I am wondering if either you and/or Dr. White can shed any light on what the rationalization is for this proposal that you say is pending before the Budget Bureau to transfer that topographic mapping function into ESSA. What is the purpose of it? Is it felt that you can do a better job than the Geological Survey or what is behind it?

Dr. HOLLOMON. This proposal is being considered by the President's Office. The rationalization for it, if the President decides to send it to the Congress, hopefully will come forward. I can report from my own knowledge of some of the factors that are involved that it is believed that the geodetic work of the Coast and Geodetic Survey and the topographic work of the Geological Survey could best be carried on if they were integrated in a single whole.

Senator MCGOVERN. There are a lot of uses for those maps. Land use planning and reservoirs require mapping work. To me, this would be moving away from a concept of a general centralized and coordinated function of the kind you describe as desirable.

Dr. HOLLOMON. Senator, as I say, I am in a difficult position. This is not something I have proposed. I believe there are very real economies and efficiencies if we had a central mapping service. If the President proposed it, I think it is on that basis he would propose it. Senator MCGOVERN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

Senator ANDERSON. I think we are going to have to adjourn until 2 o'clock. We have two witnesses for the afternoon. We had better not try to hear them this morning. Mr. Chamberlain, do you want to go ahead now?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. At your discretion.

Senator ANDERSON. Let us adjourn until 2:30 then.

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 2:30 p.m., the same day.)

AFTER RECESS

(The subcommittee reconvened at 2:30 p.m., Senator Clinton P. Anderson, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding).

Senator ANDERSON. The first witness this afternoon is Mr. Gordon J. F. MacDonald, director, and chairman, Department of Planetary and Space Science, University of California, and Dr. Thomas Malone. We appreciate your coming, gentlemen.

STATEMENT OF DR. GORDON J. F. MacDONALD, CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF PLANETARY AND SPACE SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Dr. MACDONALD. The chairman's longstanding and deep interest in this subject is providing continuing encouragement to workers in the field of weather and climate modifications. It is therefore with special pleasure and appreciation that I take this opportunity to discuss with you certain problems of weather and climate modifications, with special emphasis on how these relate to the proposed legislation, S. 2875. I appear before you as Chairman of the National Academy of Science Panel on Weather and Climate Modifications. Since you will be hearing from several other members of the Panel, I will not attempt to summarize the Panel's report.

Rather, I wish to indicate how I view the proposed legislation in the light of the Panel's major recommendations.

The complexion of weather and climate modification has changed subtly since 1957 when an advisory committee on weather control reported to President Eisenhower. In many fundamental areas and respects, the earlier era of speculation has been gradually superseded by the present period, in which systematic exploration of modification possibilities has become possible. Three factors are responsible for this shift in emphasis. First, there are encouraging advances in the development of moderately realistic mathematical models for atmospheric systems, ranging in scale from a cloud to planetary scale phenomena.

Secondly, the high-speed electronic computers make possible numerical simulations of the atmosphere, that can significantly contribute to an understanding of the interdependent workings of this complex system.

Thirdly, the availability of new platforms including meteorologic satellites, together with advanced observation techniques, can provide abundant new data required for monitoring the atmospheric systems one seeks to modify.

These broad advances have been accompanied by an increasing number of studies of the modification of clouds and cloud systems.

In its studies, the National Academy Panel emphasized those aspects of weather modification that dealt with the enhancement of precipitation. This emphasis reflects the concern of the Panel with problems of

water resources.

At present, the success of precipitation enhancement experiments can be judged only on statistical grounds.

The target area, one in which clouds are seeded, is compared with adjoining and similar control areas where the clouds are not seeded. In properly designated experiments, the target and control areas are selected on a statistical basis.

Such statistical evaluations can lead to statements regarding the probability that precipitation has, indeed, been increased or decreased. On the basis of the analysis of a large number of such statistical experiments, the Panel concluded that there was increasing evidence that precipitation could be increased or redistributed by seeding, using silver iodide.

Experiments or operations in which only data regarding precipitation is obtained cannot provide information regarding the mechanisms by which the precipitation is increased or redistributed. Such information can be gained only by a comprehensive program of observation and experimentation on clouds and cloud systems.

Two recent studies quite clearly indicate the complexity of the physical processes that enter into determining whether or not precipitation can be increased by seeding. Recent investigations carried out by the Pacific Gas & Electric Co., in northern California and by Australian workers indicate that seeding of cloud systems in which the cloud tops are cold-temperature of 14° F. or lower-led to an increased rainfall. However, the seeding of clouds in which the cloud top temperature was higher that 14° F. led to decreased precipitation. The cause of the difference is unknown.

At present, the efficacy can only be tested on statistical ground. The goal for the future is to understand the physical processes leading

the precipitation in sufficient detail, so that given a developing meteorological situation, predictions can be carried out.

Numerical methods and electronic computers might be used to determine whether or not seeding will increase or decrease the precipitation from a particular storm system. We are a long way from having the kind of physical understanding that would allow such meaningful prediction.

This is one example of a number of strange and puzzling phenomena on which we can obtain an understanding through detailed studies, studies that undertake to measure properties of clouds other than just the amount of precipitation that falls from the clouds.

As we consider weather modification on scales larger than that of a cloud, the importance of prediction increases.

Thus, if at some time modification of the weather over large areas or of the climate of continental dimensions is envisaged, then it is absolutely essential that a means be developed to allow the prediction of the results of such experiments.

The Panel concludes that an essential element of weather modification, and particularly of precipitation enhancement operations, is the prediction of the consequences of the modification operations.

Because of this, the Panel suggests that weather modification cannot sensibly be separated from other aspects of the atmospheric sciences. Weather modification is a very important element in a group of scientific and technological endeavors dealing with the whole of our physical environment.

