Mr. HOLIFIELD. The MWD may eventually put in about $127 million. That is about 32 percent. The private power utilities in southern California will put in about $213 million. That is a total of about $340 million that may be put up by non-Federal sources.

Mr. HALL. That is very interesting information, and I appreciate it. I do not believe that is stated in the report or, at least, I could not find it, about the private power utilities of souhern California participating to the extent of over $200 million.

I.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I may say that as to that breakdown, our report does not carry all those figures, but I will place them in the RECORD. They are also in our hearing record. In the figures I have given you here it shows that the nonFederal capital costs actually total about $340 million, which is about 85 percent capital cost this is an estimate, because of the total cost. As to the total Federal I am not sure just exactly what the Department of Interior's portion will be. but the plans call for a total Federal capital contribution of $60.7 million, including AEC's $15 million.

Project capital cost estimate without power transmission costs 1 [Dollar amounts in millions]

Total project....

1 Power transmission costs are $13,800,000. Excludes $11,500,000 being requested by Interior in support of operating and maintenance costs during initial operation of phases I and II.

Mr. HALL. It says in paragraph 6 on page 5 of the report that it will eventually be $57.2 million which will go to the cost of building, operating, and maintaining the desalting plant and related equipment.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. This plant would be built in two phases and it is an interesting part of this development. We are deliberately doing that for the purpose of allowing the first phase of the plant to proceed on an experimental operating basis for a few years. Then when we construct the second phase of the desalting plant, which I am talking about now, we hope to put into the design of that second phase waterplant all of the technological know-how that we were able to develop in the design, construction and early operation of the first phase. This can be done without any damage to the technological goals that we are seeking.

Mr. HALL. Is there "fallout" to the participating private companies as well as to the MWD of power generated by the nuclear plants or steam or other sources of energy in addition to the crystal clear desalinized water?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. The electric utilities will have put in about $213 million and for that they get the electricity. The desalting plant will take off the steam after the steam goes through the turbine, and use it in a secondary way for desalting water. It is estimated the plant will eventually produce 150 million gallons of desalted water each day, and that is quite a bit of water. Moreover, the desalted water would be mixed with the regular water we are getting from the Colorado River and thus reduce the

hardness of that water. The salts and other mineral content is becoming higher in the Colorado River water as that water becomes lower in volume.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, in summary, if the gentleman will yield further, of $15 million authorized herein, it is really for the benefit which can accrue from this saline program and much more is going to benefit in the nature of fallout of power and fallout of water for the MWD and for the private utilities and others that are participating.

And, he feels that there is a beneficial ratio for the Government and for the Atomic Energy Commission and from what we may learn therefrom?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I believe this very sincerely and our entire committee believes that from the standpoint of research and development we are getting a real bargain by having about 85 percent of the capital costs of this large project come from non-Federal

sources.

And, Mr. Speaker, the data from this plant are not only going to be available for use in desalting sea water and brackish water, but also in connection with waste-water recovery.

So, I do foresee a utilization of this technology in many places inside the interior of the United States with refer ence to our various large metropolitan areas and cities, as well as on the seacoasts. Of course, seacoast areas are arid in a number of places in the world.

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this technology is going to represent a blessing, if it turns out the way in which the scientists believe it will.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the gentleman from California [Mr. HOLIFIELD] will admit-with no pun intended that the "fallout" would be considerable for the MWD's; is that not true?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I would admit it produces is much more expensive than only in this way: that the water this plant the water they will obtain in the next few years, at least. So, they are also contributing considerable in the form of paying more for the desalted water, but they are looking forward to future plants where they may get the water as cheaply as they could from other sources.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. HOSMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come and the time for a large-scale, combination nuclear powerdesalting project has come.

Mr. Speaker, if we do not make the investment in this undertaking then, certainly, the United States of America cannot afford to refrain from participating if this idea is placed into realization at some other place in the world. It will undoubtedly be less expensive doing here and now, under the terms of the bill pending before us. As the record shows about $85 out of every $100 for this project will come from a unique combination of private and public organizations in the State of California, including the Southern California Edison Co. the San Diego Gas & Electric Co., the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

The $85 out of every $100 that are involved will build a desalting plant, the site, and the two gigantic nuclear reactors that are part of this project.

