assessing the future consequences of present deci-
sions, and who will make explicit choices.

Other Pieces of a Larger System

While program budgeting can be initiated by itself, it must
eventually dovetail with long-term planning. We must consider the
long-term demand for these natural resources. In a larger sense,
natural resources contribute to the economic development of a firm,
a state, or a nation. Some natural resources are exchanged in the
market place, hence, pricing is a factor in demand analysis.

Long-term planning depends on inventories of natural resources.
For example, the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture con-
ducts a timber inventory on a state-by-state basis. This is a
periodic inventory with an average cycle of 10 to 12 years. Other
agencies in the federal government, regional agencies, and states all
conduct resource inventories. Coincident with resource inventories
is the identification of alternate sources of supply of resources.
Some resources may be substitutes for others or they may be found in
different geographic locations. All are identified in long-term
planning.

Once demands have been forecast and supplies have been inven-
toried, there is an opportunity for analysis of various ways of pro-
ducing a given level of resource. Natural resources that can be priced
are subject to benefit-cost analysis. When outputs cannot be priced or
even measured precisely, cost-effectiveness analysis may be used.
Since investments for the production of many natural resources do not
pay off for long periods of time, discounting to determine present
values is necessary in both methods of analysis. Another analytical
device now being used in some timber supply studies is the internal rate
of return on investments. This kind of analysis generates the estimated
rate of return on flows of investments and resource outputs over long
periods of time.

The point about long -term planning and analysis is that the results
of these endeavors help produce better program budgets.

I have stated earlier that the program budgeting period includes
past years of budgeting experience. Thus, some sort of management con-
trol of post-budgeting activities is implicit in a program budgeting
procedure. The Department of Agriculture has initiated a Program
Attainment Reporting System that is structurally similar to the program
budget, having the same units of output. Each agency within the Depart-
ment submits a monthly attainment report comparing its actual output
with its planned output. In this way an agency has the opportunity
of measuring its production and of making adjustments before the end of
a fiscal year. Similarly, accrual or cost accounting systems, with
monthly or quarterly statements, provide managers with comparisons of
actual.and planned costs for jobs. The data gathered both through the
accomplishment reporting and cost accounting systems will be extremely
useful in preparing program budgets for subsequent years.

Program Budgets as a Unifying Device

Program budgets can be used as a means of bridging formal organi-
zation lines. Within a state? several agencies may deal with the same
resource. Or several agencies may engage in the same activities but
for different purposes. The program budget provides the decision maker
with the information which enables him to array the budget proposals
in several different ways so that he may better assess the consequences
of a particular set of budget allocation decisions. The program budget
can maintain the integrity of the organizational structure and provide
an unusual output oriented overview at the same time.

RESOURCE BUDGETS--FISCAL AND ECOLOGICAL ESTIMATES

Freeman Holmer
Administrator, Division of Resource Development
Wisconsin

In discussing the general issue of organization of state government
for resource management, I touched only lightly on the vertical distri-
bution of governmental responsibility in the area of natural resource
management. The role of the federal government is broad and expanding--
but it is essentially beyond our sphere of concern today. Rather, let
me underscore the significance of the decisions with respect to the
division between state and local units of government in such management.

The provision of county parks, municipal water supply systems,
metropolitan sewerage treatment, the operation of soil conservation or
irrigation districts, and many other local government activities is a
part of the totality of resource management under the jurisdiction of
the states. The present patterns of the distribution of these political
powers are compounded of many factorsf not the least of which is political
tradition.

In somewhat similar fashion, the state role in fish and game manage-
ment, forest conservation, and certain other practices has been con-
strained by the patterns of the past, notably the use of earmarked
revenue. The idea that the forest products industry should carry a major
share of state action in protecting and propagating forests is not far
off the mark. The reliance on hunters' and anglers' licenses for support
of state programs designed for their special benefit makes equal sense.

Let me digress to observe that the case.against earmarked funds is
not as clear-cut as many believe. Although there is a theoretical
advantage in requiring every program of a government to compete each
time against every other program for its share of the total resources,
practical considerations intervene. Legislators believe in the theory,
but the pressures on their time and attention limit the number of deci-
sions they can make during a legislative session.

As a matter of practical fact, there is a rough justice in con-
tinuing existing programs at existing levels--making adjustments "at the
margin." It is politically easier to raise license fees than it is to
support an expansion of the same program financed from the general fund.

I begin this discussion of resource budgeting, therefore, with
reference to two significant facts of political and fiscal life. Ear-
marked funds and local responsibility for natural resource functions
are obviously significant elements in budget planning for natural re-
sources management but they ought not be taken as immutable.

Budgetary Issues in Natural Resources Management

what the budget analyst for natural resources agencies must assure
himself is that the agencies have recognized the real fiscal issues and
are proposing programs which are both fiscally and ecologically valid.

Issues in water resources administration

My own sphere of responsibility is a concern for water resources
management. The issues here cry out for comprehensive and creative
analysis. We must analyze and evaluate a great many established prac-
tices. Take, for example, the business of sewage treatment. There is,
as many of you know, a tremendous interest in finding a more effective
fiscal tool in the quest for clean water. We have been using state
(and federal) grants to municipalities to encourage construction of
treatment plants. We sugarcoat the industrial pill with some minor
tax concessions for construction of pollution abatement facilities.
This is probably not enough. For one thing, it encourages the pro-
liferation of small (usually inefficient) facilities.

Out of this concern has come a call for development of a system of
charges against any one discharging waste that degrades any public water.
The goals of such a system would be to encourage private initiative and
local action and maximize pollution abatement. Similar questions about
existing procedures include weighing the relative merits of a permit
system (which would bar all discharges except under specific conditions),
against those of a system which permits discharges until damage has
taken place.

A permit system or an effluent charge system seems clearly desir-
able, but they are economically and politically fragile. HA license
to pollute?" Even with a fee, it somehow seems immoral and tile possi-
bility of inequity is very great. Still, the idea deserves exploration.

Appropriate jurisdictions

Another issue in this area relates to the establishment of appro-
priate jurisdictions. Watersheds and airsheds ignore local boundaries.
The bulk of park users may be concentrated in a relatively restricted
area without desirable recreation areas. Forest, fish, and game
management have been recognized as state responsibilities because they
are not easily assigned to local government. Resource planning
(especially for water and recreation purposes) has been assigned in
part, at least, to regional agencies.

Natural resource budgets, I am suggesting, should reflect a careful
evaluation of the proper area for the administration of a function. In
the case of sewers and public water supply, adherence to existing
separate municipal jurisdictions may be quite wrong. Budget decisions
ought to reflect a concern for means of adjusting administrative areas
to relate to the areas of origin and of disposition of the wastes of
society.

Integration of the state program

By now you realize that I do not propose to dispense any rules of
thumb as to staffing or equipment patterns for forest or agriculture or

mining or other natural resource agencies. I believe it would be a
fraud to do so. The resource inventory of every state is so different
that I could not do so in a meaningful way. In reaching this decision,
I do not mean to minimize the need for analysis to detect inefficiencies
of planning for agency activity. Such study is important. Agencies can
be overstaffed and overequipped and oversupplied.

But it is even more significant for you to focus on the integration
of the state program--both internally and externally. I do not suggest
that you substitute your judgment for that of the responsible agency
administrators, but no responsible agency administrator will find your
inquiries about interrelationships and seeming inconsistencies imperti-
nent or unimportant.

Other Kinds of Budgetary Issues

In addition to the kinds of issues I have suggested earlier, let me
suggest some of the other kinds of budgetary issues I believe you will
encounter.

Benefit-cost ratios

Among these is the quicksand of benefit-cost ratios. This concept
reminds us that a goodly share of the public expenditure for natural
resource management is in the nature of an investment, and the invest-
ment frequently falls in the realm of public works. The justification
of such works is not by faith but by benefits--real or imagined. The
costs of a dam or a canal or any other facility can be estimated with
some accuracy. This side of the equation is relatively straightforward.
The assignment of dollar value to benefits is more treacherous. To
borrow a gross federal example: Flood control projects provide sub-
stantial benefits in the protection of downstream property values. Now,
however, after the investment of billions of dollars, property losses
from floods are greater than ever. The reason, of course, is that the
existence of flood protection encourages investment in property in the
flood plain. There are those who would insist that a wiser public
policy would be to restrict or forbid the placement of buildings of any
kind in the flood plain.

Or assume that a hydroelectric or flood control dam will pay its
way in a correlation of costs and benefits but in the process destroy
a stretch of scenic but isolated river. How does one measure the cost
of such a loss?

Consideration of Zong-range impact of proposed programs

To shift gears rather abruptly, consider the management of deer in
the cutover forest lands of Wisconsin and other states. Here, surely,
is evidence of man's ability to manage nature. But the secret of his
success is in the fact that cutover forests offer almost precisely the
environment most conducive to the maintenance of larger deer herds.
This is not, however, a normal balance. In the future, if we choose to
try to maintain deer herds at present levels, we will find the effort
increasingly expensive.

similarly, on Lake michigan, two states are engaged in a massive
and expensive effort to stock the lake with salmon as a part of the
means to control the alewife population. So far, the project has been
encouraging for virtually the same reasons the deer have multiplied--
the forage is excellent.

In park management we are beginning to see another issue arising
as we synthesize the camping experience, creating in wooded areas
temporary canvas slums for three months of every year.

Balance is the essence of nature. Predators and prey, growth and
decay, drouth and flood are natural. We can tamper and adjust only
within very narrow limits without courting disaster.

