In the September 1, 1992, issue of Eos, Carl Kisslinger constructively proposed that, in conjunction with the Decade for Natural Hazards Reduction, AGU convene a panel to examine possible improvements in the structure of federal agencies involved in Earth‐oriented science. This is a sensible and timely action, and the AGU membership has too much at stake on this issue to leave it to the bureaucrats and politicians. We would probably be surprised at our different perspectives on the missions and roles of the agencies and our collective ignorance of what functions they actually perform.Some consolidations may be in order, but there are many dimensions to any possible restructuring. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is ostensibly the “national environmental prediction agency,” although it has survey and regulatory functions, too. The Environmental Protection Agency is primarily an “environmental regulatory agency,” although it has clean‐up and research functions as well. Would it be wise to place the environmental prediction and protection features in the same organization, and how could it be made safe to do so? Or would it be better to join NOAA and the U.S. Geological Survey (and other elements of the Department of the Interior, a high‐quality geophysical survey, monitoring, and process‐knowledge agency)? Also, how will the civil and military Earth and environmental science entities be best connected in the future? A very careful examination of functionalities as well as disciplines is needed.