Preface to the Second Printing This second printing of Multistate Regionalism reissues the report largely in the same form in which it was adopted and first published in 1972. The subject has not been reexamined by the Commission, and no new recommendations are included. The only alteration is the inclusion of a new introductory chapter which briefly reviews multistate organizations, legislation, and policy issues, as they appeared early in 1978. This update does not alter in any way the findings and conclusions contained in the initial report, but provides an aid to the reader in need of more current information. This chapter was written by David R. Beam, Senior Analyst, and David B. Walker, Assistant Director, and drew upon the draft mate- rials prepared by J. H. Fonkert, a Commission intern in 1976-77. The manuscript was ably prepared for publication by Delores Dawson. Abraham D. Beame Chairman Wayne F. Anderson Executive Director For sale by tho Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Prlntlng OIRce. Washington, D.C. 20(m INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND PRIYTING CURRENT ISSUES IN MULTISTATE REGIONALISM- 1978 REGIONAL DISARRAY settled issues confronted the Title V commissions and Title I1 commissions, as well as the system of Fed- At the time the Advisory Commission on Intergov- eral Regional Councils. Only the Appalachian Ue- ernmental Relations concluded its formal study of gional Commission and the two compact-based multistate regionalism (the report was adopted at its river basin commissions (the Delaware and Susque- 'December I97 I meeting), most of these instrumen- hanna UBCs) seemed to have retained a clearly talities were still comparatively new and untried. defined role^-~-and even in these cases, the possibility The major pieces of multistate legislation---the Ap- of new Carter administration proposals for depart- palachian Regional Development Act. the Public mental reorganization and federal urban, rural, and Works and Economic Development Act, and the water development policies left some question Water Resources Planning Act- had been adopted marks. Sources of concern and tension includcd: in 1965, just six years previously. It was, in the Corn- mission's view, still much too early for any drastic increasing sectional antagonism between the revision or overhaul of these fledgling organizations, "sunbelt" and "frostbelt" states; since most of the planning activities they had em- W surprising recent growth of population in the barked upon were still in an early stage. Thus, while nation's nonmetropolitan areas, reversing past the Commission examined each of these programs in trends and forecasts; considerable depth, it felt that any major reform proposals at that time would be premature. Hence a plodding recovery from the 1974-75 recession, its recommendation to "let the experiment con- compounding continuing problems of structural tinue''--- to retain the multistate commissions unal- unemployment; tered pending further experience. W heightened awareness of resources (especially Six years later, as a second printing of this report energy and water) constraints in some sections was being prepared, these circumstances had of the nation; changed. The multistate agencies are now more fully "institutionalized" and have a longer track record-- W the creation of activist "voluntary" multistate although evaluations and especially conclusions re- regional organizations and coalitions of state garding them still vary widely. and local officials as well as of members of the But the multistate question----urgent in previous Congress; years because of the Nixon administration's opposi- uncertainty about the structuring and future role tion to regionalism as a "fourth layer of govern- of regional offices within the federal Executive ment''---was still quite pressing. Many observers in Branch; and late 1977 through mid-1978 felt that the network of multistate organizations was in serious disarray. LJn- H state-proposed expansions of the Title V system. As of mid-1978, the Carter administration had not those of state and/or local governments was a cen- yet formulated a clear position on any of the basic tral aim. Each, too, was intended to "target" assis- policy questions. However, reviews aimed at positive tance on certain specific areas, neighborhoods, or recommendations were underway in several locations; jurisdictions. In the instance of the Appalachian Re- the President's Reorganization Project, the White gional Commission, there were legislative mandates House Conference on Balanced National Growth to "serve as a focal point and coordinating unit for and Economic Development, the cabinet-level Urban Appalachian programs," and to "concentrate [in- and Regional Policy Group, and the Water Resource vestments] in areas where there is a significant Policy Study team. potential for future growth, and where the expected The multiplicity of these forun~sand issues made return on public dollars invested will be the greatest.'' predictions on the future direction of multistate re- The ACIR review, which drew upon a consider- gionalism quite uncertain. Incremental change, as able number of official and academic evaluations, always, did appear to be the most likely prospect, suggested that these particular features in the basic but the possibility of significant alterations in one or design of these programs may have been unrealistic. more of the major multistate entities could not be dis- All three target grants were found to have followed a missed entirely. similar course: This brief discussion is not intended to point out the proper path. The ACIR has not conducted a for- The most basic observation regarding all three mal reassessment of the full range of multistate or- target grant programs indicates their inability to ganizations and for this reason has not reconsidered draw together, meld, and coordinate-in short, its I971 recommendations.' However, this new intro- to "target3'-other federal assistance programs. ductory material does summarize some of the prin- None experienced more than limited success in cipal developments on the multistate regional scene this fundamental purpose. The capacity for over the intervening years, and describes the issues as complex, fully coordinated administrative ac- they appeared early in 1978.' tion among federal agencies and the three gov- ernmental levels was tested and found to be limited. THE APPALACHIAN REGIONAL The target grants did not fully conform with COMMISSION the basic conception behind them in a second re- The Appalachia program--certainly foremost in spect as well. Each of the programs was in- scope and importance among the multistate organi- tended to serve specific, restricted, target areas zations- was renewed by the Regional Development and populations. Yet, each was faced with the Act of 197.5; for four years (and its highway pro- political need to generate widespread Congres- gram for six). The new legislation induded a number sional and popular support. This need brought of measures intended to strengthen Commission op- pressures for expansion which reduced the pro- erations, including provisions assuring more active grams' targeting effects and, in some cases, gubernatorial participation, a mandate for an overall badly stretched available f~nds.~ regional development plan, and encouragement of local development districts to prepare comprehensive The report also summarized evaluative research "areawide action program^."^ Overall, however, concerning the ARC in particular and various recom- these amendments remained true to the original mendations for both expansion and abolition.' vision behind the ARC, and were intended simply to Although not discussed in the grants management assist in realizing them. study, weaknesses of the planning processes of both In a 1977 study of federal grants management the Title V and Title I1 commissions as well as short- issues, the ACIR offered a brief update on ARC ac- comings in the performance of the Federal Regional tivities and a comparison of the Appalachian pro- Councils also illustrate the serious organizational and gram with two other "target grants"---community ac- political obstacles to the coordination of policies tion and model cities.' These three programs all among a number of federal agencies and state-local stemmed from the same historical period (1964 to governments. These were not generally recognized in 1966) and included certain common objectives. In the mid-60s. but have been amply documented since. each case, the coordination of the activities of a Yet the Appalachian program, like any public en- broad range of federal agencies and programs with deavor, must be assessed by a number of different (sometimes competing or even conflicting) criteria. TITLE V COMMISSIONS Proponents of the Commission system stress espe- cially its "partnership approach" to federal, state, The Regional Development Act of 1975 extended and local investment decisionmaking. They argue the authorization of the Title V Commissions-more that it offers an important middle ground between properly, the regional action planning commis- revenue sharing programs on the one hand-which sions--for two years, with minor amendment. The provide little opportunity for federal program direc- authcrity of the commissions was expanded some- tion-and categorical grants on the other, in which what, with the creation of four new program areas: the reins of federal administration often are very energy, transportation, vocational education, and tightly held.