1215, involved in the case of Oklahoma v. Atkinson & Co. (313 U. S., 508). That is the Denison Reservoir case. In that case the statute said, and I quote:

The Government of the United States acknowledges the right of the States of Oklahoma and Texas to continue to exercise all existing proprietary or other rights of supervision of and jurisdiction over the waters of all tributaries of Red River within their borders above Denison Dam site and above said dam if and when constructed, in the same manner and to the same extent as it is now or may hereafter be provided by the laws of said States, respectively; and all of said laws as they now exist or as same may be hereafter amended or enacted and all rights thereunder including the rights to impound or authorize the retardation or impounding thereof for flood control above the said Denison Dam, and to divert the same for municipal purposes, domestic uses, and for irrigation, power generation, and other beneficial uses, shall be and remain unaffected by or as a result hereof. All such rights are hereby saved and reserved for and to the said States and the people and the municipalities thereof, and the impounding of any such waters for any and all beneficial uses by said States or under their authority may be as freely done after the passage hereof as the same may now be done.

I should like also to read into the record, Mr. Chairman, this paragraph of the Desert Land Act of March 3, 1877. I may say that under the Desert Land Act, under the Reclamation Act and the Homestead Act, all of this country we are talking about was opened and on those acts we have built our lives and our civilization there. I quote

and all surplus water over and above such actual appropriation and use, together with the water of all lakes, rivers, and other sources of water supply upon the public lands, and not navigable, shall remain and be held free for the appropriation and use of the public for irrigation, mining, and manufacturing purposes, subject to existing rights.

I quote now from the act of July 26, 1866. That, Mr. Chairman, was the first recognition by Congress of the right of the California miners and irrigationists to change the whole riparian common law existing on water use and to go into this distinctive use of water we have evolved in the arid and semiarid west. I quote:

Whenever by priority of possession, rights to the use of water for mining, agricultural, manufacturing or other purposes have vested and accrued, and the same are recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and the decisions of courts

I interject to say that the Supreme Court shortly thereafter passed on this specific provision of law and approved of it

the possesors and owners of such vested rights shall be maintained and protected in the same.

I now read from the Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902, section 8: Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting or intended to affect or to in any way interfere with the laws of any State or Territory, relating to the control, appropriation, use or distribution of water used in irrigation, or any vested right acquired thereunder; and the Secretary of the Interior in carrying out the provisions of this Act shall proceed in conformity with such laws

I read these excerpts into the record, Mr. Chairman, for two points. First to show that we, by the long policy of Congress which has been consistently maintained, have definite rights and interests in these waters. Second, I read it into the record to rebut the notion that

because Congress does something today it necessarily must undo it 2 years from now. These are policies that have existed for 75 years or more without a single impairment.

Now, Colonel Reber, let's get to paragraph D. I may say by way of preface that this paragraph was put in pursuant to the repeated observations of the Chairman that what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. If we are going to put these restrictions on the Chief of Engineers we should put them on reclamation. I quote:

The Secretary of the Interior in making investigations or reports on works for irrigation and purposes incidental thereto shall, in relation to an affected State, or States, (as defined in paragraph A of this section) be subject to the same provisions regarding investigations, plans, proposals, and reports as prescribed in paragraph A of this section for the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of War. In the event a submission of views and recommendations made by an affected State or by the Secretary of War pursuant to said provisions sets forth objections to the plans or proposals covered by the report of the Secretary of the Interior on grounds not inconsistent with paragraph C of this section, the proposed works shall not be deemed authorized except on approval by an act of Congress. Subsection 9-A of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, 53 Stat. 1187, and subsection 3-A of the act of August 11, 1889, as amended, are hereby amended accordingly.

Will you give us the benefit of your comments on that, Colonel Reber?

Colonel REBER. Senator Millikin, the inclusion of this particular subparagraph (d) in the proposed amendment is frankly and directly in line with the thought which I expressed yesterday to the committee, that if such legislation were enacted it should be broadened to include all Federal departments. Of course, I cannot comment in any way, shape, or form on the effect of this paragraph on the Department of the Interior because that is none of my business.

Senator MILLIKIN. But being familiar with this paragraph would you be willing to say that it accomplishes in reverse English the burdens that have been put on the Chief of Engineers?

