eral purpose government should absorb the redevelopment organization with the economic interests of business, labor, and others being brought to bear in an advisory capacity to the responsible city, county, or town. Where more than one general purpose government is involved in a single physically unified geographic area, an organization of locally elected officials or their designees could provide appropriate areawide approvals and other services.

The Federal reclamation program stimulates the creation of special irrigation districts and water users associations which fragment patterns of local government. Provision might be made in this program to allow duly constituted county, municipal, and other general purpose, local governments to carry out the functions of a water user's association or irrigation district in cases where such functions are public in nature. The Bureau of Reclamation should administratively encourage such arrangements.

General purpose units of local government could also be strengthened by adoption by the Corps of Engineers of an administrative policy of dealing with such units whenever possible in the civil works program, rather than with special purpose units.

2. The Commission recommends that the Congress and appropriate executive agencies authorize and encourage responsible joint participation by local governmental units having common program objectives affecting the development of an urban area overlapping existing political boundaries.

Federal requirements or incentives that encourage geographic isolation of individual units of government within a metropolitan area, even among general purpose governments, can be as damaging to many urban development objectives as the functional independence of special districts. General planning policies promoting coherence, economy, and convenience in the functioning of urban communities, lose out in both situations. Federal programs should promote procedures for interlocal cooperation and joint exercise of powers, as well as for coordination between various functional programs through general purpose governments, to the extent that these governments are able and willing to do so.

As pointed out in a previous report, intergovernmental agreements for joint exercise of power and intergovernmental sales of services are significant devices for overcoming the restrictions of ill-placed political boundary lines. In areas where a county with authority to perform urban services covers all, or a major portion, of an urban area it may be a logical unit to initiate intergovernmental projects, while in more fragmented areas a voluntary council of governments may serve this purpose. Nevertheless, any two governmental units in the same urban area may find it advantageous to cooperate in a certain project even without an area wide arrangement among all governments in the area.

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. "Alternative Approaches to Governmental Reorganization in Metropolitan Areas" (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962), pp. 26-33.

Specific Federal legislative authority for joint participation in Federal aid projects by two or more eligible State or local governments exists in one-quarter of the programs surveyed, and another quarter have implied legislative authority and administrative regulations permitting joint projects. Specific legislative authority for joint projects is not always considered necessary, but it is highly desirable and should be enacted freely in programs affecting urban development. Joint projects under these authorizations would, of course, be undertaken at the discretion of participating local governments.

Even among programs containing authority for joint projects, several impose serious limitations which should be removed. For example, the upper limits on the population of a community receiving a public facilities loan is 150,000 for communities in "redevelopment areas," and 50,000 for most other areas, but communities under 10,000 population are given priority. These population limits apply to the aggregate population of communities joining together in a joint project. Thus many potential cooperative projects are ineligible for public facility loans even though the potential participating governments are individually eligible for separate projects. As the Commission has previously recommended, the public facility loan program should be amended to permit (a) communities of 50,000 population or more to qualify for sewer and water project loans, and (b) the joining together of communities with an aggregate population exceeding 50,000 for purposes of such loan assistance. As a general principle, any unit of government which can qualify for Federal aid singly should also be able to qualify when it joins with others.

Another example involves the waste treatment works program. Although it allows a grant four times as large when two or more governmental units join in a project as when a single unit participates by itself, the dollar limitation of $2,400,000 on Federal funds for joint projects tends to limit the encouragement of joint projects. Based on a finding that there is a great need for "sewage disposal systems in metropolitan areas which are planned or developed on a regional or major subregional scale," the Commission has previously recommended that "Federal construction grants for sewage treatment should be adjusted to provide for increased dollar ceilings in grants-in-aid to larger cities." Joint projects are likely to provide the coordination of efforts necessary to meet sewage disposal needs in many metropolitan areas and should be encouraged. Therefore, the dollar limitation on joint sewerage projects should be raised substantially.

The water resource programs impose percentage limitations on such services as water supply storage (30 percent) incorporated in reservoir projects. These too could limit incentives for joint participation by local governments.

Specific legislative authority for urban renewal to be jointly carried out by two or more public bodies has not been implemented largely because of political, legal, and fiscal obstacles. Most, if not all. renewal projects are carried out by strictly local agencies without definite ties to areawide urban development goals. The community renewal program, which encourages urban communities to assess their

3 Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. "Intergovernmental Responsibilities for Water Supply and Sewage Disposal in Metropolitan Areas" (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962), p. 121.

