GILBERT F. WHITE 217 



which threatens their administrative integrity and legislative connec- 

 tions is eloquently demonstrated in the relative independence which 

 they now enjoy. The Corps of Engineers, the Forest Service, the 

 Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau of Mines, and the Soil Conserva- 

 tion Service stand barely shaken by the efforts at partial union. Nei- 

 ther the interest groups supporting them nor the responsible Congres- 

 sional committees have seen fit to promote consolidation. 



Such drastic unions are unlikely to come by public debate; they are 

 more likely to be the product of administrative fiat, as in the case of 

 the Soil Conservation Service-Agricultural Conservation Program 

 merger. But even here disharmonious aims are a chronic deterrent. 

 The concept of multiple-purpose resource management is attractive 

 and easy to support in principle. It runs on the rocks of divisive con- 

 troversy when efforts are made to reconcile component single pur- 

 poses. Thus, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers 

 differ not only in legislative definition of their roles in managing water 

 flow, but in the outlook of supporting interests and Congressional 

 committees. Somewhat similar contrasts are to be found between the 

 Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service and between the 

 Soil Conservation Service and the Agricultural Stabilization activities. 

 To ascribe these differences to bureaucratic entrenchment or Congres- 

 sional perversity or to the simple lack of a legislative program is to 

 overlook the basic uncertainty as to the competing public methods to 

 be followed. 



From certain administrative points of view there are strong reasons 

 for pushing ahead with consolidation. The question is whether the cost 

 of consolidation would exceed the benefits. Against the advantages of 

 lowered expenses and gains in administrative smoothness, co-opera- 

 tive action, and public appearances, would have to be weighed the dis- 

 advantages resulting from administrative inertia and lowered morale, 

 and the possibility that basic cleavages would be submerged rather 

 than reconciled. If such a balance were struck, the scales might be 

 heavily in favor of consolidation, even if the temptation were resisted 

 to favor neat organization charts for their own sake, but I must con- 

 fess to growing uncertainty as to the outcome in cases where no basic 

 changes in policy accompany the merger. 



The same kind of question may be raised as to co-ordination. For 



