94 



Multiplicity of agencies mid departments 



Within the States' governmental framework in the Great Lakes 

 region, there liave been many organizational changes and realinements 

 to streamline responsibilities and authorities for managing the States' 

 water resources. This is contrary to the thoughts expressed m the Com- 

 mission's report. Within the Federal Goveniment framework the 

 trend appears to be in the opposite direction. As a new water resource 

 problem or item appears, the tendency is to create a new bureau or 

 agency to study the problem. Paper piles up, but implementing or 

 remedial measures are few and far between. 



To quote a State administrator — 



The (State) legislature designated the Department of Natural Resources to 

 start a. unified attack on water, air and solid waste pollution, using both Federal 

 and State funds. But, as (State) marshaled its administrative, technical and 

 financial resources in a coordinated attack on pollution, the Federal Government 

 spread its anti-pollution assistance programs into a multiple maze of agencies 

 and agency programs. 



Thus anti-pollution programs, with basically the same objectives, are now 

 administered by the Federal departments of Agriculture, Interior, Commerce, 

 Housing and Urban Development, and Health, Education and Welfare. Similar 

 problems crop up in the tiniest of programs such as the Anadromous Fish Act, 

 referred to earlier, administered by the Department of the Interior. 



Because the Department separates sports fishing and commercial fishing, the 

 State must make two applications for funds totaling less than $90,000 a year, 

 When the State Department of Health and Social Services wanted to conduct 

 a program to train staff members, it had to deal with at least five different 

 Federal programs. 



One section of the proposed Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1969 would 

 allow joint funding when a State and local government unit participates in a Fed- 

 eral program. This clearly is another attempt to make Federal money more 

 productive in reaching the goals and objectives of Federal assistance programs. 



End of quote. 

 Overlaiyping anthorities and interests 



On October 1, 1969, the Governor of Pemisylvania described the 

 Federal coordhiation and assistance effort in the water pollution con- 

 trol program as "Washington's ham-handed way of dealing through 

 an archaic bureaucracy." Departments and agencies have had and 

 maintain overlapping authorities and responsibilities in water re- 

 sources management. 



As pointed out by our quoted State administrator, it is difficult to 

 determine to whom or what agency one should go to cause somethmg 

 to happen. JN^ot only does this situation cause confusion, but there is 

 the inevitable competition for the dollar and the inefficiencies which 

 result from divided responsibilities, overhead expenses, and costs for 

 maintaining so many governmental units. 



Plans and studies^ another consideration 



Within the Great Lakes we have millions of dollars worth of studies 

 and plans on the shelves. One Great Lakes State Governor recently 

 remarked : 



We've got so much paper stacked in (State) in the State Capital that we've 

 got to move out, I'm a little apprehensive about the tendency toward piling up 

 more and more paper. 



Another Governor remarked : 



We've got so "cottonpicking" many studies — let's get some action. 



