14
WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN VOL. 9. NO. 1 AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION FEBRUARY 1973 A PROPOSED NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONALSTRUCTURE FOR WATER RESOURCES PLANNING' Victor A Koelzer' BACKGROUND This paper is based on a report by a Panel of Consultants3 to the National Water Commission, which analyzed national water resources planning as it is performed today. That report [U.S. National Water Commission, 1972land this paper do not necessarily represent the views of the Commission. The Panel first considered what planning should be, from a social, technical and engineering viewpoint. Then it considered the constraints that currently inhibit good planning, in terms of available data, technical procedures, and institutions. The Panel next identified the criteria that should govern an effective planning organization. Lastly, and only after these steps, the Panel analyzed alternative organizations and developed its recommended structure. What Planning Should be The Panel developed the following definition of planning: Planning is the creative and analytical process of (1) hypothesizing sets of possible goals, (2) assembling needed information to develop and systematically analyze alternative courses of action for attainment of such goals, (3) displaying the information and consequences of alternative actions in an authoritative manner, (4) devising detailed procedures for carrying out the actions, and (5) recommending courses of action as an aid to the decision-makers in deciding what set of goals and courses of action to pursue. ' Paper No. 73039 of the Water ResourcesBulletin. Discussions are open until August 1, 1973. Consulting Engineer and Professor of Civil Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Harvey Banks, Consulting Engineer, Belmont, California; Hugh P. Dugan, Former Chief of Project Development, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, now Consulting Eugene Weber, former Chief of Civil Works Planning, Corps of Engineers, now Consulting Engineer, Harold Ogrosky, former chief of Planning, Soil Conservation Service; now consultant, Lake City Minn; Charles Hodde, former Chairman, Columbia River Basin Commission, now consultant, Portland, Oregon; Kuft W. Bauer, Executive Director, Southeast Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, Waukesha, Keith Krause, Executive Director, Kansas Water Resources Board, Topeka, Kansas: Irving K. Fox, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.; The writer was chief staff engineer and principal writer for the Panel. Members of the Panel were: Engineer, Concord, California. Washington, D . C. ; Wisconsin; 167

A PROPOSED NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR WATER RESOURCES PLANNING

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN VOL. 9. NO. 1 AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION FEBRUARY 1973

A PROPOSED NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

FOR WATER RESOURCES PLANNING'

Victor A Koelzer'

BACKGROUND

This paper is based on a report by a Panel of Consultants3 to the National Water Commission, which analyzed national water resources planning as it is performed today. That report [U.S. National Water Commission, 1972land this paper do not necessarily represent the views of the Commission.

The Panel first considered what planning should be, from a social, technical and engineering viewpoint. Then it considered the constraints that currently inhibit good planning, in terms of available data, technical procedures, and institutions. The Panel next identified the criteria that should govern an effective planning organization. Lastly, and only after these steps, the Panel analyzed alternative organizations and developed its recommended structure.

What Planning Should be

The Panel developed the following definition of planning:

Planning is the creative and analytical process of (1) hypothesizing sets of possible goals, (2 ) assembling needed information to develop and systematically analyze alternative courses of action for attainment of such goals, (3) displaying the information and consequences of alternative actions in an authoritative manner, (4) devising detailed procedures for carrying out the actions, and ( 5 ) recommending courses of action as an aid to the decision-makers in deciding what set of goals and courses of action to pursue.

' Paper No. 73039 of the Water ResourcesBulletin. Discussions are open until August 1, 1973. Consulting Engineer and Professor of Civil Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins,

Colorado.

Harvey Banks, Consulting Engineer, Belmont, California; Hugh P. Dugan, Former Chief of Project Development, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, now Consulting

Eugene Weber, former Chief of Civil Works Planning, Corps of Engineers, now Consulting Engineer,

Harold Ogrosky, former chief of Planning, Soil Conservation Service; now consultant, Lake City Minn; Charles Hodde, former Chairman, Columbia River Basin Commission, now consultant, Portland, Oregon; Kuft W. Bauer, Executive Director, Southeast Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, Waukesha,

Keith Krause, Executive Director, Kansas Water Resources Board, Topeka, Kansas: Irving K. Fox, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.; The writer was chief staff engineer and principal writer for the Panel.

Members of the Panel were:

Engineer, Concord, California.

Washington, D . C. ;

Wisconsin;

167

168 Victor A . Koelzer

The above definition characterizes the planners role as one of furnishing information - not of making decisions. I t is recognized that in the process of planning, the planner makes many small decisions, mostly of a technical nature. However, the major decisions are the perogative of the political decision-maker, not of the planner.

me Participants in Planning

Water resource planning has evolved along two separate lines in the past. One has been largely on the basis of river basins, typified by work performed by Federal agencies and coordinated by the Water Resources Council. The second has been largely on a municipal or metropolitan basis, such as the planning performed by local and regional agencies for water supply, waste treatment, and drainage.

