Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />00257f) <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ownership ,in the 17 so-oalled reclamation states. The total <br />would be signifioantly greater if Alaska and Hal'lal1 were added. <br />A federal committee reported, in 1956, that the federal <br />government held proprietary interest in some 38J,097,85~.18 <br />aores, if I correctly add numbel's of such maglli tu~e.12 Pro- <br /> <br />bably even the government doesn!t k.,ow how large that figure <br />is today. <br />As to these lands, I believe everyone agrees that Congress <br />may dispose of them, or the waters arising upon them, as Con- <br />gress may see fit--by sale or grant. It is here that the <br />argument of the states takes on great validity. <br />You all know the recent history concerning reserved <br /> <br />lands. <br />We all thought that by the Homestead act of 1866, the <br />Desert Land Act of 1877 and some 15 other statutory enaot- <br />ments the Congress had settled positively any claim that <br />federal rights were superior. Mr. John R. Clayton, a fellow <br />lawyer in Greeley, Colorado of your Dave Miller, appearing <br />before the Senate Interior Committee as a member of the <br /> <br />legislative oommittee of the National Reolamation Associa- <br /> <br />tion listed these aots. I attach that list as Appendix B. <br /> <br />Then, to quote Mr. Chllson: <br /> <br />"This sore spot developed into a malignant oancer <br />when the United States Supreme Court, in 1955, handed <br />down a deoision commonly known as the Pelton Dam <br />deoision.l) This de~is~c~ in itself did not create <br />widesp~ead alarm in tho west beca~se the question of <br />water rights W$,S not ~,llvol.ved. The court held in that <br />case that a power compar.y which desired to construct <br />a power dam on the Dosohutes River in Oregon did not <br />have to obtain permission for this construction from <br /> <br />-6- <br />