Without objection, it is so ordered.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JOHN J. MCFALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Madam Chairman, thank you for the opportunity of presenting this statement in behalf of H.R. 7436, which I introduced to clear up a problem relating to the title of property of the Tri-Valley Packing Co. of Stockton, Calif. originally conveyed from the Central Pacific Railway Co.

I understand your committee is considering general legislation which would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to approve the conveyance of such lands by the railroads without individual legislation in each instance.

I support this approach for general legislation on the subject and urge your committee to take the necessary action at this session of the Congress since the owners involved have already been subjected to considerable delay and incon. venience.

Mrs. PrOST. Congressman George Miller of California also wishes to have his statement placed in the record. He is at another important committee hearing this morning and could not be present.

Without objection, Congressman George Miller's statement will be placed in the record at this point.

Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE P. MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Madam Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Public Lands, I wish to express my appreciation to you for the opportunity of testifying on behalf of my bill, H.R. 5745, and companion legislation, designed to expedite the disposition of portions of railroad rights-of-way previously granted by Congress in those cases where the railroads have in some manner forfeited or abandoned a portion of right-of-way.

From time to time in my district, problems in the clearance of land titles have developed, because abandoned railroad rights-of-way have become an integral part of the history of certain parcels of land. At the present time in Livermore, Calif., the sale of an important lot in the development of that community is being held up by the failure of the owner to clear the title. Research into this matter indicates that the Central Pacific Railroad by an act of Congress of July 1, 1862 (12 Stat. 489), was granted a right-of-way to construct a railroad and telegraph line from the Missouri River to the Pacific Ocean. Needless to say, the afore-stated project was never undertaken and the successors in interest to the Central Pacific Railroad have no future plans for such a project, but the rightof-way set aside for the project now impedes the transfer of fee title for such parcels.

This is only one illustration of numerous cases of this nature involving abandoned rights-of-way. Each session of Congress sees many bills introduced to validate certain conveyances made by various railroad companies to private parties. The need for the special type legislation arises from the fact, that in earlier years Congress was most liberal in granting rights-of-ways across public lands to encourage the construction of railroads and the development of the West. The act of 1862 affecting the land in Livermore, Calif., is an illustration of this.

The law concerning these rights-of-way grants, in the absence of special legislation is well established. A railroad may not alienate or abandon any part of a right-of-way granted, and no one can acquire a right-of-way through adverse possession. Northern Pacific Railroad v. Townsend, 190 U.S. 267 (1903). Even where the right-of-way crosses a section granted in fee to the railroad, it has been held that there is no merger of the railroad rights under the two grants. Holland v. Northern Pacific Railroad Co., 214 Fed. 920 (9th circuit 1914). The right-of-way takes effect at the time of the enactment of a statute, even though the definite location of the line of the railroad may not be made

until later. Railroad Company v. Baldwin, 103 U.S. 402 (1880). The issuance of a patent to lands crossed by a railroad right-of-way grant does not convey any interest in the lands included within the right-of-way. E. A. Crandall, 43 LD 556 (1915). Oil and gas deposits in the right-of-way are subject to leasing by the United States under the act of May 21, 1930 (30 U.S.C., secs. 301 through 306), United States v. Union Pacific Railroad, 353 U.S. 112 (1957).

I feel that the only sound approach to the problem is legislation such as we are considering today, because of the aforementioned examples of how the law reads on the matter of right-of-way grants without special legislation, and in consideration of the fact that much legislative time is consumed with private bills of this nature. Additionally, we should not overlook the inequities involved in forcing constituents to be deprived of the just value of their land while they wait adjudication of the legal entanglements involving their titles under the current situation.

I made inquiries of the opinions of various officials within my district and State who are concerned with the matter. Without objection, Madam Chairman, I would like to include copies of letters from the Governor of the State of California and the mayor of the city of Hayward, Calif., at the conclusion of my testimony so that they may be evidentiary of the thinking of such officials. In relation to this correspondence, I would like to call the committee's attention to comments made by the county administrator, county of Alameda, Mr. Earl R. Strathman. In correspondence on the subject of H. R. 5745, Mr. Strathman pointed out that in the proposed legislation there should be a change so that in section 4 A, subsection 3, on line 8 of the printed bill, the words "political subdivision" be amended to read “public agency." His reason for recommending this is a sound one, because he points out that the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is a public agency of the State of California, but is not a political subdivision thereof and that it may now have or may need to acquire in the future, land or easements across such railroad rights-of-way. The Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is one of many similar districts in the State of California which are designated public agencies and are not actually political subdivisions. Secondly, Mr. Strathman pointed out that in section 4 A, subsection 3, on line 9, page 5 of H.R. 5745 as printed, he suggests there should be an amendment to change the words "public highway" to "public purpose." His reasoning for this is that either the county or the flood control district may now have, or may need to acquire in the future, land or easements across such railroad rightsof-way for drainage easements of public purposes other than for a highway. I respectfully call his comments to the attention of this subcommittee on the thought that consideration may want to be given to such amendments.

In closing, I once again wish to express my thanks to this subcommittee for allowing me to submit this statement. I respectfully urge favorable action. (The communications referred to on p. 65 follow:)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, Sacramento, May 19, 1961.

