765 
development of fundamental engineering technology. I agree that this 
is one of the areas that really needs to be beefed up, and the recommen- 
dations of the Commission are very useful in this regard. One does en- 
counter, however, the question, in both the atmosphere and the ocean, 
of how one splits off what this new group does from what NASA and 
FAA are doing on the atmospheric side, and what is being done by 
FWPCA, Maritime Administration, Corps of Engineers, Bureau of 
Mines, and so on, on the ocean side. But in general I think the recom- 
mendations would greatly strengthen this area that needs beefing up. 
Perhaps the weakest aspect of the new NOAA would be with respect 
to the function of resource management and intervention in the 
environment. 
It seems to me that the only complete transfer of existing responsi- 
bility to the new agency is in the area of living resources. In this case 
NOAA would take over all of the living marine resource functions 
from the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and the Bureau of Sport 
Fisheries and Wildlife. I should note that us folks who are concerned 
with fisheries would actually have the best of both worlds with this new 
organization, because we would have all of the fisheries-relevant mat- 
ters in one agency, and would have also the advantage of having in the 
same agency the air-sea interaction research and services helping to 
predict our fisheries. So from that standpoint I suppose I ought to be 
for it. 
However, I am not convinced, considering the importance of all the 
marine resources and various kinds of intervention in the environment, 
including such things as managing of petroleum and mineral resources 
on the outer continental shelf, or the problem of prevention and control 
of marine pollution, or beach and harbor maintenance, or ocean trans- 
portation, or recreation, that this would be the optimum solution for 
the Nation as a whole. 
NOAA, under the proposed scheme, would have the responsibility 
for a good deal of the research, exploration, survey and forecasting 
that the present resource-management agencies need, but the manage- 
ment responsibility would lie within those other agencies. I think this 
needs very careful consideration. 
So, I think one needs to ask whether it would be better to couple 
closely all of the functions concerning civilian uses of the ocean, even 
though some of them have important connections with the atmosphere, 
leaving the atmosphere sciences less closely coupled, rather than having 
a close coupling of certain aspects of sea and atmosphere, but leaving 
some of the functions of ocean resources management and environmen- 
ta] intervention outside. 
I will say that I agree with Dr. Calhoun and others who have testi- 
fied to this committee and written to the chairman, that creation of 
NOAA would be better than leaving everything the way it is now, but 
I also agree with them that a different kind of organization would be 
perhaps more desirable. 
My personal belief is that it would be very desirable to concentrate 
in a single agency all of the functions having to do with civilian uses 
of the ocean environment and ocean resources, and leave the coupling 
with atmospheric affairs a little more loose. 
_In other words, the kind of aggregation I would hope you might con- 
sider is taking the marine functions of all of the various bureaus and 
