PAGENO="0001"
NOAA ORGANIC ACT
~ ~ ~Th
~ f
L~L~i~ ~ ~
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE
ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS
SFiCOND SESSION
APRIL 18; JUNE 22, 1978
[No. 90]
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Scienëe and Technology
~ ;:`f~~~ :~i~ ~
- I L ~
C;/~J~!~[)EN, N. J. 08i02
GOVERNMENT 1CUMENT
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
33-547 0 ~. WASHINGTON: 1978
~Hc~\ ~
0 JAN 221979
PAGENO="0002"
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
OLIN E. TEAGTJE, Texas, Chairman
DON FUQUA, Florida
WALTER FLOWERS, Alabama
ROBERT A. ROE, New Jersey
MIKE McCORMACK, Washington
GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr., California
DALE MILFORD, Texas
RAY THORNTON, Arkansas
JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York
RICHARD L. OTTINGER, New York
TOM HARKIN, Iowa
JIM LLOYD, California
JEROME A. AMBRO, New York
ROBERT (BOB) KRUEGER, Texas
MARILYN LLOYD, Tennessee
JAMES J. BLANCHARD, Michigan
TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado
STEPHEN L. NEAL, North Carolina
THOMAS J. DOWNEY, New York
DOUG WALGREN, Pennsylvania
RONNIE G. FLIPPO, Alabama
DAN GLICKMAN, Kansas
BOB GAMMAGE, Texas
ANTHONY C. BEILENSON, California
ALBERT GORE, JR., Tennessee
WES WATKINS, Oklahoma
ROBERT A. YOUNG, Missouri
CHARLES A. MOSHER, EHecutive Director
HAROLD A. GOULD, Deputy Director
PHILIP B. YEAGER, Counsel
JAMES E. WILSON, Technical Consultant
WILLIAM G. WELLS, Jr., Technical Consultant
RALPH N. READ, Technical Consultant
ROBERT C. KETCHAM, Counsel
JOHN P. ANDELIN, Jr., Science Consultant
JAMES W. SPENSLEY, Counsel
REGINA A. DAVIS, Chief Clerk
PAUL A. VANDER MYDE, Minority Staff Director
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE
GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California, Chairman
TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado ROBERT S. WALKER, Pennsylvania
JEROME A. AMBRO, New York LARRY WINN, JR., Kansas
DOUG WALGREN, Pennsylvania EDWIN B. FORSYTHE, New Jersey
ANTHONY C. BEILENSON, California
WES WATKINS, Oklahoma
TOM HARKIN, Iowa
JAMES W. SPENSLEY, Staff Director
ALEXIS J. HOSKINS, Technical Consultant
JOHN W. WYDLER, JR., New York
LARRY WINN, JR., Kansas
LOUIS FREY, JR., Florida
BARRY M. GOLDWATER, JR., California
GARY A. MYERS, Pennsylvania
HAMILTON FISH, JR., New York
MANUEL LUJAN, JR., New Mexico
CARL D. PURSELL, Michigan
HAROLD C. HOLLENBECK, New Jersey
ELDON RUDD, Arizona
ROBERT K. DORNAN, California
ROBERT S. WALKER, Pennsylvania
EDWIN B. FORSYTHE, New Jersey
(II)
PAGENO="0003"
CONTENTS
WITNESSES
April 18, 1978:
Baltas E. Birkie, Deputy Director, Community and Economic Develop- Page
ment Division, General Accounting Office 2
Richard Frank, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration 11
June 22, 1978:
Dr. Louis J. Battan, member, National Advisory Committee on Oceans
and Atmosphere 38
Dr. Robert M. White, Chairman, National Climate Board, National
Academy of Sciences, formerly Administrator of NOAA 82
Dr. Thomas F. Malone, director, Holcomb Research Institute, Butler
University, Indianapolis, Indiana 85
APPENDIX
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
Testimony of Dr. Robert M. White before the Subcommittee on Transporta-
titon, Aviation, and Weather of the House Science and Technology Com-
mittee on H.R. 8763, May 25, 1978 105
Testimony of Dr. Robert M. White before the Subcommittee on Ocean-
ography of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee on
H.R. 9708, June 12, 1978 116
Statement for the record of Mr. Larry Meierotto, Deputy Assistant Secre-
tary for Policy, Budget and Administration, Department of the Interior_. 124
Paper by Dr. C. Gordon Little on `Prototype Regional Observing and
Forecasting Service-(PROFS) "-submitted by Dr. Louis J. Battan for
the record 132
(III)
PAGENO="0004"
PAGENO="0005"
NOAA ORGANIC ACT
TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 1978
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE,
Wa8hington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room 2325,
Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George E. Brown, Jr. (chair-
man) presiding.
Mr. BROWN. The subcommittee will please come to order.
Good afternoon. Today, we hold our first hearing on H.R. 9708, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Organic Act of
1977, which was introduced by our colleague on the Merchant Marine
and Fisheries Committee, Mr. Murphy. The purpose of this legisla-
tion, as currently written, is to establish a national ocean policy and
set forth the missions and objectives of NOAA, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration.
The need for this legislation is reflected in the fact that, although
the importance of the oceans and the atmosphere to mankind is in-
creasingly evident, there is no comprehensive national policy guiding
their use or management. Similarly, there is no single comprehensive
statute to guide the activities of our main oceans and atmospheric
research and service agency.
The Congress should state its intentions with regard to the oceans
and the atmosphere, and provide NOAA with the authority to carry
them out.
In accordance with our jurisdiction on this committee, we will focus
on, and uphold, the environmental R. & D. and atmospheric aspects of
NOAA. The current bill's treatment of atmospheric policies, in par-
ticular, needs to be expanded.
Today, we will hear from the General Accounting Office and the
NOAA Administrator. We plan to hold additional hearings in the
future at which outside witnesses from the environmental and atmos-
pheric research communities will testify.
Our first witness this afternoon is Baltas E. Birkle, Deputy Director,
Community and Economic Development Division, General Account-
ing Office, accompanied by William Martino and Walter Hess.
Are you gentlemen ready ~ Why don't you come on up to the table,
and we will move as expeditiously as possible.
Mr. Birkie, you may proceed, and introduce your colleagues, so that
I will know which one is which. If they have anything to add, they
would be welcome to do so.
(1)
PAGENO="0006"
2
STATEMENT OP BALTAS E. BIRKLE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, COM-
MUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, GENERAL
ACCOUNTING OPPICE
Mr. BIRKLE. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee:
We are here today at your invitation to discuss some of our work
at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration .(NOAA).
Here with me at the table are Mr. William Martino, Assistant Director
in charge of our work at NOAA, and Mr. Walter Hess from our
NOAA audit staff.
The subcommittee is considering H.R. 9708, the NOAA Organic
Act, which recognizes the relationship between the oceans and atmos-
phere and the need for a national ocean policy. The bill designates
NOAA as the lead civilian agency with responsibility for coordinating
and carrying out a national ocean policy in order to improve the under-
standing, assessment, development, utilization, conservation, and pro-
tection of ocean and coastal resources, and the atmosphere.
While the current bill seeks to establish an ocean policy and essen-
tially to codify NOAA's missions, it is our understanding that the
subcommittee wishes us to focus our attention, today, on environmental
and atmospheric activities of NOAA.
During the past 4 years we issued reports or made reviews dealing
with the following activities:
Weather modification research efforts.
The coastal zone management program.
The accuracy of weather forecasting.
The adequacy of specialized weather services.
The outer continental shelf development environmental studies pro-
gram, and
Various studies on the use of satellites in environmental monitoring.
In August 1974, we issued a report to the Congress entitled "Need
for a National Weather Modification Research Program" (B-133202).
The report identified common problems in Federal weather modifica-
tion research hindering progress including:
No central authority to direct Federal departments;
Ineffective coordination and;
Insufficient resources to achieve timely, effective results.
Pursuant to the National Weather Modification Policy Act of 1976,
the Secretary of Commerce established the Weather Modification Ad-
visory Board to advise her on a national policy and an organizational
structure for future Federal programs. The Board is preparing a re-
port, but has not yet recommended a Federal role in weather modifica-
tion nor the Federal agency for coordinating weather modification
research.
On December 10, 1976, the Comptroller General issued a report to
the Congress entitled "The Coastal Zone Management Program: An
Uncertain Future" (GGD-76-107). The purpose of the program is to
(1) encourage and assist the States in the exercise of their responsibili-
ties in the coastal zone through the development and implementation
of management programs, (2) obtain the cooperation and participa-
tion of all Federal agencies engaged in programs affecting the coastal
zone, together with State and local governments and regional agencies,
and (3) encourage the participation of the public, Federal, State, and
PAGENO="0007"
3
local governments and regional agencies in the development of coastal
zone management programs consistent with the provisions of the act
and according to published guidelines.
In this report we discussed the problems experienced by NOAA and
the coastal States and territories in meeting the objectives of the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended.
We concluded that (1) States have experienced delays and have had
trouble obtaining funding, developing necessary implementing author-
ity, receiving public and political support and coordinating program
development with relevant Federal agencies, (2) Federal participation
in State program development has been limited, and (3) NOAA has
not always shown a good understanding of State problems and
progress.
At the completion of our review none of the 33 coastal zone States
had approved coastal zone management programs. Today the coastal
zone management programs of three States-Washington, Oregon, and
California, have been approved by NOAA and others are expected to
be approved this year.
In our January 1978 report to the chairman, Task Force on Com-
munity and Physical Resources, House Committee on the Budget
(CED-78-33), we commented on the quality of weather forecasts and
options available to improve weather predictions for both short- and
long-term forecasts.
Regarding two-day short-range forecasts, we reported that the Na-
tional Weather Service (NWS) appears to have attained an acceptable
level of accuracy for precipitation and temperature in terms of na-
tional averages.
The level of accuracy, however, varies for specific sections of the
country. For example, although the nationwide level of accuracy for
precipitation for 1976 was 85.6 percent, the average rate of accuracy
for regions ranged from 77.0 percent for the Alaskan region to 89.9
percent for the western region. We pointed out that in short-term fore-
casting the degree of accuracy becomes much more significant in the
case of severe weather, such as tornadoes, where life and property are
threatened.
According to NWS, resources which would contribute to improving
short-range forecasting include more observation stations, more sophis-
ticated equipment, and more forecasters. For example, NWS said a
denser network of observations in the Northeast Pacific Ocean would
provide improved information on the development of storm systems.
In the area of long-range predictions, we reported that NWS's pres-
ent ability falls far short of being useful to planners and policymakers
for operational purposes because they are general in nature, they cover
broad geographical areas, and they extend to only 90 days.
The present state of the art in long-range forecasting is such that
the best potential for improvement lies in research and development
programs. One area being researched involves the relationship between
surface sea temperature and long-range weather forecasting. Another
area involves the relationship of the wobble of the Earth's axis and
long-range weather forecasting. NOAA is also attempting to improve
long-range forecasts with more sophisticated mathematical computer
models.
PAGENO="0008"
4
The Congress has recognized the need for improving long-range
forecasting. Legislation (H.R. 6669) has been introduced to estab-
lish a national climate program. Also the Inter-departmental Com-
mittee for Atmospheric Science has prepared a plan whic:h provides
a means for Federal agencies to coordinate climatic research. NOAA
has taken action on one of the committee's recommendations and estab-
lished a National Climate Program Coordinating Office.
In a March 29, 1978, report to the chairman, House Committee on
Science and Technology, entitled "The Congress Should Clearly De-
fine the National Weather Service's Role To Provide Specialized
Weather Services" (CED-1'8-77) we discussed NWS's role and re-
sponsibilities for providing specialized weather services to Federal
agencies.
The Service's basic mission is to provide meteorological services to
meet public needs or the common needs of Federal agencies. It also
provides specialized services-including the facilities, products, and
distribution mechanisms-for servicing the meteorological needs of
specalized users. These services include agricultural weather, aviation
weather, marine weather, forestry weather, environmental air quality,
and weather conditions affecting activities such as space flight opera-
tions and energy development, including atomic testing.
About $32 million of the Service's total fiscal year 1978 budget of
$185 million is for specialized services.
We concluded that NW.S's role and responsibilities for providing
specialized weather services to Federal agencies need to be clearly de-
fined. Because higher priorities have been placed on more clearly de-
fined responsibilities, the commitment to planning, and supporting
specialized weather services has not been adequate, and it appears un-
likely that the need for expanded services will be met.
We recommended that the Congress (1) clearly define the NWS's
role and responsibilities for providing specialized weather services to
user agencies and (2) assure that resources available to the Service
are adequate to carry out the responsibilities.
We also recommended that the Secretary of Commerce assure that
specific operational plans for specialized weat:her services are for-
mally agreed to by it ahd the user agencies, and that the Secretary, to-
gether with user agencies and in consideration of other program pri-
orities, provide such services through reallocation of existing resources.
We are completing a review dealing with environmental studies in
support of outer continental shelf development. Specifically, we `have
addressed the overall studies program and also focused on NOAA's
management of studies in Alaska.
We found that there is little agreement among Federal and State
agencies on (1) how the environmental studies can best be used in the
decisionmaking process affecting development of the Outer Continen-
tal Shelf, and (2) what type of information is needed to assess the
environmental impact of oil and gas development in the Outer Con-
tinental Shelf. These problems are compounded by the absence of
coordinated Government-wide iplans which adequately define the in-
formation needs of Outer Continental Shelf managers and the direc-
tion and approach needed to obtain such information.
We have reported to the Congress on several remote sensing satel-
lite projects in which NOAA, the National Aeronautics and Space
PAGENO="0009"
5
Administration (NASA), and other agencies participate. These proj-
ects involve Earth resources and oceanic monitoring. NOAA has been
involved in varying degrees in these projects.
Our reports point out the lack of a clear Federal Government policy
role in satellite-based remote sensing technology and `bring out the in-
terrelationships that exist among weather, pollution, environmental,
and Earth resources monitoring systems.
In our staff study, "Land Satellite Project" (PSAD-76-74), issued
in January 1976, we suggested that the participating agencies develop
a plan which included requirements, milestones, and dates `for evalu-
ating progress being made toward the `goal of deciding if there should
be an operational satellite system.
In our June 1971' report on "LANDSAT's Role in `an Earth Re-
sources Information System" (PSAD-77--58), we pointed out that no
agreement had been reached among the users on what performance
objectives must be achieved to justify an operational system. `We rec-
ommended that the Director of the Office of Science and Tec:hnology
Policy (OSTP), in conjunction with cognizant Federal agencies, study
the issues involved and recommend a Government policy role in satel-
lite-based, remote sensing technology. In following up on this recom-
mendation, we noted that only limited progress has been made.
NOAA is also involved `in NASA's SEASAT-A proje'ct. In our
September 1977 report to the Congress on "The Seasat-A Project:
Where It Stands Today" (PSAD-77-126), we pointed out that there
was no formalized agreement between NOAA and NASA to make cer-
tain that the responsibilities of each agency are clearly defined.
NOAA is `also involved in the large area crop inventory experiment
(LACIE) wh'ich involves crop forecasting by satellite. In our April
1978 report to the `Con'gress on "Crop Forecasting by Satellite: Prog-
ress and Problems" (PSAD-78-52), we recommended that, since there
have been technical problems in reaching LACIE objectives and the
research direction has changed, cognizant congressional committees
should be provided with periodic assessments of the LACIE project
and related efforts.
In summary, our audit work has pointed to the need for a strong lead
agency to plan, coordinate, and improve the management of atmos-
pheric science activities. Accordingly, we support the concept of a
strong lead agency for atmospheric sciences.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. We shall be
glad to respond to any questions.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much, Mr. Birkle.
Could I ask you if it would be possible for you to supply the com-
mittee with a copy of each of these reports you discussed?
Mr. BIRKLE. We will be glad to.
Mr. BROWN. We probably should have them in our files, so if you
could do `that, we would appreciate it.
There are a number of questions that your studies have pointed
to, such as the need for better coordination amongst the agencies, and
a clearer concept of who is responsible for what, which we
have tried to focus on in this committee over a period of time. In con-
nection with your description of the Earth satellite monitoring pro-
grams, a subject we have been interested in for some time, you
recommend that OSTP take the responsibility for recommending a
governmentwide policy in this area.
PAGENO="0010"
6
I am informed, I think correctly, that OSTP is participating in a
review of satellite policy, particularly as it involves civilian versus
military responsibilities in this area. I believe this is a joint operation
between OSTP and the Domestic Council staff.
Are you by any chance informed or aware of this effort?
Mr. BIRKLE. Also with me is Mr. Joe Johnson from our Procure-
riient and Systems Acquisition Division, the division in GAO that has
handled the work on the satellite program. I would like to ask him to
help me with this question.
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. The study is an ongoing
effort. We are not aware of the results of it to date. DOD has taken a
lead in the study, and our understanding is that this was at the direc-
tion of the administration. OSTP will provide an input. We will fol-
low-up on this in time.
Mr. BROWN. This is a sensitive area, as I am sure you are all aware,
but you are not precluded from looking at coordination policy prob-
lems in examining the roles of military versus civilian agencies in
this matter, are you?
Mr. BIRKLE. No; we are not. We often get into that type of problem,
like in the weather forecasting area, where the military and civilian
agencies could have duplicative efforts, or could coordinate and make
use of each other's efforts.
Mr. BROWN. I do not think the problem in this case is so much one of
duplication. Obviously, we have classified military sensing operations
going on, as well as the unclassified, and there are some very real policy
questions as to what you do about that dividing line between civilian
and military agency roles. If you have any wisdom to shed on this par-
ticular problem, we would be glad to hear it, for whatever it might be
worth.
Mr. BIRKLE. Well, this could be something we could look into, and
supply for the record. I guess we really do not have anything to add
today.
Mr. BROWN. All right.
I will not press the problem today. This committee is trying to get a
progress report on the status of this study that I referred to, and so
far we have not been able to pin anything down, but possibly we will in
the near future.
Mr. Walker, do you have any questions?
Mr. WALKER. Yes; thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Is it GAO's viewpoint that the lack of focus in many of NOAA's
areas could be improved if there were specific organic legislation?
Mr. BIRKLE. I would think so; if the leadership role could be clearly
defined it would help in many areas, where there is conflict and over-
lap between agencies, or where there is no coordination between
agencies.
Mr. WALKER. As a general rule, does GAO find that those Govern-
ment programs subjected to regular legislative review are better man-
aged and more responsive to the requirements of the public than those
which are not regularly reviewed?
Mr. BIRKLE. I do not know if I could generalize on that and say yes
or no. We find problems in agency programs in both categories. I
would hate to say which one would be better managed, one as opposed
to the other.
PAGENO="0011"
7
Mr. BROWN. The proper answer would be to say those regularly re-
viewed by Congress would have better results. [Laughter]
Mr. BIRKLE. You have much better criteria to measure against,
when you have a specific role laid out. If the missions are clearly de-
fined, we, as auditors, can make a better assessment.
Mr. WALKER. What needs to be done to minimize these problems?
Mr. MARTINO. I think it is a matter of education to convey to the
general public what NOAA is trying to do, and what the States are
trying to do. There is a complete lack of understanding in many areas
of the country.
Mr. WALKER. A lack of understanding by the public or by the
agencies?
Mr. MARTINO. In the public's view.
Mr. WALKER. In the public's view?
Mr. MARTINO. Yes; more emphasis should be given to conveying to
the public the overall purpose of what is trying to be accomplished
through NO~A programs.
Mr. WALKER. Is the lack of this kind of public knowledge delaying
or frustrating programs?
Mr. MARTINO. They are afraid of it and delaying it; even some of the
local politicians at the county level and State level do not understand
the objectives of certain programs.
Mr. WALKER. In your report on NOAA's specialized weather activi-
ties, you say Congress should define the role of the National Weather
Service in providing these services.
What would such services achieve? In particular, I am interested
in the agricultural-weather aspects.
Mr. BIRKLE. I think some very worthwhile specialized weather pro-
grams are being delayed because of disagreements over the role of the
different Federal agencies; over who should be responsible for identify-
ing needs, and providing services.
Aviation weather is a good example, where FAA and NOAA agreed
that meteorologists were needed in the air route traffic control centers,
but the program was delayed because of disagreement over who should
supply the meteorologists.
Mr. HEss. In agriculture, I think one of the problems is who should
actually go out and work with the users. We are currently working on
a report, which should be issued in several months, that gets into this
in some detail. Here you have some problems with who should estab-
lish the specialized agricultural weather centers. As you know, the
agriculture weather program only covers about one-third of the coun-
try right now, and we felt the Congress should clearly make it known
as to whether or not it wants this program to be expanded. For ex-
ample, many of the drought-prone States are not covered.
We felt the Congress should clearly define what it wants the Depart-
ment of Agriculture to do, and what it wants the National Weather
Service to do, and indicate how these resources should be supplied.
There might be interface with farmers and extension agencies in
supplying the basic forecasts and supplying the specialized agriculture
forecasts. The concerned agencies have to work together and need to
know who should do what. The agencies need to get together to agree
on specific areas of operations.
PAGENO="0012"
8
Mr. WALKER. Finally, what specific problems have arisen from a
lack of a clear weather policy, and would an Organic Act be a super-
vehicle for expressing this policy?
Mr. JOHNSON. As Mr. Birkie pointed out in his testimony, we identi-
fied this problem in several NASA-N'OAA projects.
It is common to any multiagency program, where each one has
their own narrow parochial interest, so to speak, NASA is an R. &D.
outfit; NOAA is a service outfit. There is no overall Federal policy
saying that in remote sensing a particular agency would take. the lead
and do this type of thing. We found that NASA was spending quite
a large sum in one project, and the user agencies did not have the fund-
ing necessary to really take advantage of the R. & D. `breakthroughs
that were being achieved. Legislation, as you probably know, has been
introduced to make remote sensing operational, yet there are so many
unanswered questions about international aspects, economic payoffs,
and security aspects that we felt there should be a clearly defined
Federal policy in this area. We recommended that OSTP work in
this area, and it is moving in that direction.
Mr. WALKER. Is it your feeling if we had a comprehensive policy
with regard to the services coming from remote sensing, the informa-
tion would get to the users more quickly? Again, I think in particular
about the agricultural area, where, as I understand, we could get some
very elaborate knowledge from the sensing satellites, but because of
the processing time it takes to get the information out to the farmers,
it is of little or no use to them.
Mr. JOHNSON. There are delays in these projects, because they are
experimental in nature. They are not geared up for day-to-day opera-
tions. The large area crop inventory experiment (LACIE) was an
effort to try to develop this technology, to see if this information
could be obtained and used in time, and it has problems.
Mr. WALKER. If there were a coordinated policy, would that solve
that kind of problem?
Mr. JOHNSON. It would let the user speak. Nobody can depend upon
it now. Right now in NASA, an R. & D. outfit, once they have achieved
their R. & D. objectives, their charter in effect still says keep on doing
other R. & D. work.
They are not concerned within their present charter in doing day-to-
day operations. The users are the ones that need to have a more active
role in this thing, perhaps more active participation in the funding.
Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BROWN. Any questions, Mr. Spensley?
Mr. SPENSLEY, Just a couple, Mr. Chairman.
You made reference in your recent National Weather Service report
on the adherence to the 0MB Circular A-62, with respect to providing
specialized weather services.
I think your report indicated that this 0MB circular was not being
closely adhered to.
Could you comment any further on that?
Mr. HESS. Our comment basically has to do with the circular being
somewhat vague; it says that to the extent possible, NWS should pro-
vide these specialized services.
We felt there was a need for the Congress to define these services.
There have been some problems in getting the funding approved, and
PAGENO="0013"
9
also disagreement over who should actually have the bodies, the people,
and the funding.
The other problem that we found was that, although the circular
also requires that plans be developed, and while there is an overall
plan which includes these services, specific plans have been developed
for only two of the specialized services, agriculture and forestry
weather. We felt they needed plans for aviation, environmental qual-
ity, marine, and the other services.
Mr. SPENSLEY. Were you referring to the Federal plan for meteoro-
logical services?
Mr. HESS. That is the overall plan, and in the back it lists the other
specific plans that have been developed.
The aviation weather service is also currently putting together a
specific operational plan that ties in what the FAA will do, what the
National Weather Service will do, and how they interface with the
pilots, et cetera.
Mr. SPENSLEY. As I recall, your report was not very specific with
respect to the amount of participation by the agencies in the prep-
aration of these specialized weather plans.
Did you examine that, and do you have any further comment on
that?
Mr. HESS. We did not examine that to any great extent. We found,
however, that it varied from agency to agency. They have participated.
The aviation weather plan is now being prepared, with a great deal
of joint cooperation and participation.
*Tn agricultural weather, the NWS has basically taken the leadership
with the Department of Agriculture commenting on the plan. In that
case, we felt it should perhaps be the reverse. Agriculture should be
identifying the users' needs, with NWS serving as the supplier of
weather information to meet those needs.
Mr. SPENSLEY. Do those plans seem to be followed closely in terms
of implementing the specialized services?
Mr. HESS. The plans as they now stand are outdated. They are revis-
ing them. The plans we felt needed to be a little more specific as to the
specific operational responsibilities of each of the agencies.
As we said, they are rather general in nature, and to that extent they
are followed, but they are outdated.
Mr. SPENSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. Wirth?
Mr. WniTH. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. Clement?
Mr. CLEMENT. One, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Birkie, in response to an earlier question, You indicated that
from an auditor's point of view, it is much easier to measure program
performance within an agency if you have a legislative chart of some
kind to work against.
On page 9 of your testimony you summarize your statement by
saying GAO's audit pointed to the need for a strong lead agency
pla.n to coordinate and improve the management of atmospheric science
activities.
You also just discussed the interrelationship between NOAA and
a number of agencies throughout the Federal Government.
PAGENO="0014"
10
Would the corollary to your earlier statement be that such cross-
agency arrangements and coordination and cooperation also work bet-
ter with a legislative mandate?
Mr. BIRKLE. Anything that clearly defines the roles of the different
agencies would help, and it could be a legislative mandate, or it could
be agreements in writing between the agencies.
Probably with the legislative mandate, you have more assurance
that it will be followed by the agency, whereas agreements between
the agencies sometimes are not as formal, and are not necessarily
followed and adhered to; so the legislative mandate would help, and
would be the best way, I would believe.
Mr. CLEMENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BROWN. Gentlemen, I do not know whether I can phrase a ques-
tion to elucidate any more information from you on this point or
not, but the Congress has had a great deal of experience rn trying to
mandate interagency coordination and cooperation, and when we get
down to the details of trying to prescribe in written law the nature of
an arrangement between the multiple agencies, we sometimes encounter
as many problems as when we do not.
I remember that this committee spent something like 2 years trying
to persuade EPA and the Department of Energy (then ERDA) just to
agree on a system for dividing the work on municipal waste systemn~,
to decide whether projects should be financed by one agency or the
other, or whether grants should he made by one agency or the other,
depending primarily on whether the projects objective was to produce
energy, or primarily to get rid of the waste.
I am not sure that we have a satisfactory arrangement yet, and we
ended up writing into law the actual words of the interagency agree-
ment, which was, as I say, some time in the making.
The question is, how can we be sure that spelling out interagency
arrangements specifically is the best way to achieve coordination and
cooperation, rather than merely placing a joint responsibility with
the various agencies to achieve a particular purpose, and then hold-
ing them accountable?
Maybe that is what you are saying. In effect, I am trying to make a
distinction between setting a broad goal versus setting out details
of how to accomplish coordination.
Could I elicit any comments from any of you?
Mr. BIRKLE. I would agree that Congress has generally tried to
avoid spelling out in great detail procedures that various agencies
should follow when coordinating with each other or working together.
The Congress tends to spell out goals and objectives, and then leaves
it to the agencies to seek the best way to achieve those things.
It would be nice if you could get agreement, and spell these things
out, but from a practical st.andpoint, as I understand what you are
saying, that becomes very difficult, and maybe even impossible. in some
cases. So I guess what I really wanted to say, and what I really meant,
was that you should go as far as you can in that direction, and then
you will have to leave it up to the agencies to work out the details
that you cannot specify.
Mr. BROWN. Well, I am sure that part of the problem stems from
the fact that Congress itself is not exactly certain about some of the
goals it wants to accomplish. That of course puts a very great burden
on the executive agency.
PAGENO="0015"
11
Well, gentlemen, thank you very much for your statement. It will be
very helpful to the subcommittee. We may call on you for more m-
formation later.
Mr. BmKLE. Thank you.
Mr. BROWN. Our next witness is Mr. Richard Frank, Administrator
of NOAA.
Mr. Frank is accompanied by Dr. Richard Haligren and Dr. George
Benton.
We welcome all of you gentlemen.
STATEMENT OP RICHARD PRA~1K, ADMINISTRATOR OP THE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Mr. FRANK. It is a great pleasure to be before you today and the
committee.
I am accompanied on my left by Dr. George Benton, who is Asso-
ciate Administrator designate of NOAA. Dr. Benton is a meteorologist
and hydrologist. He comes to us from Johns Hopkins University. On
my right is Dr. Richard Haligren, Acting Assistant Administrator.
I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you to comment on
H.R. 9708, a bill which would establish a national ocean policy and
further refine and define the mission of NOAA.
1 would like to submit my testimony for the record and speak to you
about various elements of it.
Mr. BROWN. Without objection, that is the order.
Mr. FRANK. Because of the nature and quantity of NOAA's various
responsibilities, we operate under or are affected ~by over 100 different
statutes. Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970 sets forth NOAA's re~
sponsibilities under these statutes in terms of the various functions
transferred to NOAA from other agencies. However, neither these
statutes nor the reorganization plan provide NOAA with a compre-
hensive organizational framework. As NOAA becomes more involved
in conservation programs, regulation of various activities, resource
management, climate, and environmental and science planning, our
authorities will have to be reviewed to insure that they are adequate
to meet our needs. The need for review is apparent, for example, in
areas where NOAA interfaces with other governmental units, and it is
in those interagency agreements you are concerned with today.
As you are aware, the administration presently is conducting a com-
prehensive natural resource reorganization study which includes
NOAA, and is preparing to undertake a comprehensive review of Fed-
eral ocean policy late this spring. We believe that it would be pre-
mature for us to take a position on the ocean policies and organiza-
tional structure of NOAA set forth in H.R. 9708, the proposed NOAA
Organic Act. Therefore, we strongly recommend that your committee
defer action on this bill until the administration has completed its re-
views. During this process, the administration will take the findings
and proposals put forth in H.R. 9708 into careful consideration.
I am not, Mr. Chairman, suggesting this subject should be de-
ferred for all time. Simply that the reorganization project which is
proceeding, should have the opportunity to present to you and to others
its conclusions, and that the President should have an opportunity to
make a judgment on what should happen to the natural resource
agencies, including NOAA.
