146 MARINE SCIENCE 



Your bill could be the mechanism for focusing interest on the biological fea- 

 tures of atomic waste disposal, and it is obvious that this was your intention. 

 However, almost all of the money proposed for research could be spent on 

 physical studies if the expenditures were not more fully specified. I respectfully 

 suggest that this section be tightened. We concur with the objectives set forth, 

 but on the basis of experience we urge amendment to insure adequate provision 

 for biological research in the field of radioactivity in the ocean. 



The other important area of omission concerns the operations of non-Federal 

 research agencies. As you are aware, the fisheries conservation agencies of 

 many coastal States conduct excellent and valuable marine research programs. 

 All the States of the Pacific coast — California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska, 

 not to mention Hawaii — have excellent research staffs and facilities, including 

 laboratories and experimental stations, and some have research vessels. I am 

 sure that you are personally acquainted with both the work and the men who 

 are doing it. Surely the know-how and facilities of these State agencies should 

 have a place in any nationwide program of expansion. 



We feel strongly that the inclusion of existing programs, staffs, laboratories, 

 and vessels of the State agencies which are vitally concerned would add strength 

 to a nationwide program. Providing for their expansion as part of a coordinated 

 program would insure a broader base for accomplishment than only expansion 

 of Federal agencies. 



I am sure that this apparent oversight was not intended by you, and it could 

 be corrected by minor amendment. 



The State agencies may or may not be included in references on page 5 (lines 1 

 to 5, and 15 to 18), page 6 (lines 1 to 10), and page 7 (lines 12 to 15). Perhaps 

 the expression "institution" would include a fisheries department, or perhaps 

 it refers only to an academy or laboratory. A clarification would be helpful. 



It is also not clear on page 9 (lines 15 to 20) whether State fisheries research 

 agencies would qualify. Our interpretation would be that they do, but without 

 clarification we could be overlooked when the new program is adopted. 



We are not sure what the term "cooperate" means as used on page 10, line 18. 

 Does this mean that Interior would merely work in a cooperative manner or 

 does it imply that Interior will contract with the States? A similar question 

 arises on page 25 (line 9) . 



Throughout pages 12 and 13 the numerous references to expanded programs 

 definitely imply the exclusion of State fisheries agencies which under the Con- 

 stitution and State laws are responsible for conducting the research upon which 

 conservation programs are based. A more equitable approach would be to 

 include the State agencies. We have no wish to take over, but only to be recog- 

 nized and included in an expanded program. We believe that our accomplish- 

 ments so warrant. 



In the section on the Department of Commerce, which deals mostly with physi- 

 cal aspects, the bill recognizes State agencies and institutions. It would appear 

 that in this field, the responsibilities and rights of the States are recognized. 

 The States are also given some recognition in the section on the Atomic Energy 

 Commission. 



Therefore, the omission of the States in the section on the Department of the 

 Interior has us puzzled. I hope I am wrong on this, but without some amend- 

 ment I am concerned that the highly qualified State agencies which have re- 

 sponsibilities under the law would not be included in an expanded program. 

 This would be regrettable in a program that is so vital to the Nation's survival 

 that everyone capable of helping should be included. 



The State of California operates seagoing research vessels and plans to con- 

 tinue doing so. One vessel is fast approaching obsolescence and will soon need 

 replacement. Another is on loan from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We 

 are vitally interested in continuing our seagoing research. We are sure it has a 

 place in the overall program that your bill envisages. With our men and our 

 know-how we can play an important part in an expanded program if we can 

 share in the expansion. If your bill is a means toward modernizing our research 

 fleet so much the better. 



To duplicate the laboratories and staffs of the States could be wasteful. To 

 provide for a coordinated expanded program with everyone pulling his share of 

 the load would be economical and lead to success. 



