The CHAIRMAN. How long have you studied the question of grazing on the forest reserves?

Mr. METCALF. Ever since. I went into the Forest Service. The CHAIRMAN. Are your conclusions as set forth in your statement drawn from your personal contact with the people involved in the public-land States?

Mr. METCALF They are.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any further questions, Senator Oddie? Senator ODDIE. No.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be all. Thank you, Mr. Metcalf. Governor Scrugham.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES J. SCRUGHAM, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Governor SCRUGHAM. Senator Stanfield, with the permission of your committee I will make later a formal written statement for presentation to the committee.

I only wish to say at this time that under the tenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, according to the position we take, to the States are reserved all those powers which are not especially appropriated to or reserved to the Federal Government. Acting under the provisions of that amendment, when Nevada was admitted to the Union, instead of retaining control and ownership of her public domain within the State, as did the older States, we were compelled to cede back to the Federal Government the proprietary right or ownership in the unappropriated public domain. This right did not apply to the waters, and under the theory of the doctrine of appropriation which is held in this State we hold jurisdiction over our water rights. We have formulated a system of administration of water, the beneficial use of water, which we believe to be successful, and which we believe to be necessary for the prosperity of the people of the Intermountain States, and particularly of Nevada.

Now, we believe that the same theories and the same principles that govern the administration of water rights, of usufruct of water on the public domain should also govern usufruct of the range, the forage grasses on the public domain. Briefly, that is the attitude of the people of the State of Nevada.

I realize that legislation will be required in order to bring about such a recognition of our rights, but we believe that using the water law as a precedent and the administration of water rights, that a very satisfactory system can be worked out for regulation and government of the public domain.

The basic question, however, is this: Is the public domain within the respective States to be administered primarily for the benefit or the advantage of the citizens of States or the country as a whole? Now, that is the basic question. And first of all that must be decided. And I think that if the west will stand together, particularly the Intermountain States, as a unit, for at least some preferential treatment, I believe that our viewpoint will be materially advanced. Mr. Chairman, as I stated, with your permission I will submit to you later a written statement regarding these points somewhat more in detail.

In conclusion I wish to make it a matter of record that the State administration indorses the views that have been presented by the Secretary of the Navada Land and Live Stock Association, and I believe they represent the sentiment of the overwhelming majority of the people of this State.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Governor. Mr. Dukes.

STATEMENT OF HARRY C. DUKES, SECRETARY WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DISTRICT, YERINGTON, NEV.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dukes, will you give your name and address to the reporter.

Mr. DUKES. My name is Harry C. Dukes. Yerington, Nev.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dukes, I know that you appreciate the short time that the committee has here, and I would like to give you a few minutes, and ask you to be as brief as possible, and if you have not time to tell all that you have to say, we will make any statement that you have a part of the record.

Mr. DUKES. I will briefly state that I wish to bring a proposition to you which is certainly related to the questions you are taking up. It pertains to the Walker River irrigation district. This district is quite an extensive district, has a population of 3,000, has a cultivated area or irrigated area of 70,000 acres, with a possible extension of that to 160,000 acres.

The country began to be irrigated about the year 1860, and the area has increased from that time to this. The water rights in this district were gotten through the law and theory of appropriation and use of water. All this time there was an Indian reservation below us on the river. Some of that land on the reservation was irrigated at different times until this time. There was no particular adverse use on either part. In fact, the use of the water went on coexten

sively.

In 1902 there occurred trouble between the white population on different parts of the river, and ended in a lawsuit which took up 17 years. During this time the Indian Service was asked to participate in that suit in order that their rights might be determined. They submitted the facts in the case, but later higher up some department refused to take any further part in the suit. From that day until last July there was no further trouble, but at that time the Indian Bureau, through the legal department of the Government, instituted a suit against all these people, claiming a sovereign right to the water.