PAGENO="0016"
12
I would like to focus my testimony on two subjects this morning,
and then perhaps to answer a couple of questions which are raised by
the GAO testimony earlier.
First, with respect to NOAA's present capabilities, existing author-
ities, and changing role, there were a variety of entities in which other
parts of Government came to NOAA at that time. We have amalga-
mated those entities into what we believe is a very carefully designed
structure and have reorganized NOAA more recently.
I will speak on that subject in a second.
Much of the impetus for the creation of NOAA came from the rec-
ommendations contained in the 1969 report of the Stratton Commis-
sion which was established by President Johnson. That report assumed
a couple of fundamental propositions, one is that ocean and atmos-
pheric matters should be together because of the significant interac-
tions of oceans and the atmosphere.
For example, if we look at the CO2 problem, which is an atmos-
pheric problem, it is the oceans which absorb more CO2 than any other
element. Therefore, it is not only an atmospheric problem, but also an
oceans problem. The weather is in part derived from the oceans, so
oceans and atmosphere should be tied together, and they have been put
together in NOAA.
In addition to those responsibilities we got in 1970, Congress has
given NOAA additional programmatic responsibilities, such as the
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, the Marine Protection, Re-
search, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, the Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1972, as amended in 1976, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the
Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, and the 1976
Amendments to the National Sea Grant College and Program Act.
In addition, we have moved forward in two other areas of interest
to this committee.
First, as mentioned earlier today, we have established a National
Climate Office and are moving with the development of a national
climate program. I hope shortly that the President will be signing an
executive order in connection with that subject.
Furthermore, because of action taken by this subcommittee and Con-
gress, we are soon to propose to Congress a weather modification pro-
gram for the country. An advisory committee has been established
by the Department of Commerce, and a report will be due this August
from that advisory committee. Shortly thereafter we will comment on
that report, and also make proposals to this subcommittee.
Let me turn to the reorganization of NOAA now. I will be brief,
because ~we have discussed this subject with the committee both before
the reorganization took place, in an effort to solicit the committee's
views, and after the reorganization took place.
There are some elements of that reorganization that I think are
particularly pertinent to what we are discussing today.
For example, we have created the position of Assistant Administra-
tor for Research and Development. It is important to note that we have
kept the various program responsibilities under this office such as the
Sea Grant program, the Office of Ocean Engineering, the national cli-
mate program, and other matters such as U.S. participation in the
Global Atmospheric Research Program, again relying on the proposi-
PAGENO="0017"
13
tion that those elements should remain together. This person will help
us not only in research and development, but also in the transfer of
that technology to the line components of NOAA.
In other words, we will attempt to define our mission better and to
have our research and development programs oriented more toward
that mission than they have been in the past.
When I testified before the committee last, I mentioned that within
30 days or so, we would have someone designated for the position of
Assistant Administrator for Research and Development. I am pleased
to inform you today that Ferris Webster, formerly of Woods Hole,
has been offered that position and has accepted. He has now joined
NOAA and I hope he will be on board permanently very soon.
We have also created an Office of Ocean Management, which will
allow us to use more prudently the ocean areas around this country.
In addition, we have created the position of Assistant Administrator
for Oceanic and Atmospheric Services, and Dr. Haligren is the Acting
Administrator for Oceanic and Atmospheric Services. It is my im-
pression that keeping those two elements together has workedi to our
great benefit.
We have merged two elements in the fisheries area, the National
Marine Fisheries Service and the Office of Marine Resources. These
two have been merged into the Office of Fisheries under an Assistant
Administrator.
We now have `an Office for Policy and Planning. I am hopeful that
office will resolve some of the problems we have had highlighted today.
Some of our long-term planning has not taken place as it should, pri-
marily because line elements get caught up in day-to-day activities in
fulfilling their programmatic activities and responsibilities. They are
not able because of that to have as much long-term planning as we
would like.
I `mentioned earlier the National Climate Office, a new component of
NOAA in its reorganization. The National Climate Office is part of
the Office of the Assistant Administrator for Research and Develop-
ment. We are moving forward in that area.
Ultimately, if we get the weather modification responsibilities with-
in the Government, that too may have a separate office. It may be in
the research and development area, or it might report directly to the
Administrator of NOAA.
We are working on one other issue which relates to science. Dr.
Benton has been given the responsibility of analyzing our relation-
ships with universities and other research institutions to make sure
that Government research, either performed by NOAA or contracted
to NOAA, is performed in an efficient and. effective manner. I think
there is a good deal of Government research that should be done out-
side the Government, outside NOAA, and we want to define what re-
search should be done outside. There is also a good deal that should be
done inside. We want to define the kinds of relationships that will
foster better research, whether it is done inside or outside. For exam-
ple, some of our laboratories are located at universities, and that
fosters relationships between the best scientists at those universities
and the best scientists in NOAA.
Let me add one other point. I think this committee has highlighted
science and technology very well, and so has the President. In this
33~547 0 - 78 . 2
PAGENO="0018"
14
last budget, the President indicated he wanted a substantial increase
in funds allocated for basic research: A good deal of credit for that
decision goes to the President's Adviser on Science and Technology,
but the President has recognized the importance of science and is
putting more money into science.
Let me deviate from the testimony and add a couple of words about
issues raised by the GAO's testimony earlier today.
One has to do with specialized services in the area of weather con-
cerning our relationship with FAA, and weather services provided to
FAA centers. We now have meteorologists which are part of the Na-
tional Weather Service in the FAA centers, so that program is already
in operation.
There is some implication that because two agencies were involved,
this took longer than it would otherwise have taken had one agency
been involved, and there was a lack of collaboration and of coordina-
tion in this area. It is true that we did not resolve this question in a
matter of weeks. It is also true that I have yet to see anything in the
Government resolved in a matter of weeks.
There were some knotty questions since this is a subject of aviation
and it is also a subject of weather. One can wonder under those cir-
cumstances whether the FAA should put meteorologists in the FAA
centers, or whether we should. The FAA and NOAA ultimately con-
cluded that we are talking about providing a weather service. We are
talking about hiring and directing meteorologists, and that is a func-
tion NOAA can best perform.
We have a collaborative agreement with the FAA. It makes no
difference whether the funds are in the FAA budget or our budget,
or whether the personnel ceiling points are FAA ceiling points or ours,
since they would be used for the same purpose.
The fact remains that we do have a collaborative agreement; our
meteorologists are in their centers; and the service is being performed
well. -
This is in connection with the specialized services statement in the
GAO testimony. that bothers me just a little bit, because it raises an
issue, but does not give an answer.
There is a suggestion on page 7 of the testimony, for example, that
in order to provide better specialized services, we should reallocate
existing resources. However, there is no indication in the testimony,
nor in the GAO report, what existing resources we should reallocate,
from where we would take resources, or what programs we would do
away with.
Our programs are congressionally mandated, and it is very difficult
to take funds or personnel away from existing programs, unless one
can conclude that those programs are of a lower priority or
nonessential.
NOAA has hardly more people today than in 1970 when it was
created, even though it has more programs and more functions. It is
therefore very difficult for us to take people away from some pro-
grams even though newer programs are intriguing, and would per-
form substantial service to other interests of the country.
Let me mention one other element of the GAO testimony which is
of concern to us and obviously to GAO. That has to do with remote
sensing by satellite.
PAGENO="0019"
15
The testimony implied that we are not moving forward in a co-
ordinated fashion to utilize as well as possible the remote sensing
capabilities we now have.
First of all, until recently, we have been in an experimental phase
with remote sensing capabilities of systems such as Landsat. We are
rapidly learning more about what remote sensing can do, and I think
within the near future, the Government will move into an operational
phase with applications of both Landsat and Seasat data.
That, too, takes time, because we `are now talking about funds,
which will be available to the executive branch 1 year, or 11/2 years,
or 2 years hence. Also, we need to collaborate with other agencies to
find out what the needs are and who can best provide those needs.
We are not sitting still. We have an arrangement and we are work-
ing with the Department of Agriculture, in connection with the provi-
sion of weather services to the Department of Agriculture.
In addition, we have an interagency committee, which includes the
Department of the Interior, NASA, the Department of Agriculture,
and NOAA, that is working on the subject of remote sensing, and the
provision of satellite services to the agencies.
We will have a more complete answer to this question in the near
future. I assure you we will move forward. We will provide the serv-
ices and use this technology, but it does take time to arrange it.
I am happy to answer any questions which the subcommittee may
have, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Benton can amplify answers to any questions, as can Dr.
Haflgren.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Frank follows:]
PAGENO="0020"
16
TESTIMONY OF RICHARD A. FRANK
ADMINI STRATOR
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINI~TRATI0N
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Before the
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 18, 1978
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today
to comment upon H.E.97O8, a bill which would establish a
national ocean policy and further refine and define the
mission of NOAA.
Because of the nature and quantity of NOAA's various
responsibilities, we operate under or are affected by over
100 different statutes. Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970
sets forth NOAA)s responsibilities under these statutes in
terms of the various functions transferred to NO½A from
other agencies. However, neither these statutes nor the
Reorganization Plan provides NOAA with a comprehensive
organizational framework. As NOAA becomes more involved
in conservation programs, regulation of various activities,
resource management, arid environmental and science
planning, our authorities will have to be reviewed to
ensure that they are adequate to meet our needs. The
need for review is apparent, for example, in areas where
NOAA interfaces with other governmental units.
PAGENO="0021"
17
We share your concerns that our ocean ~nd coastal
resources should be managed, protected, and utilized
in a sound and balanced manner. As you are aware, the
Administration presently is conducting a comprehensive
natural resource reorganization study which includes
NOAA, and is preparing to undertake a comprehensive
review of Federal ocean policy late this spring. We
believe that it would be premature for us to take a
position on the ocean policies and organizational
structure of NOAA set forth inFJ.R9708, the proposed
NOAA Organic Act. Therefore, we strongly recommend that
your Committee defer action on this bill until the
Administration has completed its reviews. During this
process, the Administration will take the findings and
proposals put forth in HR, 9708 into careful consideration.
In my testimony this morning, I will discuss the
following issues:
(1) NOAA's present capabilities, existing
authorities, and changing role; and
(2) an internal restructuring of NOAA which I
instituted as Administrator.
Present Capabilities and Existing Legislative Authorities
I would like to begin by discussing our present
capabilities and existing legislative authority since NOAA's
PAGENO="0022"
18
changing role has a direct bearing on the organizational/
mission issues raised in this proposed Organic Act.
NOAA was created in 1970 by Reorganization Plan No. 4
in recognition of the need to undertake a comprehensive
and unified approach to the problems confronting both the
use and preservation of the oceans and atmosphere. Under
the terms of the Reorganization Plan several organizations
throughout the government were moved into NOAA:
-- The Environmental Science Services Administration,
including the Weather Bureau, the Coast and
Geodetic Survey, Environmental Data Service,
the National Environmental Satellite Center, and
the ESSA Research Laboratories.
-- From the Department of the Interior, the marine
sport fish program of the Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife, and elements of the
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries.
-- Front the Department of the Interior, the Marine
Minerals Technology Center of the Bureau of
Mines.
-- From the National Science Foundation, the
Office of Sea Grant Programs.
-- From the Department of the Army, elements of
the. United States Lake Survey.
PAGENO="0023"
19
In addition, the programs of the National
Oceanographic Data Center, the National
Oceanographic Instrumentation Center, and the National
Data Buoy Project were transferred to NOZ~A.
Much of the impetus for the creation of NOAA came
from the recommendations contained in the 1969 report of
the Stratton Commission which was established by
President Johnson. The report, Our Nation and the Sea,
recommended, among other things, that an independent
ocean and atmospheric agency be created. In addition,
as Chairman of the National Council on Marine Resources
and Engineering Development, Vice President humphrey
played a strong leadership role in marine sciences, and
was responsible for a number of recommendations from that
Council concerning the Federal effort in ocean related
programs. These recommendations were also considered
in the formulation of NOAA. Those responsible for the
creation of NOAA -- legislators, scientists, engineers,
environmentalists, and public officials -- wanted to
bring the problems of oceans and atmosphere to the
national prominence that other scientific and technical
fields had attained during the 1960's.
In the last seven years, under the leadership of
Dr. Robert M. White, a distinguished scientist and able
administrator, NOAA moved increasingly toward becoming
PAGENO="0024"
20
more than just a science service organization and
became the more broadly-based resource management,
environmental planning organization proposed by the
Stratton Commission and contemplated by those who favored
establishment of NOAA.
A number of legislative additions to, or changes
in, NOAAs responsibilities have occurred over the last
few years.
-- The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972.
Under this Act, NOAA and the Fish and
Wildlife Service administer programs designed
to conserve the many species of marine mammals.
-- The Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972.
Under Titles II and III of this Act, NOAA is
responsible for various programs designed to
find out more about ocean pollution and
minimize pollution problems, and to protect
certain ocean areas through the establishment
of marine sanctuaries.
-- The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as
amended in 1976.
This Act gives NOAA the authority and
PAGENO="0025"
21
responsibility to protect our Nation's
coastal zone through joint Federal-state
efforts.
-- The Endangered Species Act of 1973.
NOAA and the Fish and Wildlife Service
jointly administer this Act to ensure
protection of fish, wildlife, and plants
which have been declared to be either
endangered or threatened species.
-- The Fishery Conservation and Management Act
of 1976.
This Act gives NOAA the responsibility for
the protection and management of the fishery
resources found off our coasts.
-- The 1976 Amendments to the National Sea
Grant College and Program Act.
Under the Sea Grant Program authorized by
this Act, NOAA supports research projects
throughout the Nation designed to learn
more about the marine environment and the
rational use of our marine resources.
In addition to these legislative expansions of NOAA's
role, NOAA has undertaken other significant activities in
PAGENO="0026"
22
oceanic and atmospheric sciences. For example, NOAA
conducts the Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf Environmental
Assessment Program, in support of OCS energy development,
for the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land
Nanagement. To support these energy-related studies, the
Energy Research and Development Act of 1975 provided for the
reactivation of NOAA vessels. Also, the Law of the Sea
negotiations, a direct responsibility of the Department
of State, have involved NOAA support in areas of marine
pollution control and abatement, fisheries, and environmental
effects of seabed mining.
Reorganization of NOAA
In order to integrate NOAA responsibilities in a
logical manner, and in order to improve NOAA's operating
effectiveness generally, I initiated the task of restructuring
the organization upon my arrival at NOAA. At the outset, I
received a comprehensive reorganization Option Paper that
had been prepared by the Assistant Secretary for Policy of
the Department of Commerce. That paper had been stimulated
by reorganization proposals suggested by Congressional
leaders and included options suggested by others,
including Secretarial officers of the Department of
Commerce, Dr. Robert N. White, and other NOAA personnel.
I distributed the Option Paper to senior NOAA
personnel, asked their views about reorganization, and met
PAGENO="0027"
23
with them in groups and individually. Furthermore, I
met with all potentially interested Members of Congress,
Congressional committee staffs, interested persons in
the Department of Commerce, White House staff, 0MB staff,
the scientific community, constituencies, and others in
the ocean and atmospheric communities. During these
meetings, I discussed several possible reorganization
plans and solicited views.
The overwhelming majority of individuals with whom I
spoke believed that a reorganization was advisable to
make NOAA more cohesive and efficient, to improve specific
aspects of the agency's operations, or simply to revitalize
NOAA.
On the basis of these discussions, and with the
approval of Secretary Kreps, a new structure was adopted
which includes the following changes.
We created the position of Assistant Administrator for
Research and Development to provide a focus for our R&D
activities and to become a national center for oceanic
and atmospheric science and technology. The Office of
Research and Development has under its jurisdiction our
Environmental Research Laboratories, the Sea Grant Program,
the Office of Ocean Engineering, the National Climate
Program, and such other matters as U.S. participation in
PAGENO="0028"
24
the Global Atmospheric Research Program. I believe this
Office will provide NOAA with the means to coordinate
our many different research and development activities.
As with all of our programs, I hope that by centralizing
these various efforts under an Assistant Administrator
we will be able to provide a better, more cost effective
service to the Nation.
In the 1977 NOAA reorganization, we also established
an Office of Ocean Management which brings together a
number of NOAA programs and formulates decisions on
priority needs for ocean use both with NOAA elements and,
to the extent required by law, with the ocean-related
programs of other Federal agencies. When conflicts are
identified between users of ocean resources or between
conservation needs and resource uses, interagency
management strategies will be developed to resolve these
conflicts. As a synthesizer of information, that office
will seek improved methods of analysis and assessment of
socio-economic and environmental impact evaluation,
resource use planning, and decisionmaking. Where further
research and development is required to improve the decision
process, the Office of Ocean Management will help identify
priority areas.
NOAA is a major repository for information, and
scientific and technical skills concerning ocean resource
PAGENO="0029"
25
management. Of course, for some areas, the Government's
expertise is in other agencies. Through implementation
of our responsibilities under such Acts as Title III of
the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act,
the Deepwater Port Act, the Coastal Zone. Management Act,
and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, we have
acquired considerable experience for making ocean resource
management evaluations. I believe that effective assessments
by NOAA of proposed ocean activities is essential for the
development of rational ocean management programs.
In other areas, NOAA's major service functions such as
the National Weather Service, National Environmental
Satellite Service, National Ocean Survey, and Environmental
Data Service, have been combined under an Assistant
Administrator for Oceanic and Atmospheric Services. As
with our R&D programs, I believe that we will be able to
provide better services by having these several programs
coordinated by a single office. These activities must become
more integrated and mutually supportive.
NOAA has become more responsive to its fishery
responsibilties through the merger of the National Marine
Fisheries Service and Office of I'larine Resources into the
Office of Fisheries under an Assistant Administrator. The
complex issues which we deal wi:th involving our Nation's
fisheries resources demand our constant attention. For
PAGENO="0030"
26
example, the development of rational fishery management
plans and programs should be facilitated by bringing
together the expertise which we have in these two offices.
Our important marine mammal and endangered species programs
will he given more emphasis and should become more effective.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries will be in a
better position to ensure that our fisheries programs are
coordinated with the activities of NOAA carried out by the
other Assistant Administrators. Thus, we believe that for
the first time we will have a truly NOAA wide effort which
we can bring to bear on these crucial fisheries issues.
Finally, prior to the reorganization NOAA lacked a
long-range planning capability designed to coordinate
NOAA policy with other agencies and Congress. An office
has been established under the Assistant Administrator for
Policy and Planning, which has primary responsibility for
developing long-range NOAA policies, designing programs
to implement these policies in conjunction with the other
Assistant Administrators, and coordinating NOAA policy
development and implementation with the Office of Policy
of the Department of Commerce, other Departments, the
Congress, and the public. This Office includes a separate
office responsible for working on issues about ocean minerals
policy and planning in conjunction with the Department of
the Interior.
PAGENO="0031"
27
This restructuring has improved our internal
coordination and enhanced our policy and planning
activities, as well as our ability to carry out our
statutory mandates. It is too soon, of course, to
make meaningful judgments about the success of this
reorganization, and experience nay ultimately dictate
modifications. I am quite hopeful, however, that with
the outstanding individuals we have been fortunãte to
bring into NOAA, the reorganization will substantially
improve our operating effectiveness.
Conclusion
I appreciate this opportunity to discuss v~ith the
Committee NOAA's activities, tbe opportunities we have,
and the efforts we are making to assist in solving some
of the critical scientific, social, economic, and
environmental problems our Nation is faced with today.
PAGENO="0032"
28
Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Frank.
I do wish to pay tribute to the fact that in the relatively brief time
YOU have administered the agency, you have moved aggressively in
accomplishing a number of important initiatives in terms of reorganiz-
ing and strengthening the administrative personnel of the agency.
You have also moved very rapidly in providing this committee with
a vast amount of information which we have asked for and which we
appreciate receiving, particularly the details you recently supplied
about the many laboratories that you operate..
Being aware of this, I am inclined to agree with your point that
some of the problem areas that have been pointed to by GAO and by
this committee, and probably others, may stem from what you might
call start-up, or transitional kinds of problems. I presume that this
would lead us to conclude that at the end of a reasonable period of time
you would have solved all of these types of problems.
Mr. FRANK. I guess the answer to that has to be yes, sir.
Mr. BROWN. We keep asking that year after year, you know.
Mr~ FRANK. Let me raise ou~ area which we have not dealt with ade-
quately. I am not sure it is a transitional problem, because it predates
this administration.
There was some mention of plans in the meteorological area, plans
relating to environment, plans relating. to specialized services, and
some of those plans are out of date; we admit that. However, we have
now determined that those plans should be updated, and we will up-
date them and follow them to the best extent we can. That is an area
that has fallen by the wayside and should not have, but we will do
better.
Mr. BROWN. When you mentioned that NOAA had relationships
with universities, I think the implication was that you wished to rely
more than you have on outside sources of research and development
at some of the research labs.
To what degree does NOAA rely upon extramural contracts or
grants for its research and development work? Is that a major aspect
of your operation?
Mr. FRANK. It is a major part, but not the major aspect of the
operation.
Basically the criteria which I would like to use is to have a func-
tion performed by the individual or laboratory which can do it best.
If that happens to be in NOAA, then NOAA should do it. If it hap-
pens to be in a university, then that university ought to do it under
grant or contract. We are now attempting to determine which is the
best way to find the answer to that.
I might say, especially in the atmospheric area, NOAA's laboratories
are doing excellent work, and we can be very proud of them. Indeed,
1 was somewhat surprised to find out the q~uality of the work. We were
able to attract outstanding scientists. I think that Dr. Hess, who runs
the Environment Research Laboratories, has done an excellent job.
We also have individuals running specialized NOAA laboratories in
Princeton and Boulder who are doing an outstanding job. However, if
one of the labs outside NOAA can do better, then I think we ought to
contract with that lab.
Mr. BROWN. Fine.
Since you mentioned Boulder, I will ask Mr. Wirth if he has any
questions.
PAGENO="0033"
29
Mr. WIRTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was pleased to hear that endorsement for the laboratories. I think
that before you came on board, we were concerned that the Atmos-
pheric Physics and Chemistry Lab (AP'CL) was going to be disbanded,
and I was pleased when you decided not to disband it, and endorsed
its mission. I have not talked to Dr. Hess during the last couple of
months, but I understand that he has some reorganization ideas in
mind for strengthening that lab's mission, which seems to make a lot
of sense.
This committee, as you know, has been very concernedabout overlap-
ping responsibilities, and about who is responsible for what. One of the
major concerns that we have had relates to air pollution, the role that
NOAA has in that, the role EPA has in `that, how NASA is being in-
volved and how other agencies are involved as well. Do you find, now
that you have been at NOAA for awhile, that you have the capability,
the time, and that you and others feel a responsibility to coordinate
with other agencies? Is there any kind of mechanism that ought to be
developed to foster coordination?
Mr. FRANK. There may be two kinds of air pollution we should talk
about.
If we are talking about something like the CO2 problem, we will
have better coordination through the new National Climate Office and
NOAA will be responsible for that. We would also be able to assure
that there is no redundancy, and that there are no gaps.
If we are talking about air pollution at lower levels, then I suppose
we have to divide that into several areas. For example, the National
Weather Service is responsible for weather forecasts to support air
pollution alerts, and Dr. Hallgren could speak to that subject.
If we are talking about research in connection with air pollution,
we work with EPA.
In this area there is an involvement of several agencies, and I think
everyone, especially those of us in the Government, recognizes that
there could be better coordination.
I would be happy to respond to your question in a specific area, if
you would like to refine it.
Mr. WIRTH. Let me talk about the missions of the agencies in atmos-
pheric research. I assume NSF is sponsoring a good deal of research
in this area, that EPA is sponsoring research in that area, and that you
are not only doing a lot of research in-house, but you are probably con-
tracting a good deal of research. What kind of mechanism should be
developed, to make sure that we are not inventing the' wheel in three
or four different agencies?
Mr. FRANK. I think the new National Climate Office will be doing
that kind of coordination.
Let me ask Dr. Benton if he could amplify on that response.
Dr. BENTON. I think. Mr. Wirth, there is rather close coordination
between the National Science Foundation, for example, and NOAA.
We discuss these kinds of problems with our colleagues in NSF quite
frequently. Their mission is, of course, somewhat different from ours.
The National Science Foundation supports basic research in the aca-
demic community, for example, and our research tends to be much more'
mission-oriented. This does not mean it is not related to fundamental
33-547 0 - 78 - 3
PAGENO="0034"
30
questions in science, but it does mean that we try to focus on problems
where the solutions can have particular value to the missions for
which we are responsible.
There are a number of coordinating groups within the executive
branch which are helpful. For example, there is a Federal Committee
on Meteorological Services and Research, of which I am now the
chairman.
There is a Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and
Research. Dr. Hallgren has just recently been appointed to that role.
There is an interagency committee on meterological research, which
includes the National Science Foundation, NASA, the Department
of Agriculture, and the Department of Transportation. This commit-
tee is a useful vehicle for attempting to focus on interagency problems.
In addition to this, however, we have a number of bilateral arrange-
ments with other agencies to treat coordination of specific problems
that pertain to more narrow areas.
Mr. Wiirni. We have talked a number of times on this subcommittee
about the management problems, the public administration problem,
that we are in the business of trying to figure out. These are very
thorny problems related to the management of very complex institu-
tions which address very complex problems. Your job is to take care of
the research end; our job is to try to make sure that each agency:
NASA, NSF, NOAA, has a definable role. While it is part of your
responsibility to make sure that your agency has momentum, and as
much funding as possible. it is not necessarily in your interest to co-
ordinate with NSF and NASA. Is that the nature of the beast?
Dr. BENTON. I would in general disagree. I do not mean to imply
there are never issues where two agencies may disagree, but different
agencies can be more effective, can use their resources to better ad-
vantage, can perform their missions better, and generally speaking
have a more satisfactory program if unnecessary duplication is
avoided.
I can give one example, where our cooperation has worked very
well. We have a bilateral arrangement with the Geological Survey. A
rather large committee of representatives from NOAA and the Geo-
logical Survey meet regularly to discuss matters that are in the border
area between the responsibilities of the two agencies, and we find this
to be an extremely useful mechanism in furthering our progranis by
cooperation.
Mr. WIRTH. Presumably, one of the solutions to this is to provide
an agency with a lead role, a responsibility you have in several areas.
I know you cannot comment on that.
Dr. BENTON. No; that is correct. I think it is quite helpful to have
lead roles clearly established. However well you do this, in a policy
sense, there will aways be border-line areas between two functions
which will require clarification. It is far better for the agencies to co-
operate rather than to be at war with each other.
Mr. Wurni. I would like, Mr. Chairman, to follow up one more step.
I was struck by the report done by the National Academy of Sciences
on the various NOAA atmospheric R. & D. laboratories. I am sure
you are familiar with that report, since you were chairman of the
Committee on Atmospheric Sciences at the time. Should we be doing
PAGENO="0035"
31
more to encourage outside groups like the National Academy to be
working with you, NASA, NSF, on this kind of problem? I am
troubled by the mechanisms which we have. We do not have the tech-
nical capability and time to routinely look at the problem in the kind
of depth that is necessary. Therefore, how do we. assure that the
public treasury is being protected through development of the most
effective atmospheric research program that we can achieve?
The lead agency concept is one vehicle for that. What other vehi-
cles are available for attempting to develop a closer coordination or
better directed programs?
Dr. BENTON. Well, I think that your example is an excellent one.
The National Academy of Sciences has been extremely helpful to
NOAA, and to the Federal Government, in reviewing programs, in
pointing out inadequacies, and in suggesting directions in which pro-
grams might go.
The particular report to which you refer was one that was prepared
by the Committee on Atmospheric Sciences of the National Academy.
At the time, I was chairman of the committee; that was before I
joined NOAA. I am very well aware of its contents. I spent a very
long day with NOAA officials when Dr. White was Administrator,
reviewing the contents of the report, and bringing to his attention
some of the things which we as members of the Committee on Atmos-
pheri.c Science.s felt should be known to NOAA.
None of us operate in an ideal manner. I am certain, for a whole
variety of reasons, that our research programs can be improved. We
strive to do so, and I think the involvement of groups such as the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences is a very important part of the total
process.
Dr. HALLGREN. I might add that the Global Atmospheric Research
Program (GARP) is a good example of extensive cooperation with the
agencies and with the involvement of the National Academy of
Sciences.
Many of you may recall that there have been a number of major
experiments carried out in the last 8 or 9 years, starting with the
Barbados oceanographic meteorological experiment in 1959, followed
by others in the international field, such as the one for the Great
Lakes, and the upcoming Global Weather Experiment, which will
start very shortly.
If you trace through this particular type of activity, you will see
that the National Academy of Sciences made a great contribution in
assisting all of the Federal agencies in formulating the scientific plans
for these experiments. Based on these comprehensive scientific plans,
the agencies get together and marshall much of their resources in
unison against these plans. By doing so, an experiment can be carried
out that is far greater than any one agency ever could have carried
out. NOAA has been the lead agency throughout this. This is the
second time I have been coordinator. It started when I was originally
Federal coordinator back in the late sixties and early seventies, and
we have had excellent cooperation in mustering the types of efforts
that are required for this type of research, which must be done on a
very large scale if you are ever to get meaningful answers to the
scientific questions being posed.
Mr. WIRTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
PAGENO="0036"
32
I will close by saying to all present that you have a very impressive
sense of being in control of the newly developed agency that has been
all over the block, and that is nice to see. I hope you will let us know
when this committee can be of assistance to you, whether formally or
informally, in terms of bringing greater order out of what I think are
diverse projects and programs.
I appreciate your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. Walker?
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Frank, I note that on page 1 of your testimony,
you state that NOAA operates under or is affected by over 100 differ-
ent statutes. Is it your intention to indicate to this subcommittee that
NOAA can operate more effectively through over 100 different statutes
than under a single statute that is specifically designed to give NOAA
congressional direction?
Mr. FRANK. I suppose it is much easier from a logistic point of view
to have it all in one place, and that is a conceivable benefit of something
* like an Organic Act.
There may be certain disabilities also. Most agencies have more than
one statute, and so you do have to look in various places of the United
States Code to find out where your authority is and to find the pro-
grams.
There happens to be a large number of statutes for NOAA, and they
are diverse. I think there would be some benefit to combining some of
those programs and some of the laws.
Mr. WALKER. Realizing that NOAA stands for the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, it appears to me that the legislation
before this subcommittee tends to place a far greater emphasis on
oceans and ocean policy than it does on atmosphere and general science.
Would you care to comment on that view?
Mr. FRANK. I would prefer not to comment on the specific legisla-
tion, because we have not had an opportunity to look at it. As I men-
tioned earlier, we think it is somewhat premature to do so.
