SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF HON. WRIGHT PATMAN MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM TEXAS Mr. Chairman, after submitting my prepared statement of this morning and in view of the answers elicited by subcommittee questioning, it appeared advisable to develop some further information as soon as possible. Judge Lester Crutchfield, who was also a witness at this morning's hearings, has shown me an excerpt from the Lamar County commissioners court record, dated August 8, 1949, which indicated that the then county judge had made application for and received from the War Assets Administration a 100-footwide right-of-way for the road in question, described therein as "Garrets Bluff Road No. 3, extending from gate No. 18 on the south to gate No. 15 on the north,” through the Camp Maxey Reservation, to be used and maintained as a county public road. A photostat copy of this entry is attached. This is a probable explanation for the fact that the county actually has maintained this road since 1949, a situation which seemed puzzling to the subcommittee at the hearing and which the Corps of Engineers representative could not explain. By reference to an old map of Camp Maxey in Judge Crutchfield's possession, it was further ascertained that the Garrets Bluff Road No. 3 as described herein coincides with part of the road now proposed for FM 1499. Judge Crutchfield informed me that in his discussions with the Corps of Engineers personnel at Tulsa, Okla., they said they had no record of, nor could they find a record which would show that these Camp Maxey roads had in fact been returned to the county. But the Corps of Engineers had stopped their title search with the 1953 sitpulation, not realizing apparently that this stipulation, although entered into in 1953, had reference to condemnation proceedings at an earlier date, prior to 1949. This then would leave the 1949 county court entry as the last written evidence available at this time regarding the ownership of road in question. It was then ascertained that the individual who personally handled and was responsible for government action returning these roads to the county is Mr. C. Jack Cowart, who was at that time Director of the Utilization and Disposal Division of the War Assets Administration, and is still employed by the General Services Administration in Dallas. Mr. Cowart stated over the telephone this afternoon that he has a good personal recollection that all of the roads in Camp Maxey were conveyed back to the county, and he has no reason to believe that any exception was made. Mr. Cowart has agreed to search the records in the repository at Forth Worth in an attempt to locate pertinent documents. He stated further that it was left to the county to record the transfers and that the county may have failed to do so. It appears to me therefore that this places an entirely new complexion upon this matter, that the county and not the Federal Government owns the fee to the roadway in question, and is therefore under an obligation to take further affirmative action. It would appear that the present best remedy to the situation now disclosed is contained in this bill, H.R. 8404. Also submitted herewith is a statement supporting the figure of $76,860 mentioned in this morning's testimony. May I express again, on behalf of my constituents and myself, our deep feeling of gratitude for the work of this subcommittee which has so greatly benefited my entire section of the State of Texas. 10 BE IT REMEMBERED that a Regular form of the Commissiodors' Court of Lamar County, Texas, was begun and holden within and for the County and State aforesaid, at the Courthouse thereof, in the City of Paris, on the 8th day of August, 1949, the fionorable T. E. Jack Springer; County Judge; present and presiding, attoaded by Commissioner Precinct No. 1, Bedford 3. Booth, Commissioner, Precinct no. 2, Tullus E. Porry, Commissioner Presi Ho. 3, D. S. Vanderburg, and Commissioner Precinct No. 4, M. M. Phillips, all of said County and State, and the following proceedings were had, to wit; (1) Ch motton chily made, seconded and unanimously adopted, it is ordered that the County Judge made lation for and received from the War Assets a 100 feet wide right-of-way for the following roads through the Camp Maxey reservation, such roads to be used and maintained as public County Roads, TO-/17: (c) (d) (0) (r) (e) (2) Goolsby Road, extending from gate No. 20 on the South of the Camp area to gato No. 12 on the North; The concrete paved "U" extending through the industrial and Barrack area of the Camp from the point Maxey Road from U. 3. Highway no. 271 Test to the point whers it intersects the Southwest end of the concrete "U", mentioned in (4) above. The concrete paved road extending from U. 3. Highway No. 271 from gate 5 West to the concrete parod « mentioned in (4) above. Access Road, extending from the point where 23rd Street Intersects the concrete paved "U", Mostarly e across Goolsby "oad to the intersection of Access Rond with the Garrotts Bluff Road No. 3. Cn motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, it is ordered that all claims against Lamp