State associations than as any expert testimony on the water question. I am not familiar with expert water matters. But I should like, with your permission, to read this short statement.

Mr. ASPINALL. You may proceed.

Mr. APPLEMAN. We appreciate this opportunity to be heard on H.R. 5555.

The American National Cattlemen's Association (made up of individual members, 29 State cattlemen's associations and 115 county and regional groups mainly in the West and South) at its annual convention adopted a resolution which urged passage of Federal legislation that would reaffirm the rights of the States "to control, supervise, and adjudicate their waters.' A similar resolution has been passed each year for several years.

Ever since settlement began in the semiarid West, there has been competition for water. Laws controlling the use of it have been developed over the past century through local courts and legislation to meet local needs. At almost the start, the decisions separated the land, which went to the homesteader, and the water, which became the province of the State. And for many years the Federal Government itself based its claims for water within a State on that State's water law, which generally meant the law of appropriation. With all the litigation involved, this had become a settled question, lending stability and permanence to all agricultural operations.

During the past 93 years, beginning with the act of 1866, which confirmed the acquisition of water rights in accord with local customs, 18 laws have been passed-and I understand there are more-by Congress which recognize and protect the water rights acquired under State laws. So Congress has, time and again, said that the Federal Government should not interfere with State water laws. It has said, in effect, that the Federal Government must acquire water rights in the same manner as other appropriators under State laws.

But in recent years some departments of the Federal Government have regarded the Federal statutes recognizing the authority of the States to control their water as less than mandatory, and have come out with a new doctrine that when the Government withdraws land from the public domain, it also withdraws water.

Under this view, State laws on appropriation of water would have no application to the waters of the withdrawn public lands, and the argument can be made that rights acquired under State laws for use of water on Federal reservations are void. This is a serious threat to a part of the country where land withdrawals of one kind or another have amounted to millions of acres. These Government claims have resulted in a fear that long-established water rights are being jeopardized. The problem is particularly serious in the West, where, roughly, half the land is Government land.

It seems to us that there is validity in holding to something as consistent and well established as the repeated decisions of Congress in regard to the right of the States to the control of their water. We hope you will approve H.R. 5555 which would clearly establish the authority of the States over their water.

Mr. ROGERS (presiding). Thank you very much, sir.
Are there any questions?

Do any of the committee members have any questions?

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Haley.

Mr. HALEY. I just want to say to the gentleman that his organization, of course, in my State has a very fine reputation, as outstanding gentlemen, as I well know they are throughout the Nation. However, I do want to point out this fact to the witness. He says that he hopes that we will legislate in this field. I hope the gentleman will go back and study some of the recent rulings that we have had. Maybe if we do legislate in this field we might run into what is known as the preemption clause. In other words, when the Congress legislates in one field, it preempts the rights of all States, so says the Supreme Court. Mr. ROGERS. Any other questions?

Thank you very much, Mr. Appleton.

Mr. ROGERS. The next witness is Mr. O. F. Dent, representing the Texas Board of Water Engineers.

Mr. Dent.?

STATEMENT OF 0. F. DENT, TEXAS BOARD OF WATER ENGINEERS

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

In the interests of time and your heavy schedule, with many other witnesses waiting, I would like to present to you this statement and request that it be made a part of the official record, with one reservation; and that is that in the conclusion of this statement, a number of expressions of this Congress have been made, with the citations expressed, and a number of those have been called to your attention, which I would suggest be stricken, since they are already in the record.

Mr. ROGERS. Without objection, the statement will be included in the record, with the deletion of such matters appearing on the bottom of page 3 and thereafter that may be duplications of matter already in the record.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Dent is as follows:)

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Chairman Durwood Manford and members R. M. Dixon and myself, Otho F. Dent, constitute the State Board of Water Engineers of Texas. The board is charged with the responsibility of administering the water laws of the State. It is invested with broad powers with respect to the appropriation and utilization of public waters. It is authorized to pass upon all applications for permits to appropriate State waters. It is the duty of the board to approve all applications and issue permits if such applications are made in proper form and in compliance with the provisions of law and regulations of the board. The proposed applications must contemplate the allocation of water to one or more of the purposes provided for by law and not impair existing water rights, or vested riparian rights, and be not detrimental to the public welfare.

