The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations was established by Public Law 380, passed by the first session of the 86th Congress and approved by the President September 24, 1959. Section 2 of the act sets forth the following declaration of purpose and specific responsibilities for the commission:

"Sec. 2. Because of the complexity of modern life intensifies the need in a federal form of government for the fullest cooperation and coordination of activities between the levels of government, and because population growth and scientific developments portend an increasingly complex society in future years, it is essential that an appropriate agency be established to give continuing attention to intergovernmental problems.

"It is intended that the commission, in the performance of its duties, will

"(1) bring together representatives of the Federal, State, and local governments for the consideration of common problems;

"(2) provide a forum for discussing the administration and coordination of Federal grant and other programs requiring intergovernmental cooperation;

"(3) give critical attention to the conditions and controls involved in the administration of Federal grant programs;

"(4) make available technical assistance to the executive and legislative branches of the Federal Government in the review of proposed legislation to determine its overall effect on the Federal system;

"(5) encourage discussion and study at an early stage of emerging public problems that are likely to require intergovernmental cooperation;

"(6) recommend, within the framework of the Constitution, the most desirable allocation of governmental functions, responsibilities, and revenues among the several levels of government; and "(7) recommend methods of coordinating and

simplifying tax laws and administrative practices to achieve a more orderly and less competitive fiscal relationship between the levels of government and to reduce the burden of compliance for taxpayers."

Pursuant to its statutory responsibilities, the Commission from time to time singles out for study and recommendation particular problems impeding the effectiveness of the federal system. In keeping with this responsibility, in 1971 the Commission identified regionalism as an important intergovernmental development and resolved "to assess the record to date, including the use and accomplishments of regional intergovernmental bodies."

The first phase of the Commission's work dealt with multistate regional instrumentalities, and a report on multistate regionalism was approved at a meeting of the Commission on December 17, 1971. The second phase involves substate regionalism. This is the third of a six-volume report on that subject.

The first volume in this series focused on recent substate districting actions taken by the Federal, State, and local governments in response to jurisdictional fragmentation in both urban and rural areas and to the need for areawide solutions to certain public service problems. The second provided a range of case studies covering all major dimensions of recent substate regional developments. In this volume, the Commission examines various traditional methods of regional cooperation and of local and areawide governmental reorganization. In the remaining volumes of this study the Commission will deal with the assignment of public service responsibilities and the effectiveness of certain regional approaches in Canada.

This volume was approved at a meeting of the Commission on February 14, 1974.

Robert E. Merriam Chairman

This volume was prepared by the Governmental Structure and Functions staff of the Commission. Major responsibility for the staff work was shared by David B. Walker and Carl W. Stenberg-Project Directors for the Commission's substate regionalism report-and John J. Callahan, Bruce D. McDowell, Ruth A. Bosek, Jean M. Gansel, and William T. Harris. Library assistance was provided by Carol J. Monical. The secretarial-clerical services of Mary Fitzgerald, Linda Martinez, Betty Smith, Kim Sowards, Gloria Thomas, and Vicki Watts, were, of course, indispensable. Judith Blakely skillfully and cheerfully performed the task of editing this volume.

Chapter V was prepared by Professor Thor K. Swanson of Washington State University while he was serving as Senior Academic Resident with ACIR during 1972-1973. Chapter III is based on a study of intergovernmental service agreements conducted under contractual arrangements with the Commission by Professor Joseph F. Zimmerman of the State University of New York at Albany. A special note of thanks is due Charles W. Washington who assembled much of the data on single county metropolitan areas and prepared a preliminary draft of Chapter IV during his internship with the Commission in 1971-1972.

The Commission and its staff had the benefit of review and comment on its work by a large number of persons with interest and informed judgement in local government and regional affairs. Those participating in special "thinkers' sessions" held on December 10 and 14, 1972 were: Jacques Avent, John Bebout, Richard Burton, William K. Brussat, Marian Clawson, William G. Colman, Martha Derthick, Joseph Doherty, Richard C. Hartman, Ray

mond Hay, Victor Jones, John Joyner, Ira Kaye,

Mark Keane, Richard Lehne, Norton Long, Ann Macaluso, James Martin, Hugh Mields, Thomas Murphy, Selma Mushkin, James H. Pickford, Robert Steadman, Revan Tranter, George Washnis, and York Willbern.

Other persons who provided valuable assistance during the course of the study, participated in "critics' sessions" on drafts of the issues and recommendations chapters, or commented on various draft chapters appearing in this volume include: John Bosley, William Cassella, Vance Clark, James Dowden, Aliceann Fritschler, James Forkin, John Garvey, James Hoban, Gerald Horton, Dwight Ink, James Johnson, Richard Johnson, Rodney Kendig, Ted Kolderie, Earl Lindveit, Melvin Mogulof, Beverly Osmon, Edward Rizzo, Lawrence Rutter, Frank Sandifer, Walter Scheiber, Lee Schoenecker, J. Fred Silva, Terry Smith, Edward Speshock, Glenn Stine, Charles Warren, Mary Washington, Deil Wright, and Joseph Zimmerman.

The Commission gratefully acknowledges financial assistance received from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development under Section 701(b) of the Housing Act of 1954 as amended. These funds supported much of the survey research and consulting services upon which several chapters are based, and expedited the printing of this volume.

The completion of this part of the study would not have been possible without the cooperation and assistance of the persons and the agency identified above. Full responsibility for content and accuracy rests, of course, with the Commission and its staff.

Wm. R. MacDougall Executive Director