NOTE: External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.
| The State Department web site below is a permanent electronic archive of information released prior to January 20, 2001. Please see www.state.gov for material released since President George W. Bush took office on that date. This site is not updated so external links may no longer function. Contact us with any questions about finding information. NOTE: External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein. |
Water for Peace
130. Editorial Note In 1963 the Kennedy administration began negotiations on a proposal for the peaceful use of nuclear energy to fuel desalination plants in regions lacking fresh drinking water. Under the aegis of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United States and 10 other nations, including Israel and Tunisia, met twice to discuss the proposal. (Circular telegram 1474, February 11, 1964; National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1964-66, AE 6) President Johnson signaled his strong interest in the project and his belief that science would play an increasingly central role in international affairs on February 6, 1964, in a speech delivered at the 18th annual dinner of the Weizmann Institute of Science in New York. The President announced that the United States and Israel had begun negotiations "on cooperative research in using nuclear energy to turn salt water into fresh water." He acknowledged the technical difficulties inherent in the problem, but noted that "the opportunities are so vast and the stakes are so high that it is worth all of our efforts and worth all of our energy, for water means life, and water means opportunity, and water means prosperity for those who never knew the meaning of those words. Water can banish hunger and can reclaim the desert and change the course of history." Johnson also said that the United States was equally ready to cooperate through the IAEA with other countries anxious to cure water shortages. (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1963-64, Book I, pages 270-272) The Soviet Union was one of the first nations to express interest in working with the United States on desalination. On April 30 McGeorge Bundy wrote the President acknowledging that there might be opposition to cooperation in such a sensitive area, but that "our judgment is that this one can be handled in such a way that in this case the criticism should be manageable. We are not dealing with highly classified materials, and the object is one of cooperation in which with any luck both sides would gain." (Memorandum to the President, April 30; Johnson Library, National Security File, Memos to the President, McGeorge Bundy, Box 1) Correspondence between Johnson and Soviet Chairman Nikita Khrushchev on this issue is in Foreign Relations, 1964-1968, Volume XI, Documents 22-24 and 26. Planning for the desalination project with Israel proceeded. In a toast on June 1, during Prime Minister Eshkol's visit to Washington, President Johnson said: "Mr. Prime Minister, you told me only this morning that water was blood for Israel. So we shall make a joint attack on Israel's water shortage through the highly promising technique of desalting. Indeed, let us hope that this technique will bring benefit to all of the peoples of the parched Middle East." (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1963-64, Book I, page 732)
131. Memorandum From the President's Special Assistant for National Security Affairs (Bundy) to President Johnson/1/ Washington, June 22, 1964. /1/Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Memos to the President, McGeorge Bundy, 6/1/64-2/9/65, Vols. 5-8. Secret. The Soviet Government agreed today to our proposal that, as an initial step in exploring the possibility of U.S.-Soviet cooperation on methods of desalting sea water, a meeting of U.S. and Soviet representatives should be held in Washington on 14-15 July. The Soviets proposed that both countries concurrently release statements announcing the meeting at noon tomorrow. We have asked that the release would be advanced to 10:30 a.m. tomorrow for your press conference and will assume this is acceptable unless we hear to the contrary from the Soviets./2/ Ambassador Dobrynin has been shown the attached draft press release and has promised to give Ambassador Thompson a copy of their release this evening./3/ /2/Johnson announced the agreement at his June 23 press conference. (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1963-64, Book I, p. 804) /3/Not printed. The proposal for scientific cooperation on desalting was originally made by Premier Khruschev in one of his oral messages dealing with the nuclear cutback./4/ You indicated interest in the proposal and the Soviets have pursued the idea vigorously, emphasizing the use of nuclear power as the source of energy. /4/Khrushchev made the proposal in a February 28 message to the President; see Foreign Relations, 1964-1968, vol. XI, Document 15. It is not yet clear whether the Soviets are really interested in desalting which is a serious technical problem quite aside from nuclear power or whether their real interest lies either in the possibility of technical discussions on large nuclear reactors or of simply associating themselves with us in this activity which they may feel has far reaching significance in certain areas of the world such as the Near East. In the latter connection, you should recall that we have recently entered into a cooperative agreement with Israel and that we have a continuing program with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)./5/ It is intended that this preliminary meeting will help clarify these questions and provide a basis for deciding how far we can go with the Soviets in a cooperative enterprise without jeopardizing our other commitments in this area. /5/See Document 130. Finally, there is a problem of internal U.S. Government organization on the desalting problem. Technically, desalting is the responsibility of the Department of Interior; however, the Atomic Energy Commission has the responsibility for the development of nuclear reactors that would probably be used in any very large scale projects and has the technical manpower and funds that would be required to pursue this project on a large scale. In order to coordinate the activities of these agencies, it was decided to make Dr. Hornig the responsible officer for this activity and he has agreed to serve as Chairman of the U.S. delegation to the preliminary meeting. This procedure and the attached press release have been agreed to by Dr. Hornig, Dr. Seaborg, and Secretary Udall./6/ /6/The U.S. representatives were Hornig, Kenneth Holum (Interior), Seaborg (AEC), James Ramey (AEC), John Calhoun (Interior), Ragnar Rollefson (State), and C.F. MacGowan (Interior). (White House Press Release, July 16; National Archives and Records Administration, RG 359, Office of Science and Technology, OST Administrative History, E--Water Resources) McGeorge Bundy/7/ /7/Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature.
