rectly under the glide slope has authenticated that their test scores are markedly lower than the other high school.

Perhaps there are other reasons. I don't know. But, when an aircraft comes over every 5 minutes and disrupts at that point in time, a minute of time, which is really a very long time, when you think of a teacher trying to instruct. I can understand, certainly, and suspect that their test scores would be lower.

Senator TUNNEY. It is also my understanding that these teachers sometimes have to shout within 6 inches from the child's ear in order to be heard during the time that aircraft is flying over.

Mayor MERGELL. Well, Senator Tunney, it has been medically proven that noise can cause all kinds of physical problems and evenit is not only the children, I think the teachers themselves are doing less of a job because of this noise interruption influencing their jobs, really.

People continually say, "Please come out to my house, have lunch, have dinner, listen to these airplanes."

I know what they are doing. I don't need to do that, and, I guess it sounds foolish for me to say this to you, but if you had the opportunity, perhaps, a mile south of here is a high school, junior high, and grammar school, and all I can say is see for yourself as the aircraft come over.

Perhaps you would give them a day of education if they knew you were coming and they would not come over as they are not doing now on the north runway.

Senator TUNNEY. I think your point is well taken.

It is not lost on any of us.

I want to thank you for making these statements. I think that what you have said about the long-term solution of muffling the aircraft is the only sensible way of proceeding. There are, however, economic problems.

We can explore those later in the committee, but it has been great having you before us.

Thank you.

Mayor MERGELL. Thank you very much, Senator Tunney.

Senator CANNON. Before you go, Mayor Mergell, there was one high school that was built directly under the glide slope after the advent of the jets and after advice from the Los Angeles Airport Authority that this was not a wise policy. Can you address yourself towards this specific situation?

Is that a fact?

Mayor MERGELL. First of all, I would say that that is a false statement and I would assume, and I am speaking only for the city of Inglewood. But, in the city of Inglewood we have two high schools, Morningside High School is our newest and it happens to be a junior high school and it is also a grammar school on the same location.

Our problems with aircraft granted the aircraft came over and they were fine. But, until 1958 is when the jet aircraft started coming over and the high school was built long before that time.

Senator CANNON. You are saying that no high school was built in Inglewood, after the advent of jet aircraft, directly under the glide slope?

Mayor MERGELL. Absolutely not.

Senator CANNON. Thank you, sir.

Mayor MERGELL. As a matter of fact, there is very little building going on anywhere near the aircraft and, like I said, that is 60 or 70 percent of our city.

Senator CANNON. Thank you very much.

[The statement follows:]

STATEMENT OF MAYOR MERLE MERGELL, INGLEWOOD, CALIF.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Aviation Subcommittee:

As Mayor of the City of Inglewood, I welcome you to our City.

This is an historic event for those of us who have lived for 15 years with the little recognized monster of jet noise pollution. Even though the number of people seriously damaged by jet noise is relatively small compared to our country's total population, damage is none the less real and is growing daily. Most importantly, it is a needless damage. This is a solution to the jet noise problem.

Our situation in Inglewood, briefly, is this: About 2,000 Inglewood students attend Morningside High School where 600 jet planes fly overhead daily, creating up to 104 decibels of noise. This is the equivalent of sitting in a classroom 50 feet from a sandblasting operation. This is not what our teachers call a positive educational experience.

Medical research has proven beyond doubt that nervous disorders and heart diseases are aggravated by the constant onslaught of jet noise such as we live with daily in Inglewood. You recognized this by putting a 90 decibel limit in the Occupational Safety Hazards Act.

Thousands of our residents are beset with noise far, far beyond those limits -in homes in which they have invested their life savings. Now, because of jet noise, many of them are unable to sell those homes and move elsewhere, and must suffer the consequent personal health and economic damage from the constant bombardment of jet noise. Many lending institutions will not lend money for homes under the flight pattern.

Our City Council meetings have been attended by one citizen group after another demanding that we, on the local level, do something about jet noise. Yet, as you gentlemen well know, we on the local level are powerless to help them. The City of Inglewood passed one of the most comprehensive anti-noise ordinances in this country. But we had to exclude commercial aircraft, even if they were flying in violation of FAA regulations. We once gathered definite evidence of a commercial jet flying unduly and unnecessarily low over our community much lower than that called for by FAA landing procedures. As a jet-rated pilot myself, I know that flight was unsafe. Further, the pilot subjected our entire community to needless noise. We tried to file a misdemeanor charge against him and were told it was none of our business, that only the FAA can reprimand pilots.

We can arrest truck drivers for faulty mufflers but not pilots for flying too low, gunning their massive engines or even taking off over our homes in the middle of the night when they are supposed to be taking off over the ocean.

We once monitored the radio conversation between a pilot and the tower at Los Angeles International Airport when a pilot asked permission to take off over our community on a midnight flight instead of taking off over the ocean, which we have attempted to require to be the normal take-off pattern. The pilot said he wanted to take off over Inglewood so he could save a few minutes on his flight. He was trying to establish a new speed record to Milwaukee.

He set his record and thousands of Inglewood residents were blasted out of a midnight sleep. Incidentally, this happened on Christmas Eve. Again, there was nothing we, on the local level, could or can do to stop it.

The deep frustration comes, gentlemen, when we on the local level have to face the horrible fact that our hands are completely tied. We can do absolutely nothing to protect ourselves.

Perhaps I shouldn't say absolutely nothing. We can sue. And, believe me, we have. Frankly, we find it distasteful for one governmental agency to have to

bring suit against another governmental agency in this country. The very nature of our form of government is to reason together, not fight. Yet, the only way we could get an audience with the City of Los Angeles and the autonomous Los Angeles International Airport to discuss our jet noise grievances was after we caught their attention by hitting them with a series of lawsuits, I am happy to say that we did get their attention and they have now taken major steps to meet the jet noise problem. Needless to say, we don't think they have gone far enough, but we are impressed with their reactions, and we share with them their frustrations. I am happy to report today that we in Inglewood are now completely satisfied with the sincerity of the efforts of Los Angeles International Airport to come to grips with their jet noise problem. But they are drastically limited as to what they can do, for LAX, too, is a local governmental entity. Only this Committee and the Congress can truly solve the jet noise problem.

I don't want to give the impression that Inglewood is anti-airport, or even anti-jet plane. Quite the contrary. We in Inglewood are proud of the airport. Our economy benefits enormously from the airport. We consider the jet plane a modern miracle. I flew them and I know. But we do not think it essential that jet noise as we hear it today in jet planes and airports are inseparable. We think that the same technological genius that created the jet plane can silence that noise. Our engineering experts tell us that the only limitation is that it costs money for someone.

We think that money is a cheap commodity to pay to lift the monster of jet noise from our backs. Our studies show that a mere $1.5 billion-or 1% of the price of airline tickets in this nation for seven years-would cut the noise problem in half. The technology exists, the economic wherewithal does, too; only the willingness is lacking.

We in Inglewood are anxiously awaiting the EPA report to Congress in which jet noise abatement proposals will be spelled out. We think it is absolutely essential that EPA be given the authority to enforce the noise standards Congress has adopted in principle in the OSHA Act. Certainly the FAA has proven beyond reasonable doubt that they are completely incapable of performing such enforcement. In addition, we hope the federal government will not preempt the field of jet noise regulation. Even though we have every reason to believe that meaningful noise limiting legislation will result from these hearings and the EPA proposals that will follow, we do not feel that states should be denied the authority to establish their own noise levels. I think Senator Cannon will agree that the need for noise suppression in a highly urbanized area such as Los Angeles County is not the same as the need for noise suppression in some of the more sparsely populated sections of his fine State of Nevada. We see no reason why California should not be allowed to establish noise levels to meet California needs.

In conclusion, I want to thank you gentlemen for scheduling this hearing in Inglewood and for giving me the opportunity to appear before you. I particularly want to praise and to thank Senator Tunney for the outstanding work he did in securing the passage of the Noise Control Act of 1972. We think this was a direly needed start; a strong and healthy beginning to the battle against noise. As a matter of fact, we think Senator Tunney's bill is the beginning of the end of noise as a major pollutant of our society. If this proves to be true, not just Inglewood but our entire nation will be deeply grateful. Thank you.

Senator CANNON. The next witness is Mr. Clifton A. Moore, general manager of the Los Angeles International Airport.

STATEMENT OF CLIFTON A. MOORE, GENERAL MANAGER, LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS

Mr. MOORE. Thank you very much, Senator Cannon, Senator Tun

nev.

It is a pleasure to be here this morning and be able to communicate some of the problems from the airport standpoint. I have a

prepared text, which I believe has already been given to the commit

tee.

If it pleases you, I will not attempt to read that verbatim, but will, rather, comment on a few salient points.

