of aquatic life in the waters above such soils; the department of conservation issues permits for geophysical surveys in connection with oil, gas, and mineral exploration, but the State mineral board prepares and promulgates the rules governing such surveys; and the revenue collected by the register of State land office from oil production depends upon allowables fixed by the commissioner of conservation.

The curtailment or loss of such revenue would not only affect the quality and extent of State services in a serious way, but rights of bondholders would be jeopardized, as well. To aid in the hard surfacing of our highways and the construction of buildings for our educational and correctional institutions, bonds in large amounts have been issued, and a substantial percentage of the revenue derived from State mineral leases has been dedicated by our constitution to the retirement of such obligations.

The Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans and the Board of Commissioners of the Orleans Levee District have reclaimed large segments of submerged land, upon which they have constructed vast improvements at enormous cost. These State agencies not only depend upon the revenue from such improvements to meet operating costs but to pay large issues of bonds, many of which are now outstanding, to cover the cost of improvements.

It occurs to me rather forcefully that, no matter how serious and urgent the needs of legislative relief to the States, their subdivisions and agencies, of equal importance is the necessity of legislation to care for the ominous position of private investors who, relying upon universal recognition of and respect for State ownership, have invested great effort and fortunes into the development and productivity of submerged lands.

To create or perfect State titles to all lands and all resources thereof beneath navigable waters within their respective boundaries would only accomplish the equity and recognize the fair play which are so justly due the several States: however, I dare voice the opinion that neither fairness nor logic would result from legislation whereby some States gain and others lose in a division of the issue or from legislation recognizing the States as owning the land and the Federal Government the minerals therein and thereunder.

Whether the Federal Government needs resources for the control of national defense or the fulfillment of responsibilities in international relations, the States in possession of such resources are ever willing to give the Federal Government priority of purchase. In tranquil periods or times of emergency, the United States can have what it wishes from the States, merely upon paying fair and just compensation. Therefore, I do not believe that the committee will find merit in the argument that the Federal Government should own and control submerged lands and the resources thereof merely because it may have need of natural resources when, and if, the domestic security of our Nation is threatened. Gentlemen of the committee, I respectfully urge a favorable report of the bill. Now, turning, if I may, to the brief of Fred S. LeBlanc, attorney general of the State of Louisiana :

My name is Fred S. LeBlanc, attorney general of the State of Louisiana, with personal and official domicile in the city of Baton Rouge, La.

Inasmuch as it now seems impossible for me to attend the hearings on Senate bill 1988, I have instructed John L. Madden, a special assistant on my staff. to represent me on such occasion and, with leave of the committee, to read this brief and to answer any questions that the committee may see fit to propound, relating to Louisiana's position in the proposed legislation.

Louisiana's crucial situation: Our intense concern in this legislation is primarily based on geographical circumstance; that is, our territorial possession of such vast quantities of the lands with which the legislative measure deals. Through the inland area of Louisiana the waters from 31 States and 2 Canadian Provinces pass to the Gulf of Mexico. Exceeding every other State in the Union. Louisiana has 4,794 miles of navigable streams, excluding lakes and bays.

It is rather amazing to observe that, while the shortest line drawn across the Louisiana coast extends a distance of only 397 miles, the inland tidal highwater line of that coast, including indentations, covers a distance of 6,952 miles.

These indentations follow the outline of numerous lakes and bays, some of which not only extend inland for great distances but expand far to the south in a gulfward direction. Over broad and far-reaching spaces offcoast, our margi

nal waters are astoundingly shallow-so shallow, in fact, that islands therein appear to move in some mysterious manner, emerging here and sinking there, and being lost until they are discovered as forming a part of the coast or other islands of greater permanence.

Obviously the lands beneath such shallow waters, extending gulfward over an extensive area, are well adapted for utilization and, by nature, are more closely related to the coastal region than they are to the ocean's bottom or the soils underlying the open sea. This is all the more true when we consider the fact that our coastal region is still in a state of constant change. land today may be water tomorrow, and the reverse is equally true.