132. Memorandum From the President's Special Assistant for Science and Technology (Hornig) to President Johnson/1/ Washington, July 9, 1964. /1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 359, Office of Science and Technology, OST Administrative History, Volume II--Documentary Supplement, Box 5, E--Water Resources. No classification marking. Next Tuesday/2/ I shall begin discussions with the Russians to explore the possibility of cooperation in the development of means for the large scale desalting of water. /2/July 10. I am anxious, before these talks begin, to discuss the desalting problem with you in order a) to reflect your attitude in the talks and b) to apprise you of problems in our domestic program and to propose that we commit ourselves firmly to an orderly program aimed at large scale desalting. The present situation, in a nut shell, is this: 1. The interagency study carried out under the leadership of my office concluded that using very large, dual-purpose, nuclear heat sources, fresh water could be produced from sea water at selected sites at a cost which makes it competitive for municipal and industrial (but not general irrigation) purposes./3/ It was estimated that such plants could be in operation by 1975-1980. /3/In March 1964 a special task group under the leadership of an OST consultant, Dr. Roger Revelle, Dean of Research at the University of California, completed an extensive desalination study. The group concluded that if better methods of distillation could be developed, the heat produced by large nuclear reactors could be used to cost-effectively desalt sea water by the late 1970s, but that it would be cost-prohibitive for agricultural use. (An Assessment of Large Nuclear Powered Sea Water Distillation Plants; a Report of an Interagency Task Group, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1964) 2. The plant envisaged would produce about 500 million gallons per day. The largest distillation plant we have yet built produces somewhat more than one million gallons per day. Therefore, a large research and development effort on distillation technology is needed before success can be achieved. 3. The plants envisaged would require nuclear reactors some 3 times bigger than we have yet built. Reactor technology is therefore relatively more advanced than distillation technology. 4. At the present time the Office of Saline Water in Interior has a research and development budget of about $10 million per year and is moving methodically forward but has no systematic development plans aimed at large scale desalting plants. The situation about which I am concerned is that on the basis of the favorable prognosis by our report we have offered to share our technology internationally, and in particular have committed ourselves to cooperation with Israel. We are about to enter discussions with the Soviet Union. Yet, we have no clear internal commitment to proceed down the road toward large scale desalting plants. I urge, therefore, that in general terms we do commit ourselves to such a development and that the AEC and Department of the Interior be instructed to prepare an imaginative plan to do so. I shall be glad to play whatever role you desire. Don Hornig/4/ /4/Printed from a copy that indicates Hornig signed the original.
