coverage of all water in one place. I think I one time served on a water resources committee and I know that we had excellent cooperation from bureau chiefs but committees really do not cooperate very much and I don't think that coordinators have too much influence, and all due respects to them.

Senator JORDAN. You made a good statement.

Senator ANDERSON. Dr. Horning, as Scientific Adviser to the President, has recently coordinated the patent policy and I had some participation in that. When we finished, I think we had completely dismembered all the ideas that we had started with because he had no authority to enforce what he was talking about. The President or the head of the Bureau of the Budget have a little authority over the purse.

Thank you, very much.

We welcome our neighbors from Colorado and we are very happy to have you here.

STATEMENT OF DR. WALTER 0. ROBERTS, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH; ACCOMPANIED BY EDMUND L. WOLF

Dr. ROBERTS. Senator Anderson, with your permission I would like to invite my colleague and assistant, Mr. Edmund L. Wolf, to assist me. Senator ANDERSON. We are glad to have you, Mr. Wolf.

Dr. ROBERTS. Senator Bible and Senator Jordan, it is a pleasure to be here this morning. It is a pleasure for me to have any opportunity to come to the State of New Mexico to be in this wonderful, wonderful place. I have made many trips here years ago as an astronomer to the Sacremento Peak Observatory, one of the outstanding basic research laboratories in the world in solar physics. So, it is a pleasure to be back here again.

Senator ANDERSON. They have a new telescope down in that area. You ought to try it out.

Dr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir. Well, if it hadn't been for the extraordinary atmospheric science problem I would still be an astronomer and prob ably be using that new telescope down on Sacremento Peak myself. Senator ANDERSON. We still welcome you.

Dr. ROBERTS. It is a pleasure to appear before you and to discuss the promise of weather modification and of the atmospheric sciences in general. These hearings add to the evidence of a growing national interest in the atmospheric sciences and what these sciences can do for the benefit of mankind. There are few scientists, I think, who are not heartened by the prospect of a national effort to apply the fruits of their labor to practical problems.

Many highly qualified people have already appeared in hearings this year, both before your committee and before the Senate Commerce Committee. A comprehensive record has been built up through this, reflecting often conflicting views on our present state of knowledge, on our immediate ability to increase our water resources by atmospheric modification, and most important, on what kind of a national program will reap the greatest possible ultimate benefit.

The current state of the art of weather modification dictates a very high priority on ultimate benefits. You have heard that there is

statistical evidence that precipitation can be increased under certain circumstances. You have also heard that our knowledge at the present time is very rudimentary. Without further research and development, we would be wasteful and perhaps foolish to extrapolate our current experience immediately into full-scale operational river-basinscale cloud seeding schemes. Nonetheless, we still know how to proceed along this path toward such schemes, and we are, I believe, at a stage of knowledge now sufficient to permit us to design some pilot schemes for specific river watersheds.

You have also heard that there are other potential methods of weather and climate modification that are, even though some of them are still in the speculative class, so important in their possible consequences that they merit a major scientific and engineering attack. In the next few years there is a good chance, to mention one of the least speculative of these prospects, that we can develop reliable and practical methods to lessen damage from hailstorms, especially in regions like the high plains, where such storms are frequent and damage is great.

The prospect farthest in time, and perhaps most speculative but also probably of the greatest value, if it can indeed be attained, is that of altering the dominant large-scale circulations of the atmosphere, and thus the weather and climate over whole continents or hemispheres. In connection with the problems of this region, even if our sights are set solely on the objective of increasing water available in droughtstricken or normally arid regions, the attack via modification of the large-scale circulation features of the atmosphere may prove to be the most promising. The history of past climates revealed in treering records and superbly analyzed by the University of Arizona, by the migration of peoples, and by other means, amply illustrates nature's own, but still mysterious, means of climate modification. These effects can be very large.

Consequently, it is clear that we have only begun to tap the knowledge necessary to realize the full potential of atmospheric modification.

