296 



'Mr. Lennon. With that I agree. We would be delighted to hear from 

 you, Dr. Pritchard. 



Dr. Peitchard. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 



I might per'haps be willing to speak a little more directly than Dr. 

 Calhoun. I would say this : The problem is that existing agencies are 

 not structured necessarily appropriately from the ocean standpoint. 

 That is we have a number of existing agencies whose mission en- 

 compasses broad aspects of the environment including the ocean and 

 so to consider how to put these agencies together in an ocean-oriented 

 system is difficult. 



You can say, "Well this one has more ocean 'orientation than not, 

 so we will put it in, but this one, while it has a significant amount of 

 ocean-oriented activity, has a larger activity associated with land, and 

 we won't." 



This is one reason why I would again support Dr. Calhoun's sug- 

 gestion that, if one didn't have to just assemble the agencies into a 

 single structure which were ocean-oriented but could assemble the 

 agencies which are concerned with natural resources and environ- 

 ment, and leave them a larger structure, and can now shuffle within 

 these agencies a group of activities which are ocean-oriented, thus we 

 accomplish the purpose. 



It is hard to see how to put this jigsaw puzzle together when the 

 pieces don't quite match now is the point I make. 



Mr. Lennon. We would be delighted to have the recommendations 

 of the Oceanography Committee of the National Academy of Sciences 

 in the form of suggested draft legislation. We would be delighted to 

 consider it and see what you folks really believe. 



Dr. Drake. May I comment on this, too? In my specific field, which 

 is geology and geophysics, the division as proposed is not quite ap- 

 propriate because the rocks don't really know w^hether they are under- 

 water or under the air. I would endorse most highly Dr. Calhoun's 

 recommendation that the idea of an agency dealing with natural 

 resources and environment should be considered. 



Anytime you try to split up the environment, you get into trouble 

 because, for example, one man's solution to a pollution problem is 

 another man's pollution. 



Mr. Lennon. One man's solution is another one's pollution. All of 

 us find ourselves in that situation. 



Dr. Drake, As soon as you divide up environment into separate 

 jurisdictions, one man will take his pollution out of the water and 

 put it in the atmosphere, or another takes it out of the atmosphere and 

 pumps it underground. In each case you are not really solving the 

 problem. You are just putting it into another jurisdiction. 



So I would endorse the idea of trying to draw these things together 

 into a single agency. 



Mr. Rogers. Would the gentleman yield ? 



Mr. Lennon. I will be delighted to yield at this point, 



Mr. Rogers. It seems to me that we are losing somewhat the thrust 

 of what we are trying to do. What we were trying to do in setting up 

 the Commission to make a study on oceanography is trying to empha- 

 size the development of resources in the sea and its associated resources. 



Now, we are trying now to consider an agency to bring that to the 