If this subject were to come up again at some point, whether in the
context of Government reorganization, or an Organic Act, it seems to
me a balanced proposal, whatever it is, would be called for. We want
to have well balanced oceanic and atmospheric programs, whatever
our mandate is.
Mr. WALKER. On page 11 of your testimony, you indicate that prior
to the reorganization, NOAA lacked a long-range planning capability
designed to coordinate NOAA policy with other agencies and Congress.
This committee in a number of instances has included sections within
legislation mandating institutional arrangements which enhance such
long-range planning and coordination among and between the agencies
of Government. Would you agree that having such a clause in NOAA's
organic legislation would, in fact, do much to resolve this problem and
not leave you dependent on the good will of other administrators to
achieve coordination?
Mr. FRANK. I guess you are asking the same question that was asked
of GAO a minute ago, and that is whether a congressional mandate
for coordination helps. I think the answer given by the GAO is quite
right.
PAGENO="0037"
33
One way coordination can come about is simply through through the
agencies involved agreeing to coordinate. We do that with NASA,
USGS, and FAA.
Another way is for Congress to require it. There is a greater degree
of certainty if Congress requires something to be done.
Mr. WALKER. You mentioned that you had resolved some of the
coordination problems with the FAA. What aJbout in the agricultural
services? I understand that there have been ongoing difficulties with
regard to the Department of Agriculture, and its jurisdiction. Would
some kind of congressional mandate in that area, for instance, be help-
ful to you?
Mr. FRANK. I think a definition of the issue, and a definition of what
we ought to be doing, and by we, I mean the Federal Government;
would be useful. I am not sure that it should come from Congress,
but we are working towards those definitions in our relationships
now with the Department of Agriculture. It is true that we need to
provide better services to the Department of Agriculture. We are
now more aware of the need to do that. The technology only recently
has allowed us to provide some services.
The Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary Bergland, himself has be-
come more aware of the importance of weather. Indeed, I think it is
stated that it is the single most critical element in determining whether
the crops will be good or bad in any particular year.
We now have the awareness. We are working with the Department
of Agriculture. Coordination could come about through that interac-
tion. It could also come about through a mandate from Congress.
* Mr. WALKER. I am interested in whether the service ultimately gets
down to the individual farmer. If it gets to the Department of Agri-
culture, you are depending on them to get it to the individual farmer.
Mr. FRANK. Let me call on Dr. llallgren and let him respond also.
First, we have developed with the Department of Agriculture some-
thing called the green thumb box which I think you may be in-
terested in seeing in operation. It is simply a box which can be con-
nected acoustically to the telephone and electrically to the television
set for the use of the farmer in getting current weather information.
Eventually it could be sold for as little as $35 or $40. We would pro-
pose to provide weather information that would be useful to the
farmer through two computers. The farmer could get that informa-
tion stored in the green thumb box, simply by placing a phone call.
It wi]l all he done automatieally after that, and could be selectively
recalled and displayed on the television set. The farmer would be able
to receive information such as where the frostline is, what the satel-
lite pictures show, what the weather forecast is, and the like. We
would feed the information directly into the computer through our
NO kA weather lines.
That is an example of how we will be providing more information
on a timely basis to farmers. The box was worked out using technology
off the shelf. It was worked out by an interplay between the National
Weather Service and the Department of Agriculture.
The Department of Agriculture has a better understanding of what
the farmer needs, and the National Weather Service has a better
understanding of what we can provide.
Dr. HALLGREN. I would like to make a couple of comments.
PAGENO="0038"
34
Of course, there are a number of areas of interaction between the
Department of Agriculture and the Department of Commerce, with
regard to weather matters.
You mentioned remote sensing and the LACIE project. I would like
to focus on a third one, the Agriculture Weather Services, which the
gentleman from GAO mentioned.
It is true today that we only have approximately one-third of the
Nation covered with agriculture weather service stations, and these
are the type of services that go directly down to the farmer. The
information is in regard to what they should do on planning operations
such as harvesting and spraying.
Mr. WALKER. Excuse me.
Is this the kind of information in the green thumb box which you
could provide to the farmer?
Dr. HALLGREN. The green thumb box concept would be a part of an
overall program. It would be one of the important mechanisms through
which you disseminate the information.
Of course, you have to have those forecasts prepared by the forecast-
ers around the country. We have put together, in full cooperation
with the Department of Agriculture, a plan for expanding the weather
services across the Nation. Like all specialized weather services,
whether they be aviation, marine, air pollution, or agriculture, they re-
quire personnel to do the job correctly. We are presently proposing
these, and are hopeful in due course that they will be up for your
consideration.
Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have no more questions.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. Frank, you or perha~ps Dr. Haligren mentioned an
example of successful coordination of multiple-agency activity, in fact
multinational activity, and you stated that the program was based on a
comprehensive scientific plan. As a theoretical matter, I ask if it is
not Obviously easier to coordinate activities and resources when you
are operating in accordance with a generally accepted comprehensive
plan, than when you are operating not only with a plan, but also with
substantial policy differences in what you are trying to achieve?
Mr. FRANK. The answer is yes.
Mr. BROWN. Specifically in the service area, you have a situation
where regardless of the kind of service, the first element in successful
coordination would be, it seems to me, agreeing upon the scope and
level of services which need to be provided, and then achieving co-
ordination to meet those goals~ Perhaps we are not doing as well as
we should in approaching that aspect of the problem, particularly
when it will involve coordination of not only a number of agency
departments, but different levels of government in the private sector.
Mr. FRANK. Again, we could do better. I might say we talk a lot
a.bout the distinction between Congress oil one hand and the executive
branch on the other.
We are all in this together. A lot of good ideas, and a lot of prompt-
ing have come from Congress. In other areas, it has come from us.
So when the question is asked, "Is it better for Congress to mandate
something?" I would say generally that it is perhaps preferable. Not
just because there is a legislative mandate, but because an idea can come
from your staff, which because of the press of business, or the absence
of an individual, would not come from us.
PAGENO="0039"
35
Mr. BROWN. Gentlemen, we are faced with a dilemma, and I will
resolve it by asking if we can submit some additional questions to you.
in writing. We have a number of other questions which we have not had
time to explore, but I am anticipating a series of votes in the near
future, and I hesitate to delay you unduly because of that. So, if you'
are willing to assist us by supplying some written answers, we could
dispense with any further questions at this time.
Mr. FRANK. We would be happy to, Mr. Chairman.
[See `appendix for prepared questions and answers.]
Mr. BROWN. This is the first of a series of hearings on this subject,
and on this legislation, and we will possibly be back in touch with you.
with regard to additional hearings.
Mr. FRANK. Thank you, sir.
Mr. BROWN. The subcommittee will be adjourned subject to the call
of the Chair.
[Whereupon, the subcommittee was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.]
PAGENO="0040"
PAGENO="0041"
NOAA ORGANIC ACT
THURSDAY, J~UNE 22, 1978
TJ.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Co~rMrrn~E ON SCIENCE AND TEChNOLOGY,
SUBCOMMIrPEE ON THE Ei~VIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE,
Wcc~shington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 2 p.m., in room 2325,
Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George E. Brown, Jr. (chair-
man) presiding.
Mr. BROWN. The subcommittee will please come to order.
We have three distinguished witnesses this afternoon, and we will
try to minimize the imposition on their time by starting approx-
imately on time.
I have a brief opening statement which I would like to read.
This afternoon we hold a second hearing on H.R. 9708, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Organic Act. The
purpose of these hearings is to lay the groundwork for development
of a truly comprehensive yet explicit charter for NOAA's activities.
Specifically, this subcommittee is concerned that the proposed legisla-
tion, as currently written, largely overlooks NOAA's atmospheric and
environmental activities.
Therefore, we hope to identify through these hearings which atmos-
pheric and environmental policies and responsibilities need to be con-
sidered in the development of a NOAA Organic Act. These needs will
be addressed through a revised NOAA Organic Act which balances
NOAA's oceanic and atmospheric activities, which will be introduced
in the 96th Congress.
In addition, we plan to sponsor a. workshop in the fall at which the
issues relating to atmospheric research and services raised during these
hearings will be reviewed and hopefully resolved. Participants in the
workshop will involve members from both user and scientific com-
munities from Federal and State governments and the private sector.
The subcommittee has already heard from NOAA officials, who sup-
ported the intent of the bill but recommended that it be postponed
until after various Administration ocean policy and reorganization
proposals have been made. We also heard from the General Account.-
ing Office, which testified that the need for a strong lead-agency in
atmospheric sciences had surfaced in several of its past reports.
Obviously, we are not trying to rush through any legislation in this
area, but are engaging in what might be described as a planning and
foresight procedure which we hope will better equip the Congress to
act intelligently on this legislation, when it has become a little clearer
as to what the Administration's posture will be.
(37)
PAGENO="0042"
38
Our first witness this afternoon is Dr. Louis J. Battan, member of
the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere
(NACOA). We are very pleased to have you with us this afternoon,
Dr. Battan.
STATEMENT OP DR. LOUIS 1. BATTAN, MEMBER, NATIONAL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE
Dr. BATTAN. Thank you very much.
At the outset let me say that I would like to acknowledge the assist-
ance of Dr. Abram Bernstein of the NACOA staff, who worked with
me on the preparation of the statement which your staff has.
With your permission, I would like to not read the whole thing, but
read parts of it as I go through.
Mr. BROWN. Without objection, the full text of the statement will
be included in the record, and you may abbreviate it in whatever way
you wish, Dr. Battan.
Dr. BATrAN. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I am Louis J. Battan, director of the Institute of
Atmospheric Physics at the University of Arizona. I have served in
the past as president of the American Meteorological Society, and as
Chairman of the Committee on Atmospheric Sciences of the National
Academy of Sciences. I am a member of the National Advisory Com-
mittee on Oceans and Atmosphere, and it is in that capacity that I
appear before you today to offer some thoughts concerning H.R. 9708.
We are pleased to have this opportunity to offer our views on this
bill. NACOA believes that every effort should be made to centralize
nondefense oceanic and atmospheric activities of the Federal Govern-
ment within a single organization. As part of its basic mission, the
centralized agency should be charged with a wide spectrum of respon-
sibilities involving research and services.
On April 17, 1978, Mr. Marne A. Dubs, on behalf of NACOA,
discussed H.R. 9708 before the Subcommittee on Oceanography of
the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. He reaffirmed the
position stated in the preceding paragraph. At the same time, he noted
that NACOA is in the process of studying the question of specific
organizational arrangements. NACOA expects to conclude its con-
siderations in October or November of this year, and will present its
findings to the Administration and the Congress.
NACOA feels that the passage of an Organic Act for NOAA, such
as H.R. 9708, is a step that will strengthen NOAA by bringing to-
gether the basic and routine authorities under which it is operating.
Among other consequences of such an action would be the requirement
for periodic authorization hearings for NOAA. This would offer
NOAA and the Congress the opportunity to explore in detail whether
the oceanic and atmospheric interests of the Nation are being adequate-
ly handled.
Since Mr. Dubs, in his testimony before the Subcommittee on
Oceanography, has already given NACOA's view about the needs for
a national ocean policy and about the oceanic responsibilities of
NOAA, I will concentrate on the atmospheric responsibilities.
As you know, various Federal agencies have important responsibili-
ties which involve weather and climate, particularly as they impact
PAGENO="0043"
39
on their specific missions. For examples, one could cite the Depart-
ment of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, EPA, FAA, and
so forth.
NOAA's unique meteorological functions are threefold. It collects
weather and climate data by operating a system of networks, of
weather stations and satellites, and performs computerized analyses on
the data, makes forecasts, and issues forecasts and severe weather warn-
ings; it maintains archives and information centers for weather and
climate data; and it conducts research to improve the above activities.
As an outgrowth of all this, it provides interpretations and other forms
of technical assistance needed by other agencies in the performance of
their missions.
The Federal Government also has a program of scientific research
and related services involving the upper atmosphere and the planetary
and space environment. These matters do not ordinarily demand our
attention the way weather and climate do; however, concerns in recent
years about the effect on the ozone layer of engine emissions from
supersonic aircraft operating in the stratosphere, and of fluorocarbons
used as aerosol spray propellants, may serve to remind us of the im-
portance of understanding these matters better than we do now. The
upper atmosphere responsibilities of the Federal Government are to-
day handled primarily by the National Science Foundation, the Air
Force, and NASA, with NOAA playing a lesser but important role.
The Federal Government has other significant atmospheric respon-
sibilities apart from weather and climate. The promotion and regula-
tion of aviation and air safety to meet our Nation's transportation
needs is one example. Minimizing air pollution to protect our health
is another. Providing insurance, loans, and financial relief to individ-
uals, businesses, and communities beset by weather disasters such as
floods and severe storms is another. Weather enters into each of these,
but in a peripheral way, and is not the major concern of the responsible
agency.
The FAA is primarily concerned with air traffic control, air safety
technology, airport development, and pilot training; EPA is primari-
ly concerned with the development of technology to reduce emissions
of hazardous substances; the Defense Civil Preparedness Administra-
tion, Federal Disaster Assistance Administration, Federal Insurance
Administration, and Small Business Administration are concerned
with community planning and economic programs.
The present Federal organization does not seek to bring all these
"atmosphere-related" programs into a single agency, nor do we think
that is necessary. We believe aviation is most properly dealt with in
the broader context of transportation, air pollution in the broader
context of overall environmental protection, and waste disposal man-
agement, relief for flood and storm victims and community prepared-
ness for weather disasters in the broader context of community and
business development and economic assistance. More important than
the principle, however~ is the fact that there are no problems associated
with the assignment of these responsibilities to different agencies.
There is no parallel to the situation that confronts us in ocean affairs
where different activities-fishing, shipping, oil and mineral develop-
ment, power production, recreation-compete for use of the same piece
PAGENO="0044"
40
of ocean space, and decisions made in connection with one such activity
affect others. We need a coherent ocean policy to guide the Federal
decisionmakers, and we need a coherent ocean organization to appro-
priately link authority to responsibility.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the last sentence on page 5 of my
prepared statement be deleted.
Mr. BROWN. Without objection, the last sentence on page 5 will
be deleted.
Dr. BATrAN. Thank you.
Let me return, then, to the prime atmospheric responsibility that
is, and should be, NOAA's: the responsibility for providing those
weather and climate operations and services, and the research, neces-
sary to keep them at the forefront of our technological and scientific
capability, which are the backbone upon which the bulk of the weather
and climate activities of the Federal Government depend.
This mission is important and essential in its own right, quite apart
from NOAA's responsibilities in ocean affairs. And here, Mr. Chair-
man, I come to an important distinction which has perhaps not been
adequately made before.
On the one hand, the oceans and the atmosphere are indelibly linked.
Both are fluid systems overlying the solid Earth. Their behavior is
governed by the same physical laws. They both manifest motions over
a wide spectrum of scales which, overall, play essential roles in deter-
mining climate, weather, and consequently the distribution of life
forms from wheat to fish throughout our world. The two interact with
each other to a significant degree. It is simply not possible to under-
stand the behavior of one without understanding the other.
On the other hand, the missions of the Federal Government regard-
ing, say, fish, or marine minerals, and those concerned with weather
and climate, are separate and distinct. Each is important in its own
right, quite separate and apart from the other. And while NACOA
believes it makes sense, from the point of view of how best to get the
work done, for the bulk of our oceanic and our weather and climate
programs to be housed within the same agency, we believe that the
mission statements should be separate and distinct, with each set
forth in terms appropriate to it and determined by its fundamental
importance.
DEFINING NOAA'S MISSIONS
To do this, I suggest that title I of H.R. 9708 be retitled "Declaration
of a National Policy for the Oceans and the Atmosphere," and that
section 101, which is concerned with the oceans, be retitled "Declara-
tion of Ocean Policy." This section sets forth the reasons why the
oceans are important to us, the objectives that should underly the
oceanic and coastal programs of the Federal Government, and the
purposes of the act, one of which is "to designate (NOAA) as the lead
civilian agency with responsibility for coordinating and carrying out
national ocean policy in order to improve the understanding, assess-
ment, development., utilization, conservation, and protection of ocean
and coastal resources."
I would then suggest insertion of a new section 102-renumbering
the present section 102, which offers definitions, as section 103-which
might be titled "Declaration of Policy on Weather and Climate" and
which would contain statements of the following sort:
PAGENO="0045"
41
(a) Findings:
(1) Weather, climate, and the processes of the upper atmosphere are im-
portant to the United States and the world because of their impact on health,
agriculture, industry, and the economy; the extent to which they affect trans-
portation, communication, air pollution, and energy demand; the potential
loss of life and destruction of property associated with severe storms and floods;
and the role of weather and climate in national security.
(2) An understanding of weather, climate, and the state of the upper atmos-
phere, an ability to predict weather and climate at a future time, and an ability
to modify weather and climate, could satisfy many human needs and contribute
to national and international aspirations.
(3) The weather, climate, and upper atmosphere activities, programs, and
functions of the Federal Government should be conducted so as to contribute
materially to the following objectives:
(A) The preparation and issuing of weather and climate forecasts, and of
warnings of severe storms, floods, and weather hazardous to transportation,
for use by the general public and by Federal, State, and local governments
and by industry.
(B) The prevention, control, and reduction of air pollution.
(0) The development of long-range plans for agriculture, energy, trans-
portation, and so forth, incorporating knowledge of the likelihood of weather
and climate events, and incorporating the capability for modifying weather
and climate.
(D) * * *
Paragraphs (D) through (K) would parallel their oceanic counter-
parts in section 101, except that paragraph (E) would include mention
of the development of community preparedness plans for responding
to weather disasters, and would also speak of cooperation with the
private sector to insure as good a match as possible between the. Na-
tion's weather and climate capabilities-both Government and pri-
vate-and the Nation's weather and climate needs. I shall return to
these two subjects a little later.
Among the purposes of the act would then be "to designate NOAA
as the lead civilian agency with responsibility for carrying out na-
tional weather and climate policy in order to improve the under-
standing, prediction, and modification of weather and climate, and the
application of weather and climate information to agriculture, indus-
try, and other sectors of the economy."
Insertion of language into H.R. 9708 along these lines will provide
an essential element which is now missing and which must be there
if NOAA's missions are to be adequately set forth.
Let me turn now to the activities which NOAA is responsible for
now, and for which it must continue to be responsible if it is to carry
out the weather and climate mission I have outlined.
NOAA must collect weather and climate observations. It must
develop and maintain a data management system. It must prepare
weather and climate forecasts and it must disseminate them, along
with other weather and climate information. It must conduct research
to enable it to continually improve the skill with which it does these
things. And it must interact with other Federal agencies that need
its services or that can provide it with information it needs to do its
job.
I will touch only lightly on observations and data management, and
then go into more detail on services and research.
Collecting observations involves operating and maintaining net-
works of surface and upper air sounding stations. It also involves
PAGENO="0046"
42
satellites, river gages, and radars-both conventional and doppler.
It involves observations from buoys and ships at sea and from air-
planes in flight. It involves both routine observations and special
observations for special purposes, such as aircraft reconnaissance of
hurricanes. And it involves getting comparable data from other na-
tions of the world and sharing our data with them.
NASA, the Geological Survey, the FAA, the Coast Guard, and
the military services cooperate with NOAA in this task. On the in-
ternational side, NOAA works with the State Department and with
other nations through the World Meteorological Organization, a U.N.
agency.
Generally speaking, the observational activities are in good shape.
New technology does not always get incorporated into the system as
rapidly as it should, and in some locations there are simply not enough
observing stations. These problems are due primarily to inadequate
resources, rather than to organizational structure or to lack of adequate
statutory authority.
Data management means getting data of the right quality to the
right place at the right time `and in the right form. It involves quality
control, archiving, and retrieval, and conversion of basic data into use-
ful information. This must be done on a real-time basis for use in day-
to-day operations, and also on a longer time basis for subsequent use in
research and in provision of climatological information.
Here too, what problems there are relate to resources-funds and
technology-rather than statutory authority or organizational
arrangements.
Preparing and issuing weather and climate forecasts and warnings
and other related information is, of course, the ultimate purpose of all
of these activities, and I would like to go into this in a little more.
detail.
WEATHER AND CLIMATE SERVICES
Let me say at the outset that in this area I see two serious issues
which do, perhaps, require statutory clarification. These are:
(1) How far should NOAA's public service responsibilities go?
Should NOAA be responsible only for issuing forecasts and warnings,
or should it also have responsibility for educating the public on matters
of safety preparedness in the event of tornadoes, hurricanes, and other
life-threatening storms? Should it participate actively in the develop-
ment of community disaster preparedness plans? Should it participate
in setting limits to development in regions which are prone to weather
disasters, such as hurricanes along the coast and flash floods in certain
inland regions?
(2) How should NOAA interact with private businesses offering
weather and climate services? Where should the Government service
end and private enterprise take over?
The significance of these questions will berome clear as I proceed.
TYPES OF WEATHER AND CLIMATE SERVICES
One can think of weather and climate services as falling into three
basically different categories: disaster warnings, economic benefit
services, and convenience services.
PAGENO="0047"
43
Disaster warnings are typified by forecasts and advisories of im-
pending hurricanes, tornadoes, flash floods, and other life-threatening
weather events, and also of droughts and other longer term climatic
disasters. I believe that everyone would agree that the Federal Govern-
ment should give a high priority to this type of service. An appropri-
ate system of weather observations, prediction, warning, and public
education can save lives *and, in many cases, can reduce property
damage.
What is not so clearly agreed to is just how far the Federal responsi-
bility should go. Should it extend, for example, to the development of
community disaster preparedness plans, or to regulations affecting
development in hazard-prone areas such as coastal regions subject to
hurricanes and inland regions subject to flash floods? These are both
emerging issues, and it is not clear just what the limits of NOAA's
responsibilities in these areas are today, or what they should be.
The familiar public forecasts are examples of convenience services.
They tell us whether to take an umbrella to work or to cancel plans for
tomorrow's picnic or ball game. These services probably belong at the
low end of the priority spectrum. It certainly is important that the
predictions be accurate and timely, but the benefits of success and the
costs of failures tend to be relatively small.
Economic benefit services are those used in the production and dis-
tribution of goods and services. The following list gives a number of
prominent examples of activities where dependable climatological
studies, reliable up-to-date weather observations, and accurate weather
predictions can be very valuable: These include aviation, commercial
and private, agriculture, smoke-stack industries, construction, marine
operations, ground and waterway transportation, oil, gas, coal and
electric companies, municipalities, and commodity exchanges.
The actual operations which must be undertaken to produce the three
kinds of services mentioned above are not very different from each
other. For all three, there must be an observing network, a data anal-
ysis and forecasting activity, and a means of dissemination. Appar-
ently for this reason, our national weather service system has, in the
past, given almost equal attention to all three categories.
Let me say a word at this point about climate. Climate refers to the
aggregate of weather conditions prevailing over a portion of the Earth
for an extended period of time. The significant difference between
weather and climate services lies not in the technical nature of the
service, but in the use that is made of it. Weather information is need-
ed for day-to-day operations, climate information for long-term plan-
ning. Our ability to predict climate is virtually nil. The term "predict,"
as used in this context, means the ability to predict the climate with a
skill superior to what one might achieve strictly on the basis of clima-
tological statistics. Let me illustrate this point with an example. Con-
sider predicting rain for the city of Los Angeles. If each day for
July and August for the years 2000 to 2010, you predict "no rain," you
can be correct 99 percent of the time.
Climatologically, we know it only rains 1 out of 100 days in July
and August in Los Angeles. Unfortunately, an accuracy of ~99 percent
of predicting rain in Los Angeles is worthless. Any idiot can do that
well. The skill resides in predicting the 1 out of 100 days when it
does rain. When we use the word predict in the context of this state-
ment we mean an ability to predict with greater skill than could be
done by means of strictly climatological techniques.
PAGENO="0048"
44
Predictions on the basis of climatology are extremely useful and
need to be made, but onewould like to do better.
Our ability to predict climate is virtually nil, and our capability for
incorporating that climatic information which we have today into
long-term planning is far less developed than our capability for in-
corporating weather information into daily operations. Legislation to
establish a national climate program-legislation which was developed
largely by this subcommittee, and on which NACOA has already corn-
mented extensively-is now in conference and, 1 hope, will shortly be-
come law. One of the major elements of this new program should be
the development of techniques for incorporating climatic knowledge
into long-term planning for agriculture, energy, air pollution control,
and so forth to a greater extent than we do today.
THE PRIVATE SECTOR
Over the last 30 years there has been a slow but steady growth in
the number of private consulting meteorologists and privately owned
companies rendering a wide spectrum of weather and climate services.
The professional directory in the March 1978 Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society contains 78 advertisements for private indi-
viduals and companies providing such services.
As in any business, the quality of the private services is highly
variable, depending mostly on the competence and integrity of the
individuals involved and the type of service offered. In order to en-
courage high standards among private consulting meteorologists, the
American Meteorological Society has a program of certification. Indi-
viduals who have had adequate training and experience and who pass
a written and oral examination are designated certified consulting
meteorologists.
Private meteorologists have prospered largely by providing specially
tailored services to industrial, commercial, and municipal clients. Many
cities and industries concerned with the effects of snow on motor
vehicle transportation have purchased snow forecasts. Gas and electric
companies concerned with power needs on cold, windy days, ski lodges
concerned about snow cover, offshore oil drillers concerned with winds
and waves, commodity dealers and traders concerned about the effects
of future weather on future prices, and agriculturists concerned about
water availability all have found private weather and climate services
of value.
Many large companies have meteorologists on their staffs. The
"smoke-stack companies"-that is, those that discharge waste prod-
ucts into the atmosphere from tall stacks in a controlled manner de-
pending on air pollution potential-employ their own meteorologists.
Certain television stations seeking to give their viewers specialized
weather services have full-time meteorologists and well-equipped
weather stations of their own.
One could cite many more examples of the role of private meterolo-
gists in supplying high quality weather services to customers willing
to pay for it.
Not too many years ago the U.S. Weather Bureau regarded itself as
the only authorized supplier of weather forecasts to the public. When
there were very few private meteorologists offering their services to the
public or to industry, this view was seldom disputed.
PAGENO="0049"
45
In the late forties and fifties private meteorologists were tolerated
rather than encouraged by the Federal Government. Nevertheless, over
the last three decades there has been substantial growth of private
weather service companies in the United States.
Over the last decade the Weather Service has been encouraging the
growth of private practice. For the most part, it is conducted by rela-
tively small organizations which supply specialized services to indus-
tries or municipalities. By concentrating on the specific needs of their
clients and by offering services not available from the National
Weather Service, certain private companies have been quite successful.
Over the last few years NOAA's National Weather Service (NWS)
has not been permitted to grow in size and capability to meet the grow-
ing weather service demands of this country. We believe that it would
be in the national interest to strengthen NWS. At the same time, it is
clear that an increasing part of the Nation's weather service needs
will have to be met by private meteorologists. This is particularly true
in the case of weather and climate services in the category I have called
economic benefit services.
What is needed is a definition of the respective roles of Government
and private meterologists. The division of responsibilities would be
expe4~ted to differ depending on the types of service* offered. Let me
illustrate this by considering, separately, disaster warnings and eco-
nomic benefit services.
DISASTER WARNINGS
It seems clear that the Federal Government has, and should have,
the responsibility to observe, predict, and issue advisories of impend-
ing violent weather. The Federal Government has been doing this with
increasing competence and effectiveness. More still needs to be done in
the area of alerting the public about the predicted weather events and
enabling the public to respond in a manner that will maximize public
safety.
How should we deal with a case in which Federal Government
meteorologists and private meteorologists retained by local govern-
ment or industry reach conflicting prognoses of a possible severe storm
event? We do not have an answer at this time.
ECONOMIC BENEFIT SERVICES
NOAA must continue to carry the major responsibility for supply-
ing weather services to government and industry. At the same time, it
appears to me that as a matter of policy, private organizations requir-
ing special weather services for their own gain should be encouraged,
if not required, to purchase these in the private market.
It seems clear that a new partnership has to be forged between the
Government weather service and private meteorologists. The various
parties involved, including NOAA, the private meteorologists, and
their industrial, commercial, and immicipal clients, must work together
to establish a formula which will maximize the effectiveness of weather
service for all concerned.
A great deal needs to be learned about public understanding and
appreciation of weather forecasts and their meanings. To a large
33.547 ~
PAGENO="0050"
46
extent, existing practices for disseminating weather forecasts and ad-
visories have been developed within the Government without adequate
testing. For example, there is still considerable misunderstanding of
the use of probability forecasts. How many people know what is meant
by the statement, "The probability of rain today is 20 percent?" More-
over, the meanings of terms such as "tornado watch" and "tornado
warning" are not clear to many people. Which one means that a
tornado may occur, and which one means a funnel has been sighted and
may be headed towards you?
Even when the terms are properly understood, it is not certain that
an appropriate response will follow. For example, if the NWS issues
a series of forecasts advising of the approach of a hurricane alor~g the
gulf coast will the public understand the nature of the threat and the
need to ta6 appropriate actions, such as evacuation, on time?
The point I am trying to make is that it is necessary to devote more
attention to the best ways to communicate with the clients-in most
cases the public. This requires that meteorologists, educators, psychol-
ogists, sociologists, and the public interact. It requires testing, market
analysis if you like, of new ways and new words.
WEATHER SERVICES AND THE MEDIA
Virtually every daily newspaper, radio station, and television sta-
tion in the United States gives weather forecasts.
To this extent they do a great national service. If we had to pay
for the information services that are granted by the media, it would
cost probably more than it does to make the weather forecasts.
Some weathercasts are comprehensive, up to date and as reliable as
the state of the art permits. Some are none of these. Some broadcast
stations hire competent meteorologists, who have earned the Seal of
Approval of the American Meteorological Society. Some stations
employ people who know nothing about meteorology and seem to
care less. Meteorologists and broadcasters need to develop a greater
understanding of how to better serve the public.
Let me now turn to the subject of weather and climate research.
A major share of our Nation's fundamental or basic research in the
atmospheric sciences is conducted in universities and in research or-
ganizations such as the National Center for Atmospheric Research in
Boulder. Much of this work is sponsored by the National Science
Foundation, but other Government agencies-notably NASA, and to
a lesser extent the Air Force and NOAA-also. supply funds because
of the possible applications of the research.
Within NOAA, considerable meteorological research is carried out
ranging from the very firndamental to the highly applied. It is widely
believed that there is too little interaction between researchers and
operational weather groups. As a result, new techniques, particularly
observational techniques, are brought into operational use at too slow a
rate.
Let me illustrate this by referring to a proposal which is now devel-
oping within NOAA under the acronym PROFS, standing for "proto-
type regional observing and forecasting service." The PROFS concept
emerged from one of NOAA's research laboratories which has been
developing remote sensing technology and which saw in its products
PAGENO="0051"
47
a possible means for providing some sorely needed improvements in
local weather services. PROFS would bring together research scientists
and operational meteorologists in the solution of an important prac-
tical problem. However, it is not clear whether NOAA, with its limited
resources, will be able to provide the personnel and funds needed to
bring this concept to the point of operational testing.