Colonel REBER. As far as I know their laws, sir, I believe that it does so in general.

Senator OVERTON. Well, let's see. May I interrupt at this point? Senator MILLIKIN. Certainly, Mr. Chairman.

Senator OVERTON. Let's see whether it does or not. Under the laws of the Federal Government the Chief of Engineers cannot proceed with the prosecution of any project-flood control or navigation-unless authorized by Congress.

Colonel REBER. That is correct, sir.

Senator OVERTON. In an act of authorization such as we are now considering.

Colonel REBER. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERTON. Is that true with respect to the Secretary of the Interior?

Colonel REBER. No, sir, not as I understand it. I believe the procedure is as follows: The Bureau of Reclamation makes a report on a project and arrives at a finding of feasibility, I believe it is called, in other words, that the project is justified and that the water users can and will repay the costs. That report, together with the Secretary of the Interior's views, is submitted to the President who can approve or disapprove the report. If the President approves the report, then

the project is authorized in the sense that the Corps of Engineers uses authorization-let me say-in the sense that authorization is applied to the Corps of Engineers as a result of an act of Congress. Of course, the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation then must go before the Appropriation Committees of Congress for an appropriation with which to build the project.

Now, there are numerous other ways and means of obtaining authorizations for Bureau of Reclamation projects with which I am not entirely familiar. For example, I do know, for instance, that the Grand Coulee and the Boulder Dams were authorized by specific acts of Congress. The Central Valley project was authorized by specific act of Congress, and then there are numerous other projects that I am not entirely familiar with, but that first statement of mine is, I believe, substantially correct with regard to irrigation projects in general.

Senator OVERTON. Now, diverting from the line of inquiry I wanted to make, the Central Valley Authority, you said, was authorized by an act of Congress.

Colonel REBER. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERTON. My recollection is that all that Congress did was to authorize the construction of the Shasta, Dam-or possibly the Friant and the Shasta.

Colonel REBER. I do not have the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1937 with me, but I am sure about the Friant Dam being included in it. There are several canals also. There is also the Contra Costa-I have forgotten the others right now, but by the Central Valley project I mean what was authorized in the Rivers and Harbors Act, I believe, of 1937, sir, included canals. I am not referring to those additional projects which were described the other day as being related to the presently authorized Central Valley project.

Senator OVERTON. But taking the law as it stands today, there is no necessity for the intervention of Congress in reference to any project in connection with the Bureau of Reclamation.

Colonel REBER. No, sir; not in a general irrigation project. Senator OVERTON. Here is the law as I see it. I am quoting from the United States Code Annotated, title 43, Public Lands, sections 412 and 413. It is my understanding that this is the law today:

After December 5, 1924, no new project or new division of a project shall be approved for construction or estimates submitted therefor by the Secretary until information in detail shall be secured by him concerning the water supply, the engineering features, the cost of construction, land titles, and the probable cost of development, and he shall have made a finding in writing that it is feasible, that it is adaptable for actual settlement and farm homes, and that it will prob ably return the cost thereof to the United States.

Now, let me interpose, such a recommendation coming from the Chief of Engineers in reference to any flood-control or navigation. project would then be submitted to the Congress for hearing by the appropriate committees and for authorization?

Colonel RERER. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERTON. Now, I read the next provision, section 413, under the caption of "Approval of project by President.”

No irrigation project shall be begun unless and until the same shall have been recommended by the Secretary of the Interior and approved by the direct order of the President of the United States.

That ends it. So that there is no authorization by Congress in respect to Bureau of Reclamation work or any modification thereof. Now, if we apply the principle contained in the O'Mahoney amendment to the Secretary of the Interior, we should amend this law by requiring that the Secretary of the Interior shall be required to submit his recommendations to the Congress and his recommendations be acted upon by the Congress, and that there be an authorization of the project proposed. That is correct, is it not?

Colonel REBER. To make the two procedures identical; yes, sir. Senator OVERTON. Well now, then, when we do that-let's go a step further. The Secretary of the Interior in his initial investigation and the preliminary examinations and surveys should invite all parties in interest, just as in the case of the Army engineers-they are invited to appear before the district engineers.

