[H. Doc. 128, 89th Cong., 1st sess.]

COMMUNICATION FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TRANSMITTing a DRAFT OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION ENTITLED, "A BILL TO EXPAND, Extend, and ACCELERATE THE SALINE Water ConvERSION PROGRAM CONDUCTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES"

Hon. JOHN W. McCORMACK,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C'.

THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, March 29, 1965.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Past generations of Americans have been blessed with an abundance of sparkling, clean water. But in recent years we have become careless in our stewardship of this vital resource-polluting, wasting, and carelessly exploiting it.

Water shortages-real as well as prospective—already plague some regions of our land. Other areas and communities will soon be threatened. Yet, we must have an abundance of fresh water if we are to continue to grow and prosper.

Action to conserve what nature has so generously provided has often been inadequate and too late. We are determined not to make this mistake again. I have already pledged full support for cleaning up our rivers-and keeping them clean. We will continue to foster conservation by planning for the wisest possible use of all existing water supplies and by curbing and eliminating wasteful and uneconomic uses of water.

But these steps are not enough. New sources of supply at competitive costs are also required if we are to stay abreast of the ever-mounting demand for water. The seas around us offer an inexhaustible reservoir to help meet this need in coastal areas while vast quantities of brackish water are available to supplement the supplies of many inland areas. We must spare no effort in learning how to desalt these waters economically.

For the past 12 years the United States has been engaged in a program of research and development which has brought desalting technology to a point where it shows promise of economic application in the future. To stimulate the translation of this promise into reality, I requested the Department of the Interior last July to develop, in close collaboration with the Atomic Energy Commission, a proposed program which would significantly advance large-scale desalting technology.

The resulting report entitled "Program for Advancing Desalting Technology" was completed promptly and released to the public on October 26, 1964. It recommended-and I am transmitting with this letter draft legislation to accomplishexpansion, extension, and acceleration of the salt-water conversion research and development activities now being conducted by the Department of the Interior under authority of the Anderson-Aspinall Act of 1961.

This legislative proposal would increase by $200 million the $75 million appropriation authorization provided in the 1961 act and extend through 1972 the time during which the authorized funds would be available to support this important program. Enactment of this legislation is vital if the Department of the Interior is to mount and lead the substantial sustained effort necessary to achieve truly economical desalting of sea and brackish waters.

In the meantime, I have already transmitted to the Congress a request for a supplemental appropriation of $3.9 million in 1965 to enable the Department, through a reorganized Office of Saline Water, to accelerate its research and development activities along the general lines outlined in the report mentioned above. Desalting activities will receive continuing emphasis in 1966. My budge tary recommendations to Congress for the coming fiscal year amount to $29 million for the Office of Saline Water, more than double the amount appropriated for 1965.

By pressing ahead with a vigorous program of economic desalting to meet our ever-growing domestic needs for water, we will at the same time provide the technology which can be shared with other nations. This technology could prove to be the key that will unlock the door to economic growth for many of these nations.

It would be difficult to exaggerate the power for good. the palliative effect on age-old animosities and problems, that would result from providing an abundance of water in lands which, for countless generations, have known only shortage. To stimulate cooperation in the field with such great potential

for the good of mankind, the United States will convoke a symposium of interested nations in October 1965 to exchange information on desalting technology.

In recommending this measure to the Congress, I wish to acknowledge the foresight of such able legislators as Clinton Anderson, Wayne Aspinall, and the late Clair Engle. Our present efforts in desalting rest in substantial measure upon the sound foundation they laid and on which we intend to build. I earnestly hope that their leadership and the progress which it has inspired can be carried forward without interruption by the prompt enactment of the bill I am transmitting today.

Sincerely,

LYNDON B. JOHNSON.

A BILL To expand, extend, and accelerate the saline water conversion program conducted by the Secretary of the Interior, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in order to expand, extend, and accelerate the saline water conversion program conducted by the Secretary of the Interior, the Act of September 22, 1961 (75 Stat. 628), is hereby amended as follows:

(1) In section 2(b) add the words ", module, component," after the word "laboratory".

