Page images

(f) Travel expenses of employees attending Government camps for training in forest-fire prevention and suppression and the Federal Bureau of Investigation National Police Academy, and attending Federal, State, or municipal schools for training in building fire prevention and suppression.

(g) Investigation and establishment of water rights in accordance with local custom, laws, and decisions of courts, including the acquisition of water rights or of lands or interests in lands or rights-of-way for use and protection of water rights necessary or beneficial in the administration and public use of the national parks and monuments.

(h) Acquisition of rights-of-way and construction and maintenance of a water supply line partly outside the boundaries of Mesa Verde National Park. (i) Official telephone service in the field in the case of official telephones installed in private houses when authorized under regulations established by the Secretary. (Aug. 7. 1946, ch. 788, 60 Stat. 885.)

(6) SECTION 208 OF THE ACT OF JULY 10, 1952 (66 STAT. 560)

Excerpt from United States Code




Consent is given to join the United States as a defendant in any suit (1) for the adjudication of rights to the use of water of a river system or other source, or (2) for the administration of such rights, where it appears that the United States is the owner of or is in the process of acquiring water rights by appropriation under State law, by purchase, by exchange, or otherwise, and the United States is a necessary party to such suit. The United States, when a party to any such suit, shall (1) be deemed to have waived any right to plead that the State laws are inapplicable or that the United States is not amenable thereto by reason of its sovereignty, and (2) shall be subject to the judgments, orders, and decrees of the court having jurisdiction, and may obtain review thereof, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances: Provided, That no judgment for costs shall be entered against the United States in any such suit.

(b) Service of summons

Summons or other process in any such suit shall be served upon the Attorney General or his designated representative.

(c) Joinder in suits involving use of interstate streams by State

Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing the joinder of the United States in any suit or controversy in the Supreme Court of the United States involving the right of States to the use of the water of any interstate stream. (July 10, 1952, ch. 651, title II, § 208 (a)—(c), 66 Stat. 560.)




Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting or intended to affect or in any way interfere with or modify the laws of the States which lie wholly or in part westward of the ninety-eighth meridian, relating to the ownership and control of ground a nd surface waters; and the control, appropiration, use, and distribution of such waters shall continue to be in accordance with the laws of such States. (67 Stat. 31.)

(8) SECTION 4 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 4, 1954 (68 STAT. 667)

PUBLIC LAW 556, AUGUST 4, 1954 (68 STAT. 667)

SEC. 4. The Secretary shall require as a condition to providing Federal assistance for the installation of works of improvement that local organizations shall

(1) acquire without cost to the Federal Government such land, easements, or rights-of-way as will be needed in connection with works of improvement installed with Federal assistance;

(2) assume such proportionate share of the cost of installing any works of improvement involving Federal assistance as may be determined by the Secretary to be equitable in consideration of anticipated benefits from such improvements: Provided, That no part of the construction cost for providing any capacity in structures for purposes other than flood prevention and features related thereto shall be borne by the Federal Government under the provisions of this Act;

(3) make arrangements satisfactory to the Secretary for defraying costs of operating and maintaining such works of improvement, in accordance with regulations presented by the Secretary of Agriculture;

(4) acquire, or provide assurance that landowners have acquired, such water rights, pursuant to State law, as may be needed in the installation and operation of the work of improvement; and

(5) obtain agreements to carry out recommended soil conservation measures and proper farm plans from owners of not less than 50 per centum of the lands situated in the drainage area above each retention reservoir to be installed with Federal assistance.

(9) SECTION 4 (B) OF THE ACT OF JULY 23, 1955 (69 Stat. 368)

