Strengthening mineral resource administration in Georgia; a report to the Governor's Commission for Efficiency and Improvement in Government

STRENGTHENING MINERAL RESOURCE ADMINISTRATION IN GEORGIA
A Report to The Governor's Commis sian for
Efficiency and Improvement in Government
BOOZ, ALLEN & HAMILTON, INC. Management Consultants December 1, 1965

B 0 0 Z A L L E N &. H A M I L T 0 N Inc. -'-1Ianagement Consultants

NEW YORK

WASHINGTON

CLEVELAND DETROIT

CHICAGO

LOS ANGELES

SAN FRANCISCO

380 MADISON AVENUE
NEW YORK 10017
OXFORD 7-1900
AREA CODE 212

December 1,1965

The Governor's Commission for Efficiency and Improvement in Government
27-29 Pryor Street, N. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Gentlemen:

We are pleased to submit herewith our final report on the administration of mineral resources in Georgia. The survey was initiated in August 1965 and was designed to evaluate the program and organization of the Department of Mines, Mining and Geology.

Georgia is rich in mineral resources. To date, however, the development and utilization of this natural wealth have trailed the expanding pace of other industrial sectors. Major changes and improvements in the state's program and organization are urgently required in or.der to foster mineral resources development as an integral part of the total plan for economic growth in Georgia.

This report presents a plan for accelerating mineral resource development in Georgia. Chapter I contains a general appraisal of the significance of Georgia's mineral and water resources and a summary of the deficiencies

and needs of the state's mineral resource agency. Chapter II presents a recommended program for adoption by the state's mineral resource agency to expedite resource development. Chapter III describes the organization, technical staff, and financial support needed to conduct the recommended programs. Chapter IV indicates the intergovernmental and interindustrial relationships which should be established to permit effective development of work programs for the state's mineral resource agency.
During the course of our survey, we reviewed a large volume of documentation and reports and conferred with a wide range of officials throughout the state government, within the universities, and in private business. Many officials of the federal government and of various professional and technical associations were also of knowledgeable assistance. In addition, we drew upon relevant program and administrative experience in several other states.
It has been a pleasure to be associated with the Commission on this assignment; we derived both personal and professional satisfaction in formulating this program for action directed toward

Georgia's economic development aspirations. The fine cooperation and assistance which we received from representatives of the state government, the state universities, private industry, and the federal government greatly facilitated our work.
Very truly yours,

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Number

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

I. THE MINERAL RESOURCES OF GEORGIA IN

PERSPECTIVE

1

II. STRENGTHENING THE MINERAL RESOURCE

PROGRAM

13

III. REVITALIZING THE STATE MINERAL

RESOURCE ORGANIZATION

40

IV. COORDINATING THE RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

EFFORT

54

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

I. II. III. IV.
v.
VI. VII. VIII. IX.
X.
XI. XII.

Following Page

MINERAL PRODUCTION IN GEORGIA,

1935-1964

2

U.S. MINERAL PRODUCTION, 1963

2

AVAILABILITY OF GROUND WATER IN

THE UNITED STATES

4

STATUS OF LARGE-SCALE GEOLOGIC

MAPPING, 196 5

22

COOPERATIVE WATER RESOURCES

INVESTIGATIONS, 1965

26

STATUS OF LARGE-SCALE TOPOGRAPHIC

MAPPING, 1965

28

FULL-TIME TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES

OF STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEYS, 1965

41

EXISTING ORGANIZATION OF DEPARTMENT

OF MINES, MINING AND GEOLOGY

42

RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATION OF DEPARTMENT

OF MINERAL RESOURCES

43

RECOMMENDED STAFF LIST FOR THE

DEPARTMENT OF MINERAL RESOURCES

49

EXPENDITURES OF THE DMMG, 1955-1964

51

BUDGETS OF STATE GEOLOGICAL

SURVEYS, 1964

51

I. THE MINERAL RESOURCES OF GEORGIA IN PERSPECTIVE
The state of Georgia is richly endowed with a wide range of mineral resources. Georgia also has an enviable supply of the highquality water essential to agricultural well- being, industrial development, and urban growth. At this time, however, the state is realizing only modest economic benefits from the high potential of these resources.
A more comprehensive, accelerated, and intensive approach to the wise exploitation of these resources is called for in the interest of Georgia's progressive economic development. The Department of Mines, Mining and Geology does not provide the leadership in either program or administrative terms requisite to the sound development and use of these resources. The purpose of this report is to propose program, organization, and other measures designed to strengthen resource administration in the state as an essential component of Georgia's economic growth.
-1-

1. GEORGIA'S MINERAL PRODUCTION IS INCREASING ONLY GRADUALLY
The value of Georgia's mineral production has increased at an average annual rate of about 8o/o since the end of World War II, as shown in Exhibit I, following this page. While Georgia is the nation's largest producer of kaolin, marble, and granite, the total value of minerals produced in Georgia in 1964 was only about $127 million. In 1964, Georgia ranked 28th among the states in value of mineral production, as shown in Exhibit II, following Exhibit I.
Part of the average annual increase in the value of minerals produced in Georgia can be attributed to price increases. Furthermore, nearly all of the growth in value since 1945 represents increased production of stone and clay. Commercial production of other minerals has not grown significantly in the past 20 years.
Several qualified geologists have indicated that the basic geologic formations in Georgia should yield many other commercially valuable resources. The small absolute increases since 1945 in the value of all minerals produced in Georgia except stone and clay indicate that the state may be overlooking significant development and economic growth opportunities. The fact that Georgia ranks 28th nationally in value of mineral production may also indicate inadequate attention to development of the state's mineral potential.
-2-

MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
160

EXHIBIT I
STATE OF GEORGIA, GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION FOR EFFICIENCY AND IMPROVEMENT IN GOVERNMENT
MINERAL PRODUCTION IN GEORGIA 1935- 1964
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
160

140 120

100

z

0

i= u

::;)

0

0

IX D..

80

u. 0
w

::;)
..J <(
>

60

40

140
120
100 c<>r
m 0
"'II
80 ~
0
c 0 n
:::j 0 z
60
40

20

20

0 1935 1938 1941

1944 1947

1950 1953

YEAR

1956 1959

0 1962 1964

EXHIBIT II
STATE OF GEORGIA, GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION FOR EFFICIENCY AND IMPROVEMENT IN GOVERNMENT
U.S. MINERAL PRODUCTION 1963

VALUE OF PRODUCTION ($MM)

mmm
~ !;;:;:;;:;;:;:;1 ~

Over 700 400-700 l 00 - 400 Less than 100

NOTE: Numbers within states indicate national rank.

2. GEORGIA'S MINERAL INDUSTRY IS AN IMPORTANT EARNER OF "OUT-OF-STATE" EXCHANGE
An industry's relative importance to a state's economy is typically measured by the number of people it employs and the value of its output. By these standards, Georgia's mineral industry would appear relatively unimportant. In 1963, only about 6, 000 persons, or less than 1 o/o of Georgia's non-agriculturallabor force, were employed in mining industries.
A more significant measure of an industry's relative importance is the extent to which its production is exported to markets outside the state and, in effect, earns "foreign exchange. " Export-oriented industries are basic to the vigor and health of a state's overall economy. They generate the purchasing power that provides jobs in countless other activities such as processing, transportation, trade, and the service industries. In this respect, Georgia's mining industry assumes a much more significant role. A substantial portion of Georgia's annual production of kaolin and dimension stone is shipped to markets outside the state. It is estimated that Georgia's mineral production earned the state some $60 million in exchange in 1963.
It is clear then that expansion of Georgia's mineral industry would be particularly beneficial to the state's economy since mineral products are important earners of foreign exchange.
-3-

3. GEORGIA HAS AN ABUNDANT SUPPLY OF WATER
An area's water supply is vital to its economic growth and physical well-being. Georgia is fortunately endowed with extensive supplies of high-quality water, as shown in Exhibit III, following this page. National demands for water for personal, industrial, and agricultural use are expected to at least double by 1980. Much of the projected industrial growth of our nation will occur in the Southeastern United States, which is seen as the frontier of the nation's water supply.
Georgia's water resources can contribute greatly to the future economic growth of the state. However, maximum benefits, both social and economic, from the development of this resource can only be achieved if a complete knowledge of the resource characteristics is available as a planning base. Present knowledge is incomplete.
4. COMPREHENSIVE AND ACCURATE IDENTIFICATION OF GEORGIA'S RESOURCE POTENTIAL_IS LACKI~G
Although Georgia is believed by many geologists to have extensive deposits of commercially valuable metallic and non-metallic minerals, information is insufficient to identify development opportunities. While the store of information on surface water resources in Georgia is extensive, a detailed understanding of ground water occurrence, distribution, and quality is lacking. Furthermore, the inadequacy
-4-

