262 



More recently in considering this subject for a response to questions 

 raised by the Marine Commission staff, NA'SCO furnished the follow- 

 ing statement to Mr. Lawrence : 



The management of oceanography in the federal government has grown in com- 

 plexity and has necessitated decisions at high levels in the federal executive 

 structure as the program has expanded. We are nOw at a crucial stage when deci- 

 sions must be made that will affect our nation's ability to understand and use the 

 ocean in the decades ahead. "We visualize both an improved organizational struc- 

 ture and a many-fold increase in the level of effort required to meet these chal- 

 lenges and take advantage of opportunities. By far the bulk of this effort will be 

 in the areas of ocean engineering and resources development. 



The Committee on Oceanography believes that the nation needs : 



(1) a major Increase in our capacity to do things in the ocean, 



(2) a major increase in ocean-going and shore facilities, 



(3) a major increase in brainpower, 



(4) a major increase in federal funding, and 



( 5 ) a new oceanographie management structure. 



The justifications for a major increase in our national ocean program have 

 been documented elsewhere. Foremost among them are : national defense, exploi- 

 tation and use of ocean resources (food, fuel, minerals, waste disposal, trans- 

 portation, recreation), international cooperation and leadership, and weather and 

 climate prediction. If we take appropriate steps now, our nation can retain its 

 leadership in ocean activities and our future right to use the ocean and its re- 

 sources. "We estimate that the future cost* of this effort will be less than our 

 present space program — $5 billion per year — ibut more than $1 billion per year. 

 If present trends continue, it will take us more than ten years to grow to the $1 

 billion level. This is not fast enough to meet our stated national goals to under- 

 <stand and use the sea. 



While a substantial share of the effort sketched above should be developed 

 within the broad, general missions of the several government agencies now in- 

 volved in oceanography, we do not feel that the management structure required 

 for this magnitude of effort now exists, nor that a program of this scope can be 

 managed effectively unless there is a commensurate change in the management 

 structure. The change in structure should have early attention to facilitate plan- 

 ning and setting of priorities. 



We can already see major ocean engineering and resources development pro- 

 grams that are many times larger in themselves than the mission assignments of 

 any one of the several agencies. Some examples include : networks of oceanic 

 buoys; deep-ocean habitats; data transmission, processing, collecting, and dis- 

 semination ; and applied engineering and research on materials. These and many 

 other engineering and resource development programs are of overriding national 

 importance, of interest to several agencies, but not appropriately assigned to any 

 single existing agency. Cooperative multiagency programs of sufiicient intensity 

 and complexity to solve these problems might be mounted provided a strong 

 supplemental funding and coordination were available. Historical performance 

 of federal agencies in dealing with large, multipurpose programs, however, sug- 

 gests that multiagency coordination will be less effective than the creation of a 

 neiw management structure. 



Accordingly, NASOO recommends that : to meet the national needs in the dec- 

 ades ahead it is essential that there be major increase in the tools, facilities, 

 brains and dollars available for study and exploiting the seas. If this is to be 

 aceomtplished, the present government organization for supporting oceanography 

 must be modified. This modified management structure should recognize a new 

 mission largely related to support of ocean engineering and marine resource 

 development. It should fill the gaps between existing programs. 



That is the close of the quote from the statement which we trans- 

 mitted to Dr. Lawrence in response to the questions posed by the Com- 

 mission's staff. 



I would like to more on and review briefly the principal arguments 

 that have been identified by NASCO on the question of a single agency 



•There are several ways to measure the total cost of a national ocean program. We 

 are using the criteria now adopted by the National Council on Marine Resources and 

 Engineering Development. 