133. Memorandum for the Record/1/ Washington, July 9, 1964. /1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 359, Office of Science and Technology, OST Administrative History, Volume II--Documentary Supplement, E--Water Resources, Box 5. No classification marking. Conversation with the President, July 9 (45 minutes) [Here follows 4 paragraphs unrelated to desalination.] 5. I briefed him on the desalting situation along the lines of my memorandum,/2/ emphasizing that we were building up a climate of expectation in the world without a matching program to achieve it. Following my memorandum, he directed that I get together with Kermit Gordon to draw up a directive to be signed either by him or Gordon instructing the AEC and the Department of the Interior to draw up a bold and imaginative plan for a development program leading to large-scale desalting units immediately and for inclusion in the fall budget./3/ He was appalled at the small budget at the present time and suggested that if more could be done right away that I discuss with Gordon the possibility of diverting some AID money to the desalting program. He suggested that if there was a problem in coordinating AEC and Interior that we might assume that responsibility. I said that Gordon and I would discuss the organizational questions. /2/Document 132. /3/A copy of the July 15 letter, signed by Gordon, is in the Department of Energy, Archives, Records of the Atomic Energy Commission, Secretariat Files, Box 1416, Folder 1. Seaborg and Udall submitted their final report to the President on September 22. It included: "The program is designed to advance the technology of water desalting so that within the next decade this developing technique will be a significant factor in meeting municipal and industrial requirements for high-quality water on a local and regional basis, both in the United States and abroad." (Ibid.) 6. He agreed that in view of the magnitude of the expectations and commitments we made that numbers like 50 or 100 million dollars were not out of the question. He said that this is just as important as space, and we should be prepared to do whatever is necessary. 7. As regards the Russian discussions,/4/ he expressed dismay that we might have nothing to offer; I assured him that despite my worries about our pace, we probably were more advanced than the Russians but that in fact we knew very little about their position. I inquired about his general attitude, and he said he wanted to go all out for cooperation and maximum progress on behalf of the whole world. I should make every effort to reach an understanding with them and get a program moving. Subsequent to our meeting, he called me back and we had a brief discussion with Kermit Gordon at which he repeated the points about AEC and Interior and asked Gordon to get together with me to implement this as soon as possible. He then called in Walter Heller and we talked briefly about the Energy Study and he volunteered to help us get MacDonald from Texas if necessary. /4/Negotiations with the Soviet Union were scheduled for July 14-16. A later history of the Office of Science and Technology noted that talks paved the way for a formal intergovernmental agreement for cooperation. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 359, Office of Science and Technology, OST Administrative History, E--Water Resources and F--Water Desalting) Donald F. Hornig/5/ /5/Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature.
134. Memorandum of Conversation/1/ Washington, November 2, 1964. /1/Source: Department of State, SCI Files: Lot 71 D 483. Unclassified. Drafted by Pollack and cleared by Jernegan. SUBJECT PARTICIPANTS Commissioner Ramey, AEC Mr. Feldman announced that he had called a meeting in his office to coordinate the various actions taking place domestically and internationally regarding desalination. At a later point in the meeting he stated that he envisaged desalination becoming one of the planks of President Johnson's "Great Society" program and that he was seeking the basis for a major Presidential message on this subject next spring. The discussion ranged over many aspects of desalination. It revealed that the desalination budget for Fiscal Year 1966 was entirely for research and development--Interior's plans called for $33 million and AEC's for $11 million. It was pointed out that although the Israelis were interested in having the desalination reactor based on the heavy water technique, both AEC and Interior were proceeding with a pressurized water reactor. Commissioner Ramey pointed out that the heavy water reactor would not be economically efficient unless an output of approximately three hundred million gallons a day was anticipated. Moreover, U.S. technology in the heavy water reactor is not yet developed. There was some discussion of the problems inherent in attempting to extrapolate by a factor of 100 the current desalination technique. Extrapolations by a factor of four to five are much more customary and there seems to be general agreement that the next step upward should be a prototype plant capable of producing ten to fifteen million gallons a day. In response to Mr. Feldman's query about the nature of contemplated U.S. contributions to the Israeli project,/2/ both Mr. Holum and Mr. Ramey indicated that their agencies intended to follow a hard-headed business approach of relating their financial investment in the Israeli project to the technological information the U.S. might derive from the project. It was agreed that U.S. financial assistance to the Israelis on this project was a political question and should be approached as such. Commissioner Ramey reported that a joint U.S.-Mexico effort was in the offing and that discussions would begin when the new Administration in Mexico had settled into office. Technical discussions would also get under way with Egypt very shortly./3/ /2/On October 14 the United States and Israel signed a memorandum of understanding outlining the terms under which they would conduct a detailed feasibility study of a large-scale desalination plant in Israel. For text, see Department of State Bulletin, November 16, 1964, pp. 724-726. /3/Documentation on U.S.-Mexican desalting agreements are scheduled for publication in Foreign Relations, 1964-1968, volume XXXI. A copy of the U.S.-UAR desalting cooperation agreement, June 1, 1965, is in the Johnson Library, National Security File, Charles E. Johnson Files, Nuclear Desalting of Water (Nuclear Power), 3 of 3. Mr. Gordon made clear that neither the engineering firm about to be employed on the Israeli project nor the Joint Board being established to supervise engineering activities should discuss U.S. financial assistance to the Israeli Government. Mr. Feldman stated that there was apparently a need for coordination of the several governmental interests in desalination both on a technical and on a policy level. Mr. Pollack reported on a pending proposal for the State Department to establish an inter-Departmental Committee to develop policy governing U.S. participation in international desalination projects including the nature of the financial arrangements. Mr. Feldman stated that he thought it was a good idea to proceed simultaneously at the engineering and the policy level and asked Mr. Pollack to send him some information on the contemplated Committee. He also suggested that Treasury should possibly be included on the Committee.