(2) In section 8 substitute the figure "$275,000,000" for the figure "$75,000,000" and the figure "1972" for the figure "1967”.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. The bill before the committee today would expand, extend and accelerate the saline water research program conducted by the Secretary of the Interior. An additional $200 million would be authorized for conducting this program and the life extended 5 years.

The Federal saline water research program was initiated in 1952 with the authorization of $2 million and a 5-year program.

In 1955 the program was extended to 10 years and the amount authorized was increased from $2 million to $10 million.

In 1958 Congress authorized the construction of not less than five demonstration plants with a ceiling of $10 million for the demonstration plants program.

In 1961, the research and development program was extended 5 years through fiscal year 1967 with an authorization of $75 million for the 6-year period, fiscal 1962 through fiscal 1967.

In summary, $82,500,000 has been authorized for research and development and $10 million has been authorized for construction of demonstration plants.

As I stated a minute ago, H.R. 7092 would authorize an additional $200 million.

We have a number of witnesses who desire to appear in reference to this matter. We are honored this morning to have as our first witness the Honorable Stewart D. Udall, Secretary of the Interior, but before recognizing the Secretary, I want to recognize the chairman of the full committee, the Honorable Wayne Aspinall of Colorado.

Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am most appreciative that you saw fit to give the résumé of the history of this legislation that you did.

The chairman of the committee and other members of the committee have been criticized from time to time and labeled as being unfriendly to the saline water program. I think that all you have to do is to look at the history as to how this has developed in order to learn the

fine friendship of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs for the program-and that means every member of the committee.

It seems as if there is always a desire on the part of some people who are interested in the administrative operation to be critical of the methods of Congress when the Congress wishes to look into the administration of a program. This happens to be a program that is the responsibility of this committee. It is a program that catches the eye of the public and holds the attention of the people of the United States and, I might say, of the world. Because of that, it is supposed to have a great deal of political muscle behind it-whatever that means. It is supposed to be a program that will appeal to the public. This is the reason why we have had the great leaders of our country saying at times that this kind of a program could make the deserts bloom, when most of us who knew anything about irrigation know that the irrigation waters sell for $1.50 to $6 an acre-foot as a rule, with an upper limit of approximately $25 an acre-foot for very specialized products.

So far, the water that has been proposed to be obtained from sea water will be at a cost of $1 to $3 a thousand gallons, which means anywhere from $335 to $1,000 an acre-foot.

Also, the program has been publicized as a possible program to help our international allies. Well, a funny thing about it is that those of us who have worked with this find that some of the other countries have engaged in these undertakings and activities for a long, long time, and in many respects they are ahead of us.

What this committee has to do, as we study this legislation, is to see to it that there is a reevaluation of the activities carried on heretofore during the life of the operation and that there is a good case made for any future operations, not in order to keep scientists busy, not in order to keep administrators busy, not in order to keep the Congress before the public in a good light as far as publicity is concerned, but in order to see to it that the taxpayers' dollars are properly used. That is all that we are interested in, that a case be made for the $200 million within the foreseeable future and, if so, this committee is undoubtedly going to be favorable to this proposition. I would suggest that the case will have to be made, because some rather critical statements have been made about the program to date and what is proposed in the future.

I may say, Mr. Chairman, that I make this statement because we are for the program, but this is not a program on which we can waste the taxpayers' dollars simply because it happens to be a program which catches their eye.

Mr. HALEY. Will you yield?

Mr. ASPINALL. Yes.

Mr. HALEY. I want to just say "Amen" to what the chairman of the full committee has just said. I think that in this committee, as a whole, that this program has unanimous support. I think that this is a fine program. Ordinarily, I do not support these things.

I think that one thing that has probably disturbed the members of the committee a considerable amount, is the fact that at this moment this is a limited field in which the manpower is not available. I think the testimony will show that.

I think that this committee has always been sympathetic, and I will say unanimous, in support of this program. We have found that there has been a rise in costs more than was anticipated when the program was initiated several years ago. However, it has had the support of this committee. I hope that it will continue to have the support of this committee.

But I, like the chairman, sometimes wonder why the Congress and this committee has been criticized because some people think that it is not moving forward fast enough.

