Page images
PDF
EPUB

The CHAIRMAN. Well, Admiral, I thank you for those kind remarks.

The committee appreciates your views on this matter because no one has had more experience in this field, particularly in Government, than you have, and again, your opinion in these matters is well respected in this field.

I think you point up the complexities of this whole matter, which I hadn't thought of in this way before, but they are greater than when we started with the space program. They involved less direct lines toward objectives and goals. And this seems to me that it is of even greater importance to make some steps. I know that you realize that even now there is no central place in Government, is there, where an individual or an industry, believing they can make a contribution, can particularly go for information. They have to seek out a great number of agencies.

Admiral STEPHAN. Entirely different situation from what they have in either space or defense business.

The CHAIRMAN. Whereas in the space program, and I keep referring to it because I am chairman of the Subcommittee of Appropriations that handle their funds and know how they operate, and know the contributions that have been made by industry to the space program they have been able to go to one place, get one answer, and collect data and work together as one unit. Whereas, in the marine field, it is pretty fussy.

Admiral STEPHAN. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the economic possibilities, the moneymaking potential in the ocean will enable the industry of this country to make an enormous contribution to the national position if the Federal Government does the things that will encourage this and give industry the central sort of place to go.

The CHAIRMAN. In view of what Dr. Chapman has observed from his recent visits, and I know when he visits a place, he looks pretty much in depth in this field-what is going on, it seems to me and I guess to you, that other nations are moving faster than I thought.

I knew they were moving fast, but not as fast as his statement implied. And another thing, haven't you found, since you left the Navy a much greater interest in oceanography, even the people going to school, than there was when you were in the Navy?

There is a greater surge of interest in the oceans and the Great Lakes in these United States, so we ought to be able to go someplace in this field. If we don't, we are going to be sorry.

I deeply appreciate your testimony and your organization, which has been always helpful in this matter.

Admiral STEPHAN. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hart, do you have any questions?
Senator Hart. I enjoyed it.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank all of the witnesses for coming today, and I hope that no one will imply by the lack of attendance by committee members that they are not interested in your contribution. They are. And they will be reading this testimony and analyzing it at some length.

But we did want to get these hearings on the way, so that we can put them together, study them, in the hopes that we might take some action in the committee on this bill.

The Senator from Michigan is vitally interested in Great Lakes problems. There again is a field that we have completely neglected. I have read some place that there are some very grave Great Lakes problems. I don't know what we are going to do on Lake Erie, but it appears that it may be going down the drain unless we do something. There are all kinds of problems about which we haven't scratched the surface. I think the irony of this is that here is a country with all of the technical, engineering and and scientific knowledge to do this job, if we pull them together, and we haven't done so.

It isn't that we lack this knowledge, is it?

Admiral STEPHAN. No; I think what we lack is the leadership to bring it together.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I appreciate it.

(The prepared statement of Admiral Stephan appears in the appendix.)

Senator Hart has advised me that Dr. David C. Chandler, Director, and Dr. John C. Ayers, Research Oceanographer, of the Great Lakes Research Division, University of Michigan, are preparing a statement on S. 944 for the hearing record. I will be happy to include it in the record when it arrives.

We will stand adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.)

(Subsequently, the following information was received by the committee for inclusion in the record :)

THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN,
INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND CHNOLOGY,

GREAT LAKES RESEARCH DIVISION,

Ann Arbor, Mich., April 20, 1965. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on ('ommerce, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON : We are writing to you in support of S. 944. We are in complete sympathy with the objectives and general provisions of the bill.

The time is overdue for a master plan setting forth the national objectives of research and education in the marine sciences. A mechanism is needed to insure a unified effort in the national program, but at the same time afford the Nation's most competent scientists adequate facilities and freedom to conduct marine research. Corollary to this is the need to identify and define the major problems in the marine sciences and determine the aquatic environments best suited for the solution of each problem, whether it be salt water or fresh water.

Our comments are directed primarily at provisions in the bill concerning the Great Lakes. We believe that the role of the Great Lakes in advancing marine science is noteworthy, and we are pleased with the recognition given them in S. 944. This belief is enthusiastically shared among oceanographers who have had experience both on the ocean and the Great Lakes. We do not pretend that the Great Lakes can partake in all the aspects of oceanography, but we do strongly believe that in certain of the areas covered by this bill the Great Lakes can make valuable, and in some areas unique, contributions to oceanography. It is of these areas which have been unrecognized or unadmitted by other oceanographers that we wish to speak.

