268 



IDliere should be considered as part of the natural governmental evolu- 

 tion in reorganization. We can proceed with a step now that can be 

 taken without prejudicing, perhaps actually enhancing, a future, more 

 broad-scale reorganization. 



A fourth argument is that removal of major complements from 

 existing agencies would degrade the agencies' capability to carry on 

 non-ocean-oriented functions. 



NASCO hesitates to recommend specific existing agencies that ought 

 to be clustered into a new Federal organization. Decisions on this point 

 encompass more than scientific capability. However, we should be more 

 concerned with what needs to be done than with whether an existing 

 agency should be maintained intact. 



The importance of mission-oriented ocean research has long been 

 recognized by NASCO and the degree to which a specific ocean mission 

 is divorced from other missions is indeed a complex question. Capa- 

 bility of an existing agency to perform essentially a nonocean mission 

 should not be limited by denying it a role in ocean research, in our 

 opinion. NASCO's view is that the particular agencies that may be 

 brought together for forming a new organization is not nearly so im- 

 portant as recognizing that there is a new job to be done over and apart 

 from that which any existing agency is doing. 



A fifth argument that has come up is that the proposed combination 

 of agencies for NCAA is wrong. 



I do not wish to suggest that the Committee on Oceanography sup- 

 ports the view that the specific combination of agencies suggested by 

 the Commission for NOAA is necessarily the optimum combination. 

 As individuals, we have different views on whether certain organiza- 

 tions should or should not be included as well as whether some orga- 

 nizations not identified by the Commission should be added to the pro- 

 posed NOAA, Many factors must be considered. Many groups and 

 organizations and the agencies must be heard from. 



However, we do believe that the establishment of a single ocean 

 agency is in the best interest of the Nation and of the science of ocean- 

 ography. While we are more expert on the latter point than the former 

 one, we do not believe that we are politically naive on the former point. 



From a science point of view, most of us are very receptive to the 

 idea that the ocean and atmosphere be examined as part of one physical 

 system. On the other hand, the program of atmospheric control for 

 weather pollution in an inland city, or the suppression of hail in the 

 Rocky Mountain area may bear little relationship to the ocean problem. 

 If one asks the question, can the meteorological activity and oceano- 

 graphic activity be mutually advanced by common administration, one 

 is likely to arrive at a positive answer, provided that in the process 

 neither one of these very important areas of science is subjugated to 

 the other. 



On the coastal zone question, it is necessary to ask whether the 

 coastal zone problems are really oceanographic in nature. Some of the 

 important agencies that deal with coastal zone problems do not appear 

 to have been considered in the Commission's recommendations, for 

 example, the Corps of Engineers of the Department of Defense which 

 plays a very large role in coastal zone activities. 



The specific mission for a new organization as seen by the Commis- 

 sion therefore appears to have a dichotomy — to be oriented on the one 



