ance to keep ahead of development pressures. Communities over 50,000, not experiencing rapid urbanization, are likely to be eligible for adequate planning funds under the community renewal program or the area redevelopment amendment to the urban planning assistance program. Thus, rapidly urbanizing communities above 50,000 are currently the only major segments of urban America not likely eligible for Federal planning assistance. Coordination of planning assistance to different portions of a metropolitan area, including assistance to counties and cities having populations greater than 50,000 is adequately provided for in the present legislative and administrative requirements of the urban planning assistance program.

6. The Commission recommends that (1) the Congress enact legislation to establish the principle of Federal interagency coordination in the full range of programs affecting urban development, and (2) the executive branch of the Federal Government implement the congressionally stated principle by preparing and adopting a unified urban development policy establishing coordinating procedures.

Congressional action should state a basic urban development objective and make it the unifying principle applicable to all Federal programs affecting urban development-incorporating, hopefully, into such statement desirable objectives of individual programs, that have stood the test of time, political consensus, and administrative workability. In addition, individual programs should state the positive objective of helping to fulfill physically the locally prepared and adopted development plans for urban areas.

Precedents for broad Federal coordination of policies and procedures are available. Specifically, in the field of urban development Congress enacted Public Law 86-527 in June 1960, establishing "an objective for coordinating the development of the District of Columbia with the development of other areas in the Washington metropolitan region and the policy to be followed in the attainment thereof

*" In the act, the Congress declared, as a matter of policy, that all agencies of the executive branch, in carrying on activities affecting the development of the National Capital area, shall exercise them "in such manner as (with proper recognition of the sovereignty of the State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia in respect of those areas of the Washington metropolitan region as are situated within their respective jurisdictions) will best facilitate the attainment of such objective of the coordinated development of the areas of the Washington metropolitan region and coordinated management of their public affairs so as to contribute effectively to the solution of the community development problems of the Washington metropolitan region on a unified metropolitan basis."

Congress has also required, through the National Capital Planning Act of 1952, that all Federal department and agency proposals for development or construction in the National Capital region be referred to the National Capital Planning Commission for review on an advisory basis in order to insure that the proposed activities are consistent with comprehensive planning for development of the Washington metropolitan area. Consistent with such congressional

action, the President, on November 27, 1962, sent a memorandum to cach of the departments and agencies directing them to coordinate their activities in order to foster the implementation of the general policies plan for development of the National Capital region. The Presidential memorandum establishes guidelines for future action. Among them are support of the corridor cities concept of the year 2000 plan, preservation of strategic open spaces, developing a coordinated transportation system, and participation by Federal agencies with the local governments and planning bodies in the development of the

area.

The Federal interest in the National Capital region is clear-its interest in the orderly development of other metropolitan areas of the country is likewise clear and it would be useful to explicitly state the principle of interagency coordination and establish coordinating procedures both in law and regulation.

The President himself has been given legislative authority for allocating and coordinating public works acceleration funds. The Bureau of the Budget maintains a consolidated 6-year program of the public works being proposed by Federal agencies. No evidence was found, however, of a unified Federal urban development policy, nor of general coordination procedures between agencies in this field. Interagency contacts are largely informal, and where they have been formalized they are typically bilateral rather than multilateral. The multilateral National Housing Council, established by law and made up of top Federal officials, is not active. If conflicts between programs are not resolved by State or local officials, they may not be resolved at all. No one in the Federal Government is specifically charged with the job of promoting consistency between all the programs affecting urban development.

In the field of water resource development, where responsibility for administration is distributed among a number of departments and agencies, Congress has taken action in the Flood Control Act, the River and Harbor Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, among others, to direct that interagency coordination take place before the approval of projects. Federal water resource programs are also coordinated by an interagency agreement, approved by the President, which establishes not only unified policy guidelines for all water projects but also specific interagency review procedures.

The interagency water resource policy appears in many respects to set a useful precedent after which to pattern a unified urban development policy. Culminating from nearly 30 years of interagency efforts, it establishes planning objectives in terms of physical and economic development, natural resource preservation, and the well-being of people. It establishes planning policies and procedures under the headings of (a) National, regional, State, and focal viewpoints, (b) multiple-purpose planning, (c) river basin planning, (d) individual project planning, (e) coordination within the Federal Government and with non-Federal interests, and (f) relation to existing law and Executive orders. It establishes functional standards for water resource planning. Finally, it requires that plans and project proposals comply with the objectives, policies, and standards thus established. The Bureau of the Budget, on behalf of the President, reviews water resources programs and projects for compliance. Possible language

for a unified urban development policy, adapted from the interagency water policy, has been included as appendix A of this report.

Interagency coordination problems of water resources development are similar in many ways to those of urban development. Common to each are related programs of long standing found in so many major departments and agencies of the Federal Government that a reorganization to combine them into one operating unit would be impossible. The Housing and Home Finance Agency is currently attempting to provide leadership in the field of urban affairs and has under its jurisdiction about one-third of the programs involved in this survey. One body of opinion holds that a Department of Urban Affairs would provide increased leadership as the generally recognized urban development arm of the Federal establishment. Others believe interagency councils would be extremely valuable for initiating interagency coordination policies, as was the case in water resources. Still others argue that an Office of Urban Affairs in the Executive Office of the President could be useful because in the final analysis the President must take responsibility for resolving conflicts between agencies.

16

It is beyond this Commission's mandate to recommend any specific organizational arrangement for interagency coordination, but we emphasize, as we have in the past, that intergovernmental relations with respect to urban affairs are being unnecessarily impaired because of inadequate coordination among Federal programs. Prompt and effective steps should be taken by the Congress and the President to improve this situation.

10 The President's Water Resources Council which developed the interagency water resources policy referred to in this chapter would be legislatively reconstituted by S. 1111 (88th Cong., 1st sess.), the proposed Water Resources Planning Act of 1963.

Appendix A

SUGGESTED LANGUAGE FOR A UNIFIED FEDERAL URBAN DEVELOPMENT POLICY

[Policies and Procedures in the Formulation, Evaluation, and Review of Federal Programs and Federally Aided Projects for Urban Development]

I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this statement is to establish executive policies, and procedures for uniform application in the formulation, evaluation, and review of urban development programs and comprehensive plans for the provision of federally aided urban facilities, and individual projects having a significant impact on the development of urban and urbanizing communities.

Insofar as the provisions of this statement are consistent with law, other applicable regulations, and recognized standards, they shall govern all formulation, evaluation, and review of urban development programs, plans, and related activities. Any proposed variation from these policies and standards shall be specified and the reasons therefor indicated.

II. NATIONAL OBJECTIVES

A basic objective in any program or project formulated, evaluated, or reviewed in accordance with these policies and procedures shall be to facilitate the provision of a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family. In pursuit of this basic objective, full consideration shall be given to each of the specific objectives listed below, and reasoned choices shall be made between them when they conflict.

The economic social and cultural development of the Nation, its strength in world affairs and the achievement of satisfactory levels of living depend in large degree upon the healthy development of urban communities. The national interest in healthy urban development is to be protected by the concurrent provision for:

Residential, commercial, industrial, governmental, institutional, and other types of land uses.

The wise development and conservation of natural resources, including land, water, minerals, wildlife, and others.

Balanced transportation systems, including highway, air, water, pedestrian, mass transit, and other modes for the movement of people and goods.

Outdoor recreation and open space.

The protection of areas of unique natural beauty, historical, and scientific interest.

Community facilities including utilities for the supply of power, water, and communications, for the safe disposal of wastes, and for other purposes.