212 Broader Bases for Choice: The Next Key Move 



Another innovation is the use of international treaties and commis- 

 sions in resource problem areas. Some encouragement may be drawn 

 from this experience. Performance under the migratory waterfowl and 

 seal fishing treaties has been substantial; and the joint water commis- 

 sions on the Canadian and Mexican borders, notwithstanding the lack 

 of a comprehensive program for the Columbia, enjoy the distinction 

 of being the most productive of concrete action of any in the world 

 picture. At times the United States seems to have dealt more effec- 

 tively with the resources problems when it collaborated with its neigh- 

 bors than when it had the problem all to itself at home. 



Upon the earlier experience of irrigation, drainage, and levee dis- 

 tricts, soil and water conservation districts have been expanded at a 

 rate great enough to be considered an innovation. The Miami Con- 

 servancy District pattern was modified in a few other areas for water 

 development, and state laws made possible the organization of county 

 or other local soil conservation districts in large numbers. Neither 

 type of district has achieved the hoped-for decentralization of plan- 

 ning and operation responsibility. The larger water-regulation dis- 

 tricts were hamstrung by the federal policy, initiated in 1937, of pay- 

 ing 100 per cent of the cost of flood-control reservoirs. The Mus- 

 kingum district is an example. The soil conservation districts have 

 tended to become political supports for the planning and technical 

 activities of personnel of the Soil Conservation Service and do not 

 bear heavy responsibility as districts for either initiating or carrying 

 out farm plans; neither are they effective instruments for carrying a 

 national land-use policy to those areas. Here, too, the tendency has 

 been to splinter into agencies serving relatively limited purposes. 



Two other innovations sought to integrate resource development 

 activities at a subnational level; they were the state planning boards 

 and the Tennessee Valley Authority. The planning boards flourished 

 for a time under the encouragement of public works planning and the 

 National Resources Planning Board, but with a few exceptions after 

 1944 they either died out or were converted into industrial promotion 

 or capital budgeting agencies. There were complex reasons, which I 

 cannot fully assess, for their rise and fall. Some no doubt lacked 

 viability of function or organization; some were independent append- 



