PATTERNS
FOR ACTION: Water and Recreation Resources
Harold Gridley Wilm
Berkeley, California
April 26, 1965
In the life of a natural-resource manager, the thirty years since
1935 have been filled with planning, and transforming plans into
action. They have drawn a great deal of attention: plans little
and big; single-purpose and comprehensive; local, state, and federal,
but mostly federal. During the same time, the focus of planning
has shifted. During the great depression plans were mainly drawn
for projects, so as to employ labor and expend public funds; for
a number of years afterwards they aimed at the development of natural
resources, with projects forming the tool for development. Most
recently, especially in the East, natural-resource development has
tended to be relegated to the background; major emphasis has been
on use of labor, expansion of education, relief of ill health and
poverty, and transportation of products. Strangely, some current
planning almost ignores the natural resources whose production is
essential to provide the labor to make the products to be transported
to provide people with income which will help educate their children
and protect them from illness!
The planning and development of water and recreation resources
illustrate current trends and their exceptions. Water is one of
the most needed of all natural resources, and the supply of good,
usable water is becoming one of America's most critical natural-resource
problems, highlighted by flood, pollution, and drought. Recreation,
strictly speaking, is not even a resource, but a social avocation.
But with shorter working hours, greater leisure periods, and more
ample family incomes, recreation facilities are becoming more and
more essential to the physical and social well-being of the American
people. Therefore, planning the use of these two resources is receiving
much nationwide attention, particularly in the states of greatest
population along the east and west coasts.
I shall discuss in detail the patterns of planning and action programs
being carried on in New York State for the development of water
and recreation resources, touching upon comparisons and contrasts
between New York and California. It may seem strange for a New Yorker
to discuss such activities in California, because the two states
are so radically different. California is a land of vivid color,
brilliant sunshine, and arid climate; New York is gently green and
moist, with frequent gray skies and pastel landscapes. California
is pictured as grand areas of desert, mountain ranges, forest, and
irrigated agriculture, interspersed with burgeoning and prosperous
metropolitan regions; New York is visualized as a chain of metropolitan
areas, gradually merging into a single belt of megalopolis stretching
from New York City to Buffalo. Yet, New York and California have
much in common in their natural-resources problems, particularly
those of water and recreation; many patterns of planning and development
used in New York are applicable to California. People familiar with
California's ambitious plans for developing water and recreation
may still be interested in New York patterns to the extent that
they are based on a different organization which is, in its own
way, highly evolved, complex, and sophisticated, while still providing
practical mechanisms for planning and development. Also, New York
has shown leadership in building up the role of local and state
governments for natural-resource planning, with diminished emphasis
upon federal planning.
Water Problems
When we think of water problems, we are likely to visualize the
vast and lands of the West, with high snow-capped mountains in the
distance, and green tracts of irrigation agriculture; or we may
think of floods, inundating river-bottom lands and cities. Actually,
however, water problems of many kinds are common throughout the
United States, because of the rapid growth of our populations and
their concentration in urban areas. Problems of total quantity of
water most typically characterize the western states: regionally,
there may not be enough water to meet all the needs of industry,
domestic use, recreation, and irrigation agriculture. These problems
of water shortage are creeping eastward across the Mississippi River;
and even in the humid-temperate climates east of the Appalachian
Mountains, water shortages occur in densely populated areas, especially
in dry years.
The most universal water problem lies in distribution, both seasonal
and regional. Almost everywhere, the late winter and spring of each
year bring high stream discharges from melting snow and spring rains
on wet soil. As streams fall off through the heat of summer, the
same streams may yield insufficient water for human needs or to
carry off waste products.
Also universal are problems of water distribution by region: water
supplies may be overabundant in one part and short in another, because
of differences in available quantity or in demand. In the East,
the total amount of water does not vary greatly from place to place,
except in the higher segments of mountain ranges like the Appalachians
and the Adirondacks. Eastern distribution problems are often caused
by the high demand of cities as compared to the low demand of rural
areas. In the West, variations in both demand and supply create
intense problems of distribution. The productivity of western desert
lands has been made possible only by the storage and conveyance
of water from the high mountain ranges of the Rockies, Sierra, or
Cascades by means of reservoirs, pipelines, and canals. The development
of great metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles and San Francisco
has intensified distribution problems.
Water quality has been a problem in the densely settled eastern
states, but is becoming more nearly universal. Pollution and sedimentation
have become so widespread that many eastern people have never seen
clear, pure streams; truly pure water can generally be found only
in the headwaters of eastern streams, close to remote ridges and
far from human concentrations.
Recreation Problems
Superficially, the problems of recreation parallel in some ways
those of water. The concentration of people, and their demand for
recreation, may exceed the available supply of recreation resources
by season, region, or quality. Time-distribution problems vary with
season of the year and time of the week. The regional-distribution
problem is based on the fact that most forms of active outdoor recreation
are better developed in open space and rural areas than in cities.
Recreation quality problems depend on what kinds of facilities are
available, how long they are available, and how large they are.
Concentrated, small area recreation includes tennis, baseball, basketball,
swimming at pools or city beaches, and perhaps even golf. More diffuse
recreation includes picnicking and overnight camping at developed
areas, boating and fishing on waters in settled areas; and similar
sports. The most diffuse recreation includes wilderness hiking and
mountain climbing, fishing and hunting, canoeing in remote areas,
and other activities requiring comparative solitude.
A striking contrast between water and recreation problems lies
in the kind of action that may be taken to solve them. In simplified
terms, the supply and distribution problems of water are solved
by storing water and transporting it where and when it is needed.
To solve recreation problems, on the other hand, we move people
to the places where recreation resources exist or may be developed.