Senator CANNON. The text will be made a part of the record in full and you may just comment from it, if you desire.

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Senator.

Senator, it is sort of as a man in the middle that I come here this morning because the proprietor seems to be the one fixed object that everyone can attack and attach their claims to in this whole affair.

The charge under the city charter given to our commission as a proprietary interest of the city of Los Angeles is to promote and accommodate air travel and air navagation for the citizens of Los Angeles.

I think that it is only fair to point out, to keep this on a proper perspective, through all of the years of this airport, the city of Los Angeles has never profited 5 cents from the operation of the airport.

On the contrary, it has subsidized it materially over the years and those subsidies are now being repaid to the general treasury of the city.

So, there has been no direct financial benefit to the city from the operation of this airport. In fact, now, the citizens of Los Angeles and their guests from the standpoint of origin and destination are minority users of the airport. It is, in fact, a regional airport and the principal beneficiaries of the airport are outside of the boundaries of the city of Los Angeles itself.

Nevertheless, the liability for this airport, if there is some, in fact, and there has been some, as you know, falls directly on the back of the Airport Commission and if we become insolvent, on the backs of the citizens and owners of property in Los Angeles.

So, while there is a widespread market area benefiting from this airport, there is not a commensurate spread of liability.

So, in protecting its interests, the city of Los Angeles has to look at this fact. Now, we also must recognize that we have responsibilities that go beyond the boundaries of the city.

This airport is the largest employing institution within one set of boundaries within the county in terms of one plant location, it is the largest employer.

Senator CANNON. Mr. Moore, what kind of figure is that, in other words, exactly how many people are you talking about?

Mr. MOORE. 36,000 employees at that location. We are talking about a $3.3 billion annually direct impact and indirect impact on the county area and outside the county as well and $9 million a day in cash flow. There are over $1.09 million spent in the area, not just Los Angeles, but in the area by visitors coming through here and I don't think that I need to point out to this committee that there has been no cessation in the demand for the use of the services in this airport.

In fact, the public use continues to grow and in fact the people that oppose the airport use the airport for transportation and in a sense inflict noise on their fellow beings in doing so.

So, we, as a public utility are sort of a prisoner by the chain of events that has overtaken us over the years. Now, the one thing that we feel that we must do and my recommendation has been adopted by the Commission in this regard, is that any action that we take must be constructed, it must try to solve, or work toward the solving of this noise problem, but it must not restrict or impede the flow of commerce into this area until at least the time that other facilities are available to replace this one.

That does not seem to be in the offing since all of the other airports in the area tend to restrict their services and throw even more of a burden on Los Angeles International.

By that, I am thinking of Long Beach, Orange County, and some others. So, what do we do, then? As you know, we have some claims amounting to over $412 billion against the airport as a proprietor.

In terms of lawsuits, there is a pattern beginning to emerge from the court in the case of taking of property or damaging of property is becoming clear. There is, in fact, a taking and damage and these charges must be paid by the airport. Now, with regard to the nuisance that was mentioned earlier, and about which the city attorney recommended the closure of the airport, which I opposed.

We don't know yet what that means, contrary to what Ms. Russell has said, we do have some suits and they are beginning to be filed using nuisance as a basis of action.

Until the courts have established some precidents in that area, we are not sure what the impact of that will be financially. But, I can assure you by any criteria when we look at the cases and the precidents that is being set, the costs in the court of operating this airport are going to be very large.

Now, where does that money come from? That money comes from the users of the airport, it comes from the car rentals, the parking, the airline landing fees, and so forth. So, in effect the cost will eventually be borne by all of the users of the airport and it may well be more than the airlines can bear in terms of their ability to pay it.

Under our contracts with the airlines, these costs are paid through a landing fee agreement and are covered by those landing fee agree

ments.

With regard to the properties that were mentioned earlier this morning, the $25 million that Ms. Russell referred to is her appraisal of the line which she wishes to add to our current undertaking, but we have, and will have committed in excess probably of $130 million for land acquisition purposes by the time that this exercise is completed in the month of April. And, I will make that report to our city council joint committee on April 12, as to my recommendation for additional acquisition.

Land acquisition in itself is not the problem and not the answer to the problem. It is impossible to wipe out that many people on an acquisition procedure and all of the studies, in fact, have shown that there is just not that much demand for commercial and industrial zoning or compatible zoning within the entire impact are we are referring to.

Now, looking at the tremendous public concern here over noise in the city of Inglewood and other places, I just want to take, if I