Ibid., p. 120.

total renewal needs and establish an orderly schedule of projects to be carried out in an orderly manner over a period of years to meet the need, is limited to single jurisdictions. However, community renewal programs may be carried out on a coordinated basis by adjacent localities and could actually be prepared by a single metropolitan planning agency acting on behalf of the individual localities. As pointed out in recent congressional hearings on metropolitan planning, renewal programs are likely to have an important area wide impact upon metropolitan transportation, open space, and social problems arising from slums.5 Coordination of areawide community renewal programs by organizations of elected local officials, or similar groups under intergovernmental agreement, might help to relate renewal activities to area wide development goals.

Though not specifically authorized by legislation, the Public Housing Administration deals with joint city-county and multicounty housing agencies in a few cases. In cases where single jurisdictions are too small to finance local staffs individually, joint housing authorities are being administratively encouraged.

Specific legislative authority for joint purchase and administration of land, under existing Federal programs of surplus land disposal and land acquisition for recreation and other public purposes, should also be enacted. Land is a unique commodity, limited in location and other characteristics, and subject to multiple uses. The needs of two or more governmental jurisdictions might be satisfied by joint use of a single parcel of land. Desirably, such joint use should be encouraged and as a minimum it should be permitted.

The unfamiliar mechanics of two or more political subdivisions jointly administering an urban development project is often cited as a reason for not seeking authority to carry out joint projects, but an approach to meeting these difficulties can be made by one of two methods: (1) formation of a joint instrumentality, or (2) intergovernmental agreements or contracts outlining a division of responsibilities between the participating units of government. If the first method is used, care should be taken not to give the instrumentality the status of an independent special district. Alternatives would be to retain project approval powers in the governmental units creating the instrumentality, or to provide that elected officials constitute the governing board of the instrumentality. The second method has the advantage of creating no new governmental units. It would be preferable to the creation of a special district which would further fragment decision making processes in the urban area.

3. The Commission recommends that the States enact legislation to encourage joint undertakings by political subdivisions having common program objectives affecting the development of an urban area overlapping existing political boundaries.

This recommendation proposes action at the State level parallel to Federal action to authorize joint urban development projects as suggested in the foregoing recommendation. Even where Federal authorizations for joint undertakings exist, State restrictions and

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, 88th Cong., 1st sess., "Metropolitan Planning," hearings held on May 21, 22, and 23, 1963 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963), pp. 64-65.

lack of incentive have interposed limitations. It is important to remove constitutional and legislative limitations on interlocal cooperation, and authorize simplified procedures for localities to pass concurrent resolutions and ordinances in areas of mutual concern.

The Commission recommended in 1961 that the States "authorize at least within the confines of the metropolitan areas, two or more units of local government to exercise jointly or cooperatively any power possessed by one or more the units concerned and to contract with one another for the rendering of governmental services." This previous recommendation endorsed model legislation already developed by the Committee of State Officials on Suggested State Legislation of the Council of State Governments. Any State adopting the model interlocal contracting act would authorize its localities to undertake joint projects as recommended here.

However, the interlocal contracting act by itself would not actively promote joint projects. A new Georgia law, enacted in 1963, shows promise of actively encouraging joint projects by authorizing State aid where political subdivisions establish joint undertakings. It is an example of how other States might actively encourage joint urban development efforts by two or more of their political subdivisions. Briefly, the Georgia act authorizes all State departments and agencies, empowered to assist individual political subdivisions in the State, to also assist any two or more such political subdivisions jointly in cases where the political subdivisions are "able and willing to provide for the consolidation, combining, merger, or joint administration, of *** any *** function *** by the two or more units, so as to effectuate economy or simplification in the administration or financing thereof." The Georgia law also provides that the State share of financial assistance can be increased for joint projects.

4. The Commission recommends that the States assume their proper responsibilities for assisting and facilitating urban development; to this end it is recommended that Federal grants-in-aid to local governments for urban development be channeled through the States in cases where a State (a) provides appropriate administrative machinery to carry out relevant responsibilities, and (b) provides significant financial contributions, and when appropriate, technical assistance to the local governments concerned.8

• Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, "Governmental Structure, Organization, and Planning in Metropolitan Areas," a committee print, U.S. Congress, House of Representatives Committee on Government Operations (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1961), p. 24.