This has been a major occupation of the great New York planner and
administrator Robert Moses: to plan and develop major, high-density
recreation areas such as Jones Beach, and then to provide access
to them for great numbers of people, by constructing roads and parkways.
Incidentally, a radical part of his philosophy is that one cannot
determine needs for recreation by sampling surveys - by asking people
- because they don't know what they need. Instead, recreation planners
should make their own best decisions as to what people need, build
it for them, and then they will fill it up!
Plans for Action
Solution of water and recreation resources problems requires planning.
In line with the Moses philosophy, such planning should not be of
the broad-brush kind, dealing in shining generalities, brightly
colored charts, and projections into the vague future; but should
rather be for organized action to meet definite needs, and the laying-out
of concrete projects and programs.
Planners like to make projections: guesses into the future, based
generally on past trends. Thus, in 1936 when population growth was
slowing down, planners projected that by 1960 the population of
the United States would become stabilized, and births would equal
deaths. Now, during a period of larger families and accelerating
population trend, planners project a continuing acceleration - occasionally
they even predict an infinite rise per unit of time! Actually, only
short-term projections can be realistic. The farther long-term projections
are made into the future, the more foolish they are - especially
when current trends are projected into the future as concave-upward
exponential curves.
Realistic planning requires the employment of professional "doers"
- men who are thoroughly experienced in managing water and recreation
resources. These can be teamed with a nucleus of skilled planners,
who know how to prepare plans, and to put them into execution as
projects or programs. To illustrate this point, in New York State
the "doers" in recreation planning are Conservation Department
personnel in the divisions of Lands and Forests, Parks, Fish and
Game, and elsewhere, who themselves build and operate facilities.
Teamed with them are professional planners, often consulting firms,
who participate in the general planning and design and supervise
the building of the resulting projects and facilities.
Water Resources
The planning and development of water resources in New York State
illustrate the federalist principle upon which the several levels
of government in our state are based: responsibility at the lowest
practical level, with action taken by any higher level only when
the lower level is unable to cope with its problems. In such cases,
the higher level of government provides leadership and technical
and financial assistance, but not domination. The federalist principle
requires the definite reversal of a tradition built up during this
century: planning by the federal government, backed up by federal
funds for project construction and operation, and accompanied by
federal domination of the results. These federal activities have
become more widespread and highly developed ever since 1902, when
the federal Reclamation Act was passed; with special increments
added in 1935, when the Soil Conservation Service was established
in the Department of Agriculture, and in 1936 through the Flood
Control Act, which focused on flood-control planning and construction
activities of the Corps of Engineers, as well as the Department
of Agriculture. To counteract this trend and put the federalist
principle into action in New York State, a highly complex and sophisticated
intergovernmental organization has evolved.
Federal Water Resources Planning
No effort will be made here to deal with all federal planning activities
that are connected with water resources; but only to touch upon
the largest of these, with the most direct relationship to state
and local planning. The oldest of the organized federal water-planning
activities has been done under the Reclamation Act, by the Bureau
of Reclamation of the U. S. Department of the interior. These water-resources
planning and development activities are almost entirely western,
oriented especially toward irrigation and hydroelectric power. All
large projects and programs have to be authorized and appropriated
individually by the U. S. Congress; small projects can be handled
under separate authorization, with project decisions made by the
Department of the Interior.
Civil works undertaken by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers are
primarily oriented to flood-control; incidental features are hydroelectric
power, low-water regulation, and provisions for recreation and for
fish and wildlife. Somewhat like the Bureau of Reclamation, the
Army Corps of Engineers must have individual Congressional resolutions
to authorize planning and action on any major project. A typical
resolution in my region is for the Susquehanna River, which rises
in New York State and Pennsylvania, has a major part of its drainage
basin in Pennsylvania, and passes through Maryland on its way to
Chesapeake Bay. The resolution authorizes the Board of Engineers
for Rivers and Harbors to review existing plans, and to prepare
a comprehensive plan covering a considerable variety of resources;
and instructs the Board of Engineers (through the Corps of Engineers)
to coordinate this planning with interested state and federal agencies.
The product is, of course, invariably a Corps of Engineers' plan,
devoted primarily to "main-stem" projects, with substantial
programs included also for other federal agencies; and with rather
nominal cooperation by the states involved.
Quite different is the resolution approved for the Genesee River
Basin, which is almost entirely in New York State, with a small
fraction of the headwaters in Pennsylvania. In this case, by carefully
thought-out wording, the Board of Engineers is authorized to prepare
a plan covering primarily flood-control, navigation, and related
problems. The Board is further instructed to coordinate this planning
effort with plans to be prepared by state and other federal agencies
on problems - such as upstream flood prevention and watershed protection,
fish and wildlife, and recreation - that are primarily the responsibility
of agencies other than the U.S. Corps of Engineers. The intent of
this resolution was that each agency, state or federal, would prepare
plans for the resource problems under its own jurisdiction, and
coordinate this planning with the plans of other agencies including
the U. S. Corps of Engineers. The resulting Plans would be transmitted
by each agency through its own legislative or Congressional channels,
for approval. The Corps of Engineers has insisted, however, that
planning in the Genesee must follow the same pattern as in other
river basins being studied under Congressional resolutions. Highlighting
this viewpoint is the existence of a coordinating committee for
the Genesee River Basin, chaired by the Corps of Engineers, and
with subcommittee chairmanships occupied by other federal agencies.
There is, however, a definite alteration in the overall viewpoint
of the Corps of Engineers on such planning, leading toward the granting
of greater responsibility to the interested states, and to other
federal agencies. A prime illustration is the coordinating committee
for the Willamette River Basin (wholly in Oregon), with committee
chairman Donel Lane, a state water-resources executive responsible
to Governor Hatfield. Incidentally, small projects undertaken by
the Corps of Engineers, as in the case of the Bureau of Reclamation,
do not require separate authorization by the Congress, but may be
handled under Public Law 685.
