ing 400 men. The 1 existing adequate barracks building plus the 2 proposed by this line item will provide nominal capacity for 300. Because of the isolation and lack of community facilities, we intend to provide only bachelor personnel accommodations on the island. The CHAIRMAN. When did we establish Point Mugu? Admiral AILES. Point Mugu was established in 1945, sir. The CHAIRMAN. How much have we invested there? Admiral AILES. About $49 million.

The CHAIRMAN. What is th complement of Navy personnel there! Admiral AILES. Over 10,000, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. This is one of our main bases, your test centers? Admiral AILES. This is our principle missile center in the Navy, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the item is agreed to. Now the next one is on line 23: Naval Supply Center, Oakland, Calif., $146,000. What is a naval supply center?

Admiral AILES. Mr. Chairman, this is a project for an alteration to an existing building, for installation of electronic data processing machines, at an estimated cost of $146,000.

The supply center at Oakland is a group of supply depots-aviation supply, and ship supply, and supply of various sort-the principal supply group to the whole Pacific area, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And that is at Oakland?
Admiral AILES. At Oakland, yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Where are the supply centers on the east coast! Admiral AILES. The main supply center on the east coast is at Norfolk, Va., although there are other supply depots.

Mr. GAVIN. Did you hear that, Mr. Hardy? [Laughter.]

Mr. GAVIN. He is talking about the supply center on the east coast. There is one at the east coast and it is at Norfolk.

Mr. HARDY. It certainly is and it is an awfully good one.

The CHAIRMAN. Now the next is on page 20: Marine Corps facilities, Barstow, Calif.

Admiral AILES. General Allen is here and will speak to the Marine facilities, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, General.

Admiral AILES. We haven't covered any of those facilities.

The CHAIRMAN. This is a supply center for the Marine Corps.
General ALLEN. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. Chairman, I have a short statement that I would like to read with respect to the Marine Corps projects that are in the 1959 authorization bill.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

General ALLEN. The fiscal year 1959 military construction authorization program for the Marine Corps is composed of 11 line items with a total valuation of $6,495,000. This program is designed to meet two basic objectives:

(1) To provide minimum facilities for housing; to improve inadequate or overloaded utilities systems and to increase maintenance capability of supporting establishments.

(2) To increase combat readiness of the Marine Corps by providing additional training facilities.

This program has been divided into four broad categories. The number of line items with the dollar value of each is as follows:

Twenty-five percent of the program will provide 6 items for maintenance and repair valued at $1,640,000; 61 percent of the program will provide 2 items for housing and related utilities valued at $3,978,000; 10 percent of the program will provide 2 items for increasing combat training facilities valued at $637,000; 4 percent of the program will provide 2 water wells for additional conservation of natural resources by permitting existing wells to be rested, at a value of $240,000.

The items programed will provide facilities at six major activities as follows:

The CHAIRMAN. Now, General, there is one question I want to get some information for the record about, which is with refrence to the Marine Corps base at Camp Pendleton. Has the water situation been satisfactorily adjusted?

Now the committee has been holding up any large expenditure at Camp Pendleton on account of the water situation.

Now, what is the situation with reference to it today?

General ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I have prepared a special statement with respect to the water situation at Camp Pendleton. The CHAIRMAN. All right.

General ALLEN. Which I would like to read, if I may.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

General ALLEN. This is a statement with respect to the water problem at Camp Pendleton. We have summarized this matter from the beginning to inform the committee of its current status. My statement is divided into (1) History, giving a sequence of events and the nature of the pending litigation and (2) Current Situation, giving the present posture of the case and the course we expect it will follow.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Let's hear it. This is very important, members.

General ALLEN. The history: Three naval installations are involved: Camp Pendleton; naval ammunition depot, Fallbrook; naval hospital. These naval installations were activated in 1941-42 and are permanent establishments.

The principal source of water for these installations is the Santa Margarita River although some of Camp Pendelton is served from other watersheds to the extent possible.

The area is semiarid with an overall shortage of water. There is increasing competition for the limited water that is available. The prior owners of Camp Pendleton had earlier engaged in extensive water litigation with the other prinicpal large landholder in the watershed, the Vail Ranch.

The result was a stipulated dividing all the waters of the river, onethrid to Vail and two-thirds to Rancho Santa Margarita (Camp Pendleton) with specific reservations from the two-thirds share for

small landowners between the two large ranches. A cardinal feature of this judgment was the requirement that Vail maintain a minimum flow in the stream for the benefit of the lower ranch during the irrigation season. The United States in effect bought this water right along with the land and other water rights that were appurtenant to the Rancho Santa Margarita.

Preceding our acquisition, the Rancho Santa Margarita gave the Fallbrook Public Utility District a revocable license to take a very small amount of water from the Santa Margarita above us for domes tic purposes. The United States allowed this license to remain in effect after the acquisition.

During World War II, there was no conflict of note on the Santa Margarita River. Immediately following the termination of hostilities, the military activities were greatly curtailed for about 3 years, while at the same time, the civilian economy began to boom with a corresponding increase in water needs.

Private lawsuits began to be filed. Applications to the State to appropriate water were filed. Simple takings without right were begun. Fallbrook exceeded its revocable license and refused to limit itself to the amount granted.

Inasmuch as the naval reservations involved own and occupy the entire watershed on both sides of the stream for the last 19 miles of the stream before it reaches the Pacific Ocean, every increase in water use above us diminishes the amount of water reaching our lands.