135. Editorial Note On November 18, 1964, the United States and the Soviet Union concluded an agreement on desalination research and technology cooperation. The final agreement was signed in Moscow by Hornig and Ambassador Foy Kohler for the United States. The 2-year agreement called for the exchange of technical information, holding of technical symposia and meetings, and reciprocal visits by desalting experts on an unscheduled basis. (Department of State Bulletin, December 7, 1964, pages 828-829)
136. Letter From Secretary of State Rusk to the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (Seaborg)/1/ Washington, December 9, 1964. /1/Source: Department of Energy, Archives, Records of the Atomic Energy Commission, Secretariat Files, RD-1 Desalination Program. No classification marking. According to a December 10 memorandum from Pollack to Komer, Rusk sent an identical letter to the Department of the Interior and letters excluding the second paragraph to AID, Bureau of the Budget, and OST. (Department of State, SCI Files: Lot 67 D 132) The State Department position on this issue is discussed in a memorandum from Kretzmann to Llewellyn Thompson plus enclosures, October 28, ibid.: Lot 78 D 483. Dear Glenn: It is becoming abundantly clear that foreign interest in U.S. desalting technology is going to mount rapidly in the months ahead as a result of the current discussions with the Government of Israel and of the rapid development of U.S. technical capacity in this field. Similarly, arrangements for U.S. collaboration or assistance in projects abroad will become increasingly frequent. In order to assure that the foreign relationships arising out of the desalting program are consonant with other foreign programs and policies of the U.S., it is requested that no financial or other commitment involving other countries be entered into without prior consultation with and the approval of the Department of State./2/ /2/The fact that this paragraph was sent only to Interior and the AEC reflects Secretary Rusk's desire to assert the State Department's role in this issue. On December 28 Seaborg and Secretary of the Interior Udall agreed that the AEC would "play a more primary role" in implementing the agreement because of that agency's pre-existing relationship with the designated Soviet partner. (Journal of Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1961-1971, Vol. 9, p. 554) Udall and Seaborg made this arrangement official through an exchange of letters dated January 11-12, 1965. (Department of Energy, Archives, Records of the Atomic Energy Commission, Secretariat Files, Folder 2, RD-1 Desalination Program) Llewellyn Thompson reminded Seaborg in a February 25 letter that the NSC had directed State to implement any exchange programs, but he assured Seaborg that the Department did not anticipate difficulties "with any division that you and Secretary Udall might work out." (Ibid.) In order to facilitate the provision of guidance on this subject, I am establishing a Committee on Foreign Desalting Programs at the Assistant Secretary level. I have asked the Director of International Scientific Affairs to serve as Chairman. The Department of State will also be represented by the Regional Bureau Assistant Secretaries as appropriate to the agenda. The Agency for International Development, the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of the Budget, and the Office of Science and Technology are being invited to join the Committee. I would also be pleased to have you designate a representative of the Atomic Energy Commission to serve on the Committee. The Committee will (1) maintain continuing surveillance over the status of foreign desalting programs contemplating or using U.S. technical or other assistance; (2) develop recommendations for policies and guidelines to govern U.S. participation in such programs; (3) map and coordinate the financial and other relationships with specific countries with whom the U.S. is collaborating on desalting programs. The Committee's deliberations will, of course, be in accord with the political guidance respecting country relationships provided by the geographic bureaus of the Department of State. As we acquire experience in dealing with desalination programs abroad, it may be expected that new or amended institutional arrangements will become desirable. Should the need for this become apparent in the first instance to the Atomic Energy Commission, please let me know. With warm regards,
