Resolved by the Assembly and the Senate of the State of California (jointly), That the Legislature of the State of California respectfully memorializes the Congress of the United States to enact S. 1275 or similar legislation clarifying the relationship of the Federal and State governments in the field of water resources development to insure that water development by the Federal and State and local governments may proceed on a sound basis; and be it further

Resolved, That the chief clerk of the assembly be hereby directed to transmit copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to the chairmen of the U.S. Senate and House Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs and to each Senator and Representative from California in the Congress of the United States.

Senator Moss. Senator Jordan.

Senator JORDAN. I would like to say I, too, appreciate the statement of this witness. The fact this matter has occupied the attention of the California Legislature is an indication to me that there is an area that needs attention.

We thank you for your statement.

Mr. PORTER. You have mentioned the attention of the legislature. In 1959 I did carry the largest water bill of all time, so we thought. But in the last 9 days I would say that the legislature has been so completely absorbed with A.J.R. 2, which is synonymous with S. 1275, that it became almost as much a water bill as the big Senate bill 1106, the Burns-Porter Act, which authorized construction of our California State water project. So we were quite interested in your bill and we would like it.

Thank you.

Senator Moss. Thank you very much, Mr. Porter. We appreciate your statement.

Mr. Biemiller has filed a statement as legislative representatve of the AFL-CIO which will appear in the record at this point. Also a statement by Jacob Clayman, administrative director, Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO.

(The statements referred to follow :)

STATEMENT OF ANDREW J. BIEMILLER, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATION, AFL-CIO

Mr. Chairman, my name is Andrew J. Biemiller. I am director of the AFLCIO Department of Legislation and I am chairman of the AFL-CIO staff subcommittee on atomic energy and natural resources. I wish to record the opposition of the AFL-CIO to S. 1275, and I request that a statement by the Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO, and a telegram from the California State Labor Federation, AFL-CIO, both opposing S. 1275, be included in the record at the conclusion of my statement.

For many years, Congress has recognized the special needs of Western States with serious water problems and Congress has taken action to cooperate with these States and to help them solve their water problems. The resources of the Federal Government have helped open up land for irrigation, control floods, generate and market electric power, manage grazing districts, foster mineral development, protect fish and wildlife, promote recreation, soil conservation, and many other land and water resources development programs. Without Federal leadership and assistance, the 17 reclamation States would be seriously handicapped in these programs.

"The Federal Government is and must continue to be the principal steward of the natural resources of the American people," the 1963 AFL-CIO Convention declared, reasserting our endorsement of Federal leadership and action to protect the Nation's interest in conservation and development of our natural

resources.

The interest of organized labor in natural resource conservation and development goes back a long way. In 1901, the American Federation of Labor endorsed the antimonopoly policy of what was to emerge as the Reclamation Act

36-961-64--10

of 1902. The federation declared, at that time, "we are unalterably opposed to the cession, by sale or otherwise, of such lands to corporations or speculators, or to the several State governments, every such course having heretofore resulted in sales to monopolists, with subsequent grave injuries to the rights of actual settlers and producers."

The labor movement has maintained its interest in protection, conservation, and development of our natural resources for the general welfare of the American people, and that is why we are concerned about S. 1275.

Clearly the current conflicts over the respective roles and authority of the Federal Government and the State governments in water resources conservation and development are not new. S. 1275 is the most recent of some 50 bills that have been introduced in both Houses of the Congress since the late Senator Barrett, of Wyoming, sponsored similar legislation in 1955. Although differing in some details, S. 1275 has the same goal-to hand over to the various States by act of Congress the exercise of the constitutional powers of the Federal Government in conservation and development of the Nation's water resources.

We believe the sponsors of S. 1275 are not aware of the dangerous implications of this bill. Although the ostensible, stated purpose of the bill is "to clarify the relationship of interests of the United States and of the States in the use of waters of certain streams," the main result of the proposed "clarification" policy would be to allow the Federal Government to continue to spend large amounts of money to carry out new, complex, and costly reclamation projects and other resources development programs but, at the same time, to subject the Federal Government to the veto of State laws.

Furthermore, if S. 1275 were to become law, the U.S. Federal Government would lose control of the water rights related to national forests, national parks, grazing districts, wildlife refuges, and other Federal lands-even though these lands would remain under Federal control. Thus, to assert these water rights, the Federal Government would be forced to go through long and costly condemnation and litigation proceedings in court.

Gifford Pinchot, the father of conservation in this country, has said that "the special interests find it far easier to control a State legislature than the Congress of the United States." This is the practical fact of life that gives continuing life to proposals like the 1955 Barrett bill and now to S. 1275. Below the plausible and perhaps even appealing surface of S. 1275 lies the same old drive of the special interests who want to control and monopolize the still unappropriated waters on the reserved and withdrawn lands of the United States. They want to keep Federal money flowing into water development in the Western States but they want the Federal Government under the control of the State governments in water development.

