11

waters which contain chemicals not susceptible to removal by conventional sewage treatment methods but susceptible to removal by desalting processes;

(d) the term "United States" extends to and includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico, and the Territories of Guam and the Virgin

Islands;

(e) the term "pilot plant" means an experimental unit of small size, usually less than 100,000 gpd capacity, used for early evaluation and development of new

or improved processes and to obtain technical and engineering data;

(f) the term "test bed" means an intermediatesized, experimental desalting plant of up to two million gallons per day capacity used for further evaluation and refinement of processes in the field and designed to facilitate the incorporation of experimental features for

performance testing and to permit process changes and improvements as required;

(g) the term "module" means a section or integral portion of a desalting plant which is used initially to study large-scale technology and critical design features

in preparation for subsequent prototype construction;

(h) the term "prototype" means a full-size, first-of

a-kind production plant used for the development, study,

12

and demonstration of full-sized technology, plant opera

1

2

tion, and process economics.

3

SEC. 9. This Act may be cited as the "Saline Water

4 Conversion Act of 1971."

Mr. HOSMER. Barring any objection, Mr. Chairman, are these two bills identical bills?

Mr. JOHNSON. No. H.R. 5333 would extend the program for fiscal year 1972. H.R. 5334 would extend the program of research and development

Mr. HOSMER. Is the second one the so-called Jackson bill?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I presume it would be called the AspinallJohnson bill in this committee, and the Jackson bill in the other body. I assume it is different on the record, but our bills are identical. Mr. ASPINALL. Will my colleague yield?

I might say that H.R. 5333 and H.R. 5503 are identical bills. H.R. 5334 is known as the Aspinall-Johnson and the Jackson bill. Mr. HOSMER. I don't want to get confused.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I want to state that I am not on either one of those bills.

I would like to place into the record the executive communication we received from the Assistant Secretary Mr. Smith, transmitting drafts H.R. 5333, H.R. 5503, and H.R. 7366, and the legislative report on H.R. 5334.

Do I hear objections?

Hearing none, so ordered.

(The executive communications on H.R. 5333, and H.R. 7366, and the legislative report on H.R. 5334 follow :)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., April 26, 1971.

Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, Wash'ngton, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN. This responds to your March 16, 1971, request for the views of this Department concerning H.R. 5334, a bill "To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to continue a program of research, development, and demonstration of processes for the conversion of saline and other chemically contaminated water for beneficial use and for the treatment of saline and other chemically contaminated waste water to maintain or improve the quality of natural waters, and for other purposes.

We support the general objectives of the bill, but recommend the enactment instead of the Administration's proposed "Saline Water Conversion Act of 1971," which we forwarded to the Speaker of the House under cover of a letter dated April 1, 1971, and which was introduced as H.R. 7366.

H.R. 5334 would continue the present saline water conversion program of the Office of Saline Water (OSW) for an add ́tional 5 years beyond the June 30, 1972, expiration date of its current authority, with an additional 3 years to complete projects in progress and to integrate desalting functions into other water resource programs of the Department of the Interior. In addition, H.R. 5334 would provide for preliminary work on prototype desalting plants for full-scale use of desalting technology.

A memorandum reviewing the main differences between H.R. 7366, the Administration proposal, and H.R. 5334 on a section-by-section basis is enclosed and our comments herein are limited to the more significant differences.

Present author ty to dispose of property acquired in the course of the desalting program is very limited. Broader authority to acquire and dispose of equipment and facilities is desirable and is provided for in section 4(e) of the Administration proposal.

Both H.R. 5334 and H.R. 7366 recognize that prototype plant construction is the next major phase of the saline water conversion program. We believe H.R. 7366 provides more satisfactorily for this development through its provision (section 5) that some other entity participate with OSW in construction and operation of such plants and that the Federal contribution not exceed 50 percent (and not extend past the first 3 years of operation) if the other participant is a

non-Federal agency. This recognizes that OSW's function is to carry out research and development of desalting processes rather than to supply water on a continuing basis. A significant financial interest on the part of some other entity would assure support for, and the feasibility of, such a plant and encourage better utilization of the facility. Establishing the 50 percent limit at the present time would clarify the basis for entering the prototype phase and limit the parameters of negotiation with participating agencies.

Throughout the life of the desalting program OSW has submitted periodic reports to the President and the Congress. It is considered desirable to continue this practice for their information and review. In its requirement (section 9) of such periodic reporting, the Administration bill differs from H.R. 5334.

H.R. 5334 provides for appropriations for fiscal years 1973-1977 with an additional 3 years to conclude projects in progress. At the end of this period, desalting functions would be integrated into other programs of the Department of the Interior. The Administration proposal provides an additional year for the preparation of a final report comprehensively summarizing the activities and the status of desalting projects (section 11).

The Administration proposal permits expenditure of up to 2 percent of research and development appropriations for research in foreign countries subject to approval of the Secretary of State (section 11). H.R. 5334 prohibits new commitments of money for cooperation with public or private agencies in foreign countries. There are many competent scientists in foreign countries with unique expertise in technical areas of interest to the desalting program in the United States. If their activities can be directed to selected areas of research, they can make a significant contribution to the desalting program in the United States and we, therefore, believe limited expenditures for foreign research is appropriate.