Mr. Chairman, this illustrates the general problem that transfer of
research findings into practical applications is too slow. The problem
does not lie in a lack of statutory authority or in the quality of the
research.
Right now there is a gap between the point where the researchers
say they have new technologies and techniques to apply and the point
where the operational people are ready to put them to an operational
test. Neither group is willing to devote their scarce resources to a
project at this stage. Funds and personnel resources need to be ear-
marked for this purpose.
Thus far I have been speaking about research in general terms, but
with resea.rch relating to weather forecasting primarily in mind. I
want to mention, briefly, three other research areas in which NOAA
should have a major responsibility-climate, weather modification, and
air pollution.
I have already referred to the legislation to establish a national
climate program, which is now in conference. If NOAA is to have the
mission of providing the nucleus of the Federal Government's civil
weather and climate activities, then NOAA must play a major role in
this new program of climatic research and services. Since the bill is
in conference, I will say no more about it at this point.
Recommendations concerning weather modification-a subject on
which NACOA has commented frequently in the past-are now being
developed by the Weather Modification Advisory Board, which is
scheduled to deliver its report to the Secretary of Commerce. next
month. I shall not comment further at this time except to say that
this is another area in which NOAA must play a significant role.
Air pollution is primarily an industrial and technological problem
having to do with the invention of ways to dispose of waste products
without dirtying the air and is a responsibility of the Environmental
Protection Agency. However, in order to know how much pollution
the atmosphere can tolerate without becoming unacceptably con-
taminated, it is essential to know how winds and turbulence mix and
disperse material injected into the air. Weather information is essen-
tial to do this, and NOAA must play a major role-as it does now-
in addressing this problem.
I could name other areas-agriculture and aviation, for exampl&-
in which weather and climate have major impacts. While NOAA does
not and should not have primary responsibility for these areas in the
broad sense, it must be able to provide the weather-related information
needed by the agencies that do have the responsibility. This in turn
means it must collect the observations and conduct the research which
it (NOAA) will need to properly do its job.
This leads me to one more area which may require statutory clarifica-
tion: NOAA's responsibility for providing weather and climate serv-
ices needed by other Federal agencies for their own missions. NOAA
PAGENO="0052"
48
has this responsibility today, as indeed it must if it is to provide the
nucleus of weather and climate services. But there are no adequate
provisions to insure that NOAA will have, or be able to get, the
resources-the funds, and the personnel-that it must have if it is to
carry out this responsibility. Some statutory clarification of this
situation seems to he called for.
SUMMATION
In summation, Mr. Chairman, I have identified four aress involv-
ing weather and climate which I believe an NOAA Organic Act should
explicitly address. These are:
1. An explicit statement of NOAA's weather and climate mission;
2. Specification of how far NOAA's responsibilities should go in the
direction of insuring appropriate response by the public to the fore-
casts and warnings it issues, and to information it provides about the
likelihood of weather disasters in certain locations;
3. Specification of the respective roles of NOAA and of private en-
terprises offering weather and climate services; and
4. Identification of NOAA's responsibility to provide weather and
climate services to other Federal agencies, and provision .for obtaining
the resources needed to do so.
I realize, Mr. Chairman, that except for the first of these I have not
told you just what the act should say. There are some difficult questions
involved, and we on NACOA are addressing them and hope to be able
to deliver our recommendations to you later this year, in time for con-
sideration of such legislation during the next session of the Congress.
There is little further that I can say. I am sorry it took me so long to
read this.
Mr. BROWN. We appreciate your recommendations; they are specific
and to the point, and while they do not solve all of the problems, they
at least clarify them considerably.
I do not think that there would be any disagreement on the part of
the committee with regard to the first point you make about the need
for an explicit statement on NOAA's weather and climate mission as a
parallel to the ocean statement. The areas which, become cloudy in-
volve the areas of interface, the linkage areas that you have indicated.
How do we clarify these linkages between oceans and atmosphere pro-
grams in NOAA, and between NOAA and other agencies which are
engaged in some aspects of the oceans or the atmosphere? We would
hope we can develop further answers to this point as we go along.
I was rather intrigued by your discussion of the relationship between
NOAA and the private meteorological sector. I frankly confess I am
not nearly as expert in this as some of our colleagues such as Congress-
man Milford, who is much more familiar with these things than I am.
Do I take it that the private meteorologist serves primarily as the
linkage between certain services produced in NOAA and a particular
client group?
Dr. BArrAN. That is right.
Mr. BROWN. They do not produce data independently?
Dr. BATrAN. Virtually none. . .
Most private meteorologists have their own equipment tied into the
National Weather Service teletype and facsimile network.
PAGENO="0053"
49
They get, from the National Weather Service, the same data at the
same time, as do the National Weather Service offices around the coun-
try. The private meteorologists use that data to make specialized fore-
casts. One well known group, for many years, made snow forecasts for
the Chicago Motor Club. This group, one of the oldest private con-
sulting firms, called Murray & Trettel, has been in business for more
than 20 years. They have many kinds of clients with special problems.
As I mentioned, the Chicago Motor Club wants up-to-the-minute, ac-
curate forecasts of snow. For a number of reasons the National
Weather Service does not supply such specialized service. Murray &
Trettel know they have a client concerned with snow, and they do not
have to worry about the weather at picnics or baseball games. Murray &
Trettel have a client who cares oniy about when the snow starts, and
how much will fall, so they can concentrate their talents and attention
on this and a limited number of other special problems.
Many private meteorologists have served clients in the utility indus-
tries. They like to know, as long in advance as possible, how much gas
they have to store for the next weeks. This depends on forecasts of tem-
peratures and wind speeds. If gas and oil companies think it will be
mild in the next 2 or 3 days, or week, they can get along with a lower
inventory. One private meteorological company thrived for a long
time, and probably still does, by predicting wind and wave conditions
for offshore oil operations in the Gulf of Mexico. It is very crucial that
they know what is coming the next 2 or 3 or 4 days.
I should emphasize that the meteorologists of the National Weather
Service are as competent as these people. It is not a matter of compe-
tence. It is a matter of specializing on specific problems.
Mr. BROWN. In other words, these private meteorologists have an
incentive to do a more detailed job of archiving and possibly analyz-
ing certain kinds of data than the meteorological service would do?
Dr. BATTAN. Not so much the archiving, but the second part of it.
It is a matter of using all of the data they can have.
They can concentrate their attention on fewer things, and do a
better job for that reason, not because they are smarter than the people
working on the National Weather Service.
Mr. BROWN. Let me indicate what I mean by archiving more de-
tailed data. As in the example you gave of snow forecasts for Chicago,
they might very well want to have records of the amount of snowfall
in each geographical block of the city, for example, which the Weather
Service would not be particularly interested in, except in a general
sort of way.
Dr. BATTAN. In that sense, you are absolutely right.
My guess is if you are concerned with, let us say, the snow distribu-
tion over Chicago, and Chicago has some very peculiar snow prob-
lems, you need to know about the local snow climatology.
About 25 years ago, I worked for the Weather Bureau in Chicago.
We were located in the Museum of Science and Industry, which is
right on the lake shore. In the wintertime when the wind blows down
the lake and over the shore of Chicago, it sometimes snows only along
the lake shore. On one such day the boss was away and I was put in
charge of the office. Snowflakes were coming down the size of this
coffee cup right at the Museum of Science and Industry, which is
about 100 yards from the water. I though the way the snow was corn-
PAGENO="0054"
50
ing down, nobody would get home that night unless they left early.
I was about to send everyone home, but thought I better check with
the forecasters at the Weather Bureau office at Chicago Midway
Airport, which is about 7 or 8 miles from the lake shore. I told them
that I was considering sending everybody home because of the heavy
snow. There already were 3 or 4 inches on the ground.
They said, "Don't send anybody home. It is not snowing here."
In Chicago there is a distinct lake effect. A mile or two from the
lake, you can get 3 or 4 inches of snow, while 10 miles inland and there
is nothing.
Anyone forecasting snow in Chicago better understand the effect
of Lake Michigan on snowfall.
Mr. BROWN. We can generally describe this phenomenon as micro-
weather or microclimate, and there is a point at which it is important
to a very specific and maybe small clientele, but not to the general
public or to the National Weather Service.
Dr. BArrAN. Yes.
Mr. BROWN. I think it would be the mood of the Congress in terms
of policy to encourage the maximum role for the private meteorologi-
cal services; that is, to establish a policy framework within which
they can function as actively as possible. Do you see that as posing
any difficulty?
Dr. BATrAN. No, I think it is just a matter of defining the
boundaries.
In my statement, I mentioned another area of private meteorology
which is somewhat different. There seems to be a g~rowing trend among
certain companies to hire their own meteorologists.
In Arizona, the copper smelters have their own staff meteorologists.
They have developed a system to maximize~ copper production while
reducing air pollution. Apparently the EPA has some doubts about
the efficacy of this system. The essence of the system is to set up a series
of sampling points around a smelter and develop a model relating
atmospheric conditions to air pollution. The model is used to predict
atmospheric pollution potential. The production rate is adjusted to
maintain air quality. The smelting companies have their own meteor-
ologists to deal with this specific problem.
I think it is a matter of setting the boundaries on whether a fran-
chise is properly in the realm of private meteorology. It will not be an
easy job in some cases.
For example, in the statement, I mentioned that it is clearly the re-
sponsibility of the Federal Government to predict violent weather
events. But problems arise for example, when a private meteorologist
forecasting snow in Chicago, disagrees with the forecast of the
Weather Service.
Ten or twenty inches of snow in Chicago is violent weather. The city
comes to a grinding halt. One can conceive of a situation where the
National Weather Service, looking at the data, predicts 2 inches of
snow, while a private meteorological group looking at the same situa-
tion predicts 10 or more inches of snow, and supplies the data to the
mayor's office. The mayor would reason that he needs to inform and
protect the citizenry and picks up the phone and calls the radio stations.
These kinds of situations are possible, and obviously create problems
of various kinds.
PAGENO="0055"
51
Mr. BROWN. Well, the problems are at the heart of some of the policy
issues you have raised in your statement.
I am inclined to suggest that the National Weather Service should
be considered as the generator of weather-related information. Then
there is a user community; it could be the mayor, or the ski lodge
operators, or anybody else. Then there are links between the generation
of the data and the user community, which may be public links, under
the responsibility of the Weather Service, or private links. The policy
question is when should it be a public link, and when should it be a
private link.
Essentially, it would seem to me that the users then have to make
the decision on how they will interpret the data, and what actions
they will take as a result of it, except when the ultimate user is the
public in general, or when the decision involves public health and wel-
fare. Then it is a public responsibility to ensure that that data is used
properly.
As you say, these policy boundaries need to be delineated as carefully
as possible, or delineated in such a way that they can develop into a
logical framework of some sort.
Mr. Walker, do you have any questions?
Mr. WALKER. Just a few. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Does some of the private forecasting that you are talking about in-
clude the Accu-Weather kind of forecasts done by some radio stations?
Is that an example of private forecasting?
Dr. BATTAN. I think it is. There are some stations who make their
own forecasts.
I think Accu-Weather is one, but I am not sure about that, but there
are some that do that, yes.
Mr. WALKER. My question is really whether the radio stations are
using some of the services of private meteorologists.
Are you saying that they use data developed by the National
~SVeather Service? -
Dr. BATTAN. Some do. Some have their own weather stations.
With what the Weather Service makes available, I know you have
to pay the line charges. I do not think you have to pay the Federal
Government for the data.
I can see that sometime in the future it may be necessary to assess
charges for weather data which includes the cost of collecting the data
as well as the transmission charges. Right now a radio or television
station can get hooked into the transmission lines and get the same
data that goes in the National Weather Service offices. Some of the.
radio and television stations, especially the better ones, in Oklahoma,
Texas, Florida, New York, Chicago, and some of the bigger cities have
their own weather radar sets, and their own observing systems which
they use as a supplement, for their own local weather.
Mr. WALKER. They would essentially be providing convenience kinds
of forecasts, general kinds of forecasts.
Why would the stations spend considerably more money to go to a
private forecaster who is probably evaluating essentially the same data
and utilizing the services provided by the National Weather Service?
Dr. BATTAN. There are a number of examples. The stations that
have their own radar sets get something they cannot get through the
Weather Service.
PAGENO="0056"
52
They have in the studio a radar set, and they put a camera on the
scope and show the locations of storms in real time. This is important
in a place like Oklahoma, where there are many tornado forecasts.
Generally tornadoes are associated with a line of thunderstorms. If a
television station has a radar set you can see the line of thunderstorms
as it develops and moves. The station meterologist will have various
electronic pointers and can say such things as "There is a tornado
sighted here and moving this way."
The Weather Service does not supply that type of information.
Mr. WALKER. You are saying they are aible to pinpoint tornades bet-
ter than the Weather Service?
Dr. BATTAN. In violent weather they can pinpoint.
In the PROFS program I mentioned in my statement, the National
Weather Service wants to use remote-sensing techniques such as radar
and various other services to try to enlarge the scope of these kinds of
specific forecasts.
In the case of violent weather, particularly severe thunder storms,
tornadoes, and hail storms weather forecasters are confronted with
difficult problems. These storms are of the order of a few miles across
and extend for many tens of miles. One end of town may be experienc-
ing heavy rain, stormy wind, lightning, and hail while at the other end
of town the sun is shining. The weather forecast covei~ing the entire
city might have said there was a chance for a tornado.
There exist radar techniques for tracking these severe thunder-
storms, but there still are problems in using the other rational informa-
tion in an effective way to inform the public.
The television stations that have their own radar sets and their own
instrument can observe what is happening over a large region and
can report that information quickly.
Mr. WALKER. I assume the essential element is communication. Is
that what this weather alert system is all about?
* Well, you have dwelt in your testimony somewhat on the need for
the Weather Service to provide essentially disaster and violent storm
warnings; you put a lot of priority on that. Would you put that as a
higher priority for the National Weather Service than the con-
venience kind of forecasting?
Dr. BATrAN. Yes; if proposition 13 were to come to Washington at
the moment, I would say, in my own personal view, that the Federal
Government's first priority should be on violent weather.
As far as the economic benefit forecast, I would try to get that done
as much as possible by the private sector.
Mr. WALKER. What do you think the public would say to that?
Dr. BATrAN. I don't know.
The public is hard to fathom. Taking weather forecasts out of the
daily newspaper might be like taking astrology out. A lot of people
would be unhappy. The fact is that every newspaper in the country,
with maybe one or two exceptions, has that weather forecast in it.
Even though people say that the forecasts are often wrong, they want
them in the newspaper. How the public would act if the forecasts were
not available, I am not sure, but I think the public would be unhappy.
In my scheme of things, the preservation of life and limb is the top
priority item. In this country, we have an outstanding Weather Serv-
ice. There is no question that ours is the best in the world and it does
an outstanding job in observing and forecasting violent weather.
PAGENO="0057"
53
It could be better, and in a sense we have been lucky, in terms of
violent weather.
We have not had a really first-rate hurricane, for example, hit a
coastal, populated area in quite a few years. One of these days we will
have one.
Mr. WALKER. Hurricane Agnes hit Pennsylvania pretty hard.
Dr. BATTAN. Yes; but I have in mind a hurricane moving over the
ocean toward a coastal city. About 80 or 90 percent of the people killed
in hurricanes are killed by the storm surge. As the hurricane ap-
proaches land, ocean water piles up and sweeps over coastal low lands.
The storm surge can be 10 or 15 feet high or higher.
I think it was in 1969 or 1970 that a hurricane hit Bangladesh,
and in 1 day, the number of fatalities was at least a quarter of a million
people. Most of them died because of the storm surge. They did not
get the warning in time to take evasive action. Some might say it
happened because Bangladesh is a backward country. But a hurricane
disaster can happen in the United States.
Some day you should hear Dr. Neil Frank talk about what may
happen if a severe hurricane were to hit New Orleans or the keys of
Florida. Even with the best Weather Service in the world, even know-
ing a hurricane is coming, even with the best forecast, the fact is that
with that kind of weather event, we could still have a major catas-
trophe. We have not had one of those for a long time, but the odds are
that one of these days we will have one. Those are the kinds of things
I worry a great deal about, because all we need is one and the cost
would be phenomenal.
Mr. WALKER. I guess the question of the subcommittee relates largely
to the public's needs. I would tend to agree with you that the public
should be given the option of having good weather service to protect
life and limb, except that weather disasters are not foremost in their
minds. They are more concerned about getting accurate enough weather
forecasts to know whether or not to have a barbecue out back or to
move it inside, whether there is a good weekend ahead for going to the
beach, and that kind of thing. These are the immediate needs for
weather forecasts that they have. I wonder, if you questioned them,
whether or not they would say, over the long run, that these convenience
services are most important, as far as where research and resources
should go to get us more accurate weather forecasts. It is one of the
frustrations we face here, and I am interested in your view of that.
Dr. BAr2AN. I certainly agree with you. I think if the Weather Serv-
ice stopped doing that, you would get a storm of protests; you would
get all kinds of letters.
I think the National Weather Service must seek to improve its fore-
casts for public convenience. Fortunately, at least in our lifetime, I do
not think we will be faced with the unpleasant option of making only
this kind or only that kind of weather forecasts.
It seems to me that these so-called convenience forecasts (at least
that is the phrase we use for designating them' are the kind of services
that have to be available, and it seems to me that it is the kind of job
that has to be done by the Federal Government, because it is for the
public at large.
Mr. WALKER. One final question. Do we have some new technology
on the horizon that you foresee which will give us some real opportu-
PAGENO="0058"
54
nities to quickly expand the accuracy of weather forecasting, or are we
going to see some new breakthroughs in the relatively near future?
Dr. BATTAN. I think the advances in the near future in improving
weather services, the complex of weather services, will come from the
development and application of new technological devices for observa-
tion, and essentially data management.
I think we can make much better use, given adequate resources and
manpower, of the data we are collecting right now.
I think a lot more could be done in terms of climate services which
would benefit to the public. The National Weather Service is aware of
many additional services it could render if it had the manpower.
Mr. WALKER. Based on the data base already available?
Dr. BATTAN. Based on the available data base, I would put a high
priority on the global climate problem.
The payoffs are not so obvious, but the consequences are so pro-
found, that you have got to learn what is happening to the planet we
are living on.
Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BROWN. Dr. Battan, are you suggesting in your statement that
the National Weather Service should have an operational respoñsibil-
ity for the public response to weather-related disasters, such as the type
you mentioned, hurricane storm surge, or any kind of similar weather
which threatens the health and safety of large numbers of people?
Dr. BATrAN. I guess I am saying that unless someone comes up with
a better way to do it, the direction in which the National Weather
Service has been going in the last year or two should not be abandoned.
As you know, the President came out yesterday, or the day before
yesterday, with a plan to combine various disaster preparedness orga-
nizations. It is not clear where such an organization's responsibilities
begin and end.
I do know that as far as the hurricane problem is concerned, the
National Weather Service has the responsibility of predicting hurri-
canes. The National Weather Service has the technical knowledge and
competence to specify what are the essential statistics of hurricanes,
where they are likely to hit, how strong the winds are likely to be, how
high are the waves likely to be. Therefore, for planning purposes
NWS meteorologists have the technical knowledge.
Dr. Neil Frank, the head of the National Hurricane Center, has been
a missionary for the National Weather Service in getting the States
conscious of what has to be done in terms of hurricane safety. It seems
to me that whatever system is worked out, the people with the tech-
nical and scientific expertise in the National Weather Service, in
NOAA or wherever they are ultimately located, have got to play `a very
major role, not just in making the forecasts, and putting them on the
air, but in seeing that forecast is understood, and in seeing that the
people down at the city and State level know what the forecast means.
Mr. BROWN. Well, that I understand. It is going to be a very tick-
lish job to draw the fine line between their operational responsibilities
for, say, ordering the evacuation from a coastal area, and their re-
sponsibility to transmit accurate data to the disaster agency and to
make sure it is understood.
Dr. BATrAN. I might say. Mr. Chairman, that NACOA is discussing
this very problem this afternoon to try to arrive at some kind of
judgment on what NOAA should do about coastal hazards.
PAGENO="0059"
55
Mr. BROWN. You discussed the PROFS situation, the prototype
regional observing and forecasting service. That is strikingly similar
to a concern of the committee over some period of time for developing
a prototype regional monitoring system for a broader range of pur-
noses. We are proposing to draft some tentative legislation which
would move us in that direction.
I gather from your statement that PROFS has suffered from a lack
of resources to move it forward?
Dr. BATTAN. Yes.
Mr. BROWN. But not a lack of statutory authority?
Dr. BATPAN. Our understanding is that it is more a lack of resources.
My understanding is that the concept has been bouncing around now
for a number of years, within NOAA.
If I may, let me read you a summary of a talk given recently by
t~iordon Little, who is the Director of the Atmospheric Research Re-
view Workshop.
"In recent years, there has been major progress in observing the
atmosphere by satellite and ground-based remote sensors, and by
automatic surface weather stations.
"There has been similar, though largely uncoordinated, progress in
data processing and display, in mesoscale numerical modelling and
prediction, and in color TV display and dissemination.
"This PROFS initiative proposes a 3-year exploratory development
program, at a cost of $5.9 million per year, to integrate these advances
into the research prototype of a radically new local weather observing
arid forecasting service, (PROFS-Prototype Regional Observing
and Forecasting Service).
"The prototype will be developed under ERL leadership by a joint
team of NWS, NESS, and ERL staff, and is designed to provide
dramatic improvements in the accuracy, timeliness, scope, and dis-
semination of the local weather services.
"Such improvements are needed by industries like transportation
(especially aviation), agriculture, and construction, and by the gen-
eral public, especially under conditions of severe storms, tornadoes,
flash floods, damaging winds, blizzards, and freezing rains."
The plan is to supply vitally needed weather observations and fore-
casts for periods of up to 10 or 12 hours and over a region of the order
of a mile to a hundred miles.
Mr. BROWN. Did you read the complete statement on that matter,
or is there some additional material?
Dr. BATrAN. I just read the summary of a working paper.
I just read the first paragraph. There is a lot of documentation.
Mr. BROWN. We would like to have further documentation for the
committee's files.
Dr. BATTAN. Fine.
Mr. BROWN. It does at least parallel the line of thrnking of the
committee.
Let me ask you one further question. You have suggested, in your
summation, that a specification be made of how far NOAA's responsi-
bility should go in the direction of insuring appropriate response by
the public to the forecast and warning issue.
I am trying to place this in a framework I am familiar with, such as
agricultural extension service, or other outreach programs of Govern-
PAGENO="0060"
56
ment. Basically, it is a problem of assuring the adequate dissemination:
of scientific data so that the user public will be motivated to take
advantage of the data. In the case of agricultural extension, there has
been an historic role for the appropriate educational institutions with-
in the community, such as land-grant colleges.
The point I am trying to make is that this kind of outreach program
could be integrated into Our educational framework in some way to
insure a broader, more accurate understanding of weather phenomena.
Could the knowledge of the public about weather services be en-
hanced by integrating meteorological or weather courses in the school
curriculum, or having special responsibilities in some of our educa-
tional institutions for this kind of thing?
Dr. BATTAN. Well, the answer is yes.
The question is how do you do it, how do you do it effectively?
As you know, I am in the education business, and I would like
to spread the word as much as possible, but there has been I think a
large expansion in atmospheric sciences educational activities.
Quite a few years ago, 10 or 12 years ago, the National Science Foun-
dation put a lot of money into its Earth Sciences Curriculum Com-
mittee. It developed a textbook, a teaching program, and so on, and if
you look at the statistics on the growth of the number of students
taking earth science courses in high school, the numbers have grown
very impressively over the last 10 or 15 years.
When I went to high school, if you took earth sciences, it meant
geology, and you looked at rocks.
In the last 10 years or so, there has been a growth in meteorology
training at the high school level. If you examine the available books
and learning aids, you find more and more dealing with the weather
and the atmosphere.
I think that that area is growing.
Mr. BROWN. Dr. Battan, I have to respond to that rollcall, so I
would like to excuse you at this point. I will take a 10-minute recess,
and when we come back, we will go on to our next witness, Dr. WhiteS
who is waiting patiently behind you. We have not explored all of th~
ramifications of your testimony, but I hope we can continue to call
on you for assistance.
Dr. BATrAN. Thank yOu.
[Whereupon, the subcommittee was in short re.cess.]
[The full prepared statement of Dr. Battan follows:]
PAGENO="0061"
57
TESTIMONY OF LOUIS J. BATTAN
Director
Institute of Atmospheric Physics, University of Arizona
and
Member
National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere
before the
Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere
Committee on Science and Technology
U.S. House of Representatives
June 22, 1978
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman, I am Louis J. Battan, Director of the Institute
of Atmospheric Physics at the University of Arizona. I have served
in the past as President of the American Meteorological Society, and
as Chairman of the Committee on Atmospheric Sciences of the National
Academy of Sciences. I am a member of the National Advisory Committee
on Oceans and Atmosphere, and it is in that capacity that I appear
before you today to offer some thoughts concerning H.R. 9708.
We are pleased to have this opportunity to offer our views on
this bill. NACOA believes that every effort should be made to
centralize non-defense oceanic and atmospheric activities of the Federal
Government within a single organization. As part of its basic mission the
centralized agency should be charged with a wide spectrum of responsibilities
involving research and serv~ces.
PAGENO="0062"
58
On April 17, 1978, Mr. Marne A. Dubs, on behalf of NACOA, discussed
H.R. 9708 before the Subcommitte on Oceanography of the Committee on
Merchant Marine and Fisheries. He reaffirmed the position stated in the
preceding paragraph. At the same time, he noted that NACOA is in the
process of studying the question of specific organizational arrangements.
NACOA expects to conclude its considerations in October or~ November of this
year, and will present its findings to the Administration and the Congress.
NACOA feels that the passage of an organic act for NOAA, such as
H.R. 9708, is a step that will strengthen NOAA by bringing together the
basic and routine authorities under which it is operating. Among other
consequences of such an action would be the requirement for periodic authori-
zation hearings for NOAA. This would offer NOAA and the Congress the
opportunity to explore in detail whether the oceanic and atmospheric
interest of the Nation are being adequately handled.
Since Mr. Dubs, in his testimony before the Subcommittee on Oceanography,
has already given NACOAs view about the needs for a national ocean policy
and about the oceanic responsibilities of MOM, I will concentrate on the
atmospheric responsibil ities.
ATMOSPHERIC RESPONSIBILITIES OF NOM AND
OF OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES
NOAAs atmospheric responsibilities lie primarily in the area of
weather and climate. NOAA is not the only agency concerned with this
subject. The Department of Agriculture is concerned with the impact of
weather and climate on crop yields both at home and abroad, and with
weather in relation to forest fires. The Department of Energy is concerned
PAGENO="0063"
59
with the impact of weather on energy demand, and also with the impacts
that energy production systems can have, through the release of heat and
fuel wastes, on weather and climate. The Department of the Interior is
interested in the development and use of weather modification techniques
to augment precipitation. The Environmental Protection Agency is concerned
with weather and climate as they affect air pollution. The Federal Aviation
Administration is concerned with weather as it affects aviation safety.
The Coast Guard is concerned with weather in relation to safety at sea.
The National Science Foundation, as part of its mission to foster basic
research in our universities, supports research relating to weather and
climate. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration develops systems
for sensing weather and climate, on earth and on other planets, from space
platforms. And the military services have their own extensive programs to
meet their operational weather and climate needs.
There is considerable cooperation between the various agencies. The
Air Force cooperates with NOAA in aircraft hurricane reconnaissance, for
example, and the Geological Survey cooperates with a network of river gages.
There is, in fact, a formal structure of interagency cormiiittees at various
levels, from policy to operations, which operates under the aegis of the
Federal Coorthnator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Rei~rch
to try to provide a match between the needs and the capabilities of the
various agencies.
NOAA's unique contribution to all this is threefold: (1) it collects
weather and climate data by operating a national network (actually, a
system of networks) of observing stations and a system of weather satellites,
PAGENO="0064"
60
performs computerized analyses on the data, makes forecasts, and issues
forecasts and severe weather warnings; (2) it maintains archives and inform-
ation centers for weather and climate data; (3) it conducts research to
improve the above activities. As an outgrowth of all this, it provides
interpretations and other forms of technical assistance needed by other
agencies in the performance of their missions.
(The Federal Government also has a program of -~ -
scientific research and related services involving the upper atmosphere
and the planetary and space environment. These matters do not ordinarily
demand our attention the way weather and climate do; however concerns
in recent years about the effect on the ozone layer of engine emissions
from supersonic aircraft operating in the stratosphere, and of
fluorocarbons used as aerosol spray propellants, may serve to remind us of
the importance of understanding these matters better than we do now. The
upper atmosphere responsibilities of the Federal Government are today
handled primarily by the National Science Foundation, the Air Force, and
NASA, with NOAA playing a lesser but important role.)
The Federal Government has other significant atmospheric responsibilities
apart from weather and climate. The promotion and regulation of aviation
and air safety to meet our Nation's transportation needs is one example.
Minimizing air pollution to protect our health is another. Providing
insurance, loans, and financial relief to individuals, businesses and
communities beset by weather disasters such as floods and severe storms
is another. Weather enters into each of these, but in a peripheral way,
and is not the major concern of the responsible agency.
PAGENO="0065"
61
The FAA is primarily concerned with air traffic control, air safety
technology, airport development, and pilot training; EPA is primarily
concerned with the development of technology to reduce emissions of hazar-
dous substances; the Defense Civil Preparedness Administration, Federal
Disaster Assistance Administration, Federal Insurance Administration, and
Small Business Administration are concerned with community planning and
economic programs.
The present Federal organization does not seek to bring all these
atmosphere-related" programs into a single agency, nor do we think that
is necessary. We believe aviation is most properly dealt with in the broader
context of transportation; air pollution in the broader context of overall
environmental protecfion and waste disposal management; relief for flood
and storm victims and cori~nunity preparedness for weather disasters in the
broader context of community and business development and economic assis-
tance. More important than the principle, however, is the fact that
there are no problems associated with the assignment of these responsibi-
lities to different agencies. There is no parallel to the situation that
confronts us in ocean affairs where different activities -- fishing, ship-
ping, oil and mineral development, power production, recreation -- compete
for use of the same piece of ocean space, and decisions made in connection
with one such activity affect others. We need a coherent ocean policy to
guide the Federal decisionmakers, and we need a coherent ocean organization
to appropriately link authority to responsibility.