There is a popular misconception that the Federal Government has performed most of water resources planning and development. However, as shown by the expenditures listed below, state, local, and private entities have financed almost three-fourths of the developments.

Expenditures for Water Resources Developments (Millions of 197 1 Dollars)

Federally State & Locally Privately Use Financed Financed Financed Total

Hydropower Flood Control Navigation Wastewater Disposal Storm Sewers Municipal Water Industrial Water Irrigation

Total

9,100 24,700 16,400 8,900a/

6,500a/ 6,500a/

- - _

10,400

82,500

3,100 1,900 1,600

56,100 30,300 67,000 4,700 3.400

6,100 1,300

4,500 3,100 9,100

14,300 13.600

_ _ -

18,300 27,900 18,000 69,500 3 3,400 82,600 25,500 27.400

~ ~~

168,100 52,000 302,600

a/ Includes facilities at Federally owned establishments.

Planning Today

Planning is becoming more broadly based and complex. The scope of both river basin and urban planning has moved from single purpose to multipurpose and is presently, in some instances, becoming deeply involved with sectors other than water, such as land use. Also, rather than dealing with single projects, planning is often being done on a broader areal basis - for both river basins and metropolitan areas. Further, planning has become more complex in terms of economic evaluation.

Today, planning is diffuse and multi-structured. Responsibilities are spread throughout many organizations and levels of government, as well as the private sector. The legislative authorities, objectives and operational procedures of these organizations often have been inconsistent and overall guidance has been lacking.

A PROPOSED ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 169

THE STRUCTURE OF PLANNING

It is evident that planning may be many things. I t may be the establishment of policies and guidelines - it also may be a detailed report giving conceptual designs and benefit-cost analysis, for purposes of authorization of a specific project. I t may be for an entire river basin, like the Columbia - it may be for a single metropolitan area. And it may embrace many sectors of human endeavor, or it may be for a single purpose.

There is much confusion about planning, particlarly in use of terms. A classification of the types of planning is needed, therefore, for two purposes: (a) to provide a consistent basis for dialogue, and (b) to understand the elements of the planning process. The Panel classified the types of planning as follows:

CLASSIFICATION BY CLASSIFICATION BY SCOPE CLASSIFICATION BY PLANNING JURISDICTIONS OF PLANNING PROGRAMS LEVELS OF PLANNING Federal Planning Multi-sectorial Planning Policy Planning Interstate Regional Planning Sectorial Planning Framework Planning State Planning Functional Planning General Appraisal Planning Intrastate Regional Planning Implementation Planning Local Planning

The classification by planning jurisdictions is essentially self explanatory. The other classifications are defined by the Panel as follows:

A. Scope of Planning Programs (1) Multi-sectorial planning - coordinated pianning for all sectors of public endeavor, such as

(2)Sectorial Planning - integrated planning for all functions within one sector, such as water

(3) Functional planning - planning to meet a specific need within a sector, such as flood control or

housing, transportation, water resources, and energy supply.

resources.

preservation of wild rivers. B. Stages of Planning

(1)Policy planning - definition of overall goals and program objectives, policy development, overall budget and priority analysis, dissemination of program guides, and evaluation of results.

(2) Framework* planning - identification of general problems and needs, outlining of a range of possible alternative futures, inventory of available resources and general opportunities, assessment of overall adequacy of resources, determination of need for further specific investigations. (Corresponds generally to “reconnaisance,” “Type I,” or “assessment”* planning.)

sized goals and objectives, with recommendations for action plans and programs by specific agencies or entities. (Corresponds generally to “survey reports,” “Type 11,” “Regional,”* “River Basin,”* or “master” planning.)

(4) Implementation Planning* - investigations of a specific structural or non-structural measure, or system of measures, in sufficient detail to determine whether i t will serve intended purposes in a manner consistent with established goals, objectives, and criteria, and, if so, that it is physically possible of implementation within estimated costs and within limits of financial feasibility. (Sometimes referred to as “project” or “feasibility” plans.) * Terms used by Water Resources Council.

(3) General appraisal planning - broad evaluation of alternatives measures for meeting hypothe-

These groups and types of planning frequently are interrelated. Any planning jurisdiction (Federal, state, etc.) may do “policy,” “framework,” “general appraisal,” or “implementation” planning. Similarly, any given planning assignment may embrace programs that are either

170 Victor A. Koelzer

“multi-sectorial,” “sectorial,” or “functional” in scope. All phases of sectorial planning should fit to conform to or form the multi-sectorial plan.

Likewise, all functional plans should fit together to conform to or form the sectorial plan. Some moves have been made by urban planners to fit functional and sectorial plans into multi-sectorial plans; however, river basin planning has not attempted to dw this - there are no multi-sectorial plans which emcompass all sectors for large river basins.

