supply, the problems of Federal-State water rights conflicts will be found in the Eastern States as well as in the West.

Already many of the Eastern States have had to enact laws per'taining to the use of water within their boundaries. Increased emphasis on Federal activities in fields such as outdoor recreation, streamflow regulation for pollution abatement, fish and wildlife conservation, and other purposes, will tend to highlight the potential area of conflict between State water laws and Federal activities.

The Department of Justice has recognized this problem, and under the previous administration I understand that the Department of Justice and the other departments of the executive branch in the Government, had agreed to a short bill which in effect repealed the -reservation doctrine as it was stated in the Pelton decision.

However, this does not go far enough for those in the States who deal with water rights problems every day. A broader approach is necessary, dealing with the threats to water rights brought about by other types of Federal activity.

On the other hand, I clearly understand that constitutionality of any legislation which would subject the Federal Government to the powers of the States would be questionable.

These problems were brought before the Select Committee on National Water Resources, and that committee's report concludes its discussion of the problem with the following statement:

The problem of Federal-State water rights is one that calls for broad objective inquiry, and for statesmanship of the highest caliber on the part of both the Congress and the States in its solution. A solution must be worked out, and worked out promptly, for the preservation of the historic pattern under which our people have grown great.

I welcome this inquiry by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and I am going to do everything in my power to see that these hearings are pursued to a successful conclusion, which as I see it would be the enactment of legislation which will soothe the fears of the westerners who see their economic life hanging in the balance. With this, Mr. Chairman, I am going to turn over the floor to others who have statements to make, and I hope that out of the synthesis of all their views we will be able to find a basis for the committee to act. I frankly still favor the approach of Senate bill 1416, and will continue to advance it. However, I am willing to listen to other ideas and suggestions-I feel we must find a solution to the Federal-State water rights conflict, and reach a common ground, before we can move forward as vigorously as we must with a full program of water resource development.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Moss.
Senator Bible?

STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN BIBLE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

Senator BIBLE. I have just a couple of words, Mr. Chairman. I want to join others who commended you for having this hearing. I think this is a very important hearing. I have watched with a great deal of interest the developments over the last few years of our as yet rather vain attempts to reach some type of legislation that would set

at rest jurisdictional disputes and recognize the power of the soverign States to provide for the control of waters within their borders.

I would particularly like to compliment Elmer Bennett, who I notice is one of the witnesses to appear before us today, for the work that he conducted in this field. I thought at one time we were just about together in this particular area of conflict between the Interior point of view and the position of the Justice Department.

Be that as it may, legislation did not materialize. However, I would hope that out of these exploratory hearings, investigatory hearings, we could move forward in this very interesting field.

The Hawthorne case has been cited by my distinguished colleague from California. This is a very interesting case. It proves up some of the problems that a sovereign State does have.

Here the U.S. Navy was within a few days of obtaining, without delay or difficulty, their certificates of appropriation from the State water engineer when the Pelton case was handed down. They could have gone to Carson City and by paying a fee of $2 would have received their certificate from the State, but the U.S. Supreme Court spoke.

Now a good many years later and probably several hundred thousand dollars later, they are still arguing as to whether the Navy must file the final proofs with the State water engineer. This is a problem that could have been very simply and very easily handled, in a very important ground water basin in the State of Nevada, for the munificent sum of $2.

Uncle Sam, doing things sometimes the way he does do them, choose to spend tens of thousands of dollars and the State was then required to act. The significance, it seems to me, in this particular case, was that the Navy, under their present philosophy and relying upon the Pelton case, can well drill the basin out of water and absolutely dry up the surrounding towns, those two or three towns in that area.

These are some of the effects that come out, the practical effects that come about, as a result of this decision.

I would hope that this hearing will move us down the road a little further and once and for all we can obtain some legislation. We have had this matter session after session.

I do commend you, Mr. Chairman, very sincerely, for the hearing which you are having here today. I trust the difference in viewpoints can be reasonably well reconciled and some legislation once and for all determined on this question of sovereignty.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. I wanted to call on Senator Bible because of the mention of the Hawthorne case.

Are there other Senators who would like to make comments at this time? Senator Miller.