PUBLIC LAW 167, ACT OF JULY 23, 1955 (69 STAT. 368) SEC. 4 (b). Rights under any mining claim hereafter located under the min. ing laws of the United States shall be subject, prior to issuance of patent there. for, to the right of the United States to manage and dispose of the vegetative sur. face resources thereof and to manage other surface resources thereof (except mineral deposits subject to location under the mining laws of the United States). Any such mining claim shall also be subject, prior to issuance of patent therefor, to the right of the United States, its permittees, and licensees, to use so much of the surface thereof as may be necessary for such purposes or for access to adjacent land: Provided, however, That any use of the surface of any such mining claim by the United States, its permittees or licensees, shall be such as not to endanger or materially interfere with prospecting, mining or processing operations or uses reasonably incident thereto: Provided further, That if at any time the locator requires more timber for his mining operations than is available to him from the claim after disposition of timber therefrom by the United States, subsequent to the location of the claim, he shall be entitled, free of charge, to be supplied with timber for such requirements from the nearest timber administered by the disposing agency which is ready for harvesting under the rules and regulations of that agency and which is substantially equivalent in kind and quantity to the timber estimated by the disposing agency to have been disposed of from the claim: Provided further, That nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting or intended to affect or in any way interfere with or modify the laws of the States which lie wholly or in part westward of the ninety-eighth meridian relating to the ownership, control, appropriation, use, and distribution of ground or surface waters within any unpatented mining claim.

(10) ACT OF JUNE 4, 1897 (30 STAT. 36), RELATING TO FOREST RESERVATIONS All waters on such reservations may be used for domestic, mining, milling, or irrigation purposes, under the laws of the State wherein such forest reserva. tions are situated, or under the laws of the United States and the rules and regulations established thereunder. (Sec. 481, Title 16, U. S. C.)

Senator ANDERSON (presiding). The next witness is Matt Triggs, of the American Farm Bureau Federation. Will you first state your name, please, for the record.



Mr. TRIGGs. My name is Matt Triggs. I am assistant legislative director for the American Farm Bureau Federation.

I have no prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. My comments are rather brief.

The opportunity of presenting the views of the American Farm Bureau Federation with respect to this issue is sincerely appreciated.

Our statement is based upon the policy approved at our last annual meeting of the official voting delegates of the member State Farm Bureaus reading in part as follows:

State laws and established water rights must be recognized at all times. We recommend that Congress pass uniform legislation requiring that all Federal agencies with responsibilities for water programs proceed in accordance with the letter and spirit of the State water laws.

We note with interest the views of some of the Federal agencies as expressed to this committee. It seems to be their view that Federal agencies should recognize State law when they determine it convenient and feasible to do so.

The right to use water is a property right. The Congress has on numerous occasions declared that in the 17 Western States, State governments should have jurisdiction with respect to the control and development of water and the establishment of private and public right to use such resource. There can be no question of the authority of the Congress to recognize and establish this responsibility and authority in the hands of State governments. Any right or title of the Federal Government in the water of the Western States has been or should be considered to have been quitclaimed to the States.

Under these circumstances, in our opinion, it is conceivable that Federal agencies still dispute the sovereignty of States to control the States water resources.

If the Congress approves a Federal project of any kind, this does not establish any right of a Federal agency to seize without due process of law any land which may be required for such project, and likewise if the Congress approves a Federal project involving the use of water, this should not in our opinion establish any right of any Federal agency to seize the right to use water without due process of law.

We believe that Federal agencies should be required to apply to appropriate State agencies pursuant to applicable State law for the right to use water necessary for the operation of any project. It should be within the authority of the State government to decide the authorization to be granted to the Federal agency relating to the use of water.

We do not believe that the requirement that a Federal agency must obtain approval of the State government with respect to the use of water will stand in the way of undertaking any Federal project. In the great majority of instances, the demand for the project has come from the State and from the residents of the State. If the State wishes the project to go ahead, it becomes incumbent upon the State to approve such use of water as is consistent with State law.

In the case of interstate rivers, we believe it is equally imperative that the allocation and use of water be developed by interstate compact prior to project construction.


It is, we submit, folly for a Federal agency to proceed with any project unless and until the whole question of water rights has been settled. If the Federal agency proceeds without such clarification, it runs the risk that it will conduct a project which on the basis of subsequent court decisions it may not be able to operate.

Another facet of the problem is the right of the Federal agency to use water which originates on Federal land. We submit that the law in such instances should be that the Federal Government has exactly the same right, than would be provided under State law to private individuals if the land happened to be owned by private individuals

. A Federal agency should have no paramount or superior right which overrides private rights or State law.

We submit this is a simple legal concept and one which can be readily understood by Federal agencies and by the courts. But if we assume any other legal theory or if we assume that the right of Federal agency to use water is in some not entirely clear manner to be superior to State law, we immediately create an uncertainty, a vagueness in the legal situation, which defies understanding and consistent judicial analysis.