Senate sponsors of S. 1275 say this bill results from concern about the Pelton doctrine set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1954 in the case of the Federal Power Commission v. Oregon, and that it also stems from concern about a case which is still before a Federal court in southern Californi, U.S. v. Fallbrook Irrigation District. We believe the Pelton doctrine does not threaten existing rights to use of water which are valid under State law. In the Fallbrook case, our understanding is that it stems from a basic inconsistency in California State water law. This should be settled by the court before it is invoked as a justification for changes in Federal law.

Proponents of S. 1275 claim also that under the 1949 Gerlach decision of the Supreme Court the Federal Government can now preempt water rights of individuals without compensation. We believe, on the contrary, that the Court was particularly emphatic in laying down a sound general policy with regard to protection of individuals against arbitrary action by agencies of the Federal Government.

Mr. Justice Holmes once remarked that a river is not an amenity but a treasure. S. 1275 would dissipate this treasure by opening up for acquisition of private rights water long reserved to meet public needs. It would subject national water resources policies to the veto threat from each of the 17 reclamation States.

Thus, enactment of S. 1275 would be a dangerous backward step, wiping out many gains over the past 50 years in water resources protection, conservation, and development. Therefore, we urge this subcommittee to reject S. 1275 and to reject its approach to Federal-State relations in water resources development.

STATEMENT OF JACOB CLAYMAN, ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, INDUSTRIAL UNION

DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO

Mr. Chairman, my name is Jacob Clayman. I am director of legislation, Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO.

I wish to express briefly the views of the industrial union department in support of the opposition to S. 1275 which has been set forth by the AFL-CIO.

The general substance of this bill is very little different from a similar piece of legislation proposed by the Eisenhower administration in 1958. The IUD is happy to learn that the executive agencies of the Johnson administration are opposed to S. 1275.

In view of the growing need for this country to protect the sources of water supply for the demands of the future rapidly expanding, increasingly urbanized population, it is necessary to conserve, preserve, and wisely manage these sources for the benefit of all. The same is true for grazing lands, timber lands, and recreational areas.

Under the doctrine of unrestricted exploitation which pervades S. 1275, there would be made immediately possible, even inevitable, the invasion of America's national forests, national parks and monuments, grazing districts, wildlife preserves, and recreational areas as a result of allowing private acquisition of rights to use of water under subjection to State law. Thus the United States would be left with the land but not the water. Any reassertion of its constitutional rights would require costly condemnation and litigation, under which conditions orderly Federal water resources development could not proceed.

The purpose of this bill is to create a situation where the Federal Government continues to spend millions of dollars in developing western resources, but must do so under the shadow of veto by the governments or agents of the 17 Western States and under their control.

In view of the nationwide implications of the water problem, this return toward the Articles of Confederation could be disastrous for future generations.

The IUD finds that the needs for "clarification" of the Federal and State roles in water development is a fallacious assumption. The clarification has been proceeding under wise decisions on such cases as Ivanhoe, Pelton, Cowlitz, Arizona v. California, and others. The Supreme Court has upheld the powers of the United States to carry out congressional policies and programs in its own delegated constitutional sphere, without being subjected to the veto of States with conflicting laws or policies.

S. 1275 would reverse this orderly process of clarification, and, in addition, would subject the United States, in attempting to carry out the vast and complex projects of the future and which cover many States, to hamstringing restrictions, additional costs, and years of litigation.

When TVA was called "creeping socialism" by the monopolistic interests who wanted to control or acquire it, their "constructive" approach to the continuing problem of State-Federal relationships in a Federal system of government was to propose Dixon-Yates. The same kind of "constructive" alternatives is found in S. 1275, and with the same kind of backing. It could very well constitute a gigantic raid on our natural resources that would be hard to stop.

The IUD has yet to hear one supporter of this bill who proposes that it should contain the acreage restriction provisions of the 1902 Reclamation Act. We can only conclude that this protection is not in the bill, because with it there, S. 1275 would not be acceptable to its supporters. We are not aware of any Western State that does have such protections in its body of State water law.

The United States carrying out programs under congressional policy has made it possible for the West to be settled, rapidly developed, and assured of a water supply for its people. This bill goes on the principle that Uncle Sam is an enemy and the State governments are the only friends a citizen has. This is erroneous-historically, legally, and in every other respect.

If there has been any unwarranted invasion of the vested rights to use of water by individuals in the West by the United States, we have yet to hear of it. It can only be concluded, therefore, that the real purpose of S. 1275 is not as stated in the bill, but is in reality an effort to place private interests in control of the West's future in water development, through their control of State legislatures, and of State officials.

Therefore, the IUD urges most strongly that S. 1275 be rejected quickly and that any future efforts to clarify Federal-State relationships be approached along lines responsive to the needs of the Nation as a whole, and not to those of special-interest groups.

CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION, AFL-CIO,

March 6, 1964.

Re S. 1275-the so-called Water agency bill.

ANDREW J. BIEMILLER,

Director, Department of Legislation, AFL-CIO,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR AND BROTHER: It is our understanding that the AFL-CIO will be offering testimony in opposition to the above bill at scheduled hearings of the Senate Interior Subcommittee on March 10 and 11, 1964.