In the case of any agreements concluded with other entities for desalting programs and the construction of facilities, we believe it desirable to have a statutory provision making the liability of the United States contingent upon appropriations being available, as is done in section 12 of the Administration proposal. It would provide clearly for terminating projects in the desalting program should unexpected cost increases prove excessive.

As stated, although we support the general objectives of H.R. 5334, we prefer H.R. 7366, the Administration's proposed "Saline Water Conversion Act of 1971", which we believe will accomplish those objectives more effectively.

The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report and that enactment of the proposal forwarded to the Congress by this Department would be consistent with the Administra. tion's objectives.

Sincerely yours,

JAMES R. SMITH,

Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

SECTIONAL COMPARISON OF H.R. 7366, THE ADMINISTRATION PROPOSED SALINE WATER CONVERSION ACT OF 1971, WITH H.R. 5334

The paragraph headings below refer to the specified sections of the Administra. tion proposal.

Section 1.-Purposes:

The corresponding provision is section 1 of H.R. 5334 which sets forth roughly comparable purposes.

Section 2.-Definitions:

Definitions are set forth in section 8 of H.R. 5334. H.R. 5334 defines the terms "saline water" and "other chemically contaminated water" in two separate definitions, covering the same elements defined as saline water in the Administration's bill. H.R. 5334 defines the terms "Secretary" and "United States", while H.R. 7366 does not. H.R. 7366 defines "desalting", while H.R. 5334 does not have this definition.

Section 3.-Secretarial Duties:

Subsection (a)—The H.R. 5334 equivalent section 2(a) does not provide for byproduct recovery, but provides for it in section 2(d).

Subsection (c)—While the Administration proposal broadly covers organizations which might cooperate in a prototype program, section 3(a) of H.R. 5334 specifically directs OSW to consider arrangements with non-Federal governmental entities and utilities. H.R. 5334 provides a specific date for the report required in subsection 3(c). H.R. 5334 also provides for the Secretary to undertake cer

tain preliminary work on a prototype plant. Section 3(c) of H.R. 5334 further directs the Secretary to utilize the water and power marketing agencies of the Federal Government to insure that the plant will be integrated into the water and power systems of the region in which it is located, requirements which are more generally provided for in sections 3(c), (d), and (e) and 4(1) of the Administration proposal. Section 3(e) of the Administration proposal provides for coordination on a broader basis than section 4 (e) of H.R. 5334. Section 4.-Secretarial Authority:

Subsection (e)-H.R. 5334 does not provide for disposal of property acquired under the Act and does not enumerate the ways in which property may be acquired.

Section 5.-Prototype Construction and Operation:

Subsection (a)—H.R. 5334 does not provide for participation of other entities in prototype construction and operation. H.R. 7366 limits the Federal financial contribution toward prototype plants.

Section 6.-Report on Prototype Work:

Section 7(b) (2) of H.R. 5334 provides for a roughly equivalent report by December 31, 1975 (instead of June 30, 1976) and requires a recommendation for phaseout of these functions.

Section 7. Interagency Cooperation; Treatment of Information:

H.R. 5334 specifically directs cooperation and coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency to avoid duplication.

Section 8.-Effect on Water Law:

Section 5 (f) of H.R. 5334 is identical.

Section 9.-Periodic Reports:

H.R. 5334 makes no provision for periodic reports to the President and the Congress.

Section 10.-Implementing Rules and Regulations:

Section 6 of H.R. 5334 is identical.

Section 11.-Authorized Appropriations; Use of Funds:

The Administration proposal provides for appropriations for fiscal years 1973 through 1977, with an additional 3 years to conclude projects in progress, and an additional year to prepare a final report. Section 7 of H.R. 5334 does not provide the final additional year. H.R. 5334 requires a status report by December 31, 1975, including recommendations for the integration of OSW functions within the programs of the Department of the Interior. H.R. 7366 provides that 2 percent of any one year's research and development monies may be expended in foreign countries for research. H.R. 5334 prohibits such expenditures. Section 12.-Contracting Authority and Liability:

H.R. 5334 contains no comparable provision making the liability of the United States under contracts contingent upon appropriations being available. Section 13.-Outside Assistance:

Section 7(d) of H.R. 5334 authorizes the Secretary to accept outside financial and other assistance only for studies and surveys. H.R. 7366 permits acceptance of such assistance for the additional purposes of research, construction, maintenance, operation and other activities authorized by the Act. H.R. 5334 does not make any provisions for the return to the public agencies of any unexpended monies and H.R. 5334 does not provide that the receipt of contributed funds shall not be the basis for entering contracts obligating the United States for amounts in excess of such funds unless actual appropriations have been made for such contracts.

Section 14.-Short Title:

Section 9 of H.R. 5334 is identical.

Hon. CARL ALBERT,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

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

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., January 29, 1971.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Enclosed is a draft of a proposed bill "To authorize appropriations for the Saline Water Conversion Program for fiscal year 1972, and for other purposes".

We recommend that the bill be referred to the appropriate Committee for consideration, and we recommend that it be enacted. This Department's Office of Saline Water (OSW) has made considerable progress in the development of prac