STATEMENT OF HON. JACK MILLER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

Senator MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to join with the other members of the committee in thanking you for holding these hearings. I think I should say at the outset that as far as I am concerned, I hope that these hearings will not confine themselves so much to what the law is as to what perhaps it should be.

What Congress chooses to do in this area is the important thing, regardless of what the law is. This means to me that Congress should decide what is essential to do as distinguished from what merely appears to be desirable.

In connection with the word "essential," it seems that we ought to confine the Federal activity to what is necessary in view of a clear and direct danger to the welfare of the Nation if the Federal Government does not act.

I would be hopeful that the hearings would develop this idea particularly, of wherein must the Federal Government act, because if it doesn't act there will be a clear and direct danger to the welfare of the Nation as a whole.

I would like to emphasize this approach because at least the people in my State, I am quite certain, feel that the activity of the Federal Government should be confined pretty much to this kind of a test.

In 1957, the Iowa legislature, of which I was a member, enacted a comprehensive water rights law. I would like to read the declaration of policy which is contained in chapter 455 (a) of the Iowa Code 1958. Under the heading "Declaration of Policy" as found in subsection A.2:

It is hereby recognized that for the protection of life and property from floods, the protection from damage of lands therefrom, and the orderly development and wise use and conservation of the water resources of the State by considered and proper use thereof, it is of paramount importance to the welfare and property of the people of the State, and to realize these objectives it is hereby declared to be the policy of the State, and with the vested powers of the State in a single agency, the Iowa Natural Resources Council, with the duty and authority to establish and enforce and appropriate, comprehensive statewide programs for the control, utilization and protection of the surface and ground water resources of the State, it is hereby declared:

That the general welfare of the people of the State of Iowa requires that the water resources of the State be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable and that the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable methods of use be prevented; and

That the conservation of such water be exercised with a view to the reasonable and beneficial use thereof, in the interest of the people; and

That the public and private funds for the promotion and expansion of the beneficial use of water resources shall be invested to the end that the best interests and the welfare of the people are served.

The water occurring in any basin or in any watercourse or other natural body of water of the State is hereby declared to be public waters and public wealth of the people of the State of Iowa, and subject to use in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, and the control and development and use of water for all beneficial purposes shall be in the State, which in the exercise of its police powers shall take such measures as shall effectuate the full utilization and protection of the water resources of the State of Iowa.

Mr. Chairman, this declaration of policy was very carefully drawn up, and I am quite certain that it reflects the deep conviction of the members of the Iowa legislature and the people of the State of Iowa that the State has the paramount interest and ownership in these water rights, and that if the Federal Government should choose, through the Congress, to superimpose its powers over the rights, water rights, in our State, that it should never do so unless there is a clear and direct danger to the welfare of the Nation from its failure to act.

May I say that we have received a number of letters from Governors, attorneys general, of the various States, and so forth. They will appear in the record at the conclusion of the oral presentations.

We also have had communications from several agencies of the executive branch. I will direct that these position statements appear in the record at this point.

GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
Washington, D.C., June 15, 1961.

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
U.S. Senate.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your letter dated May 16, 1961, which advised the Department of Defense of the committee's forthcoming hearings on the subject of Federal-State water rights, and offered the Department an opportunity to express its views on this subject.

The problems arising from the appropriation, use, and distribution of water are exceedingly complex and, although recent litigation has illustrated and highlighted some of these problems, many of them have not been finally resolved nor does any general and overall solution appear readily available. The Department of Defense, which uses substantial quantities of water in the conduct of various programs essential to the national defense, is fully cognizant that it is extremely difficult, particularly in the arid and semiarid regions of the United States, to meet the large and often conflicting demands for water for irrigation, power, wildlife management, domestic use, and other purposes.

In view of the magnitude of this problem, the Department of Defense has made every effort to accommodate the needs of other water users, to the extent that such needs are compatible with the national defense. Where the Department of Defense has acquired lands, by purchase or condemnation, it normally exercises only such water rights as were held by the previous landowners; in cases where additional water rights are required, the Department of Defense takes appropriate action to acquire rights vested under State law.

