We go ahead to the next case of Weber v. State Harbor Commissioners, which deals with tide and submerged lands in the State of California (85 U. S. 18, 21 Law Div. 798).

Although the title to the soil under the tidewaters of the bay was acquired by the United States by cession from Mexico, equally with the title to the upland, they held it only in trust for the future State. Upon the admission of California into the Union upon equal footing with the original States, absolute property in and dominion and sovereignty over all soils under the tidewaters within her limits passed to the State with consequent right to dispose of the title to any part of said soils in such manner as she might deem proper, subject only to the paramount right of navigation over the waters so far as such navigation might be required by the necessities of commerce with foreign nations or among the several States, the regulation of which was vested in the Federal Government.

Again, another California case, if I may, please. The case of Knight v. United Land Association, 142 U. S. 161, dealing with the same question:

It is the settled rule of law in this Court

Bear in mind "the settled rule of law in this Court"

that absolute property in and dominion and sovereignty over the soils and the tidewaters in the original States were reserved to the several States, and that the new States since admitted have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction in that behalf as the original States possess with their respective waters. Upon the acquisition of the territory from Mexico, the United States acquired the title to the tidelands equally with the title to the uplands, but with respect to former, with respect to the tideland they held it only in trust for the future State that might be erected out of such territory.

Mr. WALTER. They all follow Pollard v. Hagan, do they not?

Mr. TRAMMELL. Yes; but these are California cases, and this resolution here deals only with California.

Mr. GWYNNE. Those cases have to do with the title of land between the high-water mark and the low-water mark; they did not include the so-called submerged lands?

Mr. TRAMMELL. That is my understanding. As a matter of fact, the word "tidelands" is used interchangeably with "submerged lands." It is generally used by most writers unless they are getting down to a very fine point as covering both the submerged lands as well as the tidelands. Very seldom do you see that fine distinction made.

Mr. MURDOCK. Judge Hobbs made a distinction between the two in his argument.

Mr. GWYNNE. That is the point. I am wondering about that. Mr. MURDOCK. He very specifically pointed out that the tide is between the high and low water, and he absolutely excluded it under his resolution and in his argument.

Mr. TRAMMELL. Does not the same principle apply?

Mr. GWYNNE. That is what I want to know.

Mr. TRAMMELL. I cannot see any difference in the principle between the tidelands and the submerged lands.

Mr. MICHENER. That is the head, heels, and stomach of his resolution.

Mr. TRAMMELL. There cannot be any distinction between them.

Mr. GWYNNE. I am not sure of those cases, but they decide the question of title to the submerged lands. There are a lot of cases that pass upon title of this land between high- and low-water mark, but cases that actually decide the title of the land beyond the low-water mark are rather few and far between, and I just wondered if you had any cases of them.

Mr. TRAMMELL. Then there is also the case there of the United States v. Utah. You know the distinction that was drawn there, but I cannot see any distinction there. It gets down to this and this alone, that is, that States succeed to these tidelands as well as submerged lands as an incident to their sovereignty. They have owned them all the time, and the Federal Government, as the cases point out, they have held these lands in trust until the future States could be carved out of the territory.

Mr. GWYNNE. Do you have a brief there you are going to submit? Mr. TRAMMELL. I am going to submit one. I do not have it here. Mr. GWYNNE. Now, when you submit your brief, if you do find a case where the actual decision, not just the dicta in the case, was an actual decision involving the ownership of land below the low-water mark, I wish that you would make a special note of that for my benefit.

Mr. TRAMMELL. I think those are the only other points that we have as to the effect that this matter is going to have and therefore we respectfully request that this committee recommend that the measure not pass.

Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Chairman, may I just ask one question?

While it seems to be the opinion of some members that the feasibility or practicability of establishing a naval reserve there is not involved, to me it is a very important question, and I am wondering, without any prolonged argument, whether your point is this:

That it is not practicable to establish naval reserves there, for the reason that it would be drained by wells over which this resolution would have nothing to do?

Mr. TRAMMELL. Yes.

Mr. MURDOCK. Now, aside from that, suppose that a naval reserve were established, and the Navy would find it the convenient and the proper thing to do its own drilling, and provide artificial reservoirs— that could be done, could it not?