Isolation of this effort may very well hamper the long-term development of the subject. For example, those problems that relate to water resources cut across all aspects of the environment. The large-scale water budget of the atmosphere is influenced to a very large extent by the interaction of the atmosphere with the oceans.

An understanding of the hemispheric water budget will require comprehensive studies of the oceans as well as the atmosphere.

The proposed legislation deals primarily with water resources and not with problems related to modification, where attempts would be made to decrease the effect of severe storms.

In the view of the Panel, this separation of water resources activities and those dealing with modification of violent storms is an unnatural one. The two are closely linked, since in increasing precipitation one can also affect the dynamics of clouds and cloud systems. It is through the dynamics of cloud systems that one hopes to modify violent storms.

In summary it would appear that in the field of weather modification, the Federal Government should perform the following functions: (1) Recommend national policies concerning atmospheric interest for the United States.

(2) Foster the exploration of the atmospheric environment, in order to provide capability for using water resources of the atmosphere, and for the prevention of amelioration of natuarl dis

asters.

(3) Provide predictions of the atmospheric environment as an essential service to those involved in the use of atmospheric water resources and to those concerned with ameliorating the effects of natural disasters.

(4) Initiate, support, and encourage programs of education. training and research, and a program of services relating to relevant science and technology.

Because of the complex interdependency of the various aspects of weather modification on other environmental sciences, it is the view of the Panel that major responsibility for weather modification should be centered in a single agency. This agency should have broad responsibility in the environmental sciences and related activities.

It is my view, and I believe it is the view of the Panel, that the proposed legislation, in which efforts will be diffused among several agencies, runs counter to the major recommendation of the Panel.

I believe, the legislation does not adequately recognize then that weather modification is an important part, but only a part, of questions dealing with our physical environment. These questions present some of the most pressing problems of our society.

It is my belief that a far more comprehensive view will be required if we as a nation are to satisfactorily meet the demands of society. Senator ANDERSON. Thank you, Dr. MacDonald.

Dr. MacDonald, I am pleased to see that the National Academy has finally concluded that the Senate Interior Committee has been on the right track for more than 15 years in stimulating scientific and engineering research in weather modification. It is good to have you folks on the team, too.

The findings of the Panel deserve careful and thoughtful consideration by your Government and the Nation at large. These hearings are planned to serve this purpose.

Your report says, "To be successful, the national program recommended by the Panel must represent fine balance between unwarranted optimism and undue skepticism. There is an unparalleled opportunity for our scientific community and our Federal Government to demonstrate imagination, perception, and wisdom in the management of a program having both intrinsic scientific interest and potentially for ranging socioeconomic and political consequences.” Would you amplify that a bit?

Dr. MACDONALD. Yes, we feel that the weather modification is a problem of enormous complexity. It is complex in its scientific and technological aspects since you are dealing with an atmopshere, an atmosphere whose basic properties are only poorly understood, an atmosphere which interacts with other portions of the environment. Much of what again happens in the atmosphere depends on what happens when the air comes into contact with the ocean. Much of what goes on in the atmosphere depends on the interaction of the atmosphere with the solid earth. It is this enormous complexity which poses these very challenging and interesting problems.

It is because of this that we feel that really a whole new look should be taken at the question of how Government fosters activities in this field.

It is complex. It deals with complex sicentific problems and at the same time impinges on all areas of society. I think in weather modification we see illustrated really the main characteristic of modern science. It is not so much the expanded scale of discovery or application but it is rather than that the interpenetration of science into all aspects of human endeavor and in weather modification these are, of course, greatly amplified.

Now what the Panel had in mind, or the main thrust of the Panel's recommendation with regard to the governmental action, was that weather modification forms part of what we would call the sciences and technology of the atmosphere.

In turn this forms part of the science and technology of the environment as a whole-ocean, solid earth.

I think it is time to take a rather bold and courageous look at what can be done to bring these various sciences and technologies together, since they have so much in common, and deal with very much the same kind of phenomena, only in slightly different forms.

Senator ANDERSON. Did your panel make an evaluation of actual weather modification experiments?

Dr. MACDONALD. Yes. We carried out a statistical study of 14 operations in the Western Middle Atlantic States and 4 operations in the Western States.

Senator ANDERSON. Dr. Malone, do you have some comments to make at this time?

STATEMENT OF THOMAS F. MALONE, SECOND VICE PRESIDENT AND HEAD OF RESEARCH DEPARTMENT, THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO.

Mr. MALONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a few comments. With your consideration I propose to summarize my testimony.

First let me say as a meteorologist and as a former South Dakota farmboy who was motivated to go into meteorology by massive, crushing disappointment and frustration because of the vagaries of the weather, I am delighted at the deep and perceptive interest shown by you and your colleagues here.

From my prepared testimony I would pick out three issues that seem to be of special importance. One is the management problem. Second is the international problem, and the third I think is a minor one but an important one and that is the regulation question.

In my opinion the most crucial issue before Congress is the issue of agency responsibility, or viewed more broadly, the management of a national scientific program with potentially far ranging social, economic, and political consequences and really transforming into a coherent national program something which is now a somewhat fragmented national effort.

Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I am distressed, deeply distressed, to observe what I detect as a general agency jurisdictional problem.

I am hopeful on the other hand that the point of view that you expressed this morning, that it is important to get on with the job, and that is more important than who does it, will prevail.

I do believe that there is the opportunity for Congress to exercise great wisdom here. I am not sure that I can help, but in observing the work of Professor MacDonald's panel in participating in the activities of the National Science Foundation Commission, in participating in this and other testimony, I have some thought on this problem that I would tender with some trepidation.

It seems to me that fundamental is the analysis of the job that has to be done. Then perhaps agency responsibility can be matched up to that.