Policy planning often is not recognized as a planning activity. Policy planning includes definition of goals and policies, budget and priority analysis and review of program accomplishments in terms of objectives. A significant part of the activities of the Domestic Council and the Water Resources Council represents policy planning. Policy planning should be an iterative process, with objectives and policies generated by policy planning left open to revision until after the costs, benefits, and consequences of such actions are clear. When viewed in this light, its relation to the entire planning process becomes much clearer. Policy planning is the business of all levels of government and, to some degree, by various units within each level.

PLAN FORMULATION FOR THE FUTURE

The Panel report devotes considerable attention to how plan formulation should be designed. In summary, i t evolved certain criteria to evaluate the results of a planning effort, identifying that the planning process should:

1. Produce a definite plan. 2. Meet selected goaIs. 3 . Fit a rational planning area. 4. Have adequate detail to fit the type of planning involved. 5. Be, or fit into, a multi-sectorial plan. 6. Illuminate and describe the alternatives that were considered and give the advantages and

7. Equitably allocate the resources. 8. Be long range and have proper balance to meet uncertainites. 9. Be politically, technically, financially, and legally implementable. 10. Have adequate public involvement throughout the planning process. 1 1 . Be technically sound.

disadvantages of each.

SUMMARY OF HOW PLANNING IS PRESENTLY CONSTRAINTED

The Panel next considered how effective planning presently is constrained. In summary, it identified the following major constraints:

1. Technical constraints a. Inadequacies of physical data (in limited areas only)

(1)Wastewater discharges and stormwater overflows (2)Groundwater

b. Inadequacy of environmental and socio-economic data, i.e., inadequate information to demonstrate to various interests how they will be affected by water resource plans.

c. Inadequacies in analytical procedures (1)Failure to use advanced methodologies, such as systems approaches and basin

mode ling

A PROPOSED ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 171

(’)Limitations in procedures for analyzing socio-economic and environmental data (3)Limitation in procedures for evaluation of alternative measures

2. Funding constraints 3. Institutional constraints

a. Constraints resulting in inadequate balancing of objectives (1)Limitations in goal setting (2)Inadequate emphasis on local views (3)Inadequate planning for environmental values (4)Limitations in agency authority of viewpoints (5)Construction bias of some agencies (6)Inappropriate or inconsistent cost-sharing policies (7)Lack of impartial review

b. Constraints resulting in inadequate scope of planning (1)Actions of regulatoly agencies (2)Inadequate citizen participation and advocacy viewpoints (3)Inadequate relationships with the private business sector (4)Use of improper planning areas (5)Inadequate ties to land use and multi-sectorial planning

c. Constraints due to inadequate ties between planning and implementation

The Panel report gives considerable detail on how these various constraints operate. Recommended action to mitigate the technical and funding constraints are given. Since this paper is concerned primarily with institutional matters, the remainder of this paper deals with measures to mitigate the institutional constraints.

INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS TO EFFECTIVE PLANNING

Constraints Causing Inadequate Balancing of Objectives

Goal-Setting Limitations inhibit achievement of goals and objectives, which clearly is the purpose of planning. There is a serious lack of defined goals and objectives, and those that exist are often conflicting or poorly balanced. Establishment of goals acceptable to the range of affected interests is inhibited by the individual agency approach to planning, wherein agencies have advocacy roles for particular interests.

An inadequate emphasis on local views constrains planning, particularly Federal planning. Inadequacies in environmental quality input occur because the organizations to support the

environmental quality view are diffuse and, at present, have limited direct input to the planning process. Entities at both state and local levels have responsibilities, to varying degrees, for individual aspects, but the total environmental picture usually has limited advocacy in state and local government.

Limitations in agency authority or viewpoints can cause conflicts, “layering” of planning, restrictions in multipurpose or innovative thinking, and lack of integration of planning. Such problems can be caused by legal limitations, or by administrative limitations resulting from traditions, ambitions, or agency clientele. Under present mechanisms, sectorial planning must rely on consensus, which usually results in each agency obtaining what it desires by granting another agency what it wants, without in-depth analyses to obtain optimum trade-offs and solutions. The result is “layering” of proposals. Agency legislative directives, as well as

172 Victor A. Koelzer

administrative interpretations, frequently restrict planners in the alternatives they can consider. Ground water development, for example, may not be looked on seriously as a means of supply because “it is not within our jurisdiction.” Such limitations also may inhibit innovations.

The construction bias of some agencies is a closely allied problem Planning by the construction agencies frequently leads to promotion of physical solutions, with inadequate consideration of other alternatives. Many see the present organizational arrangement as placing the construction agencies in a confict-of-interest position - it is unrealisitic to ask an agency to assume broad objective leadership in a sectorial water study when its principal responsibility is, say, flood control or irrigation.