Mr. TRAMMELL. They would have to go in and do the drilling and store the oil, which would not be practicable. As a matter of fact, is it not true that the Navy today in its reserves out there is selling its oil on the open market?

Mr. MURDOCK. I am not sure; but I wanted to get your viewpoint there. The point that you wished to make is that it is not practicable to hold the oil in the ground as a naval reserve as long as there is drilling adjacent to it.

Mr. TRAMMELL. As long as the other wells are operating, why, that would be impossible; and I would like for you, you can see there are a good many hundreds of wells already in existence there; and that is the point, and we hoped or we felt that that was really the purpose back of the resolution, what it says on its face, to establish this naval reserve; and that cannot be done; there could hardly be any purpose in passing the resolution.

Mr. MURDOCK. It is a very important part of this discussion.

Mr. TRAMMELL. That is a misunderstanding as to all of those existing fields.

Mr. MICHENER. I would want to raise that question; I want it understood that this committee has jurisdiction on certain matters, and if the Navy wanted to establish a naval reserve they would not have been before this committee; that goes before another committee

of the House entirely; and they would have to get supplementary authority through other legislation.

There is just one question before us, and that is the question of title; and you can argue any way you like in the final solution of this matter, so far as this committee is concerned, there will be just one question disposed of and that is the question of title; and I think all of the committee will agree with me as to that.

STATEMENT OF HON. OVERTON BROOKS, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Mr. BROOKS. I would like at this time to introduce a joint letter signed by the members of the Louisiana delegation in the House of Representatives requesting this committee to respectfully submit an unfavorable report on these two resolutions.

I would like to say that the delegation has asked me to bring this over and introduce it in the record, with leave on the part of the committee to allow Mr. Mouton, who has not been able to sign it, but who is in sympathy with the matter, to come in later on and sign it. We just have not been able to communicate with Mr. Mouton. (The letter referred to follows:)

Hon. FRANCIS E. WALTER,

Chairman and Members, Subcommittee No. 4,

Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.

GENTLEMEN: We, the undersigned members of the Louisiana delegation, speaking for ourselves, the Governor, and the State of Louisiana, feel that the adoption of either H. J. Res. 176 or H. J. Res 181 would cast a cloud on the title of the State of Louisiana to the bottom of her navigable waters and that this would be unfair to the State in view of the fact that she has owned these waterbottoms without question since her admission into the Union in 1812, and has continuously developed and exploited them in the interest of her citizens, to the advantage of the whole State.

We, therefore, respectfully request that your honorable subcommittee submit an unfavorable report on the two resolutions above mentioned.

Respectfully,

J. O. FERNANDEZ.
PAUL H. MALONEY.
OVERTON BROOKS.
ROBT. L. MOUTON.
NEWT. V. MILLS.
JNO. K. GRIFFITH.
RENÉ L. DEROUEN.
A. LEONARD ALLEN.

STATEMENT OF HARRY R. JOHNSON, CONSULTING GEOLOGIST, LOS ANGELES, CALIF., REPRESENTING BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS, LONG BEACH, CALIF.

Mr. WALTER. Your position?

Mr. JOHNSON. I am a consulting geologist, in Los Angeles, at present retained by the Board of Harbor Commissioners of Long Beach, to appear before this body, and present certain technical data in connection with the off-shore operations on the California coast. Mr. WALTER. I am sure that it would be most interesting but do you think it has any bearing at all upon the subject that we are considering?

Mr. JOHNSON. It has a bearing on the matters that have been discussed here rather fully during the past 2 days.

Mr. TOLAN. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we proceed briefly, and we can determine that.

Mr. JOHNSON. I should be glad at any time, of course, to answer any questions, and you may interrupt me at any time.

Mr. WALTER. Go ahead with your statement.

Mr. JOHNSON. The coast of California, with its extension of about 1,200 miles of coast lines, would include along the coast a coastal strip running from mean low tide outward 3 miles some 3,600 square miles. Of that 3,600 square miles, there are off-shore oil developments where oil is obtained in commercial amounts of an amount not to exceed 1 square mile, and perhaps less than that. The 1 square mile is distributed along several coastal fields, and I should like to show a map.