The principal water-resources activities of the U.S. Department
of Agriculture are handled under Public Law 566 (1954), the Flood
Prevention and Watershed Protection Act. Successive amendments permit
planning and action in a variety of water-resources and related
fields. This Act permits the Department of Agriculture to cooperate
directly with states and other federal agencies in water-resource
planning. Responsibility for executing these plans and programs
is delegated by law to the Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation
with other agencies in the U. S. Department of Agriculture such
as the Forest Service and Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service. Watershed plans prepared under this Act must be approved
by the state concerned, through an agent named by the Governor -
in New York State, the Conservation Commissioner.
In recent years, the federal Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare has been building up its own role in water-resource planning
and development. While the plans of this agency are supposed to
be oriented primarily toward water pollution control and water quality,
they are really becoming "comprehensive plans" in much
the same sense as those prepared by the Corps of Engineers.
State Water Resource Planning
Before 1959, responsibility for administering water resources in
New York State rested in two interdepartmental agencies of the state
government: the New York State Water Pollution Control Board, and
the Water Power and Control Commission. Early in the Rockefeller
administration, the decision was made to consolidate these overlapping
commissions into a single State Water Resources Commission composed
principally of those cabinet members who have major responsibilities
with relation to water resources; and to clarify the role of the
consolidated commission in water administration, as compared to
the responsibilities of the individual member departments. The necessary
revision of state laws was the result of much analysis and many
conferences among the agency heads concerned, together with private
interests such as the Associated Industries of New York State.
The revised statute (Article 5 of the Conservation Law, as amended
in 1960, 1961, and 1962) established the Water Resources Commission,
composed of the heads of the departments of Agriculture and Markets,
Commerce, Conservation, Health, Public Works, and Law (Attorney
General). The Conservation Commissioner is chairman; he is also
the agent of New York State for water-resources work with the U.
S. Department of Agriculture, and represents the state on interstate
and federal-interstate agencies such as the Great Lakes Commission
and the Delaware River Basin Commission. This organizational structure,
therefore, provides an effective link between the water-resource
agencies of New York State and the corresponding agencies of other
states and the federal government. In addition to the six member
departments, the revised statute provides for four laymen members
of the Commission, representing agriculture, industry, municipalities,
fish, wildlife and recreation. While these members have no vote,
they serve effectively to represent interests outside the state
administration.
The State Water Resources Commission has three major purposes:
To establish policies, standards, classifications, and broad procedures
in all realms of state administration of water and related resources.
Executive actions, however, under these policies and other administrative
framework, are carried out by the individual member departments,
such as Conservation, Health, or Public Works.
To prepare a statewide water resources plan composed of a series
of river-basin plans, and coordinated with planning done by the
Office of Regional Development in the Governor's Executive Department,
which supervises and coordinates the preparation of plans for all
natural, social, and physical resources.
To provide technical and financial assistance by the state, for
local and regional multiple-use planning of water resource development.
These relationships are so important - and comparatively so unprecedented
- that they may be worth a little further discussion. As to policies,
for example, water-quality standards and classifications are recommended
to and approved by the Water Resources Commission, so that proper
consideration may be given to the interests of all affected agencies
as these policy-level determinations are made. Then the Department
of Health handles the enforcement of the water-quality standards
- except in matters of fish life, where the standards are enforced
by the Conservation Department. The Health Department also receives,
reviews and approves applications for municipal sewage treatment
plants, and makes all the necessary engineering reviews. As to municipal
water supply, again the policies and standards are established by
the Commission; applications for water-supply plants are made to
and granted by the Commission; also permits for the withdrawal of
ground waters on Long Island, where ground-water problems are crucial.
The statewide plan, as mentioned, is carried out by major hydrological
units, such as river basins, in cooperation with the Office of Regional
Development, with other states, and with federal agencies.
One of the most important functions of the water Resources Commission
relates to local-government agencies in their planning of water-resource
development on a multiple-use basis. Under the Van Late Act Of 1959,
the state is authorized to provide technical supervision and financial
assistance amounting to three-quarters of the total cost of multiple-use
water planning for any given region. Such a region is composed of
two or more municipalities (villages, towns, counties, or cities),
banding together to form a regional board of laymen, who provide
local knowledge and supervision for the preparation of plans. The
first example of such planning is in the Erie-Niagara region, at
the western end of New York State, in which four counties have consolidated
their efforts through a regional board, with assistance by the State
Water Resources Commission. A feature of this planning is that,
for the first time, a local-government entity actively engaged in
the solution of its own water problems has called upon federal agencies
to assist it by providing personnel and finances for portions of
the regional study in which the federal agencies are best qualified
to contribute.
For the federal agencies this was an unusual development. Through
Public Law 566 as amended, however, the Department of Agriculture
is authorized to cooperate with states and other federal agencies
in such regional planning. Therefore, when the chairman of the Water
Resources Commission requested such assistance of the Secretary
of Agriculture, a friendly and favorable reply was received; and
the state is giving what assistance it can toward getting federal
appropriations for this purpose. While working along similar lines
with the U. S. Corps of Engineers, it was discovered that new language
has to be added to the omnibus flood control act to permit this
kind of cooperation by the Corps. Through the New York State Congressional
delegation, the necessary language is being requested.
Obviously, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare is
another focal point of federal interest in New York State water
problems. Development of these federal-state relations has hardly
begun, but is expected to emerge rapidly with implementation of
Governor Rockefeller's "Pure Waters" program.