It is indeed a remarkable exhibition of cooperation not only between the utilities that I have mentioned, but also among the Office of Saline Water of the De

partment of the Interior, the Atomic Energy Commission and, indeed, the committees of Congress that take cognizance of these matters-the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy and the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

There are only a few other points I wish to add to Chairman HOLIFIELD'S statement. Some people have questioned whether it is necessary for us to proceed now with this large-scale desalting dem onstration plant. We must remember that this plant would not be in full ca pacity operation until the late 1970's Data from the complete 150-million-gallon-per-day facility would therefore not be available until the end of the next decade. History has shown that planning for large-scale water needs must be carried out about 20 years in advance. We should therefore be planning now for the 1980's, and I believe it is very im portant that we obtain reliable data on desalting applications as soon as pos sible to assist us in making the most in

ned judgments concerning means of sfying our burgeoning water needs. The AEC assistance authorized by S. 7 would not pertain to the developht, design, construction, operation or ntenance of the nuclear-power plants nselves. The plants to supply power this project are expected to be comcially available light-water reactors. at we are attempting to develop here formation concerning the use of nur power other than for the generaF. of electric energy alone. This innation is vitally needed in order to us realize the full benefits of the ceful atom. In particular we are insted in establishing, through the conction and operation of a large-scale lity, the use of nuclear power to proe two marketable products-in this fresh water and electricity. in area in which the AEC will proassistance for this project pertains the coupling of the nuclear-power its to the desalting plant. We must in firm information on the problems ch are encountered in this coupling, the implications from the standpoint eactor and desalting plant design, as as control systems.

he siting problems associated with facility constitute another major of AEC's support. It is anticipated t this facility would be built on a made island located off the southern ifornia coast. There are a number of olems associated with this siting cont which must be investigated, and answers derived from this project ld be applicable to reactors used for uriety of purposes, including desalting lications. The Atomic Energy Comsion has maintained a strong prommatic interest in the problems of ctor siting for many years, and this ject will contribute materially to an erstanding of the measures which are essary to resolve these problems. Ir. Speaker, I urge the passage of this slation.

Mr. HOSMER asked and was given mission to revise and extend his rerks).

Mr. BATES asked and was given persion to extend his remarks at this nt in the RECORD.)

ir. BATES. Mr. Speaker, I strongly or enactment of S. 3807. It is vitally ortant that we act now to obtain the essary data which will enable us to ide which methods of water resource

elopment should be pursued to satisfy ever-increasing demands.

am fully aware that desalting is not anacea. However, for many parts of country it offers tremendous possities for developing a new water source. · have learned from past experience It there is no substitute for actual exience in determining the true costs a process and the technical problems t may be encountered. Paper studies laboratory tests are necessary but y are only a part of the job. To obconcrete technical information on ge-scale nuclear desalting applications

we must build demonstration plants. One of the pioneering nuclear plants for producing electric energy-the Yankee Plant was built at Rowe in my own State of Massachusetts. Data obtained from this plant helped to spark the tremendous upsurge in orders for nuclearpower plants which we have seen in the last 18 months. Without the Yankee Plant and others like it this achievement could not have been made.

I believe that the plant we are considering today might well provide the same kind of basic information for a new technology. This plant could be the forerunner of many similar facilities which ultimately will solve a problem that has fascinated thinking men since the beginning of civilization-how to secure fresh water from the sea.

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my support for this bill and urge the House to pass it today.

Bingham

Boland

Green, Pa.

Bolton

Greigg

Bow

Grover

Brademas

Gubser

Hagan, Ga.

Belcher

Bennett

Berry
Betts

Boggs

Bray Brooks Broomfield

Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 17558. It is entirely appropriate that the Federal Government, through the Atomic Energy Commission, and through the saline-water project of the Department of the Interior, should play a major role in the development and construction of the dual-purpose electrical power generating Broyhill, N.C. and sea water desalting plant in cooperation with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

It is anticipated that this plant will be able to produce 1,600 megawatts of electrical power and 150 million gallons a day of desalted water. The water at the plant is estimated to cost 21.9 cents per 1,000 gallons and about 27 cents per 1,000 gallons delivered to the metropolitan water district system.

In view of the acute need in New York City of additional water supplies, as well as for additional electrical power, I hope that the agencies concerned will promptly give consideration to a comparable development in the New York City area. Of course, one of the great benefits of such a plant would be that it would produce water and power without contributing to New York's severe air pollution problem.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. PRICE). The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Califòrnia [Mr. HOLIFIELD] that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill S. 3807.

The question was taken, and the Speaker pro tempore announced that two-thirds appeared to have voted in

favor thereof.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present, and I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.

The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll. The question was taken; and there were yeas 316, nays 1, not voting 115, as follows:

Brown, Clarence J., Jr.

