Senator Holling’s proposal would establish a De- 
partment of Environment and Oceans (DEO) which 
would combine the activities of the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), an independent regulatory 
agency in function, with the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), an administra- 
tion within the Department of Commerce, the U.S. 
Coast Guard, a component of the Department of 
Transportation, and certain programs under the 
jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers. The rationale 
for coaiescing environment and ocean affairs into a 
single Cabinet-level department is grounded on three 
organizing principles according to its sponsor: (1) 
Responsibility for managing the Nation’s common 
property resources—those that belong to no single 
person or group of persons; (2) separation of respon- 
sibility for Government functions, to avoid conflicts 
caused by pursuing differing goals for regulation, 
enforcement, research, and economic development, 
and (3) dynamic organization that would develop 
the internal structure of DEO after its creaticn.®° 
Organizationally, DEO would comprise six func- 
tional administrations and the U.S. Coast Guard, 
each directed by an Assistant Secretary: Clean Air 
Administration, Water Quality Administration, Na- 
tional Oceans Administration, Recreation and Parks 
Administration, Environmental Hazards Control Ad- 
ministration, and the National Atmospheric Service 
Administration. Rather than transfer functions identi- 
fied with an organizational entity, as has been the 
practice with executive reorganization plans, S. 3889 
transfers the programs by reference to the authoriz- 
ing legislation and makes conforming amendments 
to the environmental and ocean-related statutes to re- 
fiect the transfer of authority and revest the powers 
of the Secretary of the Environment and Oceans. 
Components of DEO would include the following 
organizational entities and/or programs: 
(i) Bureau of Land Management (Department of 
the Interior) functions relating to environ- 
mental baseline studies with respect to the 
Outer Continental Shelf; 
(2) Bureau of Reclamation (Department of the 
Interior) functions relating to modification of 
the weather; 
(3) Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (Department 
of the Interior); 
(4) U.S. Coast Guard (Department of Transpor- 
tation); 
(5) Corps of Engineers (Department of the Army) 
research and regulatory functions relating to 
marine and coastal affairs, including activities 
for regulation of ocean dumping, protection of 
wetlands, permitting of offshore structures, 
and research on and control of erosion and 
other coastal processes; 
(6) Environmental Protection Agency; 
(7) Fish and Wildlife Service (Department of the 
Interior) ; 
(8) Geological Survey (Department of the Interior) 
functions relating to topographic surveys and 
mapping; regulation of exploration, develop- 
ment and production activities on the Outer 
Continental Shelf; research in support of regu- 
lation; land information and analysis; and re- 
search on earthquake hazard reduction; 
(9) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis- 
tration (Department of Commerce; and 
(10) The National Park Service (Department of the 
Interior). 
The DEO concept goes beyond any recommen- 
dations made previously by advisory groups in the 
community of ocean professionals. However, by 
coupling environment and oceans in a Cabinet-level 
department, the vulnerability of a relatively small 
independent ocean agency with limited clout would 
be traded for department-level status that would put 
ocean and environment on a par with energy and 
other resource considerations. 
Multipurpose Reorganizational Proposals (94th Congress):Department of Natural Resources—Energy—Environment 
Reorganization bills that would consolidate nat- 
ural resources, energy, and environmental groups 
have been introduced in every Congress since 1971. 
The early bills of the 92d and 93d Congress, which 
proposed the creation of a Department of Natural 
Resources or a Department of Energy and Natural 
Resources would have transferred NOAA and other 
ocean-related programs to what, in effect, would be 
an expanded Department of the Interior. Recent bills 
with their genesis in the old DNR/DENR concepts, 
such as S. 3339, and a proposal announced by 
Senator Charles Percy, but not formally introduced 
in the 94th Congress, move away from melding 
Ibid. p. S 17855. 
ocean functions into the general Interior-oriented 
programs. This tendency is significant because of its 
implication that ocean resources and programs have 
unique qualities that may require them to be ap- 
proached in a specific rather than functional manner. 
The Department of Energy and Natural Resources 
Act (S. 3339), while not transferring any ocean- 
related programs to the DENR, instructs it to “ex- 
plore and survey the earth, the atmosphere, and the 
oceans.”’> 
Presumably, such functions would be those nor- 
mally embodied in the activities of the U.S. Geolog- 
51UJ.S. Congress, Senate. Department of Energy and Natural 
Resources Act. 94th Cong., 2d sess., 1976, S. 3339, Sec. 5{a). 
IX-32 