Colonel REBER. Yes, sir; to make the procedures identical; yes, sir. Senator OVERTON. Well, the law does require now that you do have these preliminary investigations as you have outlined?

Colonel REBER. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERTON. It should then go to some subordinate office, corresponding to the division engineer, and be there considered; is that correct?

Colonel REBER. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERTON. Now there should be a board within the Department of the Interior that should review the report made by an official corresponding to the division engineer and an opportunity on the part of all interested to appear before such a board, whether it be a board of engineers or what not, and to make objections to the project or support the project, as the case may be. Then after such a hearing, then this board would arrive at a conclusion, either modifying the project or rejecting the project or approving the project as recommended. Now, that does not obtain in the procedure of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of the Interior.

Colonel REBER. Not as I understand that procedure today, sir. As I understand it, their Denver office, the Chief Engineer's office in Denver, is the office that is responsible for making reports. Then those reports come on to Washington. I am not familiar with the full details of what happens to them in Washington. I am sure very careful attention is given them, but I know that they have no such board here. I know that.

Senator OVERTON. No public hearings.

Colonel REBER. Not that I know of, sir.

Senator OVERTON. Then to make the two cases parallel when this board in the Department of the Interior shall have passed upon the project it should then submit it to the Secretary of the Interior and then he should make his recommendations to the Congress, and then the appropriate committees of Congress would then conduct a hearing on the proposed project, and authorize it or modify it or reject it. Now that does not occur.

Colonel REBER. No, sir; that does not occur.

Senator OVERTON. Let us reverse the picture, if we want to make the two parallel. Let us say then that the Army Engineers should pursue the same procedure that the Bureau of Reclamation and the Deparment of the Interior now follows. That is, that within the fam

ily of engineers, just like in the family of the Bureau of Reclamation, a project is gotten up and considered without any public hearings and is given to the Chief of Engineers or the Secretary of War. Then the Secretary of War steps around to the White House and gets the President's O. K. Then it would be approved. Congress would be eliminated, just as it is in the Department of the Interior.

Now, we will have to do one or the other. We will either have to put the Department of the Interior on the same basis as the War Department or else we will put the War Department on the same foundation as we now have the Secretary of the Interior. I think that is a correct observation. If I am wrong there are experts in the Bureau of Reclamation that can correct any errors I have made in the statement.

Senator MILLIKIN. Mr. Chairman, may I invite your attention to the paragraph that we are discussing, paragraph D? The Secretary of the Interior in making investigations or reports on works for irrigation and purposes incidental thereto shall in relation to affected State or States as defined in paragraph A of the section, and in relation to the Secretary of War be subject to the same provisions regarding investigations, plans, proposals, and reports as prescribed in paragraph A of this section.

Senator OVERTON. Yes, but what about Congress acting on the recommendation?

Senator MILLIKIN. Mr. Cheadle will go into the legal aspects of the chairman's observation, but I simply want to point out that this puts upon the Secretary of the Interior or the head of Reclamation. the same duty to consult from the beginning

Senator OVERTON. What I was talking about-pardon me for interrupting you-what I was bringing out is what the law is today, how the Department of the Interior proceeds in one case and how the Secretary of War proceeds in the other case. I was not referring to the suggestions in your amendment, but I was simply undertaking to show what occurs in the Department of the Interior and what occurs in the War Department.

Senator MILLIKIN. I believe it would be better that that question be answered by a legal expert from the Reclamation Bureau. We will put Mr. Cheadle on the stand later to clear that up.

Senator OVERTON. All right. The other point I made is perfectly obvious and he can answer it if I am wrong-that Congress does not intervene in the authorization of a project, the President takes the place of Congress and authorizes a project. I will direct his attention to that when he takes the stand.

If we are through with that and going to await the testimony of Mr. Cheadle, I am going to ask about this: There is another thing that is done by the War Department that is not contemplated in this section C. This section C relates only to the Secretary of the Interior and undertakes to prescribe what his duties would be.

Senator MILLIKIN. Are you speaking of section C?

Senator OVERTON. D, I mean, section D. That is correct. Now, there are other agencies of the Government that are more or less likely interested in these projects, whether they be flood control or irrigation or what not. One of them is the Department of Agriculture. Now there is no provision in the O'Mahoney amendment that