Inconsistent cost-sharing policies involving large Federal subsidies for water project investment, influence the behavior of planning agencies and the clientele they serve, and, therefore, the results of their planning efforts. Alternatives that would result in lessening the cost to beneficiaries tend to receive preferred treatment.

The lack of an impartial review in Federal and most state institutional arrangements is a crucial constraint. An independent review of agency plans should be a fundamental part of the system of “checks-and-balances” that constitute the Nation’s approach to problems.

Constraints Resulting in Inadequate Scope of Plunning

Actions of regulatory agencies, independent of water resources planning by other agencies, frequently imposes predetermined decisions on the planning process. An example is the establishment of water quality standards, in many cases without significant planning as to intended uses, which impose a legal constraint on water uses that may be inconsistent with the real goals planning should be trying to achieve. Similar actions by other regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Power Commission and the Atomic Energy Commission, also prescribe limits for water planning, sometimes unrealistically.

Inadequate citizen participation is an institutional constraint to good planning that has been widely discussed in recent years and the problems it causes need not be repeated here. The problem is accompanied by inadequate development, within government, of an advocacy position or positive programs for environmental quality.

Inadequate relationships with the private business sector are another constraint to effective planning. The greatest problem the private sector currently has is in obtaining approval from regulatory agencies for construction of essential projects. Plans by electric utilities for power generating stations, for example, have had extreme difficulty, primarily because of lack of a final decision power.

The use of improper planning areas is an institutional constraint. A rational local or regional planning jurisdiction should comprise those areas which have common planning objectives and encompass strong physical, social, and economic interrelationships. The Nation is moving toward using the river basin as the area for water resources planning, after years of effort to move in that direction, but it now is being increasingly questioned whether such units comprise proper planning areas. I t can be argued that use of other resources, as well as economic and social relationships, are of greater importance than the hydrologic ones. The lack of integration of river basin and urban planning, discussed earlier, results in part from improper choices of planning areas. Emphasis on using large river basins as the planning area tends to dilute the importance of urban considerations.

Inadequate ties to land use and multi-sectorial planning handicaps planning for the water sector. Without it, water resources planning must proceed on the basis of speculation as to the

A PROPOSED ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 173

types of human activity that will be allowed, or required, in given areas. Inadequate ties between planning and implementation represents one of the more serious

constraints to effective planning. There are serious limitations in authority, or even influence, of many planning agencies to see that measures are implemented according to plan. Planning agencies having no authority to seek authorization often have their reports ignored. Also, planning effort is wasted if implementing agencies ignore duly approved plans.

CRITERIA FOR AN EFFECTIVE PLANNING ORGANIZATION

Placing the Emphasis Where It Should Be

It is clear that the emphasis on planning should be on the goals, needs, and desires of the area for whch planning is conducted. This implies local emphasis in choice of planning areas as well to who will do the planning.

OMB Circular A-95 provides incentives to move toward more local planning. I t provides for a “clearinghouse” in each state for all Federal grant applications, for consistency to multi- sectorial plans and for environmental impact. While Federal proposals for projects are required to use the clearinghouse to the “greatest extent practicable,” current river basin plans as coordinated by the Water Resources Council do not, as a general rule, go through the clearinghouse. HUD legislation also currently requires that water and sewer plans be certified by a metropolitan planning agency as fitting into bona fide regional plans, in order to qualify for a Federal grant.

These concepts lead to the following criteria proposed by the Panel:

No. 1: Goal-setting and policy planning should be responsibilities of all levels of government, each to reflect Its own interest. There should be a policy planning unit at each level.

No. 2: All planning should be undertaken at as local a level as possible. Wherever possible, planning should be directed by non-Federal entities.

No. 3: The Federal planning effort should involve primarily such matters of National interest as definition and resolution of interstate problems and, in concert with states, the establishment of guidelines to implement National policy. To aid local planning, Federal agencies involved should pass as much decision-making as possible to their field offices. Federal direction of specific F:ederal-state-local planning efforts should occur only when specifically authorized by the Congress.

No. 4: The movement of planning execution toward state and local responsibility should be accompanied by measures which assure financial support at those levels.

No. 5: The proper planning area and role of different levels of government will vary from region to region according to the extent of Federal interest. Considerable flexibility should be available to the states and local areas to choose, in concert with the Federal Government, among the type of entities and areas which appear to be rational for planning purposes.

Providing Proper Relationships in Scopes of Planning

The realtionships between multi-sectorial, sectorial, and functional planning have been demonstrated as not being adequately provided for in present organizational structures. There is little multi-sectorial planning at present. Urban planning, as supported by “701” grants from HUD, frequently encompasses several, but not all, sectors. River basin planning is largely confined to the water sector. Although the current bills for land use planning, which is a limited form of multi-sectorial planning, imply a rapidly growing interest in that subject, they are not yet law. Until multi-sectorial planning becomes a reality, the sectorial water planner will need

174 Victor A. Koelzer

to help bridge the gaps by making some of the estimates or by seeing that planners in other sectors make them.

