810 
I want to say that I regret that so many members of the committee 
were not here to have the opportunity to hear both you and the witness 
who preceded you. They are excellent statements and provide food for 
a great deal of thought and consideration. 
Counsel. 
Mr. Curnean. I have one or two questions, if I may. 
Mr. Lennon. Yes. 
Mr. Cuinean. Mr. Brooks, I think it might be helpful for the mem 
bers at this point if they realized that your company probably has 
particular expertise in understanding the overlaps and conflicts in 
Government organization. It may make your comments with regard to 
a national agency more meaningful. 
If my memory serves me properly, wasn’t one of your research 
projects a national data buoy program for the Coast Guard ? 
Mr. Brooks. Yes, we are the Coast Guard’s prime contractor for the 
feasibility requirements and cost-effectiveness portions of that study. 
Mr. Crincan. That was a study that led you across many agency 
lines, was it not ? 
Mr. Brooks. Exactly. The Coast Guard is a lead agency for a wide 
number of Federal agencies with regard to this national program. 
Mr. Crinean. This, then, gave you the opportunity to see how many 
organizational conflicts there were in that study ? . 
Mr. Brooks. Yes. 
I might say that it led us to recognize that the lead agency concept 
is not in itself an entirely satisfactory solution toward developing 
national programs of that sort. In particular, a lead agency must rely 
on other agencies for the budgets which it spends presumably on their 
behalf. Budgetary support by a multiagency consortium is likely to 
be interrupted or discontinuous. For a program of the sort we have 
been engaged in thus can be disastrous by destroying the continuity 
and effectiveness of the research effort. 
Mr. Crrnean. As a matter of fact, this program which is one of 
the national projects recommended by the Commission is at present, 
even though it 1s under the aegis of a lead agency, suffering from 
what you refer to as budgetary starvation, is it not? 
Mr. Brooks. Yes. 
Mr. Crinean. You could say that this is an additional argument 
for putting together a stronger national organization ? 
Mr. Brooks. A stronger national organization with responsibility 
for that program I think would have a better chance of avoiding both 
starvation and periods of glut followed by starvation which are so 
very disruptive. 
Mr. Crinean. With regard to coastal zone authorities and coastal 
management, in which you have a lot of experience, I would like to 
get your opinion. How would you define as the coastal zone? 
I am sure you realize that in drafting coastal zone legislation, it 
will be very difficult to define the jurisdiction that the authority should 
have, how far inland it should go, and for what purpose it should go. 
Mr. Brooks. In this connection I think the Commission’s suggestion 
is extremely good. They suggest an outer boundary which is the terri- 
torial sea, which is at present a 3-mile extension to seaward from the 
low watermark. 