This new program to clean up the waters of New York State is so
grand in scope that it deserves special attention. Developed largely
in the State Department of Health with the cooperation of other
agencies, this plan calls for a total expenditure of 1-7 billion
dollars for the design and construction of sewage collection systems
and treatment plants. Of this amount 40 per cent - about 700 million
dollars - is to be contributed by municipalities. Thirty per cent
- about 500 million dollars - will be contributed by the state in
the form of grants to municipalities; the remaining 500 million
dollars would be received through federal grants. The plan provides
that the state's share and the advance payment of the federal share
over a period of six years would be financed by a one-billion dollar
bond issue which requires statutory enactment and the approval of
a referendum by the people of New York State next November. While
industrial and other nonmunicipal pollution represents a comparatively
small fraction of the total pollution problem in New York State,
the plan also contemplates assistance to industry through tax abatements
and other incentives.
This program is one more example of state leadership in state-federal
relations. Grants to states and municipalities under the federal
Water Pollution Control Act have been so seriously retarded by inadequate
authorization of funds, by an allocation formula which discriminates
against great urban areas, and by low ceilings on projects, that
progress up to now has been far too slow. The New York State program
proposes to pay the federal as well as the state share on federally
approved projects, so as to accomplish the necessary clean-up within
six years, if possible. Then the prepaid federal funds may be returned
to the state as fast as permitted by an amended water pollution
act and by annual appropriations. With strong encouragement by our
state, such amendments are under consideration by the Congress,
Interstate-Federal Water Administration
Along with this continuing work on the administration and development
of water resources within the state, and in cooperation with the
federal government, New York State has also participated actively
in fostering interstate relationships. One of the earliest and yet
most sophisticated of these relationships developed in the Delaware
River Basin. This is a comparatively tiny basin; but its waters
impinge upon the lives of over 25 Million people, serve a large
and complicated industrial network, and carry a great volume of
navigation as well as untold quantities of industrial and human
wastes. As an important incident to all this development, a substantial
amount of Delaware River water is stored in reservoirs in the upper
basin, and transported eastward across the divide into the Hudson
River Basin to supply drinking water to New York City.
Conflicts over Delaware River water have been going on for many
years. They led to the development of the Interstate Commission
on the Delaware, which continued as a semi-official body for mutual
interstate cooperation, even though it was not ratified as a compact
by all of the states involved. In 1954, controversies between Pennsylvania
and New York State (more especially between Philadelphia and New
York City) were settled by a U.S. Supreme Court decree which allocated
not to exceed 800 million gallons of water per day to New York City,
in exchange for which the city has to guarantee a minimum discharge
of not less than 1,525 second feet (nature permitting) at a specified
point in the lower river. Soon after, a Congressional resolution
authorized the Corps of Engineers to undertake a comprehensive water-resources
plan for the Delaware Basin. This stimulated the formation of a
Delaware River Advisory Committee which, with the use of a Ford
Foundation grant to Syracuse University, evolved an organizational
plan for the administration of the water resources of this basin.
Starting with the Syracuse Report as a basis, the Advisory Committee
spent two arduous years working out a Delaware River Basin interstate-federal
compact. After ratification by the legislatures of the four basin
states - New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware - it was
also enacted by the Congress of the United States and signed by
President Kennedy in November, 1961.
Under the Delaware Basin Compact, the water resources of the basin
are administered by a five-man commission, composed of the governors
of the four states plus one man designated by the President to represent
the federal government: the Secretary of the Interior. Each of the
five members has a legally appointed alternate. The Compact provides
not only for planning but also for the administration of water resources,
including the construction and operation of projects and facilities
when advisable. Actually, the powers of the Delaware River Commission
are practically as broad as those of the Tennessee Valley Authority,
but with two great distinctions. First, instead of a federally appointed
board of directors, the Delaware Basin Commission is composed of
the executive heads of the four states involved, elected by the
people, plus one federal representative. Also, the Compact directs
the Commission to do its work as far as Possible through existing
state and federal agencies.
Susquehanna River Basin. - At present, the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers is conducting a comprehensive river-basin study of the
Susquehanna River, in cooperation with other federal agencies and
with the states of New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. At the
same time, a Susquehanna River Advisory Committee, similar to that
of the Delaware, is drafting a compact which is quite similar in
its form and powers to that of the Delaware River Basin, with certain
minor improvements which are the result of experience in the Delaware.
Great Lakes Commission. - New York State, as the easternmost of
a chain of eight states bordering the Great Lakes, is an active
member of the Great Lakes Commission, ratified by all eight legislatures
but not as yet by the federal government. The Great Lakes Commission
is composed of a variable number of members from each state, but
with three votes per state. Some are legislators, some administrators,
and a few are not directly connected with state government. This
body of men is working actively toward interstate cooperation and
the coordination of plans for the protection and development of
the waters of the Great Lakes. As part of an emerging multi-resource
comprehensive plan, the International joint Commission is studying
the serious problems of water levels in the Great Lakes in which
the United States and the Provincial and Dominion Governments of
Canada are participating.
Water Resources Planning Act of 1965. - This new Act, which came
into being this year after several years of negotiation, is the
most recent development in the evolution of interstate-federal water-resource
planning. Its origin was a bill introduced by Senator Clinton Anderson
of New Mexico, then chairman of the Senate Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs; and by Congressman Wayne Aspinall of Colorado,
chairman of the corresponding House Committee. The original bill
provided dominating powers in the federal government, for the planning
of water resources in river basins. Amendments to this bill, spearheaded
by the Interstate Conference on Water Problems and other national
organizations, led to the cooperative development of a completely
new bill which places full planning responsibility upon the states
involved in any river basin, in cooperation with the federal government.
