The Federal Role in Small Area Planning

INTRODUCTION ment is greatest, or if the national interest is defined as development of local areas at the expense of a Water resource planning is accomplished at several reduction in total national income. National efficienlevels-individual projects and small watersheds, subcy, no matter how defined, is not served by maxibasins, regional framework plans, and finally, national mizing local benefits in all areas. planning at the Water Resource Council and congressional committee levels, in ascending geographic It is even doubtful if local benefits are always scope. All planning efforts are in some measure maximized under present planning methods. In the guided by the statement in Senate Document 97 that, water resources field, the word "comprehensive" has "All viewpoints (national, regional, state and local) often been used to mean that all aspects of the local shall be fully considered and taken into account in situation were being considered. One connotation of planning resource use and development" [1]. Howthe word is that all agencies (federal, state, and local) ever, the consideration of various viewpoints does not are involved in the planning effort. This often means necessarily make them compatible. A plan once forthat all agencies having an interest in water resource mulated favors a particular point of view over others. development are involved, which does not necessarily The local point of view generally carries more weight imply that all those interested in local economic than the national point of view because: (1) more developments are represented. Water resource deprojectscan be justified on the basis of their net value velopment within the local area may be given far to local interests rather than the public at large, and greater emphasis than its probable contribution to (2) the local economic effects of a project are more overall economic welfare warrants. readily identifiable and more easily analyzed than are the net national effects. The special task force report to the Water Resources Council recognized the distinction between Although the local viewpoint is the one most often local and national benefits and suggested a classificaemphasized, projects are nearly always justified on tion of the benefits into four accounts-two of which the basis of national benefits regardless of the mix of are the national income account and the regional local and national benefits. Normally, costs and negaaccount [3]. However, mere recognition of this tive effects outside the immediate area have not been distinction will not eliminate the controversy. The subtracted. Local and national benefits are interBureau of the Budget and congressional committees mixed in such a way that they cannot be readily will, in time, assume a particular posture toward the separated. Part of the problem is that economic criteria for project feasibility. Once this posture is analysis has not progressed to the point that true recognized by those seeking federal funding of projnational benefits of specific projects can be estimated ects, they will adjust their accounting procedures to with the resources available for planning. However, a conform to this posture. general concept prevails that what is good for the local area is good for the nation. This is true only It is in the self interest of the construction agenwhen local development takes place in an area in cies, the state agencies, and the U. S. Congressman which the marginal efficiency of resource developrepresenting a particular district to estimate benefits