This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
1 ~ f | f |j |
|
|
l” ;• % \ |
|
| ? 1 |
|
| 1 | |
| ■ 'Jr | \ |
|
j ! | 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| : "■ -- -*»<* | ftj |
|
Time to Put Our Maritime House in Order
By Captain Alexander R. Larzelere, U. S. Coast Guard
ao<J
diminished emphasis. A network of informal P°
teragency coordination but with less authority
ganization, there are substantial differences as to
ho^
al
ing needs of developing maritime interests over
bcefl
of reor
Within the executive branch, the problem
,osn]
Reorganization Project. In addition to the Pr°P'^e to create a Department of Natural Resources project, has developed three organizational °P
non*
rtUfe'
The growing demand for petroleum is causing drilling equipment to he moved into what once were traditional fishing areas. On the preceding page, ready to prohe the Baltimore Canyon area, is the enormous semisuhmersihle drilling vessel, “New Era,” which, when water replaces the air in its columns, sinks until only a few feet of the top of the rig show above the surface.
T
1 hroughout the history of the United States, the government has always been reluctant to get involved in the affairs of the powerful marine industries. As a result, maritime legislation and federal agency structure during the past two centuries have evolved in a reactive and uncoordinated fashion. Laws were passed and separate marine agencies were formed to administer specific maritime interests.
In addition to the Department of Defense agencies, there are currently more than 40 separate components of the federal government with primary or peripheral maritime responsibilities. They range from departments and administrations to commissions, councils, and foundations. These organizations, engaged in supporting or promoting one or more “maritime interests,” constitute an extensive bureaucratic network of individual efforts that are often uncoordinated, duplicative, and—sometimes—conflicting. As an example of this duplication of federal effort, a 1975 General Accounting Office study related to marine science activities revealed that in 114 of the 180 research programs conducted by the government, more than one department or agency was working in similar areas.
Problems with the organization and relationship of the federal maritime bureaucracy have long been recognized. Traditionally, plans to improve the organization have been limited or unsuccessful and quickly forgotten. More recently, attempts to resolve the worsening situation have been under near-constant consideration. There have been continuous efforts throughout the 1960s and 1970s to reorganize the marine agencies either separately or as a part of an overall government reorganization. These attempts have generally been doomed to failure because of the comprehensiveness of their approach. The broad, sweeping proposals were resisted by equally broad opposition and have resulted in only modest gains toward an improved organization.
Meanwhile, the maritime interests of the nation continue to expand in both scope and magnitude, increasing the need for a timely solution. The na-
tion’s dependence on the marine shipment or materials to sustain economic and national secu ^ interests continues to increase even though r strength of the U. S. merchant marine is declimnr Exploration efforts for offshore petroleum resou are being heightened as the nation strives to meet ^ own energy needs. In the area of nutrition, the coun try continues to increase its consumption of Protel rich fisheries products. j
The National Council on Marine Resources ^ Engineering Development, created as part o 1966 Marine Resources and Engineering DeV^. ment Act, was an important forum for the coor tion of such maritime interests. It was establish6 a cabinet-level interagency group within the tx tive Office. When its tenure expired in 197 U 1 replaced by the less prestigious sub-cabinet ‘ agency Committee on Marine Science and Engi^ ing, which carries on the necessary function 0 .
,ints of coordination also exists among the agencies facilitate the accomplishment of maritime functi Although these channels have enabled programs • activities to progress, it is obvious that they can in the long run, substitute for appropriate organ tional arrangements.