EXHIBIT Ill
STATE OF GEORGIA, GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION FOR EFFICIENCY AND IMPROVEMENT IN GOVERNMENT
AVAILABILITY OF GROUND WATER IN THE UNITED STATES

'"Cit-_o-

WATER QUANTITY & QUALITY

~ ~
[==:J

Excellent Variable Poor

of topographic map coverage of the state reportedly hinders not only mineral prospecting and geologic mapping, but also limits area planning capabilities and industrial development.
Definitive information concerning the location, extent, and quality of the state's mineral resources is essential if they are to be intelligently developed and used. Lack of such knowledge restricts development opportunities.
5. THE WORK PROGRAM OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MINES, MINING AND GEOLOGY HAS NO WELL-DEFINED OBJECTIVES
A disproportionate amount of the time of the professional staff of the DMMG is spent in providing advisory services to private citizens. These services seldom result in tangible identification or development of resources. Some geologic mapping work is being attempted by staff members when they can spare the time. The DMMG also makes an annual financial contribution to water resources investigations and topographic mapping work conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey. At present, it is also contributing financial support to a minerals exploration program being carried out by the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Major deficiencies of the DMMG program are as follows:
(1) Practically no long-range program planning is carried out.
-5-

(2) Work objectives are poorly defined. (3) The DMMG does not participate actively in planning for
water resource investigations conducted on a cooperative financial basis by the U.S. Geological Survey. (4) The DMMG did not actively participate in the detailed planning of the minerals exploration program financed by the state through the DMMG and being conducted by others. (5) The DMMG does not actively participate in planning for topographic mapping work conducted on a cooperative financial basis by the U.S. Geological Survey. (6) Virtually no research is performed in mineral utilization, processing, or beneficiatio'1. (7) No strong program is under way to identify Georgia's mineral resources. (8) Little attempt is made to coordinate DMMG work with work done by industry or the state universities. Any and all activities of the state's mineral resource agency may be considered of questionable value unless they can be related
-6-

in both time and cost to the attainment of clearly defined goals serving statewide interests. Development of the state's mineral resources is a recognizable objective of only one of the activities in which the DMMG is indirectly involved. Benefits to be derived from present DMMG programs are thus quite limited in terms of Georgia's basic economic development goals.
6. THE ORGANIZATION, STAFFING, AND 'ijORK CONT!lOL_
OF THE DMM-G -AR-E SERIOUSLY DEFICIENT
The professional staff of the DMMG consists of two geologists and a chemist plus the Director. The department is ill-equipped in both size and organization to undertake any extensive programs. Work performed or supervised by the DMMG is in general poorly controlled. Major organization, staffing, and work management inadequacies of the DMMG are as follows:
(1) The professional and subprofessional staff of the Department is too small in size and has too limited a range of technical competence.
(2) No functional organization of duties exists. A few areas of technical specialization are delimited, however.
(3) Staff members are in doubt regarding their precise duties and responsibilities.
-7-

(4) Priorities are not established for internal staff projects or for cooperative work done by external agencies.
(5) The scope of those few projects undertaken by the internal staff are not well defined. Project budgets are usually not established and little cost control or work scheduling is attempted.
(6) The DMMG does not supervise, evaluate, or assign its own personnel to participate in water resources investigations or topographic mapping work undertaken on a cooperative financing basis by the U.S. Geological Survey.
(7) General office management practices, including personnel administration, records maintenance, financial procedures, and office space utilization are highly personalized, informal, and rudimentary.
Few programs of any far-reaching significance can be undertaken by the limited staff of the DMMG. Beyond this, however, is the fact that the highly inadequate work planning, control, and evaluation procedures of the DMMG afford little assurance that work done by and for the DMMG will contribute to the state's economic development.
-8-

7. THE DMMG OPERATES IN RELATIVE ISOLATION FROM OTHER AGENCIES INTERESTED IN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AND TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING
Government agencies concerned with the development of Georgia's mineral resources include the DMMG, the Department of Industry and Trade, the universities, and many local and regional development agencies. Georgia's private mineral producers probably invest more than all governmental agencies combined in seeking and developing new uses for Georgia's mineral resources. State and private universities also engage in some research projects related to mineral resource development.
The Department of Public Health, the Water Quality Control Board, the Game and Fish Department, the Department of Agriculture, cities and towns throughout the state, and numerous industries are vitally concerned with the utilization and development of Georgia's water resources. Likewise, highway planners at state, county, and local levels, industrial developers, city planners, and a wide range of other agencies and individuals are vitally concerned with the topographic mapping of Georgia.
Nevertheless, the DMMG maintains only minimum liaison with these outside agencies, The activities of the Department in the fields of mineral and water resource development and topographic mapping
-9-

are undertaken almost unilaterally. DMMG work is not coordinated with work done by industry, other state and local agencies, or universities. Virtually no communication exists between the DMMG and the Department of Industry and Trade, the state agency responsible for promoting the development of Georgia's mineral resources. Furthermore, no mechanism exists for systematically determining the needs and desires of private industry or the host of public agencies interested in the results of work done by the DMMG.
The lack of coordination in mineral and water resource development work in Georgia is a serious obstacle to concerted and progressive economic growth. It almost fosters duplication of effort and lack of appropriate emphasis in the programs o~ the DMMG.
8. THE CENTRAL PROBLEM OF THE DMMG IS ITS LACK OF DYNAMIC, PROGRESSIVE LEADERSHIP
The present Director of the DMMG was appointed to his position early in 1965 following some 28 years of loyal and devoted service with the Department. Most of his experience has been in traditional geologic research and he has earned wide respect as a geologist. Although the Director has made some attempts since his appointment to broaden the work program of the DMMG, his efforts have been limited by the paucity of staff, the long-established work patterns of the Department, and its low horizons concerning potential role and contribution.
-10-

The successful planning and administration of sound programs for resource development require not only technical expertise but also imaginative program conception and a capacity for strong, vigorous administrative direction. Dynamic, progressive leadership that is prepared to make a sharp break with the passive and traditional work habits of the Department is a basic prerequisite to the whole process of upgrading the resource function.
9. THERE IS URGENT NEED FOR REVITALIZING TH-E-S-T-A-T-E-'S-
MINERAL RESOURCE AGENCY
A clear and distinct need exists at the state level for a strong agency which would actively foster development of Georgia's water and mineral resources. With its present program and organization, the DMMG cannot be expected to fulfill its potential contribution to resource development. A complete revamping of the state mineral resources agency is called for. Necessary changes in the agency, its operations, and programs can be summarized as follows:
(1) New leadership; the present Director sho,.lld be encouraged to take his well-earned and honorable retirement o~ grounds of age.
(2) An expanded program oriented toward development of the state's mineral resources.
-11-

(3) An increased operating b1.1dget to support an expanded program.
(4) A larger, more diversified professional staff. (5) A new functional staff organization. (6) A mechanism for coordinating state programs with the
efforts of other public and private agencies and for reflecting in state programs the needs of private industry and other governmental agencies. These recommendations are amplified and treated in specific detail in subsequent chapters.
-12-

II. STRENGTHENING THE MINERAL RESOURCE PROGRAM
The program of the state mineral resource agency must be related to the accomplishment of specific objectives. This chapter contains a critique of the apparent objectives and programs of the DMMG and presents recommendations for revising the objectives and strengthening the programs of the state mineral resource agency.
1. PRESENT ACTIVITIES OF THE STATE MINERAL RESOURCE AGENCY ARE MINIMAL
Present activities of the DMMG find their base in obscure origins that bear little relevance to contemporary needs. Existing programs are traditional, minimal, and detached from rather than directly responsive to and an integral part of the state's economic development plans. This is illustrated by the following summary of the Department's current operations:
Much of the effort of the DMMG staff is devoted to providing information and advice requested by private citizens and individual business firms. While a useful service, this makes but a minor contribution to statewide resource development. Although the DMMG staff plans to do some geologic mapping, it has not yet embarked on an active mapping program.
-13-