What is

Upon reaching coastal outlets, an expansive confluence of waters joins with wind and tide to create physical curiosities of land and water. Water courses change from time to time, leaving great deposits of natural accretion. But largely inexplicable is the recession of our coast line, particularly on the west where about 14 miles of dry land has fallen into the Gulf since Louisiana was admitted to statehood.

Indeed, if lands of the State and those of the Federal Government could be said to join at the low-water mark, the task of finding that line at this time and on future occasions would entail no minor difficulty—

But, interpolating, let me emphasize the rest of the sentence:

and where it was in 1812 when Louisiana entered the Union is a question that no living man can be expected to answer.

Even if lands, so great in area, underlying our inland and marginal waters, were not presently known to possess valuable resources, potentialities would justify us in fighting to retain them. But they are rich in many known resources, and it shall be my purpose to show what a remarkable contribution they are making to the financial program of our State and the economic welfare of our citizens and what it would mean to us should we lose these resources and the revenues derived therefrom.

Oil, gas, and mineral development: The development of our submerged lands for oil, gas, and minerals is not the result of an accidental or recent experiment. Plans had already been made for long-range exploration of such lands for the purpose stated when, in 1915, our legislature authorized the leasing of State lands, including water bottoms, for oil, gas, and minerals and, again, in 1921, when a provision was incorporated in our constitution of that year forbidding the alienation in fee of the bed of any navigable water body, except for purposes of reclamation.

Development had become so intense and extensive by 1936 that the legislature then created the State mineral board, made it the State leasing agent, and gave supervision over all oil, gas, and mineral leases covering State-owned lands, including water bottoms.

Oil, gas, and mineral leases numbering 731 now in force, affecting State-owned lands, embrace an approximate total of 2,428,295 acres, the vast majority of such acreage consisting of lands beneath coastal or marginal waters within the maritime belt of the State.

According to a recent report of the State mineral board, the State has received exclusive of severance taxes, during the past 4 years alone, $18,262.018.75 from "inland leases,' $16,222,390.95 from "Gulf leases," or a total of $35,484,407.70 from leases of State lands, generally.

I must say at this point there is no fine demarcation between what is called inland leases and Gulf leases, because we do not know, Mr. Chairman, what constitutes inland waters. Some of these leases may embrace bays and some may go farther inland to some bayou or other water body. It may go on out in the Gulf coast.

Senator MOORE. You did not want to be interrupted, did you? Mr. MADDEN. That is all right, sir. I thought it would be well to read one brief after the other.

Senator MOORE. I just wanted to make the point that, as I understand it, much of the leased land inland is really water bottoms, is it not? Mr. MADDEN. Oh, yes, sir. Another thing is that in the large figure when it comes to so-called inland water bodies, you are taking in the

Der pear from the

one from

at the edge. se in the inLouisiana

out to the offshore.

n. that shrimp

Dry well out

Inderstand to be

le to report the earings of private perwins in ver. dscing and peter and shrimp povlaction over any appre clable number of years; boweren, it is estimated by the Louisiana Department of Wild Life and Fre 44 Digistanians are dependent upon the oyster, shrimp, and deh odway in or coastal water: that the products represent a their wats, tackles, plants, and equipment

represent an interment of $2400) 40 Recall on Reddities: The board of commissioners of the port of New Orleans, a State agency. Las undertaken extensive reclamation activities. On land reclaimed from the Mississippi River and an adjoining tract, the board has constructed a pribile cotton warehouse and a pubile grain elevator, representing a total investment of $103722657. the accomplishment of which required is suance of $10.427.143.99 in bonds. For a 4-year period ending June 30, 1947, the revenues from such improvements amounted to $4.070,835.09. Outstanding bonds on the improvements as of January 1, 1947, represented indebtedness of $4,946,615.30.

