252 



ing at a rate of roughly 6 per cent per year. 

 During the past 5 years the budget for Coast 

 Guard operations has increased an average of 

 6 per cent annually, excluding funds to meet 

 rising cost and pay levels; ESSA's operating 

 budget has increased an average of 8 per cent ; 

 BCF, an average of 5 per cent. The expan- 

 sion in funding proposed by the Commission 

 is not greatly in excess of these recent growth 

 rates. Also, changing conditions permit some 

 shifting in the internal programming of 

 agency funds. To some extent the new pro- 

 grams recommended by the Commission may 

 be able to be financed through curtailment of 

 activities which are no longer necessary. 



The Commission wishes to emphasize that 

 its estimates are keyed only to the costs of 

 implementing the specific recommendations 

 advanced in its report. It should be under- 

 stood that there are funding needs for essen- 

 tial parts of a total national effort in oceanic, 

 atmospheric, and related activities for which 

 estimates have not been included in the 

 Commission's totals. For example, the Com- 

 mission is aware that many agencies of the 

 Federal Government have serious require- 

 ments for funding to maintain such ongoing 

 programs as for replacement of obsolete 

 ships, facilities, and equipment of the Coast 

 Guard, ESSA, and BCF, but we have not 

 felt that in this area we could improve upon 

 the projections included in existing agency 

 plans. 



As further examples, there are such pro- 

 grams as the water pollution control activi- 

 ties of FWPCA, the dredging activities of 

 the Corps of Engineers, and the weather serv- 

 ice programs of ESSA which are well estab- 

 lished, of reasonable magnitude, and respond 

 to a variety of needs. Although we have not 

 attempted to provide estimates for strength- 

 ening such activities, we recognize that there 

 will be substantial additional funding re- 

 quirements. The fact that such costs have not 



been included must not be taken to imply 

 that these needs are regarded by the Commis- 

 sion as having a lesser priority. 



In particular, it should be noted that the 

 estimates for Department of Defense pro- 

 grams have been provided only for selected 

 activities which relate intimately to civil 

 functions. The Commission has assumed that 

 Defense support for marine science and tech- 

 nology will continue to expand in response to 

 military needs and has not attempted to pro- 

 ject the costs which may be incurred in carry- 

 ing forward their marine-related military 

 programs. Funds for such other special-pur- 

 pose activities as the shellfish sanitation pro- 

 gram of the Public Health Service and the 

 Atomic Energy Commission's studies of the 

 use of nuclear technology for harbor exca- 

 vations have also been excluded from the 

 estimates. 



Finally, the Commission notes that it has 

 addressed only Federal expenditures. Com- 

 mensurate investment will be required of in- 

 dustry to build the systems needed to harvest 

 the sea's resources, and State and local gov- 

 ernments will need to commit additional 

 funds to meet their responsibilities under 

 the Commission's recommended plan. The 

 Commission expects that action at the Fed- 

 eral level to implement its recommendations 

 will, however, stimulate additional private 

 investment and tlie necessary State and local 

 government efforts. 



Present Funding Levels 



The Commission encountered considerable 

 difficulty in determining the present level of 

 effort in marine science, engineering, and re- 

 source development. One problem is that the 

 definitions of these terms vary from person to 

 person and agency to agency. Another is that 

 the budget information from the agencies 

 often does not show the distinction between 



