236 The Plus Side of the Record 



first hand of the agonizing frustrations which face one attempting to 

 act in this area. I am alternately impressed and depressed by what I 

 see. I am impressed by the caliber of the personnel involved, their 

 dedication to duty, their fund of knowledge, their imagination in their 

 professional spheres. I am depressed at the amount of time one has 

 to spend at the federal level in ironing out differences of opinion 

 among these various groups of highly dedicated people. A recent ex- 

 ample of the frustrations I am thinking of is the long, unfinished se- 

 quel to the report of the Presidential Advisory Committee on Water 

 Resources Policy which President Eisenhower established in 1954. In 

 December 1955, the committee submitted its report to the President, 

 who commended its purposes and objectives and recommended that 

 the Congress give prompt attention to its proposals. 



The report contained four important organizational recommenda- 

 tions : ( 1 ) that a co-ordinator of water resources be established in the 

 Executive Office of the President to provide a focal point for policy 

 and program development; (2) that a three-member board of review 

 be created in the Executive Office of the President to provide objec- 

 tive advice on the engineering and economic feasibility of proposed 

 projects; (3) that a permanent interagency committee on water re- 

 sources be constituted under the chairmanship of the co-ordinator of 

 water resources; and (4) that regional or river basin water resources 

 committees be set up, consisting of federal and state representatives 

 and headed by independent chairmen appointed by the President. It 

 was contemplated that the various federal and state agencies could 

 work together to co-ordinate water and related land resource planning 

 and development activities, prepare comprehensive plans, and submit 

 annual work schedules. 



The four recommendations relating to organization were the prod- 

 uct of careful consideration on the part of the committee members 

 and their expert staffs. However, issuance of the report brought forth 

 immediate criticism of the recommendations, both from key Congres- 

 sional figures and various interest groups. The proposal for a co-ordi- 

 nator of water resources led to special outcries, the contention being 

 that the co-ordinator could become a "czar," capable of running 

 roughshod over agencies charged with administering specific programs. 

 The proposed board of review was similarly challenged. It soon be- 