Despite a general consensus on the need for r_ ^
it should be accomplished. Both the genera proach to reorganization and the specifics of PoS?'ejy plans are widely debated. The failure to progress,v ^ revise and reorganize the agencies to meet the chanf^
has complicated the situation. The result has the proliferation and growth of the diverse agen that exist and the constituencies they serve.
ganization is being addressed by the Preside1 that would impact on the federal maritime struc The first option considers the creation of an O 1 Resource Council which would coordinate ' the ^ tivities of the existing agencies. The second inv0 ^ the establishment of an Ocean and Coastal Res°u Management Agency, and the third would be a * tional realignment of ocean and coastal programs-
Opposed by both the House and Senate, doubtful that the creation of a new Departm6flt
■i
tiof
ally
Natural Resources is a viable alternative. The op ^ of an Ocean Resources Council would be basic-1
a n»'
nonstructural and would not require major reor£-
<Ug
pj 0r overlapping maritime activities would be aft ^ W*r^'n a s'ngie agency that would make man- SQUrent decisions involving trade-offs between re- SeCe ut'lization and protection. A variation of this the°n °^t‘on wou16 have the entire Coast Guard and eep Water Ports Program transferred from the Othtrnent Transportation to the new agency. Ser^er Variations include the separation of scientific lces into a separate agency and the retention of
etl0n' The council would be an independent federal fu an<^ wou^ consist of cabinet-level officials. Its ^nction would be to provide cohesive national policy ^ecti°n for the management of ocean resources.
s council would be similar to the cabinet-level ^ uncil created by the 1966 Marine Resources Act. It of k Certain|y serve t0 reemphasize the importance e rnar*tirne environment and improve the coor- rnatl0n °f major agency activities, but it could not Or i VC t^'e organizational problems created by the 'oration of the maritime bureaucracy. e Oceans and Coastal Zone Resources Manage- Th C ^gency option would involve reorganization, fu agencY would be created by combining certain rrierCtl0nS anc^ resources of the Departments of Com- c Ce> *nter‘or’ Transportation, and Army, and the Cental Protection Agency. The concept of " Pr°posal is centered on the creation of a tlple-use”. management agency. Several compet- the Environmental Protection Agency as an independent agency with some added responsibilities. The concept of a management agency may be valid, but the number of existing agencies that would be affected by the proposal with a shift of functions, funding, and resources would make its creation unlikely.
The final option addressed by the President’s Reorganization Project involves a major functional realignment. Included in the realignment would be the transfer and consolidation of the maritime programs of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These programs and their resources would be incorporated into existing programs in the Department of the Interior, the Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Science Foundation. The political feasibility of such an option that would largely dismember the ocean-related functions of NOAA is highly questionable.
Although the efforts of the President’s Reorganiza-
ocEamc and atmospheric administration
Part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Deep Ocean Mining Environmental Study includes collecting seawater samples from the ocean floor. Under the author’s plan, NOAA, as a “lead agency," would have the final responsibility for living resources and general maritime research activities.
tion Project (PRP) are commendable, they appear to be developing solutions that will be ineffective, unmanageable, or politically unacceptable. Without a realistic appreciation for constituency concerns and political feasibility, it is doubtful that any maritime reorganization plan will be successful. In evaluating the feasibility of reorganization plans, the PRP should take care to consider the impact on the committee structure within the House and Senate. Strong ties and long-term relations have been established between the committees and the agencies for which they are responsible.
Within the House of Representatives, the problem is being addressed by the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. The committee has opposed the PRP’s proposal to create a single department based on natural resources because of . . the distinct differences in the management of ocean and land resources.” The committee proposes instead that an independent oceans agency, not tied to a larger department, be created as originally recommended by the Stratton Commission in 1969-*
Specifically, the committee proposes that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration be the nucleus about which such an independent agency would be formed. It would be expanded to include some of the functions and authority of the Departments of Interior and Transportation. While the Committee recognizes the inherent need in such an agency for Coast Guard-operated ships, aircraft, and
sensors in the fulfillment of ocean-management ^
sions, it feels that because of the unique nature 0 service’s organization structure and transporta^t related operations, the option of leaving the Guard within the Department of Transportation still preferred. If the decision is ever made, how to move the Coast Guard, for whatever reason! ^ committee strongly recommends that it be shi ^ the proposed independent agency where it w°u main an integral multi-mission service.