Title 1 of the Act provides for a federal council, composed of cabinet
members, who will coordinate water-resources activities at the federal
level. Title 2 provides for the establishment of interstate-federal
commissions, with the state members appointed by the governors of
the states involved. Title 3 authorizes grants by the federal government
to assist the states in water-resources planning. The amended bill
was passed with only a few negative votes in the Senate, and none
in the House of Representatives. This is an-other landmark in the
evolution of state and interstate responsi-bility for water resources
planning and development, in active cooperation with the federal
government.
Without any common element to link them all together, these I complex
intrastate, state-federal, and interstate-federal organizations
could become a chaotic maze of governmental relationships. By statute
or by appointment, however, all of them have one element in common:
the chairman of the New York State Water Resources Commission is
the Governor's alternate in the Delaware Basin Commission; a member
of the Susquehanna River Advisory Committee and of the Great Lakes
Commission; and, by coincidence, also the current chairman of the
fifty-state national organization, the Interstate Conference on
Water Problems. Even though this executive necessarily acts through
alternates and representatives, the existence of this common element
of organization provides a thread of continuity through all of these
governmental relationships.
Recreation Resources
Contrasted with the complexities of water-resource planning and
development, a corresponding fabric involving recreation is somewhat
simpler, although also mature and fairly sophisticated. Although
the organizational structure in New York State deals with many forms
of recreation, I shall confine myself to the major forms of outdoor
recreation provided by municipalities and by the state.
The Forest Preserve
Two features of outdoor recreation in New York State are outstanding:
the Forest Preserve, and the State Park system.
The New York State Forest Preserve was established by constitutional
amendment in 1894, as a direct consequence of generations of destructive
exploitation of the forest resources in the mountainous areas of
New York State: the Adirondacks and Catskills. This constitutional
amendment (Article 14, Section I particularly) provides that the
lands "now owned or hereafter acquired" by the state within
the 16 Adirondack and Catskill counties "shall be forever kept
as wild forest lands." Section I further states that these
lands "shall not be sold, leased or exchanged or be taken by
any corporation, public or private, nor shall the timber thereon
be sold, removed or destroyed." Article 14, Section I, has
been amended five times since 1894: in 1941 and 1947 to authorize
the state to construct three ski areas within the Forest Preserve;
in 1957 to allow the use of not more than 400 acres of Forest Preserve
land to eliminate dangerous highway curves; in 1959 to permit the
use of not more than 300 acres of Forest Preserve land for construction
of an Interstate Highway, the so-called Northway; and in 1963 to
permit the conveyance of 10 acres of Forest Preserve land (containing
an unconstitutional village dump) to the Village of Saranac Lake
in return for 30 acres of forest land owned by the village. Thus
it is evident that this article of the State Constitution combines
a fundamental, though very restrictive constitutional principle,
with details that may have to be of such petty nature as to degrade
its dignity.
Our Forest Preserve is the source of many misconceptions. Perhaps
the commonest is that it is a large, homogeneous body of land, primarily
wilderness and mountains, enclosed by a definite boundary called
"the blue line." It is true that there is a blue line
surrounding a very large tract of mountain and valley land in the
Adirondack region and another around a smaller area of mountains
in the Catskills. The land within these two lines, however, is far
from homogeneous. Of a total of more than 5 1/2 million acres within
the two blue lines, only about 2.6 million acres are owned by New
York State. These are distributed in a helter-skelter, patchwork
pattern interspersed with open valleys, highways, neon-lighted villages,
and resort developments, and other signs of civilization. Even the
solidly forested areas have I a patchwork pattern of ownership,
with state land interspersed by private hunting clubs, summer-cottage
developments, municipal lands, and large tracts of private timber
land managed for paper pulp or lumber by companies such as International
Paper, Finch-Pruyn, or St. Regis. Finally, even the state-owned
land which is correctly defined as The Forest Preserve is by no
means all wilderness. A full 80 per cent of this land was cut-over
and burned - much of it repeatedly - during the generations of exploitation
before and after 1900. The other 20 per cent was mostly inaccessible
to loggers in places such as the beautiful, remote "High Peaks."
Finally, of the 2 1/2 million acres of state-owned Forest Preserve,
less than 900,000 can be construed as wilderness in tracts large
enough so that a person can find real solitude among the lakes and
marshes and high peaks. The remainder is delightful country - much
of it gently rolling, with chains of lakes and beautiful streams
and fine country for hunting, fishing and other simple outdoor recreation-but
not wilderness.
The State Constitution treats all of these 2 1/2 million acres
alike. Taken literally, the Constitution would prohibit the development
of camping spots, the construction of log lean-to's, the development
of picnic areas, beaches, or boat-launching sites - or perhaps even
the construction of roads to protect this vast area against forest
fire. All this, simply because the Constitution prohibits the cutting
or removal of trees. Of course the Constitution is not taken literally
- it cannot be. Court decisions and a succession of opinions by
various Attorneys General have surrounded the Constitution with
enough flexibility so that fire-protection roads can be built to
protect the Forest Preserve. By an extension of similar reasoning,
camp and picnic areas are permissible, because they cluster people
together where they can be supervised, so that they themselves do
not cause forest fires.
In a strict sense, perhaps this last interpretation is stretching
the literal meaning of the Constitution too far. However, people
want campsites and picnic areas and trails and boat-launching sites.