Sectorial planning itself has been identified as being deficient in covering the entire water sector in three respects: (a) urban water planning and river basin planning are not well coordinated, (b) water quality planning on a river basin basis has been grossly inadequate, and (c) there is inadequate input at most state and local levels to planning of the total environmental quality viewpoint - including such aspects as aesthetics, preservation of ecological systems, and preservation of open space or wild areas.

From the above discussion, the following criteria emerge in the Panel report:

No. 6: The organizational structure should recognize the need for full integration of functional plans into a sectorial water plan, and for the sectorial water plan to fit with plans for other sectors. Ideally, sectorial plans should be an integrated part of a multi-sectorial plan.

No. 7: The planning efforts and other actions of regulatory agencies, as related both to quality and quantity, should be completely integrated with water planning by other agencies. Major regulatory policies should be reviewed by planning entities prior to implementation.

No. 8: Better integration of river basin and metropolitan water planning is essential. No. 9: Planning for environmental quality, as a system, needs to be recognized as an essential

functional component of sectorial planning and states and local entities should have planning capability for the necessary input.

M i n i ~ ~ i ~ g constraints of Agency Assignments

Earlier, considerable stress has been placed on the lack of true integration of the elements of functional planning. Tradeoffs between uses are frequently not made, with the result that interagency plans of functional agencies (Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation etc.) often are “layered” plans, rather than being integrated.

There is a school of thought which maintains that the most effective organization is one in which opposing points of view reach decisions by bargaining [Ostrum, 1972, Fox 1964.1 This view tends to favor present arrangements. There are, however, opposing arguments. With such tradeoffs as now occur being on a voluntary basis, and with decisions by concensus only, there is little incentive for opposing interests to bargain. An agency can block give-and-take integration by refusing to concede on any point. The result often is a “shopping list,” or “layering of plans”, Bargaining would be more effective if individual agencies knew that there would be an ultimate decision imposed from outside by a higher authority if they failed to agree.

There are other arguments favoring the placement of decision-making authority on plan formulation outside the existing agencies. Time would be saved by reaching a decision, and the construction bias of some existing planning agencies could be overriden. Also, present construction agencies could be straightforward in their advocacy roles for their agency programs. This would allow the bargaining roles to be effectively maintained, but under a framework that allows decisions to be made.

Environmentalists who consulted with the National Water Commission see an independent decision body on plan formulation as the only hope of an objective reflection of their views [Goldman 1972, Aukeman and Chesley, 1972, ] Others argue that,at the very minimum, there should be an impartial board of review to pass on all major proposals for water resources development, a recommendation that has been included in the reports of many previous commissions.

A separate sectorial planning agency is believed to present the combination of bargaining and

A PROPOSED ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 175

decision-making that would produce the best plans. Citizens having special interest could present their views to the functional agency representing their interest or to the sectorial agency. The general public could do the same, all at appropriate intervals in the planning process. Functional agencies (including an environmental agency) wodd present their views as advocates for their clientele, but with ultimate decision power in case of failure to agree being vested in the head of a sectorial planning agency. Under such an arrangement, functional agencies would continue to do planning relative to their own primary functions, but would not attempt to incorporate the desires of other interests into these plans, as they do now (some times half-he ar te dly).

The following additional criteria are proposed by the Panel as a result of the above discussion:

No. 10: The planning organization should provide for and encourage a broad range of citizen participation a t appropriate intervals for each state of planning.

No. 11: Provision should be made for the development of advocacy positions by the various groups having an interest in the plan, along with advocacy positions representative of possible broad general public interest. Functional governmental units should have a recognized role of advocacy for their functions and for their clientele.

No. 12: An organization at each level of government should be given the charge of providing an impartial review of plans.

No. 13: Responsibilities for sectorial decision, i.e., those involving more than the particular function of an implementing “action agency,” should be separated from those agencies. Sectorial planning should be controlled by a separate group at all levels of government.

No. 14: Functional planning, where presently performed by agencies having construction or implementation responsibility, should continue to be performed by them; however, any such effort that is performed for purposes of sectorial planning should be from funds controlled by the separate sectoriat planning group. Functional planning should fit into sectorial or multi-sectorial plans.

HOW ALTERNATIVE ORGANIZATIONS WOULD MEET THE CRITERIA

There are many organizational arrangements that are possible. Discussion herein is limited to three alternatives: (1) the existing arrangements, as affected by the proposed “Principles and Standards,” ( 2 ) the proposal by the President for a Natural Resources Department (DNR), and (3) the proposal by the Commission’s Planning Panel for strengthening of the Water Resources Council by making it a fully independent agency responsible for sectorial planning.

Table A presents a comparative analysis, representing the writers’ judgment, of the way in which the three alternatives mitigate the constraints identified earlier and the degree to which they meet the 14 criteria. The following paragraphs analyze the alternatives in more detail.

The Present Organizational Arrangements

The existing arrangements need not be described here in detail. The principal implementing agencies are coordinated through the Water Resources Council (WRC). However, although HUD is an associate member of WRC, HUD’s activities have not been coordinated well with river basin planning. Typically, also, water quality planning programs are not well coordinated, possibly because EPA is only an observer to the Council, rather than a member. Further, the requirement for environmental impact reports to NEPA introduces a new influence, not coordinated by the WRC.

W l l e the WRC has had significant accomplishments, it has serious weaknesses. Since it is

176 Victor A. Koelzer

TABLE A. Comparison of Alternative Organizations in Ability to Remove Constraints to Effective Planning

Degree to Which Organizational Arrangement Could Mitigate Constraint

Dcpartment of Reconstituted -

Corresponding txisting Natural Resourcesi‘ WR COUnCliL’ Constraint to Lffectivc Planning Criterion ho. Apprazs31 Rating Appraisal Rating Aepraisal Rating Llrnlt3tlO”S I “ goal S e t t L n g I Fair I Fair I Good 2 Inadequate emphasis on local v i e w s 2.3 Poor 0 Poor 0 Very good 3 Inadequate funding 4 Fair Good Fair

Layering of agency proposals 6.14 Poor 0 Fair I Very good 3

regulatory agencies 7 Fair I Poor 0 Good 2

and urban planning 8 Fair I poor 0 Good 2

p 1 ann ing 9 Good 2 Fair 1 Very good 3 Inadequate citizen participation 10 Good 2 Fair 1 Very good 3

Improper planning area5 5 Fair?’ I!, Fair?’ I I 3 Very good

Lack of integration of actions of

Lack of integration of river basin

Inadequate environmental quality

Inadequate development of advocacy positions 11 Very good 3 GOOd 2 Very good 3

Lack of impartial review 12 Poor3/ 0-3 Paor?’ 0-3 Very good 3 Constru~tion bias of some agencies 13 Poor 0 Fair __ 1 Very good I

12-17 10-1s 31

- I / Proposed by President in Reorganization Plan. - 2 / Proposed by Planning Panel. - 3 / Could bc upgraded to very good *Ithour basic change to organization.

Number Ratings: Very good - 3 Goad - 2 Fair - L Poor - 0

essentially a coordinating mechanism, it can operate only by consensus. Since its “board of directors” consists of heads of implementing agencies, it cannot be expected to act adversely to the interests of those agencies. I t is performing a good job, within its limitations, but can d o no more than “nip at the edges” of the more serious coordinative problems. It needs decision-making power, independent of consensus.

Table A indicates that the existing arrangement does not remove many of the identified constraints to effective planning or meet many of the criteria for agood planning organization.

A Natural Resources Department

The President’s Reorganization Message of March 25, 197 I , to the Congress proposed a Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The DNR would combine within its proposed Water Resources Administration the functions presently performed by the Water Resources Council (independent agency), by the Bureau of Reclamation, Office of Saline Water, Office of Water Resources Research and the power marketing agencies (Interior), by the Corps of Engineers civil functions (planning, policy, and funding only) (Army), and by the Soil Conservation Service and the watershed loans function of Farmers Home Administration (Agriculture). Certain other water related functions such as the Forest Service, NOAA and Geological Survey would be in the Land and Recreation Resources Administration of DNR.

Separate from DNR, under the Department of Community Development, would be water and sewer grants, the flood insurance program, and the planning assistance program. Separate also would be EPA, which would remain in its present independent status.

The President’s proposal outlined a number of benefits resulting from its proposals [Executive Office of the President, 1971. ]Most of the benefits relate to administrative efficiency, with only minor emphasis on the quality of the planning product. While administrative efficiency is important, the quality of the resulting plans should, it seems, be a

A PROPOSED ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 177

dominant factor in any reorganization proposal. The proposed DNR appears to leave unsolved a number of constraints that inhibit effective planning.

Policy formulation is stressed in the DNR proposal. However, some important aspects, particularly with respect to urban water planning, are in another department, without the benefit of an independent WRC to coordinate. Thus urban water planning is further isolated from river basin planning. Also, the present isolation of water quality planning is preserved. With such isolation, i t will be extremely difficult to make all functional water plans fit into a sectorial water plan.

Rather than furthering the separation of much of planning from construction, the DNR proposal is a step backward. The planning function would stand an even greater chance of being a captive of construction ambitions. Another fundamental question is whether a DNR would really improve the integration of those water functions it incorporates, i.e., whether “layering” will continue to occur. Presumably, the programs for individual functions would not be changed. There probably would still be large divisions of the Water Resources Administration of DNR representing irrigation, power, flood control, and soil conservation. There is no separate planning division indicated to bring the planning of all divisions together, although this might be incorporated.

The administrative authority is available in a DNR to be applied to encourage bargaining of divisions to reach integrated agreements - in this sense the DNR has a distinct advantage over the present arrangement. The principal problem is - will this decision-making power be exercised in the general public interest or will it become a slave to construction ambitions of its most important constituent branches?

The Planning Panel’s Proposal

This proposal is aimed at meeting all of the 14 criteria itemized previously. It is an incremental approach, moving much more cautiously away from the existing arrangements than does the proposed DNR. It builds on the existing WRC arrangement. If not carried out precisely as suggested, it lends itself to partial accomplishment. The essence of the Planning Panel’s proposal is shown on Exhibit A.

The organization outlined an Exhibit A is designed to accomplish several important departures from present arrangements:

(a)The Council would be reconstituted to have decision-making ability, rather than consensus. I t would be fully independent, with Commissioners who are not allowed to be in any other government agency and representing a broad spectrum of interest and knowledge, including environmental values.

(b)Planning would be centered at the field level and would be mostly non-Federal. Field entities such as metropolitan area planning commissions, water authorities, COG’S, states, river basin entities, or (in special cases) municipalities would be provided the necessary funds to be the leader in planning efforts.

(c)Existing Federal agencies would focus on policies and guidelines and would be limited in the extent of their planning to tasks assigned by the Congress or by the WRC, as described in detail later.

(d)There would be moves toward centralized funding of planning, with sectorial planning funds being con trolled by WRC. Implementation planning funds would be appropriated to individual agencies as decided by the Congress, upon recommendations from WRC.

178

President- . Domestic Counci l

P o l i c y P lann ing

Victor A. Koelzer

E x i s t i n g Federal Departments and Agencies

P R O P O S E D O R G A N I Z A T I O N O F P L A N N I N G

- t o G ive Grea te r Independence

( a ) Develop wa te r resources p lann ing

(b )

( c )

( d ) Review p roposa ls f o r a u t h o r i z a t i o n

( e ) Review imp lemen ta t i on f o r confonn-

( f ) A l l p resen t assignments

program Develop coo rd ina ted budget reques t f o r

s e c t o r i a l wa te r resources p l a n n i n g Assign o v e r a l l p l a n n i n g tasks t o f i e l d

e n t i t i e s and a l l o c a t e funds

and recommend as a p p r o p r i a t e

ance t o s e c t o r i a l p lans

I r--- 7 1

I __I

( a ) Represent advocacy views ( b ) Prepare p l a n n i n g budgets ( c ) Recornend a u t h o r i z a t i o n ( d ) Pe r fo rm r e g u l a t o r y

assignments

I Review Board I

Should be de lega ted each o f above d u t i e s t o maximum degree p o s s i b l e t o f a c i l i t a t e l o c a l

I I I I (B) PERFORMANCE OF PLANNING I

-7 F i e l d O f f i c e s o f E x i s t i n g

I

( b ) Pe r fo rm assiqned p l a n n i n g I ga ted by pa ren t agency c-. tasks I

( c ) Prepare d e t a i l e d designs: I I

implement and opera te

I Non-Federal Implement ing Agencies -_I

[S ta te , Regional o r M u n i c i p a l )

( a ) Perform assigned p l a n n i n g

( b ) Prepared d e t a i l e d designs, t asks

implement and opera te

I I I I I

F i e l d P lann ing E n t i t i e s . I___-_ _ _

S t a t e Agency I n t r a s t a t e Regional Agency I n t e r s t a t e Regional Agency Local M u n i c i p a l i t y

I ( a ) Develop d e t a i l e d s tudy p lans ( b ) ( c )

Recornend p l a n n i n g assignments and fund a l l o c a t i o n s P rov ide l eadersh ip , c o o r d i n a t i o n and dec i s ions on

I p lann ing s tudy ( d ) Perform assigned p lann ing tasks ( e ) ( f ) Review implementat ion plans

Recornend a u t h o r i z a t i o n s o f p r o j e c t s and measures

Exhibit A

A PROPOSED ORGANlZATlONAL STRUCTURE 179

The detailed organizational arrangements seen by the Panel to implement the approach shown on Exhibit A are as follows:

1. Reconstitution of the Water Resources Council to be a more fully independent agency, reporting to the President, headed by 3 to 5 commissioners appointed by the President, not attached to any Federal agency and representing a spectrum of interest (including the environment). It would have an Executive Director and adequate staff to review and administer planning programs and provide specialized expertise in such matters as advanced technologies and socio-economic matters. Its purpose should be to administer Federal planning for the water resources sector, through appropriate arrangements with states, regional entities, and other Federal agencies responsible for functional aspects of water development and regulation. In addition to all its present powers, it would have the following additional powers:

(a) Develop a Federal program of sectorial planning for water resources (excluding detailed designs).

