to speak for the United States. Next they state what the position of the United States is, for instance, with reference to a bay in California. Then they claim that their statement proves it is not a bay, and, therefore, the submerged lands in the bay are not under inland waters. I hope the precise boundary drawing will be left out of this legislation and reserved to a later time, because it is very complicated, and may require lengthy study. Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Yorty. Do you plan to submit a statement in addition to this? Mr. YoRTY. No, thank you. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Boggs, we are ready for you. Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, while Mr. Boggs is coming around there, I should like to place in the record a statement by William E. Welsh, secretary-manager of the National Reclamation Association. Mr. GRAHAM. Very well. (The statement is as follows:) STATEMENT BY WILLIAM E. WELSH, SECRETARY-MANAGER, NATIONAL RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION My name is William E. Welsh. I am secretary-manager of the National Reclamation Association, an organization founded 21 years ago at a meeting in Salt Lake City called by the then Governor Dern of Utah. This association is very active and has strong membership in each of the 17 Western States comprising the western half of the United States. By far the largest segment of our membership comes from representatives of water users' organizations-officers and directors of irrigation farmer organizations.. Its interests lie primarily in the water resources of the West, including development, conservation, and utilization of these waters. Throughout the years since it was organized, it has been intensely and actively interested in the preservation of the integrity of State water laws. In fact, one of the accomplishments of the association was the publication of a comprehensive report prepared by a special committee on that subject in 1943. It has always been actively and intensely interested in maintaining State participation, State control, and the protection of the States rights over the resources, and particularly the water resources of the States of the West. Recent activities of the Federal Government in claiming a paramount right to the waters of the streams of the West in such cases as the Santa Margarita River case in California and the Alpine case of the Carson River in Nevada have greatly alarmed our members. They feel that the water rights of the West, which have been acquired under State law and upon which the economy of the entire West depends, are in jeopardy. They feel that the Federal Government, in claiming jurisdiction over the submerged lands of the marginal sea belt as well as the resources under these navigable waters, is taking a dangerous step toward Federal control over all of the navigable waters of the Nation and the resources lying under the same. At each annual meeting of our association for the past 6 years, beginning in 1947 at Phoenix, Ariz.-all 6 of which have been exceptionally well attended-we have adopted a resolution on the subject Title to Submerged Lands. Following is the resolution which was adopted at our last annual meeting in Long Beach, Calif., during November 1952: RESOLUTION NO. 6-TITLE TO SUBMERGED LANDS "Whereas in the cases of U. S. v. California, U. S. v. Louisiana, and U. S. v. Texas, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that the States do not own lands submerged under the marginal sea belt within their boundaries, nor the resources therein, and has based its decision on the need of the United States to exercise its powers under the Constitution to handle international affairs and national defense; and "Whereas the United States, under the decisions in said cases, may raise claim to the beds of navigable inland streams which are owned by the States: Now, therefore, be it "Resolved by the National Reclamation Association, That, reaffirming its Resolution No. 14 adopted in 1947, its Resolution No. 8 adopted in 1948, its Resolution No. 16 adopted in 1949, its Resolution No. 24 adopted in 1950, and its Resolution No. 20 adopted in 1951, said association urges that the Congress promptly adopt legislation recognizing or vesting in the several States the absolute title to the submerged lands within their respective boundaries, as recognized when annexed or admitted to the Union, subject only to the paramount rights granted the United States by the Constitution to regulate interstate and foreign commerce and intercourse with other nations, but expressly excluding any claim of the United States to any proprietary rights in any such lands or resources except upon payment of just compensation and under due process of law." STATEMENT OF HON. HALE BOGGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA Mr. BoGGs. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy of the committee, and I shall certainly only take a minute of your time at this late hour. As far as my bill is concerned, it is practically identical to the Walter bill. That bill has been passed by the House of Representatives to my knowledge twice. I would not venture at this late hour to try to tell this committee of the tremendous significance to our State and the people whom I have the high privilege of representing, of this legislation. You know of our interest and concern. In addition to that, my State is very ably and very competently represented on this committee by the Honorable Ed Willis from our Third Congressional District. I must say, however, that the position taken by the Attorney General is quite contrary to the position enunciated in the Walter bill which the House has passed on two or three occasions. As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I have never been particularly impressed by the doctrine that a decision of the Supreme Court is sacrosanct. I am more impressed by the theory of government that we have three separate and distinct entities of government under our constitutional system, and as a member of the tax-writing committee of the Congress, our committee and subcommittees have frequently been called upon to, if you will, override Supreme Court decisions, and we have very frequently done so. And the Congress has agreed on the policy that we have adopted. So that the position taken by the Attorney General here, which, as I understand it, is not changing the doctrine of paramount right, but interpreting the doctrine of paramount right and sustaining the position of the Supreme Court, from the point of view of the people I represent, I find it entirely unacceptable. From my point of view, the idea of granting us a license or a permit or a privilege or a right, whatever you may want to call it, to develop resources which lay within our boundaries in reprehensible and is not acceptable. We maintain, and have maintained, that those rights are our rights, that they belong to the States. The doctrine which has been set forth here this afternoon, while it be a rather unique doctrine, and one which seeks to uphold the Supreme Court and at the same time attempt to satisfy what we consider the very just claims of the States involved, to my way of thinking not only would not solve this problem, not only would not eliminate litigation, but as Congressman Willis has so ably pointed out, would institute and bring about further litigation. 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; |