267 



Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 



Woods Hole, Mass., July 16, 1969. 

 Hon. Alton A. Lennon, 



Chairman, Subcommittee on OceoMography, Committee on Merchant Marine and 

 Fisheries, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Wash- 

 ington, B.C. 

 My Dear Congressman Lennon : I wish to associate myself with the content of 

 Dr. John C. Calhoun's letter to you dated June 27th. He has written you as an 

 extension of remarks which were made when .several members of the Committee 

 on Oceanography of the National Academy of Sciences testified before the Sub- 

 committee. Since he is writing you as an individual, I wish to add my support 

 to this position. 



All members of the Committee on Oceanography feel strongly that the Com- 

 jnission report must be implemented through early action in Congress. If there 

 Is any way we can assist you in your fine endeavors, please let us know. 

 Sincerely yours, 



Paul M. Fte. 



Dr. Calhoun. A second argument that came up in our discussions 

 is that important ocean tasks could be assigned to separate "lead" 

 agencies, 

 "This suggestion is a variation on the first theme. It has some merit 

 but again it has weaknesses, and we think they are twofold. 



If different major tasks of oceean technology development are as- 

 signed to different agencies — for example, development of an opera- 

 tional buoy network to one agency and a national data collection proc- 

 essing and dissemination facility to another agency — ^there is loss of the 

 advantages of efficiency and flexibility that should result if both are 

 managed by one agency. 



If several major tasks are assigned to a single lead agency there could 

 develop in that agency a major ocean- oriented thrust that, if properly 

 managed, could grow to a proportion where the original non-ocean- 

 oriented missions of the agency would take second place. 



In either case there is a loss. 



Oceanography in the United States has come of age and there is 

 every reason to expect that in the next decade the ocean- oriented ac- 

 tivities of our Nation will expand manifold. The forces that are driv- 

 ing us in this direction will produce this high level of activity whether 

 a new agency is created or not. Thus, within the next decade we will 

 need a managerial structure in our Government to match this activity. 

 If this structure grows in one of the existing agencies, it can only thrive 

 at the cost of other vital and legitimate missions. 



Third, the argument is presented that the establishment of NOAA 

 should be deferred pending studies of the need for an agency of the 

 environment. 



In my opinion there is merit to the proposal that an agency of the 

 environment be established. While this is not the place to examine in 

 detail the problems of reorganization of our Government, we should 

 recognize that such matters are under continual study and review. 



Furthermore, we should remember that our Grovernment structure 

 is flexible and does change. One such major and courageous change 

 was taken immediately after World War II when three departments 

 of military forces were combined into one Department of Defense, 

 Similar steps could be taken now to strengthen and make our Govern- 

 ment more efficient in the area of natural resources and environments. 



However, I do not foresee such steps being taken in the next few 

 years. In this context, the proposed agency for the oceans and atmos- 