We wish to express appreciation to Senator Barrett, and the other Senators who have joined with him, for leadership in this matter and to members of the subcommittee for the careful consideration they are giving to the issue.

Despite the views of some of the Federal agencies expressed here, we would like to urge that the committee approve the bill. The issue is clear. We do not believe that further study as suggested by the Justice Department would clarify the problem. We believe the matter should be brought to issue, and that the historical policy of the Congress in this connection should be reaffirmed.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Triggs, for your statement.

You say that is part of the policy developed by the American Farm Bureau at its regular meeting?

Mr. Triggs. Yes, sir. The first part that I read has been our policy for many years. The last sentence that I quoted from our policy was developed at our annual meeting in recognition of the Pelton Dam

Senator ANDERSON. I have had some experience and know how carefully the Farm Bureau goes about the business of developing policy. I wanted to be sure it was Farm Bureau policy.

Mr. TRIGGS. Yes, sir.
Senator ANDERSON. Thank you very much.

Senator BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that I was called out while Mr. Triggs was testifying. However, I am familiar with the resolution of the American Farm Bureau and appreciate very much his kindness in coming up here and testifying in support of this bill. The Farm Bureau has taken a very firm stand as far as we people in the Western States are concerned on this question of water rights and many other questions, I may say, and we appreciate very much their cooperation. I can say that the Farm Bureau and Mr. Triggs have cooperated with we people in the Mountain States many times when perhaps the Farm Bureau has not exactly set it as policy, but in any event we know the Farm Bureau is sympathetic to our problems. This is a peculiarly important problem to us because of the fact that


[ocr errors]

it does involve something which is quite precious to the Western States. Certainly agriculture in the West would not be very much if we didn't have some security in our water rights. I guess that goes without saying.

Mr. TRIGGS. That is right. The folks that I have the honor to represent are the folks most definitely affected by the present situ


Senator BARRETT. There is one other point I would like to develop here with Mr. Triggs. The chairman assigned me the task of trying to work out along with my colleague, Senator Bible, a sort of compromise with Senator Long on the Small Projects Act, and Mr. Triggs was very helpful in that undertaking. One of the difficulties that we had in that matter, and which we still have as far as the conference committee is concerned, is the fact that the States other than the Western States have not established any definite policy with reference to the development of their water by appropriation.

It has been suggested here, Mr. Triggs, that perhaps we should resolve this proposal for legislation by setting up a study committee. The position that I take and which I hope this committee will take, which I am sure most of the people in the West take, is that we have been studying water problems for about 90 years now. We have discussed the matter backwards and forwards. Our position on the matter is firm and settled. It is a question which is not susceptible of compromise. There is the great difficulty. Furthermore, we have had conferences and studies over the years. We think no great good would be accomplished or no good purpose would be served by extending this matter further for the purpose of additional study as far as the West is concerned, but at the same time we do find ourselves in complete agreement with the Commission which was appointed by the President in its recommendation that we ought to make a thorough survey of the other 31 States and come up with some adequate water legislation. I know that you have worked on that particular matter for a long time.

Mr. TRIGGS. In a great many of the Eastern States the local peopleand we have been one of the agencies active in this matter-have now instituted either public or semipublic studies of the need for waterlaw legislation in the States. This movement is very active. A few State laws have been passed; incomplete, to be sure. This thing develops only over many years. We are hopeful that in the next 5 or 10 years we will find quite a different situation in the Eastern States so far as the opportunities to acquire a private right in water is concerned, than it is at the present time.

Senator BARRETT. I am quite sure that you are right about that. I said all this preparatory to asking you if you agree with me that a further study as far as this particular job is concerned with reference to the 17 Western States would not do any good at this time.

Mr. TRIGGS. I don't believe so. I believe the urgency of the enactment of this bill without very much delay is illustrated by what I can only term the appalling comments of the Justice Department which seem, as I read them, actually to repudiate what the Congress has been trying to do in this field over the years. Just to read one sentence, the Justice Department says:

Section 5 of the bill might be construed as requiring water deliveries from the Colorado River for the satisfaction of all rights to waters of that river

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »