Regional Resource Planning and Development Programs in the United States

 

11 Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Press Release, July 10, 1963. the Commission on a long-range Master Plan. The Commission strives "to maintain a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of the Potomac River Basin's water resources to meet present and projected needs.” It has a full-time staff of one hundred and fifty, and "contracts with and contributes to university research, foundation programs, and with the research organizations of several states and federal agencies.” The Commission, with the assistance of the Water Resources Council, is developing the "Framework Study for the Potomac River Basin." The Commission also is the lead agency under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1961 for development of a comprehensive plan of water quality management for the Potomac Basin. Thus the planning process for the Potomac River Basin is continuous and comprehensive. The foregoing list represents only a sample of the many large-scale examples of regional resource planning and development in the United States. 12 As already indicated, recreation and open-space planning are becoming increasingly common as part of regional resource planning and development programs. These planning programs take into account many related factors such as present and potential population in the region, transportation facilities and future requirements, and intergovernmental relationships within the region.13 Also, small watersheds as well as metropolitan regions are being planned and developed on a multipurpose basis.14 Even though they vary greatly with respect to planning area and system, objectives, resources, and political and administrative arrangements, regional resource planning and development programs have much in common. All are based on a 12 A comprehensive study entitled Regional Resource Development in the United States covering all regions of the country has been prepared by Henry L. Hunker and Dean Arnold for Resources for the Future and is scheduled for publication in 1964. 13 A forthcoming study by the National Park Service will review regional open-space and recreation planning in the United States. 14 See Report of the President's Water Resources Policy Commission, Water Resources Law (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1950), Vol. 3, “Water Resources Planning,” Appendix C, "Multipurpose Development of Small Watersheds.” systematic, comprehensive approach to resource development. They all involve cooperative action by the various agencies, levels of government, and private interests concerned. They all seek to develop a common data base and to plan for the optimum allocation of resources within the planning area. In spite of the great progress that has been made, the need for additional regional resource planning and development programs is recognized by all concerned. The recently passed Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 552) provides federal aid to distressed areas and communities for planning future development. 15 This act will make it possible for additional regional resource planning and development programs to be undertaken in the years ahead. The regional resource planning and development programs, whether under public or private auspices, are essential to the optimum use of scarce resources in the years ahead. The need for comprehensive planning at the regional level is essential if local and individual needs are to be fully accommodated. The regional level of planning is particularly important with respect to water resources planning and development. This fact is emphasized in the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 244) which creates a Water Resources Council composed of the heads of various agencies concerned (Interior, Agriculture, Army, Public Health Service, and Federal Power Commission) with the responsibility of formulating water resources policies and plans for the nation.16 The Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 also provides for the establishment of river basin commissions to plan the development of major water resource regions of the nation. The Water Resources Council has the authority to establish such commissions after consultation with the Governors of affected states. Such commissions will be composed of members from the federal, state, and local levels of government. This act represents the first major federal legislation specifically providing for region-wide planning and development of water resources. It is intended to encourage the establishment of river basin commissions in all of the 15 See Donald R. Gilmore, “Regional Planning for Economic Development,” Law and Contemporary Problems (Spring 1965). 16 See also Chapter 9. major river basins in the country. The establishment of river basin commissions and the development of comprehensive river basin plans will provide a basis for a more integrated and orderly approach to the planning and development of water resources. The regional resource planning and development programs will require additional support and encouragement from the federal government. There is need for a greatly expanded federal grant-in-aid program for planning and development. Only a small number of the many needed regional programs are being established and carried forward.17 Also, there is a need for a closer articulation of federal resource planning and development programs with those of state and regional agencies. The multiplicity of agencies conducting resource planning and development programs creates need for coordinated planning and policymaking. The federal government has a responsibility to provide national leadership and to assist state and regional agencies in their planning and development programs. 17 Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, Committee on Government Operations, United States Senate, Federal-State-Local Relationships in Water Resources Planning, 88th Cong., 1st sess., Report No. 131 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1963). Appendix NOTE TO THE READER I. Interstate Compacts This listing of interstate compacts has been compiled from various sources; e.g., the Council of State Governments and the Charles Lathrop Pack Forest Foundation. Many other works are available in which one may find information about interstate compacts. The listing is in tabular form, for convenience in reading and reference. In each column, a number indicates the interstate compact according to its listing in the previous column. Under the general headings of river basins, Great Lakes, and others, the various compacts are listed in alphabetical order of principal states involved. All of the compacts having as their primary purpose the advancement of recreation and tourism have been included under the heading “Others.” Many of these compacts contain provisions which serve other purposes in addition to the principal purpose of recreation. The information shown in the last three columns has been derived from a variety of sources and is therefore subject to some error. Neither the author nor the publisher assumes responsibility for the accuracy of this information. There are several interstate compacts not included in this listing because they affect only small portions of two or more states. These are minor compacts dealing with limited areas such as the Aiken County-Edgefield County, South Carolina-Georgia, and the Jackson, Missouri-Cape Girardeau County, Illinois, compacts. Also, certain compacts have been omitted because, although they are interstate in nature, they have only a tangential relationship to the activities encompassed by this book. For example, they may deal with such matters as the giving of consent to the construction of highways and bridges spanning boundaries, and the establishment of boundary lines between two or more states. There are various types of agreements between states and between states and the federal government, not included in this listing, which, although affecting matters of natural resources, are not considered as interstate compacts. The tabulation of interstate compacts in this appendix should be viewed as an indication of the extent to which states have joined together to solve their common problems relating to natural resources, across their artificial barriers. No warranty is made as to the complete accuracy of the information given here. INTERSTATE COMPACTS AFFECTING NATURAL RESOURCES IN THE UNITED STATES Principal States Involved Year Adopted Chief Purpose Enabling Act of U.S. Congress Effective as to States Number 1. Mississippi River Basin Mississippi River Parkway Commission 53rd Cong., Ch. 182, p. 336 1938, 1940 1939 2. Mississippi River Basin Arkansas-Mississippi Bridge 48th Cong., Ch. 21, p. 6 1957 1957 3. Great Lakes Basin Mississippi River Bridge 42nd Cong., Ch. 274, p. 474 1941, 1945 1945 4. Great Lakes Basin Great Lakes Basin Commission 74th Cong., Ch. 120, p. 1145 1955 1956 5. Great Lakes Basin Great Lakes Fisheries 45th Cong., Ch. 293, p. 965 1955 1955 6. Great Lakes Basin Great Lakes Pierhead Line 70th Cong., Ch. 276, p. 620 1933 1938 7. Great Lakes Basin Great Lakes Sanitary District 47th Cong., Ch. 196, p. 280 1945 1945 8. Great Lakes Basin Great Lakes Waterway System 71st Cong., Ch. 134, p. 256 1929, 1930 1930 9. Great Lakes Basin Upper Great Lakes Development 78th Cong., Ch. 203, P. 333 1955 1955 10. Northeastern Seaboard Basin Delaware River and Bay 51st Cong., Ch. 143, p. 43 1931, 1948 1949 11. Northeastern Seaboard Basin Delaware River Basin 79th Cong., Ch. 3, p. 15 1961 1961 12. Rio Grande Basin Rio Grande Compact 52nd Cong., Ch. 93, p. 670 1