To protect the future of the naval reservations, it became an immediate necessity to evaluate the rights of the new and increased uses with relation to the rights of the United States. The Fallbrook license was canceled in 1948. Fallbrook continued to increase its diversions from the stream. Extensive negotiations toward agreement with Fallbrook failed. Some applications to appropriate were successfully opposed, but the diversions above us continued to increase. An appeal was made to the State engineer of the State of California to police the stream to the end that water users did not exceed their rights. The State engineer stated that the stream could not be policed until the many rights had been adjudicated. Conditions continued to deteriorate with each of several claimants claiming or needing more than the entire flow of the stream.

In November 1950, the Secretary of the Navy asked the Attorney General to take action to protect and preserve the water rights of the United States.

In January 1951, the Attorney General instituted a suit to have these rights adjudicated and to protect them.

This is a suit to quiet title to those valuable rights in the Santa Margarita River which the United States purchased and for which it paid a huge sum. This suit seeks to have the court define and declare the rights of all claimants to water on the stream. This suit does not and could not deprive anyone of his rights.

One judge ruled (101 F. Supp. 298), that the action is simply one to have adjudicated rights to the use of water measured by the laws of the State of California; it is not a suit in which the United States is claiming any rights to the use of water by reason of its sovereignty. By stipulation, in November 1951, the United States and the State of California resolved the contentious questions which had arisen and

agreed to a free and full exchange of information respecting the litigation.

In proceeding to adjudicate the stream, it was decided to first try the two large corporate would-be appropriators and exporters from the watershed, the Santa Margarita Mutual Water Co. and the Fallbrook Public Utility District, because of their unique position. The State of California joined in this trial.

By a series of legal maneuvers, Fallbrook did not come to trial, but the United States won on all points against the Santa Margarita Mutual Water Co. and the State of California (108 F. Supp. 72; 109 F. Supp. 28; 110 F. Supp. 28), both of whom appealed.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overruled the district judge saying (235 F. 2d, 647) his final judgment was premature in that all claimants had not been heard and that no judgment should be entered as to any defendant or water right until all claimants in the watershed had their day in court. There was much discussion in this opinion, but there was no other ruling than that a judgment could not be entered as long as indispensable parties were not before the court.

During the period covered by these trials and appeals, Fallbrook sought and obtained legislation designed to settle their controversy with the United States. This legislation, popularly called the Utt Act (Public Law 547, 83d Cong., 68 Stat. 575), would construct a dam on Camp Pendleton, inundating also a part of the naval ammunition depot, and specifies a division of water with Fallbrook. As actually enacted, this legislation was unsatisfactory to Fallbrook.

Eighteen months of the past 2 years have been devoted to renewed efforts to settle the case. The last 6 months of negotiations were under court direction. The United States offered to follow the pattern of Public Law 547, 83d Congress, which was sponsored by several California Congressmen; this being the law of the land and the will of Congress. No settlement was reached.

Implicit in the provisions of that act is the requirement that the water rights of the United States be determined. Such an adjudication would be necessary as a point of departure for placing Public Law 547 in execution.

It follows that the current litigation is in complete keeping with the intent of Public Law 547 and that the course prescribed by the act has not been compromised by the present litigation. In fact, once the litigation is completed, most of the conditional features of Public Law 547 will have been met and the parties will have known and firm bases for proceeding.

During the past year, the Federal district court has been intermittently conducting pretrial proceedings for a new trial.

The pretrial order affecting most of the larger defendants is nearly completed.

During these pretrial proceedings, the court has given much consideration to ways and means of simplifying the procedures and incurring a minimum of cost for the defendants, particularly those whose interests are relatively small.

The court has adopted two basic policies:

First, all costs of the trial court and special master will be advanced by the United States, with the reservation that the court will

assess costs at the conclusion of the trial on the basis of findings. In other words, if a defendant has not invaded the rights of others, he would be blameless and therefore would not be assessed costs.

Second, a special master has been ordered to start hearings with respect to the small defendants. It should be noted here that the number of defendants has increased because the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has stated:

*** it is in the nature of a plenary suit to settle the correlative right of everyone interested in the waters. The standard course in such a proceeding is to enter a decree setting up all the rights as of the same date (235 F. 2d 647). Controversies are not anticipated here. The work of the master will be generally in the nature of a factfinder to tabulate water rights and priorities, so that the court can ultimately correlate the rights of riparian owners with respect to each other and to appropriative claims. The master should start about May and complete about October of 1958. The master is to conduct his proceedings in the various areas of the watershed in a manner that will minimize the costs to these defendants.

The court has set June 15, 1958, as the date when the trial is to commence against the major defendants. Completion is anticipated in October 1958. With the Fallbrook Public Utility District pressing for immediate trial, no significant delays are foreseen.

This new climate of "let's get it done" has been reflected in the press of the area and in the public sentiment.

All indications lead us to believe that the litigation involving Camp Pendleton's water will be concluded during the fall of 1958 and that the cloud on the Marine Corps' title to water rights will have been removed.

We earnestly request authorizations to proceed with the orderly redevelopment of Camp Pendleton.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

General ALLEN. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. General.

General ALLEN. I have some late information that I received from the area on the proceedings, particularly with respect to the small litigants. Over 100-over 200 parcels of land of the small litigants have been settled by stipulation, all parties agreeing.

Now, that might reflect as many as four or five hundred or more of the so-called large number of litigants involved, because of trust deeds and the like.

We feel that this case is proceeding with dispatch and there is good relationship between the parties to the trial and the small owners, particularly where the problem areas were being developed previously. The good public relations has been established, and it is proceeding in the proper manner.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, General.

I want to thank you particularly for giving somewhat a chronological statement about the matter, which has disturbed the committee and disturbed us for a long time.

It would be a more complete chronological statement if you had written in this that Congress passed a law denying the United States Government the right to use any naval officer, or even the Department of Justice, from their services being involved in the protection of the Government's claim; isn't that correct?