Buchanan Burke Burleson Burton, Calif. Burton, Utah Byrne, Pa. Cahill Callan Cameron Carey Carter

Chelf Clancy Clark Clausen,

Cederberg

Celler

Holifield

Chamberlain

Holland

Horton

Hosmer

Reid, N.Y.

Howard Hull Hungate Huot

Reifel

Reuss

Rhodes, Ariz.

Hutchinson

Rivers, S.C.

Ichord

Irwin

Rivers, Alaska Roberts

Don H. Clawson, Del Cleveland

Clevenger

Cohelan Collier

Colmer

Conyers
Cramer
Culver

Cunningham
Curtin
Curtis
Dague
Daniels
Davis, Wis.
Dawson
de la Garza
Delaney
Dent

Denton
Devine
Dingell
Dole
Donohue
Dorn
Dow

Downing

Dulski

Joelson

Robison

Rodino

Rogers, Colo.

Rogers, Fla.

Selden

Shipley

Shriver

Sickles

Sikes

Smith, N.Y.

Smith, Va.

So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.

The Clerk announced the following pairs:

Mr. Albert with Mr. Byrnes of Wisconsin. Mr. Hébert with Mr. Gross,

Mr. Keogh with Mr. Bell.

Mr. O'Neill of Massachusetts with Mr. Morse of Massachusetts.

Mr. Leggett with Mr. Reinecke.

Mr. Blatnik with Mr. Edwards of Alabama. Mr. Jones of North Carolina with Mr. Callaway.

Mr. Nedzi with Mr. Goodell.

Mr. Tuck with Mr. Broyhill of Virginia.
Mr. Sweeney with Mr. King of New York.
Mr. McDowell with Mr. Pirnie.

Mr. Aspinall with Mr. Martin of Massachu

setts.

Mr. Cabell with Mr. Corbett.

Mr. Daddario with Mr. Derwinski.
Mr. Davis of Georgia with Mr. Mailliard.
Mr. Watts with Mr. Harvey of Michigan.
Mr. Whitten with Mr. Gurney.

Mr. Wright with Mr. Fino.

Mr. Morris with Mr. Brock.

Mr. Mackie with Mr. Walker of Mississippi.

Mr. Evans of Colorado with Mr. Michel.
Mr. Dyal with Mr. Stephens.
Mr. Moeller with Mr. Halpern.
Mrs. Mink with Mr. O'Konski.
Mr. Cooley with Mr. Martin of Nebraska.
Mr. Brown of California with Mr. Quie.
Mr. Monagan with Mr. McClory.
Mrs. Thomas with Mr. Kupferman.
Mr. Schisler with Mr. Dickinson.

Mr. Stalbaum w... Glenn Andrews.
Mr. Bandstra with Mr. Martin of Alabama.
Mr. Sick with Mr. Harvey of Indiana.

Mr. Todd with Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma.
Mr. Udall with Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. King of Utah with Mr. Senner.
Mr. Vivian with Mr. Van Deerl.n.
Mr. Fulton of Tennessee with K
Mrs. Grifiths with Mr. Purcell.
Mr. Pepper with Mr. Wolf.
Mr. Fraser with Mr. Corman,
Mr. Fisher with Mr. Casey.
Mr. McCarthy with Mr. Craley,
Mr. Giaimo with Mr. Powell.
Mr. Hanna with Mr. Hansen, of Ior
Mr. Grider with Mr. Olsen o. Moatin
Mr. Race with Mr. Diggs.

Mr. Flood with Mr. Gallagher.

Mr. Charles H. Wilson with Mr. Doadr Mr. Thompson of New Jersey with Mr. S Millan.

Mr. Tunney with Mr. Duncan of Oreg
Mr. Walker of New Mexico with Mr. F

ley.

Mr. Resnick with Mr. Weltner.

Mr. Yates with Mr. Morrison.
Mr. Rogers of Texas with Mr. Ronesia
Mr. Scott with Mr. Toll.

The result of the vote was annout as above recorded.

The doors were opened.

A motion to reconsider was laid on table.

A similar House bill (H.R. 17953) 2 laid on the table.

GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTIND

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, IA unanimous consent that all Mam have 5 legislative days in which t tend their remarks on the bi passed.

The SPEAKER pro tempore 2 PRICE). Is there objection to the quest of the gentleman from Califon There was no objection.

24074

S. 3807. An act to amend Public Law 89428 to authorize the Atomic Energy Commission to enter into a cooperative arrangement for a large-scale combination nuclear powerdesalting project, and appropriations therefor, in accordance with section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

October 4, 1