I frankly believe that the attention that this body has given in the past to the principle of the Walter bill, the hearings that have been held, the testimony that has been taken, represents the best approach on the part of the Congress of the United States to this problem. The thing that disturbs me about this theory that we have heard here this afternoon is that it is completely contrary to the theory that we have subscribed to in my State, the theory of States rights, and secondly, if this be a permit or whatever may be granted at the will of the Congress, certainly it could equally be taken back at the will of the Congress. I think there are other fields that the Walter bill seeks to settle that the position of the Attorney General leaves up in the air. The question of the Continental Shelf is one that involves a great deal more than mineral rights, and assuming that the position now taken by the Attorney General becomes the position of the Congress, namely, that we get a permit to operate and to drill within the historic boundaries and that the Federal Government has complete right beyond those boundaries, then it seems to me that there are not only problems raised about conservation, about prevention of waste, about drilling and spacing and all the other myriad of problems involved in the exploration for and the drilling of oil and gas, but all of the other problems about civil administration. What happens if a murder should occur on one of the artificial islands that is built in that area to develop minerals? Who has jurisdiction over it? There is no comparable situation in the United States of America, not on the public lands. The Walter bill recognizes the right of the States insofar as civil jurisdiction and insofar as the right of taxation, as well as 372 percent of the proceeds from those lands in question. Here we have a proposition that comes up in my judgment with a brand new theory of jurisdiction, and rather than settle the problems before us which we have wrestled with now for 6 or 7 years, I think it would create more confusion compounded. Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Boggs. Mr. GRAHAM. Do you want to be heard? Mr. HILLINGS. I presume you are going to discuss briefly the point raised as to the Long Beach situation? Mr. HOSMER. Yes. Mr. HILLINGS. I wonder if you can bring that to the attention of the committee. STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG HOSMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. HOSMER. The first thing I want to mention is H. R. 1931, which I introduced immediately following President Truman's order, and I think under the Attorney General's interpretation of that decision there is not any need for, nor would it be proper to have that bill considered under the circumstances. The thing that I want to take up is that I have introduced one of these Holland-type bills. Before the Senate committee or before this committee the Defense Department is asking that an additional section to (a) and (b) be added to section 5, which would in effect vest or purport to vest in the Federal Government title to all areas where the Federal Government has gone ahead and put down installations, like the Navy has built a lot of moles and things like that. That simply means it would be an attempt to fix title by legislative fiat, and in respect particularly to the city of Long Beach, which I represent out in California, the Navy base there is built partly on some 300-and-afraction acres that were condemned. It is filled land now, but it was condemned by the United States Government to build the base, and $1 damages was paid to the city, and all rights granted. On the seaward rights on this condemned area the Navy did not stop filling there, but went on 100 feet. So you can see it is down in the marginal seas. If this provision that the Navy wants in the bill were passed-in my opinion, I say it is patently unconstitutionalit would provide serious litigation. There is a strip of 100 feet that the Federal Government has by legislative fiat taken title to under the surface. At the present time there are some hundred holes going through the area of slant drill wells owned by the city of Long Beach. You can see they would be in the line of trespass, and you can imagine what a terrible legal situation that would bring forth. For that reason, I feel in my opinion that type of amendment would be very bad, and I would like to present for consideration of the committee the resolution of the Harbor Commission of the City of Long Beach, dated January 26, 1953. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Reporter, will you incorporate that in the record, and also the prepared statement of Mr. Hosmer. (The documents referred to follow :) STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG HOSMER, 18TH DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA I wish to call the committee's attention to two points only: First: H. R. 1931, introduced by me immediately following President Truman's order purporting to set aside submerged lands on the Continental shelf as a naval petroleum reserve was drafted to set aside that order. Since the bill was introduced, the new Attorney General has clarified the legal status of the Truman order. In light of such clarification, the passage of H. R. 1931 is neither necessary or appropriate for the protection of the rights of the States in and to the tidelands. Therefore, consideration of H. R. 1931 is not requested. Second: The Navy Department has come before you asking that a subsection designated (c) be added to section 5 of the Holland-type bills before you. This proposal purports to fix title in the Federal Government, both as to surface and subsurface regions, of all areas in the inland waterways, within the historic boundaries, and outside, where the Navy has gone ahead and placed installations without regard to any questions of ownership. This is purely and simply an attempt.to fix title by legislative fiat and, in my opinion, is patently unconstitutional. Further, it would lead to profuse and expensive litigation on the part of State and local governments to clear title to land which obviously belongs to them. If an individual attempted any such brazen attempt to appropriate the land of others, he would immediately incur liability for slander of title. I strongly recommend, that if the committee does anything at all with this proposal, it expressly and unequivocably limit it only and solely to areas beyond the historic boundaries. I recommend further, that it be limited to surface rights only so that due consideration may be given at a later date to the equities, if any, of the States in the areas beyond historic boundaries. To accomplish the foregoing, I recommend that the following be substituted for the first phrase of the proposed new subsection: "(c) In the marginal seas outside inland waters all improvements thereon which are occupied and used by the United States for any Federal purposes: Provided, etc. ***" Thank you for your consideration. Resolution No. HD-493.