OCR Text |
Show -IP-interpretation of the last section of the bill. The report says: It requires payment for all lands other than those used for the right of way and makes the right of way subject to reversion upon cessation of its use for the purposes specified in the bill. The reverter clause refers to the cessation of the use of lands used for rights of way. It does not refer to the other land conveyed in this bill. Mr. Colton. The gentlemen does not contend that this language means that we give out and out to this district all of this land in these counties? Mr. Vinson of Kentucky. It says: All lands belonging to the United States, situate in the counties of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino, in the State of California, including trust or restricted Indian allotments in any Indian reservations or lands reserved for any purpose in connection with the Indian service, which have not been conveyed to any allottee with full power of alienation, which may be necessary as found by the Secretary of the Interior, for any or all of the following purposes. You are giving to this corporation the right to construct these lines however many they may be and without regard to the time element. If you only want 1 or 2 rights of way for water lines, O. K.; but when you say 3, 4, 5, 6, or 20 I say it is more than you gentlemen should ask that this Congress give you. Mr. Colton. If the gentlemen will yield further, there are at least 13 cities in this district, and it is inevitable that they will want to run certain lines across this public domain. It only vests the right to do that and does not convey the land itself. Mr. Vinson of Kentucky. I served on the Public Lands Committee at one time in my service here. I know how you boys operate. I asked the gentleman from California what was the purpose of the bill and he stated it was to build one line to Los Angeles, but now the gentleman from Utah says there are 13 lines to be built. |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : California exhibits. |