Secretary KRUG. Yes, sir. I think it is very important that Congress act at the earliest possible time. Mr. GOSSETT. Do you anticipate any difficulty in the definition of inland waters in drawing these boundaries under these proposed bills? Secretary KRUG. Yes; there will be difficulties. That problem is under consideration now with respect to the California case. However, I think these are technical difficulties that can be overcome. It is obvious that any line which represents the seaward margin of this area that is covered and uncovered by the tides, and the seaward margin of inland waters, such as bays, rivers, and harbors, where they meet the sea, will require technical examination and is subject to differences of opinion. Mr. GOSSETT. Is an area like Chesapeake Bay, for example, considered inland waters? Mr. KRUG. That is inland waters, but where the Chesapeake goes into the Atlantic, that is a line somebody will have to draw. Mr. GOSSETT. You mentioned the Federal claim of ownership to petroleum beneath the marginal sea. Would that also include fish, oysters, kelp, sand, and all these other things that are taken from the marginal sea? Secretary KRUG. It would include any mineral or resource in the so-called submerged lands. With respect to fish and kelp and all the things that are in the water in that area, we have proposed absolutely no change in the present status. Whether the Federal Government owns those fish or not is not clear at the present time, but the States are permitted to regulate the taking of fish, oysters, shrimp, and so on, and we are proposing no change in that. Mr. GOSSETT. You are proposing a quitclaim to the States, their alleged title in those things? Secretary KRUG. No; we are proposing to keep the situation as it is now, with the States permitted to regulate the taking of shrimp, oysters, fish, and kelp. Mr. GOSSETT. Mr. Secretary, you, of course, know that the Supreme Court decision casts some cloud on the title to those other things in the marginal sea, do you not? Secretary KRUG. I think Mr. Perlman would have to answer that. Mr. GOSSETT. All you are after is the oil then? Secretary KRUG. No. As a matter of fact, I think there are many other resources in the submerged lands. It is true that we know more about oil and gas at the moment than about other minerals that might be in those same submerged lands. Our proposal here has only to do with the leasing of those submerged lands for the production of oil and gas. Mr. GOSSETT. Now, you have no quarrel to make with the way in which the States have heretofore handled leasing and conservation and so on, in these areas, have you? Secretary KRUG. I do not know whether it is a question of a quarrel or not. We have had no occasion to get into it, to measure their way against the way we would be doing it. They follow one principle that is at variance with what is proposed in this bill. The States take the highest bid, regardless of who it comes from. So, if they wanted to, two, three, or four companies could lease the entire Gulf area, for example. Under this bill, we have proposed a restriction as to the number of acres that any one company may lease, or hold in production, at one time. The purpose of that is to prevent monopoly of the development of petroleum in this region. Mr. GOSSETT. It is going to take a pretty large operator to handle one of those leases in the Gulf. Secretary KRUG. Yes, sir. We just hope we can spread it among the maximum number. Mr. GOSSETT. Is that about all you had to say, Mr. Secretary? Mr. GOSSETT. Thank you very much, sir. Secretary KRUG. Thank you. Mr. GOSSETT. We will next hear from Mr. Perlman. STATEMENT OF HON. PHILIP B. PERLMAN, SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES Mr. PERLMAN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the subcommittee, I am Philip B. Perlman, Solicitor General of the United States, and I appear, with the approval of the Attorney General of the United States, on behalf of the United States Department of Justice. I am authorized to say that Attorney General J. Howard McGrath is in complete accord with the views expressed in this statement. The Department of Justice is opposed to H. R. 5991, and it does not approve H. R. 5992. A letter dated August 19, 1949, indicating the Department's position, was sent to the Honorable Francis E. Walter by Mr. Peyton Ford, the Assistant to the Attorney General. This is the letter: MY DEAR MR. CONGRESSMAN: I am writing you about the two submerged coastal lands bills (H. R. 5991 and H. R. 5992) which you introduced on August 15, 1949, and about which some misapprehension may exist. The Department does not approve H. R. 5991. While it is true that H. R. 5992 reflects some changes made in H. R. 5991 suggested by representatives of the Interior and Justice Departments, so as to eliminate some of the objectionable features of H. R. 5991, it should be made clear that H. R. 5992 also does not have the approval of the Department of Justice. Among other things, it was not submitted to the National Military Establishment or the Federal Power Commission for consideration, nor has it been studied by the Bureau of the Budget. The views of the Department of Justice with respect to suitable legislation on this subject are reflected in two bills which were drafted by representatives of the Departments of Justice and Interior as well as the National Military Establishment, and which were transmitted to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives in identical letters (dated February 1, 1949, and June 3, 1949) signed jointly by the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Interior. Both of these have been introduced in the Senate and are identified as S. 923 and S. 2153. (I understand that H. R. 5280 is identical with S. 2153, but I have not been informed whether any bill identical with S. 923 has yet been introduced in the House.) Both of these bills (S. 923 and S. 2153) have the approval of the Bureau of the Budget, and they represent the position which this Department supports. As pointed out in the letter, the views of the Department of Justice with respect to suitable legislation on this subject are reflected in two bills which were drafted by representatives of the Department of Justice, the Department of the Interior, and the National Military Establishment. After those bills had been approved by the Bureau of the Budget, they were transmitted to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives in a pair of identical letters, dated February 1, 1949, and June 3, 1949, signed jointly by the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of the Interior. I am informed that a copy of the letter dated February 1, together with enclosures, has already been placed in the record by the Secretary of the Interior. I desire at this time to offer for the record a copy of the June 3, letter, with its enclosures. The bills proposed in these letters were introduced in the Senate by Senator O'Mahoney, and are identified as S. 923 and S. 2153. The latter is identical with H. R. 5280, which was introduced by Congressman Celler in the House. No bill identical with S. 923 has been introduced in the House, although H. R. 354, which was introduced at the beginning of this session by Congressman Celler and to which reference has been made by Secretary Krug, represents an earlier draft of the bill embodied in S. 923. I would like to offer the letter of June 3, together with the enclosures at this time. Mr. GOSSETT. They will be made a part of the record. (The papers referred to are as follows:) Hon. SAM RAYBURN, Speaker of the House of Representatives. JUNE 3, 1949. DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Enclosed is a draft of a proposed bill "relating to the rights of the several States in lands beneath inland navigable waters and to the recognition of equities in submerged coastal lands adjacent to the shores of the United States, and for other purposes." The proposed bill was drafted by representatives of the National Military Establishment, and the Department of Justice, and the Department of the Interior. This proposed legislaion is similar to the proposed legislation which was submitted to the Congress on February 25, 1948, by Peyton Ford, the Assistant to the Attorney General. The previous proposal was introduced in the Senate as S. 2222, Eightieth Congress, and in the House of Representatives as H. R. 5529, Eightieth Congress. There is attached to the proposed bill an explanatory memorandum, which sets forth the reasons for suggesting the proposed legislation. We recommend that the proposed bill be referred to the appropriate committee for consideration and that it be enacted promptly. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this proposed bill to the Congress. Sincerely yours, LOUIS JOHNSON, Secretary of Defense. (Identical letter to the President of the Senate.) EXPLANATORY STATEMENT CONCERNING A PROPOSED BILL RELATING TO THE RIGHTS OF THE SEVERAL STATES IN LANDS BENEATH INLAND NAVIGABLE WATERS AND TO THE RECOGNITION OF EQUITIES IN SUBMERGED COASTAL LANDS ADJACENT TO THE SHORES OF THE UNITED STATES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on June 23, 1947, in the case of the United States v. California, holding that the United States has paramount rights in, and full dominion and power over, the lands, minerals, and other things underlying the Pacific Ocean adjacent to the State of California seaward of the ordinary low-water mark and outside of inland waters, has given rise to considerable concern as to similar rights to inland navigable waters. The accompanying draft of a bill, which has been prepared through the joint efforts of representatives of the National Military Establishment, the Department of Justice, and the Department of the Interior, is designed to allay these apprehensions. As the preamble of the proposed bill indicates, the purpose of title I is to relieve such concern as has been expressed that the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in United States v. California, might be extended to grant to the United States paramount rights in inland water areas which have up to the present time been thought to be the property of the States wihin whose respective boundaries such waters are located. Section 1 of this title releases and relinquishes to the several States and their grantees all right, title, and interest of the United States, if any it has, to all lands beneath navigable inland waters. Section 3 of title I excludes from this release such lands in which the United States may have acquired an interest by virtue of arrangements unrelated to the doctrine enunciated in United States v. California. During the oral argument in United States v. California, the Attorney General stated that the President had authorized him to say that there was "no desire on the part of the President or of any Federal official to destroy or confiscate any honest or bona fide investment" and that he intended "to recommend to the Congress that legislation be enacted recognizing, both prospectively and retrospectively, any equities of the State and those who have operated under it to the fullest extent consistent with the national interest." Title II of the proposed bill is designed to implement the policy thus expressed. Section 101 of this title, in effect, affirms the rights of all persons, lawfully acquired before June 23, 1947, from any State or political subdivision thereof, to construct, maintain, use, or occupy any dock, pier, wharf, jetty, or any other structure or any such right to the surface of filled-in or reclaimed land, in those areas which are subject to the paramount rights of the United States. Section 102 of title II makes it clear that no right in minerals is confirmed. Section 103 excludes from the scope of the confirmation structures used in connection with the development, extraction, and production of oil and gas or other minerals since the disposition of such structures should depend upon the disposition of oil and gas leases in the submerged coastal lands, and since provision for such oil and gas leases is made by a legislative proposal, entitled "Submerged Coastal Lands Act," heretofore submitted to the Congress by the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of the Interior. This proposal has been introduced in the Senate as S. 923, and a generally similar proposal has been introduced in the House of Representatives as H. R. 354. Section 103 of title II also excludes from the scope of the confirmation structures necessary for the development of water power since authority for the licensing of such structures is contained in the Federal Power Act. Title II of the proposed bill makes no provision for the licensing