153 



journey to success. In addition, tlie coordination of prosrams visualized for the 

 coastal authorities is perhaps already being approached. 



Because of the acceleration of problems of the Great Lakes, the States and 

 Federal agencies have formed the Great Lakes Basin Commission to guide the 

 development of the lakes via planning on a partnership basis. This is a young 

 organization ; in fact, it had not even emerged at the time the Marine Study was 

 started. However, we feel great progress can be made through this existing 

 arrangement, and we are apprehensive that the creation of yet another agency 

 with overlapping powers and inevitably limited funds would only confuse and 

 constrain progress now being made. Time is critical if we are to preserve the 

 Lakes. We agree with the goals of the Marine Sciences Commission regarding 

 the Great Lakes, but feel the institutional vehicle for achieving these goals has 

 already been foi'med and is now functioning. Private industry, conservation 

 groups, municipalities, port authorities, and appropriate State and Fedei*al 

 agencies are represented in the Great Lakes Basin Commission, or its task forces. 



The overall coordination of the Basin Commission in policy. State and Federal 

 planning, fund sharing, and the establishment of priorities for project and pro- 

 gram development is provided by the Water Resources Council. Through this 

 chain. Congress and the President receive well organized and vital recommenda- 

 tions on critical needs. At present, the Great Lakes Basin Commission is working 

 on a framework plan. Twenty-six different Work Groups are now at work — each 

 containing Federal, State and other representatives. Some of the Work Groups 

 which are similar to the study jirojects recommended in the Marine Commis- 

 sion report include : Limnology of Lakes and Embayments. Water Quality. Fish. 

 Navigation, Lake Levels and Flows. Shore Use and Erosion. Land Use, Recrea- 

 tion, and Plan Formulation. The Great Lakes Basin Commission Framework 

 Study is scheduled to be completed in 1972. 



There are indeed legal institutional impediments to getting the job done on 

 the lakes. Some are serious, but none will be solved by the creation of arlditional 

 State and Federal agencies. The Marine Commission's recommendation that 

 financial grant approval be continued upon the States' formation of such a 

 coastal zone authority might easily become an obstacle to a harmonious State- 

 Fe/.eral relationship. Tiiis particular recommendation does nut seem oriented 

 towards solving actual program needs as we would feel it should. Vfe feel that 

 the Basin Commission, because of its broad membership, offers a far more 

 effective vehicle than would be gained by creation of State coastal zone 

 authorities. 



Certainly we would be tlie first to recognize whether or not existing imple- 

 mented programs are fully meeting the needs of the Great Lakes area. They are 

 not. "We are deeply concerned with inadequate progress being made on iimnoiogi- 

 cal research, shore erosion control, shore line management, pollution control, silt 

 problems, recreational development, and preservation of scenic areas. Inadequate 

 and tirnid management goals and policies for the development and use of the 

 Lakes are also hang-ups we are painfully aware of — perhaps conditioned by 

 inadequate funds. 



These are matters which the State and Federal governments must face clearly 

 around the conference table. Rv.t we hasten to assure you that the conference 

 table does exist, and as long as it has its legs well shored up. we see no institu- 

 tional impediments to using it. What we need most are : 



1. A clear policy for the use and development of the Great Lakes. 



2. More money. 



Dollars have come painfully slow to many of the States ; but that trend is 

 changing dynamically. Large water bond issues have been passed by several 

 states. There is a new and forceful program of State water planning, ai.-ed by 

 the grant program, of the Water Resources Council. For example, Ohio has com- 

 pleted a .$300 million long range plan for Northvv'est Ohio and is spending large 

 sums to implement it. We are convinced that Federal grant programs — hacked 

 vp with money to tlie States — not authorizations, or new agencies — will acceler- 

 ate this tempo even more. 



Our reasons for citing a hesitancy about accepting the Marine Commission's 

 recommendation for in.stitutional changes on water management responsibilities 

 is that it only deals v,ith one portion of our water effort. P]xperience has pain- 

 fully demonstrated that one cannot effect a piecemeal reorganization of water 

 resources agencies without compounding and opening a Pandora's box of many 

 other problems. We would hope that the studies of the National Water Commis- 

 sion might suggest new structuring — if there is to be any — but in doing so, might 