The implications for natural resource budgeting are clear. Are we
in possession of sufficient facts about the impact of a proposed program
on natural resources to warrant moving ahead? In many instances, this
test will suggest that our programs should be tentative and experimental
rather than a total commitment.

The relationship of natural resource management to issues of state
economic development is particularly close. It is not unusual, however,
for natural resource agencies to proceed with their programs with minimal
attention to the work of the economic planners. Let me leave that one
just by stating it.

Data systems

Finally, I would address your attention to the budgetary implica-
tions of natural resources management information. My impression is that
information about quantity and quality and costs and uses of our natural
resources is, in most states, either desperately limited, inaccessible,
or both. In this area of state government (as in other areas) it is
pos sible to collect a great deal of perfectly useless data or collect it
in forms that defy correlation and comparison.

The budget analyst is not responsible for the design of an appro-
priate information system, but his work will be greatly facilitated if
such a system exists. Ile should, therefore, give particular attention
to those portions of the natural resources budget that support the
maintenance of a natural resources information system. Of course, the
analyst must ask whether the system provides the information required
for sound management decisions. Ile should also ascertain whether the
data classification is integrated or compatible with federal and local
schemes. It is legitimate to ask whether the information is collected
and stored economically, if it can be retrieved efficiently, and if
data useful to more than one state agency is easily available across
departmental or divisional lines.

Conclusion

I seem to have been discussing policy issues. I do not deny it.
(Nor do I apologize.) It is the business of the budget analyst whose
assignments include natural resources programs to worry a lot more about
the budget implications of policy questions than about staffing ratios
and tables of equipment.

You must recognize the constraints of structure and tradition but
must encourage their modification on occasion. You must be wary of the
seemingly simple formulas that purport to weigh benefits and costs; you
must be conscious of the delicacy of the balance of nature; you must
relate natural resources management to plans for the state's economy;
and you must help assure the availability of sufficient information on
which to base resource management decisions.

DETERMINATION OF SUPPORT ALLOCATIONS AMONG THE STATE'S
NATURAL RESOURCES ACTIVITIES

Jack Booher
Indiana Budget Director

As all of you well know, administrators of natural resources have
experien'ced and will probably experience more changes in dealing with
and financing of their programs than perhaps any others in state govern-
ment. The changes in your role as budgetary analysts in implementing
the needed program and financial rearrangements cannot be left to
happenstance or present management-type studies. It must be an ongoing
process. Also,@regardless of the size of the organization, someone
should engage in program planning, management analysis, and the develop-
ment of sound financial structures.

Historic Appropriation of Funds

For the most part, financing for natural resources, as practiced,
has been one involving dedication of revenue. Funds from certain spe-
cific sources could be used only in each particular area. In consequence
each area develops as a separate empire.

I would like to outline the appropriation structure that was used
be:rore the reorganization of our Indiana Department of Natural Resources.
The approximate yearly appropriations @or operating expenses are shown
to enable you to see the relationships that existed:

Soil Conservation Committee $ 30,000 G
Soil Conservation Districts 20,000 G
Soil Conservation Watersheds 150,000 G
Department of Conservation Forestry 850,000 D
Department of Conservation Fish & Game Opr. 760,000 D
Department of Conservation Fish & Game Enf. 870,000 D
Department of Conservation Hunting & Fishing
Sites 450,000 D
Department of Conservation Entomology 90,000 G
Department of Conservation oil and Gas 100,000 G
Department of Conservation Geology 480,000 G & D
Department of Conservation Topographical
Survey 50,000 G
Department of Conservation Administration 1800,000G
Department of Conservation Parks & Memorials 1,300,000 D

iThe character of the appropriaticn is also noted by '-G" (general
fund) or "'D" (dedicated revenue).

Flood Control and
Water Resources 310,000 G
Water Resources Administration 90,000 G
Water Resources Ground Study 41,000 G
Water Resources Gauging stations 48,000 G
Water Resources Lake stabilization 24 '000 G

In each instance the appropriations from dedicated funds for
operating expenses had to be taken into consideration before funds
could be appropriated for capital projects. Oftentimes one division
had more funds available for operation and construction than it could
possibly use. Other divisions were barely able to meet operating
demands. Management was strangled; integrated and multiuse planning
was nonexistent, and coordination of staff and objectives, impossible.
In many instances the programs that were carried on were a direct
result of federal legislation, most of this federal legislation being
"pork barrel" type projects to,be matched with state funds. The state
in this case really did not have an opportunity to set its own
priorities, but only that of trying to meet an obligation to utilize
available federal funds. I do not wish this presentation of the case
to be interpreted as being against these projects but only as. a state-
ment that the state was often required to commit funds for projects
before it had an opportunity adequately to assess its position.

The Reorganized Department

The present appropriation structure reflects reorganization:

Department of NaturaZ Resources---
Administration $ 270,000 G
Land, Forests, Wildlife 490,000 G
Water and Mineral 810,000 G
Geology Division 525,000 G & D
Soil Conservation 190,000 G
Reservoirs 320,000 D
State Museum 150,000 G
Forestry Division 880,000 D
Fish and Game Enf. 1,230,000 D
Fish and Game Opr. 1,300,000 D
Parks and Memorials 1,460,000 D

Under the reorganization the programs that received general fund
appropriations were much broader in scope, but still the dedicated funds
could be used only for specific purposes. Further complications have
entered the picture with the construction of multipurpose reservoirs.
These reservoirs needed both operating and capital improvement funds
in order to meet the demands of our society. What source of funds
could be used? 'The answer as found by the General Assembly, of course,
was based on solid, sound judgment. After meeting the needs of two of
the dedicated fund divisions, it was decided that reservoirs could be
financed 35 percent from the Fish and Game Division and 65 percent from
parks and memorials funds. By doing this we were able completely to
strap the operations of three divisions instead of two.

The mix of general and dedicated funds can also cause many problems
in central office services performed by the Department of Natural
Resources. What methods should be used in determining the appropriations
from dedicated funds for engineering services, accounting serv.ices, and
purchasing? Are these dedicated funds supposed to pay their full share?
How do you treat a proposal to set up an elaborate communications system
that is a contact with all of the various divisions of the department?
I think these questions and many others,which I have not raised spe-
cifically, are the types of questions which call for aid through the
techniques of management, accounting, and budgeting.

The first problem we face is the use of the general fund. Most
legislators feel that this fund, which is of course limited, is not a
prime resource to be utilized in conjunction with dedicated funds. on
the other hand, the special interest groups feel that the earmarked
funds should be spent in only the area in which they were collected.
We have here two forces pulling in opposite directions.

To me the complications and ramifications of the new type of multi-
purpose reservoir, a natural resource property, have demanded that
appropriating and budgetary techniques be completely changed. Many of
our forestry division landholding areas are now being utilized by people
for hunting, fishing, boating, swimming, camping, and almost any other
.kind of outdoor recreation that you wish to name. In fact these areas
are the same as our state parks. Our reservoirs being built are all
designed for multipurpose use.

Monroe Reservoir is an example of the complex problems that are
created by the multipurpose reservoir. The reservoir complex is located
in south central Indiana and covers over 25,000 acres, of which 10,750
acres are covered with water at normal pool elevation. Intensive use
sites in the area include three major recreation areas, a major forest
area, three upland game hunting areas, and several launching ramps with
adjoining parking lots and facilities.

Forestry lands must be managed by the professional forester;
recreational facilities, operated by the park specialist; and fish and
game areas, attended by the biologist. While these professionals are
within the Department of Natural Resources, they must be brought together
under one management in order to insure proper management practices and
control in the case of the reservoirs.

Why then do we maintain our landholding divisions as such a separate
entity for operation and source of funds? Why not make this Department
of Natural Resources a single department with a defined purpose?

z w
0

m
0 0

o
0 W.
z
0
w M 0

0
c
z m 0
r 0
< 0 z
:M; ;D
w o
0 m
-40
>
0zI
m Ca > > 0
m z

M -1
K 0
0 (a z

0 L

>
6 1
0 to
00 0
0 M, 0
1@ MZ
00
<
N N m m
0

w m > m
0 0 z z
0 --1
0 0 t@- - -
1 0 0 0 114 0
0 0 >
z 0
M <
m
0 z 0
0 C-) x -4
--i C z
0 m c
6 m 0 z x
> >
I
0
C')
t x
w0 M
0 0 > U)
0
c

o M
.6 0 0. to
0 0 1
WO
0
0 0
0. 0
00 6 z
z 0
w 0 c
0 0 X)
0 >
o
1 0 rn
L. 5 (n
00 z 0
0 w
0
Z C 0
m m m
m m
0 > >
r1>c
mz0
0
m
z (D
0 ZD 0
c
x
0 m
m m
(n

Z
>
x
0

0
z
Vz
0 d
z
K
M

A
loiz!

ALLOCATION CRITERIA FOR NATURAL RESOURCE PROGRAMS

Adrian M. Gilbert
Director, Division of Programs and Special Projects
Forest Service, USDA

It is the clear duty of Government, which is the trustee
for unborn generations as well as for its present citizens, to
watch over, and if need be, by legislative enactment, to de-
fend, the exhaustible natural resources of the country from
rash and reckless spoilation. How far it should itself,
either out of taxes, or out of State loans, or by the device
of guaranteed interest, press resources into undertakings
from which the business community, if left to itself, would
hold aloof, is a more difficult problem. Plainly, if we assume
adequate competence on the part of Governments, there is a
valid cause for some artificial encouragement to investment,
particularly to investments the return from which will only
begin to appear after the lapse of many years.1

A growing population and an expanding economy are exerting in-
creasing pressure on the resources entrusted to governmental agencies.
To maintain the quality of natural resources demanded, powerful and
sophisticated planning tools are required. Accordingly, the allocation
problem appears to be one of discovering appropriate decision rules that
would point to the action to be taken in the present, and in each sub-
sequent period, and that are compatible with attainment of some future
goal or mission.

