46 CONFERENCE ON NATURAL BEAUTY 



think we ought to forget about that in this field but because if we 

 can get those levels of government operating effectively in this field, 

 we will get a better job done than if we were to try to create a Federal 

 monolith reaching its tentacles into all aspects of American govern- 

 mental life. 



With that, Mr. Chairman, I think I risk trespassing upon the 

 limitations of my Maine rule if I were to continue. So for a while 

 now I will observe a respectful Maine silence and listen. 



Mr. EDMAN. When I was invited to this panel I was asked, if pos- 

 sible, to take the role of a devil's advocate. I was told that if in my 

 presentation I could arouse the ire of some of the participants, this 

 would be a measure of success. 



Accepting an invitation at its face value, I am going to comment 

 a little bit about Federal-State-local relationships from the point 

 of view of my experience in the Minnesota program. 



A true partnership can exist only if each of the partners is sure 

 of its proper role and if he understands what responsibilities his part- 

 ners have assumed. Unfortunately, in the field of programing for 

 the preservation and development of the natural beauty of this coun- 

 try, two of the partners, i.e., the State and local units of government, 

 are confused regarding the role of the various Federal agencies. 



We are all aware of the "701" program, "Title VII," "566," Com- 

 munity facilities loans, RAD programs, OEDP's, etc. Some of the 

 programs require a comprehensive planning approach, some do not. 

 Each of the agencies is adopting its own definition of "plans" and 

 too many of the agencies seem to gear their requirements to how 

 fast they can distribute funds rather than to identify eligible projects 

 according to correlated, comprehensive requirements. 



Obviously, some Federal agency must be given this responsibility. 

 If this is to be the BOR, it is difficult for many of us to see how this 

 can be done unless BOR definitely adopts the comprehensive plan- 

 ning approach and is placed in a true coordinating position. The De- 

 partment of the Interior would seem to be a questionable location 

 for an agency responsibile for complete outdoor recreation and nat- 

 ural beauty responsibility. 



The Minnesota State Legislature during 1965 adopted a compre- 

 hensive new program of outdoor recreation to supplement the financ- 

 ing structure initiated in 1 963. In 1963 Minnesota set aside one cent 

 of the cigarette tax to launch an accelerated program of land acquisi- 

 tion. At the same time it created the Minnesota Outdoor Recreation 