In 1974, the National Ocean Policy Study waS j tiated by the Senate to focus on the problem ^ develop comprehensive alternatives. Initially’ study considered that the establishment of a cabinet-level department would best provide aPP f priate emphasis on ocean activities. In 1976, e Ernest F. Hollings (Democrat, South Carolina ^ posed the creation of a Department of Environ ^ ^ and Oceans. The department was to consist functional administrations and the U. S. • Guard. Since the Hollings proposal was made, c ing within the National Ocean Policy Study ^ ^ has shifted. The feasibility of a major reorganlza and the political acceptability of creating a °evV0( partment have been reconsidered. The disrupt*^.^ functions that would be occasioned by such a reorganization has also been a factor in shaping a approach for the study group. ote-
The Senate staff is now tending toward a gradual concept of reorganization. A concept
tivj ^ Considered is the consolidation of maritime ac- p}ler'es ar°und the National Oceanic and Atmos- Qj C Administration within the Department of chat ?'erCe' ^his is contrary to the House proposal dent °AA be the nucleus of an expanded indepen- seara®ency. Centralized management of marine re- NIq, ,an<^ ocean mining functions would be added to ft,nct- S current responsibilities. Maritime commerce trat-tl0ns wou^ remain with the Maritime Adminis- Cw n ^arAd)> which is also located within the Patesrtment Commerce. The study group antici- iin|cS,t^lat the Coast Guard would eventually be 'fith' Wlttl ttlC arrangement of NOAA and MarAd dent'" the Department of Commerce. An indepen- aljy ational Oceans Agency is projected as eventu- g ev°lving from this interim arrangement.
)ecause the National Ocean Policy Study func-
,,S w*thin the Senate Committee on Commerce, its ‘fation toward a solution that would concentrate 'Management of ocean activities within the De- Cnt Commerce may be a reflection of the relationship of the department with the com-
tee
ho 'Pci
Pan c*ose 'Pit As
^ demand for marine resources grows, there 0vere lncreasing competition and potential conflict v*tal USe t*le coastal 20nes. The need for the Win ^ro<^ucts of ocean mining, primarily petroleum, aPd CaUse mining operations, with their platforms tra(paSSOc‘ated equipment, to move into previously ^Pd^1011^ f‘sh*n£ and recreation areas. There are tj0r)n'a^le efficiencies to be gained from a colloca- depa Source activities within a single agency of a ercisrtrnent» but nevertheless, caution must be exissUet0 er*sure that conflicts on specific resource f|atS Meeting the public domain are not resolved by iiipuat levels below appropriate discussion and public • Such a situation could develop if NOAA were given the responsibility for and authority over both fisheries and mineral resource management.
A New Look: Realistically, it can be concluded that there is no single scheme for the explicit organization of all marine interests and agencies. The nature of the marine environment does not permit effective partition into independent and exclusive activities. The high degree of interaction among the uses of the seas makes the problem not one of finding a single correct solution but rather one of determining the optimum arrangement. It would be impossible to develop one organizational theme that would adequately accommodate the individual specialities of each marine activity and still provide for the commonality and relationship of all activities.
The most effective way of achieving national ob-
jectives in this unique environment would be to separate the complex problem into rational segments that would lend themselves to “lead agency” management. For example, NOAA, as the “lead agency” for living resources, would be responsible for managing all aspects of the industry. In situations in which there were questions of overlapping jurisdiction among agencies, NOAA would be the final authority in matters affecting living resources. In an appreciation of the relationship of interests, this concept would have the advantage of centralizing activity management in distinct organizational entities while avoiding the trauma and uncertainty of massive reorganization. A reasonable framework within which to develop this concept would be a division of interests into “economic” and “functional” categories.
In the “economic” area, there are two categories of natural resources that could be addressed separately. The extractive industries of living resources (fisheries and aquaculture) and non-living resources (ocean mining), while sometimes overlapping in the area of activity, are relatively distinct industries. A third area of “economic” activity, maritime trade, is not extractive but rather uses the seas as a medium for the transportation of waterborne commerce.