These rules do not fall out readily from benefit-cost analysis,
cost effectiveness studies, welfare-economids, or micro- and macro-
economics, McNamara and Rand Corporation notwithstanding. However, a
rationale that embodies all of the above criteria allows a partial
analysis that may result in a near optimum allocation of resources.
This can best be accomplished by bringing into government the most
modern management techniques available. But such introduction will
not, of course, guarantee near optimum allocation.

Consider a specific area of land with some unique natural phenomenon;
for example, a virgin stand of redwoods or a vast area of unspoiled scenic
beauty. Let us assume further that there are two possible uses of the
land. one use, such as a wilderness area, is consistent with preserving
the natural environment; the other use, strip mining or possibly
destructive logging causes adverse and irreparable damage to the land.

1A. C. Pig0u, The Economics of WeZfare (4th ed.; London: Macmillan
Company, 1960), pp. 29-30.

if the criteria for selecting one of the above activities were the
activity having the greatest benefit-cost ratio, the use with the highest
present value net of costs would be undertaken. If the use that promised
the highest benefit-cost ratio is the use that is incompatible with
preserving the environment, would it necessarily follow that the choice
allocated the resource efficiently?

Benefit-cost analyses, as yet, do not ordinarily take into account
certain aspects that are both legitimate social values and relevant
to the decision maker.

First, it can be argued that the wilderness area has no close
substitutes, while alternate sources of supply of natural resource
commodities are readily available. Plastic and steel compete with
lumber, but a Grand Canyon once destroyed is lost forever.

Next, since the gate receipts obtained from the use favorable to
the preserving of the natural environment would not equal the total social
value of the resources, a-benefit-cost analysis of the two uses is not
comparable.

An economic allocation would require provision to be made for the
entire gamut of individual tastes in proportion not only to their
rapresentation in the population but also the intensity with which they
are experienced. Using this general criterioni a public agency con-
fronted with a choice between providing a good or service that appeals
to many or an alternative that pleases a small minority would not neces-
sarily choose what is favored by the many.

Reforms need to be made at the grass roots level to further in-
corporate this criterion of public taste into the present planning-
programming-budgeting system. These include improved mechanisms to trans-
mit downwards information on what is going on in the national or state
capitols and better means of transmitting upwards public preferences.
To some extent, the former function seems to be increasingly filled by
the popular weekly.news magazines--although it is doubtful whether
these give a sufficiently technical picture of the issues to permit
informed judgments. The latter function is partially filled by national
poll-taking services, but the same criticism applies. The most powerful
pressure for these improvements is likely to come as the increasingly
large proportion of college graduates in the population begins to make
its influence felt.

Among the assumptions underlying criteria for allocation, then, we
include: (a) clearly enunciated management objectives concerning natural
resources; (b) a means for the public to state its preferences; (c)
economic decision rules to set priorities, modified to include social
values (efficiency and equity) and including a delineation into reversi-
ble and irreversible decisions; (d) management systems to move the
information, perform the arithmetic, and measure the effectiveness of
performance; (e) willingness and competence of career officers to pre-
pare allocation proposals using these techniques; and (f) courage of
executives and legislators to allocate, using the new decision rules.
Among the actual criteria for allocation are: (a) the demand-supply
outlook for natural resourcesi actual and relative; (b) the substituta-
bility among resources; (c) opportunities to optimize production of

several resources by joint production or multiple use; (d) the cost-
effectiveness of alternate ways to increase the supply of resources;
and (e) the reversibility of allocation decisions. The Hetch-Hetchy
Valley of California may never be seen again; it is under water.

The list may be contracted or expanded. But we do not have an
overall model for relating the criteria, or for assigning priorities.
If and when such a model becomes available, the judgment of the
decision maker cannot be replaced. A strong dose of humility is neces-
sary in these allocation activities.

DIEFI14ITIONS-SYSTEMS-PROBES

T. P. Field
Professor of Geography
University of Kentucky

We geographers are people greatly concerned with the organization
of the surface of the earth. We don't care what the subject is so long
as it occupies space and lends itself to analysis. The issue may be a
valuable mineral deposit, or it may be an urban slum. Natural resources
are noted for the space that they occupy and their influence on the
manner of life of the people that have command of these assets. Need I
remind you of the oil rich sheiks of the Persian Gulf or the resource-
poor people of Lesotho in southern Africa?

Natural Resources: Definition of Terms

What meaning do you attach to the terms "natural resources" and
11conservation"? Properly intoned they invoke an aura of respect and
reverence that is usually reserved for mother, God, and country. With
certainty we can say that the generations since Teddy Roosevelt have been
indoctrinated in respect for natural resources and the means of their
conservation. So thoroughly have we been indoctrinated that such a
distinguished figure as Justice Douglas can induce his disciples to
believe the dictum that all dams are the agents of destruction of
ecological systems and of the birthright of generations to come.

As for the conservation of natural resources, many civilizations,
Chinese, Roman, British, and our own, have considered the virgin forest
an enemy to be destroyed. In China or northwestern Europe this story
of destruction is 5000 years old. In our world the record involves but
a fraction of the time; but, with our greater technical abilities, we
have possibly been more effective. Conservation of natural resources
means the maintenance of the productive capacities of these natural
resources.

"Slash-and-burn" or "strip mining" sound like harsh and negative
terms. In reality slash-and-burn can be used as a most efficient
system of crop rotation, and some strip mining has the capacity to
create a new and pleasing landscape. "Contour farming" or "reforesta-
tion," on the other hand, sound most acceptable. In practice we know
that contouring is not the complete answer to erosion and that reforesta-
tion can create a horribly sterile environment. I would remind you that
the term "conservationist" is frequently an honorary title for people
who guide state funds into the development of game reserves. Now I
would ask, what was conserved? What I am getting at is that we have a
glossary of terms on this subject of natural resources and their con-
servation but that we are frequently careless as towhat and how these
terms are used to define. Not infrequently too, as noted above, we

allow some words to acquire negative connotations while others, with no
better credentials, acquire a halo of goodness. Budget-minded people
should be certain of the generic words that are used, and not let
something slip by under the cover of a "good" sounding word or get
clobbered by one of the so called "baddies." I think that we should look
closely at the term "natural resources" to insure that in the future the
term is not used as a gimmick or used to identify'some fragment of an
implied total.

VaZue of naturaZ resources

Natural resources are the products of nature which have value to
man. In their entirety natural resources are one great system which, in
relation to man, operates under the terms of scarcity economics. The
value to man may be measured in terms of economic worth, esthetic enjoy-
ment, and, as we are beginning to realize fully, biologic necessity.

Economic worth

Natural resources in terms of economic worth must include common
and rare minerals, natural vegetation (if there is any left outside of
the tropical rain forests), surface water, ground water, the soil that
is not too thoroughly altered by man, open space which is just as
certainly subject to erosion as the soil, the atmosphere which we hope
is a self-regenerating system, marine life, water surface and frontage,
the electromagnetic spectrum, the varied forms of surface relief which
includes the all-important level land, wildlife, scenery, and possibly
the earth's electromagnetic field. Each of these items, and more, have
measurable worth when the desires of man are implemented. Because they
are interlocked rather than independent systems, implementation requires
evaluation and compromise rather than unrestricted exploitation, i.e.,
conservation.

Very quickly the student of natural resources comes to realize what
some community boosters refuse to see, that there are two basic kinds of
economically oriented resources that are put to the service of the
people; those whi-ch are exhaustible and those which we now assume can be
maintained indefinitely. Only in terms of geologic time are minerals and
fossil fuels created. Therefore, every ounce, pound, ton, or gallon ex-
tracted and used is irrevocably gone except as it becomes garbage, junk,
and contaminants. It is just as certainly gone as tile tipple and the
town based on a mineral deposit left without a reason for being when
the ore body is exhausted. On the other hand some resources can be main-
tained, reused, or recycled. These, in the main, are more nearly the
products of man's ingenuity than the unadulterated products of nature.
Let me illustrate this point with a question. Are the industries which
are based on pine plantations down in southern Alabama using a natural
or a man-made resource? Are there truly many instances where the climax
forest isutilized in continuous harvesting? There are many "gray" areas
in this subject and I think that it is right to question whether light
sandy soils which are,brought into high productivity through clover ley
farMing, fertilizers, and trace elements are natural or man-made.

By definition resources are things of worth. A deposit of hematiLe,
for example, becomes an iron ore body only when it is proved to have
economic worth. We have a stable list of resources which have value

'Coday and, we have every reason to believe, will continue to.be valuable
into the indefinite future. We must zemember, too, that there are
potential resources which only,await the advancing frontier of tech-
nology. The story of the iiiaited use of uranium prior to the atomic
age is too well-known to be repeated or enlarged. Not uncommonly these
potential ores are the replacement, the more expensive replacement, of an
exhausted supply.

Natural resources viewed in esthetic terms are not measurable in
dollars 2er se, but rather concern man's unique ability to profit or
benefit psychologically from the inherently beautiful and the unique
products of nature. Even the discomfort of hours of solitary toil up
a mountain or of standing in an elbow-to-elbow crowd to watch a geyser
cannot completely destroy satisfaction and pleasure.