Therefore, the administrator in charge of the Forest Preserve somewhat
timorously does build these recreation facilities for people. New
York State "campsites" in the Forest Preserve are growing
rapidly in number and capacity, and are extremely popular. Under
such circumstances, the threat of a lawsuit becomes rather safely
remote. Still, every suggestion which points at amendment to the
Constitution, or at any new kind of action in the administration
of the Forest Preserve, immediately makes its administrator realize
that it is not just a great tract of beautiful land, but a philosophical
ideal in the minds of millions of New Yorkers - most of whom have
never been in the real Forest Preserve, but carry it in their souls
as an atavistic dream of pioneer America.
To an ecologist, the several generations of progressively increasing
ownership and protection of Forest Preserve land have led to a fascinating
consequence. The cut-over hardwood forest has progressively developed
into a dense, second-growth stand which is becoming less and less
favorable as a habitat for game - particularly deer and grouse.
Shrubs, seedlings, and saplings which previously had provided browse
for deer are becoming more scarce on the state-owned land, so that
the deer herd is slowly deteriorating. This fact is becoming so
well recognized, even by the layman, that deer-habitat improvement
by the removal of trees is actually becoming an acceptable doctrine.
With this fact in mind, the State Constitution - through Section
3 Of Article 14 - actually becomes self-contradictory. This section
says, "Forest and wildlife conservation are hereby declared
to be policies of the state," while Section 1 prohibits tree
cutting.
To make the administrator's job even more complicated, mechanized
transportation is more and more a threat to the Forest Preserve.
Since the jeep and the Weasel first came upon the postwar scene,
land and water vehicles have become more mobile, and can - unless
restricted or prohibited - invade the back country with ease. Therefore,
it is becoming necessary to impose more specific and greater restrictions
upon the travel of people over state-owned lands and waters in the
Forest Preserve. These factors, together with the popularity of
campsites and the need for deer habitat management, are all creating
a climate in which a new and deeply thought-out policy for managing
the Forest Preserve becomes a necessity. This is the task which
now faces its administrators: the devoted, hard-working and harassed
men of the Conservation Department.
State Park System
This network of state-owned parks and their administration, among
the most elaborate in the United States, was largely developed under
the leadership of Robert Moses, who was chairman of the State Council
of Parks for over 30 years, until his resignation in 1963 when he
was succeeded by Laurance Rockefeller. More than 110 parks and interconnecting
parkways are found throughout the state - from Montauk Point at
the east end of Long Island, to Niagara Falls, and from the southwestern
Allegany Park to the Thousand Islands and the St. Lawrence River.
Ranging from the most primitive to the most elaborate of facilities
- as at Jones Beach - these parks serve about 35 million visitors
per year.
The administration of New York State parks is original and effective.
By law, the state park system is placed within the Conservation
Department, and is administered by the Division of Parks. The state
is divided into ten regions. Except for Region 6, which contains
the Adirondack and Catskill Forest Preserves and is administered
by the Division of Lands and Forests, the other nine regions are
handled by a regional manager, and the administrative policies for
each region are determined by a governor-appointed commission of
unpaid laymen. The chairman of each commission and the Director
of Lands and Forests form a ten-man group called the State Council
of Parks, with a chairman elected by its members. Policies, programs,
and budgets originate with the regional commissions and are consolidated
and approved by the State Council of Parks, for transmission to
the Conservation Commissioner so that he can include the programs
and budgets along with others of the Department. While an unusual
organization, in its present state it is remarkably efficient and
free of political interferences.
As might be expected, the highly evolved municipal and local governments
of New York State also have park systems of varying stages of maturity.
These range from the simplest village parks, through the luxurious
developments of wealthy counties like Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester,
on to the complex network of New York City parks.
Outdoor Recreation Planning
As in other governmental activities in New York State, the principle
of federalism underlies the planning and development of recreation
resources. Local recreation facilities are handled by municipalities,
with any necessary guidance and assistance by the State Office of
Local Government. This Office, placed within the Governor's Executive
Department, functions also as a member of the State Recreation Council,
composed - as in the case of the Water Resources Commission - of
the administrative state agencies concerned with recreation.
State Recreation Council
This Council, established by Chapter 837 of the Laws of 1964, is
composed of the commissioners of Commerce, Conservation and Education,
the Chairman of the State Council of Parks, the Director of the
Division for Youth, the Commissioner of the Office for Local Government,
the Director of the Office for Regional Development, the Director
of the Office of Transportation and the Chairman of the Temporary
State Council on the Arts. In addition, the Governor may designate
as members of the Council the heads of such other state agencies
as he deems appropriate or advisable.
The purpose of the Council is to coordinate the activities of all
state agencies involved in recreation programs, and to obtain the
advice and counsel of laymen on the Advisory Committee which is
also provided for by law. The Council has an executive secretary,
who handles all the necessary staff work. One of its most important
functions at present is to lead the preparation of a statewide plan
encompassing all forms of recreation. Working with the Council,
the executive secretary also has the responsibility of relating
outdoor recreation plans - either regional or statewide - to the
overall plans being developed by the Governor's Office of Regional
Development. In this activity, the relation of the Council to the
Governor's planning office is identical to that of the Water Resources
Commission.
State Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Because the State Conservation Department is in charge of the most
widespread and large-scale recreation activities, it seems desirable
to devote some special attention to this work.
In the department, recreation activities are focused especially
in the Division of Parks and Division of Lands and Forests; the
divisions of Motor Boats, Fish and Game, and Saratoga Reservation
also handle various forms of recreation. Except for the Division
of Motor Boats, which is comparatively new, the organization of
all of these divisions is stable and mature, and characterized by
men of experience and competence. This kind of staff makes it possible
to plan recreation development in the most concrete and pragmatic
terms, to meet the needs of the people of the state, without the
compulsion to use abstractions, statistics, and projections as bases
for planning. Experience has taught our men to plan in very specific
terms - detailed designs for actual projects - on a short-term basis.
