Chapter IX: Organizing the National Ocean Effort 
Introduction 
In 1969, the year that Our Nation and the Sea 
was issued by the Stratton. Commission, Federal 
ocean programs were located in 6 departments, 4 
independent agencies, and 17 agencies or sub- 
agencies within the departments. Ocean programs in 
1977 were administered by 9 departments, 8 inde- 
pendent agencies, and 38 agencies or subagencies 
(fig. 9-1 on pages IX-—36 and IX—37). 
Since 1972, Congress has enacted eight laws with 
major implications on ocean matters, including the 
Federal Water Pollution Coastal Act Amendments 
of 1972, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the 
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, 
the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, the En- 
dangered Species Act, the Deepwater Port Act of 
1974, the Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act of 1976, and the Coastal Zone Management 
Act Amendents of 1976. The nature of this legisla- 
tion emphasizes the management and conservation 
of the ocean and coastal resources, in contrast to 
legislative authority existing prior to 1970, whic 
was largely directed toward providing ocean-related. 
services, education, and marine science and en- 
gineering. This shift can be attributed in part to a 
change in the national mood in the early 1970s in 
which concern for environmental values.came to the 
fore. Many of the legislative actions by Congress in 
the early 1970s dealing with ocean matters were 
designed to protect the marine environment or a 
component of it. 
Failure of the United States to. adopt an explicit 
“national ocean policy,” the alleged lack of coor- 
dination among agencies administering ocean pro- 
grams, and the absence of what advocates term an 
ocean commitment have been attributed to lack of 
a single ocean focus within the Federal structure. 
Although the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) was created by Reorganiza- 
tion No. 4 in 1970 in response to the recommenda- 
tions of the Stratton Commission, it fell far short of 
the powerful comprehensive, independent ocean 
agency conceived by the Commission. While the 
center of civilian ocean activities is perceived by 
many to be in the Department of Commerce’s 
NOAA, a major share of the actual functional activ- 
ity is located in other line departments. In fact, the 
General Accounting Office (GAO) estimates that 
only 7.9 percent of the total Federal budget related 
to marine science activities and oceanic afiairs dur- 
ing the period through 1974 was budgeted to 
NOAA. At the same time, it has to be acknowl- 
edged that proliferation of related functions among 
Federal agencies is common. Many agencies have 
educational activities, many are involved in recrea- 
tion or environmental protection, and many perform 
related research functions. 
Whether the proposals for organizing around the 
ocean as a resource have merit must be evaluated 
in light cf the increased use and importance of the 
ocean, the domestic and international economic set- 
ting, and the ranking of ocean resources and the 
ocean environment among other national priorities. 
Possible reorganization of the U.S. ocean effort must 
be considered in the context of other national goals. 
Reorganization is essentially politics itself, and 
s such can be used to redistribute political influence, 
alter the substance of public policies, and signal the 
intention of the Governmeni to place priority on a 
national goal. Creation of a Department of Energy 
was in part a statement by the current Administra- 
tion of the importance it attaches to the topic. Al- 
though generally justified on the basis of increased 
efficiency and improved administration, reorganiza- 
tion is not necessarily the most promising means to 
achieve efficiency and reduce cost.? Therefore, the 
central question with regard to possible reorganiza- 
tion of ocean programs may-depend less on the frag- 
mented nature of ocean responsibilities among the 
Federal agencies, with the possible loss of efficiency, 
than upon the pragmatic question of: Is the ocean a 
sensible integrating theme around which to organize? 
And the corollary: Is the ocean important enough 
to justify reorganization? Also, are the deficiencies 
perceived in the administration of ocean-related pro- 
grams best cured by reorganization or other means? 
1U.S. General Accounting Office. Fedzrui Agencies Adminis- 
tering Programs Relaied to Marine Science Activities and 
Oceanic Affairs, GGD-75-61, Washington, D.C., GAO, 1975, 
Ds De 
2 Herbert Kaufman. “Reflections on Admiiziisirative Reorgani- 
zation,” in The 1978 Budget; Setiing National Priorities, Joseph 
A. Pechman (ed.). Washington, D.C., Brookings Institution, 1977, 
Dp: 392: 
[X-1 
