137 



sciences and it seems to me that its purpose was to persuade us to keep 

 much of the responsibility for oceanography, that might under other 

 recommendations go to an independent agency in the Department of 

 Interior. So it is ^oing to be difficult, and I am glad that you are talk- 

 ing to Dr. DuBridge. I do not know anybody that has more interest 

 in this whole subject than you have and I appreciated the opportunity 

 of working with you. That is why I am particularly glad to catch up 

 with you today and say that I hope you will give some thought to 

 the program which is before the Fish and Wildlife Subcommittee now. 



Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Mr. Pelly. 



The gentleman from California ? 



Mr. Hanna. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



I find it completely and physically impossible to see eye to eye with 

 my colleague. On matters of this sort, however, and many others, he 

 knows that we have intellectually arrived at a single point. On this 

 testimony I find much with which I agree. I think because of youi- 

 comments and those of Mr. Pelly, it is true that logic and reason 

 is pointing us toward what Professor Bauer suggested yesterday, a 

 beter focal point for environmental management. But my friend knows 

 and the members of this committee know and I think Professor Bauer 

 knows that the mind of reason is often poisoned at the spring of historic 

 jurisdictions and mainly through the flows of jealousy that well so 

 often therein. That is the problem which Mr. Pelly has, I think, defined. 



In the interim, I think you are right that we should not wait to fight 

 on all fronts before we push the battle forward. 



I think the pattern has been established. That was start coordinating 

 committees, advisory councils, and I would like to add one other, that 

 is, a mission-oriented kind of interim agency, one that can get behind 

 projects which actually develop new materials and try out types of 

 engineering developments and have the interface back and forth. 



One thing that bothers me about the National Oceanographic and 

 Atmospheric Agency is that it does, unfortunately, leave out the ref- 

 erence to the land and, as the gentleman has pointed out in his very 

 excellent statement that he made on the floor the other day, one of the 

 problems of the Chesapeake Bay is obviously the sediments that flow 

 off the land. We have some concerns now about the pesticides and chem- 

 icals that flow off the land and in my ow^n area we have a reverse prob- 

 lem. We have these aquifiers which bring in salt water intrusions so 

 that there is a play both ways. There is a pollution of the hind in cer- 

 tain oceanic areas by the ocean and there is a pollution of the ocean by 

 certain land masses such as in your Chesapeake Bay. 



I think that these interfaces and the interactions are important on 

 the three points in our environment and we would not be doing a total 

 job until we direct ourselves to a solution. 



Mr. Morton. Certainly I would agree with my friend and colleague 

 from California. The question is, where do you grab the brass ring? 

 How do you start ? If we are going to consolidate apj)roaches and action 

 groups into a new concept of environmental management, first we have 

 to perfect the pieces. Perhaps the reason we have done so little in this 

 area is that we have not perfected the pieces. We have not developed 

 specific action-oriented programs in various sectors of environmental 

 managment which, at some point in time, we can put together into a 

 total management concept. 



26-563— 69— pt. 1 II) 