Conforming to budgetary requirements, the divisions prepare capital-construction
requirements only five years in advance. Plans for the longer term
are usually limited to 20 years and are general in scope. The outstanding
exception to this rule is that, in planning for the acquisition
of recreation lands, we have made our best estimates as to the kinds
and quantities of land that will be required over the next 20 years,
and have proceeded to buy them over the past five years. This program
will be discussed in greater detail in the next section.
It should be noted that New York State, working through the Conservation
Department and more especially through the Council of Parks, has
participated actively with the Department of the Interior during
the evolution of the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
and of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, created by statute to administer
the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The present chairman of the
New York State Council of Parks, Laurance Rockefeller, was chairman
of the President's Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission
which laid the foundation for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Act.
Recreation Land Acquisition Program
Governor Rockefeller decided as early as 1959 that the increasing
demand for outdoor recreation would have to be met by a sharply
accelerated program. As a first step, the state needed to acquire
wide areas of land for recreation as soon as possible - before the
remaining available lands, especially close to cities, were taken
up by suburbs and industry, or went beyond reach in price. Once
the land was acquired, development for recreation could proceed
in an orderly manner over a number of years. These conceptions were
discussed with the Council of Parks, particularly with Robert Moses,
and a recreation land acquisition bond issue of 75 million dollars
was proposed and overwhelmingly passed by legislation and by referendum
of the people of the state. A second bond issue of 25 million dollars
was passed in 1962. Of the total sum, 50 million dollars was set
aside for grants to municipalities of all kinds: villages, towns,
counties, and cities, with a special category for New York City.
These monies have been supplied to municipalities on a 75-25 basis
for participation: $3 of State funds, for each $1 of municipal funds.
The other half of the total fund is dedicated to land acquisition
for state parks and other forms of state-owned recreation facilities.
Because of their exceptional effectiveness, the various techniques
employed in this land acquisition program are briefly described
here: methods used to put across the bond issue; the standards employed;
and the methods for selecting and acquiring the lands. To make the
public understand the bond issue, a colorful brochure entitled "Now
or Never" and a simple printed folder were published. The brochure
was distributed to all members of the Legislature, to interested
private organizations, and to the editors of the major newspapers
of the state. The folder was sent to practically every official
of local and municipal government in the state: it briefly told
what the bond issue was for, and how the state could assist municipalities
financially to obtain land, if the referendum were passed by the
Legislature and the people. Both of these publications were, of
course, widely publicized by radio, television, and the press.
The standards for acquisition are simple. The Bond Act itself says:
"Lands acquired for state or municipal parks shall consist
of predominantly open or natural lands, including lands underwater
or forested lands, in or near urban or suburban areas, or suitable
to serve the recreational needs of the expanding populations of
growing metropolitan regions, or desirable to preserve the scenery
or natural resources thereof." Each proposed acquisition is
scrutinized by Conservation Department staff to ascertain that the
land is suited to the purpose proposed; that the agreed-upon price
reflects their appraisal of the land's actual value; and that the
title is sound. Incidentally, the Act provides that title to land
may be acquired at any level, from the simplest easement to protect
scenic values, to total ownership by the state or municipality.
Also, the state has the power to appropriate or condemn land, either
through "friendly appropriation" to clear the title or
to give a completely clean-cut procedure for acquiring land from
state employees; or to have the selling price established by the
Court of Claims.
Appraisals are handled in several ways, depending on the value
of the land or of the facilities to be constructed upon it. For
the least expensive land, appraisals are made by Conservation Department
field personnel and checked by Albany personnel. For the most expensive
lands, the appraisals are made by approved contract appraisers,
and checked by the Department. Titles are reviewed by the State
Law Department, with assistance from Conservation Department personnel.
Finally, the sale contract has to be approved by the State Department
of Audit and Control. These procedures have been so streamlined
that, except for title searches, the acquisition process moves rapidly.
Land acquisitions worth more than 92 million dollars have been handled
without any noticeable price inflation beyond the "normal"
trend of land-value accretion.
This accomplishment is due directly to the procedures employed.
Most recommendations for acquisition came from state or municipal
personnel in the immediate locality: for state acquisitions, for
example, they came from either the regional parks managers or the
regional directors and supervisors of Lands and Forests or Fish
and Game. Municipal acquisitions have been recommended by the municipal
governments themselves. Thus no centralized planning was done beyond
the broad guidelines described above. Only when the Conservation
Department or municipality was ready actually to negotiate a purchase
did field personnel appear, to make surveys and appraisals. Before
that time, as far as humanly possible, all acquisition proposals
were kept in closed files. Even in publicizing the bond program
before its enactment, only general statements and summaries were
used for major regions of the state.
The flow pattern of acquisition projects is straightforward. State
park applications have moved from the regional park managers through
the regional commissions and the State Council, to the Director
of Parks in Albany, who recommends to the Conservation Commissioner
the approval of the project. Other Conservation Department acquisitions
have followed a similar pattern, through any of several divisions
to the Bureau of Land Acquisition in the Division of Lands and Forests,
and thus to the Conservation Commissioner. Urban proposals for large
parks (ordinarily 50 acres or more but as small as 25 acres in some
cases) have come through the regional park commissions, following
the flow lines of state park proposals. Municipal applications for
small urban parks have been processed through the State Division
of Housing and reviewed by the Division of Parks in the Conservation
Department. Before approval by the Conservation Commissioner, all
"parcels" are checked and tentatively approved by a land
acquisition consultant in the Commissioner's office. Once approved
by the Department, the packages are transmitted to the Law Department
and the State Comptroller for title search and final approval.