The board of commissioners of the Orleans levee district, another State agency, has also engaged in reclamation activities on an impressive scale, such work having extended from West End to the New Orleans Airport, along the shores of Lake Pontchartrain. This land was reclaimed for park and residential purposes, and the work was done in connection with a general lake-front develop ment program for which $15,000,000 in bonds were authorized. Many of these bonds are outstanding and secured by the board's revenue from the improve

ments.

During World War II, the Federal Government leased a considerable portion of these reclaimed lands from the board, on which an Army hospital, a naval base, and other military installations are placed.

The resulting hazard: From the foregoing analysis, this committee should see that the financial stability and economic welfare of this State are dependent upon its ownership and control of submerged lands and the resources thereof, together with reclaimed lands and the improvements thereon, and, particularly, from the revenues to be derived from such ownership and control.

To shift that ownership and control to the Federal Government would deprive the State of Louisiana of revenue needed for roads, public works, buildings, and many indispensable services. From some other source, not presently known, we would be obliged to turn for replacement in income to pay bonds and keep our children supplied with schoolbooks.

The State's loss of such essential and irreplaceable revenue would be trage enough, but even more stress should be placed on the precarious position in which private lessees, operators, producers, investors, and bondholders find themselves as the result of the cloud cast upon the State's title to lands and resources benea: the navigable waters inside our boundaries. Having been given full assurance of State ownership—

Mind you, gentlemen. I am not using the word "acquiescence." I know what the word "acquiescence" means in court. I say

having been given full assurance of State ownership, not so much by the State, but by the word and action of various officers and departments of the Federal Government, thousands of such private persons, associations, and corporations

have invested years of diligent and patient effort and great sums of money in the development of our submerged and reclaimed lands.

Experience qualifies the States to control natural resources: Louisiana's control and administration of submerged lands and the resources thereof and the dominion it has exercised over aquatic life in the navigable waters above such lands provide an appropriate example of the exceeding care and prudence which the several States have manifested in the development and conservation of natural resources,

The legislature of our State took a firm hand in the development of oyster culture as early as 1870, and at session after session, subsequently, even to the present time, it has stressed and insisted upon increasing care in the propagation of oysters, shrimp, and fish, through regulatory enactments.

Enormous sums have been appropriated for the development of oysters, shrimp, and fish as an industry for the people of this State and to provide a substantial amount of the Nation's sea food requirements to people throughout the States. Today, as a result of this painstaking effort, Louisiana ranks third in the productivity of its fisheries among eight southern coastal States. It produces 70 percent of the shrimp marketed in the world. Three hundred and sixty-nine employees of the State department of wildlife and fisheries devote the major portion of their time to the conservation of oysters and shrimp.

These employees, many of whom are experts, know local conditions and can best surmount problems of climate, food, and mortality attending the propagation and conservation of aquatic life. This experience should not be exchanged for inexperience, trial, and error. The people of the United States expect Louisiana to continue the exercise of unabated control over fisheries in its navigable waters, all for the common good and welfare.

Whether accurate or exaggerated, the assertion is widely made today that a scarcity exists in reserves of natural resources and the need of conserving such essential and strategic elements is broadly proclaimed by press and radio. 1. selections must be made between the Federal Government and the several Sites in the placement of responsibility, ignoring all traditional ownership rights, I suggest that Louisiana's experience in conservation practices speaks udly and convincingly in support of the several States as a choice. Legislative experiment in conserving natural resources has been going on for more than three decades in this State, and today it is our firm conviction that We have made statutes to insure adequate production for national need and no more. Waste has been eliminated and orders are carefully promulgated to govern acing, drilling, allowables, et cetera. This responsibility rests with the departRent of conservation.

The State mineral board, as the State's leasing agent, is bound by statute to limit the acreage of State lands offered for lease. Once lands are leased, the see must make a serious effort to drill and produce, or action is taken to Case forfeiture of the lease. The department of conservation sees to it that all Pes and regulations are observed by State lessees to insure against waste, and The department of wildlife and fisheries stands on guard to make certain that al. oil operations do not endanger fish life; and into the picture steps the stream ontrol commission to prevent the pollution of streams by discharge of oil

Wastes.