Nonetheless, we must not be concerned only with ultimate benefits when there are some significant benefits close at hand. Indeed, we have a clear responsibility to convert our current knowledge, rudimentary as it is, to reliable practical benefits in the shortest possible time, while still pursuing actively and vigorously our long-range goals. It is good to see the mounting support to pursue both longand short-term objectives on a scale commensurate with their importance.

I might add that I feel these hearings and that this bill is a major contribution.

I would be glad to submit for the record a more comprehensive description of the current state of the atmospheric sciences; but since the committee has received many such statements already, I propose to move directly to a number of recommendations concerning a national program, as I see it. Then I shall briefly describe the work at the National Center for Atmospheric Research that is related to weather modification and the role NCAR is prepared to play in a national program.

As I see it, the following are some of the essential ingredients of a sound national program in the atmospheric sciences in general and

in weather modification in particular. Their relevance to S. 2875 is, I think, direct.

Firstly we must make a broad effort. The national effort must move forward on a broad front. The principal elements must be, first, a vigorous applied research and development program, leading to pilot operations and then, if justified, to full-scale operations, in order to follow up quickly on our current knowledge and on new discoveries as they come along; and secondly, a broad program in basic research on atmospheric processes, without which the most valuable weather modification application will never be reached.

The entire range of weather modification possibilities, both short and long run, must be attacked, including cloud modification to increase precipitation, suppress hail and lightning, and dissipate fog; including air conservation, methods to alter the atmosphere's radiative balance, and other measures to alter large-scale features of weather and climate. We will shortchange ourselves if we adopt a narrower concept.

Precipitation processes are intricately linked to the atmosphere's general behavior, and to other possible means of weather modification. It follows, therefore, that research on the augmentation of precipitation is the siamese twin of atmospheric research in general. If, for example, I were asked to set up a new national laboratory aimed at basic research in the weather modification domain, I would seek almost completely to duplicate the very kinds of talents that we have in our own NCAR today. This shows how nearly identical, in my mind at least, are the weather modification and the atmospheric research disciplines. Only when we reach the stage of developing specific applications, that is, in applied research and engineering, does it make sense, in my view, to creat separate efforts.

The following are some major considerations concerning the organization of the national effort that deserve, in my view, close attention.

For the present, diversity of effort is more important than close central management. Too much centralization at this stage of the game may prevent us from simultaneous and independent pursuit of all promising research and development leads.

It follows that we will get the most for our money through a balanced investment in basic research, applied research, development, and pilot programs. Large expenditures poured directly and immediately into operational efforts, without adequate research and engineering development, can waste a lot of money. Worse still, they can bring results so ambiguous that you could not tell whether there had been benefits or not. Though I would welcome the prospect of increased funding for the atmospheric sciences as an absolutely necessary element, I believe that the amounts stated in S. 2875 to pursue the mission of the Department of Interior would, perhaps, produce an unbalanced program unless, of course, it is the intent of the bill to assign to the Interior the lead agency responsibility for weather modification research and development, in the very broadest sense. Even so, this would be truly productive only if this leadership is achieved over a period of years by an evolutionary method in which the scientific community is an active partner.

The urgency of getting on with the job is great, of course. Therefore, we should see to it that the dollars go where the competence, the

ideas, and the plans are. These are spread widely now among Federal agencies and in the private sector. Consequently, I would like to see the efforts of mission-oriented agencies, such as the Department of Interior, Environmental Science Services Agency, FAA, and so on, grow along independent but closely coordinated lines, dovetailing with expanded support of underlying research by the National Science Foundation.

There is a critical need to use manpower as well as dollars in a balanced way, simply because the current supply of manpower is so short. There are no more than a couple of thousand Ph. D. level atmospheric scientists in the entire world today. Many of them are in the universities, not only doing research, but helping to train the far larger number of atmospheric scientists that will be needed in the coming years. Thus, it is essential that these scientists stay in the universities, not in ivory tower isolation there, but fully aware of progress in applications and the contributions that they can make. As I will describe later, NCAR is now active in helping to link the university community with the Government agencies that have mission interests in the atmospheric sciences.

