WATER
RESOURCES
CONGRESS
955 L'Enfant Plaza, North, S.W. Suite 1101Washington, D.C. 20024 - 202/488-0688
February 26, 1979
President Jimmy Carter The White House
Washington, DC Dear Mr. President:
The membership of the Water Resources Congress has followed closely the development of reorganization studies by the President's Reorganization Project, with particular emphasis on the Federal agencies involved in water resources development. Your concern with improving the effective-ness and efficiency of these programs has our full support, but we have serious reservations concerning how the creation of a Department of
Natural Resources and the mere transfer of functions between organizations can achieve this goal.
We believe that the existing Federal water resource development agencies are highly effective as currently constituted and are fully capable of achieving your goals without disruptive reorganization. We believe that the key requirement is an initial promulgation of wise Federal water
policies and the creation of a strong, independent institution to maintain policy guidance as external change dictates. You have already directed that significant steps be taken in this direction, and we believe that much good work has been accomplished. The Water Resources Congress sees no advantage to a major reorganization of the water development agencies before the policy redirections you have placed in motion are given a chance to prove themselves. With the anticipated level of policy reform success, the cost of reorganization might never have to be paid.
The Water Resources Congress is concerned over these potential costs and the grave consequences the proposed reorganization could have upon the national welfare. The Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Soil Conservation Service have each developed unique and effective systems for doing the work assigned them by the Executive and Legislative branches. The small functional overlaps that exist between these agencies generate healthy competition and a better chance for public involvement
in the decision making process; benefits which may be lost if all development is centralized in a single agency. Our observation of the performance of large Federal agencies created to consolidate what were considered common functions have shown no major improvement in operations or public service. Large consolidated departments are no guarantee of greater efficiency or
improved responsiveness, and they do not automatically eliminate controversy. The Water Resources Congress fails to see how the creation of yet another "superagency" can avoid the pitfalls suffered by those that have gone before
President Jimmy Carter February 26, 1979 Page 2
We understand that certain functions of the Corps of Engineers are to be transferred to the Department of Natural Resources which will be structured on the present Department of the Interior. The Corps will, however, retain an identity. On the other hand, we understand that the Bureau of Reclamations and the Soil Conservation Service will have their functions split between the new Department of Natural Resources and the Corps of Engineers and will lose their identity. Our concern is that the planning, construction, operation and maintenance functions will be separated. Water Resources Congress supports the retention of these functions within one agency. I wish to express and explain this concern using the Corps of Engineers as an example. I could use the Bureau of Reclamations or the Soil Conservation Service as my example, but my past associations have been much closer with the Corps. If I were
from a Western state I would undoubtedly use the Bureau for my example of what may happen under the proposed reorganization. I am using an example for sake of brevity keeping in mind their applicability to the Bureau and the SCS.
The Water Resources Congress is most concerned with the serious impact the proposed reorganization would have on the Corps of Engineers. The Corps has played a key role in economic development and national defense through-out its more than two centuries of service to the Nation. It has distin-guished itself time and time again through its rapid and highly effective relief of suffering and loss brought on by natural disasters. It has developed the organization and procedures that allow i t to accept and
complete complex new missions with relative ease. Because of these abilities, numerous foreign governments have even expressed interest in Corps develop-mental assistance. And finally, the Corps has performed invaluable service in support of mobilization during periods of national emergency. In all of these pursuits the Corps has maintained the highest levels of professional and ethical integrity.
We recognize that your staff has recommended retention of the Corps as an organization, but we are distressed at the suggestion of separating project planning from other water resource development activities undertaken by the Corps. All of the functional processes involved in major project development -study, design, construction and operations are interactive and iterative in nature. To divest the Corps of its project planning function breaks this logic chain and can only result in the waste and inefficiency you seek to avoid. For these reasons, we fail to see the wisdom of the organizational changes currently before you.
Mr. President, we urge you to consider most carefully the grave and irreparable impact which any significant reorganization would have upon the Nation's
economic development and security. The Water Resources Congress is actively participating with agencies of your Administration involved in the development
President Jimmy Carter February 26, 1979 Page 3
of improved water resource management policies, and we look forward to
continuing service in this vital area of national concern. Together, we
believe much can be done. We believe that the proposed reorganization
detracts from this cooperative effort, so well begun.
Vernon
Chairman of the Board VB:ml