So the State's lessee undergoes severe pressure from all sides. He must view As obligations seriously, conserve what he finds, protect aquatic life, and do othing to impair public health and welfare.

He has very little chance to waste precious resources of the State. He is ader implied, but nonetheless real, contract with the State to save scarce and essential resources for the common good and protection of the Nation and all of its people.

Louisiana sets itself up as an example, not a model, of conservation practice n the administration of natural resources. The point is that, no matter how arce our natural resources may be and the need of conserving them for some Lational emergency, there is no reason to suspect that the Federal Government, with limited experience in such field, could possibly surpass, or even match, the remarkable record of State control and management.

If adopted, Senate bill No. 1988 would not repudiate the recent Supreme Court decision on the issue. I have heretofore stressed the equities which favor th veral States in the issue of submerged lands ownership; and assuming that ich equities do exist, the only question seems to be whether an accomplishment of such equities and other considerations would circumvent or repudiate the rent decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of United States 'America v. State of California.

revenue from production, but when you speak of production in coastal waters of Louisiana, you are only talking about a possibility.

This revenue consists of bonus money paid for leases, annual delay rentals, and royalties from production. A fairly close estimate of the grand total of such revenue from the inception of oil, gas, and mineral development of State-owned lands, including water bottoms, down to date is the staggering sum of $58,000,000. Act 406 of the Louisiana Legislature for year 1946 adds to our State constitution, the dedication of all revenue and royalties derived from minerals within certain areas of the lands in our maritime belt to the retirement of the bonded indebtedness of the State. That indebtedness now amounts to $156,105,000. In less time than 2 years, $7,318,034.28 has been derived from the source mentioned for application to said debt.

We do know something rather definite about that revenue because that is constitutionally dedicated to the bonded indebtedness, but you can't take this other revenue and break it down into particular water bodies because it all comes up together. Therefore, there never was any reason for us to try to separate it because we thought we owned all of the lands under the navigable waters, and we never made any distinction there.

Senator MOORE. Have there been leases or contracts made since the decision in the California case?

Mr. MADDEN. Yes, sir; there has. Those leases were made because in the California suit Louisiana was not made a party, it was not enjoined, and there was no adjudication of our title. Louisiana may have a separate claim or a special claim. There was no reason for it.

Another thing, Mr. Chairman, is that we have not set aside in any contingent fund any particular money that comes from it because it is not the practice of the State legislatures to put money in a contingent fund to pay off possible judgments. At every session of the legislature that we have had since I have known anything about it, people come down and lobby and do everything they can to get acts passed authorizing them to sue the State. We don't know what they are going to sue for or for how much.

If we were to try to set aside down there money to take care of these possible judgments, regardless of who the plaintiff is, the United States of America or individual suits, we would not have any money to operate on.

Mr. WOODWARD. The income from submerged tidelands is earmarked for your State debt, is it not, by constitutional provision? Mr. MADDEN. No, sir; only that portion that, as Major Hardey told you, was beyond the 3-mile limit. I am showing now exactly where the dedications are and how they are made.

We just started off by saying that within a certain area of those marginal-land belts, all of that revenue is dedicated to the retirement of the State bonded indebtedness. Now let us go on from this point.

Ten percent of the total revenue aforesaid, less the last-mentioned dedication, goes to the road fund for road maintenance; another 10 percent is dedicated to the retirement of $5,000,000 in bonds that were issued for the construction of buildings for educational and correctional institutions, and the balance is placed in the general fund for legislative appropriations for State services.

In addition to the revenue aforesaid, the State imposes severance taxes on oil, gas, and minerals when severed from the water or soil; for example, 6 to 11 cents per barrel on oil; three-tenths of 1 cent per thousand cubic feet on gas; $1.03 per long ton on sulfur; and 4 cents per thousand pounds on salt.