I have always taken the position that dollars alone do not accelerate a program. The people capable of doing this work, I think, are very necessary. And just to pour out taxpayers' dollars on a crash program, I do not think will accomplish the purpose. I think that we want orderly progress. And I think that you should have orderly progress in this program.

A word of caution about it. Do not push along too fast and do not ask for more dollars than you can justify expending in an orderly

manner.

Mr. HOSMER. Will you yield?

Mr. ASPINALL. Yes.

Mr. HOSMER. I would like to add that Mr. Holum of the Department of the Interior testified that from 1952, apparently, through fiscal 1965, there was a cost of $42 million, 12 million for construction and around $30 million for research and development, notwithstanding the fact that there has been authorized, as the chairman of the subcommittee has stated, a total of $82.5 million and $10 million more has been authorized for construction of demonstration plants. If this $200 million is added, that means an expenditure at the rate of at least $40 million a year over the next 6 years, immediately twice the rate of the rate of the total program at which the earlier experiments have been carried on. That does not make too much sense to

me.

In addition to that I have some qualms about what this committee's function is. Most witnesses have stated heretofore that this was in the realm of agriculture. Another witness stated that it is not. If so, probably it is outside of the jurisdiction of the Irrigation and Reclamation Committee. As a consequence, some have a feeling that what is being asked for here, in addition to the other appropriations is not a realistic figure, that is, the $200 million. We seem to have taken up what seems to be somewhat similar to a pursuit of the Holy Grail. I wonder how realistic we are being in that relation.

Mr. ASPINALL. May I say in reply to the statement of my colleague, in one of the last phrases that he used, that I do not agree, but I think I understand his feeling. We did authorize a term of years for the program that now exists. We authorized the money for that period. The executive department and the Bureau of the Budget asked for all of the money for fiscal 1966 without considering that there was another year in the authorized period. It was not forthcoming in the appropriations bill and that is proper in my opinion. That is all I have to say.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. I think that I can say that this is a controversial program-we are all conscious of that and we are having difficulty with it.

Our next main thought is that it is much easier to spend money than it is to treat salt water. We hope that this can be brought into balance. That is one of the purposes of these hearings, to get the matters before the members of the committee and before the Congress, to find out just which road is the proper one to take to get the results that we started out seeking a long time ago.

We are pleased to have with us this morning the Honorable Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior, who will be the first witness and will be accompanied by Mr. Frank C. Di Luzio, the Director of the Office of Saline Water.

We are glad to welcome you back before the committee, Secretary Udall.

STATEMENT OF HON. STEWART L. UDALL, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY FRANK C. DI LUZIO, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SALINE WATER

Secretary UDALL. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you very much. It is always a pleasure to meet with my former colleagues.

I would like to try to put this whole subject that Chairman Aspinall mentioned a moment ago into sharp focus. I have a prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. I will read most of it, but I would like to summarize parts of it, too, if I may have that privilege.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Did you want to submit your statement for the record and to summarize it?

Secretary UDALL. That is right. like it to appear in the record in full.

I will read parts of it, but I would

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Without objection, your statement will be included in the record the same as if it had been read in full and you may summarize it.

Mr. HOSMER. You have testified a few days ago in the Senate. Is this the same statement as you presented before the Senate Committee? Secretary UDALL. The tenor is about the same although it is different in some respects.

I still have enough of a Congressman in me to realize, and be ready to admit, that there are many important programs in terms of national interest that have begun through congressional initiative and leadership rather than leadership downtown, and I think that this program is one of those. I was not in Congress when it began, but I think that some of the gentlemen in the room today, former Senator Clair Engle, and the President himself as a Senator, as well other Senators were the earlier supporters of this program. This, really, from the beginning, has been a congressional program, one that the congressional committees have taken a particular fatherly interest in, and have followed it very closely. And quite to the contrary, instead of criticizing this committee I would be one who would point out that special recognition is deserved. This is an instance where Congress felt that action was necessary and pioneered a program. We come back from time to time to have the program reviewed. It is reviewed annually by the Appropriations Committee. I think that this type of close scrutiny and interest has helped the program over the years. I want to make that point here this morning.