Recreation Development Plan
Our 100-million-dollar land acquisition program is almost completed,
except for comparatively minor acquisitions which will continue
for a number of years. Thus the great task ahead is the planning
and completion of a major recreation-development program. This has
been outlined in general terms, as to kinds of facilities to be
developed, and sources of funds for the purpose. Our estimate is
that, using current prices as a base, the complete development of
lands acquired and to be acquired will call for the expenditure
of approximately 400 million dollars over the next ten or more years.
Preliminary estimates indicate that, of this total, approximately
140 million dollars will be required for state parks; 40 million
dollars for other forms of state-owned outdoor recreation facilities;
95 million dollars for marine facilities, including state and local
shares for "harbors of refuge"; 100 million dollars for
municipal parks and 25 million dollars for historic sites. Also
tentatively, it is estimated that 40 per cent of the municipal money
will be needed for New York City, the remainder for other municipalities
of all magnitudes. This is an ambitious program. To be completed
within ten years, state, federal, and local funds may need to be
supplemented by another bond issue. Otherwise based on past levels
of available funds, the task will require a substantially greater
period of years.
Common Features
Aside from the concrete details of programs for the planning and
development of the water and recreation resources that describe
a single state, this paper has also portrayed the patterns of two
organizational structures which, with changes in scale and modifications
to fit other state organizations should have general application.
To sum up, here are the organizational features that characterize
both New York State programs:
Federalism. Planning and development of governmental activities
at the lowest practical level of government, with guidance and assistance
at higher levels. Through a highly evolved system of local governments
coordinated by a State Office of Local Government, New York State
is meticulous not to impose domination of local programs as a condition
of state assistance. Similarly, New York State wants to work with
other states in the maintenance of state responsibility and leadership
in interstate and national programs, with guidance and assistance
but not domination by the federal government.
Delegation and Decentralization. In executive organizations such
as state departments, these organizational features are parallel
to federalism in government. The general principle is that executive
decisions are made at the lowest practical level, with guidance
and assistance from higher executive levels. The planning of resource
programs requires only general guidelines and final approval of
proposals by the higher executive levels, as in the Conservation
Department. In general, project and program proposals flow from
field administrators with long experience and knowledge of their
own regions, to the central office where they are consolidated and,
when necessary, revised by central-office staff into a solid and
coordinated state-wide program. In this process, professional planners
are brought in primarily to help establish the guidelines and to
prepare the final programs.
Breadth of Judgment on Policy. On policy patters concerning more
than one governmental group (as state departments, or states themselves),
it is generally desirable to vest policy-making powers in broadly
based governmental groups, such as interagency or interstate commissions.
Illustrations are the Delaware River Basin Interstate-Federal Commission,
the New York State Water Resources Commission, and the State Recreation
Council. In each of these cases, the interdepartmental or interstate
agency has jurisdiction on certain policy matters, superior to that
of the individual state department or the individual state. By voluntary
action and full understanding of the implications, this kind of
governmental structure sacrifices to some extent the autonomy and
individual initiative of single departments or single states, for
the greater benefit of the group
Executive Relations. Policy and program are executed by individuals,
with a chain of command from man to man at all levels of government:
from the field technician to the regional manager, to the bureau
chief, to the subject division (as Parks) to the Department (as
Conservation), to the Governor, and thence to the Legislature. This
combination of single-man executive responsibility, with group determination
of policy, program, and sometimes budget, provides maximum breadth
for judgment in policy, with maximum efficiency in execution.
Introducing: Harold Gridley Wilm
In past years the Albright Lecture has brought to Berkeley both
natural resource administrators and biological scientists whose
research has focused on natural resource problems. Dr. Harold Gridley
Wilm is the first Lecturer who combines in one career both of these
important foundations for wise use of natural resources.
Dr. Wilm was born in Topeka, Kansas, and received his primary and
secondary education in the East. After obtaining the Bachelor's
degree in Forestry from Colorado College, he pursued graduate studies
for several years at Cornell University and was awarded the Doctor
of Philosophy degree in Silvics from that institution in 1932.
Between 1932 and 1948 Dr. Wilm engaged in watershed management
research with the United States Forest Service. During this period,
in addition to his own research investigations in California and
Colorado, he was directly involved in the development of the San
Dimas and Fraser Experimental Forests which now constitute two of
the principal watershed management research stations in the West.
Subsequently he conducted flood control surveys and river basin
planning studies both in the South and in the Pacific Northwest
for the Forest Service, and for three years served as chief of the
Division of Watershed Management Research for that agency in Washington,
D.C.
In 1953 Dr. Wilm was appointed associate dean of the State University
College of Forestry at Syracuse, New York. There he was responsible
for resource management and graduate studies and developed a strong
teaching program in watershed management.
In 1959 Dr. Wilm was appointed commissioner of conservation for
the State of New York, a post which he has held with distinction
since that date. His responsibilities as conservation commissioner
involve administration of broad policies affecting land, forest,
fish, wildlife, recreation, water, oil, and gas resources for the
State of New York. In that capacity he has been responsible for
major programs of resource conservation and development, particularly
in the fields of water and recreation use.
Dr. Wilm has served as president of the International Association
of Scientific Hydrology, as president of the Hydrology Section of
the American Geophysical Union, and as leader of the forest influences
section of the International Union of Forest Research Organizations.
He is chairman of the Interstate Conference on Water Problems, chairman
of the Saratoga Performing Arts Center, and vice president of the
National Rivers and Harbors Congress. He is an honorary alumnus
of the State University College of Forestry at Syracuse. He brings
to the Albright Lectureship a rarely equaled background of experience
in both scientific research and responsible public administration.
Back
to List of Horace Albright Lectures Back
to Horace Albright Lecture
Center Lectures
Center for Forestry Home
|