We have reviewed this measure and heartily agree it should be opposed as potentially very dangerous to the future development of water resources in the West on a federally coordinated basis. Please advise the committee that the position of the national AFL-CIO fully reflects the sentiments of the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO.

We are confident that your testimony will make a significant contribution toward defeat of S. 1275.

With best wishes and kindest regards, I remain,
Sincerely and fraternally,

THOS. L. PITTS, Secretary-Treasurer.

Senator Moss. There are two or three witnesses who have indicated that they must appear today because they are unable to stay over. It has become apparent that we are going to have to have a hearing tomorrow as well. We have not been able to get to the witnesses who are here and we do want to accommodate them all. All of them are very important witnesses. They represent large and important groups and their testimony must certainly be in this record for us to have a complete record.

My inclination is that Mr. Milton Fricke, of Nebraska, who is chairman of the Water Resources Committee, National Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts, will be limited to today's attendance in Washington so I will call on him next.

You may testify now, Mr. Fricke.

STATEMENT OF MILTON FRICKE, CHAIRMAN, WATER RESOURCES COMMITTEE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS

Mr. FRICKE. Thank you, Senator.

I have a statement that has been passed out. Do you have copies of it up there?

Senator Moss. I am sure we have it on the table.

Mr. FRICKE. I would just like to make a very short statement. I would like to read it; it is short. I will do better; I will make the statement that we are definitely in favor of this bill, the general principles behind it. We desire an action whereby these rights of the people are definitely pointed out.

So there is not this question that has been raised these last few days. We think people who have used these letters do have some rights and need some protection.

Thank you.

Senator Moss. Thank you, Mr. Fricke. Your statement will be printed in full in the record together with your comments. We appreciate your summarizing in that manner. We appreciate your attendance before the committee. Thank you.

Mr. FRICKE. Thank you.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF MILTON H. FRICKE, CHAIRMAN, WATERSHEDS AND WATER RESOURCES COMMITTEE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS

As a spokesman today for the National Association of Soil & Water Conservation Districts (NACD), I want to express our appreciation for this opportunity to present our views on S. 1275, which is designed to clarify in relatively limited and specific circumstances the "rights" of the United States and individual States with respect to water.

The NACD, by action of its board of directors, ratified by its council of representatives of 49 State associations of soil and water conservation districts, favors the enactment of legislation embracing the principal provisions of S. 1275.

The National Association of Soil & Water Conservation Districts represents 2,945 soil and water conservation districts in 50 States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Its primary purpose, and the purpose of its member districts, is the conservation, orderly development, and judicious use of land, water, timber, and related natural resources.

Each district is a subdivision of State government. Each district has accepted a responsibility, under State law, to develop and carry forward a long-range program for the development of soil, water, and other renewable natural resources within its boundaries.

Districts are now in their 27th year of service to their home communities and States. More than 14,700 men and women serve on the governing bodies of districts-almost all of them by election (some by appointment), and all of them without pay.

In districts we are vitally concerned with virtually every aspect of water management, water use, and water development. This is part of our responsibility to the States which chartered districts. It is part of our responsibility to the citizens and landowners living within district boundaries—and sharing in the operations and objectives of districts.

In districts we are engaged in water conservation on farm and ranch lands; in irrigation, drainage, and the reduction of waste; in flood prevention; in the development of water supplies for irrigation, municipal use, industrial use, and recreation; and in the reduction of soil erosion and silt movement which are a threat to the life and capacity of every water reservoir, large or small.

Inevitably, therefore, we in districts have a vital interest in the controversy over water "rights." We are among those who would like to hope, however wishfully, that the controversy could be resolved promptly and satisfactorily to all sides. Obviously this is not going to be the case. Complex constitutional and legal considerations are involved and these, realistically, are not subject to ready compromise. The basic issues, in fact, are not anywhere near settlement. As a result, in those sections of the country where water "rights" are a point of contention, water development-in the form of reservoirs for irrigation, municipal supply, recreation, and so on-can proceed only under a blanket of potential jeopardy unless it is undertaken under the direct auspices of the Federal Government, or unless it is undertaken in watersheds wholly in private, non-Federal ownership.

Even in the latter circumstance, there appears to be neither assurance nor protection for the private "owners" of water "rights" under State laws against a taking by the United States.

The effect of this wide U.S. jurisdiction over water, as confirmed by the courts, could be an important restraint, finally, on non-Federal investment in water development in the arid and semiarid parts of the country. In time, the inhibiting effect of this U.S. supremacy over water resources could extend to every other part of the country.

In short, we are concerned not only with the actual exercise of Federal water authority now, but with the potentially restrictive influences of uncharted Federal authority in the future.

The rules are not clear. If soil and water conservation districts, and local watershed associations, proceed with upstream construction and watershed development on the basis of State-assigned "rights"-and then witness the assertion of overriding Federal "rights" to the water-what happens to their investment in the watershed project? What happens to the values-in land, families, community, and commerce-that were dependent on that water?