Within the concept of a multipronged national program, we must increase our ability to mount large, complex field experiments. As the report of the National Academy of Sciences' Panel on Weather and Climate Modification points out, we now lack the requisite management and support capabilities for the kind of large, complex, team research experiments which will increasingly characterize this field as we move closer to applications. To achieve this capability, some integration of the national effort should be brought about; but the integration should not go to the point of creating a single national focus now.

With respect to the responsibilities of the principal agencies in weather modification, I would recommend the following for the immediate future:

The Department of Interior's program in weather modification should continue vigorously. But its focus should be sharpened, so that an integrated program is effectively pointed at its major goal: to increase streamflow into reservoirs. The program should proceed on a step-by-step basis toward this goal and each part of this program should be judged by the way it serves the central goal. For example, following the small river valley experiments such as are now being conducted, and very skillfully, by the Bureau of Reclamation's contractors, Eugene Bollay & Associates, in the Steamboat Springs, Colo., area, and this is one example of several, the effort might move to pilot projects of greater scope designed single mindedly to enhance the water resource. Then, after a thorough evaluation of precipitation enhancement, and with a clear recognition of the limits of the knowledge achieved, a decision can be made on whether or not it makes economic good sense to expand such pilot operations to the full riverbasin scale. This kind of stepwise process will take a few years, but it will combine the prudent investment of the taxpayer's money with the soundest and promptest achievement of significant results. The Environmental Science Service Administration should have the shackles removed from its conduct or sponsorship of research and development work in atmospheric modification. Whatever lack of enthusiasm the Weather Bureau may have evidenced in the past is

irrelevant. Under the leadership of Dr. Robert M. White, ESSA is building its competence and has potentially major contributions to make as an active participant. Indeed, ESSA should be encouraged to take the broadest possible view of all possible modes of weather modification, and should undertake a leading role in assessing the potential benefits to life, property, and commerce to be derived from various possible weather modification schemes. In particular, I should like to see ESSA concentrate on research on large-scale general circulation modification schemes, since research in this area is closely tied to the development of a truly adequate world weather observing and predicting system, now under active consideration by ESSA, NASA, NSF, and others both inside and outside the Government and I might say also, both inside and outside the United States. As you no doubt know, President Johnson once again endorsed a national effort to achieve a world weather system in a statement on March 23d, which is World Meteorological Day, and he stated that the Department of Commerce should take the lead in this. His endorsement is a welcome one, for the achievement of adequate worldwide weather observations would clear away a critical bottleneck in atmospheric research and its applications and I shall discuss it in more detail later in my statement.

As you, sir, pointed out in the committee print giving the background for S. 2875, the National Science Foundation should expand its sponsorship of atmospheric research in general, and on weather modification in particular. Drawing an imaginary line limiting NSF to the sponsorship of basic research, as distinguished from applied research, should be, in my opinion, avoided. Often the scientist himself cannot tell when he has crossed this imaginary line, and furthermore, a scientist should be encouraged to proceed all the way from discovery of a new piece of knowledge to a demonstration of the principle of its applicability. This, after all, is what the public wants from science.

In my opinion, the performance of NSF and the universities in the field of atmospheric research has been grossly underrated during the recent debates on weather modification. Most of what we know today comes as the result of research carried out by university groups, and a large part of it was under NSF sponsorship. This is a pipeline, if you will, of productive knowledge that is of extreme value, and it should be kept in the best possible working order.

The thorough study of the administration and support of research and development in weather modification that was recommended by the National Academy Panel, should continue-through staff studies on Capitol Hill and in the executive branch, through continuing discussion among the scientific community, and through other means that assure the most accurate sounding of the opinions of all interested parties, including the public.

Hearings like this one today are, in my view, one of the valuable first step of this progress. The success of our efforts in weather modification will depend on the extent to which all the talent available can be drawn into enthusiastic cooperation. It is therefore my hope that the process will be a completely open one, involving atmospheric science interests in the Nation throughout the Nation as a whole.

There are other problems, of course, that must be taken into account: how to avoid interference among various projects, how to indemnify