137. Information Memorandum From the Acting Director of the Office of International Scientific Affairs (Pollack) to Secretary of State Rusk/1/ Washington, May 18, 1965. /1/Source: Department of State, SCI Files: Lot 71 D 483. Limited Official Use. Drafted by William C. Salmon (SCI). Copies were sent to George Ball, Thomas Mann, Llewellyn Thompson, and William Crockett. SUBJECT On December 9, 1964 you established the interagency Committee on Foreign Desalting Programs, chaired by SCI for the Department of State./2/ Other members are the Department of the Interior, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Bureau of the Budget, the Office of Science and Technology and AID. /2/See Document 136. The Committee has brought the rapidly developing Israeli program under a reasonable degree of foreign policy guidance and coordination, which was the Department's initial objective. In addition, the Committee, averaging monthly meetings, has usefully served to: bring to a common focus the interests of the member agencies in cooperative desalting programs with other countries; initiate policy guidelines to serve as the basis for consistency in these programs; establish effective procedures for interagency communication and coordination. Cooperation with Israel is now well into a jointly financed detailed engineering and economic feasibility study under contract to Kaiser Engineers, Inc. The first phase of the report, due June 15, 1965, will identify the size of the most-favorable plant. The final report, due in October, 1965, will include detailed cost data. Financing of the proposed plant is being studied intensively by the Committee. Pending the conclusion of the feasibility study, we have instructed U.S. officials not to speculate on U.S. financial participation in the plant. (See Deptel 1029 to Amembassy Tel Aviv--attached/3/). /3/Not attached. Telegram 1029 to Tel Aviv is dated April 9. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1964-66, ORG 7 NEA) Cooperation with Other Countries is expanding at a faster rate than is generally appreciated. Technical reports have been exchanged pursuant to our desalting agreement with the U.S.S.R. of November 18, 1964 and visits of technical experts are proposed for this calendar year. A three-man team, representing AEC and Interior, visited the U.A.R. at its request this past December to advise local water authorities on current desalting technology and on a proposed nuclear fueled power-desalting facility. The group also visited Tunisia for similar discussions. Water authority personnel from Greece and Italy have visited U.S. desalting and nuclear facilities. U.S. experts have consulted recently with officials in Athens on a proposed large-scale desalting plant for that city. Interior's Office of Saline Water has agreed to provide technical advice to Spain regarding a plant for Grand Canary Island. Under IAEA sponsorship Mexico and the U.S. plan a preliminary feasibility study this Fall of a large-scale dual purpose plant located at the northern tip of the Gulf of California. Electricity and water from this plant would be used by both countries. Government officials of Peru, Senegal and Yugoslavia have discussed desalting technology with U.S. Embassy officials and technical reports have been provided to assist their studies. The Office of Saline Water routinely sends its technical reports to 55 countries. We anticipate that the Department of the Interior-sponsored First International Symposium on Desalination, to be held in Washington October 3-9, 1965, will develop awareness throughout the world of desalting possibilities and stimulate additional interest in many countries for cooperation with the U.S. in this field. Fifty-three countries and six international organizations have indicated their intention to send representatives. The technology of economical desalting is not much beyond its infancy. The largest desalting plant now in operation produces 1.7 million gallons per day (mgd). There is now in the detailed design phase a plant intended to produce 50 mgd. The Israeli project relates to a plant intended to produce 120 mgd to go into operation in 1970-71. The ability to produce this much water at an economical price is dependent on technology under development but not now on hand. The U.S. investment in desalination research and development is in the process of being doubled. We are being responsive to the repeated offers of the President to share our knowledge in this field with the nations of the world. At the same time, we are attempting to ensure that the utility and economy of present day desalting technology is not oversold and that desalting is kept in proper juxtaposition by interested countries with other possible solutions to their water problems./4/ /4/In a June 19 memorandum to Rusk, Pollack repeated his concerns: "Other countries are seeking solutions to water problems through desalination because it is being highly advertised (and because it is being increasingly related to nuclear energy sources which have separate attractions) when a properly conducted water resources survey might reveal far simpler, cheaper and more effective answers." (Department of State, SCI Files: Lot 68 D 152)