Biological survival requires that natural resources be put to the
service of man. Viewed in a situation of polarity we can see extinction
of the species on one end of the scale and increasing standards of living
on the other. Much of the choice revolves around how to use our resources
wisely. The immediate problem is water, and more people must be made to
realize that the solution requires much more than the building of a dam
or the irrigation of the desert. These artifacts create new systems whose
spin-off and side-effects are not always blessings.

Systems of resource ownership and use

Lastly, in the area of definitkons, is the question of ownership.
Closely linked to ownership is@the conservation concept of stewardship.
Most of the new countries in the world, and many of the old, have settled
this question. Not uncommonly natural resources,in broad definition, are
the property of the state. Forest reserves, undeveloped land, water
areas, the immediate coastal z@ne, the continental shelf, the air space,
certain types of vegetation, and, most of all, anything beneath the
surface are the property and re ;sponsibility of the state. The historical
details of how the United State 's got its systems of ownership mixed up
are hardly relevant here. The fact that we have a hotchpotch of many
systems of ownership is relevant. Only in the truly socialistic states
is the concept of state ownership and use-development fully implemented.
State ownership alone, however,: is usual. If this statement should
create the impression that the 'United States system is a mess and other
countries, even the socialistic states, are some sort of resource-use
utopias, a sample of forced la8 'or mining camps or ill conceived develop-
ment projects will appreciably alter these impressions.

When the state owns and is responsible for the conservation of its
resource base, exploitation is;accomplished through-a leasing system.
The leasing system creates a competitive situation between the state and
the prospective developer. A well-designed system can result in benefits
to both parties. Poor contract design which leaves insufficient room for
negotiation can lead to difficult situations. Grazing leases on marginal
land which result in erosion due to over-stocking is an outstanding
example. Another example is th at of contracts which allow the hoarding
of an asset. One of the world' s greatest bauxite deposits is being
worked today only because the government in question-could deliver an
ultimatium to the leasee: Start digging or your lease is cancelled.
In this system the public and the private agencies maneuver for positions
of greatest advantage. The striking difference is that the state can

usually think in terms of a longer time and of secondary advantages in-
'stead of the relatively short-term profit motive of the private developer.

The Future: Philosophy of Development and Use
of Natural Resources

I would assume that everyone would agree that scrapping of our
present systems of ownership, stewardship, and control would be too
traumatic, even if we had reason to believe that someone had invented
a perfect alternative. On the other hand, we are inviting an equally
traumatic experience if we think that the rule books of resource develop-
ment can remain unamended.. Here in Kentucky the use of the "broad form
deed" to mineral rights is a possible example. Our demands and our
capabilities are far too dynamic for directions and controls to be based
on yesterday's often peremptory assumptions.

What we need, first and foremost, is men with ideas and time to
build and test new models. The term "research and development" is
usually too specific as to subject matter to be used in this context.
This is looking at the big picture, some hard-nosed philosophical
propositions in developmental economics. Not just one proposition is
involved here, but rather a series of alternates from which we could
choose that which is most ethical to our culture. Agency umbrellas
under which such persons could work already exist. There is an urgent
need to get philosophy ahead of development. It is not inconceivable
that without new philosophies the commune system of China will be the
only alternate.

TechnicaZ capacities and accompZishment

Most of us get a vicarious thrill when we read of the lucky strikes
of the gold rush days, but that was yesterday. Today, when we have the
technical capacities of earth resources satellites and of other data
collecting systems, of data processing systems, and of programing capa-
bilities to anticipate if not predict the responsibilities of the future,
leaving prospecting up to piece-meal ventures lessens the effectiveness
of plans that we might make for the future. Unhappily, resource use in
the present appears more nearly as an existential experience, a
"happening." We need to know the quantity and quality of our resources,
our anticipated demands, the limits imposed by the technical variables,
and to have a reasonable grasp of the courses of action which will lead
to the efficient use of our resources.

If the preceding statement sounds pessimistic I assure you that
it was intentionally so. The gap between technical capacities and
accomplishment is appalling. How well mapped is your state? Is there
complete and current coverage at a scale of 1:24000 or larger? How
complete is the large-scale geologic mapping? To those who are concerned
with coal mining, the Midlands of England represent the genesis of deep
mining. It came as a real shock, within the year, to learn that a new
coal deposit was found in this location which could extend the life of
that important field by 70 to 100 years. Was this deposit kept hidden as
a tax dodge? Because the British coal industry is nationalized one must
assume that the government officials were not sufficiently informed to
plan for the future with any degree of accuracy. Possibly, like us, they

have spent a disproportionate effort in regulation and taxation and not
enough in acquiring hard data on natural resource inventories.

Resources of esthetic and educational character

It is certainly no assumption to say that the per capita avail-
ability of our natural resources is declining. The world population
explosion takes care of this. In the United States this fact is nowhere
better expressed than in our esthetic and educational natural resources--
our state and national forests and parks. The growing number of people,
affluence, and mobility, when combined with a great desire to harvest
more tourist dollars, is pitted against declining amounts of space and
scenery. The time is truly here when a new philosophy regarding these
assets needs to be developed. A Marshall McLuhan or John Kenneth
Galbraith of esthetic resources might suggest a more efficient system to
achieve the desired results. For example, people on vacation tours have
a mix of objectives and notions about recreation. Their ideas range
from imitations of Disneyland to roughing it in a wilderness. Our
present system, instead of tracking these diverse desires in separate
directions, commonly creates an accommodating diversity under a well-
publicized title such as Yosemite, the Great Smokies, or Yellowstone.
If, in a natural resource sense, there are true differences between the
ordinary and the unique in our natural landscape, should we not provide
for the commonplace desires on commonplace landscapes and stop prosti-
tuting and degrading that which is a unique product of natural forces? If
thousands of people want to.spend their vacations moving from one campsite
to another to play, suffer the privation of public toilets, and mix their
campfire smoke with the mass, is something unique in nature really neces-
sary? Would not an artificial "old faithful" do just as well?

The year 1964 was a highlight for federal legislation regarding
esthetic natural resource preservation and development. The Wilderness
Act and the Land and Water Conservation Fund came into full legal state-
ment. The static that was created by the Wilderness Act and the
inadequacy of the Conservation Fund would recommend these documents for
further-reading. It might be worth the effort to examine at the state
level the basic concepts associated with these documents. Is it not
possible that many states have much idle land which has many of the
aspects of wilderness? Why should the federal government be the only
agency that is interested in acquiring wilderness? Fifty years from
now what is today the most nondescript of idle land, if left untouched,
would become a unique landscape of great value. If the upward spiral of
land values were matched by a similar rise in taxes it is just possible
that a system of very low cost acquisition could be designed.

Natural resources and bioZogical survival

Natural resources that are related to the general subject of
biological survival are either so commonplace or so remote from our
usual train of thought that they are most difficult to bring into a con-
text established by state lines. Possibly we should divide such
resources by indicating those which are subject to deterioration through
pollution and those which are slowly being revealed to us under the sea,
but on the continental shelf. The subject of air and water pollution is
too well known for further corment. The subject of our continental
littbral, that transition zone between the ocean world and the land
world, still requires much basic research before a true working knowledge

is achieved. The value of beaches as natural resources is unquestioned.
If we assume that beaches can be used without an understanding of the
basic dynamics of beach formation, destruction, and pollution much-
effort will be uselessly expended.

The fact is that without increasing efforts in achieving basic
understanding of the nature of the world in which we live, not only
are we going to waste our effort, we are going to delay or miss the
chance to exercise controls which could greatly expand the potentials
inherent in the natural world around us.

PEOPLE IN THE RECREATION ENVIRONMENT

Allen J. Worms
Area Extension Specialist
Department of Agricultural Economics
University of Kentucky

Up to this point this institute has concerned itself rather inten-
sively with matters of administration, organization, allocation of funds,
and otherwise understanding problems of programming natural resources
using budget techniques. For the next several minutes, I would like to
talk with you about the recreation environment of our natural resource
realm and some of the implications of future public use of the recrea-
tion environment.

The term "recreation environment" might mean different things to
different people. Let me preface my remarks by explaining that it
should include any area, space, place, or facility, indoors or out,
where people expect to find and participate in a.recreational experience.
As a recreation environment, such a place must ordinarily meet a variety
of physical, aesthetic, or other requirements pertinent to recreational
activities or interests carried out by the public. Today, I will sug-
gest to you some other more subtle kinds of requirements which I believe
our recreation environments of the future must include.

But first, let us discuss the people with whom we shall concern our-
selves. By people, I mean generally the broad cross section of our
recreating national public. Today we have become an urban nation of
some 200 million Americans. We have grown tremendously during recent
years and we are growing still at the rate of about four
persons every minute. With respect to the dwelling places of our
public, we are more than ever an urban nation. Of the 200 million
population,approximately 125 million live in cities. over two-thirds
of our nation's population live in some 219 metropolitan districts.
Formerly we were a nation of rural culture, rural ideas, and rural
values; but now, only about 11 million or 5.5 percent of our nation's
population live on farms. In respect of our social values, our public
morals, and our changing national attitudes toward use of natural
resources, we are also an urban nation. Now, more than ever before, we
are a nation of metropolises, of city congestion, of confusion, and of
social conflict. Our problems as an urban nation with urban and
suburban congestion, with rural economic imbalance, and with racial con-
fiict have become increasingly more complex: and, whether we blame
politics, the population explosion, or the tremendous increase in tech-
nology coupled with the availability of easy servicesin the soft life,-
life is becoming more and more complicated, more confused and chaotic,
more mechanistic, and more tense. In many urban environments, we are
more than ever before experiencing less identity as individuals and more
frustration.as small cogs turning an unaefinable big wheel.