The DMMG maintains a museum of rock samples, which is visited at times by school children and teachers. Exhibits in this museum virtually duplicate those in the state 1s Museum of Science and Industry. The Department also prepares kits of mineral samples, which are loaned to primary and secondary schools throughout the state.
The DMMG contributes some 60% of its annual budget to support water resources investigations conducted by the Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey. However, it plays little, if any part in the planning, conduct, supervision, or evaluation of USGS work.
The DMMG also makes a nominal financial contribution to topographic mapping work performed by the Topographic Division of the USGS. Again, as with the water resources work, the DMMG does not participate in the planning of the mapping work.
In July 1965, the DMMG retained Georgia Tech to undertake a phosphates and heavy minerals exploration program pursuant to legislative authorization. The DMMG participated only nominally in the planning of the work, is not participating in the conduct of the work, and has no well-developed plan for work supervision or quality control.
About 8% of the annual budget is usually expended on DMMG publications. Although some useful information developed by the staff is contained in these publications, they are for the most part eclectic in nature and of limited use in promoting the development of the state 1s resources.
Thus, the present activities of the DMMG are not significantly
related to the economic development goals of the state and must be
considered of marginal benefit.
-14-

2. THE PRESENT ACTIVITIES OF THE DMMG ARE DEFICIENT IN SCOPE, MAGNITUDE, AND EMPHASIS
It is clear from the above that the staff of the DMMG is conducting few, if any, studies to identify or to evaluate the commercial potential of Georgia's mineral resources. Furthermore, no research is under way to develop improved beneficiation methods or new uses for mineral resources.
Some geologic maps at a scale useful in mineral identification and water resource studies are being prepared by the USGS in conjunction with its water resources investigations. Howe;er, at present mapping rates of progress, a complete geologic map of the state at a useful scale will not be completed for at least 20 years.
Topographic mapping work financed in part by the DMMG and conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey is also proceeding slowly. At present rates, statewide topographic maps at scales useful in highway planning, industrial development, and area planning will probably not be available for 15 or 20 years.
Water resource studies being conducted by the USGS with financial support from the DMMG are barely adequate in magnitude to meet the demand for water resource information.
-15-

The conclusion is inescapable that the present programs of the DMMG are wholly inadequate to meet Georgia's needs for basic information concerning her mineral and water resources. Some new programs must be initiated and some existing programs accelerated. Greater emphasis must be placed on studies which can contribute significantly to the economic and social welfare of all of Georgia's citizens.
3. GEORGIA'S MINERAL RESOURCE AGENCY SHOULD HAVE TWO BASIC OBJECTIVES
The collection and interpretation of basic data regarding the state's mineral and water resources should be a primary objective of the state's mineral resource agency. The dissemination of the information collected so that it can be of statewide benefit should be an equally important goal of the agency.
Title 43 of the Georgia Legislative Acts of 1937, as amended, provides a sound and valid summary of the tasks which should be performed by the state's mineral resource agency to accomplish these two objectives. Title 43 indicates that the agency should:
1. Prepare maps and reports on the geology and mineral resources of Georgia
2. Prepare topographic maps 3. Make hydrographic surveys
-16-

4. Conduct research on mining and metallurgical problems
5. Publish the results of its investigations 6. Administer the oil and gas law
The following sections of this chapter present a recommended work program for the state's mineral resources agency. The agency should:
4. IDENTIFY GEORGIA'S MINERAL RESOURCES MORE DEFINITIVELY AND EVALUATE THEIR COMMERCIAL POTENTIAL
The comprehensive identification and evaluation of Georgia's mineral resources should be a high-priority assignment. This can be accomplished only by data collection and analysis. Before any field exploration program is undertaken by the state, a careful and complete inventory should be made of information already available in the files and records of the DMMG, other state and federal agencies, and private industry.
Private industry could be an especially rich source of information but is now virtually untapped. One of Georgia's principal mineral producers is known to expend some $100, 000 annually in mineral prospecting. Many other producers and would- be producers also spend substantial sums on exploration. Several industries have
-17-

indicated their willingness to furnish the results of their investigations to the state, with reservation, of course, of certain privileged data. Other states have found industry to be a valuable supplier of resource data.
Public agencies possessing resource information include the U.S. Geological Survey offices in Atlanta and in Washington, D. C., state and private universities, local and county governments, and the recently formed area planning and development commissions.
Based on a comprehensive inventory of existing information and its knowledge of future explorations planned by other agencies and private industry, the state resource agency should then design its own field data collection and resource evaluation program.
An initial objective of the state's mineral identification and evaluation program should be to complete a small-scale (1: 250, 000) reconnaissance-type map of Georgia's mineral resources. An ultimate objective should be the completion of larger-scale maps (1: 62, 500 or 1:25, 000) of areas believed to contain commercially valuable deposits. Some additional geologic mapping will probably be required as a basis for the reconnaissance map. Additional geologic and topographic maps will also be needed as a basis for the large-scale resource maps.
-18-

To strengthen the state's own technical capabilities, the mineral identification program should be carried on mainly by state agency personnel. Consideration should be given to cooperative projects with the U.S. Bureau of Mines when such projects are clearly in the state's interest. Modern geochemical and geophysical prospecting techniques should be used where appropriate. 5. PREPARE A SERIES OF MINERAL RESOURCE REPORTS
To supplement the mineral resource maps, the state agency should prepare informative reports describing in detail the availability of Georgia's major mineral resources, their present and potential uses, methods and costs of production and processing, and market and price trends. The location, magnitude, and types of operation by existing mineral producers should be indicated to the extent possible.
The mineral resource reports would capsule the information needed by industry to evaluate development opportunities in Georgia and could be of great value to the Department of Industry and Trade in promoting the state's industrial growth and expansion.
-19-

As a minimum and as a priority program, it is suggested that reports be prepared on the following minerals: kaolin, fuller's earth, granite, marble, slate, limestone, cement, feldspar, barite, sand and gravel, iron ore, talc, bauxite, mica, coal and peat, phosphates, and heavy minerals.
6. CONDUCT RESEARCH TO DEVELOP IMPROVED BENEFICIATION METHODS AND NEW USES FOR GEORGIA'S MINERALS
Research concerning mineral beneficiation could net extensive benefits for Georgia. Improved beneficiation techniques could reduce production costs and stimulate the expansion of existing industries. Improved beneficiation methods might also make possible the economic production of minerals not now produced and thereby afford development opportunities for new industries. Further, the identification of new uses for minerals could serve to expand the markets for Georgia 1s mineral products and contribute to the growth of the state 1s economy.
The research program on beneficiation should be planned and, in the main, conducted by personnel of the state1s mineral resource agency. To avoid duplication of effort, the state agency should coordinate its work carefully with the research efforts of the state universities, the federal government, and private industry.
-20-

Since the laboratory facilities now maintained by the DMMG are not adequate for extensive minerals utilization and beneficiation studies, arrangements should be made initially at least for personnel . from the state agency to utilize laboratory facilities at state universities. Ultimately, it may be advisable to expand the research laboratory facilities of the state mineral resource agency itself.
The state agency should participate in cooperative research work with the state universities and the federal government when such research is clearly to the state's advantage. The state agency should always encourage independent research by the universities, industry, and other government agencies. It should prepare annual programs of suggested research projects for outside agencies and should provide assistance, where practical, in organizing such outside research.
7. PREPARE A COMPLETE LARGE-SCALE GEOLOGIC MAP OF GEORGIA
Geologic maps indicate the distribution, structure, and composition of rocks at the earth's surface. They are a basic source of information on the location of valuable mineral deposits and ground water sources and they describe the physical characteristics of the land that affect its utilization by man.
-21-

A complete geologic map of Georgia at a scale of 1:500, 000 was prepared in 1939. However, the scale of this map is too small and the degree of detail too limited to be of significant value in identifying mineral resource deposits. Since 1939, geologic maps of varying quality and at varying scales--larger than 1:500,000-have been prepared. In total, these post-1939 maps cover approximately 51 of Georgia's 159 counties. Some additional geologic mapping work is currently under way in 9 counties, as shown in Exhibit IV, following this page.
Most geologic mapping in Georgia since 1939 has been accomplished by the USGS in conjunction with its ground water investigations work. Some additional mapping has also been performed by university research programs. The DMMG has taken little part in the planning or conduct of any geologic mapping work. Considered all together, currently available maps are not sufficient for the state's needs.
The prompt completion of a new statewide geologic map at a scale of 1:250, 000 is considered an important project of the state's mineral resource agency. This scale is suggested since topographic base maps at the same scale are now available and should have their counterparts in geologic terms. Such maps would be useful for analyzing broad regional geology problems and potentials. In areas of simple geology, such maps would show almost as much detail as larger-scale maps and would be useful in resource mapping.
-22-

EXHIBIT IV
STATE OF GEORGIA, GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION FOR EFFICIENCY AND IMPROVEMENT IN GOVERNMENT
STATUS OF LARGE- SCALE GEOLOGIC MAPPING 1965
~ Maps Available
BIB Mapping in Progress