The Governor has just quoted to us the tenth amendment to the Constitution, in which all rights not delegated or forbidden by the Constitution are reserved in the people. Each of the western irrigation States has either by statute or by constitutional provision claimed the public waters. Now, as I said before, comes the Federal Government and claims the sovereign right, which means that to-day, or last July, or 10 years from now the Federal Government might come in and claim all the waters of that river. We do not know when they will stop. We believe it is well within the province of this committee to formulate a law for the Government and provide in a statute that the United States does not claim a sovereign right or any right to public waters, but rather that any Government activity wishing

water to use for irrigation shall proceed in the same manner as its citizens must proceed in order to gain a right.

That, in brief, is our position.

The CHAIRMAN. You have proposed that in your statement which you wish to be made a part of the record?

Mr. DUKES. Yes; I have covered that much more fully in the

statement.

Senator ODDIE. Mr. Dukes, have you included in your statement the resolution of the Nevada Legislature which was introduced by Mr. Friedhoff?

Mr. DUKES. Yes, I have included that in my statement.

Senator ODDIE. Mow Mr. Chairman, I have personally studied the question that Mr. Dukes has just presented. I have gone over the ground with Mr. Dukes, have interviewed the ranchers from one end of the River to the other this last summer, and am fully convinced that the ends of justice will be met by the suit being withdrawn by the Government. Here is another case of bureaucratic rule and bureaucratic domination over matters which require that they be in charge of practical experienced men. Unfortunately under our governmental system we see instances now and thenand this is one of them-where bureaucrats who are inexperienced, interfere in State matters to the great detriment of people of the various States.

I have proposed that a bill be introduced providing for a storage dam on the lower end of the Walker River, which will amply protect the Indians, in my opinion. Mr. Dukes, have you a rough idea as to what that dam will cost?

Mr. DUKES. Numbers of estimates and numbers of plans have been made, and the consensus of opinion even of the engineers of the Indian Bureau is that the cost will not exceed $175,000.

Senator ODDIE. Will the building of that dam do away with any problems relating to water for the Indian lands in the future.

Mr. DUKES. It will do away with any practical problems. Not with the legal problems.

Senator ŎDDIE. If that dam is built will there be any necessity for all this litigation.

Mr. DUKES. Absolutely none.

Senator ODDIE. Will this litigation result in cost and annoyance to the settlers on the river?

Mr. DUKES. It will result in more than trouble and cost. It will almost throw out their market for lands.

Senator ODDIE. Will it be a material injury to the district itself? Mr. DUKES. It will be very material.

Senator ODDIE. Do you think that our Government should willfully commit an act which is detrimental and injurious to the citizens of the community?

Mr. DUKES. I do not. And in this little brief I have pointed out that Congress has never in all the laws that I have been able to find brought forth such a theory.

Senator ODDIE. Now, Mr. Chairman, I personally will introduce a bill providing for the building of that dam.

Mr. Dukes, will the building of that reservoir be satisfactory to the Indian Service and to the Indians on the reservation? Mr. DUKES. Yes.

Senator ODDIE. Will it provide all the water that is needed by the Indians?

Mr. DUKES. Undoubtedly.

Senator ODDIE. Will it provide for more water than the Indians have had for any length of time back?

Mr. DUKES. Yes, in that it will absolutely equalize the flow and undoubtedly give sufficient water for all the land that they can practically irrigate.

Senator ODDIE. Have the settlers in that community been to any expense recently in the building of storage dams?

Mr. DUKES. They have recently spent in excess of $800,000 to build reservoirs.

Senator ODDIE. Will the building of that reservoir result in more water coming down to the Indian reservation than formerly?

Mr. DUKES. It will result in more water coming down at irrigation time, yes.

Senator ODDIE. At the time when it is needed?

Mr. DUKES. At the time when it is needed.

Senator ODDIE. Will the Indian lands then be in better condition as the result of the building of that reservoir?

Mr. DUKES. Undoubtedly.

Senator ODDIE. In your opinion will that more than compensate the Indians for the possible difference in the amount of water allowed them under present conditions?

Mr. DUKES. I am sure of that, yes.

Senator ODDIE. Do you think that by a simple act of the Government in building the reservoir that interminable loss to the settlers will be avoided?

Mr. DUES. It will.

Senator ODDIE. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dukes, I understand you to say, though, that legislation will be required to determine your rights?