In acquiring the right to use water, the Department of Defense pays just compensation for all the vested rights it acquires in much the same way as it makes payment for vested rights in the lands that it acquires. Accordingly, no legislation is required for the purpose of protecting vested rights in water which are recognized by law.

However, in cases where a military installation is located on land which has been withdrawn and reserved from the public domain, the United States, in exercising rights with respect to water on such reserved lands, has refrained from making applications for water use permits to State water authorities or subjecting itself to State regulation. In one recent case involving military use of water, the question before the court was whether the Department of the Navy could drill six wells at Hawthorne Naval Ammunition Depot, Hawthorne, Nev., an installation covering an area of approximately 200,000 acres, without obtaining a permit from the State of Nevada. Since this installation was on reserved public lands, the court held that the Navy was authorized to drill wells without obtaining such a permit (Nevada v. United States, 165 F. Supp. 600).

To require the United States to comply with State appropriation laws in order to use water on reserved public lands might seriously hamper the national defense effort, and for this reason the Department of Defense is opposed to legislation requiring compliance with such State laws. There are many uses for which the military departments require water, which may not be recognized by State statutes, decisions, or regulations.

Although the Department of Defense has opposed legislation which would subject its use of water on public lands to the varying requirements of State law, it is aware of the problem of conflicting uses of water and the necessity for water conservation. However, the Military Departments have indicated that, although there have been problems of jurisdiction as between Federal and State law with respect to water on reserved public lands, they are not aware of situations in which the Government's use of water on public lands has adversely affected the rights of other water users in nearby areas.

The Department of Defense intends to follow the progress of your hearings, giving particular attention to any situation in which the Department's use of water appears to have been in conflict with the rights of private water users, or a serious interference with the water conservation program of any of the States. Sincerely yours,

CYRUS R. VANCE.

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Washington, D.C., June 14, 1961.

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate.

DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: In response to your letter of May 16, 1961, we wish to submit this letter in connection with the hearing to be held by your committee on June 15, on the subject of Federal-State water rights.

The Department of Agriculture fully recognizes the importance of the question of water rights, particularly to the people of the Western States. Cordial relationships and proper understanding between the Federal Government and the States in this matter is highly desirable. Many of the programs of this Department are carried out on a cooperative basis with the States and we are proud of the harmonious relationship that exists between the various States and their agencies and this Department and its agencies.

This Department has required appropriate conformance with the provisions of State laws in the administration of its various programs and activities providing assistance for watershed protection, flood prevention, and soil and water conservation.

One of the principal activities of this Department in connection with which water rights are essential is the administration of the national forest system. This system is comprised of about 186 million acres in 155 national forests, 18 national grasslands, and other administrative units situated in 44 States and Puerto Rico.

The national forests are established and administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes. The Multiple UseSustained Yield Act of June 12, 1960 (74 Stat. 215), directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop and administer the renewable surface resources of the national forests for multiple use and sustained yield of the several products and services obtained therefrom. The same principles are applied to the national grasslands. The availability and use of water is, of course, essential to the development and utilization of the national forests, the national grasslands and other lands administered by this Department.

This Department developed and transmitted to the Congress in March of 1959 the program for the national forests. It presented long-range objectives with a short-term program of development needs in the next 10 to 15 years in order for the national forest system to contribute its proper share to the national wellbeing at the end of this century. It recognized that the most rapidly increasing use of these lands is for outdoor recreation. The number of recreation visits to these lands rose from 68.5 million in 1958 to 92.6 million in 1960. In order to accommodate an estimated 600 million visits to the national forest system by the year 2000 there will need to be a great expansion in the number of recreation developments.

It has long been the policy of this Department to make filings with appropriate State agencies and in accordance with the procedures established by State law on waters needed in connection with the development and administration of the national forests. In this way, we have endeavored to indicate those rights which are needed in connection with the administration of the national forests so that both the State officials and those seeking to use the waters from the national forests would have information as to the needs of the Federal Government. The project of making these filings is not complete but is proceeding as rapidly as funds and manpower permit. The Department plans to continue this policy.

We believe that the responsibility of the Secretary of Agriculture for developing and administering the national forests under principles of multiple use and sustained yield requires that the establishment and recognition of rights to