Upon completion of the 1:250, 000 scale maps, it will no doubt be necessary and desirable to prepare geologic maps of even larger scale covering selected areas having high resource potential or complex geology. Mapping at this larger scale should be planned and conducted primarily by state mineral agency personnel. Some geologic mapping work in cooperation with the USGS Water Resources Division and Geologic Division may also prove both necessary and economical. Where such cooperation is believed to be to the state 1s advantage, at least a portion of the state 1s contribution should be in the form of direct expenditure matching; that is, the state should contribute men to the study instead of dollars. Through such an arrangement, the state agency can strengthen its own staff capabilities and exercise better project control.
In planning its own geologic mapping programs, the state agency should, of course, take into account the work currently under way and programmed by the USGS, the state universities, and the area planning and development commissions.
8. CONTINUE THE PRESENT PROGRAM OF WATER RESOURCES STUDIES
For many years, the DMMG has contributed financial support to water resources investigations conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey. Current USGS activities financed in part with state funds include:
-23-

Geologic mapping and ground water studies in 6 counties Stream gauging at 64 stations Inventory reports on 9 of the state's major rivers Studies of low- stream flow at 130 sites Quality- of-water investigations Special information services to the DMMG
In addition to studies for the DMMG, the USGS also conducts a wide variety of cooperative water resources investigations for the State Highway Department, the Federal Soil Conservation Service, the Corps of Engineers, several county and city governments, and the Georgia Power Company. Total expenditures for USGS services in Georgia in 1964 exceeded $500, 000. The DMMG contributed less than 25o/o of the funds for these services.
Although the DMMG participated only nominally in the planning and not at all in the conduct of USGS water resource studies, Georgia appears to have derived considerable benefit from the past work of the USGS. The goals of the USGS in nearly all of its investigations in Georgia appear to have coincided quite well with those which the state might itself have set.
-24-

As Georgia grows, the competition for its water resources will increase and the problems of providing adequate, dependable supplies will multiply. The state mineral resource agency should provide the basic technical information needed to solve these water problems. To provide this fundamental information, the state agency should:
(1) Collect facts regarding the location, quantity, quality, and movement of Georgia's water resources.
(2) Conduct special studies of existing and potential water problems.
(3) Conduct hydrologic research of particular value to Georgia.
As a part of its basic data collection program, the state agency should maintain stream gauging stations, quality-of-water stations, and observation wells. The state should also conduct basin-wide water resource studies to obtain quantitative evaluations of water resources and to determine the system of water movements within each basin. The state 1s 13 principal drainage basins might comprise the primary study units. Using information from the basin studies where possible, additional studies should be made to appraise the extent and location of the state's ground water resources. Special
-25-

studies of Georgia's salt water encroachment and flood flow problems are also needed. Work should be initiated to code for machine processing all facts currently available or which may be obtained on Georgia's water resources.
Research now underway to determine low-flow characteristics of streams should be continued. The effort expended by the state on this research project, which has national as well as local significance, should be in line with what Georgia can reasonably expect to gain from it.
9. CONTINUE TO COOPERATE WITH THE USGS ON WATER RESOURCE STUDIES
As indicated, most of the past work of the USGS in Georgia has been decidedly to the state's advantage. Future programs of the USGS are directed toward most of the same long-range objectives as the state water resource studies recommended above. To the extent that mutually beneficial projects can be devised, it is entirely reasonable and certainly to the state's economic advantage to participate in cooperative programs. The federal government matches all state contributions to such programs. Many other states, including those considered to have progressive mineral resource programs, participate extensively in cooperative water resources work with the USGS, as shown in Exhibit V, following this page. The exhibit
-26-

State
Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Califomia Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri
Total

EXHIBIT V
State of Georgia, Govemor's Commission for Efficiency and Improvement in Govemment
COOPERATIVE WATER RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS, 1965

Estimated Obligation
$ 212, 000 7, 000
350, 000 121,000 970, 000 280, 000 121, 000
18, 000 630, 000 187, 000 232, 000 106, 000 168, 000 227, 000 201, 000 323,000 159, 000 457, 000
35, 000 150, 000 120,000 223, 000 185, 000 148, 000 143, 000

State
Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

Average contribution per state:

Estimated Obligation
$ 93, 000 145, 000 154, 000 35, 000 260, 000 278, 000 530, 000 277, 000 187, 000 223, 000 84, 000 158, 000 370, 000 38, 000 60, 000 93, 000 164, 000 640, 000 313, 000 12, 000 56, 000 430, 000 50, 000 150, 000 132, 000
$10, 705, 000
$ 214, 000

indicates that Georgia's annual contribution to cooperative water resource studies is less than the national average.
A change from past practices is, however, recommended in the manner and extent of state participation in cooperative water resources investigations.
(1) The state should make its program contribution in the form of men instead of dollars whenever possible. By so doing, it can train its own water resources staff.
(2) The state should take an active role in program planning:
To insure that water resources investigations are coordinated with other statewide activities in geologic mapping and mineral resource mapping To stipulate priorities in the state's economic interest
(3) The state should monitor the progress and evaluate the results of field work.
The needs and complementary programs of other state agencies should be evaluated and taken into account in developing the state's water resources investigation program. To the extent that cooperative programs with the USGS cannot be established, the state mineral resource agency should undertake unilateral action.
-27-

10. ACCELERATE THE TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING OF GEORGIA
Topographic maps showing the shape and configuration of the earth's surface, its water features, and works of man are essential planning tools for a wide range of activities. They are particularly valuable in:
Industrial planning Highway planning Water resource studies Flood control Power development Minerals explorations Geologic mapping Community planning Area development Building construction Forest management Soil conservation Irrigation Sewage disposal Recreation
Small-scale topographic maps (1: 250, 000) covering the entire state of Georgia have been published by the Army Map Service. These small-scale maps are not, however, particularly useful in development planning. Larger-scale maps, covering some 55o/o of Georgia's 58, 000 square miles, have been published or are in progress. The remaining 45o/o of the state's area is unmapped at a scale useful in development planning, as shown in Exhibit VI, following this page.
-28-

EXHIBIT VI
STATE OF GEORGIA, GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION FOR EFFICIENCY AND IMPROVEMENT IN GOVERNMENT
STATUS OF LARGE-SCALE TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING 1965
MAPS PUBLISHED OR IN PROGRESS
~ 1:62,500 SCALE
W#it?d'!J 1:24,000 SCALE

With but a single exception, representatives of every government agency, educational institution, and private industry contacted during the course of our study expressed an immediate need for more largescale topographic maps. The Highway Department, the Department of Industry and Trade, and the DMMG, as well as the Georgia Power Company and several mineral producers, indicated a particularly critical requirement for greater topographic map coverage.
A demand for large-scale (1: 62, 500 or 1:25, 000) topographic map coverage is not peculiar to Georgia. Many other developmentconscious states have experienced similar requirements. In response to recognized federal needs, the Topographic Division of the USGS has already embarked on a long-range, federal-financed program for large-scale mapping of the entire United States. The federal mapping program is, however, already behind schedule. Although no estimates of slippage were ventured to us, it is probably reasonable to assume that the present program lag is 2 years; within the next 5 years, an additional 2- to 3-year time loss might be anticipated. This means that maps scheduled for completion in 1970 may not be available until 197 5. Completion of the first- stage, large-scale mapping program, which was originally scheduled for 197 5, may be delayed until 1980 or later. At present mapping rates, complete large-scale maps of Georgia might not be available for 15 to 20 years.
-29-

Georgia needs more rapid topographic coverage than that which may be anticipated under the federal government's program. The state mineral resource agency should accordingly prepare a plan for accelerating topographic mapping in Georgia. 11. COOPERATE WITH THE USGS IN PREPARING TOPOGRAPHIC
MAPS The speed-up of topographic mapping might be accomplished in three basic ways: (1) By undertaking the work with state forces--probably by
expanding the capabilities of the Highway Department's Topographic Mapping Unit. (2) By hiring private contractors. (3) By cooperative mapping programs with the Topographic Division of the USGS. Of the three methods suggested, the last--cooperative mapping programs with the USGS- -is considered most suitable. (1) Mapping by state forces would require high capital investment with a short amortization period.
-30-

(2) Mapping by private contractors would be more costly than mapping by state or USGS personnel.
(3) USGS personnel are particularly well qualified and equipped to provide mapping services.
(4) The federal government pays 50o/o of the cost of all mapping by USGS personnel.
In designing a topographic mapping program for Georgia, the state mineral resource agency should assume leadership. As a first step, it should appraise the needs of all other government agencies-federal, state, and local--as well as the needs of business and industry. To facilitate this appraisal of needs and to assist in assigning work priorities and preparing work schedules, it is recommended that a Mapping Advisory Committee be established. The functions and composition of this Committee are described in Chapter IV.
Following determination of mapping needs and assignment of priorities, comparisons should be made between the state's declared mapping needs and the federal government's program. Deficiencies in area coverage and schedule which are detected in this comparison should be overcome by carefully planned, supplementary cooperative mapping agreements with the USGS.
-31-

The detailed planning of the cooperative mapping program should be performed by the state's mineral resources agency in conjunction with the USGS. The state agency should participate in the mapping work to a limited extent on a direct expenditure matching basis. Such participation would enhance the state's planning and supervisory capabilities and strengthen its ability to undertake independent special mapping studies, if and when required. The state agency should also monitor work progress and costs and evaluate results.