Mr. DUKES. No, not to make a determination of them. In this suit I spoke of between the settlers themselves and in which the Government was asked to participate findings of fact were found of the actual irrigation of land in the reservation. That fact was found in 1907. The area from that date to this has not been increased. What we complain of is the sovereign theory of water rights.

The CHAIRMAN. I understood you to say that you were asking for an act of Congress to determine this water right.

Mr. DUKES. Not to determine; no, sir; but to express the idea that water rights shall be acquired under the theory of beneficial use. Not under that of sovereignty.

Representative ARENTZ. May I inject a word there, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Representative ARENTZ. The idea is this, that with approximately 5,900 acres of tillable land on the reservation there have been placed under cultivation during the past fifty-odd years a total of 1,500 acres, or approximately that amount?

Mr. DUKES. 1,900, I believe.

Representative ARENTZ. 1,900. And the water that was thought necessary for the total amount of land over 50 years ago is the water that is demanded by the Government to-day, although that

water has been applied in beneficial use to lands put under cultivation on the upper reaches of the river?

Mr. DUKES. That is well stated.

Representative ARENTZ. Now they come forward with the idea that once the water belongs to the Government it always belongs to the Government, beneficial use or no beneficial use?

Mr. DUKES. Yes.

Representative ARENTZ. And it is a decision or a finding or a regulation or an assumption which we in the West, as the governor has stated, will not sanction, and we want once and for all the Congress of the United States to pass upon whether water is so regarded or not. Mr. DUKES. True.

Senator ODDIE. Mr. Dukes, do you think that if this matter had been handled by experienced and practical men this suit would have been brought?

Mr. DUKES. I certainly do not.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dukes, you may place in the record the statement that you referred to.

(The statement presented by Mr. Dukes for the record is here printed in full, as follows):

WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DISTRICT,

Yerington, Nev.

To the Public Lands Committee of the United States Senate. GENTLEMEN: We desire at this time to call your attention to a situation relating to the public lands, which possibly has never before been brought to your notice.

While we call your attention to the situation as it affects Walker River irrigation district, ours is not an isolated case, but only one in which the harmful effects are more apparent than in other cases which have occurred.

Walker River irrigation district is public corportion of the State of Nevada. The district is a going concern; it has a population of some 3,000 people; it has an irrigable area of more than 160,000 acres, of which 70,000 acre are now under irrigation and cultivation; it has a present land value of $10,000,000 and an additional value in personal property and improvements of a like amount; it is traversed by 60 miles of railroad; it has 7 towns and communities, 6 churches, 2 flour mills, a creamery, 2 banks with combined assets of more than one and a quarter million dollars; its agricultural products are annually worth $2,000,000, these products consisting mainly of beef cattle, dairy cattle, horses, sheep, hogs, poultry, hides, wool, butter, honey, alfalfa hay, alfalfa seed, grain, and potatoes. The people possess the pioneer spirit; they are self-reliant, not dependent, nor do they seek favors. They are exponents of the "square deal" and do not ask for special consideration.

Being pioneers, or the descendants of pioneers, they generally acquired the lands now owned, under the provisions of the homestead laws and desert-land laws, or purchased them from the State of Nevada after those lands had been donated to the State by the Federal Government for resale to its citizens in order that the State might acquire funds for public purposes.

There was only one way to develop these lands and to make them productive. Nevada is known as a desert land., Her water resources are limited; the rainfall during the crop season is negligible. Water must be conveyed to and put upon the land in order that land may be made productive. These pioneers in good faith appropriated and placed to beneficial use the public waters of the State. They built dams and ditches, cleared the land of brush, leveled it, planted their crops in it, conveyed the water to and upon it, and "made the desert to blossom as the rose." They, in improving the land, perhaps gained a competence for themselves, but certainly increased the taxable wealth and the resources of the State and the United States.

Heretofore the livestock industry has been the principal agricultural interest of the State and has been dependent principally upon the public range for its development, but since the deterioration of the feed resources of the ranges, the cause of which undoubtedly has been or will be fully discussed before this 43213-25-PT 15———17