(b) Develop a coordinated budget request for all sectorial aspects of water resources planning, and review planning budget requests for functional planning to be appropriated to functional agencies.

(c) Make allocation of sectorial planning funds to non-Federal field planning entities as appropriate to perform sectorial planning, in all instances except where Congress specifically directs that a Federal agency should direct the sectorial planning program.

(d) Approve assignments made by the field planning entity of sectorial planning tasks to other Federal, state, and regional (interstate or intrastate) entities as necessary to cany out the sectorial planning program. It should approve the allocation of funds appropriated to it between such organizations, as developed by field planning entities designated as the lead agency, (including grant programs to state and regional entities for river basin or metropolitan area water planning).

(e) Review proposals by state, regional, and other Federal entities for Federal authorization of water resource developments or programs, to assure compliance with sectorial plans, and to recommend authorization to the President as appropriate.

(f) Review implementation plans by functional agencies to assure compliance with sectorial plans. (g) Establish field offices which will be delegated as much authority as possible to allow decisions

(h) Institute and conduct project assessments, on a regularized basis, to provide information on to be madc locally.

whether completed projects are meeting program objectives.

2. When not otherwise specified by Congress, the reconstituted Water Resources Council, operating through its field offices, shall assign the leadership role in a sectorial planning study (including coordination of assignments) t o a state, an interstate regional entity, to an intrastate regional entity or (in special cases) to a local municipality designated by the Governor or Governors of affected states. States should have the privilege of initiating requests for needed entities and the Council should have the privilege of suggesting where additional entities are needed. Such entities should:

(a) Develop detailed study plans. (b) Recommend planning assignments and allocation of funds. (c) Provide Leadership, coordination, and decisions on planning studies. (d) Perform assigned planning tasks. (e) Recommend projects or measures for authorization. (f) Review implementation plans.

3. The human resources necessary to provide the planning effort should be derived from (a) state, interstate regional, or intrastate entities, (b) existing Federal agencies responsible for functional aspects, (c) private and academic consultants, and (d) where Federal sectorial interests are involved, field offices of the reconstituted Council. State and local entities should provide the major input, with Federal effort restricted to the Federal interest and to specialized services. State and local entities should increase their staffs to assume this stronger role, with the aid of Federal grants on a cost-sharing basis.

180 Victor A . Koclzer

4. Existing Federal agencies responsible for functional aspects of water should fill the following roles: (a) Present an advocacy viewpoint for its particular function in actions by the reconstituted

(b) Propose planning budgets to the Council. (c) Recommend projects or measures for authorization to the Council. (d) Perform regulatory assignments, such as by licensing of hydropower projects or administering

water quality control, within basin water quality plans as developed by field entities and approved by the Coundl.

(e) Perform planning tasks assigned to it, with particular emphasis on preliminary designs and cost estimates and on implementation planning.

(f) Prepare detailed designs and implement construction, or take such other implcnientation measures as are necessary.

The Panel views these proposals as having the greatest potential for eliminating the institutional constraints that currently inhibit planning. The writer’s analysis, given in Table A, indicates a much higher degree of removal of constraints than other proposals. More detailed descriptions of the proposed organizations and of how it would function are given in the Panel’s report.

As indicated earlier, the recommendations contained herein are those of the Panel and not of the Commission. The Commission is now preparing its final report, so that its action on the recommendations has not been finally determined. There is opportunity, therefore, for input of opinion concerning the recommendations. Anyone who feels strongly, either in favor or opposed, is urged to convey this opinion to the National Water Commission, 800 North Quincy, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Council in all activities pertaining to its function.

REFERENCES

Aukerman, Robert and Chesley, George I (1972), “Feasibility and Recommendations for Classifying Water,” Report for the National Water Commission, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, V a , Accession No. PB 268 667.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget (March 1971), “Papers Relating to the President’s Departmental Reorganization Program, A Reference Compilation,” U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Fox, Irving K. (1964), “Review and Interpretation of Experiences in Water Resources Planning,” in Kindswater CE 1ed.j “Organization and Methodology for River Basin Planning,” Proceedings of a Seminar based on the U.S. Study Commission-Southeast River Basins, Water Resources Center, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Ga.

Goldman, Charles R. (1 972), “Environmental Quality and Water Development,” Report to the National Water Commission, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., 2 volumes, Accession Nos.

Ostrum, Vincent (1972), “Institutional Arrangements for Water Resources Development,” Report to the Nationdl Water Commission, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., Accession No. PB 207 3 14.

U. S. National Water Commission (19721, “Water Resources Planning,” by Consulting Panel on Water Resources, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., Accession No. PB 21 1 921.

PB 207 113-14.