Some sociologists feel that the American people have been overfed,
overmaterialized, and overexposed until their senses have been dulled,
so that they simply do not care. Theysuggest that our economic and social
value systems have lost proportion. Some human relations experts sug-
gest that it is a more serious matter than mere public apathy. They be-
iieve that the nation is divided into groups which express enmity toward
other groups. They think, for example, that there is hostility between
Negroes and whites, between cities and suburbs, and between rich and
poor; and so there is actually a lack of national will. I question this
degree of group division except in specific areas; but, nevertheless,
it is a concern of great portent.

However, looking again at the population for a moment, we see other
ways of recognizing groups or segments. For example, we are reminded
that we are becoming a more and more youthful nation,. It is a fact that
about 85 million of our 200 million have been born since the end of
World War.II, and that 40 percent of our population is under the age of
21. We are reminded that our young people now are beginning to have a
significantly more important voice in what services and products are in
demand because of their tremendous purchasing pow'er and their group
needs. These young people are now, more than ever before, expressing
their recreational needs in a graphic fashion. It is worthwhile to
observe that many of the kinds of recreation we have provided for them
in the past are now categorized as family activities or are widely used
by older groups. The young people today have rapidly changing and highly
fickle tastes. I think it is commendable to private enterprise in the
United States that our various individual businesses are quick to recog-
nize the youthful demand for sporty new cars, flashy clothes, coffee
houses, and similar otner products, services, and activities. However,
at the same time I feel that in our public recreation facilities we are
more than ever missing the bet in finding the interest level and the
recreational requirements of these young people.

With respect to the other end of the age scale, we imagine ourselves
to be a socially responsible nation; but, only in the last few years,
have we really put forth an effort to meet the needs and requirements of
older people in our society. The needs of the aged for recreation, for
meeting places, for comfortable park environments, have been provided
with their specific requirements in mind to only a minimal degree.

In terms of participation in outdoor recreation, we can look at the
kinds of occupation in which the public is engaged as having a consider-
able influence on the amount of recreation in which they participate. By
occupational types, the groups of people who have the highest rate of
participation in outdoor recreation are found to be professional and
tecnnical workers. Second highest are clerical and sales workers.
Third are craftsmen and foremen. Not at all surprisingly, those people
who participate least in outdoor recreation are not urban people,
but instead are farmers and farm workers.

If we look directly at the urban people who are so desperately in
need of recreation attractions, we may find that they can be divided into
urban-core dwellers, suburbanites, and the fringe community residents -
Research has shown that suburbanites are more active in seeking out non-
city recreation areas than are the core-city dwellers; however, these
suburbanites turn in numbers to the kind of recreational facilities and
activities which are most readily made available to them because they are

accessible, nearby, or because they are of an appealing type. From
cities, it is generally found that the distance travelled in the highest
percentage of vacation trips ranges from 100 to 250 miles to recreation
facilities which are dependent on destination or permanent-type visits.
But on one day visits, most trips remain within the 50 mile distance as
a general maximum.

But what is it in terms of recreation environment and recreational
experience that our American public really wants? I'm not sure many
people really understand why they recreate or what they want. Some of
them recreate because they recognize the need to escape the city, to
escape their regulated hum-drum work-a-day world. Many have an interest
in a particular recreational pursuit such as boating, camping, water-
skiing, fishing, and so on. Some go to see new sights, to tour, to
experience new or different sensations, and thus to gain relief and a
change of pace. This change of pace is sometimes refreshing and recrea-
tional, but just as often it becomes a trip to the great outdoors which
is not at all renewing, refreshing, or recreating, but instead is a trip
which ends as a long journey through heavy traffic to a differently con-
gested spot on the map, a spot, recreation area if you must, which
ultimately is just as congested as the working world from which they have
come.

And what do they look for? Well, to a large extent our people
seeking recreation are looking for things which throughout their lives,
they have been educated and persuaded to accept. We are products of our
environment; indeed, we are encouraged by television, sports magazines,
boat shows, movies, books, and radio to like and to compete for glam-
orous, exciting, and fun-filled activity. Our public is even lured by
cigarette commercials, by nature societies, by the he-man picture of
the sportsman and sporting family camping in the forest primeval or
along a lonely seashore; but in truth when the urban, suburban, or small
city dweller is inserted into the forested recreation environment, one
may often observe a very insecure, uncomfortable, modern-day person
existing in what he regards as a hostile wilderness environment.
Demographers tell us that one of the most important characteristics of
people who grow up in urban environment in terms of the effect upon the
conduct of the individual is the extent to which urbanism reduces the
exercise of choice. As they have been conditioned to accept certain
levels of recreational activity, certain mass concepts of what consti-
tutes fun and enjoyment, urban residents have reduced capacity for
recreational choices among the opportunities nature provides. Even
when they enjoy a truly exhilarating experience, such persons find it
difficult to recognize the real thing as opposed to the imagery that
has been handed them on television's unreachable silver platter.a

In the transition from everyday life to the recreation environ-
ment lies one real opportunity for change in attitude and understanding
and the sharpening of value distinctions. Although such change is
possible, we are not meeting the challenge; instead we develop and build
for the mass environment, for the average experience, with all the

aIn the light of conference with Mr. Worms one may add: The rural
population, of course, suffers from similar disability, not as to the
recreational opportunities offered by nature, but concerning those made
available through 'such "cultural" developments as produce drama,
symphony, or soccer.--Ed.

tensions, congestions, dull, ordinary environmental conditions which
the urban escapist needs to avoid. We cheat our American public of full,
rich, recreational experiences, and instead we provide the gaudy, the
rich, the plush, the bulk, and congested public facility, rather than a
simple and varied opportunity in environmental inspiration.

Recreation has many mandates. Among these are: encouraging popular
aesthetic appreciation and understandings, enlightened responsiveness
to the beautiful in nature, and enthusiasm for satisfying, fulfilling,
and naturally re-creating activities. Indeed, we must plan develop-
ments along two distinct lines: on the one hand, for the average and,
on the other hand, for those who can afford the classy, the expensive
service.

I do not take exception to development of parks, lodges, and
resorts that must produce a realistic monetary return, nor do I deny
that in many instances the recreating public is determined to, and
must, use beaches, parks, and playgrounds, in great numbers. Our
recreation planners are currently recognizing this problem of serving
the masses; but unfortunately, far too often, because of a shortage of
funds, because of inadequacies of space, because of a lack of legislative
support, as well as because of the continuing problem of limited recrea-
tion staffs, we find ourselves designing and planning shortcuts to
offering full recreational opportunity to the mass public. In recrea-
tion now, as never before, we must have the financial support and the
legislative understanding in natural resource programs and recreation
planning throughout the nation to meet future requirements for the
masses in an.enlightened, functional manner.

PREPARING AND CARRYING OUT EFFECTIVE STATE RESOURCE PLANS

Lawrence L. Durisch
Professor of Public Administration
University of Tennessee

The processes by which state resource plans are formulated are
major factors in determining whether such plans ever become operational.
The generally favorable status, or at least the improved status, of
planning today is due in no small measure to the manner in which plans
are made and by which plans become policy. Planning has now abandoned
its position on the sidelines and renounced its pose of political
neutrality to enter into the mainstream of governmental decision making.
In this capacity, as an essential part of the administrative organiza-
tion, planning as a function of government must be accorded recognition
and acceptance, not only by students of government, but by all people
engaged in day-to-day administration. In this context attention can be
directed, (a) to current status and emphases in the field of resource
planning, (b) to the processes by which plans are prepared and kept up-
to-date, and (c) to the consideration of the impact of long-range and
current program planning on state administration in general and on
the resource field in particular.

Role of Planning

In its simplest terms, planning may be said to be preparation for
rational action--rational action by state government is not a contradic-
tion of terms. It is necessary that, as the scope and complexity of
state functions and services increase, the role of particular depart-
ments and agencies be appraised in relation to state goals and to a
total state program. Planning assists in this difficult job of assess-
ment and clarification of goals and relationships. In state government
planning has traditionally been left to an independent board or com-
mission. More recently it has been accorded staff status and assigned
to an agency directly responsible to the governor. This is in accord-
with a recognition that planning is an executive function and that the
governor must accept responsibility for the development of state-wide
policies, for the selection from alternatives of the means of carrying
out these policies, and for providing leadership and direction of effort
of operating departments and agencies in an integrated program for the
solution of state-wide problems. In no aspect of state government is
this claim of responsibility more clearly called for or more urgently
needed than in the field of resource development.

An assignment to assist the chief executive in the discharge of
the long-range planning function is made to the planning agency. This
is not an exclusive assignment and from its very nature cannot be so--
planning assistance is where the governor finds it; and the formal

assignment to the planning agency is accompanied by a recognition that
many agencies and many individuals both within and outside the adminis-
tration, give planning advice. Nevertheless, an official staff source
of assistance in the discharge of functions that have always centered
in the governor is an important development in state administrative
organization. The planning staff is in a position to influence policy,
in the governor's office, and indirectly in the legislature and in the
general public. This is done by the following methods or procedures:
(a) the formulation and identification of the short- and long-range
objectives of state government; (b) the assembly of essential informa-
tion to secure an adequate understanding and definition of various
problems; (c) the determination of desirable priorities and desirable
programs within a flexible schedule; and (d) the integration of
activities for the most effective and economical accomplishment of
desired ends.1

State planning, thus, is just now taking its rightful place as a
staff agency serving and responsible to the chief executive. It is an
agency that is in a position to render important services to the legis-
lative body and to its regular and special committees and to work directly
with other staffs and departments of state government as authorized and
directed to do so by the governor. In working with other agencies on
problems of program planning and coordination the "colleague approach"
is indicated. Planners are well-advised not to attempt to function as
the a1ter ego of the governor--a difficult role that is already played
by too many individuals in state government.