12. LIMIT CONSULTATIONS ON THE SERVICE REQUESTS OF INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS

Over the years, the state's mineral resource agency has become increasingly less oriented toward constructive basic research of value to the state as a whole and increasingly more involved in providing answers to individual requests for information. It is conservatively estimated that 25o/o to 30o/o of the entire professional staff time is expended in responding to individual requests for service. Most of these requests involve assays of rock samples to determine their mineral content and commercial value.

As with all other state agencies, service to the citizenry is

the mineral resource agency's only reason for being. However,

economic benefits to the entire state of time spent in responding to

individuals' requests for service are definitely limited. Therefore,

only a limited effort should be expended by the state in providing

this type of service.

-32-

To minimize the effort needed to respond to service requests, it is recommended that a precise definition be prepared of the types and extent of services which the state mineral resource agency will provide for individual citizens.
Cost limits should be set for all types of free services to individuals. Charges should be levied for analyses or other services in excess of established free limits.
It is also recommended that routine procedures be established for handling service requests. Standard formats for requests should be devised, routing and control methods should be standardized, and analysis procedures should be codified. No field visits should be made in response to individual requests for advice unless there is clear evidence that such visits may result in tangible information of general use.
The systematic processing of requests for information and analyses, while less personal, should be more expeditious and less costly than present procedures.
13. REVAMP AND INTENSIFY THE PUBLICATIONS PROGRAM
The publications of the DMMG, while prepared in attractive format, are mainly eclectic in nature, recounting the experience of
-33-

past years and the results of research performed by others. Reports are typeset and reproduced commercially outside the DMMG offices.
The greatly expanded work program recommended in this chapter should afford ample subject matter for the presentation of original findings having substantial value to agencies interested in the mineral and water resources and the topographic mapping of Georgia.
Since the dissemination of data collected and of analytical findings is fully as vital as the collection and analyses proper, the state's mineral resource agency should undertake a considerably expanded publication program. It is anticipated that nearly all work done by the state agency will provide a basis for a written report. Such reports should be programmed, scheduled, and budgeted as essential parts of all projects. Annual reports might also be published to summarize the results of a past year's work. The value of such reports, however, is considered limited and only limited funds should be expended in their preparation.
To minimize the cost of the extensive publications anticipated in the future, the state's mineral resource agency should have an internal capability to type and reproduce its own reports. While
-34-

such internally prepared reports would be less formal and glossy than some past reports of the DMMG, it is felt that they would be quicker, easier, and considerably less expensive to produce.
14. TRANSFER RESPONSIBILITIES FOR CERTAIN EDUCATIONAL WORK
The DMMG maintains within its offices a display of mineral samples intended as an educational aid for school children. The display virtually duplicates a similar exhibit in the Museum of Science and Industry located in the Capitol Building. The DMMG also prepares mineral sample kits which it sends to school science teachers throughout the state.
The maintenance of a mineral museum is considered a worthy project. However, it is our view that a single mineral display in the State Museum should be adequate. Consolidation of the DMMG display with that in the State Museum would result in overall improvement of the state's mineral exhibit and would make a substantial amount of valuable floor space in the DMMG offices available for more productive use.
The preparation of mineral sample kits is also considered a worthwhile enterprise. It is suggested, however, that this educational function be transferred from DMMG, an operating research agency of the state government, to the State Museum or to one of the state universities.
-35-

15. DEVELOP BOTH LONG- RANGE (5 TO 10 YEARS) AND SHORT-RANGE (2 YEARS) WORK PROGRAMS
The DMMG currently has no long- range program for its activities and a rather ill-defined short-range program. A plan should be developed describing the long-range goals of the state mineral resource agency. Within this framework, intermediate 2-year goals should be identified. Work programs within each biennium should be designed to accomplish these 2-year goals. Programs should indicate precisely the projects to be undertaken, project schedules, manpower and equipment requirements, project costs, and results expected.
Intelligent assignment of priorities for work requires knowledge of the relative urgency of the information needs of a wide range of agencies and interests outside the state mineral resources agency. Coordination of state programs with those of industry and universities also requires external communications. It is therefore recommended that a Mineral Resources Advisory Committee be established to assist the Director of the state mineral resource agency in program planning and coordination. The functions and membership of this Committee are described in Chapter IV.
-36-

16. SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE PROGRAM BUDGET OF THE STATE MINERAL RESOURCE AGENCY

The cost of operation of the DMMG for the year ending June 30,

1965, was about $27 6, 000. Approximate annual costs of the mineral

resource programs recommended herein would be about $580, 000,

as follows:

Mineral

Resources Agency

Contributions for Total Annual

Salaries and Expenses Cooperative Programs Program Costs

(Dollars in Thousands)

Mineral identification and utilization studies

$ 99

$ 99

Regional geology studies

124

124

Topographic mapping

19

$100

119

Water resources studies

47

150

197

Research studies

41

41

Total

$330

$250

$580

About one-third of the proposed $300, 000 annual budget increase would be needed to expedite topographic mapping. Most of the remaining two-thirds of the increase would represent the costs of additional state staff required to undertake necessary minerals surveys, geologic mapping, and research.
It is estimated that the $100, 000 amount suggested for contribution to a cooperative topographic mapping program will permit completion

-37-

within 10 years of a 15-minute, large-scale map series covering the entire state. If larger-scale maps are considered necessary or desirable by the State Mapping Advisory Committee, or if the 10year completion schedule is believed to be too long a period, then an annual contribution of more than $100, 000 would be required. Since much topographic mapping will probably be done primarily to meet the requirements of state and local government agencies outside the mineral resource agency, it is suggested that funds from the requesting agencies might be transferred to pay for the maps requested.
The national average annual contribution to cooperative water resources studies is about $214, 000 per state (see Exhibit V). The $150, 000 amount suggested for contribution by Georgia to cooperative water resources investigations represents a slight increase over past state contributions for these studies. Together with the $50, 000 contributed annually by Georgia's local governments to cooperative water resources studies, the proposed $150, 000 state contribution would bring Georgia's total contribution in line with the national average.
The budget of $330, 000 suggested for staff operations of the minerals agency would permit retention of a minimum number of technical and administrative personnel qualified to undertake the
-38-

programs described herein. Depending upon the priorities and schedules for resource investigations which are established by the state mineral resource agency in consultation with the proposed State Mineral Advisory Committee, it might be necessary or desirable
to increase this amount or to reallocate it among the suggested programs.
Precise staff requirements are discussed in Chapter III. In summary, we strongly urge that appropriations for the
mineral resource agency be increased to $580, 000 for the year
immediately ahead. Such program expansion is urgently required if Georgia's mineral program is to keep pace with other sectors of economic development.
-39-

III. REVITALIZING THE STATE MINERAL RESOURCE ORGANIZATION
To accomplish the program goals set forth in the preceding chapter, Georgia's mineral resource agency must have vigorous, progressive leadership and a broad- based technical capability. A proper staff organization plan and adequate financial support are prerequisite to successful achievement of the program objectives.
This chapter presents a plan for strengthening the state's mineral resource agency so that it may undertake recommended work programs and make a positive contribution to the development and benefit of Georgia. 1 . THE PRESENT STAFF OF THE DMMG IS MINIMAL
The DMMG has a four-man professional staff consisting of the Director, two geologists, and a junior chemist.
(1) The Director of the DMMG was appointed to his position in the spring of 1965. Prior to his appointment, he had served in various technical capacities in the DMMG since 1937.
-40-