In the expansion of knowledge of phenomena taking place in water bodies and at their boundaries, the Great Lakes have some outstanding potentialities as laboratory oceans:

(1) In size, a Great Lake is about as large as the English Channel, in which important oceanographic work has been done. Excepting Lake Erie, each Great Lake reaches depths in excess of 600 feet, which is generally accepted as the depth at the seaward edge of the Continental Shelf. Again excepting Lake Erie, each Great Lake contains depths equivalent to those on the upper continental slope.. but by virtue of the lake's steep-sided basins these depths are within 35 nautical miles of commercial harbors with facilities for support of ships. Deep water near to shore makes possible great economies in the expense of ship operation. This was recognized in a way during World War II, when submarines built on Lake Michigan received their field trials and diving trials in local waters before being delivered to the Navy.

(2) The absence of salinity, of heavy biological fouling, and of wood-boring organisms makes the Great Lakes excellent test sites in which the operating principles of new instrumentation can be tested without the necessity for expensive protection against corrosion, electrolysis, fouling, and borers. This sort of work is being done presently in the Great Lakes.

(3) The large but limited size of the Great Lakes makes them suitable places in which to study the phenomena of sedimentation and shore erosion. Areas of erosion, basins of deposition, source sediments of different types, and several kinds of beach topography are all available within relatively limited distances and/or areas. We have recently discovered and are studying a deep local basin next to shore where sedimentation and the sedimentary processes are at present proceeding with the speed and vigor that must have been widespread on the glaciated continental shelves after the glaciers receded.

(4) The absence of tidal flushing actions, and heavy metropolitan concentrations of population that have developed within the past century make Lakes Erie and Michigan excellent sites in which to study the adverse effects of man's wastes upon water quality. Lake Erie, with 99 cubic miles of water content and a metropolitan concentration equivalent to that of Chicago, has within the period of record passed from a partially damaged state to an advanced state of deterioration. Lake Michigan, with 1,120 cubic miles of water content, has in the same period passed from undamaged to slightly but definitely deteriorated. The chemical, physical, biological, and sedimentary changes that are beginning in Lake Michigan and reaching their climax in Lake Erie not only give insight into the histories of polluted estuaries along the seacoast, but are of predictive value in foretelling the deteriorative effects of developing metropolitan concentrations upon local water quality along the seacoast. We have maintained for several years an extensive study of the deteriorative effects of man upon Great Lakes water quality.

(5) In the study of air-water interface phenomena, the Great Lakes, especially Lake Michigan, offer an unique laboratory function. Situated transverse to the movement of airmasses and weather from west to east, Lake Michigan is large enough to produce cleancut modifying effects upon weather crossing it, but is not so large that separate weather systems can exist over it at the same time. Its land-locked nature allows the lake to be surrounded by weather stations, a condition that cannot be adequately achieved for the ocean.

(6) Open-water fetches of 80 to 300 miles are common on a Great Lake, and wind-to-wave relations may be studied under the simplified condition of absence of wave-trains or swell from other weather systems at distances.

The Great Lakes offer unique opportunities for student training programs in aquatic sciences. Presently formal programs in oceanography exist in three Midwestern universities (Chicago, Michigan, Wisconsin), and other universities of the region expect to intiate similar programs soon. At the University of Michigan the department of Meterology and Oceanography has both undergraduate and graduate curricula in oceanography. Several of its academic staff hold joint appointments in the University's Great Lakes Research Division, and they and their students make use of the Division's laboratories and ships for re: search and training. The Division's 114-foot ship, Inland Seas, has equipment and capabilities comparable to an oceanographic vessel and will be used by several Midwestern universities to give their students shipboard experience. These university activities on the Great Lakes have a direct bearing on the national oceanographic effort, as evidenced by documented studies showing that many Midwestern trained aquatic scientists eventually join the teaching and research staffs of coastal oceanographic institutions.

The Great Lakes Research Division of the Institute of Science and Technology, University of Michigan, owns and maintains four research vessels and conducts an 8-month field program including studies in biology, chemistry, geology, lake mechanics and meteorolgy. We firmly believe that the objectives, methods and equipment of Great Lakes studies are basically the same as those of ocean studies.

We wish you success in this legislative effort and greatly appreciate this opportunity to express our views. Sincerely,

DAVID C. CHANDLER,

Director.
John C. AYERS,
Research Oceanographer.

U.S. SENATE,

Washington, D.C., April 29, 1965. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The upsurge of interest in and support of oceanographic and marine sciences activities in Hawaii is reflected in the attached statement of the Chamber of Commerce of Honolulu endorsing S. 944, a bill to provide for expanded research in the oceans and the Great Lakes, to establish a National Oceanographic Council, and for other purposes. The statement outlines briefly the reasons Hawaii appreciates the significance of the proposed legislation and its potential impact not only for Hawaii and the Pacific basin but other areas as well.

I would appreciate it if the statement of the Honolulu chamber is made a part of the hearing record of S. 944, along with my statement which was submitted to you earlier as a cosponsor of the bill. Sincerely yours,

HIRAM L. FONG.