33-547 0 - 78 -
PAGENO="0066"
62
Let me return, then, to the prime atmospheric responsibility that is,
and should be, NOAA's: the responsibility for providing those weather and
climate operations and services, and the research necessary to keep them
at the forefront of our technological and scientific capability, which
are the backbone upon which the bulk of the weather and climate activities
of the Federal Government depend.
This mission is important and essential in its own right, quite apart
from NOAA's responsibilities in ocean affairs. And here, Mr. Chairman, I
come to an important distinction which has perhaps not been adequately
made before.
On the one hand, the oceans and the atmosphere are indelibly linked.
Both are fluid systems overlying the solid earth. Their behavior is
governed by the same physical laws. They both manifest motions over a
wide spectrum of scales which, overall, play essential roles in determining
climate, weather, and consequently the distribution of life forms from
wheat to fish throughout our world. The two interact with each other to
a significant degree. It is simply not possible to understand the behavior
of one without understanding the other.
On the other hand, the missions of the Federal Government regarding,
say, fish, or marine minerals, and those concerned with weather and climate,
are separate and distinct. Each is important in its own right, quite
separate and apart from the other. And while NACOA believes it makes
sense, from the point of view of how best to get the work done, for the bulk
of our oceanic and our weather and climate programs to be housed within
the same agency, we believe that the mission statements should be separate
PAGENO="0067"
63
and distinct, with each set forth in terms appropriate to it and determined
by its fundathental importance.
DEFINING NOAAS MISSIONS
To do this, I suggest that Title I of H.R. 9708 be retitled "Declaration
of a National Policy for the Oceans and the Atmosphere," and that Sec. 101,
which is concerned with the oceans, be retitled "Declaration of Ocean
Policy." This section sets forth the reasons why the oceans are important
to us, the objectives that should underly the oceanic and coastal programs
of the Federal Government, and the purposes of the Act, one of which is "to
designate (NOAA) as the lead civilian agency with responsibility for coordina-
ting and carrying out national ocean policy in order to improve the under-
standing, assessment, development, utilization, conservation, and protection
of ocean and coastal resources .
I would then suggest insertion of a new Sec. 102 (renumbering the
present Sec. 102, which offers definitions, as Sec. 103) which might be
titled "Declaration of Policy on Weather and Climate" and which would
contain statements of the following sort:
"(a) Findings
(1) Weather, climate, and the processes of the upper atmosphere
are important to the United States and the world because
of their impact on health, agriculture, industry, and the
economy; the extent to which they affect transportation,
PAGENO="0068"
64
communication, air pollution, and energy demand; thepotential
loss of life and.destruction of property associated with
severe storms and floods; and the role of weather and climate
in national security.
(2) An understanding of weather, climate , and the state of the
upper atmosphere, an ability to predict weather and climate
at a future time, and an ability to modify weather and
climate, could satisfy many human needs and contribute to
national and international aspirations.
(3) The weather, climate, and upper atmosphere activities,
programs, and functions of the Federal Government should be
conducted so as to contribute materially to the following
objectives:
(A) The preparation and issuing of weather and climate
forecasts, and of warnings of severe storms, floods,
and weather hazardous to transportation, for use by
the general public and by Federal, State, and local
governments and by industry.
(B) The prevention, control, and reduction of air
pollution.
(C) The development of long range plans for agriculture,
energy, transportation, etc., incorporating knowledge
of the likelihood of weather and climate events, and
incorporating the capability for modifying weather
and climate.
(D) . .
PAGENO="0069"
65
Paragraphs (D) through (K) would parallel their oceanic counterparts
in Sec. 101, except that Paragraph (E) would include mention of the develop-
ment of community preparedness plans for responding to weather disasters,
and would also speak of cooperation with the private sector to ensure
as good a match as possible between the Nation's weather and climate
capabilities--both government and private--and the Nation's weather and
climate needs. I shall return to these two subjects a little later.
Among the purposes of the Act would then be "to designate NOAA as
the lead civilian agency with responsibility for carrying out national
weather and climate policy in order to improve the understanding, prediction,
and modification of weather and climate, and the application of weather
and climate information toagriculture, industry, and other sectors of the
economy."
Insertion of language into H.R. 9708 along these lines will provide
an essential element which is now missing and which must be there if
NOAAs missions are to be adequately set forth.
NOAA'S ATMOSPHERIC PROGRAMS
* Let me turn now to the activities which NOAA is responsible for
now, and for which it must continue to be responsible if it is to carry out
the weather and climate mission I have outlined.
NOAA must collect weather and climate observations. It must develop
and maintain a data management system. It must prepare weather and climate
forecasts and it must disseminate them, along with other weather and
PAGENO="0070"
66
climate information. It must conduct research to enable it to continually
improve the skill with which it does these things. And it must i~teract
with other Federal agencies that need its services or that can provide it
with information it needs to do its job.
I will touch only lightly on observations and data management, and
then go into more detail on services and research.
Collecting observations involves operating and maintaining networks
of surface and upper air sounding stations. It also involves satellites,
river gages, and radars--both conventional and doppler. It involves
observations from buoys and ships at sea and from airplanes in flight. It
involves both routine observations and special observations for special
purposes, such as aircraft reconnaissance of hurricanes. And it involves
getting comparable data from other nations of the world and sharing our
data with them.
NASA, the Geological Survey, the FAA, the Coast Guard, and the military
services cooperate with NOAA in this task. On the international side, NOAA
works with the State Department and with other nations through the World
Meteorological Organization, a U.N. agency.
Generally speaking, the observational activities are in good shape.
New technology does not always get incorporated into the system as rapidly
as it should, and in some locations there are simply not enough observing
stations. These problems are due primarily to inadequate resources, rather
than to organizational structure or to lack of adequate statutory authority.
PAGENO="0071"
67
Data man~gement means getting data of the right quality to the right
place at the right time and in the right form. It involves quality control,
archiving and retrieval, and conversion of basic data into useful information.
This must be done on a real-time basis for use in day-to-day operations, and
also on a longer time basis for subsequent use in research apd in provision
of climatological information.
Here too, what problems there are relate to resources--funds and
technology--rather than statutory authority or organizational arrangements.
Preparing and issuing weather and climate forecasts and warnings
and other related information is, of course, the ultimate purpose of all
of these activities, and I would like to go into this in a little more
detail.
WEATHER AND CLIMATE SERVICES
Let me say at the outset that in this area I see two serious issues
which do, perhaps, require statutory clarification. These are:
(1) How far should NOAA's public service responsibilities go?
Should NOAA be responsible only for issuing forecasts and warnings,
or should it also have responsibility for educating the public
on matters of safety prep&redness in the event of tornadoes,
hurricanes, and other life-threatening storms? Should it
participate actively in the development of comunity disaster
PAGENO="0072"
68
preparedness plans? Should it participate in setting limits to
development in regions which are prone to weather disasters,
such as hurricanes along the coast and flash floods in certain
inland regions?
(2) How should WOAA interact with private businesses offering weather
and climate services? Where should the government service end
and private enterprise take over?
The significance of these questions will become clear as I proceed.
Types of Weather and Climate Services
One can think of weather and climate services as falling intothree
basically different categories:
* disaster warnings
o economic benefit services
* convenience services
Disaster warnings are typified by forecasts and advisories of
impending hurricanes, tornadoes, flash floods, and other life-threatening
weather events, and also of droughts and other longer term climatic disasters.
I believe that everyone would agree that the Federal Government should give
a high priority to this type of service. An appropriate system of weather
observations, prediction, warning and public education can save lives and,
in many cases, can reduce property damage.
What is not so clearly agreed to is just how far the Federal
responsibility should go. Should it extend, for example, to the development
of community disaster preparedness plans, or to regulations affecting deve-
lopment in hazard-prone areas such as coastal regions subject to hurricanes
and inland regions subject to flash floods? These are both emerging issues,
PAGENO="0073"
69
and it is not clear just what the limits of NOAA's responsibilities in these
areas are today, or what they should be.
The familiar public forecasts are examples of convenience services.
They tell us whether to take an umbrella to work or to cancel plans for
tomorrow's picnic or ball game. These services probably belong at the low
end of the priority spectrum. It certainly is important the the predictions
be accurate and timely, but the benefits of success and the costs of failures
tend to be relatively small.
Economic benefit services are those used in the production and distri-
bution of goods and services. The following list gives a number of pro-
minent examples of activities where dependable climatological studies,
reliable up-to-date weather observations, and accurate weather predictions
can be very valuable:
* Aviation (comercial and private) - fog over airports,
severe weather and turbulence along flight routes, optimal
routing to take advantage of winds.
* Agriculture (cultivated crops, domestic animals, grass-
lands, forests) - frosts, hailstorms, blizzards, droughts,
floods; forest fires; irrigation; long range agricultural
planning.
* Smoke-stack industries (power plants, smelters and refineries,
etc.) - air pollution.
PAGENO="0074"
70
o Construction - excessive precipitation, low temperature, or
other conditions that inhibit pouring of concrete and similar
operations.
o Marine operations (merchant shipping, fishing, offshore oil
drilling) - wind and wave forecasts, ocean routing, sea
surface temperature patterns.
o Ground and waterway transportation - fog, snow and ice on
highways, rivers and lakes.
o Oil, gas, coal, and electric companies - unusually cold or hot
weather causing excessive power demands, lightning strikes to
power lines or transformers.
* Muncipalities - snowfall, water supply, floods, air pollution.
* Commodity exchanges - forecasts for as far into the future
as possible of expected weather over food-growing regions of
the world.
The actual operations which must be undertaken to produce the three
kinds of services mentioned above ~re not very different from each other.
For all three, there must be an observing network, a data analysis and
forecasting activity, and a means of dissemination. Apparently for this
reason, our national weather service system has, in the past, given
almost equal attention to all three categories.
PAGENO="0075"
71
Let me say a word at this point about climate. Climate refers to the
aggregate of weather conditions prevailing over a portion of the earth for an
extended period of time. The significant difference between weather and
climate services lies not in the technical nature of the survice, but in
the use that is made of it. Weather information is needed for day-to-day
operations, climate information for long-term plarming. Our ability to
predict climate is virtually nil, and our capability for incorporating that
climatic information which we have today into long-term planning is far
less developed than our capability for incorporating weather information
into daily operations. Legislation to establish a national climate program --
legislation which was developed largelyby this Subcommittee, and on which
NACOA has already commented extensively -- is now in conference and, I hope,
will shortly become law. One of the major elements of this new program should
be the development of te~hniques for incorporating climatic knowledge into
long-term planning for agriculture, energy, air pollution control, and so forth,
to a greater extent than we do today.
The Private Sector
Over the last thirty years there has been a slow but steady growth
in the number of private consulting meteorologists and privately owned
companies rendering a wide spectrum of weather and climate services. The
Professional Directory in the March 1978 Bulletin of the American Meteoro
]pgical Society contains 78 advertisements for private individuals and
companies providing such services.
PAGENO="0076"
72
As in any business, the quality of the private services is highly
variable, depending mostly on the competence and integrity of the individuals
involved and the type of service offered. In order to encourage high stan-
dards among private consulting meteorologists, the American Meteorological
Society has a program of certification. Individuals who have had adequate
training and experience and who pass a written and oral examination are
designated Certified Consulting Meteorologists.
Private meteorologists have prospered largely by providing specially
tailored services to industrial, commercial and municipal clients. Many
cities and industries concerned with the effects of snow on motor vehicle
transp~ortation have purchased snow forecasts. Gas and electric companies
concerned with power needs on cold, windy days, ski lodges concerned about
snow cover, offshore oil drillers concerned with winds and waves, commodity
dealers and traders concerned about the effects of future weather on
future prices, and agriculturists concerned about water availability all
have found private weather and climate services of value.
Many large companies have meteorologists on their staffs. The
"smoke-stack companies" -- i.e., those that discharge waste products
into the atmosphere from tall stacks in a controlled manner depending on
air pollution potential -- employ their own meteorologists. Certain
television stations seeking to give their viewers specialized weather
services have full time meteorologists and well-equipped weather stations
of their own.
One could cite many more examples of the role of private meteorlogists
in supplying high quality weather services to customers willing to pay
for it.
PAGENO="0077"
73
The Role of the Government and of the Private Meteorqjpgists
Not too many years ago the U.S. Weather Bureau regarded itself as
the only authorized supplier of weather forecasts to the public. When
there were very few private meteorologists offering their services
to the public or to industry, this view was seldom disputed.
In the late forties and fifties private meteorologists were
tolerated rather than encouraged by the Federal Government. Nevertheless,
over the last three decades there has been substantial growth of private
weather service companies in the United States. For the most part,
they are relatively small organizations which supply specialized services
to industries or municipalities. By concentrating on the specific needs
of their clients and by offering services not available from the National
Weather Service, certain private companies have been quite successful.
Over the last few years NOAA's National Weather Service (NWS)
has not been permitted to grow in size and capability to meet the growing
weather service demands of this country. We believe that it would be
in the national interest to strengthen NWS. At the same time, it is
clear that an increasing part of the Nations weather service needs will
have to be met by private meteorologists. This is particularly true
in the case of weather and climate services in the category I have called
economic benefit services.
What is needed is a definition of the respective roles of government
and private meteorologists. The division of responsibilities would be
expected to differ depending on the types of service offered. Let me
illustrate this by considering, separately, disaster warnings and
economic benefit services.
PAGENO="0078"
74
Disaster Warning~ -- It seems clear that the Federal government has,
and should have, the responsibility to observe, predict and issue ad-
visories of impending violent weather. The Federal Government has been
doing this with increasing competence and effectiveness. More still needs
to be done in the area of alerting the public about the predicted weather
events and enabling the public to respond in a manner that will maximize
public safety.
However, a great deal still remains to be learned about the
atmosphere. Meteorologists, like their counterparts in medicine, psy-
chology and geology, for example, are not perfect by any means. Equally
competent people viewing the same evidence can arrive at different
prognoses. Occasions arise when equally competent meteorologists
arrive at conflicting forecasts of the likely behavior of a severe storm.
The official National Weather Service forecast may call for heavy snow in
Chicago while a privatemeteorological company serving the same city
may disagree. The NWS might predict that a hurricane will hit New
Orleans while a private meteorological company will be convinced, after
examining the same data, that the storm will miss the city.
How should we deal with a case in which Federal Government meteorologists
and private meteorologists retained by local government or industry
reach conflicting prognoses of a possible severe storm event? We do
not have an answer at this time.
Economic Benefit Services -- NOAA must continue to carry the major
responsibility for supplying weather services to government and industry.
At the same time, it appears to me that as a matter of policy, private
organizations requiring special weather services for their own gain should
be encouraged, if not required, to purchase these in the private market.
PAGENO="0079"
75
In the past many individuals and organizations have refrained from
buying weather services that could be obtained `free of charge" from
the National Weather Service. Unfortunately, this free information is not
always the most relevent for the intended purpose. It is not uncommon,
when there is a lack of close communication between meteorologists and
those engaging in weather-sensitive activities, for neither, party to
understand the nature of the weather service really needed, and the use
that can be made of it.
Private meteorologists working closely with industrial, commercial
and municipal clients can identify the type of weather services needed
by the clients. They can tailor the product and the timing of forecasts
to maximize the effectiveness, for the client, of the specialized weather
information.
At present, private meteorologists can obtain weather data and
facsimile-transmitted weather maps simply by paying transmission charges.
I can visualize that as the private meteorological industrygrows,
payment to the government for such weather data and analyses might be in
order.
As noted earlier,, budgetary and personnel restrictions have been.
reducing the quantity and quality of service that the National Weather
Service can offer to individual groups having specialized needs. It
seems clear that a new partnership has to be forged between the government
weather service and private meteorologists. The various parties involved,
including NOAA, the private meteorologists, and their industrial, commercial
and municipal clients, must work together to establish a formula which
will maximize the effectiveness of weather service for all concerned.
PAGENO="0080"
76
Weather Forecasts and the Public
A great deal needs to be learned about public understanding and
appreciation of weather forecasts and their meanings. To a large extent,
existing practices for disseminating weather forecasts and advisories have
been developed within the government without adequate testing. For
example, there is still considerable misunderstanding of the use of
probability forecasts. How many people know what is meant by the statement,
"The probability of rain today is 20 percent"? Moreover, the meanings of
terms such as `tornado watch" and "tornado warning" are not clear to many
people. Which one means that a tornado may occur, and which one means
a funnel has been sighted and may be headed towards you?
Even when the terms are properly understood, it is not certain that
an appropriate response will follow. For example, if the NWS issues a
series of forecasts advising of the approach of a hurricane along the
Gulf Coast, will the public understand the nature of the threat and the
need to take appropriate actions, such as evacuation, on time?
The point I am trying to make is that it is necessary to devote
more attention to the best ways to communicate with the clients -- in
most cases the public. This requires that meteorologists, educators,
psychologists, sociologists and the public interact. It requires testing,
market analysis if you like, of new ways and new words.
Weather Services and the Media
Virtually every daily newspaper, radio station and television
station in the United States gives weather forecasts. Some are
comprehensive, up-to-date and as reliable as the state of the art permits.
Some are none of these. Some broadcast stations hire competent meteoro-
PAGENO="0081"
77
logists, who have earned the Seal of Approval of the American Meteo-
rological Society. Some stations employ people who know nothing about
meteorology and seem to care less. In the hands of the latter type, the
best weather information from the most competent meteorologist, government
or otherwise, can be rendered worthless.
What can be done to improve the quality of weather information in
the news media? When the weather is benign, the consequences of poor
publiccommunication are minor. But in the event of a disastrous weather
event, the message to the public can be crucial. rncorrect or untimely
information can undo the products of even the best technology and the
best sdentific minds. Meteorologists alone cannot solve this problem,
nor can the news media alone. A greater mutual understanding is needed.
RESEARCH
Let me now turn to the subject of weather and climate research.
A major share of our Nations fundamental or basic research in the atmospheric
sciences is conducted in universities and in research organizations such
as the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder. Much of this
work is sponsored by the National Science Foundation, but other government
agencies (notably NASA, and to a lesser extent the Air Force and NOAA) also
supply funds because of the possible applications of the research. Within
NOAA, considerable meteorological research is carried out ranging from
the very fundamental to the highly applied. It is widely believed that
there is too little interaction between researchers and operational
weather groups. As a result, new techniques, particularly observational
techniques, are brought into operational use at too slow a rate.
33-547 0 - 78 - 6
PAGENO="0082"
78
Let me illustrate this by referring to a proposal which is now
developing within NOAA under the acronym PROFS, standing for `Prototype
Regional Observing and Forecasting Service." The PROFS concept emerged
from one `of NOAA's research laboratories which has been developing remote
sensing technology, and which saw in its products a possible means for
providing some sorely needed improvements in local weather services.
PROFS would bring together research scientists and operational meteoro-
logists in the solution of an important practical problem. However, it is
not clear whether MOM, with its limited resources, will be able to
provide the personnel and funds needed to bring this concept to the
point of operational testing.
Mr. Chairman, this illustrates the general problem that transfer of
research findings into practical applications is too slow. The problem
does not lie in a lack of statutory authority or in the quality of the
research. Rather, it appears that there have been difficulties in
organization, management, and communication between those involved. in
research and those concerned with operations. Right now there is a gap
between the point where the researchers say they have new technologies
and techniques to apply, and the point where the operational people are
ready to put them to an operational test. Neither group is willing to
devote their scarce resources to a project at this stage. Funds and
personnel resources need to be earmarked for this purpose.
Thus far I have been speaking about research in general terms, but
with research relating to weather forecasting primarily in mind. I want
to mention, briefly, three other research areas in which NOAA should
have a major responsibility--climate, weather modification, and air pollution.
PAGENO="0083"
79
I have already referred to the legislation to establish a national
climate program, which is now in conference. If MOM is to have the
mission of providing the nucleus of the Federal Government's civil weather
and climate activities, then MOM must play a major role in this new program
of climatic research and services. Since the bill is in conference, I will
say no more about it at this point.
Reconiiiendations concerning weather modification--a subject on which
NACOA has commented frequently in the past--are now being developed by
the Weather Modification Advisory Board, which is scheduled to deliver
its report to the Secretary of Commerce next month. I shall not comment
further at this time except to say that this is another area in which
MOM must play a significant role.
Air pollution is primarily an industrial and technological problem
having to do with the invention of ways to dispose of waste products
without dirtying the air, and is a responsibility of the Environmental
Protection Agency. However, in order to know how much pollution the
atmosphere can tolerate without becoming unacceptably contaminated, it is
essential to know how winds and turbulence mix and disperse material
injected into the air. Weather information is essential to do this, and
MOM must play a major role--as it does now--in addressing this problem.
I could name other areas--agriculture and aviation, for example--in
which weather and climate have major impacts. While MOAA does not and
should not have primary responsibility for these areas in the broad sense,
it must be able to provide the weather-related information needed by the
agencies that do have the responsibility. This in turn means it must
collect the observations and conduct the research which it (MOM) will
need to properly do its job.
PAGENO="0084"
80
NOAA'S RESPONSIBILITIES TO OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES
This leads me to one more area which may require statutory clarification:
NOAA's responsibility.for providing weather and climate services needed by
other Federal agencies for their own missions. NOAA has this responsibility
today, as indeed it must if it is to provide the nucleus of weather and
climate services. But there are no adequate provisions to ensure that NOAA
will have, or be able to get, the resources -- the funds and the personnel --
that it must have it is to carry out this responsibility. Some statutory
clarification of this situation seems to be called for.
SUMMATION
In sumation, Mr. Chairman, I have identified four areas involving
weather and climate which I believe a NOAA organic act should explicitly
address. These are:
(1) An explicit statement of NOAA's weather and climate mission.
(2) Specification of how far NOAA'~s responsibilities should go
in the direction of ensuring appropriate response by the public
to the forecasts and warnings it issues, and to information
it provides about the likelihood of weather disasters in certain
locations.
(3) Specification of the respective roles of NOAA and of private
enterprises offering weather and climate services.
(4) Identification of NOAA's responsibility to provide weather and
climate services to other Federal agencies, and provision for
obtaining the resources needed to do so.
PAGENO="0085"
81
I realize, Mr. Chairman, that except for the first of these I have not
told you just what the Act should say. There are some difficult questions
involved, and we on NACOA are addressing them and hope to be able to deliver
our recommendations to you later this year, in time for consideration of
such legislation during the next session of the Congress.
There is little further that I can say as a NACOA spokesman.
However I will be glad to answer any questions that I can, speaking for
myself.
33-547 0 - 78 - 7
PAGENO="0086"
82
AFtER RECESS
Mr. BROWN. The subcommittee will please come to order.
Our next witness will be Dr. Robert M. White, Chairman of the
National Climate Board, National Academy of Sciences, who is well
known to all members of the committee as the former Administrator
of NOAA. We will also call up Dr. Thomas F. Malone, of the Holcomb
Research Institute.
May I invite both of you gentlemen, Dr. Malone and Dr. White, to
come to the desk, and we will try to expedite this a little bit?
I have been informed, Dr. Malone, that you are now serving as For-
eign Secretary for the National Academy of Sciences. I know at least
one of your predecessors, Dr. Harrison, and I know some of the prob-
lems he had in that job, which I am sure you are capable of overcoming.
Dr. White, suppose you go first, since you are the first on the list,
then we will hear from Dr. Malone. Then we will engage in a little
colloquy with both of you, and see if we understand what you have
told us.
STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT M. WHITE, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL
CLIMATE BOARD, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, FORMERLY
ADMINISTRATOR OF NOAA
Dr. WHITE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BROWN. Without objection, the full text of your statement will
be included in the record and you may proceed as you wish.
Dr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I have prepared only a very brief state-
ment, which I would like to read. It will take me just a few minutes
to go through this.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to have
the opportunity to appear before you to discuss issues raised by H.R.
.9708, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Organic
Act and H.R. 8763, the National Weather Service Act of 1977. I `have
previously testified before the Subcommittee on Aviation and Weather
on H.R. 8763 and before the Subcommittee on Oceanography of the
House Marchant Marine and Fisheries Committee on H.R. 9708. That
testimony is available to this committee for its consideration.
Mr. BROWN. We will take it into consideration.
Dr. WHITE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Your letter of May 16 indicated that you would like me to address
issues not considered by the other committee. I have therefore pre-
pared my testimony specifically to address the questions you have
raised.
The first issue identified by your letter is "How should `atmospheric
research and development including weather and climate research be
dealt with?" This raises the questions of "by whom" and "for what
purposes ?" In approaching weather and climate research, the im-
portant thing is to establish clear objectives. The research and develop-
ment program must be related to them. These objectives could for
example, be to provide warnings of tornado, hurricanes, and other
severe weather hazards, or forecasts and warnings to serve agriculture,
or outlooks for months or seasons in advance to serve as a basis for
PAGENO="0087"
83
advance planning of various economic activities, or modifying the
weather to increase rainfall or to lessen the destructive force of hurri-
canes. The important thing is that a set of goals or missions be estab-
lished. This is vital for the specification of research and development
functions to be undertaken by NOAA, and for the establishment of
the responsibilities of NOAA and other agencies for their funding and
execution.
The specific set of research and development problems that should
be undertaken are those whose solutions will provide the greatest social
and economic benefits and also those which appear to be amenable
to amelioration by scientific research. If we approach problems in
this way, we can organize a coherent atmospheric research and devel-
opment program responsive to the objectives. One part of this pro-
gram can be directed at obtaining immediate improvements in services.
These will generally be applied research efforts. If we do this it will
become apparent that there are gaps in our basic knowledge of various
physical processes which represent limitations on our abiity to pro-
gress toward our objectives. These problems require a concerted effort
in basic atmospheric science. This suggests that if we are to "deal" with
atmospheric research and development, we should insure that our at-
mospheric R. & D. maintains a balance between efforts directed at
immediate improvements in our ability to solve atmospheric problems
which have major socioeconomic consequences, and those directed to
more basic problems which enable us to deal effectively over the longer
term with these issues.
In fact the organization of the weather research and development
effort.s at NOAA have followed this general concept. Invèstment,s were
made in both the shorter applied and in the more basic longer-term
research. Research and development activities were conducted both
within the service arms of NOAA such as the National Weather Serv-
ice or the National Environmental Satellite Service and at the same
time in NOAA's central research laboratories, the Environmental Re-
search Laboratories. The Environmental Research Laboratories
(ERL's) have been able to focus their attention on the longer term
more basic science aspects of the atmosphere while the service arms
have been able to address the shorter-term applied research necessary
to yield immediate improvements in services.
In your letter, you ask "How much detail in terms of NOAA's mis-
sions and current organization is necessary?" I believe great detail
should be avoided in an Organic Act. It seems to me that the NOAA
Organic Act must be drawn in broad terms insofar as the research
and development efforts are concerned, to allow NOAA the necessary
flexibility to meet problems as they arise, and to take advantage of op-
portunities as they manifest themselves. It would be sufficient to specify
broad categories of research and development which would be expected
of the organization. These categories should be closely aligned with the
specific operating missions of the organization so that one supports the
other.
I believe that provisions must also be made for a wide range of
exploratory investigatiOns not directly related to current missions to
provide the opportunity for the organization to build a more ge~ieral
base of knowledge about the oceans and atmosphere. I believe it would
be helpful if the Congress also provided policy guidance on how it
PAGENO="0088"
84
would like NOAA to carry out its R. & D. responsibilities. It is im-
portant that NOAA draw not only upon its own laboratories for its
research and development needs, but also upon the nongovernmental
scientific and technological community. Just as there needs to be a
balance between applied and basic research, there is also a need for
balance between the efforts carried out in Government laboratories and
in nongovernmental academic and industrial institutions.
This leads naturally to another of your questions, "What long-
term mechanisms could be instituted which better link the research
and development task to NOAA's missions ?" The transfer of know-
how and technology from research and development to operations is
a very resistant problem. It is by no means peculiar to NOAA. It is
common to organizations which have both service and research func-
tions. I have experienced this problem in industry, the Department
of Defense, and in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration. There is no substitute for talented and sensitive management
in dealing with the problem. Fundamentally it is a problem of getting
the people who are responsible for services and those responsible for
research and development together. It is in most cases a problem of
communication. Those responsible for research must understand and
be sensitive to the problems of the operating services. On the other
hand, those responsible for operating services must understand the
developments in and potentials of research for improving their serv-
ices.
Many techniques can be used. Regular coordination meetings, work-
shops, or symposia can be organized. Requirements can be prepared
by operating services to which research and development groups must
be responsive. Funding arrangements can be adopted which provide
motivation for the technology transfer. But these are all management
approaches to achieving the necessary~ technological and scientific
transfer. An alert management will select the particular tools ap-
propriate to the organization and the personalities involved.
Technology transfer is a difficult matter to legislate. One thing the
Congress might do is to write into the Organic Act the requirement
for a periodic report, hopefully not once every year, but perhaps once
every 3 years, explaining how, and in what way, NOAA has brought
about a transfer of scientific and technological developments into the
operating services. This requirement could be a useful stimulus to
management.
Last, you have raised the question about whether there is a "com-
petitive situation for funding and manpower `arising in the areas of
research concerning climate, weather, and weather modification?" The
answer to this is-Yes. There is competitive funding. And that's as it
should be. Each of these kinds of research activity can provide eco-
nomic and social benefits to the citizens of this Nation, and each is at
a different stage of scientific development. The claims of each area
for the dollar must rest on the benefits and the potential of science
and technology to yield useful results.
The Congress in establishing an Organic Act for NOAA can help
in addressing these questions. It can insure that the NOAA Organic
Act provides for annual authorization procedures. This would require
NOAA to come before the Congress to present its proposals for the
PAGENO="0089"
85
allocation of resources among competing areas of research. It would
give the Congress an opportunity to review the balance of effort and
modify this balance if necessary.
Mr. Chairman, these are short comments on the questions raised
in your letter to me. I hope they can be helpful in your deliberations.
I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you. That is a very statesmanlike response to*
our broad questions and one which will be extremely helpful to us,
Dr. White.
I think we will go ahead with Dr. Malone and then question both
of you. Go ahead, Dr. Malone.
STATEMENT OP DR. THOMAS P. MALONE, DIRECTOR, HOLCOMB
RESEARCH INSTITUTE, BUTLER UNIVERSITY, INDIANAPOLIS,
IND.
Dr. MALONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BROWN. Dr. Malone, your statenient will be made a part of the
record, and you may present it in any manner you wish.
[The ~prepared statement and biographical sketch of Dr. Malone
follows :J
PAGENO="0090"
86
STAT~4ENT BY Thct4AS F. MAlONE
DIBECIOR, HOLCOMB RESEARCH INSTrIUTE
BUTTER UNIVERSITY
INDIANAPOLIS, fl~DIANA 46208
BEFORE THE U.S. HCXJSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
CCMMITTEE ON SCIENTE AND TECHNOLOGY
HEARI5~3S ON THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ACM1NISTRATION (NOAA)
01YANIC ACTS H.R. 9708 (AND H.R. 8763)
Thursday, June 22, 1978 2:00 p.m.