7 Georgia Laws 1963, sec. 1, Act No. 303, p. 354.

Dr. Robert C. Weaver, joined by Mr. Don Hummel, dissents from the recommendation and states: "I do not believe that the Federal Government should impose on the States and local governments a uniform procedure for the channeling of all funds for all urbanrelated, federally aided programs.

"Most programs administered by the Housing and Home Finance Agency leave up to the States and local governments the decision as to the respective roles of the governments. In most cases, the States have elected to let localities deal directly with the Federal Government. On the other hand, some States have chosen to participate in or directly operate urban programs-including public housing, urban renewal, mass transportation, open space, and others.

"In each case, the State has the power and authority to involve itself directly in these programs to the extent it believes necessary. But this decision should be left to the State; it should not be imposed by the Federal Government unless an overriding national interest necessitates uniformity.

"Establishment of a preconceived, uniform administrative scheme may not only limit the freedom of choice by States and localities, but would likely create delays and have other adverse effects on programs vital to the improvement of the urban environment." Mayors Tucker, Blaisdell, and Naftalin dissent from the recommendation and state: "We oppose this recommendation. It ignores the success of current Federal and city cooperation in present urban development programs and would threaten the substance of the programs to gain an arbitrarily preferred form in intergovernmental structure.

A generally accepted characteristic of our Federal system is the sharing of functions in which most governmental responsibilities involve the active participation of the Federal, State, and local governments. This is especially true with respect to programs of urban development. The States as well as the Federal and local governments have a vital stake and capacity in this area.

As the Council of State Governments has pointed out in its publication, "State Responsibility in Urban Regional Development":

State government possesses singular qualifications to make profound and constructive contributions to urban regional development practice. The State is, in fact, an established regional form of government. It has ample powers and financial resources to move broadly on several fronts. Farranging State highway, recreation, and water resource development programs, to name a few, have had and will continue to have great impact on the development of urban and regional areas. Moreover, the State occupies a unique vantage point, broad enough to allow it to view details of development within its boundaries as part of an interrelated system, yet close enough to enable it to treat urban regional problems individually and at first hand.

Strong State leadership will in the long run determine its role within the Federal system in influencing the character of development within its boundaries. In the past, the extent to which local governments, especially in metropolitan areas, have leapfrogged the States to seek Federal assistance for urban renewal, planning, and area redevelopment purposes, suggests that many States have been slow to respond to this challenge."

The States should be encouraged by Federal law and administration to provide financial assistance to complement and supplement Federal efforts. Present limitations that appear to prevent or discourage State participation should be removed. The States themselves can, through enabling legislation and subsequent appropriations, involve them

"We know of no meaningful Federal principle which requires that all levels of government-Federal, State, and local-be involved in all governmental activities. In programs of urban development, most States have elected to permit their cities and towns to enter into urban renewal and housing programs by means of a direct relationship with the Federal Government. Each State was perfectly free at the time the housing and urban renewal programs were started to require local units of government to submit all requests for Federal assistance through the States. Indeed each State can still add on this requirement.

"To recommend that the Federal Government impose this requirement on State and local governments is in our view an unwise sacrifice of substance for form. Urban renewal and housing programs are uniquely adaptable to local administration. Federal and State financial assistance is needed but we should not impose a Federal Government requirement which would entangle lines of intergovernmental communication, which have been clear and would disrupt a relationship which has worked well and up to this time has been attacked only by enemies of urban renewal and low-rent housing."

Senator Muskie comments: "In my opinion, federalism does not require that all levels of government be involved in every program of joint action. A uniform administrative pattern for channeling all Federal funds for urban-related programs, moreover, would undermine the flexibility that has contributed so greatly to the success of these programs. The failure of many States to develop an understanding of and sympathy with these cooperative efforts must not be overlooked.

"It is my thought that the administrative and financial responsibilities set forth in the last four lines of the recommendation should be linked directly with the initial statement, "The Commission recommends that the States assume their proper responsibilities for assisting and facilitating the urban development; * * *.' This would provide the kind of emphasis that is required here. It would clearly place the burden on the States to initiate any rechanneling."

"State Responsibility in Urban Development: A Report to the Governors' Conference" (Chicago: The Council of State Governments, 1962), pp. 17, 18.