I have never heard of a single complaint about any disadvantage resulting from that circumstance and I am sure none could arise. Senator KUCHEL. Just one more question.

Do you recall any reclamation project in which similar language has been incorporated by Congress?

Mr. ENERSEN. Senator Kuchel, I do not recall any.

Senator KUCHEL. That is all. Thank you very much, sir.

Senator Moss. Senator Jordan, do you have any comments?
Senator JORDAN. Yes.

Mr. Enersen, this is one of the finest statements on the subject I have ever been privileged to hear. I commend you for it. You have clarified the Pelton Dam case in my mind better than it has been done before.

I think you hit the nail on the head precisely with the statement which you did not read from your prepared paper. I refer now to page 6, the second to the last paragraph. I agree with you fully when you say in your statement:

I hope the time has not yet arrived, if indeed it ever does, when local initiative shall be powerless to assert itself in the economic development of the local area through beneficial use of our water resources until permission is obtained from some bureau or agency in Washington, D.C.

It is my opinion that is precisely what we hope to establish by the passage of S. 1275. We shall not have to run to Washington, D.C., to carry out the beneficial use and development of the water resources of the West in an orderly fashion and in the public interest, also. I thank you for your fine statement.

Mr. ENERSEN. Thank you.

Senator Moss. Senator Burdick?

Senator BURDICK. I think you have done a good job, too, Mr. Enersen.

On page 3 I think this sums up the situation quite clearly. You state, and I quote:

It should be pointed out that there is no evidence that this withdrawal of water by the Navy from the water storage would endanger the supply to the town of Hawthorne in the immediate future. Conceivably it could have been done in some future time.

That is just about the situation, is it not, that we do not have any contest or conflict between the Federal Government and the States now in any particular area?

Mr. ENERSEN. I do not know of any.

Senator BURDICK. It is what we anticipate-further growth and future development.

Mr. ENERSEN. A very, very large part of our problem is exactly that. We know in California we are going to have to develop an annual supply of 7 million acre-feet in addition to all present supplies in the next 10 years. That water has to come, by circumstances of nature, from the Federal forest reserve. If the views of the Department of Justice are correct, no one can afford to use water unless he has some duly authorized license from the Federal Government.

Senator BURDICK. To get this really clear in my mind, if this bill became law, water rights with respect to States would be recorded by the respective States and all water rights rising within their boundaries.

Mr. ENERSEN. Right.

Senator BURDICK. In other words, regarding the statute just like you would on surface lands.

Mr. ENERSEN. Yes.

Senator BURDICK. Would that mean that if the U.S. Government wanted to install a defense plant of some kind on reserved lands that they would have to acquire water rights either by purchase or condemnation from the State?

Mr. ENERSEN. If there were unappropriated waters available, Senator Burdick, the Federal Government could acquire a water right for the Defense Establishment just like you or I could for a farm or house by going to the State and getting an application on file. When it did that it would receive the protection of the State laws so that that right would have a priority against future attempts to appropriate the same water under State law.

Senator BURDICK. That is precisely my point. In other words, taking your map of California, there is no distinction of a water right arising away or apart from the Federal reserved lands or those arising on reserved lands.

Mr. ENERSEN. Correct.

Senator BURDICK. And whether it is the U.S. Government or an individual or a corporation, they would have to apply for and get title to the water right.

Mr. ENERSEN. If they want the protection of State law, of course they would.

Senator BURDICK. That is all. Thank you.

Senator KUCHEL. So that there may be no misunderstanding, however, it is not true that in a given instance would such a problem as our colleague from North Dakota has described that Congress could determine a present requirement on the part of the U.S. Government with respect to territory in a reserved public land area and determine also that the waters there would be committed to the State board and Federal Board?

Mr. ENERSEN. To the extent not already appropriated.

Senator KUCHEL. Precisely.

Mr. ENERSEN. Yes.

Senator BURDICK. We do not make any exception like this in legislation.

Mr. ENERSEN. Pardon?

Senator BURDICK. We don't make an exception like this in this legislation before us.

Mr. ENERSEN. No, this legislation, if adopted, would simply place those Federal lands back in the same category just like you said before. Senator KUCHEL. That is right.

But is it not true that where we say in the bill "Any right claimed by the United States to the beneficial diversion, storage, distribution, or consumptive use of water under the laws of any State shall be initiated and perfected in accordance with the procedure established by the laws of that State." That is to say, to the extent that the Federal Government claims under State law.