Room 2325 Rayburn House Office Building
As a prefatory note, let rae make four carirents:
(1) It is very important to the effective management of our oceanic
and atmospheric resources that there be formulated a basic charter
for the government agency responsible for the R. and D. and the
service aspects of the ocean and the atmosphere.
(2) I share the Chairman's feelings (expressed in his letter of
June 2, 1978) that the present version of H.R. 9708 needs to be
broadened and needs to be brought more nearly into balamee in
its treatment of the ocean and the atmosphere if it is to serve
as the organic act of NOAA.
(3) To develop Title I of H.R. 9708 -- a declaration of national
policy - into a statement that will constitute watershed legis-
lation and stand without major nzxlification for a number of years
will require more thought and discussion than we can give to it
this afternoon, and I support the proposal to bring together NAS,
NACOA, the AIlS, the user carrnunities, and state and federal agencies
for a series of werksIops this fall.
(4) Finally, I weuld like to reference my testimony before ycnr can-
niittee on August 3, 1977, as germaine to these deliberations.
I stressed then (a) the need for more applied research, and
developoent to meet the specialized needs of fields such as
aviation, agriculture, and transportation, (b) the need to aug-
ment the "in-l-ouse" capabilities of NOAA by involving more effectively
the talents in our university system, and (c) the desirability of
authorization bearings for N~A prior to appropriation hearings.
To respond in order to the issues you have raised as guidelines to our testi-
irony, I weuld list the following points:
(1) The centerpiece in a declaration of national policy might well be
a declaration that the ocean and atmosphere, taken together as an
PAGENO="0091"
87
inextricably linked physical system, constitute a prominent part
of our physical environment and are a renewable natural resource
of nujor irrportance in providing the food and fiber that sustain
life and give ireaning to sheer existence. Moreover, it is a mat-
ter of high national priority that ve understand this physical
system better and understand in a quantitative manner how it
impacts human activity and is, in turn, irrpacted by human activity,
in order that ve may manage this resource more effectively. The
role and the potential of the ocean as a source of food and energy,
the influence of the atmosphere on the productive capacity of the
ocean and of the terrestrial biosphere, the importance of the ocean
and the atnosphere in modern transportation, merchandising, con-
struction, and recreation should be emphasized.
I would counsel caution in getting too detailed but would stress
the importance of (a) describing the atmospheric-oceanic system
through physical rreasurenent employing the marvelous array of
tools that modern technolpoy has placed in our hands, (b) under-
standing the physical processes that determine its state at a
given instant as well as its average state over an interval of
tine, erploying such techniques as simulation modeling to sharpen
and test that understanding, (c) predicting the future state of a
highly interactive ocean and atmosphere in order that human activity
can be harmonized with anticipated conditions, and (d) controlling
the behavior of this system as our capability gr~s to enhance the
atmospheric and oceanic environment.
Important as I believe the carbon dioxide problem to be -- and I
am persuaded it is one of the most important of a new kind of global
problem confronting the world -- I would reccmnend that it not be
singled out in an organic act hit should be subsumed under the
imperative to understand how human activity impacts the ocean and
the atmDsphere. We have now reached a level and character of
human activity that we must take care in using our ocean and ethos-
phere as severs into which wa can dump the residuals of human
activity with impunity.
I do urge that services be distinguished from research, but in the
general framework of the need to illuminate our understanding and
improving our predictive capability.
I would suggest two additional points that should be made in a
Declaration of Policy. The first is the fact that the atmosphere
and ocean are inherently global in character and require inter-
national cooperation of a uniquely necessary character. The second
is the responsibility that ve -- and the world - should readily
accept to manage this aspect of our environment in a manner which
will insure its beneficial use by generations yet to ccrre -
centuries, thousands and, yes, even millions of years in the
future. I was pleased to mote the phrase, "fulfill the needs of
present and future generations", in the proposed declaration of
policy in H.R. 9708.
PAGENO="0092"
88
(2) NOA7~ should be designated as the lead agency for the conduct of
research with the understanding that mission-oriented agencies
should maintain supporting programs of applied research in special-
ized applications and the National Science Foundation should
continue its important role of supporting basic research conducted
by individual investigators and through institutional mechanisms
such as NCPR. Lead agency responsibility for provision of services
relating to weather and the state of the sea should be assigned
to I~J2A. Modern prediction techniques increasingly require
sophisticated car~itational and carrnunications capabilities.
Specialized applications of the fundamental prediction products
should be carefully constructed to build upon core predictions
prepared by NO?\A and should avoid duplication of products which are
provided by the lead agency. Clearly, NOAA should, unambiguously,
be charged with responsibility for public safety. In this respect,
I was disappointed to understand that it is proposed to transfer
NOA1~'s responsibilities in disaster preparedness to a new agency.
I can understand the good intentions behind this proposal, but I
do hope that the Congress will examine the matter with scme care
before approving it.
Pluralism is a powerful force for diversity and innovation in our
nation. The private sector of meteorology is currently flourish-
ing because it can supply a product mare precisely tailored to the
user's needs than can -- or should -- a federal agency. I do not
reccmrend user's charges for the services provided to the private
sector by NOPJ~. I tend to view the private sector as an extension
of NOPA' s basic mission with the incrmrental costs of this exten-
sion very properly home by the user.
The roles of local and state governments relative to the federal
government are influenced by factors that transcend scientific
or technological considerations, but I identify twa emerging
developremts which will converge in making it desirable to develop
new `partnerships of effort" among those three levels of government.
The first, of course, is the increasingly structured nature and sheer
demographic growth in local and state socio-econanic-political
ccrnplexes that increase their vulnerability to weather and coastal
zone conditions. The second is the recognition that recent develop-
ments in sensing equipeent, minicarputers, ccrrrrnnications technology,
coupled with an appreciation of the fact that we are on the thres-
hold of a batter understanding of so-called mesoscale meteorology
and coastal zone oceanography, are bringing within reach a predictive
capability at the local level which may be so specialized that it
might be irrpractical for any federal agency to replicate it at
each of the Standard Statistical Metropolitan l½reas. * For these
reasons, I wauld favor a positive attitude toward possible sharing
of responsibility -- and cost - at the several levels of government.
PAGENO="0093"
89
(3) With respect to relative priority among the several areas of
responsibility for NOAA, it is important to note that these areas
are not mutually exclusive. Weather forecasting, climatic analysis,
weather codification, coastal zone rnanagemunt, and oceanic analysis
and resource inventoring and management are each part of the larger
issue of describing, understanding, predicting and managing the ocean-
atmosphere portion of our physical environment. This task, rather
than weather forecasting, shauld be considered the foundation for
all of NOM's activities. Weather forecasting will continue to be a
major activity of NO1~A, but it is timely that the inventoring,
assessing, and planning for the use of ocean resources, a climatic
program, and weather noditirhtion be woven into T~XW~' s activities
in a fashion that is responsive to developing knowledge, tech-
nology, and needs, and in a manner which takes full advantage of
the large degree of interdependence among these activities. For
example, the impact of weather and climate on human activity is
a matter of basic concern in both a climate program and a weather
ntxlification program, just as it is important in determining the
cost effective kind of weather forecast.
The matter of priorities becomes important in the allocation of
incremental resources. The action of the Congress in coving
toward a national climate program and the funding for climate
proposed by the administration for the next fiscal year reflect
a consenams that climate is a topic which now deserves a high
priority. ~Arrong the various climate subprograms that seam to me
to deserve special attention are (a) the CO2 problem, which has
mind-boggling implications if present indications are substantiated
by further study, (b) analysis of the annual seasonal march of weather,
which would permit assessment of the possibilities of anticipating
departures from the usual climate for the next season, and (c)
climatic diagnostics which would enable us to bring to bear presently
available data on climate and presently available knowledge of
climatic variability.
There will soon be available a proposal that will recairnend that
it is in the national interest to adopt a policy of establishing
a twenty-year program to develop proven technologies in weather
codification of atmospheric resource enhancseemt.
It seems likely that the workshep on athospheric sciences in Colorado
earlier this month will call for special attention to the rreso-
scale phenc~nena and the shert range forecast and cairnunications
task.
Rather than attempting to set priorities among activities which are
still in the gestation stage, I think it is important to recairrend
the mechanism by which these priorities can be established in rela-
tion to their relative importance and anticipated benefits. Here
I would underscore rr~ recarrnemiation of ten months ago that authoriza-
tion hearings would be the best available method. I urge that they
be incorporated into the proposed legislation.
PAGENO="0094"
90
(4) Coordination among the several federal agencies is, in my opinion,
adequate in both research and services. This is one of the goals
and accomplishments of the former MOM Mininistrator Dr. Robert
White. I might repeat a ccimsent that I have made earlier that
greater stability in programs and possible improverrents in cost
effectiveness might be achieved ware sorre of the considerable por-
tion of research in NOM funded by direct appropriations rather
than interagency transfer of funds. I am somewhat uneasy about
the relatively small percentage of the cost of collecting data
that is allocated to its proper archiving. The Environmental Data
Service of ~)AA is highly capable, but I think the resources made
available to this unit need strengthening in the light of the
monumental task with which it is charged. The Institute of Ecology,
with support fran the Department of Energy, is currently addressing
the important matter of access to environmental data.
(5) I will leave to others who have studied more closely than have I
the organizational issues within NOM.
I wauld like, howaver, to ccnrrent forcefully on the advantages of
strengthenipo the ties betwaen NOM and the universities. I believe
I can speak without bias since my own university does not now, nor
does it contemplate, research supported by NOM. In my view,
our national program in the atmospheric and ocean sciences wauld
be appreciably strengthened by a closer interaction between NOAA
and the talents at our universities. Moreover, I am persuaded
that only by congressional mandate can an appropriate balance be
achieved betwaen "in-house" R. and D. and N. and D. supported at
universities. The advantages are threefold: (a) sane of the most
productive scholars in basic and applied research are found at the
fifty or more institutions with doctoral programs in the atirosptere
or ocean sciences and a closer linkage between these individuals
and NOM' a mission problems wauld strengthen NOM' s posture, give
its programs diversity, and enrich the intellectual thrust of tire
agency, (b) there is underway a veritable revolution in the educa-
tional requirements for professional and scientific work in the
atmospheric and ocean sciences, and our nation needs a vigorous,
wall-supported array of universities to supply personnel familiar
with the mission needs of NOM and the sophisticated technology
employed to meet those needs, and (c) the lag time between scientific
and technological breakthroughs and applications to the provision
of services could wall be shortened.
Over a century ago a new era in agricultural productivity and uni-
versity institutional vitality began with the introduction of the Land
Grant College System. More recently, wa have seen another thrust
in tire Sea Grant Program. I think this might be an appropriate
tine to fashion a separate title to H.R. 9708 which would address
specifically the MOM-university interaction. This is more than
a plea for special support to our hard-pressed university system.
PAGENO="0095"
91
The work at Pennsylvania State University and at the University
of Wisconsin in short-range local forecasting indicate that this
can be a two-way street.
(6) Although NOAA does have quality-control programs to measure per-
formance (see my testimeny of August 3, 1977), mach remains to be
done in pinning down, in quantitative terms, weather and climatic
impact on human activity. This is just now beginning to be recog-
nized in the development of a national climate program and in the
attempts to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of weather rnodifica-
tion activities. It is a peculiarly interdisciplinary problem with
strong overtones of a holistic systems approach to a set of caiiplex
problems. The work of Dr. r~Quigg in agro-climatolcxgy is exemplary
in this sense.
(7) I believe the wording of the policy statement on cooperation to
the effect that "the Federal Government, in cooperation with
foreign states ... and international organizations ... utilize its
capabilities to create and maintain conditions under which ocean
and coastal, and the atmaspheric resources may be utilized without
harming the environment ..." is just about right as a policy state-
ment on international responsibilities and agreements. It is
important that this dualism of cooperation with "foreign states"
and "international organizations' be retained since one of the
nest successful international programs involves dealing with
foreign states thrcugh the World Meteorological Organization and
with the world scientific canrrninity through the International
Council of Scientific Unions. There night even be sane merit in
introducing the words "intergovernmental and nongovernmental"
between the words "international" and "organizations."
(8) In a dynamic and fast-breaking field with intense human impact,
there will inevitably arise legislation expressing the national
need for special programs in areas such as climate, weather riodifi-
cation, ocean pollution, utilization and conservation of both
renewable and nonrenewable resources. As a lay person in drafting
legislation, I would envision two alternative courses: (a) making
the organic act sufficiently broad and general that it can errbrace
new legislated activities, or (b) amending the organic act as may
be required. I tend to favor the first alternative.
(9) It is for the reason just mentioned that I would be inclined to
restrict the airount of detail in the organic legislation. Certainly,
there are substantial parts of H.R. 8763 which could be incorporated
into the organic act. For example, I see mach merit in the section
under "Authority for Functions and Activities" which gives the
Secretary authority to "establish and maintain an equipment replace-
ment fund equal in value to one-fifteenth of the replacement value
of the current inventory of capital equipment used in carrying out
the functions and activities under this Act, and use such fund for
PAGENO="0096"
92
the routine replac&r~nt of equiprrent when justified by equiprient
obsolescence, excessive maintenance costs, deterioration, or pro-
gram requiremants."
My final corrment would be that the "lead agency" concept is viable only when
the lead agency is provided with the autherity and the resources to fulfill
its responsibilities and there is acceptance by the other agencies of this
concept. We have beth a notable example of success and a notable example
of failure in the atmospheric sciences. The success is the effectiveness
with which this concept has been applied to the Global Atmospheric Research
Prporam (GARP) and the failure is the inability of the concept to function
effectively in the case of woather modification. These two examples merit
examination in more detail to ascertain the resiliency of the lead agency
concept.
PAGENO="0097"
93
BI~GR~PHIC~L SKEIcH
THCI4AS F. MALONE
Research Professor at &itler University and Director, Holcomb Research
Institute, at that University, Thernas F. Malone received his doctorate in
meteorology at MIT in 1946. He rose at MIT from research assistant in 1941
to Associate Professor in 1951. Editor of the fourteen hundred page
Compendium of Meteorology, Dr. Malone left MIT in 1955 to becane Director of
Weather Research at The Travelers Insurance Ccspany. He subsequently became
a Senior Vice President and Director of Research at The Travelers. Past
Secretary and President of the American Meteorological Society and Past
President of the American Geophysical Union, Dr. Malone was chairman of the
Board of Trustees for tim University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
during 1973-74. A Member of the National Academy of Sciences he served as
a member of the Caitnittee on Meteorology from 1957-61 and Chairman of the
Carrnittee on Atmospheric Sciences from 1961-1968. He was a rssnber of the
Envirorumental Studies Board of the Academy from 1969-74 and Chairman of the
Geophysics Research Board from 1969-75. He was Chairman of the Panel on
Weather and Climate Modification from 1969-1973. Dr. Malone served as a presi-
dential appointee on the National Advisory Corrrnittee on Oceans and Atmosphere
from 1971-1975 and has served on numerous advisory ccrrrnittees to the Department
of State, National Science Foundation, HLW, and NASA from 1952 to the present.
Vice President of the International Council of Scientific Unions, 1970-72,
he was Secretary General of the ICSU/IUGG Ccrrrnittee of Atrrospheric Sciences
from 1964-1968. He currently is a member of the Weather Modification Advisory
Board to the U.S. Department of Ccinmerce.
PAGENO="0098"
94
Dr. MALONE. Since I cannot read as fast as Dr. Battan, I will sum-
marize some of the highlights here and save you from going to sleep.
First, a basic. charter is needed.
Second, H.R. 9708 is much too focused on oceans, I agree.
Third, we cannot resolve all of these issues this afternoon.
Fourth, I refer to my testimony 10 months ago on August 3, which
I think is germaine to some of the questions you raised.
I would like to suggest a workshop sometime later this year which
would involve the Academy, NACOA, the Federal agencies, State and
local agencies, and the user community.
I think that would be very important to get those groups together
for 2 or 3 days, and I think that would contribute to your objective,
which I applaud.
Now, in the charter, you did raise nine basic issues, and I have tried
in my testimony to respond to them.
In some cases I have evaded the issue, and in other cases, I think
they are the wrong questions to ask, but I will touch very briefly on
each of those without reciting all that I have put into the paper
here. I think the major issue is that the national policy might very
well include a declaration that the ocean and the atmosphere taken
together as a linked system constitute a prominent part of our physical
environment, and that this system is a renewable natural source of
major importance in providing food and fiber that sustains life and
gives meaning to sheer existence. I would also add that it is a matter of
national priority that we understand the system better, in a quantita-
tive manner on how it impacts human activity, and how it in turn is
impacted by human activity.
In my view, those are t.he kind of words that belong in an Organic
Act which will stand the stress of years ahead.
I would join with Dr. White in cautioning against too much detail.
I think the four things that are important include describing the
atmospheric-oceanic system, understanding how it behaves in any
given instance, and over a period of time, and being able to predict
it and control it. Those are the four fundamental functions, and this
implies, Mr. Chairman, that the Organic Act make specific reference
to the role of the NOAA in weather modification.
As you know, you are going to receive the report from the Weather
Modification Board sometime next month, and I think that will high-
light that function.
You raised the question whether or not carbon dioxide should be
mentioned in the Organic Act.
I would think not. I happen to think that this is one of the most
important problems confronting society, and the atmospheric and
oceanic community, and the biological community today, but I do
not think as such it. should be in the organic legislation.
It is the impact of human activity on the system that should be
included, and that would take care of the carbon dioxide problem. I
would hope that the statement would stress the global character of the
atmosphere and oceans, and the absolute necessity of international
cooperation. I especially like the words I found in H.R. 9708, "fulfill
the needs of present and future generation5.~~
In the management of this resource, we have got to learn to think
years and centuries, and thousands of years, millions of years ahead,
and I think that is very important that, you stress that.
PAGENO="0099"
95
Now, the second question you raised was a very key question, one of
R. & D. responsibility. I think NOAA should be `the lead agency in
research, but the other agencies should be doing the applied specialized
application, and NSF should retain basic support of individual in-
vestigators and operations such as NOAR. This is a very important
part of our total infrastructure and should be preserved.
Clearly, NOAA should lead in services, and the legislation should
be written in such a fashion that a gung-ho official in another agency
who is really hot on a problem does not try to replicate the funda-
mental service that NOAA provides. He should concentrate on adding
special services rather than duplicating the basic services NOAA
provides.
I think that the role of NOAA in public safety should be unambi-
guously stated. I think you can have only one agency concerned
with public safety. I would commend to your attention the state-
ment of Dr. Cressman before the Milford committee, which is a restate-
ment of NOAA policy with regard to the private sector. I do not think
there should be user' charges, but the cost of tailoring the forecast
should be borne in the private sector. There is plenty 9f room and
strength in that kind of diversity. Over the last 25 years, we have
passed from an era of hostility between the Government and the
private sector to an era of cooperation.
I think for the reasons I spell out here-the complexity of modern
society, its sheer size, the revolution in sensing equipment in mini-
computers, and so on-that we should retain a positive attitude toward
cooperation, sharing of responsibility, and costs at the several levels
of Government.
I cannot imagine a Federal agency adequately servicing 225 stand-
ard statistical metropolitan areas, so I think there is a role for regional
and Federal cooperation.
A third point in priorities, and here I suggest that maybe the wrong
question is asked.
You are right, a key issue is the matter of priorities, but I think the
question should be how do we insure that priorities are attended to over
the years rather than how the matter is resolved this afternoon. I
would support the view of Dr. White, that authorization hearings, plus
the deliberations of NACOA, plus deliberations of the Academy, and
so on, are an excellent way to establish priorities, and I think author-
ization hearings should very definitely be built in. Then the Congress
can assess the relative importance of proposed programs.
You are going to have `weather modification, you have climate, you
have the regular services, you have got research, and I obviously feel
we have the capacity and resources to do that, but I also know that you
never get everything you want, and you do have to set priorities, and
I think the authori7ation procedure is a good way to go about that.
Our coordination in my view is good, and that is testimony to the
accomplishments of the gentleman on my right here, and by the way,
on page 5, after I refer to NOAA, I left out a word that got lost there,
research in NOAA being funded by direct appropriations.
What I am talking about is that there should be more direct funding,
and less transfer of interagency funds.
As one who has had a look at the Environmental Data Service of
NOAA, I am a bit uneasy at the relatively small portion of the dollars
PAGENO="0100"
96
spent collecting data to archive it. This problem is exploding in both
the technological capability and sheer volume, and I think that needs a
good look. It is the kind of thing an authorization committee could
do very effectively.
Now, I ducked the fifth issue you raised, because I do not pretend to
know all of the facets of the relationship between assistant adminis-
trators for this and that.
I do comment on a point that Dr. White raised here, and in the Mu-
ford subcommittee, and that is the tie with the universities, and I think
that some of our most productive scholars are at universities, and we
need to strengthen our universities. The kind of training required
now is totally different from the kind Dr. White and I received as
graduate students, and there needs to be a more intimate interaction
between this agency and the producer of the talents. We are running out
of the wartime generation of meteorologists, and we have to replace
them. There is an opportunity for an entirely new type of training,
and the unversities have got to get geared up to it. That means inter-
action. The manpower limitations on in-house research are greater than
the dollar limitations, and one way you can resolve that problem is by
supporting research at universities.
So important I see this, that I would like to see a separate title
in this Organic Act, which would be equivalent in impact and import-
ance to the land grant and the Sea Grant Acts, which would explicitly
charge NOAA with responsibility for supporting outside research.
You can imagine the difficulty of an administrator of NOAA, if his
own people come and ask him for some money, and he support.s.some
research in the university, and the man comes in and says, "Bob," or
"Dick," whoever it is, "you would not give me $25,000, but you went out
to Seattle and gave $25,000. How come ?" So my point is that a con-
gressional mandate is necessary to give the Administrator the kind of
freedom he needs. That is why the Sea Grant Act is so important, be-
cause it is mandated that that money be spent, so I would commend to
your attention the possible title that would do this.
You talk about measures of performance, and in my testimony 10
months ago, I referred to that, but now there is a growing recognition
in both the climate program and evaluating the cost effectiveness of
weather modification, cost effectiveness of various kinds of prediction
we need to measure the weather and climate impact, and this is a
whole fuzzy area just beginning to emerge. One of the leaders in that is
Dr. McQuigg, who, has looked at these things very effectively.
As you can imagine, I am strongly in support of the notion of inter-
national cooperation, I like the words you have in there, and I would
stress the dualism in this international effort, because the most suc-
cessful program we have involves working with foreign states, and the
international scientific community, and we fashioned a high breed
kind of instrumentality, which brings together the talents of the world
scientific community through the International Council of Scientific
Unions, and capability and talents of the governments, and I would
like to even see that intergovernmental, nongovernmental inserted be-
tween the words "international organizations" in your text.
Now, you raised a question of how much do you put in the Organic
Act, and how do you handle climate, weather modification, and ocean
pollution.
PAGENO="0101"
97
I don't know. I could very easily imagine you would have short
titles which would specify NOAA's responsibility for services, re-
search, climate, weather modification, coastal zone management, and
then bills which would elaborate on those missions. They would not be
a part of the Organic Act, and as a matter of fact, tthe Organic Act
would support the specialization which will come along in a fast-
breaking field.
I think that would be preferable to constantly amending the Or-
ganic Act.
I agree with Dr. White that it should not go into too much detail.
I did mention a type of revolving fund for equipment replacement.
It worries me sometimes. You can get adequate funding for exotic
new sensing tools, but the heart, the real workhorse of the Weather
Service tends to deteriorate, and I think that problem is men-
tioned in the Milford bill, H.R. 8763. There is some wording that you
might wish to consider incorporating.
Finally, I close with the point that the lead agency concept is viable
only if it has the authority and the resources to fulfill its responsibih'.
ties, and I point out that we have got a success story, and a nonsuccess
story. The success story is the global atmospheric research program
which works like a charm. For some reason, it has never worked in
weather modification because of conflict over who is the lead agency.
As you know, the Weather Modification Board debated this at great
length, and they are skeptical of a lead agency in that particular field.
I think two examples should be looked at very carefully in propos-
ing the concept of a lead agency.
Well, Mr. Chairman, those are some of the highlights. The one thing
I am a little bit unclear about is the talk about responsibility for the
management of nonliving ocean resources. Does that suggest that
NOAA would have responsibility for mineral resources? I think that
issue has to be resolved. It is a question of where you stop, of course,
but I think it should be unambiguous in its resolution.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BROWN. That last point you bring up, Dr. Malone, is also a
highly sensitive one in the international sphere.
I am reminded of it because I will be participating in a scheduled
briefing by some oceans people in the executive branch as to where we
stand on that issue. It may be that there will be some breakthrough
in this area which will lead to the enactment of legislation, and such
legislation will need to spell out just where the responsibility lies
among the various agencies of the Federal Government.
Well, I certainly do appreciate your statement, Dr. Malone. It is one
of great wisdom. Let me indicate one of the areas that stimulated me
most in your presentation: the utilization of the universities. You
point out the parallels with the land grant and sea grant colleges, and
suggest that the interaction between, say, the Department of Agricul-
ture and the multitude of institutions of higher learning that are asso-
ciated wth them in agricultural research and development is a valuable
model. You then suggest that the NOAA Organic Act ought to specifi-
cally authorize a similar model for climate research and related serv-
ice activities.
Is there any disagreement between the two of you on that?
Dr. WHrii. No, I think this would be desirable.
33-547 0 - 78 - 8
PAGENO="0102"
98
It could be formulated in many different ways. It could range from
a simple provision in the Organic Act for a university grants program
to something as complex as arrangements in the Agriculture Depart-
ment. They support not only a research program, but also an extension
services program. The formulation is something I think needs further
debate, but the general thrust of it I think is there.
Mr. BROWN. I raise the question of the applicability of something
similar to an extension service to the growing awareness of the sig-
nificance of the interaction between man's activities and climate and
weather. There is a need to have this awareness penetrate more effec-
tively into our public understanding, possibly through incorporation
in the science curricula in our elementary, secondary, and higher edu-
cation institutions, and perhaps even into the agricultural and specific
user communities. I think there would be a growing recognition that
this area represents a legitimate field of activities for an appropriate
agency of the Government.
Dr. MALONE. I think you are breaking entirely new ground in this
area, very important ground.
Mr. BROWN. We have the Sea Grant model, which I think has been
accepted.
We have something similar, although not functioning with the
effectiveness I would like, in the water resources area, where we have
a Water Research Institute in every State. The problem is that they do
not have adequate funding to really incorporate this kind of program.
Nonetheless, we begin to see models emerge which, properly integrated,
might be very fruitful.
Weather and water are connected, weather and oceans are connected,
and weather and land are connected, so it seems to be there is no basic
reason why we could not encourage both a t~e with the educational sys-
tem, and an extension program which would assist in getting informa-
tion out to the broader public.
Dr. Wnii~. Mr. Chairman, I think the idea of an extension service
is sound. However, I would like to sound one or two notes of caution. I
think in this particular case, we ought to tailor it specifically to the
properties of atmospheric services. In a sense, the Government provides
an extension service because the Weather Service provides information
to many, many sectors.
Second, we have the private sector, as Dr. Battan has discussed.
Their bread and butter is dependent upon providing consulting serv-
ices to commercial clients. When we design an extension service in the
climatological area, I think we want to keep our eye on the fact that
there are some differences and there are some problems. Maybe some of
our objectives are not exactly coincidental with other extension
programs.
Mr. BROWN. You are absolutely correct, and the warning is timely.
To some degree, these problems exist in the agricultural field, for ex-
ample, and have been worked out in a reasonably satisfactory way over
decades.
However, we are still arguing over some aspects of extension serv-
ices, and we will probably continue to do so. This is causing the Con-
gress to move in the direction of annual authorizations and a closer
scrutiny of specific extension programs.
We have been debating the R. & D. and extension work of the De-
partment of Agriculture this afternoon on the floor.
PAGENO="0103"
99
Mr. WHITE. I see some real opportunities, as Dr. Malone said, for
some innovative kind of approaches to the extension service.
I do not see why we could not meld the concepts, and begin to use
the private sector, funded in part by the Federal Government, to pro-
vide an extension service.
This would be a direct encouragement to the growth of the private
sector, and I think would avoid many of the problems you have in the
Federal Government, for example, the manpower controls, and so
forth.
Mr. BROWN. I think the. Federal Government and the Congress are
going to be seeking ways to act creatively with the private sector, to
make sure that their role and responsibility is not infringed upon. If
we are successful in that delicate task, I think that we might make
some progress, but the key point that both of you are stressing is that
there has to be a tie with the university community, a framework of
some sort through which their talents can be utilized to supplement
the work of NOAA.
Dr. Malone, you raised a point that was made earlier by Dr. Battan,
and I think Dr. White has touched on it; the NOAA responsibility for
weather-related public safety activities.
Do you see any problems in defining this responsibility clearly and
concisely?
Dr. MALONE. No, sir, I do not.
I think that the proper words can be put together, and I think it is
imperative that the responsibility be focused, and that we not confuse
the public with the different interpretations.
It is better to have a very carefully thought-out explanation of the
degree of hazard in a particular situation, coming from authoritative
source, than having people compete with one another, trying to cap-
ture the interest and activate a response by the public.
Mr. BROWN. Be as specific as you can for my enlightenment, since
I am not as well versed in this subject as I should be. In the case of a
major prospective catastrophe, such as an ocean-based storm, or an
extremely heavy snowfall-such as hit Boston this year-would you
want NOAA to be able to take the necessary action to trigger the public
response?
Dr. MALONE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BROWN. Would NOAA be responsible for calling in the National
Guard, and the other kinds of public safety activities?
Dr. MALONE. Yes, sir. I would say I would even go further.
Perhaps I do not understand what the intent is of this reorganiza-
~ion plan on emergency preparedness and response but What I read in
the Indianapolis papers led me to believe the responsibility of NOAA
for Weather-related disaster preparedness had been eroded, or trans-
ferred out.
I have not looked at all of the issues, but I think that this reor-
ganization should be examined rather carefully, because I think that
there is no such thing as a professional worrier on hazards, you have
to have the substantive knowledge, and I thought that thing was oper-
ating fairly well.
Probably there are reasons for the coordination, but I am uneasy
about this reorganization.
Mr. BROWN. Does subcommittee counsel want to elaborate on this?.
Mr. SPENSLEY. Perhaps I could, Mr. Chairman.
PAGENO="0104"
100
I think the intent of the reorganization, Dr. Malone, is that while
the new agency would have the same objectives that you stated earlier,
there ought to be one agency to which people can look for all types of
emergencies. There are natural hazards which are not weather-related,
such as earthquakes, things of that sort; therefore there is a feeling
that there ought not be a different voice in the community for different
kinds of hazards. Although I do not think it is completely clear from
the proposals that have been made, it is my understanding that the
weather service would still have the primary responsibility for pre-
dicting weather-related disasters, providing the warning, and apply-
ing its knowledge of weather disasters to community preparedness
plans, but the system by which emergency preparedness plans would
be made and implemented would reside in the new agency as a centra-
lized system.
Mr. BROWN. This is a most delicate question of the relationship be-
tween let us say staff and line executives. Actually, the command has
to come from the agency in charge, and the other organizations merely
serve with different degrees of responsibility to advise this agency as
to what action should be taken.
Dr. WHrrJ~. Mr. Chairman, I would really welcome an opportunity
to express my views on this very important subject.
I look at this public safety problem as consisting of more than one
function, and I think we have to break it down. There are real prob-
lems in each one.
First, there is a public weather warning function when there is a
hazard. That clearly is the responsibility of the Government.
There are problems, because the public receives warning informa-
tion from many media. The only direct link it has to the Government
is through the NOAA weather radio system.
All other warnings transmitted to the public go through public me-
dia of one kind or another, and the ability of the Government to con-
trol or say what those warnings will be is minimal or nonexistent. I
believe there should be a requirement in the law that every person re-
sponsible for issuing~public weather information be required to trans-
mit a Government weather hazard or other hazard warning.
He may be allowed to put his own view on it, but the general public
should know what the Government means when it issues a hazard
warning.
I think that is something that might be attended to in the Organic
Act.
Mr. BROWN. Dr. White, are we talking about a system such as the
military attack warning system?
Dr. WHrn~. No; I am talking about the forecasts that are made on
radio and television, the normal weather forecasts.
Mr. BROWN. I understand that, but in the case of a military attack,
all of the media are coordinated into a warning system. Most of them
go off the air, and a message that is centrally coordinated, comes
through, as I understand it.
Dr. WIrn'E. I do not think that degree of control is necessary, mostly
because weather hazards are highly localized. In some regions of the
country, as in Florida, you have the cooperative effort of the broad-
casting networks down there, triggered when a hurricane is approach-
ing, that makes all of their facilities available.
I do not think you have to go that far.
PAGENO="0105"
101
The second function dealing with the public safety is the community
preparedness function. Here is where the proposed Presidential Dis-
aster Preparedness and Response Agency has hit NOAA.
I believe that NOAA needs to have the community preparedness
function. An earthquake hazard is different from a hurricane hazard,
which is different from a tornado hazard. The community response
requires a knowledge of individual hazards, where they are likely to
come from, and what their intensity is likely to be. I think the commu-
nity preparedness functions and educating the community about what
to do must be closely linked to the people issuing the warnings. In that
sense, I think the proposal of the President to extract the community
preparedness functions from NOAA is poor. NOAA has attempted
to build this capability over many years, because it has been identified
as the critical element in saving lives and protecting communities. I
do not think that is wise to detach this `function from NOAA, but that
is the way it is going.
Lastly, there is the question of the public response function. I do
not think public response should be the responsibility of NOAA. I
think NOAA should transmit the warnings. The decision whether to
evacuate involves more than just the warning. It involves the conse-
quences of the evacuation. Where are the people going to go? It may
be better, given the nature of the `hazard, for the people to remain, be-
cause other consequences may be worse if they do evacuate.
I do not think NOAA has the capability or knowledge to make that
kind of decision. So, I believe the actual public response to a warning
has to be in the hands of people who are more directly connected to the
local community, to the local authorities, where they have the execu-
tive responsibility for the protection of the public welfare and safety.
Mr. BROWN. Obviously, this is a complex problem, and this clarifica-
tion is helpful.
Gentlemen, we have a final passage on an important `appropriations
bill. Could you remain for a few more minutes? I will return as quickly
as I can, so the subcommittee will be in recess for 10 minutes.
[Whereupon, the subcommittee was in short recess.]
AFTER RECESS
Mr. BROWN. The subcommittee will be in order.
We were discussing the role of NOAA and the public safety aspects
of weather disasters. Did we wish to state anything further on that?
Are there any further questions from Counsel?
Another question that I wanted to raise for any possible clarifica-
tion was brought up by you, Dr. White, in your discussion of problems
of technology transfer. You remarked upon the difficulty in legislating
processes that would guarantee the effectiveness of technology transfer
and suggested instead something along the line of a periodic report
to the Congress at 3-year intervals or something of that sort.
There is a practice enacted into legislation which calls on certain
departments to make periodic reports in the form of program plans.
These have been used as a device to facilitate congressional input into
these programs, and it would not be too unlikely that perhaps some-
thing along that line could be incorporated in the NOAA Organic
Act. For example, it might require that NOAA prepare a 5-year plan
which would be updated every 1 or 2 years and presented to the
Congress.
PAGENO="0106"
102
In your opinion, could that device be used to accomplish some of
these goals, rather than by making an effort to be specific in the organic
legislation itself?
Dr. Wrni~. Yes; I think I would prefer establishing a mechanism,
whether it is a prospective mechanism such as a plan, which provides
forward look, or a retrospective mechanism which tells how it was
done.
Mr. BROWN. Well, the annual authorization gives us a chance to see
how the plan is moving along in general terms, that is, how current
accomplishments relate to the plan, which nonetheless does allow for
some flexibility.
Do you have any thoughts on that, Dr. Malone?
Dr. MALONE. No; except that it is really additional argument in
favor of the authorization process, which I very strongly support.
Mr. SPENSLEY. Mr. Chairman, under the recent marine pollution
R. & D. Act (Public Law 95-273) there is a requirement for NOAA to
develop a 5-year research plan. I am wondering if that sort of mecha-
nism could be incorporated on the atmospheric side so that we do not
get a lopsided resource allocation in favor of the ocean R. & D. side.
That act developed largely on account of the fact that we felt NOAA
was not moving in an explicit direction in the oceans R. & D. area.
Dr. MALONE. I feel very strongly you should plan ocean and atmos-
phere research programs jointly, rather than separately.
Mr. BROWN. One thing that we always are in danger of is mandating
a proliferation of piecemeal approaches, piecemeal research plans, for
example.
I think that the mandate for a research plan should be drawn as
broadly as possible, just as the Organic Act according to your recom-
mendations should be drawn, giving considerable flexibility, but allow-
ing opportunity for appropriate organs of Congress to then have
something specific to review in terms of the future course for the
Agency.
Mr. HosluNs. I have one basic question for Dr. White.
I see that there are two approaches which have been suggested. One
approach involves writing two separate titles, one for oceans and one
for atmosphere. Dr. Malone's approach, on the other hand, combines
the oceans and the atmosphere as a single system which we try to
understand, predict, and manage.
Would you favor either of those two approaches in the development
of an Organic Act?
Dr. WHrrs. I do not think they are inconsistent. I think there can
be a general section which requires the treatment of the oceans and
atmosphere together; then, as Dr. Battan pointed out, those functions
you want discharged in both the oceans and atmosphere that are
reasonably separate and distinct could have separate titles. I think you
could meld the two ideas.
Ms. HOSKINS. Thank you.
Mr. CLEMENT. One question, Dr. White. Now that you no longer
have a vested interest in the Agency, perhaps you would care to com-
ment on some of the proposa's that have been made to place NOAA
in a proposed Department of Natural Resources. Since we are currently
attempting to take a look at NOAA as an entity, and attempting to
give some coherence to NOAA's activities, I would like your views on
what a reorganization of this type could do.
PAGENO="0107"
103
Dr. WHrrE. I addressed that question very specifically in my testi-
mony before the House Subcommittee on Oceanography. I pointed
out that there are three real possibilities I see for reorganization; the
first one retaining NOAA in the Department of Commerce, the second
establishing INOAA as an independent agency, and third NOAA
transferred to a Natural Resources Department.
All three have pros and cons, and I have listed those pros and cons
in that testimony. Where I came down in that testimony, was for
NOAA as an independent agency for the reasons cited in that testi-
mony. However, if it were possible, by transferring NOAA to a
Department of Natural Resources, or a Department which had a
spectrum of functions dealing with natural resources and environment,
to significantly strengthen the functions of NOAA, that should be seri-
ously considered. If that were not the case, then I think leaving it in
the Department of Commerce would probably be best.
The problem in transferring NOAA to a Department of Natural
Resources and Environment is that unless you build in the integrity
of the organization, statutorily, the tendency would be by different
groups who came into Government, either in the Congress or in the
new Department, to take a look at the set of functions, and not being
aware of the long history that went into bringing them together, to
think in terms of other alignments and amalgamation of functions. I
think over the long term you would see a change in the function and
structure of NOAA, and it would lose its integrity.
I personally believe very strongly that this Government needs a
central strength in ocean and atmospheric affairs.
It is very important to the economic welfare of this country and to
its environmental welfare. I would be concerned about losing NOAA's
integrity in a new Department. But, if you built it in statutorily, and
if you could strengthen it as a result of that transfer, it is something
that should be considered seriously.
Mr. CLEMENT. Based on your experience as a bureaucrat in this
particular area for some years, and having served through a period
when there were numerous problems, do you reasonably expect that
incorporating NOAA in a Department of Natural Resources would
lead to a retention of the integrity of the agency and its functions?
Dr. WHITE. Well, if it were a built-in item statutorily, presumably
you could retain it.
Without a statutory basis, my belief is it could not retain its
integrity.
Mr. CLEMENT. Thank you.
Dr. MALONE. In thinking over these remarks, Mr. Chairman, I was
led to conclude that the distinction between a renewable and nonrenew-
able resource is important.
You talked about a Natural Resources Department, and this includes
a nonrenewable resource, and I think that is where the hazard lies, in
trying to combine them.
If you take the three, you have pretty much your renewable oceans
and atmosphere resources, and if you keep them apart from this very
sensitive nonrenewable resources such as mineral deposits, then I think
you would have the possibility of retaining the integrity.
Now, whether this is feasible or not is the question, and it never hit
me until I began looking at the NOAA Organic Act.
PAGENO="0108"
104
Mr. BROWN. I think it gets back to the point Dr. White made earlier
about the need to very clearly establish the objectives, missions, and
goals of the agency.
If these missions have integrity and general understanding, the
agency can be protected in almost any setting, but lacking that, you
find increasing pressures on it from every side. I think this is a key
point to remember.
The organization actually is a device of convenience for executing
specific missions, and wherever the mission is not clear, the organiza-
tion will suffer a great deal from it.
.1 would like to direct the. staff, if there are no objections, to include
Dr. White's testimony before the Oceanography Subcommittee and the
Milford subcommittee in the record of this hearing, so that we may
have his complete views on this general subject. [See appendix.]
Mr. BROWN. If there are no further responses, the subcommittee will
be adjourned. I am very grateful to you, Dr. White and Dr. Malone.
Dr. Wrn~. Thank you.
Dr MALONE. Thank you.
[Whereupon, the subcommittee was adjourned at 4:35 p.m.]
PAGENO="0109"
105
APPENDIX
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
TESTIMONY OF
DR. ROBERT N. WHITE
FOR DELIVERY BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION, AVIATION, AND WEATHER
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
RE H.R. 8763
MAY 25, 1978
PAGENO="0110"
106
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I welcome the
opportunity to appear before you to discuss H.R. 8763, the
National Weather Service Act of 1977. It is timely that
the Congress consider the issues raised by this bill. There
clearly wIll be a need to relate the legislation under
H.R. 8763 to the Organic Act for NOAA now under consideration
by various committees of the Congress. How this is to be
done is a matter for the Congress to decide.
The Weather Service of the United States is without
question the finest in the world. The excellence of our
service rests on the pioneering efforts of the past two
decades to place new scientific knowledge and technology in
the service of meteorology. It is useful to take stock of
some of these achievements to give us perspective on some of
the problems and Issues addressed by H.R. 8763.
Technology has vastly changed our weather services. In
the past two decades we have seen the development and deployment
of both polar orbiting and geostationary weather satellites
for routine operations. Satellit~e observations of clouds,
winds, and temperature have become an integral part of the
every day weather forecasting routine.
But the satellite is merely the most spectacular of the
technological innovations of the last 20 years. Large scale
computer capacity has grown with giant strides, enabling us
to capitalize on the scientific progress made in numerical
prediction. Today we prepare forecasts by numerical means of
PAGENO="0111"
107
a complexity and diversity that would have been unimaginable
even a decade ago.
The increase in availability of economic computer capacity
has revolutionized our observing, communication, data archival
and display systems. As a result, we are deploying the most
recent addition to our weather service technological base,
the AFOS system (the Automation of Field Observations and
Services). We have replaced our entire network of short range
radars and have developed and deployed reliable, automatic
weather stations. We have now installed communications systems
of such speed that we are capable of transmitting and displaying
weather data in great diversity and quantity to serve almost
any specialized needs. Our:capability for communicating
directly with those we serve has taken enormous strides. We
have installed our continuous broadcast VHF/FM systems, as
one step in this process. We have completely transformed the
practice of meteorology.
The technological advancements have been matched by
advancements in our forecasting capabilities. The recent intro-
duction by the National Weather Service of experimental ten
day forecasts are a mark of just how far we have come. There
has been a remarkable improvement in our ability to predict
major new storm developments. The precision of the forecasts
of storms which buried much of the east coast in snow this
past winter were noteworthy. Our forecasting capabilities have
PAGENO="0112"
108
come a long way.
While this modernization and development of our weather
services was taking place, other developments --- in govern-
mental management, interagency relations, user needs, were
raising a different set of questions about the future of our
weather services. Some of these questions caught us without
good answers. The most telling of these has since become
known as the "Don Rice" question. Don Rice, then Assistant
Director of the Office of Management and Budget and now
President of the Rand Corporation, in the course of our annual
budget justification, asked the question, "How much weather
service is enough ?" A simple but difficult question. We
tried to answer this question in terms of observational net-
work densities, frequency of storms, etc. These technical
answers didn't work. The problem was that the question
addressed the degree of risk to be taken in operating the
weather warning system. It is a value judgment that best
be made by the Congress.
If we look back through the history of the weather service,
it has not been unusual for the Congress to indicate the scope
of the weather services of one kind or another it felt should
be provided. The first legislation establishing the National
Weather Service in the Signal Corps in 1870 resulted from the
sense of the Congress that something had to be done to provide
severe storm warnings on the Great Lakes. When later trans-
ferred to the Department of Agriculture in 1890, the Congress
PAGENO="0113"
109
xpressed its views that weather forecasts to serve agriculture
`ere to be provided. In the transfer of the Weather Service
;o the Department of Commerce in 19140, the need to serve
iviation was paramount.
Through the years the Congress has expressed its sense
of what was needed, sometimes in connection with other legis-
lation as in the T30s when dust bowl conditions led to the
establishment of a long range weather forecasting service,
sometimes in connection with appropriations actions, as when
the Weather Bureau was asked to fund and operate weather satel-
lites. In many cases the statutory language written a century
ago is so general it authorizes NOAA to do almost anything it
wishes in providing weather services. On the other hand the
lack of specificity has permitted easy rejection of programs
not clearly authorized. Under the present statutory charter
there is no way to obtain the sense of the Congress at frequent
intervals because there is no authorization process.
The form and character of the statutory charter of the
Weather Service wire designed for a different world. The
time is overdue to take stock and set ~a new course after
100 years. It is timely to examine anew what the nation
wants in the way of weather services, how it wishes to organ-
ize them, and what their relation should be to other federal
agencies and the states and local communities. It is timely
to examine what the Congress feels should be the role of the
PAGENO="0114"
110
Weather Service in research, in weather modification, in
the provision of specialized weather services.
Let's examine some of the problems which need to be
addressed. Some stem from impact of broad governmental
management decisions which affect our weather services
without a real understanding of their consequences. A good
example is the concept of a central civil national weather
service. I am concerned that a variety of disparate govern-~
ment wide management decisions may significantly weaken this
concept. Take the manpower issue --- a perennial problem.
Some 15 years ago, as a result of the urging of Congress, the
then Bureau of the Budget issued 0MB circular A-62. This
Circular established the Weather Bureau and now NOAA as the
central weather service for the nation to meet the common
needs of various user groups, to avoid duplication, and
prevent costly growth of competing weather services in other
agencies of the government. However-the purposes of this
Circular can only be implemented if it is possible for NOAA to -
undertake tasks requested by other agencies. It is not the money
that is the problem. It is the authorization to hire people to
perform work that is the Achilles heel. Government wide man-
power controls make implementation of this concept difficult.
If you look at the manpower allocations to the Weather
Service they have remained approximately constant for the past
ten years at about 5,000 people. It is impossible to
PAGENO="0115"
111
render expanded and improved services only~by increasing
the productivity of the service through managerial and
technological changes. Ny own evaluation is that the system
has been squeezed as much as it can tolerate.
From here on out, unless manpower policies are changed,
serious difficulties loom. The Weather Service can undertake
tasks for other agencies only at the expense of other services
for which it has a statutory responsibility. This makes no
sense. You cannot expect other agencies who are vitally
dependent upon weather services to forego them if they cannot
receive them from NOAA. Thus pressure grows in other agencies
to provide their own weather services. We see this taking
place for example in the Department of Agriculture. The recent
decision to have the Federal Aviation Agency provide NOAA with
manpower authorizations for the new Air Traffic Control Center
weather support is the way the system should work.
One way to insure that it will work properly is to have
the sense of the Congress in legislation. The concept of a
central civil weather service with necessary manpowershould
be a cornerstone of any new legislation.
The manpower limitation raise a host of other problems.
I'm concerned with the ability of the Weather Service to pro-
vide the necessary warnings of weather disasters. Time after
time in weather disaster situations we have seen manpower
stretched dangerously thin. Many of the disaster survey
PAGENO="0116"
112
reports point out just how thin the manpower available to the
Weather Service is in covering such disasters. Even the
Department of Commerce's own analysis of the problem some
years ago suggested the need for substantial manpower increases.
These have never materialized. It is a remarkable tribute
to the dedication of the people in the Weather Service that
they have done so well under such difficult circumstances.
We all recognize that weathermen are in a sense "fire-
fighters". As with fires there are peak demands for manpower.
For some disasters, there is adequate time for the deployment
of staff to cover vulnerable areas. Some hurricanes are good
examples. On the other hand, for many situations such prepar-
atory time does not exist. I hope it will not require some
tragedy to force the realization that manpower is indeed
insufficient. Congress needs to express its views on the risks
it is prepared to ta~ce and on how much weather service is
enough.
Manpower limitations are at the root of other problems
confronting the Weather Service.~ Take for example the number
and distribution of weather service offices. To obtain man-
power savings the service is under constant pressure to close
weather offices. I have been responsible for my share of
closures. It is always a painful experience. We need to face
the fact that our network of weather stations is growing thin.
Our weather offices serve two functions. The first is a
PAGENO="0117"
113
scientific function to take observations and make forecasts.
For these functions scientific criteria are available. The
number, spacing and frequency of observations or forecasts
can be determined by the dynamics of weather systems. The
other function is community service. The level of service
is a matter for political decision. When we cannibalize the
manpower of our weather stations to provide for other programs
we are reducing the levels of public service. In some cases
we reduce the scientific Integrity of our observing systems.
Congress needs to address the levels of service it feels are
necessary.
The question "How much weather service is enough? has
its companion question, "Who pays?" If some states or local-
ities want a higher level of service than provided by the
Federal government, how shall it be provided and who shall
pay for it? Today there is no systematic policy governing
this issue. Basic questions about the structure of our
National Weather Service are involved. There is opportunity
here to provide increasingly spec.ialized weather services to
state and local communities to meet their needs. There is no
reason why we cannot examine the possibility of Federal/State
weather services in which the costs of weather services beyond
a level provided by the Federal government will in part be
borne by the States through cooperative programs. We have
some experience along these lines. We have had remarkable
33.547 0 . 78 . 9
PAGENO="0118"
114
success in Federal/State cooperative arrangements in the
introduction of the VHF/FM radio broadcast systems. We need
to generalize this concept.
Then there is the problem of specialized weather services.
Over the last two decades we were unable to extend our agricul-
tural weather services to more than 20% of the United States.
We had great difficulty in expanding our aviation weather
services. We never were fully able to provide adequate
weather service to support forest management, marine resource
development, air pollution control, and other economic act iv-
ities. As you know, the General Accounting Office has looked
at this question and has come to the conclusion that the
Congress should act to define the role of the National Weather
Service in providing specialized weather support and to
provide the manpower and funding necessary to carry out the
tasks assigned.
Among the most frustrating and inconclusive issues I
had the privilege to address over the years was that of weather
modification. We all await the recommendations of the Secretary
of Commerce's Weather Modification Advisory Board, which will
respond to Congressional legislation on this question. If
we are considering a new charter for the Weather Service,
there is a need to address the kinds of roles that might be
envisioned for it.
PAGENO="0119"
115
It will be said that there is no need for new basic
legislation for the Weather Service. It will be argued that
the present authorities are sufficiently broad to accomplish
all of the objectives which I have set forth. It will be
reasoned that if there are specific programmatic needs, specific
legislative remedies would be preferable.
I agree that a new charter for the Weather Service should
not attempt to legislate specific programs. These will need to
be legislated as needed. The present National Climate Program
Act, in the final stages of consideration by the Congress is
a good example. The specific requirements of such a program
can only be detailed in a separate act. The need for a new
charter is to establish basic national policies.
I appreciate the reluctance of some to seek a codification
of legislative authority where it already exists. However,
we have lived too long with a fragmented statutory base. We
know what can happen. Without the sense of the Congress on
the policies it wishes to govern the conduct of the NOAA
weather services we will. continue to be faced with the kinds
of problems that have plagued us in the past two decades.
Many of these issues are not scientific or technical in nature.
They are problems of value judgments that can only be made in
our political system by the responsible political bodies.
A new statutory charter for the weather service car~i resolve
these kinds of issues.
PAGENO="0120"
116
TESTIMONY OF
DR. ROBERT M. WHITE
FOR DELIVERY BEFORE THE
HOUSE MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY RE HR 9708
JUNE 12, 1978
PAGENO="0121"
117
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you to discuss HR 9708 -- The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Organization
Act of 1977.
I think it is most timely that Congress consider this matter.
It is important to know the sense of the Congress about the scope
of activity and range of responsibilities of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration as new organizational concepts
are being widely discussed.
We have come a long way in the establishment of a center
of strength for oceanic and atmospheric affairs in NOAA. However,
the statutory authorities of the organization are widely scattered
trough many different legislative acts, each enactment considering
separate functions of NOAA, apart from their relationship to other
~inctions and in some cases, functions of other agencies. NOAA's
statutory authorities trace a long history of over a century.
The time is propitious to take a broad look at NOAA's statutory
charter.
NOAA was established as an agency to undertake both oceanic
and atmospheric functions. It is important in draft~ing an organic
act for the organization to insure that there is full consideration
of all its functions. In my opinion, the present draft does not
address the atmospheric responsibilities of NOAA adequately. Last
month I testified before the Subcommittee on Aviation and Weather
of the Committee on Science and Technology on the need for new
PAGENO="0122"
118
comprehensive legislation for NOAA's weather services. I, therefore,
will not address NOAA's weather functions at this time, but would
like to make the testimony I have already given on this matter
available to the Committee. Today I will focus on oceanic matters.
Drafting an organic act for an organization as complex
as NOAA implies a knowledge of the policies and functions the
organization is expected to carry out. Over the past several years
there has been great concern about the lack of "a national oceans
policy". At one time there was indeed a vacuum. While it is
clear that some aspects of national ocean policy remain to be
defined, I feel that we have made great progress in establishing
a diverse set of farsighted ocean policies over the past decade.
I believe our major problem now is to determine what further needs
to be done that cannot be done under our present oceans policy
or our present organizational structures.
It is clear that there are some areas of ocean activity
in which national policy has not yet been clearly formulated.
The Congress, however, is actively grappling with this problem
in its present consideration of legislation on deep ocean mining
and amendments to the Outer Continental Shelf Land Act.
We have become much too self conscious about the policy
issue. I believe our energies are best directed at implementing
the excellent ones we have already developed, while continuing to
formulate new ocean policies in those areas where they are still
clearly needed. The discomfort we have about oceans policy is
due to our feeling that ocean programs have suffered from inadequate
financial support and an inadequate organizational structure.
PAGENO="0123"
119
We need to stand back for a moment. Nobody can fail to be
impressed with the remarkable record of the Congress in formulating
national oceans policy over the past decade. Starting more than a
decade ago with the passage of the Sea Grant Program Act, we have
had the Coastal Zone Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act
of 1972, the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of
l97~t, and the Fisheries Management and Conservation Act of 1976
and others. These actions, taken largely at the initiative of the
Congress, have provided us with a very broad set of ocean policies
to serve our nation.
We need to focus on the sources of our discomfort. As I
have indicated one principal source has been with matters of
organization: We need to go back to basics. One problem in
structuring an organic act for NOAA is that the oceans are not
easily accepted as a way to organize the affairs of government.
Governments are problem oriented, not place oriented. Our major
societal concerns are with food, energy, pollution, national defense,
and similar problems, and not with the oceans as the oceans.
Solution of these problems cannot be carved up by ocean/land boundaries.
Only in the case of food have we separated the land from the sea.
The management of any program directed at solving problems, re-
quires the capability for making necessary tradeoff and resource
allocation decisions. Whenever an ocean program is an essential
element in the tradeoff, decisions essential for the solution
of major national problems, for example in the case of energy,
we encounter both substantive and bureaucratic resistance to
linking those programs in a broad national ocean organization.
PAGENO="0124"
120
We face the difficulty in drafting an organic act of de-
ciding where the sensible linkages are, that allow us to place
various ocean functions together, and where they are so closely
integral to the solution of other national problems that it is
not in the overall national interest to separate them from their
present organizational structures. This is the root of our dilemma.
In organizing NOAA in 1970 we were able to bring together
9 different agencies and functions. While there was some difficulty
in detaching them from their parent agencies, in no case were they
critical to the major purposes of the parent organizations. We
now face a different situation. Any further growth in NOAA, ex-
~pt as a result of new programs that might be assigned by legis-
lation, can only come at significant sacrifice to essential functions
of other departments or agencies.
This issue was debated in the Presidential Commission on
Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, the Stratton Commission,
whose recommendations led to the establishment of NOAA. I was
privileged to be a member of that CommissIon and recall the many
discussions on a suitable set of functions for NOAA, and whether
it should be an independent agency or lodged in a Cabinet department.
We have taken giant strides since the recommendations of the Stratton
Commission. NOAA is the major center of strength in oceanic and
atmospheric affairs in the Federal government. It has, in the
intervening years, developed its technical and scientific base and
moved vigorously into the field of ocean management. While all the
Stratton recommendations for the organizational structure were not
PAGENO="0125"
121
implemented, NOAA went a long way toward satisfying the objectives
of that Commission.
As you will recall, that Commission recommended that NOAA
be established as an ind~ependent agency. It also recognized
that independent agency status should be regarded as only a first
step in the evolution of a more comprehensive ocean and atmospheric
organization, possibly within the context of a new department which
could accommodate its objectives.
Some of the organizational options advanced by the President's
reorganization task force which call for NOAA to be an element
in a new department structured around natural resource functions,
and recommendations of the members of this Committee for an
independent NOAA have to be viewed against this general background.
It seems to me that there are three serious possibilities
tat need to be considered, each of which has its advantages and
disadvantages. The first would involve retention of NOAA within
the Department of Coñimerce where it can continue to be strengthened
over the years. The second is to seek to make NOAA an independent
agency very much like the National Aeronautics- and Space Admini-
stration and the National Science Foundation; and lastly to join
NOAA in a new department concerned with natural resource con-
servation and environmental affairs. Each of us will have our
preferences.
The Department of Commerce has been a good home for NOAA
during the past seven years. NOAA has had the support of all the
Secretary's of Commerce who have served in that post since NOAA's
formation. NOAA has been able to operate within the Department of
PAGENO="0126"
122
Commerce almost as an independent agency. To the extent that it has
been able to obtain resources, it has been able to plan and implement.
its programs without interference from the Department. Indeed,
this has been one of the principal values of being in the Depart-
ment of Commerce -- this measure of independence and the lack of
competition and bureaucratic entanglements with other Commerce
Department agencies. It has been a valuable association in that
NOAA has had a Cabinet officer speak at the highest levels of
government on behalf of its programs.
As an independent agency NOAA would be able to speak for
itself without going through a Departmental filter. NOAA's
programs could be judged in a different framework than they
are at present. In the Department of Commerce it is the task
of the Secretary to allocate resources to programs as diverse
as those of NOAA, the Economic Development Administration, the
Census Bureau, and the Office of I4inority Business Enterprise.
As an independent agency its Administrator would be able to
interact directly with the political and budgetary arms of the
White House. The programs of NOAA would perhaps be judged in
a context of science, natural resources, and environmental
problems. NOAA would be more deeply involved in the annual
budget decisions. Independent status, without the necessary
authority for coordination of oceanic programs broadly through-
out the government, would have the same interagency difficulties
experienced by NOAA in the Department of Commerce,.without the
virtue of being able to have a Cabinet level officer to speak
for it.
PAGENO="0127"
123
Amalgamation of NOAA in a new department structured
around natural resouroe functions would have the virtue of
placing NOAA and its functions in a natural resources context.
The Secretary of that Department would be in a position to.
make tradeoffs between NOAA's functions and other more closely
related functions than is possible at the present time. Un-
fortunately, the placement of NOAA in a new Departnent of
Natural Resources could lead to centrifugal forces that could
result in the dispersion of some NOAA functions that are
closely related to others in the new Department. Whether this
would happen will depend upon the degree to which NOAA's
integrity is written into statute. If the amalgamation of
NOAA into a Department of Natural Resources were to provide an
opportunity for a significant step forward in broadening its
strength to include more oceanic and atmospheric functions, then
a move might be salutary.
If I balance these competing factors, my first preference
would be for an independent NOAA. If it were possible, to
provide for a significant expansion and broadening of the NOAA
concept by moving it into a new Department of Natural Resources,
then this option should be seriously considered. Barring this
kind of augmentation of NOAA, I believe a move to a new depart-
ment would be less desirable than the continuation of NOAA within
the Department of Commerce. I'd be pleased to answer any
questions you may have.
PAGENO="0128"
124
STh~ErVENT OF MR. L?~RRY MEIEIOTIO, LEPtYrZ ASSISTANT SECE~~Z~J~ FOR POE~ICY,
BUD(~T AND ArI4INISTR~TIC~, ~A~T~NT OF ~E I~~ERIOR FOR ~ CCM4ITIEE
C~J SCIENCE AND ¶LECHNOIDGY, U.S. HOCHE OF REPRESENTT~TIVES
Thank you for requesting our views on H. R. 9708 (S. 2224), the "NO~A
Organization Organic Act."
This legislation would set forth a national ocean policy arid sate of
the functions of the National Oceanic and Atrrospheric Administration.
The Administration recarrrends that the Congress defer action on the
bill, pending the outcorre of the natural resources study by the
President' s Recrganization Project. In addition, the Administration
plans to conduct a review of Federal ocean policy later this year.
TXitil these t~o projects are carpleted, it would be prerrature for us
to take a position on the bill.
We do, ha~iever, have sate initial carrrents which wo would like to share
with you at this tirre.
Section 102. ~finitions
A number of key terms, e. g., "marine envirorarent" and "ocean resource,"
are defined so broadly that it is difficult to determine the intent
of the drafters. unless these terms are pr~erly defined, the bill
ceuld affect responsibilities and jurisdictions of other departments.
PAGENO="0129"
125
Section 101(b), for exariple, ~xu1d designate NO~A as "the lead civilian
agency with responsibility for coordinating and carrying out national
ocean policy in order to irrprove the understanding, assessrrent,
~ve1q~rent, utilization, conservation, and protection of ocean.. . resources."
"Ocean resources," as defined in the bill, include "nonliving resources"
such as "energy sources, minerals, and chemical substances" of the
"marine environrrent," which by definition clearly includes the OCS
substrata and the deep seabed.
The I~partrrent of the Interior n~ has responsibility for many of these
activities as a result of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Suheerged Lands
Act of 1953, OCS Lands Act of 1953, and the Mining and Minerals Policy
Act of 1970. It is unclear if these Congressionally mandated responsibilities
vxuld be transferred to NCW~ or if NOA7~ v~u1d assure separate but
similar responsibilities.
Natural Resources of the OCS
Pursu.Ent to the OCS Lands Act, the 1~part~rent of the Interior, primarily
through the Bureau of Land ~nagenent, Geological Survey and the
~.sh and Wildlife Service, already exercises conservation and
neriagenent authority over sare ocean resources.
PAGENO="0130"
126
The OCS Lands Act gives the Secretary of the Interior the autherity and
responsibility to "prescribe arid anEnd such rules and regulations as he
determines to be necessary and proper in order to provide for the
prevention of waste and conservation of the natural resources of the
OCS." Since 1953, the Secretary has pramilgated a large nuaber of
regulations and orders pursuant to the authority granted in the Act.
The term "natural resources" used in the OCS Lands Act determines
the extent of the Secretary' s conservation authority on the OCS. The
judicial definition given this term is very broad and covers Treny
of the sarre things covered in the proposed H. R. 9708 (5. 2224). In
Gulf Oil Corp. .v. ~~bfton, 493 F. 2d 141 (9th Cir. 1974), the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals defined "natural resources" using the
definition contained in the Suhrerged Lands Act:
The term "natural resources" includes,
without limiting the generality thereof,
oil, gas, and all other minerals, and fish,
shrirrp, oysters, clams, crabs, lobsters,
sponges, ke'p and other rrarine ariirral and
plant life. 493 F. 2d 141, 145 (1973)
H. R. 9708 (5. 2224) seems clearly inconsistent with the authority
granted by the OCS Lands Act to the Secretary of the Interior.
Earth Sciences
Sectiai 204 (13) ~uld grant ~DA~ authority overlapping the Geological
Sur~y' s responsibilities to study geophysical phenarena s~h as crustal~
1x7v&rent and earth tides.
PAGENO="0131"
127
I~ep Seabed Mining
¶Lt~ jurisdictional issue on whether deep seabed mining by U.S.
~xrpanies should be regulated by the 1~parb~ent of the Interior
or by the E~parthent of Cartrerce has yet to be developed by the
~drninistration. We believe that H.R. 9708 (S. 2224) should not
be enacted until the Congress has the benefit of an Administration
recczrrrendatian on this isportant issue.
Fish and Wildlife Resources
Prior to Reorganization Plan 4 of 1970, essentially all Federal
fishery managerrent responsibilities resided in the 1~parbTent of the
Interior. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (r~ the
Fish and Wildlife Service) had recreational fishery programs and
the Bureau of O~rrrercial Fisheries had ~rrrercial fishery programs.
Subsequent to Reorganization Plan 4 of 1970, the division of responsibility
bet~en the t~ depar-bTents has resulted in sate areas of overlapping
jurisdiction. In sate cases, this problen has been reduced through
coordinating ccxffnittees, irerroraridwns of understanding and other forms
of interagency cooperation. Still, in airrost every area where there
is shared responsibility there has been duplication or gap. Exariples
are presented below.
PAGENO="0132"
128
Anadrarous Fish
Because of their migrations bet~en marine and fresh water, anadratous
fish are one of the resources irost affected by overlapping jurisdictions.
The areas of overlap between NQAA and the Fish and Wildlife Service
(~S) include fish stock assessrrents and evaluation, environirental
studies, studies of fish genetics, and fish-run prediction. In
addition, both NO~ and F~S gather information, provide technical
assistance to States, enforce fishery laws and fund fish hatchery
operations.
Envirorsrental Assessrent
The PWS shares a nizr~er of responsibilities with the Envirorniental
Asseserent Division of NOAA. The irost obvious cases involve the
Nation's estuaries and marine ooastal areas.
Under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, ~S~S and NON~ review
Federal oonstruction projects of the Corps of fligineers and the
Bureau of Reclamation and license and permit applications regulated
by Federal agencies. ~)AP~' s review is directed mainly to those
projects affecting marine, anadrarous and oiirrercial fish, whereas
the ~WS' s review includes those as well as sport freshwater fish
and wildlife. NQA7~ has the responsibility to identify and develop
~rercial fishery potentials in Federal reservoirs, which can oonflict
with FS'~S' s charge to enhance sport fishing in such reservoirs.
PAGENO="0133"
129
NO1V~' s National Marine Fisheries Service and the F~S share responsibilities
under the Coastal Zone Managerrent Act and the Marine Protection
Ièsearch and Sanctuaries Act. These agencies as well as the Geological
Survey review and provide ccrttrents on proposed and adopted State
CZM programs and on proposals for estuarine sanctuaries.
~angered Species
Under the Engangered Species Act of 1973, responsibilities are divided
between the Secretaries of the Interior and Cctrrrerce acocrding to
species and as program responsibilities have been divided pursuant
to I~organ!zation Plan 4 of 1970.
Sare difficulties have arisen in the past in clearly delineatir~
responsibilities for species with both terrestrial and aquatic habitats.
This was particularly apparent in agreeing on procedures for handling
sea turtles because it was perceived by sate that basic philosophical,
protection-versus-cenirercial-utilization differences existed bet~en
the t~ agencies.
The PWS also shares responsibility with NOAA under the Marine Marrrnal
Protection Act.
33-547 0 - 78 - 10
PAGENO="0134"
130
Section 209. .Z~nnual Report
This section would mandate to the t~part~rent of Carrrerce responsibility
to report annually a description, evaluation, budget analysis and
forecast, and legislative recaaiendations for our OCS program as
~ll as for all other Interior and Federal ocean programs.
We believe that this provision is irreconcilable to the appropriate
roles of Cabinet officers. It would inevitably confuse and obscure
the lines of authority and responsibility in the Executive Branch.
It would confuse the legislative autherities of the various ccxTrnittees
of the Congress. Dolays and duplications of effort would be unavoidable.
The public would be unsure as to where to look for authoritative
information. The ac~plishrrent of our national goals would be
irrpeded.
Donald L. M~Kernan, chairman of the National ?~visory Ccrrrnittee on
~eans and Athosphere expressed similar reseivations about this
provision in his ~pril 6, 1978, statelTe.nt to the Senate C~xrrerce
O~Trnittee.
I~legation of Authority
The bill grants the bu]J~ of autherity and responsibility to the
~ninistrator of NO~A rather than to the Secretary. We feel the
reverse would be preferable. Cabinet officers should be enpo~red
to manage the bureaus within their departitents. ~iereas the
Secretary can always and surely ~uld delegate these authorities
to the Mministrator, it is mare difficult for a Cabinet officer to
PAGENO="0135"
131
cbtain autbority and influence over an agency once the GDngress assigns
it to one of the Secretary's subordinates.
Federal-State Relations
The bill does net address the Federal role in relation to State
manag~rent of living marine resources, especially in those coastal
and marine areas of traditional State jurisdiction. The bill,
therefore, could be constrc~d as a further intrusion into State
inanag~rent responsibilities and prerogatives. We believe it sbould
be amanded to clarify the Federal and State roles in these matters.
Again, I want to thank you for this opportunity to cczTrnent. We
wuld be pleased to receive and answer any questions you might
have.
PAGENO="0136"
132
* PROTOTYPE REGIONAL OBSERVING AS]) FORECASTING SERVIOE: (DRopS),
Working Paper prepared by C. Gordon Little for
Atmospheric Research Review Workshop
Snowmass, golorado, June 5-9, 1978
Summary: In recent years, there has been major progress in observing the
atmosphere by satellite and ground-based remote sensors, and by automatic
surface weather stations. There has been similar, though largely un-
coordinated, progress in data processing and display, in mesoscale numerical
modelling and prediction, and in color TV display and dissemination. This
PROFS initiative proposes a three-year exploratory development program, at
a cost of $5.9 million per year, to integrate these advances into the re-
search prototype of a radically new local weather observing and forecasting
service, (PROFS--Prototype Regional Observing and Forecasting Service). The
prototype will be developed under ERL leadership by a joint team of ~MS,
NESS, and ERL staff, and is designed to provide dramatic improvements in the*
accuracy, timeliness, scope, and dissemination of the local weather services.
Such improvements are needed by industries like transportation (especially
aviation), agriculture, and construction, and by the general public, es-
pecially under conditions of severe storms, tornadoes, flash floods, damag-
ing winds, blizzards, and freezing rain.
The Needs for ImDroved Local Weather Services
For over a hundred years; NOAA and its predecessors have provided
weather services in response to public and private needs. Such services
enhance public safety, improve the efficiency of the industry and commerce,
and help guide the myriad of small, weather-related decisions made each
day by our citizens.
The most dramatic of these needs relate to public safety. Despite the
best efforts of the National Weather Service, each year hundreds of Americans
are killed, and thousands injured, by a combination of hazardous weather
events such as tornadoes, flash floods, blizzards and wind shear at airports.
Many of these deaths and injuries would have been avoided if adequate warn-
ings had been disseminated and received. Recent examples of such tragic
losses are the flash flood disaster~ in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, and the Big
Thompson canyon, Colorado, in which 215 lives were lost, and the weather-~
induced crashes of Eastern Airlines Flight 66, and Southern Airlines Flight
2i~2, in which 183 lives were lost.
Less dramatic (but having more total impact on the nationTs economy),
is the cumulative effect of avoidable inefficiencies in commerce and in-
dustry. Each day, tens of thousands of persons in industries such as
agriculture, aviation, construction, fishing, and recreation make weather-
related decisions affecting the efficiency of their operations. The accuracy
of thesa decisions is dependent upon the quality (accuracy, timeliness,
relevance, and accessibility) of the available weather information. Many
analyses have indicated that savings amounting to hundreds of millions of
dollars each year could result if major improvements in weather services
could be achieved. Perhaps the strongest indication of the magnitude of
the needs lies in the actions of other Federal agencies. Currently, both
the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Federal Aviation Administration
PAGENO="0137"
133
are developing their own version of a local weather observing, forecasting,
communicating, and disseminating service to meet the specific (though
limited) needs of the farming and aviation communities respectively. These
activities, coupled with the remarkable increase in consultant meteorologist
activity, are a clear indication that real and significant gaps exist in
NOAA's national weather services.
More mundane, but not to be ignored, are the cumulative needs of our
220 million citizens.for weather information. Here we are dealing with the
myriad of phenomena that can be placed under the general category of sig-~
nificant local weather. Sometimes the "significant weather" has major impact,
as when a sudden snowstorm paralyzes the metropolitan rush-hour traffic of
a million persons; in other cases, it may affect only the convenience of
citizens who would (for example) prefer to know ahead of time whether or
not their planned game of tennis will be terminated by rain. It has not been
possible to estimate the net benefit to society of meeting such needs; in-
deed it seems likely that accurate estimates will require multi-year opera-
tion of radically improved local weather service at at least one location.
It is, however, clear that large improvements in short-term l~cal weather
services could be made for major population centers such as New York at a
per capita cost small compared with the approximately $2 per citizen annual
cost of NOAA's existing weather programs.
~0FS--A new Approach to Im~roved Local Weather Services
. 1. Introduction
Prom the point of view of the individual user, weather problems are
almost always local in scale, since his interest is naturally focussed on
his local environment. This basic premise is clearly not the driving moti-
vation for NOAA's present emphasis on centralized synoptic scale services,
and.it is therefore not surprising that analyses show that the principal un-
met service needs are for local (e.g., 0-100 kin), short-term (e.g., 0-12
hours) weather .forecasts.
The most demanding of these needs are those for detailed, highly.
site-specific, local weather forecasts on very short time scales, especially
at airports. Analyses, particularly of the airline crashes at Kennedy
(New York) and Stapleton (Denver) airports, shov that under thunders terra
wind-shear conditions, spatial resolutions of the order of.1 kin, and temporal
resolutions of the order of 1 minute, will be required to observe, describe,
and warn of the phenomenon. Similar resolution is required to monitor and
* warn of tornadoes, most of which last only a few minutes and traverse only
a few kilometers. Such resolutions are orders of magnitude beyond the
present operational capabilities of the National Weather Service. Moreover,
it is clear that centralized numerical weather prediction will never be able
to operate on these space and time scales,. and therefore that a radically
new approach will be required to meet these needs.
Historically, each major advance in meteorological services has
been produced by the incorporation of a new technology, such as radiosondes,
PAGENO="0138"
134
satellites, or large computers. In each case, the introduction-of the new
technology revolutionized the way in which observations were obtained or
forecasts made. It is therefore reasonable to seek for new technologies
capable of solving the short-term local weather problem. Ideally, the
new technologies should solve the problem of short-term local weather
services, and also contribute strongly to improved weather services on
larger space and time scales. Moreover, the method of implementing the
new technologies should provide for natural and flexible growth of weather
service capabilities, as new needs arise, or as more effective technologies
are created.
In the search for relevant new t~chnologies, it rapidly becomes
apparent that there has been a quiet technological revolution in each of
the main areas comprising a weather service; namely, observation, forecast-
ing, communications, and information dissemination.
In the area of observation, ground-based remote-sensors have
demonstrated the ability to monitor the three-dimensional fields of wind,
clouds, precipitation, and aerosol, with spatial and temporal resolution
adequate to meet the most demanding current service needs. A further
recent advance indicates that it is practicable to provide, . continuously,
vertical profiles of wind, temperature, and humidity using automatic, un-
manned, ground stations. Remote sensors mounted on satellites have achieved
remarkable global coverage, often with temporal and spatial resolution
appropriate to the needs of local weather services. Important advances
have also been made in automatic, in situ, measuring instruments for use at
the earth's surface,. or on board aircraft.
In the area of forecasts, there have been similar major advances..
Mesoscale numerical models, covering a domain as small as 200x200 km, have
demonstrated an excellent ability to incorporate local stationary mesoscale
forcing functions such as topography, land-water effects, the effects of
cities, etc. Other numerical mesoscale models are being developed that
demonstrate the onset, evolution, and dissipation of traveling mesoscale
.convective systems such as squall lines and thunderstorms.
New methods for communicating weather information within NOAA
have also made rapid advances. The AFOS system is one important such
example; others include satellite cooznunication and interrogation tech-
niques that could further revolutionize the transmission of weather data.
Novel uses of the touch-tone telephone system also are opening up new
methods for the acquisition and exchange of data with cooperative observers.
Dissemination, the final critical link with the user, is also a
rapidly developing field. Animated color TV displays of current weather
are now practicable, with enormous increases in information content when
compared with the typical brief spoken weather message--again, with a
temporal and spatial resolution appropriate to local weather services.
Examples include the University of Wisconsin IVAN program, and the canputer-
prepared animated TV pictures now being prepared by some private meteoro-
logical firms for TV dissemination, as we~.l as the rapidly increasing number
of TV stations using digitized color TV presentation of precipitation maps
obtained using their own weather radars
PAGENO="0139"
135
Thus it is apparent that major technological advances have been
made in each of the four main areas essential to a local weather service.
One thing remains--an effective strategy capable of integrating these
advances into a single system that simultaneously solves the problem
of short-tern local weather prediction, and provi~s opportun~ities to
make important improvements to weather services on larger temporal and
spatial scales.
Here, one fina:l area of advance is of critical importance.
Largely as a result of the space program, major progress has been made in
learning how to design complex systems. The so-called "systems engineering
approach" is essential to success in such endeavors. Systems engineering
does not itself solve problems; it does however provide a process or
framework whereby problems can be clearly identified, alternative solutions
evaluated, and optimum compromises selected.
2. The PROFS Plan
The ~OFS plan calls for the creation, using the systems engineer-
ing approach, of the research prototype of a radically new local weather
service capability. It integrates the above technological advances into
a single flexible system designed to provide radically improved local
weather services that are fully responsive to user needs.
A total plan leading to the eventual operational deployment of
PROFS-type capabilities would be divided into the general phases of:
* 1) Information collection
* 2) Analysis and planning.
3) System design
k) Development of research prototype
5) Development of operational prototype
6) Operatinnal implementation
The exploratory development phase described in this initiative
covers only the first four of the above steps, and will result in the
demonstration (internally within NOAA) of the feasibility of the improved.
services. The critical next step, the creation and evaluation of an
operational prototype, would follow completion of this er~loratory develop-
ment phase. .
Following the methodology of system analysis and design, some
limited effort in the information collection phase is already underway.
ruser ~Q ..in~th.Q-proposed~yROFS region are ~ and a workshop
was held in March 1978 to explore potential solutions, system component
constraints, existing services, and other environmental factors. By em-
ploying a systems design approach and by viewing the problem from the
perspective of th~ user rather than the producer of a weather service, we
are able to focus more directly on the needs of society.
* Observing System
Until the user need studies and the full system analysis and
design are completed, it is not possible to specify the PRQFS observational
PAGENO="0140"
136
system in detail. However, at this time it seems likely -that it will
include the following components, including existing ~WS observa~tional
capabilities in the PROPS area:
Surface data
Network of cooperative observers (intermittent data)
Array of automatic surface weather stations (continuous
data)~
Profiles, area, and three-dimensional data
* Satellite remote sensing systems (continuous and inter-
* zaittent data)
Ground-based remote sensors (continuous data)
All-weather Doppler radar
Continuous vertical profiling systems
Radiosonde (once per 12 hours)
Aircraft reports (intermittent data)
Forecasting System
PROPS forecasts cover three different time frames, each in-
volving different methods of preparation.
a) Nowcasts. The enormously richer data sets produced
by the above observational system will be processed in essentially real
time, and used to prepare "nowcasts" (information on the current state of
the atmosphere in the PROPS region). These nowcasts will be prepared
automatically .in TV format for video display, as well as for use in oral
or written messages.
b) Extrapolation (0:3 hoursl.
The next step in providing improved local weather services*
involves short-term extrapolation of the locally- and satellite-acquired
nowcast data for periods of up to two or three hours. The current now-
cast will be extrapolated using advection and temporal trends derived
from the sequence of nowcasts; simple physical models (incorporating
major terrain features, and simple models of significant meteorological
processes) will also be applied, in conjunction with ~MC forecasts and
satellite observations. In addition, once a major series of PROPS data
sets and nowcasts are available, powerful statistical techniques will be
applicable. Experience with the much less dense CRAB network in the
Chesapeake Bay area indicates that major improvements in the accuracy,
specificity, and scope of short-term local weather services can readily
be provided by these means. *
PAGENO="0141"
137
c) Numerical Forecasting (3-.12 hours)
The next and most difficult step involves bridging the gap
between these detailed PROPS 2-3 hour extrapolations, and the much more
genera]. 12 hourly forecasts put out by the National Weather Service.
(For periods of 12 hours and longer, the full power of the existing ~WS
synoptic scale system would be available; however, this system is tied
to the twice-daily release of radiosondes, leaving a critical PROPS
forecast gap for time periods of 3 to 12 hours.)
Ideally, one would wish to fill this gap by detailed meso-~
scale numerical weather predictions. These models, working over a domain
of perhaps as little as 200x200 kin, would work on a grid scale about an
order, of magnitude smaller than existing ~MC models, and could therefore
incorporate significant terrain and surface features, important to meso-~
and meso-y scale meteorology, that cannot be incorporated into the larger-
scale NMC models.. They would also produce much more detailed forecasts
than those available fron ~MC.
* Such models would have to operate within some nested grid model
* covering a very much larger area, if they were to produce accurage meso-~
scale foi~ecasts for as long as 12 hours. Moreover, the space-time density
of data within this, larger area would have to be significantly greater
than the present synoptic scale network, which does not adequately resolve
the larger neso-~ and smaller meso-ct scale waves important to short-tern
weather forecasts.
* Several possibilities exist for the acquisition of such data sets.
The most important of these are the satellite observing systems, especially
the geostationary vertical atmospheric sounding systems planned for the
early 1980's. These unproven systens offer promise of temperature and
humidity profiles at spacings as close as 30 kin, with high sensitivity to
spatial gradients of these quantities.
` A second very important opportunity lies in the remote profiling
capabilities of ground-based sensors. Recent research has shown that
profiles of wind, temperature, and humidity can be ob1~ained continuously
in time, using unmanned, ground-based., remote sensing systems. The re-
placement of the existing network of highly intermittent radiosonde
* measurements by continuous data sets would greatly improve the ability
to - identify the smaller scale atmospheric waves that are easily missed
in the existing radiosonde data. Note that eventually each PROPS region
* might well include a small network of four automatic profiling systems,
* at the corners of a 150 km-200 kin square surrounding the urban area. This
spacing of profilers is half the current spacing of the existing ~WS radio-
sonde network; a contiguous series of PROPS regions, such as might develop
in the more densely populated areas of the U.S., would then provide improved
* coverage in space. as well as continuous coverage in time
* Other possibilities include the use of commercial aircraft as
platforms for automated weather observations, and the rnodification of the
PROPS ground-based sensor array to permit wider spacing of sensors at the
periphery than at the center of the PROPS area. The optimum long range
PAGENO="0142"
138
solution likely to evolve with time is the combination of satellite
observations with a ground array of PROFS stations; this may well
develop in major concentrations of population, such as northeastern
U.S.A.
Dissemination System
Many experts believe that dissemination is the single factor
most seriously limiting the effectiveness of existing EWS local weather
services. Currently, in addition to brief weather forecasts appearing
in local newspapers, services to the public are limited to short oral
messages, available intermittently from local radio and TV stations,
plus (in populated areas, if the user possesses a suitable FM radio
receiver) continuous oral messages fron the local BWS FM weather radio.
More ~pecialized users can receive weather data.by teleprinter, or, in
some cases, facsimile reproductions of ENC maps.
The use of broadcast and cable TV for dissemination of meteoro-
logical information to the public is a rapidly growing field, larely due
to the entrepreneurial activities of private meteorologists and TV stations.
Thus, rhany TV stations are alread.y broadcasting color images (and oral
interpretations) of their own digitized weather radar data. These are
beginning to be supplemented by computer-developed animated drawings of
meteorological information in TV format,, prepared by private meteorological
firms for sale to TV stations. Thus, we can anticipate that much of the
dissemination bottleneck is about to be removed through the growing avail-
ability of large-information-rate video presentations, including continuous
video presentations via broadcast or cable TV. Such presentations could
dramatically change the amount, specificity, and frequency of up-dating
of weather information available to the public.
For specialized users, the rapidly growing field of computer-
to-computer communications offers great promise for rapid and efficient
transfer of meteorological information to suitably-equipped users. Depend-
1mg on needs, the facilities required can be quite cheap. For example,.
a joint N0AA/~ept of Agriculture plan envisages farmers acting as coopera-
tive meteorological observers, entering their data into the local Dept of
Agriculture Extension Service computer by touch-tone telephone. In return,
the farmer could receive, via his $100 "Green Thumb Box" telephone inter-
face, up-to-date meteorological or agricultural information for storage and
display on the farmer's TV set. (An equivalent British system, known as
"Viewdata" will become operational in early 1979 within the U.K., and will
give'users continuous access (on demand) to a library of some 300,000 pages
of data, including weather information.)
3. Impact of ~0FS on the Synoptic Scale
PROPS is primarily designed to improve short-term local weather
services. It will, however, have direct, and beneficial impact on longer-
term, synoptic scale forecasts through the following features:
a) Development of the continuous profiling system.
PAGENO="0143"
139
As advances are made in different areas of the PROPS
program, it vii]. be important to consider their application to synoptic
scale forecasting. The continuous profiler is one of the most important
candidates for such use. Its eventual application as a replacement for
the radiosonde after a full program of engineering development and test-
ing would have major impact on synoptic scale modelling and forecasting..
Particularly important will be the temporal continuity of the data, per-
mitting better identification of changes and movements in weather patterns
across the United States, and reducing some of the T~noiseI? in the essen-
tially instantaneous radiosonde profiles.
b) Development of improved dissemination methods.
The proposed video dissemination techniques to be developed
under PROPS will be directly applicable and equally beneficial to synoptic
scale forecasts.
* c) Development of improved mesoscale models incorporating
fixed local forcing functions.
Successful forecasting of local weather requires not~ only
the correct prediction of synoptic scale events for a local area, but also
requires understanding bow the synoptic scale weather will be modified and
modulated by stationary local surface and boundary layer features. Examples
of these include 1) the formation and distribution of stable clouds, fog,
and precipitation by topographic features; 2) orographic windstorms and
their attendant tenperature effects; 3) land-water configurations and their
effects on winds, clouds and precipitation, and temperature; and I~) the
evolution and dissipation of atmospheric pollution episodes in urban areas.
Thus, mnnerical models which successfully incorporate
these fixed local forcing functions will be directly applicable to the
longer term syhoptic scale forecasts for that local area, and will
provide enormously more detailed prediction on the local scale.
d) Development of improved regional data sets.
Particularly in the eastern half of.the United States,
and along the western seaboard, a contiguous series of PROFS stations
may well develop. Since each PROPS station is presently conceived as
containing its own array of continuous profilers at the corners of a 150-
200 km square, a contiguous array of PROPS stations would provide profiles
continuously in time at a spatial frequency twice that of the existing
radiosonde network. This would do much to ensure accurate identification
and monitoring of the smaller synoptic scale waves so difficult to identify
and track in the' present intermittent, widely spaced radiosonde network.
This greatly improved data set should significantly enhance synoptic scale
numerical weather predictions and hence local weather predictions.
PAGENO="0144"
140
* e) Improved paraméterizations of sub-grid-scale processes.
The ability to monitor continuously atmospheric profiles
during changing meteorological conditions offers major opportunities to
check the performance of numerical models and improve the basic parameteriza-
tions they must use to incorporate the effect of sub-grid-scale phenomena.
Improved parameteriz~.tions should then result in improved numerical weather
predictions on all scales.
* `L PROPS and the Technology Transfer Gau in NOAA
The magnitude of the opportunities for improved services inherent
in PROPS raises two very significant questions--why does such a major back-
log of unused technology exist? T,fl~at can be done to improve the flow of
new research capabilities into operational use?
In retrospect, the answer to the first question is clear. NOAA
has had no effective strategy for the transfer of research capabilities
to operations.
Many organizations, faced with this problem, have found that the
transfer is best accomplished within an organizational framework that
recognizes that the creation and transfer of new capabilities involves
four phases, as follows:
* a) Research. In response to user needs, or their own research,
the research group identifies an idea or concept for the improvement of
operations.
* b) Exploratory development. Under the leadership of the
research group, a joint research/operational team then develops and
demonstrates (using research techniques and hardware) that the concept
is indeed capable of producing the desired operational improvement.
c) Engineering deveiopnemt. Under the leadership of the
operational group, a joint operational/research team then develops and
tests fully engineered models of the concept, redesigned with emphasis,
on simplicity and low capital, operating, and maintenance costs, etc.
e) Operations. The new models (hardware or software) are
then brought into full operational group by the operational agency.
Traditionally, NOAA management has focussed attention on only
the first and last of these four phases. This has resulted in a major
backlog of meteorological capability, awaiting transfer and urgently
needed by the operational group. - -
PAGENO="0145"
141
The PROFS plan proposes that an ERL-led, joint NWS, NESS, and
ERL team create the exploratory development prototype of a radically
improved local weather service, using the systems engineering approach.
In so doing, it will, with the existing I'IWS Systems. Development Office,
provide the two essential pillars of the technology transfer bridge
hitherto missing. in NOAA--a bridge over which new research capabilities
will be able to flow continuously in the future.
5.. PROFS and the U.S. Balance of Trade
Better local weather services are required by all nations, to
improve public safety and the efficiency of industry and commerce. Ex-
trapolation of present trends in the U.S. and overseas indicates that by
1985 it will be possible to provide each major urban center and airport
with dramatically improved local weather services (based on technologies
and concepts similar to those planned for PROFS)--and that this will be
done. Such services will, however, require integration of satellites,
ground-based remote-and in situ sensors, computers, ccxnmunication cir-
cuits, dissemination channels and meteorological know-how into a single,
flexible system. .
The United States currently leads the world in almost every
technological aspect required to bring the PROPS concept into being.
Therefore, the U.S. has a unique opportunity to create the next-generation
weather service system. By moving rapidly, it could capture a major share
of the world market for advanced meteorological hardware, software, services,
and systems. This market is currently fairly small, but is expanding
rapidly. Thus, we understand that Iran alone is contemplating spending
over a billion dollars in the next several years to improve its weather
services. Similar plans are being discussed by the U.S., Saudi Arabia,
and Britain, and no doubt by other countries.
We t~ierefore believe the Department of Commerce should fund PROPS,
not only to improve local weather services within the U.S., but also as -
a mechanism to create and capture a large share of the world market for
improved weather services. This would help reduce unemployment and improve
the U.S. balance of trade through irrcreased overseas sales of U.S. hardware
and software. We believe that major opportunities exist in such areas as
satellite systems, computers, communication systems, remote sensors, etc.,
as well as meteorological services such as installation, training, and
operation of PROPS-type components and systems. Each year of delay reduces
the U.S. lead in this field; it is important to recognize that (for example)
the U.K. is currently in the third year of a simpler version of PROPS, and
plan to implement it operationally by 1979 or 1980.
May 30, 1978
PAGENO="0146"