In comparison with the relatively specific “economic” uses of the seas, the “functional" categories of federal involvement are broader and tend to benefit all of the users of the maritime environment. These “functional” activities can generally be categorized as marine science and research and maritime services. In the past, marine science activities have been widely dispersed among the various maritime agencies with a notable lack of centralized control and coordination. Maritime services, however, have been more specific and centralized because of the operational nature of the resources required to perform the functions. Functional services such as search and rescue, aids to navigation, and port security have been traditionally provided to the maritime community by the Coast Guard.
An organizational scheme, based on “economic” and “functional” activities, would not involve the creation of a single all-encompassing department but rather the strengthening of lead agencies with consolidated jurisdiction and authority in economic and functional areas of maritime interest. In the resource-related activities, the lead agency would be involved in all phases of the activity, including specialized research. The agency would support resource development and manage exploitation. On behalf of national interests, it would monitor and evaluate related activities to serve all maritime interests.
To implement a “lead agency” scheme, current
and projected maritime activities should first e remained to establish appropriate agency inter£.^ Once all interests have been established, organ^ tional frameworks could be structured by the c.^ solidation of related activities within the major e ing agencies. The organization of the expande _ agencies” would then be shaped in an orderly ion, beginning with a legislative mandate, u authority, a clear statement of objectives and, >n‘ ^ the development of a functional organization t0 complish the specifics of the objectives.
Before embarking on the construction of a ne'v ganization under this scheme, it is useful to ha^ ^
appreciation of the relative size and scope .p agencies that now exist. This is a relevant rac j assessing the impact of organizational disrupt!011 ^ constituency concern in selecting alternatives reorganization.
There are currently only three agencies other ^ ^ those in the Department of Defense that devo ^ major portion of their appropriations to niarinf(^, fairs: MarAd, 100%; Coast Guard, 83%; an<^ ^ ^0 40%. The remaining agencies devote less than ^ of their resources to marine activities, and many vote less than 1%. Only two cabinet depart01^ devote more than 5% of their overall appr°Pria ^ to maritime affairs. The Department of Com ^ (MarAd and NOAA) devotes about 43% ir* aSt sources and the Department of Transportation
Guard), 35%. , fjij-
A review of the present basic organization o P
cipal agencies suggests that it may not be ina e •,
• nal 0
but rather that there should be a more rational u ^ sion of responsibilities and a greater consolidat* like and related activities. Once these areas of reS^teJ sibility and authority have been defined and re activities consolidated in the principal agendeS^jy legitimacy of “lead agencies” should be appr°Pr confirmed by comprehensive organic legislation-
iti^
Time To Act: Based on current federal mafl activities, a projection of future activities, an ^ tional distribution of authority, it is recornme J that the federal responsibility for non-security rC ^ maritime interests be concentrated in the D Y ments of Commerce, Interior, and Transportat
Under this recommendation, the National l
and Atmospheric Administration would be the agency” and have primary responsibility and al^|(y,A ity in the economic area of living resources. ^ would have jurisdiction over all aspects of the ^ mercial exploitation of fisheries and aquacultn
sources. Because NOAA is now the primary
fed..