STATEMENT OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF HONOLULU, HAWAII Hawaii, the only State surrounded by water, can be expected to have an unusually active interest in legislation pertaining to the ocean. This interest is backstopped by the technical resources of the Institute of Geophysics at the University of Hawaii, by a State administration which has recently sponsored a conference on science and technology which emphasized oceanographic pro grams and was attended by oceanographers, scientists, and public officials from every part of the country, and an energetic business community that has not only recently funded and received a significant research study on the potentials for oceanic development in Hawaii, but can boast of one of the few private oceanographic research developments in the world. With these resources available, Hawaii possesses a current, authoritative and realistic picture of the potentials of oceanographic development.

Senate bill 944, if enacted, will be very instrumental in accelerating the advance of the United States into the sea. The bill will give oceanography the orientation, direction, and impetus needed if our country is to achieve significant advances in this area. The sea, being the one most valuable natural resource (excluding air), that is shared by most nations of the world, advances in this area cannot but have international significance.

Hawaii, at the crossroads in the Pacific, perhaps more than any other State recognizes the economic problems suffered by many of the nations of the Pacific basin. The international goodwill that can result from a wisely pursued program of ocean development and subsequent promulgation of knowledge and technique is enormous. Thus, reaching far beyond the sheer economic payoff to be received from an organized approach to the sea, will be the important and enduring dividends the country will receive from its active evidence of care for humanity. The sea has a bountiful supply of food for starving countries, fresh water for parched fields and for industrial development, and many chemicals and minerals; yet the realization of more than a very few of these treasures seems to elude us each year as our national oceanographic program creeps along. Lack of direction, status, funding, and appreciation have all dogged the program. Senate bill 944 will do much to correct these past and current impediments to real progress in this area.

Senate bill 944 will give the exploration of wet space or inner space some of the emphasis now enjoyed by our outer-space programs. With a potential economic return to the world of almost unlimited proportions, such emphasis is surely merited.

The Chamber of Commerce of Honolulu strongly urges the passage of Senate bill 944.

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX A

PREPARATION OF OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM

The procedures presently followed in preparing the annual Federal oceanographic program are detailed by Capt. S. N. Anastasion, USN, in “Ocean Sciences,” published in 1964 by the Institute of Naval Proceedings, and are accurately described according to the Office of Science and Technology. The description follows:

For the past few years, the President has emphasized th fovernment's in terest in strengthening the Nation's capabilities in oceanography by an annual National Oceanographic Program (NOP). The NOP is a detailed statement of federally sponsored efforts recommended for oceanography. As such, it is one of several special backup documents sent by the President to Congress to support appropriations requested for the ensuing fiscal year.

The preparation of the NOP is a long and involved process. It begins about 16 months prior to the fiscal year in which it is to be implemented. It proceeds with, and is a part of, the complex process by which the total executive budget is prepared for submission to the Congress. The development of the NOP, initiated by the ICO, requires the interaction of many elements of the executive branch. Highlights of the development process are presented on the following page.

Initially, oceanographic programs of the participating agencies, together with budget estimates, are submitted to ICO panels. These agency submissions, while independently prepared, are not without the coordinating influence of the ICO, even at this early stage. Having participated in panel deliberations throughout the year, agencies are aware of the progress of current projects. They know the priorities developed in the ICO and the prospective programs of other agencies. Additional influences are the expressed interests of Congress, the progress of work at research and educational institutions, and the comments and advice of NASCO.

Also at this time the agencies submit to parent departments their total program requirements. In this submission oceanography is but one of the many elements describing the total efforts of the agencies.

Following this screening, balancing, and refinement, the ICO consolidates the functional areas into the first draft of the recommended National Oceanographic Program. In this form, the NOP is submitted to the Director, Office of Science and Technology, for a run through the feedback loop labeled “Spring Preview.” In this preview, the Office of Science and Technology and the Bureau of the Budget jointly review the recommended programs from each of the FCST committees responsible for consideration of special areas of science. As a result of the Spring Preview, it may be necessary for the science adviser to return the draft NOP to the ICO for rebalancing within fiscal limits which the administration believes can be supported.

Following the Spring Preview and any subsequent modification of the program, the ICO formally submits its recommended NOP to the chairman of the FCST. At this time, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology convenes an independent panel of consultants to evaluate the NOP with respect to balance and to advise on the needs of oceanography as a science.

When this special evaluation is completed, it is presented to the assembled members of the FCST together with a formal briefing of the recommended NOP by the Chairman of the ICO.

The ICO recommendations, together with the comments of the special OST panel, form the basis for FCST endorsement. The FCST forwards the ICO package, with modifications, to the departments as a recommended national program and budget in oceanography and as a guide in the preparation of

125 48-071—65- 9

« PreviousContinue »