Senator BURDICK. To the extent the Federal Government has a right under the State law.

Senator KUCHEL. No, to the extent it claims a right under the State law. It may still claim under Federal law.

Mr. ENERSEN. The protection of the State law is a valuable thing in water rights. You have a priority system usually dependent upon the time when the water is put to use or the date when the application is filed, and it is not merely a burden on the Federal Government to go to the State water rights board and seek a water right-it is a benefit. By doing so they get the protection of the law. Just as Senator Kuchel said a moment ago, they get the protection of the recording act as when a private party files a deed and gets title to land.

Thank you very much for your patience.

Senator Moss. Thank you, Mr. Enersen. We do appreciate your

statement.

(The resolution referred to follows:)

RESOLUTION OF THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA Whereas the Irrigation Districts Association of California has consistently urged Federal recognition of the increasing need for water, and settlement of Federal-State problems in this field; and

Whereas there now exists considerable uncertainty as to the manner of establishing property rights in the diversion, use or storage of surface and underground water in the several States; and

Whereas this uncertainly arises from the fact that the Congress of the United States, although it has deferred to them, has not clearly manifested an intention to recognize the laws of the several States as to the appropriation, diversion, and use of surface and underground waters; and

Whereas this uncertainty gives rise to a clash of interests between the citizens of the several States and the U.S. Government, its agents and licensees as to the right to divert, use, or store the surface and underground waters within the territorial limits of the said States and causes delays in starting or even failure to start essential water conservation projects in the semiarid areas of the United States; and

Whereas it is in the interest of all that an orderly and definite rule and the supporting administrative procedure be established to protect valuable property rights in the diversion, use, or storage of the surface and underground water of the several States herein mentioned; and

Whereas S. 1275 introduced by Senator Thomas H. Kuchel and coauthored by Senators Moss and Jordan has the following primary purposes; (1) To assure payment of just compensation whenever the United States impairs a valid water right held under State law; (2) To require judicial determination through condemnation proceedings of the value of such rights if agreement cannot be reached; (3) To recognize in connection with Federal projects in the West the same rule as generally applies under State law as to preferential consumptive uses by agricultural and homes; (4) To make clear the fact that setting aside of Federal land does not set aside water arising on or flowing through such land: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Irrigation Districts Association of California approves the purposes of stated above and urges the Congress of the United States to enact S. 1275 declaring it to be the policy of the Congress that the laws of the several States shall be the means and method of establishing property rights in the appropriation, diversion, use or storage of surface and underground waters within the territorial limits of the respective States and providing that such laws shall be binding upon the United States and all of its officers, employees, and licensees. Senator Moss. We have several statements here, we will print at this point. Some of the witnesses have had to leave.

The first statement is from Randolph Hodges for the Florida Board of Conservation.

We also have a statement of Raleigh Robinson, of Tennessee, director of water resources of department of conservation and commerce. We will insert these statements at this point.

(The statements referred to follow :)

STATEMENT OF RANDOLPH HODGES, DIRECTOR, FLORIDA BOARD OF CONSERVATION Water is literally Florida's economic lifeblood. It provides recreational opportunities which attract millions of tourists; it nourishes our fruit and vegetables that sustain the Nation during winter months; it serves in myriad ways our rapidly growing industrial complex, and it is the vital factor of life to our burgeoning cities, towns, and villages. Presently and into the foreseeable future, Florida has ample water resources to meet all requirements, if the resources can be distributed in time and place to areas of need. Florida is expending every possible effort, both independently an in cooperation with agencies of the Federal Government, to accomplish these ends.

Inevitably, however, as our unprecedented growth continues, a time will come when in some areas there will not be enough water to satisfy all users and rights to use water will become of great concern. When this occurs, it is vitally important that the allocation of the available supply should be administered under the property laws under which the resources have been developed. Florida statutes include a declaration of policy which recognizes the rapid growth of the State in population, agriculture, and indstry and that the water resources must be protected, conserved and controlled to assure the reasonable and beneficial use in the interest of the people of the State. The statutes state that the waters of the State of Florida are a natural resource and that their control and development is within the jurisdiction of the State. Further, the State in exercising its powers may establish measures to use and protect the waters.

Florida statutes, while stating that the State's water resources shall be put to beneficial use and may be allocated in a fair and equitable manner, recognize that the property rights of persons owning land and exercising existing water rights appertaining thereto shall be respected and such rights shall not be restricted without due process of law divested without payment of just compensation. The State also has powers under the water resources law to authorize diversion and nonriparian use of surplus waters while still protecting the property rights of the riparian owners.

Many of Florida's surface streams border or flow from or into Federal lands such as national parks, national forests, migratory game refuges, fish and wildlife management areas and military reservations. These Federal installations all require water for which their rights are established under State law. If these rights should be altered or extended under Federal law, it would be at the expense and ultimate detriment of adjacent and downstream water users. This could result in economic chaos to private industry established with a clear understanding of their rights under the State law.

It is important that the established water law provide broad flexibility to meet future requirements, but it must be responsive to the needs of the users without transgressing on individual property rights. The State is close enough to the people to fulfill these requirements, and the Florida water law provides the desired flexibility. All of this could, however, be nullified by a Federal court decision imposing Federal water law in place of Florida law. Accordingly, we urge this committee, and, through you, the Senate of the United States to give favorable consideration to S. 1275 in order to affirm the rights of the States to administer their resources in the ways best suited to their individual needs.

STATEMENT OF RALEIGH W. ROBINSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES, TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, NASHVILLE, TENN.

The State of Tennessee has a strong interest in the provisions of S. 1275, and has been concerned for some time. House Joint Resolution No. 45 of the 1959 Tennessee General Assembly memorialized "*** the Congress and President of the United States to safeguard and preserve established State and individual rights to the use of water within the separate States." Recent court decisions and administrative acts of some of the Federal agencies are of grave concern, if Tennessee is to continue to administer intrastate waters within its own boundaries. Chapter 324 of the Tennessee Public Acts of 1963 requires anyone who withdraws over 50,000 gallons of water in 1 day to register such withdrawal with the division of water resources. Pursuant to a questionnaire under this act on September 20, 1963, one of the Federal agencies replied as follows, "In transmit

ting this information pursuant to your request, however, it should be recognized that the Commission does not consider that any of the activities of Carbide under its contract with the Commission involving the use of water are subject to the provisions of Tennessee statutes or of any implementing regulations. Submission of the enclosed questionnaires should not be viewed as a 'registration' under State statutes or regulations." Another Federal agency now administering thousands of miles of shoreline and who make large withdrawals of water verbally State that information will be given but that they do not recognize the provisions of chapter 324 as applying to them. This same agency in a publication of March 1963 on page 57 stated that they had the "** * responsibility to protect the objectives for which the public investment was made and [was] delegated specific authority to make certain that conflicting activities of others would never prevent or impair their achievement." Should such a statement be true, the State, in the control of water, could only operate as an arm of a Federal agency.

The State of Tennessee is active in the field of water resources. The division of water resources, now with engineers, geologists, and hydrologists was organized in 1957 for the purpose of maintaining a perpetual inventory of the existence, availability, and uses of water along with the identification of conflicts in the uses of water and other water problems. It is the further responsibility of the division to make recommendations as to the Tennessee law of water rights and whether or not there are to be administrative controls over the uses of water. We have actively participated in the Interstate Conference on Water Problems and endorse the action of that group as it applies to S. 1275. The early passage of this legislation is of great importance. House Joint Resolution No. 45 is submitted as part of the record.

Senator Moss. Mr. Harry L. Graham, legislative assistant to national master, National Grange.

We are very glad to have you, Mr. Graham. We had another representative of our national farm organizations and we are pleased to hear from you, sir.

STATEMENT OF HARRY L. GRAHAM, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT TO NATIONAL MASTER, NATIONAL GRANGE

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have listened to this discussion for a couple of days and I hope the committee is not any more confused about it than I have been. I am particularly concerned about who speaks for California, if anybody does.

At the beginning I would like to read into the record this telegram which I received from the California State Grange.

Senator Moss. All right, sir. You may proceed in that manner. Mr. GRAHAM (reading):

THE NATIONAL GRANGE,
Washington, D.C.:

SACRAMENTO, CALIF., March 9, 1964.

California State Grange and its 397 subordinate granges throughout California oppose Senate bill 1275 in its present form. Its provisions are distinctly aganist conservation of the various States as well as national water resources. The Grange, since its inception in California over 90 years ago, has consistently endorsed the preservation of the Nation's water resources as belonging to all the people and that they be held in perpetuity for the benefit of all the people. Present bill S. 1275 would open the doors to private and other aggressive interests to appropriate waters that should held for the benefit and use of all our inhabitants. We urge all interested in actually conserving public water resources to oppose its passage.

J. B. QUINN,

Master, California State Grange.