138. Memorandum From the President's Special Assistant (Johnson) to the President's Special Assistant for National Security Affairs (Bundy)/1/ Washington, August 30, 1965. /1/Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Charles E. Johnson Files, Nuclear Desalting of Water (Nuclear Power), 3 of 3. Confidential. Mac-- It looks as though AEC and Interior may press for a major program decision so that the U.S. Government may have a foreign aid "spectacular" to announce at the Desalination Symposium in October. Ramey and Holum believe that the President is somehow committed to making some sort of an announcement of a new development initiative at that time and they are talking about a possible soft loan and grant program of $300 million to assist in the construction of large-scale combination nuclear power and desalting installations abroad. The Bureau of the Budget doubts the need for any further initiative at this time and Dr. Hornig told Keeny last week that the only directive the President has laid on Interior and AEC is to use the $200 million appropriation to develop desalting technology to the point where it is practical. Hornig feels that the present U.S. R&D program should furnish ample material for discussion at the October Symposium and believes that anything more would be premature. There is an element of uncertainty in the picture due to the pressure that will build up this fall to get the U.S. committed to a substantial contribution to the Israeli plant. There has even been some talk in Interior and AEC that the U.S. should make up its mind on the Israeli project in time for an announcement at the October Symposium. Such an announcement would then be considered as precedent-making in terms of U.S. willingness to underwrite similar projects in other countries. I believe that the efforts of OST and BOB will be successful in keeping this matter under control but there is always the possibility of an end run. It seems that desalting has a mystique of its own and somehow an impression has been given around town that the President is personally committed to a major program of assistance abroad. It is for this reason that I bring the above to your attention. I will also send a copy of this memorandum to Bob Komer and will keep him filled in on the Israeli developments as they occur in the desalting community./2/ /2/Bundy wrote "OK" in the left margin next to this sentence. CEJ
139. Information Memorandum From the Acting Director of the Office of International Scientific and Technological Affairs (Joyce) to Secretary of State Rusk/1/ Washington, September 3, 1965. /1/Source: Department of State, SCI Files: Lot 68 D 152. Limited Official Use. Drafted by Joseph Rosa (SCI), William Salmon (SCI), and Pollack; and cleared by Richard Cooper (E) and John Wilkes (AID). Copies were sent to Ball, Mann, and Thompson. SUBJECT Background: The President has repeatedly expressed his deep personal interest in desalting and on several occasions he has offered to share U.S. knowledge and technology with other countries (Tab A)./2/ The First International Symposium on Desalting, to be held October 3-9, 1965 in Washington, had its genesis in part in the Presidential interest in desalting (Tab B). It will provide yet another occasion for the President to address this subject, and especially its international cooperation aspects. The Committee on Foreign Desalting Programs (State, Interior, AEC, AID, OST and BOB), which you established in December 1964, has established a study group to consider what additional initiatives in international cooperation might be developed to give substance to the President's interest in this subject. /2/Tabs A and B are not printed. The Committee's study group developed several proposals ranging from an intensification of existing activities by AID, Interior and AEC under existing legislation to a large scale program (approximately $300 million for a five-year period) of grants and/or long-term low interest loans to cover capital costs of desalting plants./3/ /3/A copy of the committee's discussion paper is in the Johnson Library, National Security File, Charles E. Johnson Files, Nuclear Desalting of Water (Nuclear Power), 3 of 3. Discussion: All agencies participating in the Committee concurred in the desirability of intensifying present desalting activity. However, the Department of Interior and the AEC felt that such a program would not be sufficiently responsive to the intense Presidential interest in this subject and that considerations of national prestige justify a bold large scale international desalting program. They strongly advocate the $300 million program,/4/ contending that the large scale program will advance desalting technology by providing an industrial base and through encouraging construction, expand the activity and competitive position internationally of the U.S. desalting industry, and will enhance the U.S. image associated with efforts to improve man's living standards, particularly in countries deficient in fresh water. /4/A staff-level working group of the Committee on Desalting was unable to agree on a proposed program and, instead, presented three alternatives for the committee's consideration on August 23. The committee was also unable to reach a conclusion, and "the Departments of State and AID were unable to state their positions on the alternatives presented." (Memorandum from Ramey (AEC) and Holum (Interior) to Udall and Seaborg, August 26; Department of Energy, Archives, Records of the Atomic Energy Commission, Secretariat Files) The representatives on the Committee of State, AID, Bureau of the Budget and Dr. Hornig's office do not share the enthusiasm of Interior and AEC for the large scale program for the following reasons: 1. The technology of desalting requires more research and development before it can be employed economically for most industrial and domestic uses, and considerable additional progress will have to be made before desalted water will be economic for agricultural use. The intensive U.S. research effort authorized by the Saline Water Conversion Act of August 11, 1965 ($200 million over a five-year period) is barely under way. While the pace of research and technology development will undoubtedly be rapid, at this time a major international construction program would be premature and would give rise to expectations which the United States could not fulfill. 