Additional responsibilities were assigned to NOAA 
by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (and 
expanded under the 1976 amendments), Deepwater 
Ports Act of 1972, ocean dumping responsibility 
under the Marine Research and Sanctuaries Act of 
1972, Marine Mammals Protection Act, of 1972, 
and the Marine Fishery Conservation and Manage- 
ment Act of 1976. All of the recently assigned ad- 
ministrative responsibility, with the exception of 
ocean dumping, is regulatory or developmental rather 
than research in nature. Thus, ihe character of 
NOAA’s mission is slowly changing, as are the 
demands on ‘its administrative framework. 
Those arguing for reorganization of the ocean- 
related functions in the agencies cite lack of coor- 
dination among the ocean programs as evidence of 
the consequences of dispersed and fragmented re- 
sponsibilities under the present organizational scheme. 
The relative lack of communication between the 
research support activities in NOAA, NSF, EPA, 
and the Department of the Interior is one example 
cited in support of this argument. The absence of 
close coordination, they conclude, results in an in- 
capacity to bring about cohesive national policies, 
reduces administrative efficiency, and promotes lack 
of accountability. Advocates of this view believe that 
divided responsibility for ocean activities prevents 
a clear decision on what the Nation’s priorities 
should be, and how they should be accomplished 
in the needed time frame. 
Few argue that the Nation’s ocean programs are 
well coordinated; however, in rebuttal to the pro- 
posals for broadscale reorganization of the ocean 
effort, the opponents see a need only for limited 
consolidation of programs and an interagency coor- 
dinating mechanism to facilitate the formulation of 
high-level policy and ensure collaboration among the 
responsible agencies.*° 
Organizational effectiveness cannot be gauged 
objectively; thus conclusions tend to be based on 
casual observations or subjective opinions. The need 
for reorganization is frequently placed on the logic 
of inherent faith that things can be done better. 
Whether integration and consolidation of the ocean 
programs into larger unit operations can achieve 
better administration is similarly accepted or re- 
jected as an article of faith. 
The fundamental question is whether the way we 
have divided the responsibility for ocean-related pro- 
grams among the departments is the best way to 
conduct the Government’s business. The answer 
depends on the standards used in judging, the nature 
of the evidence considered, and agreement on the 
overall policy objectives. 
Split Jurisdiction: A Special Organizational Problem 
One group of ocean programs presents unique 
organizational problems that stand above the general 
concern for overall program coordination. These are 
the programs that split the responsibility for imple- 
mentation among two or more agencies in different 
departments. Several ocean programs are of this 
character. 
Responsibility for the protection of marine mam- 
mals is shared by the Department of Commerce, 
Department of the Interior, and the Marine Mammal 
Commission. 
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 assigns the 
responsibility for enforcement to the Department of 
the Interior and the Department of Commerce. 
Regulation of ocean dumping is jointly adminis- 
tered by NOAA, EPA, and the Corps of Engineers. 
Although the management of marine fisheries is 
the responsibility of NOAA within the Department 
of Commerce (through regional fisheries councils), 
responsibility for management of anadromous spe- 
cies, which inhabit both fresh- and saltwater during 
portions of their life cycle, is divided between 
NOAA, the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Depart- 
ment of the Interior, and the Department of State. 
Placement of structures in navigable waters off- 
shore with pipelines ashore can involve the Depart- 
ment of Energy, Interstate Commerce Commission, 
Department of Transportation, Corps of Engineers 
and EPA. 
Notwithstanding a self-proclaimed spirit of coop- 
eration among the responsible agencies, many ob- 
servers have related “horror tales” of interagency 
squabbling and “bureaucratic paralysis” in certain 
shared programs.*” If the assigned responsibilities 
are complementary, i.e., the tasks to be performed 
are uniquely matched to the respective capabilities 
of the agencies, shared responsibility can be imple- 
mented effectively. Thus, the administration of the 
Deepwater Port Act of 1974 has progressed satis- 
factorily under the authority of the Coast Guard 
(and the Department of Transportation) with the 
requirement for consultation with NOAA. 
However, where the division of responsibility is 
based on an artificial separation, such as species or 
habitats bearing little relationship to the problems as 
found in nature, implementation is often impeded or 
confused and the chances of omissions and over- 
* U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries. An Overview of National Ocean Policy Problems, 
Issues, and Administration, Based on Hearings before the 
Oceanography Subcommittee. Ser. 94-L, 94th Cong., 2d sess., 
1976—a general discussion of the need for ocean reorganization. 
U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Commerce. Ocean 
Dumping Regulation: An Appraisal of Implementation. 95th 
Cong., 2d sess., 1976. . 
IX-22 