-A resolution of the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Long Beach, Calif., petitioning the Congress of the United States to act favorably upon and adopt Senate Joint Resolution 13 or House Joint Resolution 40, pending in the 83d Congress Whereas, pursuant to certain acts of the Legislature of the State of California (California Statutes 1911, p. 1304, California Statutes 1925, p. 235, and California. Statutes 1935, p. 793), the State of California granted to the city of Long Beach, Calif. all of its rights, title, and interest held by it by virtue of its sovereignty in and to all the tidelands and submerged lands, whether filled or unfilled, situated below the mean high-tide line of the Pacific Ocean within the corporate limits of said city; said corporate limits have at all times prior to the date of each of said grants extended 3 miles from said mean high-tide line into San Pedro Bay bordering the Pacific Ocean; said tidelands and submerged lands consist of 13,027 acres, of which approximately 1,000 acres have been reclaimed and filled by said city and upuon which port and harbor facilities and park and recreational improvements have been constructed, at a cost to said city in excess of $40 million; said lands and navigable waters extend 8.11 miles along the water frontage of said San Pedro Bay, which, historicallly since 1542 and by prior Court decision, lie within San Pedro Bay, an inland water area of the State of California; and Whereas there is attached hereto a map entitled, "California CoastlinePort Fermin to Newport Beach," prepared by R. R. Shoemaker, chief engineer of the Long Beach Harbor Department, upon which is portrayed said tidelands and submerged lands and said San Pedro Bay area; said map also portrays a line designated as "Government proposed line," said line representing the position of the United States Department of Justice in proceedings now pending before the Supreme Court in the case of United States of America v. State of California (No. 12 Original), as the limits of the inland waters in said area; of the 13,027 acres of tidelands and submerged lands conveyed to said city by said State 3,028 acres lie landward of said Government-proposed line, 1,016 acres of which have been reclaimed and filled, 2,012 acres of which constitute navigable water areas; 9,999 acres lie outside of and seaward of said Government-proposed line, 9,846 acres of which constitute navigable waters and 152 acres of which have been filled and improved for use as a public beach recreational area; said public beach recreational area extends approximately 4 miles along said bay and ocean front of the city outside said Government-proposed line; and Whereas said city, through its board of harbor commissioners, has projected and planned future port and harbor development in and upon said tidelands and submerged lands at an estimated cost in excess of $85 million seaward of said Government-proposed line, in addition to the improvements heretofore constructed upon said lands landward of said proposed line in excess of a cost of $40 million; and Whereas a Federal breakwater has heretofore been constructed at the cost of many millions of dollars within the corporate limits of said city, approximately in the location of the seaward boundaries of said corporate limits, as indicated upon said map attached hereto; that approximately 9,847 acres of said water' area seaward of said Government-proposed line and landward of said Federal breakwater constitute navigable inland waters necessary and vital to the operation of the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles and presently used as anchorage sites by vessels of all classifications; and Whereas said position of the Federal Department of Justice to the effect that all lands seaward of said Government-proposed line and the low tide line within the corporate limits of said city do not constitute inland waters of the State of California but, in fact, lie within the so-called 3-mile marginal belt of open sea, over which the United States Government is possessed of "paramount rights in and full dominion and power over," if said position shall prevail, will be contrary to the public interest and seriously impair the rights and equities of the city of Long Beach in the ownership and control of said lands and result in incalculable damage to said city, the State of California, and the Nation; Now, therefore, the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Long Beach resolves as follows: SECTION 1. The City of Long Beach, Calif., by and through its board of harbor commissioners, does hereby petition the Congress of the United States to act favorably upon and adopt Senate Joint Resolution 13 or House Joint Resolution 40, pending in the 83d Congress, or similar legislation designed to accomplish the objects and purposes set forth therein. SEC. 2. That the Congress of the United States reject and defeat any legislation which by its provisions will authorize any Federal department or agency to grant leases on or exercise any proprietary rights in or to the aforesaid lands lying beneath navigable waters within the boundaries of the various States or ́in or to the natural resources within such lands and waters. SEC. 3. That the city attorney be and he is hereby authorized and requested to present to the Members of Congress and the appropriate committees thereof all matters pertinent to the aforesaid and to transmit a copy of this resolution to the President of the United States and Members of the Congress. SEC. 4. The secretary of the board shall certify to the passage of this resolution by the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Long Beach, and it shall thereupon take effect. SEC. 5. The secretary of the board shall cause this resolution to be published once in the Long Beach Independent, the official newspaper of the city of Long Beach. I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Long Beach, at its meeting of January 26, 1953, by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners: Davis, Sullivan, Reider, Daubney, Martin. F. D. REIDER, Secretary of the Board of Harbor Commissioners. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. HD-493, adopted by the Board of Habor Commissioners of the City of Long Beach, Calif., at its regular meeting of January 26, 1953, as same appears in the official records of said board. [SEAL] ALVIN K. MADDY, Executive Secretary of the Board of Harbor Commissioners. Mr. HOSMER. Thank you very much. Mr. GRAHAM. The meeting is adjourned for today, and tomorrow we will meet at 10 o'clock in room 327. (Thereupon, at 4:30 p. m., a recess was taken until Wednesday, March 4, 1953, at 10 a. m.) (The following was submitted for the record :) STATEMENT BY HON. LLOYD M. BENTSEN, JR., MEMBER OF CONGRESS, 15TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS I should like to make a statement in behalf of H. R. 371, introduced by myself on January 3, 1953, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. This bill is submitted for the purpose of confirming and establishing the titles of the States to lands beneath navigable waters within State boundaries and to the natural resources within such lands and waters, to provide for the use, control, exploration, development, and conservation of certain resources of the Continental Shelf lying outside of State boundaries. PART II-COMMENT IN SUPPORT OF H. R. 371 My purpose in introducing this bill should be completely apparent. Since 1937, most particularly since 1947, one of the major industries of our Nation has been handicapped in its efforts to secure and make available to the country a substance which has come to be referred to as the lifeblood of our modern civilization-oil-the oil which we know is to be found in the Continental Shelf contiguous to our shores. It must be clear to all of us that every possible source of this vital fluid must be developed, yet through the efforts of a shortsighted few we have been denied access to the one of the last great new sources of supply. For many years there was no question as to the ownership of the land and its resources beneath the marginal seas. For well over 100 years the Federal Government had no interest in these lands. It was only after technical progress and the initiative of private enterprise under State auspices had disclosed the presence of oil and gas beneath the water that there was any question at all of ownership of this area. You have all heard many times recited the numerous Supreme Court decisions, the many lesser-court decisions, the Department of the Interior rulings which for many years only affirmed the commonly held belief in State ownership of the submerged lands adjoining their coasts. Additional confirmation can be found in the more than 200 grants of portions of this area to the Federal Government by the States, at the Federal Government's request and seemingly in full recognition of the States' rights. I say it is unnecessary to recount all of these. Suffice it to say that the overwhelming evidence historically points to ownership of this area by the States. However, since 1945, when the Federal Government first instituted suit against California and later against Louisiana and Texas title to the submerged lands and their resources has become clouded. To my mind this is unfortunate. The result of the Federal Government's efforts in this endeavor has been to slow down the production of oil and gas in the submerged lands and to bring almost to a stop efforts to discover new fields offshore. It has long been the feeling among those familiar with the industry that we were on the brink of great discoveries. Now we are in a period of emergency when we need all of our resources. We have a war in Korea, which demands great quantities of oil, and who knows when some spark may touch off the flame which will bring us into a third world war. It is vital to our national defense that we have at hand as much of critical and strategic materials as possible, and oil is among the most essential. Until the question of ownership of the submerged lands and the resources therein is settled it is readily apparent that the oil industry is not going to increase its already great investment in equipment, time, and effort. That is the purpose of my bill H. R. 371. The bill states that all coastal States own the submerged lands seaward for 3 miles, at the same time that it reserves for the Federal Government control of that area for the purposes of commerce, navigation, national defense, and international affairs, all the proper spheres of activity by the National Government. I believe this to be a fair and equitable delineation of ownership and responsibilities. In the interest of the national defense the bill would give the Federal Government priority of right to secure the oil recovered in this area. There can be no quarrel with that provision. Continuity and equity are served by the provisions for continuation of present leases. In settlement of the troublesome question of the marginal seas and the lands and resources beneath them beyond the 3-mile limit the bill would again accomplish an equitable disposition of ownership and responsibility. This is accomplished by placing title to the seabed and subsoil in the United States but recognizing the claims of the coastal States by placing the police power in each such State, including the powers of taxation, conservation, and control of geophysical explorations, so long as they are consistent with Federal laws. Leasing of this area is to be handled by the Secretary of the Interior, giving full recognition to existing leases under the States, but 371⁄2 percent of the revenues therefrom are to accrue to the coastal States. I believe this to be a fair resolution of the problem. Ample attention is given in this bill to the needs of national defense. Since the earliest discoveries of oil and gas in the marginal sea the States have in good faith exercised all of the rights of sovereignty in this area and revenues have been used to support the schools and other public institutions within those States. The States sorely need these revenues now as we all know. This bill will insure the full return to these States of the 259,000,000 barrels of oil and 75 trillion cubic feet of gas proven to be within the historical boundaries of these States, plus any further reserves that may be discovered later under the accelerated program of exploration which surely will follow the settlement of the question of ownership. The revenues from the estimated potential reserves inside the historical boundaries of 2,850,000,000 barrels are essential to those States. At the same time the revenues from the 12,450,000,000 estimated potential reserves outside the State boundaries would be equitably shared by the coastal States and the Federal Government under this bill. At a minimum royalty rate of 122 percent this would approximate four billions of dollars, to be divided 371⁄2 percent to the coastal States, 622 percent to go to the United States. My bill is drawn to insure the continuity of exploration and best conservation measures so as to derive the greatest good for the Nation from its re30869-53--17 |