agency with regard to marine science and resear
-cl*
10'
if*
aJrris °f its resources, it is reasonable that it should sj^* j^e rhe “lead agency” in that functional area. It
serve as the central point for the coordination general maritime research activities. In connec- With the responsibility for living resources and e research, NOAA should continue in its man- ent role of the coastal zone. The Maritime Ad
>ded
C(>n °r <^eve^0Prnent be expanded. This would be a SafSlStent adjunct to the current duties of port vessel traffic services, and aids to navigation dat'C'' facilitate marine transportation. The consoli- he ? civil hydrographic survey activities within Coast Guard would also be consistent with its
'n supporting marine traffic. The Coast Guard
fisting basic organizations, consistency, and the 'oprnent of rational criteria for determining
mail fion marin( agenii
lnistration would continue as the “lead agency” for ^ ltlrne commerce, and the independent Federal ^ar<time Commission would continue to regulate rates and practices of waterborne shipping, plo' £ resP°nsibility f°r tbe exploration for and ex- 'ration of non-living resources should be concen- po < within a single federal agency. Because of the Ho entla^ b)r a conflict of interest between living and *■ 'v'ng resources, these functions should not be pa^Cate<i in the same agency. Even though the De- ca ?lent: tbe Interior has shown only limited
Sou * lty for, the management of non-living re- ^it^Ces and the outer continental shelf, an agency cln tbat department would be a logical point to ri>arCtntrate ^e<^era* interest in these activities. The q 'time-related activities of the Bureau of Mines, the °^*ca^ Survey, Bureau of Land Management, and tfe ^cean Mining Administration could be concen- n within a single responsible agency.
‘tes 6 ^unct'ona^ activity of providing maritime serv- Hlent0 ab activities engaged in the marine environ- q nt bas been effectively accomplished by the Coast |nUar^ and should remain the mission of that service, addition to its current programs, it is recom- that the Coast Guard’s role in channel and
th,
role
0fU ^ Provide maritime services from within a variety j °rganizational arrangements. There is no single fio rtrnent where its broad base of services would h St appropriately fit. Its present location within the Fitment of Transportation is well suited to its sh transPortarion-related functions, and thus it ^d remain within that department.
£
Conclusion: The primary advantages of the “lead of Cy aPproach are its emphasis on the utilization
yevei
agency responsibility. The implementation of the scheme should not generate significant political opposition, because there are no major changes to departmental responsibility. A realignment of responsibilities should result in a government organization that is more responsive to constituents by centralizing related activities.
Such a strengthening of the existing organization could represent the long-overdue first step toward a comprehensive and responsive federal maritime agency structure. The long-range solution to the problem would envision the consolidation of the integral “lead agencies” into a separate independent agency or department when the emphasis on the oceans makes such an action appropriate.
Captain Larzelere was graduated from the Coast Guard
t Academy in 1958 and subsequently earned a master's degree in international affairs from George Washington University. After his first tour of sea duty, in the USCGC Androscoggin (WHEC-68), he commanded the 95-foot USCGC Cape Shoaluater (WPB-95324). He then commanded the Coast Guard Station, Molokai, Hawaii, and later served in the USCGC Unimak (WHEC-379). In 1965, he served successively as commanding officer of the USCGC Point Comfort (WPB-823 17) and USCGC Point Banks (WPB-82327) and as operations officer of Division 1 1, Coast Guard Squadron One, in the Gulf of Thailand. Next he trained crews for replacement 82-foot WPBs. In 1971, he was selected as the first Coast Guard Aide to the President and served in the White House until 1973. After serving on the Congressional Affairs Staff, he commanded the USCGC Courageous (WMEC-622), conducting drug interdiction patrols in the Caribbean. He has held a number of staff assignments ashore and is a graduate of both the Naval War College and National War College. Captain Larzelere, who has been a frequent Proceedings contributor, is now assigned in Miami, Florida, as chief of search and rescue in the Seventh Coast Guard District.
#The Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources (the Stratton Commission) was organized to (1) examine the nation's stake in the development, utilization, and preservation of our marine environment; (2) review all current and contemplated marine activities and assess their adequacy to achieve national goals; (3) formulate a comprehensive, long-term national program for marine affairs designed to meet present and future national needs; and (4) recommend a plan of government organization best adapted to support the programs and indicate the expected costs.
The conclusions of the Committee were submitted to President Richard M. Nixon in 1969. The recommendation to establish a new civilian ocean agency was accepted in part by the president and was forwarded to Congress with two significant changes. First, the Coast Guard would not join the new agency but would remain with the Department °f Transportation, thus depriving the new organization of most of its resources and 80% of its funding. Second, the new agency, to be called the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, would not be independent but rather would be contained within the Department of Commerce.