The State's title to water within its domain and some individual water rights are of long standing. When the Republic of Texas opened for business in 1836, it recognized the grants of lands and waters which had been made by the predecessor Governments of Spain and Mexico. The character of ownership of its lands and waters was not changed by the treaty provisions under which Texas was admitted to the Union. In the annexation process Texas retained its rights to the water in its wholly contained streams except as to certain rights related to navigation which were acquired by the Federal Government.

So we may say, broadly, that the State of Texas is the sovereign source of title to all the waters in its self-contained streams, to that portion of the water of the interstate streams allocated to Texas by compact, and to all of the water of the Rio Grande allocated to the United States under treaties with Mexico. The laws of Texas govern the control, distribution, and use of these waters.

The legislature in 1889 provided the necessary procedure whereby water rights could be obtained in addition to those granted with the land under the Dominion of Spain, Mexico, the Republic of Texas, and the State of Texas. The Texas Legislature in 1913 restated the principle of State ownership of all the waters of the State and enacted the permit system for appropriation of these waters. Texas water law is based upon the principle, that the sovereign owns all of the surface waters of the State and holds these waters in trust for the public.

It is the purpose and policy of Texas to investigate the character of the principle requirements of the watershed areas of the State for authorized uses, to the end that distribution of the right to take and to use these waters may be equitably administered and economically coordinated, so as to achieve the maximum of public value from this resource.

The economy of Texas and also of the rest of the 17 Western States is largely built upon the recognition that the right to use water is a property right. Vast areas of land in our Western States are of little value if deprived of water. The right acquired by the appropriation of water has been recognized from the beginning of development of the West as a property right, just as valued and usually more so, and just as much protected by the law, as title to the land itself. In Texas the control of water means the direct control of land dependent upon it for such land without water is useless. Control of water also controls the location of industry with its attendant population. It means the power to replace an existing economy with a new economy; the power to destroy settled areas and to raise up new areas-all by the manner in which these water resources are administered.

We heartily endorse H.R. 5555. We concur in the fundamental principles embodied in this proposed legislation and request this committee's usual sincere consideration. H.R. 5555 serves two purposes. First, it protects and preserves water rights as property rights. This assures stability of local economy, maintaining property values and continued prosperity. Orderly development of property in the United States is dependent on a continued recognition of the supremacy of the States in land and water law, so as to preserve the property rights that have been acquired and protected under such laws. Second, H.R. 5555 restates and reaffirms a basic congressional policy. The principle of supremacy of State water laws over the ownership, distribution, and use of ground and surface waters has been recognized in States lying wholly or partly west of the 98th meridian by both Federal law, State law and the enabling acts by which many of the States were admitted to the Union. The United States of America and Federal agencies have respected this policy by filing applications for water permits in Texas. It should be added that without exception these permits were granted and the usual statutory fees were waived by the board of water engineers.

The following citations are expressions of the same congressional intent that is sought to be established as a general law by H.R. 5555:

(The material referred to may be found on page 256.)

Mr. DENT. During this hearing, Mr. Chairman, those citations have been given.

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. DENT. And I see no reason for making the record more voluminous than necessity dictates.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Otho F. Dent, and I am a member of the State board of water engineers in Texas. That board is composed of three members, Durwood Manford, chairman, R. M. Dixon, and myself. This board is vested with broad powers under State law in the realm of developing and distributing and appropriating the water resources of the State.

We, in Texas, are supporting H.R. 5555 in preference to H.R. 4567. We feel that we, along with the other 37 States, would like to participate and enjoy the fruits of the labors of this committee, and we feel that 4567 is not applicable to our State or 37 others. We feel that the application is only to the 11 public land States.

We recognize, in Texas, that we are going to need all the water that can be developed and made available for the State within the next 50 years. We recognize, in developing those waters, that it is going to take the three levels of Government, the county, the State, and the Federal, to develop those water resources and to keep pace with the beneficial needs and demands that are accelerating within the State. We feel there is a place for all those three entities. And when I speak of local government, I am speaking on the county level, and then the State and Federal. In planning and developing the water resources, there have been few questions and few areas of conflict up until recent years. We feel that trend is taking place now, and we fear it might accelerate, and I might say that we in Texas have avoided so far that area of conflict; but it is like a traffic accident. It is gradually coming closer to home, and we do not recognize it until it hits with us.