A state planning agency may have an advisory board or commis 'sion,
or it may be established in a staff capacity without benefit of such
advisory support. There is little justification in practice or in
theory for an independent state planning commission, certainly not if
the agency is to perform the functions just listed. The meaningful
performance of these functions requires that the director of planning
be acceptable to the governor and able to work closely with him and
his political subordinates. This does not mean that the director of
planning cannot or should not be a career official and that he needs to
abandon all objectivity because he works in a political frame of
reference. On the contrary, a planning official will be most useful in
his advisory capacity because he is objective in viewing the long-term
implications of various policies and proposed alternative courses of
action.

The Development Plan

The development plan--like the financial policy of the state--
is apt to consist of a number of separate statements, directives, under-
standings, and pronouncements. The development plan may be quite
specific in some instances and approach the popular concept of a "Plan."
In other instances it will consist of guidelines that are inexact and
indistinct. It is very unlikely that an unequivocal set of operational
goals will or can be stated clearly by the chief executive. Both the

lAdapted from "State Planning: Its Function and Organization:
Report of the A.I.P. Committee on State Planning," JournaZ of the
American Institute of PZanners, XXV (November, 1959), 207-14.

budget process and the planning process call for a realistic screening
of objectives in which the staff work with operating departments to
achieve a working compromise that the chief executive will accept as in
accord with his wishes and desires. This is the operation which calls
for the "colleague" approach. The main target of both the planning
and budgetary processes is clear and their fields of action comple-
mentary to each other--or even overlapping. However, the differences in
basic approach allow each to make a distinct contribution to the produc-
tion of operating programs that fit in with and contribute to short-
and long-range goals. For this cooperation to be meaningful and sig-
nificant it is necessary for planning to recognize the staff nature of
its role and for the governor, the other staff agencies of state govern-
ment, and the operating departments to accept this status for the plan-
ning agency.

Evolution of State Planning Agencies

State planning agencies were organized in most states during the
1930's. Many did not survive the post New Deal-days, and only recently
have planning agencies been reestablished in practically all of the
fifty states. State planning, as an assignment to an administrative
agency is a recent development. The early commissions were data col-
lecting agencies with planning activities tending to center in public
works and capital improvement programming. Technical planning assistance
to local governments is also a state planning assignment that predates
state planning proper.

Planning and Natural Resources

The past attention the state planning commissions gave to natural
resources emphasized the conservation theme. Resource inventories were
prepared and in some cases maintained by planning agencies. This and
the idea of natural resource regions as a basis for industrial location
led many planning agencies to enter, or to be pushed into, industrial
promotion activities--activities for which most were ill prepared and
which they did very badly. More recently the rise of metropolitan
regions with a resulting decline in the emphasis on resource regions
has tended to get planning agencies into areas where their services are
needed and in which they do have competence. I refer to the current
emphasis on state action in the field of water resources and land-use
planning. Both fields are primary state responsibilities, with many
agencies and all levels of government directly concerned with both.
Both fields are of major importance in urban areas, but are beyond the
governmental capacity of metropolitan organizations either to plan or
administer. Both call for state policies that are comprehensive but
flexible and which can serve as a coordinating factor in federal, state,
and local program planning. State planning is needed as a basis for
handling constructively problems and opportunities of intergovernmental
relations. Water has been called the most intergovernmental of all
natural resources--land-use considerations enter into most federal,
state, and local developmental activities and programs.

The advent of state planning and the resurgence of planning agencies
come at a time when the functions of state government are expanding and

new service demands are exerting increasing financial pressures on state
governments everywhere. Planning by establishing long-range goals
assists in the determination of priorities and in the establishment of
more immediate program goals.

Coordinating function of state pZann-Lng agency

In the field of resource planning water problems and land-use
planning are receiving major attention. The principal state de,@,,elopment
agency in most states is the highway department, followed by the uni-
versities and educational institutions, parks and recreation areas, and
other public works. The state is called upon to provide coordinating
assistance and to make planning decisions in relation to federal pro-
grams--the Appalachian regional program, the Highway Act of 1962, the
Housing Act of 1965, and the Public Works and Economic Development Act
of 1965 affording illustrative examples. Federal programs tend to make
state plans, or at least a general state scheme for development, a
necessity. A great deal of the attention of state planning agencies is
directed toward securing approval of federal grants and programs.
Through the years the program of the Tennessee Valley Authority, to cite
a more specific example, would have been immeasurably improved if each of
the seven states concerned had had a comprehensive state plan. The
recent controversy over the establishment of the Tellico project might
well have been avoided if the state of Tennessee could have identified
its developmental plans for the Tellico area. Sporadic objection by
the Tennessee Game and Fish Commission on the basis of conflict should
have been merged into general state approval or disapproval on the basis
of its long-range developmental plans for the Tellico area.

In addition to providing a frame of reference within which federal
proposals could be evaluated, and within which conflicts between federal
agencies might at least in theory be resolved, the planner must be able
to relate the state development plan to the agencies of state government.
The planning process, with its emphasis on the "outputs" rather than the
"inputs" of government is peculiarly adapted to the improvement of sound
agency operating programs. Planning and budgeting viewed as two co-
ordinated processes contribute to the achievement of long range state
plans through sound decisions regarding short term program alternatives
and priorities. It is not enough that agency decisions be made in the
light of state financial policies and sound administrative practices--
they also must square with the objectives of state government dis-
covered and established by the planning process. The dual contribution
of planning and budgeting is important at all levels of state government,
but the first and most direct result of the coordinated development of
the two will be observable in agency administrative decision making as
they relate to the overall objectives of state government. Good central
staff services, especially planning and budgeting processes within given
agencies, is the best way of seeing that specific programs meet state
needs and fit in with state financial policies and priorities. Planning
and budgeting, closely related but yet distinct processes, fit in well
with agency improvement in both decision making and administration--
for state administration is made up of a series of decisions relating to
content and method of agency programs.

Here the key observation of this paper can be made--or rather re-
emphasized. The developmental planner at the state level must assist the
operational agencies by providing informational bases of decision, rather

than by attempting to exercise direct control or an authoritarian type
of coordination. If the approach is right and the administrative climate
of the state is progressive and cooperative--the planning agency can
expect to participate with other staff agencies and with the operating
departments in important aspects of the decision-making process. Perhaps
the great unanswered question in most states--and one that may be
appropriate to raise here is, Will the.other staff agencies of state
government--ok more specifically, will the budget staff--accept and
work with the planning agency on a "colleague" basis? Certainly the
effectiveness of planning and the purposeful preparation and carrying
out of effective state resource plans on a long-range basis is dependent
upon the planning agency deserving and achieving that status in state
government.a We can offer this possibility as an opportunity and chal-
lenge to state government.

aDr. Durisch's point can be specifically generalized in terms of
current state developments--perhaps irrelevantly for the institute con-
cerned with natural resources. In the light of departmental planning in
terms of long range objectives, coordinated and unified through the state
administration's planning agency, designers of state action programs
must confront the spectrum of state service requirements in the light of
limited resources. The performance of this budget function requires
analysis which compares various programs and program elements for deter-
mination of priorities iA terms of the estimated sociaZ utiZity of each
in relation to the estimated cost--the prospective output as a fraction
of projected input. Evidence from recent experience suggests that
the whole service program of a state--not resource programs alone--
may be best defined and redefined through budget staff use of planning
people's analytical skills as well as their own, whether at the agency
level or at the executive office level.--Ed.

A DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT FOR THE NORTHERN GATEWAY TO
LAND BETWEEN THE LAKESa

Peter 14. Stern
Director of Regional Studies
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
Knoxville, Tennessee

The purposes of the TVA study were: (a) to convey to the citizens
of the region and to private investors a concept of the private develop-
ment potential of the northern gateway to Land Between the Lakes, a
major public outdoor recreation area under TVA management; (b) to
suggest a research-based, time-phased development program for the
northern gateway aimed at providing visitor accommodations and services
compZementary to the "cafeteria" of public outdoor recreation facilities
offered by TVA and other public agencies in the Land Between the Lakes
region; and (c) to indicate how a well-planned, unified development
scheme for the gateway area may create a more substantial economic im-
pact than the scattered and haphazard growth of commercial facilities
that lack the essential element of a controlled environment.

What and Where Is Land Between the Lakes and
Its Northern Gateway?

Land Between the Lakes, a 170,000-acre peninsula between the lower
Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers astride the Western Kentucky-Tennessee
state line (see map), is a major public outdoor recreation and conser-
vation-education area acquired (beginning in 1964) and managed by TVA.
It is being developed as a demonstration showing ways to meet the
mounting needs of our industrializing society for adequate recreation
facilities in the out-of-doors. Land Between the Lakes is surrounded
(on three sides) by 300 miles of shoreline fronting on two of the
largest man-made lakes in the United States.

The northern gateway is the narrow strip of land between Kentucky
and Barkley Dams across which all visitors from the Midwest--Missouri,
Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and northern Kentucky--will naturally travel
to enter Land Between the Lakes.

aMr. Stern presented, as a case study in planning and operational
relationships among federal-state-local public agencies and private
property owners, the procedures involved in recent development of a
concept for the northern gateway to Land Between the Lakes. This
170,000-acre recreation area is being developed by TVA between Kentucky
and Barkley reservoirs along the lower reaches of the Tennessee and
Cumberland rivers. Mr. Stern used slide projections to illustrate his
talk;--Ed.