This map is not the whole coast of California, but approximately 900 or possibly 1,000 miles of the coast; nor does it include inland, the full width of the State.

The blue zone shown along the coast line is approximately 3 miles wide, exclusive of the bays, such as that of San Francisco.

The northern part of the coast of California is in my opinion absolutely without possibilities of commercial oil development.

Between what is known as Half Moon Bay, which lies some 30 miles out of San Francisco, the point that I am now indicating, a certain amount of oil has been developed in rather minor quantities commercially. With that exception the balance of the coast of California, extending southward to a point in the neighborhood of Pismo Beach, which is about 12 or 15 miles due south of the town of San Luis Obispo.

From that point southward lies any future possibility of oil development in the offshore area of the coast.

The developments today are as follows. I will point to each field as I describe it.

Capitan: A coastal field, the development of which began within the land surface, and in other words, back from the seacoast quite a distance.

The Elwood field: The first development of which took place in an in-shore location.

The La Mesa field: Which is near the coast, and it is also near the city of Santa Barbara, and which in my opinion will not extend into the sea.

The Summerland field: Which was developed in 1894 and has passed entirely out of the picture. The oil sands there have been replaced by water, or otherwise have been rendered insusceptible of further commercial oil development.

Summerland field was developed in 1894, and the production in 1937 was 11,000 barrels, and in 1938, approximately 12 barrels.

The Rincon field is the next to the south, and this field also began its development on the shore, and the field lies a few miles to the northwest of the city of San Juan Buena Ventura. From the Rincon field southward along the coast to the neighborhood of Santa Monica, no off-shore or in-shore, immediately in-shore developments, have taken place, and in my opinion none will take place. The Santa Monica mountain range goes through the larger part of the area

that I have just described and fall rather abruptly to the seashore. and the rocks there are not those which in California carry oil in commercial amounts.

The Redondo Beach developments as yet are entirely inland, although the westerly end of the field is getting rather close to the shore, and there is a possibility of a slight amount of development off shore.

The next field to the southeast is that at Wilmington, and Long Beach. The next to the southeast of that is the development at Huntington Beach.

All of these fields had their original developments inshore. The discovery of the fields was due to the work carried forward by the various private companies, and by the United States Geological Survey, in connection with the study of oil possibilities of the California coast. That work was geological, supplemented by a knowledge and examination of the cores, and other records of wells drilled in the area. From those records it has been possible to deduce by geological methods the extension of the field outward from the area in which it was originally developed. In some instances those extensions terminated before the coast line was reached, as, for instance, at Redondo, or I should say toward Redondo. In some instances the structures are traps in the formation which retain the oil in commercial amounts, and they did prove to extend into the ocean. In every instance of which I am aware, however, the limiting area around the margin of those fields has been more or less determined already, whether that limit be inshore or offshore. As a consequence the only fields of any importance with reference to future offshore developments are concerned, are those in which the well-drilling already undertaken to date has not defined the margin of the field within the shore line limits, inshore from the shore line. Those fields are few.

The El Capitan field is practically limited. The future reserves in the El Capitan field are nominal.

The Elwood, which has produced a great deal of oil, a large portion of the area if the field is off-shore, hugging the shore rather closely; however, there is probably a considerable reserve of oil left in the sands which have already been developed and inclusive of the more or less arbitrary figures of a fixed amount within the sands as yet just tapped into, and not fully developed, the deeper sands of the area.

The La Mesa field, at Santa Barbara, need be given no further consideration as an offshore area, in my opinion.

The Summerland field, nothing.

The Rincon field, which is the most striking field as far as its extension into the ocean is concerned, presumably has a moderate reserve against the future, but a very moderate one. This field is striking to the observer, because here the wells have been built on piers and in one instance the well which is the most distant from the shore line and is also the end of the productive limits of the field stands on an artificial island, offshore.

Now, the coast of California, unlike that of Texas, is a very abrupt one. There is the usual narrow continental shell of relatively shallow water a short distance off-shore, but beyond that depths are