safe. The technical center is also charged with the design of disassembly tools.

The advent of new weapons, both conventional and nuclear, has caused a great increase in the workload of this center. Present facilities are inadequate both in respect to safety and use. The new facilities will consist of a technical operations building, a fuze stripping building, and a radiation-safe storage building. A boathouse and dock, a water supply and distribution system, and specialized technical equipment are included as part of this project.

Mr. WILSON. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gavin asked yes-
terday the status of the water situation at Camp Pendleton.
The CHAIRMAN. We will get to that in the right place.
Mr. WILSON. Well, he is all through. [Laughter.]

Mr. HARDY. We just approved the water district.
The CHAIRMAN. We all know the suit is still pending.

Mr. WILSON. Well, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to point out that there are no items in here for Camp Pendleton this year.

The CHAIRMAN. That's right.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Gavin knows that. I think we should have a report on the status of it so we will know.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is the General Counsel of the Department handling this litigation, who has the

Mr. KELLEHER. General Allen has a statement, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. General.

General ALLEN. I am here, sir. I have a statement which I prepared.

The CHAIRMAN. Give us the statement. Sit right down and tell us about it.

General ALLEN. It will take about 5 minutes to read, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Go right ahead.

General ALLEN. We have copies that we can furnish the members of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

General ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, we have summarized this matter— this is relating to the Fallbrook litigation-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.

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 Pendleton 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 principal large landholder in the watershed, the Vail Ranch.

The result was a stipulated judgment dividing all the waters of the river, one-third 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 domestic 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 Fed. Sup. 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 contentius question 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 Fed. Sup. 72; 109 Fed. Sup. 28 and 110 Fed. Sup. 28), both of whom appealed.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overruled the district judge saying (235 Fed. 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.

One salient effect on the case by this ruling was that the number defendants was substantially increased because the court of appeals stated:

it is 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 Fed. 2d 647). Other Federal ownerships were also brought into the case including four Indian reservations, two national forests and public domain lands. 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 (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.

Eighteen months of the past 3 years were devoted to renewed efforts to settle the case. The last 6 months of negotiations were under court direction. In these negotiations the United States followed the provisions 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.

During 1958, the Federal district court intermittently conducted pretrial hearings, and issued several pretrial orders setting the pattern for trial.

CURRENT SITUATION

Trial of the case has commenced in two phases:

1. A special master was appointed to hear the claims of the smaller defendants. Hearings commenced in May 1958.

2. The Federal district judge is hearing the claims of the major parties and the overall scientific data pertaining to the stream system. This phase of the trial started October 1, 1958.

Upon completion of these hearing phases the judge will amalgamate the results into an overall determination of water rights in the stream system.

The court appointed the special master in order to expedite the proceedings and to minimize cost and inconvenience to the smaller claimants. The special master is conducting hearings in the various areas of the watershed, in effect taking the court to the people.

Controversies are not anticipated here. The work of the master will generally be 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 appropriate claims.

To further prevent possible hardship to the smaller parties, the court has ordered that all costs of the trial court and special master 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.

Further, a large number of the smaller defendants will be dropped from the case if the court approves a motion made by the Government to the effect that when a landowner will admit that he has no claim to the Government's share of water in the river, the Government will not claim any water under the property owner's land. These people are those whose land does not lie over the stream system nor abut the stream and who do not claim over 4.2 acre-feet of ground water per acre per year.

Both phases of the trial have proceeded in a quiet and orderly

manner.

With all parties to the trial pressing to "get it done," completion of the trial is anticipated in the spring of 1959.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, General Allen.

I am glad this goes in the record. But you forgot to put in the history of one very important phase. You forgot to make any statement about Congress passing laws denying to the Navy the use of any money for its officer personnel to prosecute the Navy's case.

Also you forgot to relate that Congress passed a law prohibiting the Department of Justice from spending any money in the prosecution of the suit.

So that would be very pertinent to put in here, to show what has happened in this matter. You remember that?

General ALLEN. Yes, sir; that did happen, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Off the record

(Further statement off the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. We had to get volunteer lawyers in California to present the Navy's case. It took us a long time.

I am quite familiar with this whole situation out there. So I am glad to say that I hope it can be wound up. I don't know where it is going, but it looks like it will be settled sometime in the future.

Thank you.

Now, members of the committee, we are now on the item in the bill

34066-59-No. 17--10

Mr. KELLEHER. Ordinance facilities, page 14, line 18.

The CHAIRMAN. Marine Corps facilities-no; we passed that.
Mr. KELLEHER. Line 18.

The CHAIRMAN. Ordnance facilities?

Mr. KELLEHER. Right.

The CHAIRMAN. Indian Head. Now who is here to talk about Indian Head?

Mr. KELLEHER. Page 44 in the book.

The CHAIRMAN. Tell us something about this that has been written in the papers here.

Admiral AHROON. I am Rear Adm. T. A. Ahroon, Assistant Chief of the Bureau of Ordnance.

The CHAIRMAN. Admiral, tell us something. Have you reached a final decision in regard to Indian Head, or are you, as the papers say, trying to close up Indian Head?

Admiral AHROON. This is a special tenant in a way down at Indian Head. It is a triservice school where we service the Air Force and the Army, a responsibility given to the Navy, for the demolition of weapons, training people in the demolition and finding out the details of how to disassemble weapons.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, tell the committee what Indian Head's main mission is?

Admiral AHROON. The main mission of the Indian Head nropellent plant is the development of pilot line manufacturing. That is its main mission. In constructing the pilot line for the manufacture of various types of propellants, they use them. So we make our own propellants-for example, the Terrier missile, the Talos boosterout of the pilot plant.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, hasn't there been some talk about closing up Indian Head?

Admiral AHROON. There has been talk, but none of it has been founded, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I see. There is a military need and necessity for maintaining Indian Head just like it has been in the past, is there not? Admiral AHROON. Yes, sir. There is no idea of diminishing Indian Head, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. We approve that item.

Now, the next item in the bill is service school facilities. Who is here on service schools?

Mr. KELLEHER. Page 45.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is going to talk about the service schools? Captain Chew, are you going to discuss service schools? Captain CHEW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Naval Academy, utilities, $1,025,000.

STATEMENT OF CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL WITH RESPECT TO THE FISCAL YEAR 1960 CLASS 7 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is an honor and privilege to appear before you in support of that portion of the military construction program sponsored by the Chief of Naval Personnel.

The overall construction program for activities under the management control of the Chief of Naval Personnel has the objectives of: Maintaining an adequate state of material condition through modernization and improvement; keeping pace with training demands generated by the advent of new weapons systems; and the orderly replacement of deteriorated, substandard facilities. The pro