The Federal agencies operating in Texas have been very cooperative with the State. We cooperated with them and other agencies 2 years ago and put out what we called a markup plan for the State of Texas, with all agencies participating therein. In that, there was definitely set out the agencies concurring therein, that it was the duty and obligation of the State to plan the development and coordinate the development of the water resources of the State.

It is the only agency, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that has the mechanics now set up. It is the only agency that has experience and has been in the field of planning and developing the water resources of Texas and the other States.

Gentlemen, we would like to maintain that position. We think it is a healthy position for the economy of our Nation. We recognize that there is a twilight field, so to speak, of overlapping jurisdictions and authority. We think that H.R. 5555 will clear that field.

It has been said that another bill would dig a post to begin building a fence. Gentlemen, we have been building a fence for a hundred

years.

H.R. 5555 will do two things. It will preserve and protect the water rights which are property rights. It will preserve and protect an economy built upon those rights. And it will reaffirm and restate the policy of Congress that has been stated in some 30 different acts. And with clarity, I feel that it will be hard to circumvent, as stated in H.R.5555.

Gentlemen, in this twilight zone of chaos and confusion, I think there are two roads that we as people and as a nation might follow. One of those roads is an intelligent one that will maintain, protect, and preserve the economy, the rights that have been developed these hundred years, by retaining and preserving the State's administration

over the water resources.

The other road is a dangerous one, that perhaps confounds the confusion. It is a road of centralization. It is a road that has many hazards, and it is a road where individuals will lose their initiative, their integrity. It is a road where nations travel and few survive and

none return.

I will say again: We have not been close to a major conflict.

I recall to your minds the 1944 Flood Control Act, that states that west of the 98th meridian, including 17 States, waters for navigation

are subrogated to waters of higher beneficial use-domestic, municipal, agricultural, mining, and industry.

In the State of Texas the statutes provide the priority of use, and almost in the order stated in that congressional act.

We in Texas are protecting navigation on the lower reaches. We are just as much interested in navigation for the State of Texas as we feel perhaps the federals are interested in it. It is a part of our economy. But knowing that we are going to need all of the waters in the State eventually for a higher beneficial use, then it behooves that the State administer those waters, coordinate the planning and develment of all waters, because the greatest problem that we have, since 75 percent of our waters, rainfall, fall on about 25 percent of our area-our great problem is distribution.

Now, one of the fears that arise with us in the State is a piece of legislation which was passed by this Congress in 1958-the Water Supply Act-which provides that the Federal agencies can build conservation storage into their structures.

In Texas, we do not require a permit for a flood control structure. If it is a strictly flood control structure, we do not require a permit. We require a permit only where conservation storage is placed.

Well, we can see the field of conflict that might arise between the State and the Federal whenever conservation storage is built into a flood control structure and with no permit or no one to obtain a permit for that storage. And we recognize that every structure in our area should have built into that structure as much conservation storage as possible, and at the same time serve a multiplicity or a multiple use, including flood control.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Judge Dent. As I said the other day when you appeared as the alter ego of the government of Texas before this committee, the record should show the great service that you have rendered on this water problem in the State of Texas and the dedicated service that you have rendered. We deeply appreciate your views on the subject.

Mr. DENT. Thank you.

Mr. ROGERS. Are there any questions?

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Dent whether or not if H.R. 4567 is amended so as to apply to all of the United States, its Territories, and possessions-whether or not his decision would change, so that you would support that legislation.

Mr. DENT. I have not studied H.R. 4567. Personally, I would rather see H.R. 5555 amended to include the reservation.

Mr. SAYLOR. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROGERS. Any other questions?

If not, thank you very much, Mr. Dent, for your excellent contribu

tion.

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROGERS. The next witness will be Mr. J. E. Sturrock of the Texas Water Conservation Association.

Mr. Sturrock, if you will come forward and identify yourself for the committee, you may proceed.