(2) The DMMG 's two geologists joined the Department in the summer of 1965. The senior geologist has had broad experience in industrial mining operations. The other geologist has completed extensive postgraduate studies and has modest but good work experience. Both geologists are alert, capable, and conscientious.
(3) The junior chemist has been with the DMMG for some 8 years. Although qualified for his present position, he is underutilized due to the absence of a vigorous research and analysis program.
(4) In addition to the professional staff, the DMMG has five full-time, nontechnical employees:
One administrative aide Two stenographers Two utility workers
These nontechnical employees of the DMMG have all given many years of devoted service to the department.
It may be noted that Georgia ranks 36th in the nation in the size of her professional mineral resources staff, as shown in Exhibit VII, following this page.
-41-

EXHIBIT VII
STATE OF GEORGIA, GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION FOR EFFICIENCY AND IMPROVEMENT IN GOVERNMENT
FULL-TIME TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES OF STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEYS 1965

NUMBER OF TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES

-

40ormore

~ 20-39

~10-19

1:::::::::::::1 5-9

I:.==J Less than 5

The present staff of the DMMG is inadequate both in size and in technical capability to undertake the work programs recommended in Chapter II. In order to upgrade and enhance the capabilities of the state's mineral resource agency, steps should be taken to:
2. REDESIGNATE THE DEPARTMENT OF MINES, MINING AND GEOLOGY AS THE "DEPARTMENT OF MINERAL RESOURCES" The agency charged with responsibility for identifying and
inventorying the state's mineral resources should have a name which clearly indicates its purpose and function. The title "Department of Mineral Resources" is recommended in place of the present cumbersome nomenclature. This new title also emphasizes the proposed reorientation of the Department's activities toward mineral resource development. 3. ORGANIZE THE DEPARTMENT OF MINERAL RESOURCES
ON A FUNCTIONAL BASIS The present organization of the DMMG is shown in Exhibit VIII, following this page. The size of the agency staff is too small and the actual functions performed are too few in number to support an effective functional organization.
-42-

EXHIBIT VIII
STATE OF GEORGIA, GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION FOR EFFICIENCY AND IMPROVEMENT IN GOVERNMENT
EXISTING ORGANIZATION OF DEPARTMENT OF MINES, MINING AND GEOLOGY

DIRECTOR
l
I ADMINISTRATIVE
AIDE

I
COASTAL PLAIN
GEOLOGIST

CRYSTALLINE
I GEOLOGIST

I
JUNIOR CHEMIST

l
2 STENOS 2 UTILITY WORKERS
-

The recommended programs of the Department of Mineral Resources are broader in scope and more varied in nature than present DMMG activities. The staff required to carry out the recommended studies must necessarily be larger and more specialized than the present one. The characteristics of the recommended DMR programs and staff make a functional organization plan possible. In view of the advantages to be gained in delineating areas of responsibility, indicating technical specializations, and facilitating work control, it is recommended that the DMR be organized functionally as shown in Exhibit IX, following this page. Functional units in the recommended organization would include:
Office of the Director Economic Geology Unit Regional Geology Unit Research Unit Topographic Unit Water Resources Unit Administrative Unit
Recommended duties and responsibilities of each unit are as follows:
(1) The Director of the DMR Should:
Exercise general leadership and advise the Governor on all matters relating to the development of the state's mineral and water resources.
-43-

EXHIBIT IX STATE OF GEORGIA, GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION FOR
EFFICIENCY AND IMPROVEMENT IN GOVERNMENT
RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATION OF DEPARTMENT OF MINERAL RESOURCES
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

Plan the long- and short-range programs of the DMR and coordinate DMR programs with other local, state, and federal programs. The Mineral Resources Advisory Committee and the Mapping Advisory Committee would advise the Director on the preparation of DMR programs (see Chapter IV).
Establish work priorities, assign project responsibility, prepare work schedules, plan project budgets, and control operating costs of the DMR.
Exercise general management direction over all aspects of DMR operations.
Recruit necessary staff personnel.
Serve as Presiding Officer of the Mineral Resources Advisory Committee.
Serve as Presiding Officer of the Mapping Advisory Committee.
Carry out responsibilities of the former Oil and Gas Commission and Minerals Leasing Commission.
( 2) The Economic Geology Unit Should:
Conduct field explorations.
Perform laboratory analyses.
Prepare maps and reports indicating the distribution and characteristics of Georgia's mineral resources.
Conduct research on utilization and beneficiation of the state's mineral resources.
Evaluate the reserves of known mining areas.
-44-

( 3) The Regional Geology Unit Should:
Conduct field studies and perform analyses. Prepare geologic maps of the state at a scale of1:250,000. Conduct field and office studies and prepare geologic maps as required at scales larger than 1:250,000. The precise scale of maps should vary with the complexity of geology and mineral potential. Maintain current files of all geologic data.
(4) The Research Unit Should:
Develop improved minerals exploration methods. Develop improved rock analysis techniques. Analyze rock samples using wet chemistry, X-ray, physical, and other techniques. Conduct basic research in mineral properties and rock formation processes. Maintain core borings storage facility. Assist the Economic Geology, Regional Geology, and Water Resources Units in their analyses.
( 5) The Topographic Unit Should:
Coordinate requests and prepare plans for large-scale (1:62, 500 and 1:25, 000) topographic mapping of Georgia. Plan for updating completed topographic maps. Administer topographic mapping work conducted cooperatively with USGS.
-45-

Participate in cooperative topographic mapping work on a direct expenditure matching basis. Maintain stocks and distribute topographic maps.
(6) The Water Resources Unit Should:
Plan for the collection and analysis of water resources data. Administer water resource investigations conducted cooperatively with USGS. Participate in cooperative water resources investigations on a direct expenditure matching basis. Maintain up-to-date files of all water resources data.
( 7) The Administrative Unit Should:
Provide secretarial and stenographic services. Provide accounting and other administrative services. Provide report reproduction services. Maintain routine correspondence files. Maintain the technical publications library.
4. TRANSFER THE FUNCTIONS OF THE MINERALS LEASING COMMISSION
Under the Georgia Legislative Acts of 19 59, the responsibilities of the State Oil and Gas Commission for controlling and
regulating oil and gas production in Georgia were transferred to the
-46-

Director of the DMMG. Present responsibilities incident to leasing state lands for purposes of oil, gas, and other mineral explorations and production is vested by law in the Minerals Leasing Commission. A better coordinated conservation and development program could be achieved if the minerals leasing and policing functions were performed by the same agency. It is therefore recommended that the Minerals Leasing Commission be abolished and its duties and powers be transferred to the Director of the DMR.
The present level of activity in oil and gas exploration in Georgia is low and the Director's office can handle both the leasing and regulating functions. If future activity is accelerated, however, it might be desirable to constitute a separate "Conservation Unit" in the DMR to perform these functions.
5. STRENGTHEN THE LEADERSHIP OF THE DEPARTMENT
The Director of the DMR will have overall responsibility for developing DMR work programs and policies, administering the agency, and representing the DMR before the public and the Legislature. To perform these tasks well, the Director must have strong leadership qualities, a broad technical background, outstanding administrative talents, and a persuasive personality which engenders cooperation on the part of the many interested groups with which he must deal.
-47-

An Assistant Director for the DMR is also needed to support the Director on internal management by supervising the day-to-day operations of the in- house staff and to assure continued leadership of the DMR in the Director's absence. It is highly desirable that the Assistant Director have personal and professional characteristics similar to those of the Director, though emphasis here should be more on his capacity for technical staff direction.
The technical capabilities of the Director and Assistant Director should lie in the fields of geology and mineral development. Both should preferably have graduate degrees in geology, though one might well be a mining engineer. Between them, the Director and Assistant Director should have extensive experience in each of the following technical specialties:
Basic geology Mineral economics, extraction, and processing Ground water geology or hydrology
The administrative and planning capabilities of the Director and the Assistant Director should be considered fully as vital as their technical competence. These individuals may be expected to spend nearly full time in project planning, controlling work done by others, and representing the DMR before the public and the Legislature. Previous experience in government or industry, plus a familiarity with the functions and practices of mineral resource agencies in
-48-

other states or the federal government, would be desirable, but not essential attributes for both the Director and Assistant Director.
The leadership ability, administrative talents, and technical competence of the Director and Assistant Director will substantially determine the success of the DMR program. None of these attributes should be overlooked in recruiting to fill the top management posts of the DMR.
6. EXPAND THE STAFF OF THE DMR
To conduct the recommended program properly, a total of 14 professional, 5 subprofessional, 8 nontechnical, and 4 part-time student employees is recommended. Exhibit X, following this page, shows the staff requirements of each functional unit as well as recommended minimum experience and educational levels for each staff member. All professional personnel should have at least a bachelor's degree in their chosen field; most should have graduate degrees. Five years' experience in their technical specialty should be a minimum requirement.
The personnel listed in Exhibit X would give the DMR a sound base in each of the technical specialties required to carry out the recommended program. It is considered as a minimum staff for the conduct of an effective program.
-49-

Unit
Office of the Director

Job Title Director
Assistant Director

Number Required
1
1

Administrative Aide

1

EXHIBIT X

State of Georgia, Governor's Commission for Efficiency and Improvement in Government

RECOMMENDED STAFF UST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF MINERAL RESOURCES

Minimum Educational Qualifications

Minimum Experience Requirements

M.S. Geology

10-12 years' experience, including

(Ph. D. desirable) service as a top administrator.