Land Between the Lakes and its gateway have a strategic location
in mid-Amierica. It lies just 100 miles south of Centralia, Illinois,
which in 19GO was found to be the population center of the continental
United States. Within 400 miles, an easy day's drive along the network
of interstate highways, live 50 million people, 25 percent of the country's
total population. Several of the nation's ranking metropolitan areas are
but three to six hours away (10 largest metropoiitan areas account for
population of 15 million); and competing public recreation attractions,
such as the Great Smokies, Lake of the Ozarks, and Minnesota's 10,000-
lake region (Quetico-Superior National Forest), are less centrally
situated wit-h respect to these cifies than Land Between the Lakes.

Access to the northern gateway is available through several routes.
(1) Interstate 24, Western Kentucky Parkway (and its extension, Jackson
Purchase Parkway), U. S. Routes 62 (E-W) and 641 (N-S) converge upon the
gateway, which must be crossed to reach Land Between the Lakes. (2) The
gateway (and Land Between the Lakes) is accessible by water on three sides.
It is linked to the inland waterway system by way of the Tennessee,
Cumberland, and Ohio Rivers. (3) A limited-access parkwa , linking 1-24
and U. S. 62 with the northern entrance to Land Between tKe Lakes across
the canal, will be completed through the gateway in 1968. (4) A general
aviation airstrip in Kentucky Dam State Park is within two miles of the
gateway. Another landing field, with adjacent camping facilities, is
projected for Land Between the Lakes.

TVA Has a Program for Land Between the Lakes

The Land Between the Lakes offers an ideal setting for the simple
types of outdoor recreation activities that more and more families are
seeking-camping, picnicking, boating, swimming, fishing, hunting,
hiking, riding, and nature study.

The area's 300 miles of shoreline are its most precious asset
for outdoor recreation. This shoreline has been created as the result
of federal investment of some $260 million of public funds in the
Kentucky and Barkley water-control projects. Campgrounds, boat harbors,
swimming areas, and other water access facilities will occupy many of
the coves. Shallower reaches contribute desirable habitat for waterfowl.
The remainder of the shoreline provides a base for water sports and a
backdrop for scenic roads and trails.

Because of its elongated shape, no point within Land Between the
Lakes is more than 45 minutes' drive from one of the four entrances.
Only a minimum of commercial services (perhaps laundries, packaged foods,
or sundries) will be provided within the area, so that private capital
may have an opportunity to offer visitor accommodations and services
at the approaches and in surrounding communities.

TVA has purchased one-half of the acreage within the boundaries of
Land Between the Lakes, and the acquisition program is already fully
financed. Two family campgrounds, twelve informal-use areas, several
back-country drives, and many miles of shoreline were open to recreation
seekers in 1966.

By 1975, facilities will be in place to accommodate 11,300 overnight
visitors in family campgrounds and group camping areas, 3,000 visitors

in day-use areas, and 325 persons in the conservation education center.
The map shows the variety of activities and visitor facilities programmed
for the area. Many of these lie within a ten-minute drive of the bridge
to the northern gateway which spans the canal connecting Barkley and
Kentucky Lakes.

The federal investment in the acquisition and first ten years of
development in Land Between the Lakes is scheduled at more than $50
million.

The northern gateway, here defined as the area between U. S. Route
62 on the north and the canal on the south, comprises 1,800 acres of
hilly, tree-covered country, with a long, frequently indented shoreline
and magnificent vistas across the widest part of both Kentucky and
Barkley reservoirs. With water on three sides, there is no point in
the gateway more than 2,000 feet from the lakeshore.

The gateway contains two communities, with an estimated combined
population of 1,000. It is sparsely settled and includes strategic
undeveloped land, notably in its southern part near the canal and along
the controlled-access parkway which will link 1-24 and U. S. 62 with
Land Between the Lakes.

Present land uses, in addition to the residential clusters, include
two inland waterway terminals on Kentucky Lake, a marina-resort under
construction on Barkley Lake, and a commercial strip development along
U. S. 62.

What is the Appropriate Development Concept

The concept, as illustrated by the photographs of a scale model
prepared by TVA architects and planners, is based on the following
premises: (a) that the northern gateway will be developed according to
a master plan, requiring the collaboration of TVA and the Corps of
Engineers, the major private property owners (three in number), and the
cooperation of local government and small landowners; (b) that the ini-
tiative for planning and development will come from the private sector
of the economy, and that TVA will provide technical assistance, in-
formation, and liaison with other public agencies to the extent that
such services are in the public interest.

The concept envisions a visually impressive cluster of visitor
accommodations and consumer services in the southern portion of the
gateway with a deliberate orientation towards the water. The controlled
access north-south parkway bisects the area; parking facilities will be
provided at strategic locations near the exits from this parkway.

The major concentration of tourist facilities lies to the west of
the parkway and around the head of the deepest inlet on Kentucky Lake.
Here, in a compact urban setting resembling perhaps the waterfront of
a quaint Italian fishing village, a marina with convenient lodging
facilities, surrounded by shops and eating places, caters to the car
and waterborne visitor. This area is seen as the first stage in the
gateway's development.

A second cluster of accommodations and.service facilities is
situated on an inlet of Barkley Lake around the site now being de-
veloped by the Ken-Bar Corporation.

The several headlands between these inlets are set aside for
resort hotels and motels and for family cottages to be built in stages
as the demand for transient and destination facilities increases over
the ten-year development period.

On rolling terrain east of the parkway and south of the present
Illinois Central tracks, we visualize a major seasonal amusement area
of perhaps 30 acres (plus parking) patterned on the recently-completed
Six-Flags-over-Georgia theme park. To the north of the amusement
area.and across the tracks, adequate acreage is set aside for a champion-
ship golf course which would also constitute a buffer between the
resort and amusement complex to the south and the town of Grand Rivers
to the north. Gardens and pathways around a constant-level lake east
of Grand Rivers constitute the last major feature of the proposed
development.

A circulation trail links the several elements of the gateway plan.
It accommodates pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers of slow vehicles
such as electric autos. Its appearance and function vary from place to
place; it may be a boardwalk near the canal, a pathway weaving through
the gardens, a mall as it-cuts through Grand Rivers, or the consumer
service complex at the present inlet to Badgett's coal terminal.

The circulation trail and, perhaps later, a three-quarter scale
antique railroad using the Illinois Central's right-of-way provide the
internal link between facilities and enable visitors to park their cars
in one place while circulating within the area. In addition, we visualize
a steamship or ferryboat line to connect the gateway's several inlets and
activity clusters with the two dams and the state parks and other public
recreation facilities in the Land Between the Lakes region.
I
The justification for a major private investment in visitor
facilities in the northern gateway must be found primarily in the
attraction which the public facilities are likely to exert as they
approach full development. Since these public facilities will meet only
a part of the overall demand for visitor services, private capital has
an opportunity to serve a "captive market" and to strengthen the area's
drawing power by sharing in the creation of a major-regional (and
perhaps national) recreation complex.

LEGEND
EXISTING PROPOSED
BASIC R SOURCE IMPROVEMENT
Sh- I.,
V.,,t., C-ft.1; H.,b.- S,,b,.p-.d-t-
bitM
W111, 1111; 11111d
LAND BETWEEN THE LAKES AIIISS. RECE TION AND ADMINISTRATION
V'sito, 0-atio,
C -1, ,,,
SCALE I I'll P-aq: Seco.d,,y--
8DUO 1000 8000 11000 OUTDOOR RECREATION "ACIPLIT ES
F- ly -p; G,..p I'M.-I ImmeA 00A

ddyville
Ca on

over
ATILIN
E
KUT CREEK POND 9
HOLLOW
ARMACK CONSERVATION ENERGT BACON
0
EDUCATI N CENTER CREE BRANDON
SPRINGS
Ku tawa Golden Pond 1MV T,a-
INFORMATION
'Th
I FORMATION
(OLSON HOLLOW

EMILIA]
R KU-1- 1-1
B.,kl.y
D- TURKEYI MODEL
RON NCAN
A
Ay
y
I-- -
ZRIM;
LANDING
pcft 2

PINEY
K,,t,,ky 4

KENTUCKY DAM VILLAGE STATE PARK
PARIS

DESIGN CONCEPT FOR NORTHERN GATEWAY TO
LAND BETWEEN THE LAKES

APPENDIX

As a basis for workshop discussion three institute registrants were
invited to prepare sketches of resource management in their own states.
Two have written the memoranda for this record. As these summaries,
read together, suggest something of organizational diversity they should
be helpful adjuncts to the formal presentations.--Ed.

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
IN ARKANSAS1

George E. Tannous
Budget Analyst
State of Arkansas

It has been said that the purpose of government is the preservation
and protection of an orderly society. Necessarily, any government frame-
work should be geared to protect each member of society from the others
and to make available the greatest good to the greatest number. It has
always been apparent that in order to preserve and protect the general
health, safety, and welfare of the public, the environment within which
we live must remain healthy and productive. Thus, we concern ourselves
with state management of natural resources.

Natural resources in Arkansas are various and abundant, yet the
approaches taken in dealing with different resources are similar, and in
some cases the problems are common. However, due to the political frame-
work of Arkansas government the control of natural resources is vested
in separate state agencies.

Types of Activities in Management of Natural Resources

In general, Arkansas' activities with respect to its natural
resources are divided among three major categories: (a) exploration,
(b) conservation, and (c) commercialization. Under Arkansas administra-
structure some of the agencies have responsibilities in all three
areas, while others are restricted to only one or two types of activi-
ties in the management of natural resources.