County for the month July, 1949, as audited, approved and presented by the County Auditor, de, and the same are hereby approved and ordered paid out of available County funds. (3) On motion duly mide, seconded and unanimously adopted, it is ordered that the low bid of Scott. Machinery Co., boing in the net amount of $9,550 plus old county truck for the delivery of a 100 h. p. moter grader to Commissioner Perry, Precinct two, be, and the same is hereby, declared to be the lowest and best bid and the same is hereby accepted, and County Judge T. E. Jack Springer is authorized and declared to maks, execute and deliver to said bidder the promisory note of Lamar County, Payable to the order of said Scotâ Kachinery Company on or before December 30, 1949, said note to bure no interest to date of maturity. (4) On motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, it is ordered that the purposed Animal Budget of Lanar County be set for public hearing at 10 A. 1. August 29, 1949, in the County Court Roos of the Court Room of the Court House at Paris in Lamar County, Texas. (5) On motion duly mide,seconded and unanimously adopted, it is ordered that the bid of W. W. Booth for the construction of sixty tal voting boxes at $3.00 each be, and the samo is hereby acceptad. PASSED AND APPROVED, this 8th day of August, 1949. 208-foot timber culvert, at $30 per foot (Boggy Rd.) Total__. 6,240.00 4,800.00 1.860.00 9. 420, 00 5.040.00 2,760.00 1,260,00 6, 660. CO 3, 600, 00 960.00 2.280.00 3.600.00 8,760,00 5, 160.00 7,200,00 840.00 70, 440, 00 Mr. ROBERTS. I think in this case we would ask Colonel Kristoferson to testify first, so that then Judge Crutchfield can answer questions. You both stay there at the table, please. Colonel KRISTOFERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. STATEMENT OF LT. COL. R. S. KRISTOFERSON-Resumed Colonel KRISTOFERSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the commitee, H.R. 8404 concerns a road relocation problem at Pat Mayse Reservoir, Tex. It would provide for relocation of farm to market Highway 1499 across Sanders Creek at an estimated Federal cost of $310,000. Farm to market Highway 1499 was taken in condemnation by the Federal Government during World War II as part of the land necessary to establish and operate Camp Maxey. The total taking included fee simple title to county roads and highways located within the reservation. Use of the roads was denied to the public during the war. Apparently, no payment was made for construction of substitute roads to replace those taken. In about 1950, the Government started to dispose of lands at Camp Maxey by sale and lease, both to private individuals and agencies of local government. The new owners, lessees, and general public have consistently used the former county roads since that time. Lamar County has maintained and improved the roads since they were reopened. No change in title has occurred. No easement or permit has been granted. The county has not acquired any title to the roads by adverse possession. In 1953 the county filed, and has been paid for, a claim based on the premise that the Government owed a sum of money for taking and depriving it of the use of roads in the Camp Maxey area. The county today maintains that this payment was only for the loss of use of the roads during the war and was not in extinguishment of its total rights. Use, maintenance, and improvement of the roads has continued since payment of the claim. The using public considers these roads to be part of the public road system. Construction of Pat Mayse will require relocation of about 0.8 mile of farm to market Highway 1499. Relocation would consist of a new 360-foot bridge and raising and strightening the remainder of the road within the reservoir, at an estimated cost of $310,000. The Chief of Engineers considers there is no legal obligation to relocate the road. However, in view of the unusual circumstances, he would not object to enactment of H.R. 8404 if the Secretary of the Army were authorized to transfer the title and interest in the highway to local interests after completion of the relocation. The Bureau of the Budget has not had the opportunity to review this report prior to its submission to Congress. The Bureau of the Budget advises that its views will be communicated to the committee as soon as possible. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Colonel Kristoferson. This is not really just an isolated case but we really have several projects where the contruction of the reservoir has cut off either farmto-market or State roads; is this correct? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. This is correct, sir. Mr. ROBERTS. And do we have a set policy or are we in process of establishing a new policy where there was an obvious misunderstanding on the taking or the relocation? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. We do not have a new policy under consideration, sir. This is a special case in which there is a road being used by the public. If it belonged to the county, we would relocate it. In this particular instance the road belongs to the Federal Government and the county has no legal right in the road. Under these circumstances our authorities do not permit payment for the road or relocation of the road without the special authority that this bill would provide. Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Colonel Kristoferson. Any questions on my right? Mr. Baldwin? Mr. BALDWIN. Let me ask a question to be sure I understand the project. Who constructed these roads originally? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. The county, sir. Mr. BALDWIN. And when you say the Federal Government owns the road, you are referring to the fact that this agreement occurred under which the Federal Government paid the county a certain amount and then in connection with that agreement the Federal Government took title to the road? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. Yes, sir. The Federal Government has fee simple title to the road in question. Mr. BALDWIN. Although the road is still left open and available for use of the general public? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. That is correct, sir. Mr. BALDWIN. Who is maintaining the road at the present time? Mr. BALDWIN. Under what authority, of the Federal Government owns it? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. No authority, sir. They are simply doing it. The Government has not objected. Mr. BALDWIN. Can you inform us as to how much money was involved in this payment by the Federal Government to the county? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. Yes, sir. $15,000. Mr. BALDWIN. $15,000? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. Correction, sir: $18,000. Mr. BALDWIN. $18,000. And in return for the sum of $18,000 the county relinquished its title to the road and conveyed that title to the road to the Federal Government? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. The title had already been vested in the Government through a condemnation proceeding. This payment was for a claim on the part of the county for denied use of the roads, 1 Mr. BALDWIN. And you say the title had already been vested in the Federal Government by a condemnation proceeding. Was this condemnation proceeding brought by the Federal Government against the county? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. Yes, sir, against the county. Mr. BALDWIN. And was there a sum of money paid in that condemnation proceeding by the Feedral Government to the county? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. Not for the road, sir. The condemnation consisted of several takings. The first takings were the lands and the last takings were the roads in the area. My information indicates that no payment was ever deposited with the court for the taking of the easement and the title for the roads. Mr. BALDWIN. Well, now, you mentioned the condemnation proceeding involved some lands as well as the roads. The condemnation against the lands would be against the individual property owner, as I take it? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. Yes, sir. Mr. BALDWIN. I do not understand. If this were a condemnation proceeding and therefore the county was not agreeing, I do not understand how the Federal Government could come in and take roads owned by the county without paying for them. Can you explain that? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. I cannot explain that, sir. Colonel KRISTOFERSON. I cannot explain that, sir. Mr. BALDWIN. Does the corps not have any information as to why this occurred without compensation? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. I do not have such information, sir. Mr. BALDWIN. Well, this is most unusual to me as an attorney that the Federal Government would come in and condemn a road owned by another entity and acquire it without paying for it. Colonel KRISTOFERSON. I am advised that we have legal counsel here who is competent to answer that question. I would like to call Mr. Loney Hart, sir, if I may. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Hart. Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Loney W. Hart, Chief of the Legislative Real Estate Services, Office of Real Estate. In answer to your question, there is, you might say, an exception to the fair market rule of valuation in the acquisition of roads and highways, and that is the doctrine of reasonable substitute facilities, which means that in the acquisition of roads and highways in connection with Federal projects, if there is a necessity for that road to be relocated, then the obligation of the acquiring agency is to furnish a reasonable substitute facility, be that greater or less. In other words, if there was a necessity in that particular case, we would have had to supply a new road circumventing Camp Maxie. In this particular case it was determined that there was no requirement for a reasonable substitute facility, in which case the courts have held there is no obligation for payment. And the theory of that is based on the fact that, when you remove a road from the county or State, you are not removing property, you are removing an obligation. In other words, there is an obligation to maintain. And this is the theory of the court decisions. |