M.S. Geology or 10-12 years' experience, including

Mining

service as an administrator.

5 years' experience in office management and personnel administration.

Economic

Geologist

1

Geology Unit Mining Engineer

1

Driller

1

Assistant Driller

1

Draftsman

1

M.s. Geology M.S. Mining Engineering

5 years 5 years
5 years 2 years 3 years

Regional

Geologist

2

Geology Unit Assistant Geologist

2

Draftsman

1

Part-time Student

4

M.S. Geology B.S. Geology
Geology Student

5 years

~ <)

years

3 years

Topographic

Topographer

1

Unit

Water Resources Ground Water

1

Unit

Geologist

Hydrologist

1

Research Unit

Research Geologist

2

Chemist

1

Laboratory Assistant

1

Administrative Stenographer

2

Unit

Accountant

1

Librarian-Clerk

1

Varitypist

1

Reproducing Machine 1

Operator

Utility Worker

1

B.S. Civil Engineering and Lie. Land Surveyor

5 years

M.S. Geology
M.S. Hydrology
Ph. D. Geology (Geochemistry, Geophysics, or Stratigraphy) M.S. Chemistry

5 years
5 years 5 years
5 years 3 years 3 years !l years 3 years 2 years 3 years

3 years

7. INCREASE COMPENSATION LEVELS FOR PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES

The compensation levels of professional personnel in the DMMG are too low to attract and hold the highly qualified technical staff needed to carry out the recommended DMR program. The DMR must compete with private industry, the federal government, and the universities for professional staff members. Almost without exception, the salaries and perquisites offered by these competing agencies are more attractive than those now offered by the DMMG.

Recommended DMR median salaries and present median salaries for equivalent DMMG personnel are indicated below.

Position
Director Assistant Director Geologist (Ph. D.) Geologist or Engineer (M.S.) Geologist or Engineer (B. S. ) Chemist (M.S.) Draftsman Driller Assistant Driller Laboratory Assistant Administrative Aide Stenographer Librarian Bookkeeper Reproducing Machine Operator Varitypist Utility Worker

Present DMMG Median* Salary
$14,500 11,000 11,000 9,000 7,300
4,000 6,500 4,000
2,500

Recommended DMR Median* Salary
$18,000 14,000 13,500 12,000 9,000 11,000 6,000 6,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 4,000 3,500 3,500 3,000 4, 500 2,500

* The median salary represents the midpoint of the established salary range for the position
classification.
No salary authorized.

-50-

It is highly doubtful that the DMR can engage and retain highcaliber personnel for salaries lower than those recommended above. To employ personnel with less than recommended qualifications at lower than recommended salaries would not attract the requisite level of competence and would represent false economy.
8. INCREASE THE BUDGET OF THE STATE'S MINERAL RESOURCE AGENCY
Past expenditure patterns of the DMMG are shown in Exhibit XL
following this page. Total annual costs of DMMG operations increased from about $138,000 in 1955 to $276,000 in 1964. Additional contributions to the work of the USGS in Georgia accounted for about 70o/o of the increase.
A comparison of DMMG expenditures in 1964 with expenditures of mineral resource agencies in other states is given in Exhibit XII, following Exhibit XI. As shown, Georgia ranked 14th in the nation in expenditures.
The recommended program expansion and additions to the staff of the state mineral resource agency will involve substantially higher annual costs than the minimal programs and staff of the present DMMG. A suggested annual budget for the immediate future is shown on the following page. The recommended budget of $580,000 includes $233, 000 for salaries of DMR employees, $97, 000 for DMR operating
-51-

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
320 ,.......280 240 200 160 120 80

EXHIBIT XI
STATE OF GEORGIA, GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION FOR EFFICIENCY AND IMPROVEMENT IN GOVERNMENT
EXPENDITURES OF THE DMMG 1955- 1964
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
320
280
.............. 240
. . . . . ................................................................................ .......... .. ..
... : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :-:--:1 200
. . . . ................... .
:CONTRIBUTIONS TO USGS:. 160
120
80

40

40

0

1956

1957

1958

1959

1960

1961

1962

1963 1964

YEAR

EXHIBIT XII STATE OF GEORGIA, GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION FOR
EFFICIENCY AND IMPROVEMENT IN GOVERNMENT
BUDGETS OF STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEYS 1964
BUDGET ($M) k@fl:;;.j:#@ Over 600 ~ 400-600
1""'""""'1 200- 400
c::::=:J less than 200
NOTE: Numbers within states indicate national rank.

expenses, and $250,000 for cooperative work projects with the U.S. Geological Survey, as described in Chapter II.

Item
Staff Salaries Professional Nontechnical
Expenses Travel Communications Supplies (excluding printing) Publications Insurance Equipment Pensions Miscellaneous
Cooperative Programs with the U. S. Geological Survev Topographic mapping Water resources studies
Total annual budget

Cost

$208, 000 25, 000

$233, 000

$ 14, 000 6, 000
14, 000 20, 000
1, 000 20, 000 14, 000
7~

$ 96, 000

$100, 000 150, 000

250, 000 $580,000

Note: The salary costs shown above are based on the recommended median salaries described previously.

An annual budget of $580,000 would permit maintenance of a minimum departmental staff and a minimum desirable level of participation in cooperative water resources and topographic mapping work. A greater budget would permit more rapid collection of

-52-

necessary resource information; a lesser budget would force curtailment of desirable work programs. While a larger budget could easily be justified, it is believed that the above is realistic in light of competing demands for state funds and the ability of the new Department to adjust and accomrnodate to an expanded program.
-53-

IV. COORDINATING THE RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT EFFORT
Unilateral planning and action by any agency in Georgia concerned with mineral and water resource development and control can only foster duplication of effort and increase the cost and time required to obtain information needed by all agencies. Coordinated planning, on the other hand, can expedite the work of interested parties, eliminate duplication of effort, avoid gaps in essential information, and reduce the cost of collecting data. At present, no formal procedures exist for coordinating the work of agencies involved in resource development in Georgia. The absence of coordinative mechanisms is costly to the state, both in financial and development terms.
Chapter II cited the large number of agencies concerned with mineral and water resource development and with topographic mapping in Georgia. This chapter contains recommended methods for coordinating the work programs of all agencies to eliminate overlap, insure adequate coverage, reduce data collection costs, and accelerate data collection schedules.
-54-

To facilitate coordination of the mineral resource identification
and utilization, geologic mapping, minerals research, and water
resource work of the revitalized agency, steps should be taken to:
1. ESTABLISH A MINERAL RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The proposed Mineral Resources Advisory Committee would represent all of the major interests concerned with the development of the state's mineral and water resources. Members of the Committee,
to be appointed by the Governor, should include:
The Director, Department of Mineral Resources (Presiding Officer).
Four representatives of the state's mineral industries, including at least one professional geologist. Industry representatives should be appointed for overlapping terms of 4-years 1 duration. The Director, Department of Public Health. The Executive Director, Department of Industry and Trade.
The Director, State Highway Department.
One professor of geology from each of the following institutions of higher learning, to be nominated by the president thereof and appointed for overlapping terms of 4-years 1 duration:
University of Georgia Georgia Institute of Technology Emory University Georgia State College The Chief, USGS, Georgia District (ex officio).
-55-