ExpZoration

The Geological Commission is primarily concerned with exploration.
It studies the quantity and quality of certain natural resources, their
presence and their location within the state. With the assistance of
the United States Geological Survey, it conducts analysis and supplies
the state officials with reports. Periodically, it furnishes topographic
maps of the state.
iThe author would like to thank Mr. John Gibson, General Counsel,
Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission for his contributions
in this paper.

The oil and Gas Commission is engaged in all three categories of
managing the natural resources of oil and gas. It encourages and aids in
the development of plans for gathering, storing, impounding, or other-
wise disposing of salt water produced in the drilling and operation of
oil wells, and in preventing the flow of such water into the streams of
the state.

Conservation

The following agencies are primarily concerned with conservation:

1. The Soil and Water Conservation Commission represents the state
in all matters of: soil and water conservation districts, interstate
water compacts, federal water projects, issuance of permits for the
construction and operation of dams, allocation of water during periods
of shortage, studies of the needs and use of water in the state,
recommendation of petitions under the Regional Water Distribution Act,
and promotion of the development of a comprehensive state water plan.
1
2. The Planning Commission studies and adopts official state plans
for the general location of waterways, the warding off of floods, the
prevention of stream pollution, waterfront development, drainage and
sanitary systems, forest reservations, parks, wildlife refuges, con-
servation projects, land utilization programs for agriculture, mineral,
forestry, industrial, and other purposes. It also provides assistance
in the acquisition and development of recreational sites for the political
subdivisions of the state.

3. The Game and Fish Commission is responsible for the control,
management, restoration, conservation, and regulation of birds, fish,
game, and other wildlife resources of the state; including hatcheries,
sanctuaries, refuges, reservations, and all property now owned or used
for such purposes, and their acquisition, and establishment.

4. The Stream Preservation Committee was established recently to
study, locate, and designate selected high-quality streams which are in a
relatively natural state. Currently, it is making preliminary surveys
to ascertain the value of preserving streams in their natural state
and to evaluate potentials of designated streams.

5. The Pollution Control Commission administers a statewide pro-
gram for controlling pollution of streams and of the atmosphere, and
for the disposal of solid wastes. District offices provide statewide
surveillance of potential pollution sources. The commission controls
and abates pollution through inspections, investigations, surveys,
public hearings, and issuance of injunctions.

Conservation and commerciaLization

The Publicity and Parks Commission and the Forestry Commission are
engaged in the second and third category of managing natural resources.
The Publicity and Parks Commission promotes recreation, tourism, and
general activities pertaining to all state parks, areas, lakes, rivers,
and mountains. It also provides areas and facilities for outdoor
recreation and preserves certain sites of scenic, scientific, geological,
and historical significance. The Forestry Commission promotes the
development of the forestry industry, protects forests from fire, acquires

and designates lands as state forests to be administered, protected, and
developed for the purpose of watershed preservation, erosion and flood
control, forestation, reforestation, and the production of forest crops.

Commercializ-ation

In the third category lie the Industrial Research and Extension
Center of the University of Arkansas, the Waterways Commission, the
Industrial Development Commission, the White River Navigation Commission,
and the Public Service Commission.

1. Through the Industrial Research and Extension Center and the
Agricultural Extension Service of the University of Arkansas, the state
puts its educational wealth to practical use in conducting statistical
analysis of all the state's resources, evaluating economic potential
and publishing reports which are made available to the various
interested groups.

2. The newly created Waterways Commission promotes and coordinates
water transportation developments, port developments, and water recrea-
tion based on navigable streams; develops in cooperation with federal
and state agencies equitable fee systems for water transportation services;
and performs other functions for the state with respect to water trans-
portation resources and facilities.

3. The Industrial Development Commission compiles statistics and
information in respect to the natural resources of the state, and pub-
lishes and distributes such information to promote industrial enter-
prise within the state.

4. The White River Navigation District Commission encourages the
proper development of the White River and its tributaries. It also
cooperates with the Corps of Engineers on local matters pertaining to
the navigation feasibility of the White River, such as obtaining right
of way.

5. Products of natural resources must necessarily fall within the
jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission. Firms owning or operating
facilities within the state and engaged in the business of distributing
oil and gas, water, electric power, etc., must abide by the rules, regula-
tions, and orders of that commission. It is also responsible for regu-
lating navigable water crossings by a public service facility, that is,
an electric power line or a pipe line.

Interagency Action

The above agencies dealing with natural resources work independently
Of each other, even though their work is similar and in many instances
involves duplication of effort in research and program planning. In
order to remedy many of the common problems and to narrow the communica-
tions gap among them, the Governor of Arkansas appointed his advisor on
natural resources to serve as a liaison between these departments and
himself. There is no specific expression in the law requiring these
agencies to meet with each other. Thus, personality in smoothing the
relationships among agency heads and the governor plays a big role in this

venture, and the liaison man has been successful in conducting periodical
joint meetings with the heads of these agencies to discuss common problems
and to develop a certain degree of cooperation. To cite an example of
this cooperation: In the southwest Arkansas oil fields, preliminary in-
vestigations indicated that salt water infiltrated underlying-fresh water
aquifers, creating pollution problems. To remedy the problem, Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration, Arkansas Soil and Water Con-
servation Commission, Geological Commission, Pollution Control Commission,
and oil and Gas Commission sent a team to the oil fields to study the
situation. After an extensive inquiryit was decided to embark upon a
joint water-management program to reclaim an important irrigation
source.

Many questions arise as to the effectiveness of a governor-liaison-
council framework. Some believe that perhaps a Department of Natural
Resources would be more effective, others think that it might limit the
freedom of these agency heads to communicate freely with the governor or
others. However, in order to accommodate to the political needs and by-
pass the hampering effects of the present political structure it seems
that the current arrangement is working effectively regardless of the
internal organizational structure. The governor's liaison agent does
not have power to delegate authority. He is simply a moderator and
perhaps a negotiator on behalf of the governor. It is hoped that this
team will eventually become a permanent board, without infringing on
agencies' rights and that its effectiveness may reach beyond the present
limits.

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
IN SOUTH DAKOTA

Steve Gomez
Budget Analyst
State of South Dakota

South Dakota, the "land of infinite variety," located in the mid-
western part of our great nation has a population of 700,000, and an
area of 78,000 square miles. The terrain varies from mountains to
prairies, from rich farm land to desert areas.

The pioneers of the 1800's opened South Dakota, with such person-
alities as General Custer, Wild Bill Hickock, and Calamity Jane playing
important roles in the early development of our state. Mount Rushmore
is one of our more familiar landmarks. our pheasants, at times, have
numbered up to forty million. We are the largest producers of gold on
the North American continent. Agriculture is our single largest
industry and the backbone of our economy.

The following is a list of some of South Dakota's resources, some
have been developed, some have not: air, land, minerals, wildlife,
weather, people, water, and timber. Probably more attention of late
has been directed to water and its possibilities than to any other of
these resources. The construction of four large dams on the Missouri
River, whichwere built primarily for downstream flood control, has
taken ten years to complete, and has brought about unlimited possibili-
ties in the field of irrigation. This industry is in its infancy.

ozQ

I oil

its.

L-Li

A i

The South Dakota natural resources agencies organizational chart
provides a diagram of all the agencies of state government which deal
with our natural resources. The governor has overall administrative
control of these departments. The State Planning Agency and the Office
of the Budget are part of the governor's office, while all the other
departments are either administered or advised by commissions, boards,
or committees, which for the most part are appointed and serve at the
pleasure of the governor.

The State Planning Agency is made up of an executive committee and
commission members. The executive committee is made up of five members
from state government. The commission is made up of 22 members, some
from outside of state government, who represent the fields of finance,
retail businesses, agriculture, and the professions. Most state
agencies are represented in the State Planning Agency, which is chaired
by the governor.

The executive committee appoints subcommittees for work on specific
problems. The efficiency of this arrangement was best illustrated by a
recent study undertaken by Minnesota and South Dakota to deal with
pollution problems on Big Stone Lake, which is in both states. After
preliminary meetings and the collection of data, the two states have
actually begun to correct the problems.

The Office of the Budget supervises all the budget requests pre-
sented by these agencies to the governor and then to the legislature.
Although each budget analyst is thoroughly familiar with only one
agency budget, he is aware of the budget requests of other agencies.
All budget analysts sit in on the budget hearings which are held by the
governor. This tends to eliminate overlapping of programs or activities
by state agencies.

New programs or activities may originate in an agency, the State
Planning Agency, Office of the Budget, or a combination. The governor,
either through the planning agency or through commissions or boards, will
assign the prime responsibility for the administration and coordination
of the new program or activity to an individual agency.

All of the agencies shown o'n our chart have certain responsibili-
ties for the management of natural resources. By tracing only one
resource, such as water, you will note that the management of this
single resource in some manner could have implications for nearly all
the agencies on this chart. This interrelationship demonstrates that
coordination is a most important part of good natural resources
management. South Dakota, a small state as to population and number
of state employees, with all agencies located or represented at the
capitol complex in Pierre, is able because of this, to bring about
interagency cooperation with fewer problems than a large state, like
California, might have.

Cooperation between local government and state agencies operates
through technical assistance or information supplied by state agencies
to local agencies and through local representation on boards and com-
missions of both local and state government.

TIM
g

2 94

.0;

00*

0
IF I He
M

0.
!,FP

L 9

i @
i- 3 6668 00001 3682 1@