228 SEA GRANT COLLEGES 



factory ships and support vessels. For our own internal reasons and for these 

 external reasons, the urgency for effective progress toward achievement of the 

 ideas of Dean Spilhaus and Senator Pell is very great indeed. 



Maryland's princii>al potential within the general field of the bill lies in acqui- 

 culture. The Chesapeake Bay has been extremely rich in the past and still con- 

 tains the potential for very high productivity, but its present yield is far below 

 those potentials. In these inshore waters, there are some of the best opportun- 

 ities in the world for careful culture of fish and especially of invertebrate animals 

 to achieve high quality, excellent volume, and economic efficiency. In these areas, 

 there is no serious problem of ownership of the yield because the State is the 

 owner of the aquatic area and of its resources and can assign clear title to in- 

 dividuals for efficient exploitation. 



Maryland already has an active program in this field, with a marine biological 

 laboratory which is the oldest on the east coast and has been active since 1932. 

 It Is conducting extensive research programs in marine fisheries and added studies 

 in basic productivity, estuarine geology, economics of marketing and related 

 fields. In addition, the university has a seafood processing laboratory engaged 

 in developing improved techniques for the handling and distribution of fishery 

 products. At the present time, we are just initiating a new program of research 

 on the resources of the estuaries of the Atlantic coast, to seek new uses for the 

 animals and plants which are now caught and to explore the potentials of en- 

 tirely new commercial uses for other resources of the region. 



It is most pertinent in the review of this bill to recognize that all of the coastal 

 States are already making substantial investment in oceanography and in the ap- 

 plication of science to the uses of the sea. These approaches are naturally con- 

 centrated on the inshore environment and on fisheries, but these, after all, offer 

 the greatest promise of immediate and visible achievement in improved utili- 

 zation of the sea. 



In 1964, I canvassed all of the States that conduct programs in oceanography 

 and prepared a paper titled "State Programs in Oceanography, 1964." This was 

 a survey of the non-Federal acti^aties operated at that time by 25 coastal States. 

 All of them have substantial and continuing programs in oceanography and it 

 is especially pertinent to note that at least 20 of them involve a college or uni- 

 versity in these oceanographic efforts. Complete details are available for any- 

 one with more specific interests, but the summary figures may serve the purposes 

 of this hearing. In 1964. the States were investing about .$7.5 million a year in 

 oceanography. Of this investment, about $5.6 million was in research, $1 mil- 

 lion in teaching, $0.4 million in data processing, and $0.5 million in other activities. 

 The States possessed $20..3 million worth of capital facilities for oceanographic 

 work, including $15.3 million in buildings, $4.1 million in boats, and $0.9 million 

 in other special facilities. 



Eight hundred and thirty-one people were employed by the States in these 

 programs, including 463 trained professionals. Of these trained individuals, 148 

 held a doctor's degree and 87 held a master of science or its equivalent. 



The States were publishing at that time about 368 publications or reports a 

 year on related subjects and they had published nearly 4,000 papers on 

 oceanography. 



This strength of activity which already exists suggests a possible pattern for 

 application of Federal funds to achieve rapid and effective improvement in the 

 application of science to marine production. I would like to suggest that the 

 National Sea Grant College and Program Act be amended to provide a dual 

 program of support for college and university work in oceanography. 



1. The first portion of the program would provide matching funds for non- 

 Federal investment at colleges and universities in marine sciences. In my 

 opinion, these should include education, research, advisory services, and develop- 

 ment. The non-Federal contribution might be in the forms of facilities, staff 

 and operating expenses. I believe that the great and fundamental advantage 

 of local participation would best be gained by a 50-50 matching basis for this 

 program. 



It is of utmost importance that a mechanism be created to screen this program 

 for competence. It should never be an open and unrestricted access to large 

 sums of money without demonstration of quality or a potential for achievement 

 of good quality. 



2. The second portion of the bill would create a program of long-term insti- 

 tutional grants to selected colleges and universities which are now making 

 distinguished contributions or show promise of making unvisual contributions 

 to the effective development and application of marine sciences. This should 