The functions of the Mineral Resources Advisory Committee would be:
To represent the needs of their particular interests To present and exchange information on the resource development programs planned by their own agencies To assist the Director of the DMR in planning the state's long- and short-range programs To coordinate the activities of their own respective agencies and organizations with the activities of the DMR
The Committee would thus serve in a clearing house, planning, and coordinating role without operating or financial authority. While its primary thrust should be directed to the program of the Department of Mineral Resources, its existence and deliberations should be of distinct collateral benefit to all agencies.
The Director of the DMR should serve as presiding officer of tLt~ Mineral Resources Advisory Committee. The Committee members should meet with the Director at least semi-annually, in March and September of each year, to review the proposed future programs of their own respective agencies and to advise the Director of their own needs for additional data. Based upon the declared programs and needs of outside agencies and the DMR's own data requirements, the Director can then intelligently prepare longand short-range plans for the activities of the DMR. The Committee
-56-

is intended to serve in an advisory capacity to the Director of the DMR. It should have no governing power but in matters of transcendent public interest should have the privilege of making direct representations to the Governor.
To facilitate the reorganization and rebuilding of the DMR as
recommended in Chapter IlL it is suggested that the Governor take
immediate steps to appoint the Mineral Resources Advisory Committee. Once it is appointed, the Governor might well counsel with the Committee concerning procedures incident to the search for and selection of suitable candidates for the position of Director of the new Department of Mineral Resources.
2. ESTABLISH A MAPPING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Several public and private agencies outside the DMR will probably make greater use of the topographic maps produced by the DMR than will the DMR itself. A mechanism is therefore required through which each of these agencies can make its needs known to the DMR in the interest of a unified and relevant program. It is recommended that a Mapping Advisory Committee be established to perform this function.
The Committee would represent the major users of topographic maps in the state. Members of the Committee, to be appointed by the Governor, should include:
-57-

The Director, Department of Mineral Resources (Presiding Officer) The Director, State Highway Department The Executive Director, Department of Industry and Trade The Commissioner, Department of Agriculture One representative of the county governments-4-year term One representative of the city governments-4-year term One representative from each of the following institutions of higher learning, to be nominated by the presidents thereof and appointed for overlapping terms of 4-years' duration:
University of Georgia Georgia Institute of Technology Emory University Georgia State College The Chief, USGS, Georgia District (ex officio)
The Director of the DMR should serve as presiding officer of the Mapping Advisory Committee. The Committee should meet with the Director at least once annually to assist him in developing a statewide consensus of mapping needs, consolidating all requests for mapping into a single program and defining priority needs for maps. Priority needs must be identified annually since requirements will inevitably change, necessitating adjustments in long-range plans.
-58-

Priorities established by the Committee would indicate the maps most urgently needed by the state and would serve as guidelines for the USGS mapping program. The Mapping Advisory Committee might also define the standards of scale, contours, and contents desired in topographic maps of the state.
The Mapping Advisory Committee would serve in an advisory capacity to the Director of the DMR. Final decisions as to mapping priorities and standards for DMR should be made by the Director.
Mapping advisory committees similar to that recommended for Georgia have been employed in many states to expedite and coordinate topographic mapping. Among the states having active advisory committees are Alaska, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.
3. CONSIDER FUTURE ESTABLISHMENT OF A UNIFIED DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
Its mineral wealth is but one of Georgia's many natural resources. Its lakes and streams, forests, and fertile soil are other, equally valuable resources. Because the forces and elements of nature are so intimately linked, whenever man alters one element, others are almost certain to be influenced. So it is that a change in stream flow can destroy existing land forms, and create new ones, that mining often eliminates excellent agricultural land, and that the
-59-

very existence of forests is influenced by the characteristics of the base soil and the availability of suitable water resources.
To plan unilaterally for the development or conservation of any one resource or use is to endanger the goal of maximum coordinated utilization. Only when all resource planning and development are brought together in a rational pattern of public policy is optimum utilization assured. For this reason, it is recommended that consideration be given to establishing a single agency responsible for developing and protecting all of the state's resources. Such an agency, properly organized and staffed, could do much to foster coordinated resource planning.
The responsibility for development and conservation of Georgia's resources is now greatly segmented. Among the public agencies at the state level concerned just with the water resources of Georgia are the Department of Public Health, the Water Quality Control Board, the Game and Fish Commission, the Soil Conservation Commission, and the Department of Mines, Mining and Geology. Numerous other agencies at local and national levels are also concerned in some way with Georgia's water resources. A proliferation of other public and private agencies is concerned with Georgia's mineral wealth, her forests, and her soils.
-60-

In 1937, the Georgia Legislature created a new division of the state government called the Division of Conservation. The Governor was named ex officio Commissioner of the Division, which included four departments:
1. Department of Mines, Mining and Geology 2. Game and Fish Department 3. Department of Forestry 4. Department of State Parks
The Division of Conservation never developed as an effective operating entity within the state government. In time, the Game and Fish Departn1ent and the Department of Forestry, broke away from their divisional relationship.
Since the Division of Conservation was not in 1937 and is not now an effective coordinative tool, a need still exists for a single state agency responsible for coordinating all natural resource development and conservation. Detailed planning of the structure of a state conservation agency is beyond the scope of this study. However, we strongly urge that the Governor and his advisors give serious consideration to the creation of a unified Department of Conservation embracing the development, conservation, and use of:
Mineral resources Forests Water resources Soils
-61-

The suggested coverage of a Department of Conservation includes only the closely related, inanimate natural resources of the state. It might also prove desirable at some future time to incorporate the present Game and Fish Department and the Department of State Parks as operating units in the Department of Conservation. Such a combination of interacting functions in a single operating entity represents an emerging pattern of state government organization in the United States. It would be well for Georgia to give serious attention to this future development.
As an interim step in the process of establishing a unified, effective Department of Conservation, it is suggested that the Governor create an interagency conservation committee to establish communications on matters affecting conservation of the state's natural resources and to advise on coordinative measures. The proposed conservation committee should include the following members:
The Commissioner of Agriculture The Director, Game and Fish Department The Director, Department of Forestry The Director, Department of Mineral Resources The Director, Department of State Parks The Director, Department of Public Health The Director, Planning Division, Department of Industry and Trade Executive Secretary, Water Quality Control Board
-62-

The presiding officer of the conservation committee should be designated by the Governor. The committee should meet at least quarterly to review the activities of the departments represented, to explore opportunities for mutually advantageous planning and action, and to draft a plan for coordinated resource conservation.
4. IF NOT INCORPORATED IN A STATE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT, THE DMR SHOULD CONTINUE AS AN INDEPENDENT AGENCY LOCATED IN ATLANTA
The Department of Mines, Mining and Geology is an operating agency of the executive branch of government. It has no governing board or commission. Its head is appointed by and reports to the Governor. In our judgment, this role and relationship is optimal and should not be changed since the present arrangement affords both the Governor and the agency head better program and operational control. The proposed agency is sufficiently important and unique in its purposes to warrant departmental status.
Proposals have been made in the past that the state's mineral resource agency be incorporated into the Department of Industry and Trade, the agency charged with responsibility for promoting industrial development in Georgia. The mineral resource agency can and should be of direct service to the Department of Industry and Trade. However, differences between the primary objectives of DMR and those of Industry and Trade would make a combined department impractical
-63-

and unwise. The DMR is intended to be responsible for identification and evaluation of all of the state's minerals and water resources. Industry and Trade is essentially a marketing agency responsible for promoting the development of all types of industries. A technical, professional organization responsible for basic data collection should not, in our opinion, be subordinated to an organization which is essentially promotion-oriented. Furthermore, while the DMR has an important economic contribution, it should be recognized that it also serves educational and scientific purposes. The incorporation of the state mineral resources agency into the Department of Industry and Trade is, therefore, not recommended, although it is clearly recognized that the DMR should effectively support and service the economic development agency.
From the perspective of the state as a whole, it is essential that the Department view itself as providing public services to meet the full range of need relevant to its purposes and not be tied institutionally or physically to any single sector of its spectrum of essential relationships. It can best serve this broad public function as a separate and distinct entity located at the government center in Atlanta.
But it is imperative that the Department widen the scope of its relationships and broaden its contribution to the public interest by helping to mobilize all facilities and efforts in the state which can be
-64-

useful to the resource function. This is particularly important with respect to the institutions of higher learning of the state, notably the University of Georgia and Georgia Tech. These universities are vital to the upgrading and extension of the state's research and development effort in mineral resources. No single agency or institution can encompass all the services or activities requisite to the state's purpose; the need for facilities and services will in all likelihood always exceed availabilities and this makes cooperation and coordination essential.
The present Department has not succeeded in fostering a relationship which permits intimate and collaborative cooperation with those divisions of the universities concerned with geology and mapping. While the new Department is intended to have adequate staff and equipment of its own in Atlanta, the DMR should take leadership in establishing mutually beneficial relationships which would permit full utilization of the special skills and equipment of the universities. This is one of the principal ways in which the Department can expand its outreach. In turn, the universities can greatly benefit from such a partnership by broadening their services and extending their educational resources.
-65-