after June 23, 1947, of persons who desire to construct or add to existing structures of the types covered by the confirmation provisions of that title. It is felt that some interim arrangement should be made so that, after study, recommendations can be made to the Congress with respect to whether the Federal Government should assume the task of regulating and licensing the construction of piers and docks and like structures in the submerged lands in which it has paramount rights. Title III of the proposed bill consequently authorizes the Chief of Engineers of the Department of the Army to grant such permits as he may in his discretion deem appropriate and directs that within 2 years after the enactment of this measure the Chief of Engineers shall submit to the Congress his recommendations in the premises. It is thought that this will supply adequate machinery for the processing of such applications for authorization as may be made in the near future, and will also allow sufficient time for adequate study on the basis of which recommendations for permanent legislation may be presented. A BILL Relating to the rights of the several States in lands beneath inland navigable waters and to the recognition of equities in submerged coastal lands adjacent to the shores of the United States, and for other purposes Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States, on June 23, 1947, decided the case of United States against California, holding that the United States has paramount rights in, and full dominion and power over, the lands, minerals, and other things underlying the Pacific Oceans adjacent to the State of California, seaward of the ordinary low-water mark and outside of inland waters; and Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States had previously held that the States own the beds of inland navigable waters within their respective boundaries; and Whereas the Attorney General of the United States has declared, both before and since the aforesaid decision in United States against California, that the United States makes no claim of title to lands beneath inland navigable waters; and Whereas, despite the reiteration of this disavowal with respect to title to lands beneath inland navigable waters, some concern has been expressed that such claim might nevertheless be made; and Whereas there is no intention to claim, on behalf of the United States title to any lands beneath inland navigable waters; and Whereas it is in the public interest that additional assurance be given by the Congress that the United States does not claim title to lands beneath inland navigable waters: Now, therefore, Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, TITLE I That the United States hereby releases and relinquishes unto the several States and the persons lawfully entitled thereto under the laws of such States, and unto the respective lawful grantees, lessees, or possessors in interest thereof under State authority, all right, title, and interest of the United States, if any it has, in and to all lands beneath navigable inland waters within the boundaries of the respective States. SEC. 2. As used in this Act, the term "navigable" means navigable at the time of the admission of a State into the Union under the laws of the United States; the term "inland waters" includes the waters of bays, rivers, ports, and harbors which are landward of the open sea, as well as the area covered and uncovered by the tides; and lands beneath navigable inland waters include filled in or reclaimed lands which formerly were within that category; the term "submerged coastal lands” means (a) submerged lands seaward of the shores of the United States which are under the dominion of, and subject to the paramount rights of, the United States, and (b) all other submerged lands of the entire Continental Shelf seaward of such shores, within which submerged lands the natural resources appertain to the Untited States and are subject to its jurisdiction and control but which resources are not owned by any State or other person. SEC. 3. This Act shall not apply to rights of the United States in lands (1) which have been lawfully acquired by the United States from any State, either at the time of its admission into the Union or thereafter, or from any person in whom such rights had vested under the law of a State or under a treaty or other arrangement between the United States and a foreign power, or otherwise, or from a grantee or successor in interest of a State or such person; or (2) which were owned by the United States at the time of the admission of a State into the Union and which were expressly retained by the United States; or (3) which the United States lawfully holds under the law of the State in which the lands are situated; or (4) which are held by the United States in trust for the benefit of any person or persons, including any tribe, band, or group of Indians or for individual Indians. This Act shall not apply to water power, or to the use of water for the production of power, or to any right to develop water power which has been or may be expressly reserved by the United States for its own benefit or for the benefit of its licensees or permittees under any law of the United States. TITLE II SEC. 101. Any right granted prior to June 23, 1947, by any State, political subdivision thereof, municipality, agency, or person holding thereunder to construct, maintain, use or occupy any dock, pier, wharf, jetty, or any other structure in submerged coastal lands, or any such rights to the surface of filled in or reclaimed land in such areas, is hereby recognized and confirmed by the United States for such term as was granted prior to June 23, 1947. SEC. 102. Nothing in section 101 of this title shall be construed as confirming or recognizing any right with respect to oil, gas, or other minerals in submerged coastal lands; or as confirming or recognizing any interest in submerged coastal lands other than that essential to the right to construct, maintain, use, and occupy the structures enumerated in that section, or to the use and occupancy of the surface of filled in or reclaimed land. SEC. 103. The structures enumerated in section 101 shall not be construed as including derricks, wells, or other installations in submerged coastal lands employed in the exploration, development, extraction, and production of oil and |