sights are increased. This has resulted in a curious 
partitioning of authority under the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act. For example, NOAA in the Depart- 
ment of Commerce is responsible for such mammals 
as whales and seals; whereas the Fish and Wildlife 
Service in the Department of the Interior is responsi- 
ble for sea otters and walruses. 
Further complications arose in the case of the 
threatened green sea turtle, which, under the En- 
dangered Species Act, required a Memorandum of 
Understanding between the Department of Com- 
merce and the Department of the Interior giving 
NOAA responsibility for the turtles if they are 
swimming and the Fish and Wildlife authority if they 
are on Jand. Anadromous fish similarly come under 
two management regimes, administered by NOAA 
and the Fish and Wildlife Service on the basis of 
whether the fish are in fresh- or saltwater and 
whether they are indigenous to Pacific waters, the 
Great Lakes, or the Atlantic. The jointly adminis- 
tered programs clearly need special attention, whether 
considered in the context of overall ocean reorgani- 
zation Or as an incremental measure to consolidate 
the most troublesome coordination programs. 
Organizational Options and Principles 
No magic formulas exist for organizing Govern- 
ment functions. Theories abound, but the problems 
of organization are not wholly structural. The or- 
ganizational options are limited by a number of 
practical considerations and external factors that 
influence or constrain the final outcome: 
e Statutes and congressional enactments establish 
the top and bottom line of authority—executive 
agencies can neither expand nor contract the re- 
quirements of the statutes. 
e Agencies are collective fiefdoms, generally pre- 
sided over by competitive and aggressive ad- 
ministrators—tidy organizational charts fre- 
quently fail to depict accurately the power struc- 
ture and decision path. 
© Constituents of a Federal program often make 
more difference in the operation of an agency 
than does the organizational locus within the 
Government. 
e@ Agency jurisdiction should be matched to con- 
gressional committees’ jurisdiction to the extent 
possible in order to avoid future program frag- 
mentation. 
Any reorganization of the Federal ocean effort, 
while simple in concept, would be complex in prac- 
tice. Federal agencies do not exist in isolation; they 
are highly interdependent. To take programs from 
one department can significantly affect the donor 
agency to the extent that its organizational integrity 
and operational efficiency are impaired. A critical 
mass must be maintained in the organizations from 
which programs are transferred. Also there is a need 
to ensure that the recipient agency has the necessary 
programs to make it an effective administrative unit. 
Organizational problems are often less “struc- 
tural” than they are “people problems.” The human 
dimension must be considered in any organizational 
scheme. It is well proven that good faith, compe- 
tence, professionalism, and dedication can overcome 
many organizational deficiencies. Proper organiza- 
tion can minimize the administrative barriers that 
tend to impede communication and reduce adminis- 
trative effectiveness. However, this is a passive 
quality of organizational structure. Leadership and 
initiative provide the active quality. To the end that 
organization can provide the proper mix of talent 
and resources at an appropriate level of visibility in 
order to attract those with leadership ability, or- 
ganization can contribute to the active and respon- 
sive qualities of good government in an indirect way. 
Agencies with closely related and interacting re- 
sponsibilities often compete for new authority and 
vie for common aspects of existing programs. Dy- 
namic tension among the competing agencies can 
serve to improve general performance in Govern- 
ment. However, good administration can suffer when 
interagency competition becomes merely self-serving 
or where duplication and confusion result. The line 
between the extremes is narrow and ill-defined. Com- 
petition is inherent in any organization and within 
its subunits. The factor of interagency and interunit 
competition not only should be acknowledged in an 
organization scheme, but should be skillfully used 
by administrators to improve the performance of the 
organization as a whole. 
Organizational Structure and Status 
Whether the Federal ocean program should be re- 
organized is a question that must be determined on 
the basis of its relative benefits and costs. A decision 
that Federal ocean activities are of sufficient impor- 
tance to warrant a consolidation of the present 
separate agencies is obviously a critical policy judg- 
ment. 
If reorganization is to be undertaken, four ques- 
tions are to be answered. (1) Should the entity be 
independent or part of an existing department? (2) If 
independent, should the organization be an agency, 
administration, or a Cabinet-level department? (3) 
Should the organization be based upon functional 
lines, resource objectives, disciplines, or regional 
IX—23 