2. Because of the rapid development that is taking place in desalting technology, desalting plants constructed in the immediate years ahead may quickly become obsolete. 3. Since plants constructed under the large scale program are not likely to be economic, they will have to be heavily subsidized. In the case of developing countries, to the extent that the subsidy is not covered by U.S. assistance, such plants become a drain on the resources of these countries and this would have a negative effect on their economic development. 4. The research and development benefits to be derived from a large scale international program are likely to be small since prototypes will in most cases be constructed in the United States. Foreign plants will reflect improvements rather than basic changes in concept. 5. In light of existing water shortages in the United States and the lack of a Federal program for the support of plant construction in the United States, the Department and AID would find it difficult to justify to Congress at this time a large scale program of construction assistance in foreign countries. 6. Problems of nuclear weapons proliferation are posed by the large scale program which contemplates at least 2 large nuclear-powered dual purpose plants, one in Israel and one in Mexico. 7. Announcement of a $300 million program at the Symposium would prejudice our flexibility regarding the position we might want to take on the expected request for the construction of a $185 million dual purpose power-water plant in Israel. SCI is of the opinion that the most substantial argument developed by the proponents of the large scale program is that of advancing the national prestige of the United States. However, the technology of desalting, upon which a bid for national prestige would be made, is not yet in hand. Breakthroughs can be anticipated and major advances will undoubtedly be made. When these occur it may indeed be propitious to launch a major international program supported in part by United States resources to bring economic water to the parched areas of the earth. In the interim the United States is appropriately concentrating its efforts on research and the development of the necessary technology; in the international field it should cooperate with other countries extending them as much assistance as feasible under existing legislation. Current Status: Interior and AEC officials have developed a joint recommendation to the President, recommending adoption of a large scale program to be announced by the President in an address to the International Symposium on October 4. This recommendation is now being considered by Secretary Udall and Chairman Seaborg./5/ /5/In a September 13 memorandum for the file, Salmon recounted the history of the proposal: "Recently the Committee discussed three alternative courses of action; several problems were highlighted regarding the third alternative, a $300 million five-year foreign construction program. AEC and Interior agreed to develop a pro and con paper on the third alternative. Apparently, since the meeting, the pro and con paper developed into a proposal from AEC and Interior to the President urging that such a program be undertaken and announced on October 4. Mr. Pollack noted that BOB, OST, State, and AID representatives at the meeting expressed reservations about such a large-scale program at this time and did not believe the President should make such an announcement on October 4." (Department of State, SCI Files: Lot 68 D 152) In their September 10 proposal to the President, Udall and Seaborg wrote: "The program has been developed under the leadership of Assistant Secretary Holum and Commissioner Ramey in consultation with the Interdepartmental Committee on Foreign Desalting Programs. While the program we propose is consistent with one of the alternatives considered by the Interdepartmental Committee, it has not been reviewed with the principals from the agencies. We propose to do so immediately." (Johnson Library, National Security File, Subject File, Desalting Projects, Vol. 1) See also Document 140. Dr. Hornig's office is contemplating the convening of a meeting of principals shortly after Labor Day to discuss recommendations to the President on foreign desalting programs. The principals involved would probably be Secretary Udall, Chairman Seaborg, Dr. Hornig, Mr. David Bell, Mr. Charles Schultze, and either yourself or one of the Under Secretaries. SCI is developing appropriate remarks on the foreign policy aspects of desalting to be used by the President should he decide to address the International Symposium in October. Similar statements are being drafted at Interior, AEC and OST. [Continue with the next documents]
|
