Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XXXIV, Energy Diplomacy and Global Issues

170. Memorandum From the President’s Special Assistant (Rostow) to President Johnson¹

Washington, March 9, 1968.

SUBJECT

• Response to Congressional Resolutions on Mid-East Desalting

Last December, the Senate passed the Baker Resolution and now the House is considering an identical one.² Both state that building large nuclear desalting plants in the Mid-East will hasten peaceful cooperation. Both request you to pursue this.

These, of course, stem from the Eisenhower-Strauss plan of last summer. That, in turn, grew out of a study at Oak Ridge. That study developed a theoretical model showing how one could build up around a big nuclear desalting and electric power plant an industrial and agricultural complex that could absorb the tremendous amounts of electricity that such a plant would have to produce to make its water economical. The men who ran that study made clear that further study would be needed to apply this idea to any specific area.

Therefore, the most direct response to the Baker resolution would be to follow up the Oak Ridge study, applying its theories to the Mid-East.

However, that by itself doesn’t make sense, and besides we’d like to go the Baker resolution one better. We don’t quarrel with its vision and hope, but it is naive on two serious counts:

• —Fresh water alone won’t solve the problems that block peace in the Mid-East. If we could devote the $1 billion or more Baker’s dream would cost to resettling refugees in all kinds of jobs—not agriculture—we’d take a much bigger step toward settlement. That’s not to say that water isn’t important; but other issues are more basic.
• —Nuclear desalting is not necessarily the most immediate, practical or economic way to bring more water to the area. It may be the best answer in Israel where most other sources of water are already being efficiently used well. But we still have a long way to go in developing ground water and other sources elsewhere.

The kind of study we would frame would be broader than just applying nuclear desalting to the Mid-East. Oak Ridge could do that study, but we would make that just one piece in a broader study applying other advanced concepts of water management and development. We would bring in some of the pioneers in our own water planning, and we would make our work complement studies being done by Mac Bundy through RAND and by the World Bank.

There are two bureaucratic problems:

1. How to keep these studies in technical perspective. AEC has a way of going wild with its ideas and getting nuclear desalting out of economic perspective. On the other hand, the economists are too skeptical of desalting. In looking around for someone to keep all parts of this effort in tune, we believe we should entrust this to your Water for Peace Office. If we’re going to build that office up, now is the time. The alternative is to let Interior or AEC run the show, and we just can’t be confident of a balanced result there.

2. How to assure proper program control. The water experts will have to carry the technical ball. But State Department control is necessary to mesh this with other efforts in the region. Baker proposed a Presidential Commission, but we fear that creates expectations beyond what we can deliver. We have concluded that the best bet is to say that the Water for Peace Director, responsible to the Secretary of State, will report in this case to the Secretary through Luke Battle’s Interdepartmental Regional Group for this purpose. We are persistently trying to strengthen State’s coordination machinery which you established but at the same time we want to build up the Water for Peace Office. Luke has an effective group going, and we think the Water for Peace Director can work through him without unduly restricting the experts’ freedom or his own prestige.

Recommendation: Before we go any further down this track, we would like to be sure you approve our general approach. Specifically, State recommends that Secretary Rusk send the attached letter to Senator Fulbright³ and that a similar letter go to Congressman Morgan. If you approve, we would then work out precise terms of reference for these studies and determine how to finance them. We can do something within the existing Budget, but we might judge that asking for a small budget amendment (less than $1 million) would be worth considering in order to engage the Congress immediately in responsibility for its recommendations. (We believe Congressman Rooney would be glad to support a small State budget amendment that would contribute to Arab-Israeli progress, but we will be back to you on that.)

I have discussed this with Don Hornig and Charlie Zwick, and they join in the recommendation that you approve the attached letter.⁴

W.W. Rostow ⁵

1. Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Subject File, Desalting Projects, Vol. II. Confidential.
2. See Document 168. An identical resolution was introduced into the House of Representatives by Congressman William D. Hathaway on February 5.
3. Not printed. The final version of the letter is dated March 19. While announcing the next steps the administration was going to take, the letter also cautioned: “The scope and locality of our studies will naturally be affected by the trend of political attitudes and international relationships. We may have to conduct them primarily within the United States, but one or more of them could include participation by those Middle Eastern countries and their scientists and technologists whose governments express an active interest.” (Letter from Rusk to Fulbright, March 19, Annex B to airgram CA–8581, June 10; National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1967–69, E 11–3 SALINE WATER CONVERSION)
4. Approved on March 11.
5. Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature.