ER N EST S . GRIP F ITH 11 



The consolidation of policy in water power and forests reveals a 

 characteristic of the conservation movement in periods of "low 

 temperature." Except under circumstances of unique and strong na- 

 tional leadership — and there have been only two such in our history 

 in this field — the over-all view is rarely taken, either by Congress or 

 by the public generally. It is true that a considerable measure of in- 

 terest arose as a result of the earlier "Conservation Congresses" and 

 the more recent large-scale conference on "Resources for the Fu- 

 ture." Advocates have been energized, scholars stimulated to re- 

 search; the over-all and integrated view has made at least some 

 impression upon those who generated policy in the several segments. 

 Yet the problems of resources remain segmented, and the institu- 

 tionalization of the multiple-purpose approach has been extraordi- 

 narily difficult. The Tennessee Valley Authority remains a lonely 

 experiment. 



In general, fragmentation has been the prevailing mood. Power and 

 forests will serve as examples. In Congress today three great com- 

 mittees, Agriculture, Interior and Insular Affairs, and Public Works, 

 have carved out for themselves major sectors of the resource problem. 

 Each, especially Interior, is fragmented by subcommittees. Even this 

 measure of consolidation represents an improvement over the splin- 

 tering that existed prior to 1947. Nowhere in Congress is there an 

 over-all, integrated view. 



A similar split rules in the Executive Branch. In fact, if you read 

 the hearings and the history of the Commission on the Reorganization 

 of Congress you will recognize that the basic reason for establishing 

 these three committees, in 1946, was to match their administrative 

 counterparts — the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the 

 Interior, and the Army Engineer Corps. These departments and the 

 bureaus thereunder, the committees of Congress and the subcommit- 

 tees therein, each have their respective clienteles in the electorates. 

 These clienteles are fragmented. The relationships between the sub- 

 committees or the committees and the corresponding bureaus and de- 

 partments are extremely close. In fact, one might almost call them 

 fellow conspirators along with their clienteles, rather than in any sense 

 enemies. They are fellow conspirators not only against rival users, but 

 also against the Bureau of the Budget, against the Appropriations 