Hon. GEORGE P. MILLER,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR GEORGE: This is in response to your letter of March 23, 1961, with which you enclosed a copy of your bill H.R. 5745, introduced on March 21, 1961, relative to grants of rights-of-way for the construction of railroads.

As a result of your request for my views, I asked for a very thorough and comprehensive review of the effect of this bill on State-owned lands and, in particular, the public lands of the State of California under the jurisdiction of the State lands commission.

The research conducted on this matter does not reveal any lands under the jurisdiction of the State of California to be encumbered by rights-of-way resulting from early congressional acts granting blanket rights-of-way to railroad companies.

Your bill appears to be a most reasonable solution in resolving the claims of private individuals whose lands are subject to these early right-of-way grants. I am in full agreement that private landholders are entitled to relief in instances where rights-of-way have been abandoned in fact or are no longer in use by the railroad companies. For this purpose, I believe H.R. 5745 provides

adequate means by which landowners can either clarify or clear out these burdensome encumbrances.

I sincerely appreciate your corresponding with me and requesting my views. Sincerely,

EDMUND G. BROWN, Governor.

CITY OF HAYWARD,
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR,

June 8, 1961.

Hon. GEORGE P. MILLER,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN MILLER: The City of Hayward wishes to express its approval of your bill, H.R. 5745, which is scheduled for hearings by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

This much needed legislation eliminating the necessity for individual private bills to confirm the conveyance of railroad rights-of-way will be of particular value to the rapidly growing cities on the west coast.

Expanding cities such as Hayward oftentimes find it necessary to obtain possession of lands originally intended or used for railroad rights-of-way in order to insure a sound pattern of development. Under present statutes each sale involving right-of-way originally granted to the Railroad by the United States must be confirmed by the passage of a private bill.

H.R. 5745 will remove this requirement and deserves the support of all governmental bodies who are interested in eliminating such antiquated legislative requirements and substituting procedures which are in keeping with the needs of our developing cities.

Sincerely yours,

ARTHUR C. PHILLIPS, Mayor.

Mrs. ProST. I believe this concludes the slate of congressional witnesses, and our next witness is Mr. Karl S. Landstrom, Director of the Bureau of Land Management.

Mr. Landstrom, do you have anyone you wish to appear with you? Mr. LANDSTROM. I have Mr. Irving Senzel, Land Chief of the Bureau of Land Management, and Mr. Robert McCarthy, a land officer.

Madam Chairman, we are happy to be here this morning to be of any service we may in this consideration.

Mrs. ProST. Thank you, Mr. Landstrom. We are always happy to have you before our committee and we welcome you here.

STATEMENT OF KARL S. LANDSTROM, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT; ACCOMPANIED BY IRVING SENZEL, LAND CHIEF OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, AND ROBERT MCCARTHY, LAND OFFICER

Mr. LANDSTROM. Madam Chairman, we have presented to the committee the report of the Interior Department and I believe there has been handed to you my prepared statement, which I would like to read, if you have no objection.

Mrs. Prost. You may proceed.

Mr. LANDSTROM. Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the bills which are before this committee today relate to a problem which has been of growing concern to this committee and to the Department of the Interior, as well as to the railroad companies and persons who are occupying lands within railroad rights-of-way.

Because of the increase of private bills which have been introduced over the past few years, and the reported extent of the problem concerned, we in the Department believe that a general approach to

resolving the many land-title situations is desirable in order to reduce the necessity to consider a large number of petitions for legislative relief.

As the problem is complex, it will be helpful first to state briefly the nature of the bills now before this committee and give some general background to the basic issue before getting into the position of the Department.

Included in the H.R. 3229 group, which I understand now is referred to as the H.R. 3346 group, are H.R. 3346 and H.R. 5745, all identical bills to provide for the disposition by the Secretary of the Interior of lands within abandoned and forfeited railroad rights-ofway, and for other purposes. These bills would provide a general law for the resolution of these railroad right-of-way land-title situations.

The H.R. 6630 group includes H.R. 6945, both bills to amend the act of May 25, 1920, relating to conveyances of certain parts of rights-ofway by railroad companies. This is also a general approach to the problem but a major difference with the H.R. 3229 group is that it makes no provision for the compensation to the United States for its interests in the land.

The H.R. 6161 group includes H.R. 7436 and H.R. 7550 and is in the nature of special relief bills. They relate to the validation and confirmation of specific railroad conveyances which have been previously made by certain railroad companes. These bills, like the H.R. 6630 group, make no provision for the compensation to the United States for its interest in the land.

During the last century, statutes were enacted making liberal grants of rights-of-way across public lands to encourage the construction of railroads and the development of large public land areas. Court and departmental decisions have provided certain interpretations of these grants and, for the sake of clarity and for discussion purposes, these grants can be classified as the special grants which were made prior to 1875 and the general grants which were made subsequent to this period. Both types of railroad grants are "unique" in that they involve characteristics which are not always susceptible to ready classification under the general law of real property.

Prior to 1875 the special grants were divided into (a) grants for rights-of-way and (b) grants for rights-of-way together with grants of certain sections in place. The act of March 3, 1835 (4 Stat. 778), was one of the first special acts and authorized the construction of a railroad upon the public lands, from Tallahassee to St. Marks, in Florida, and included land 30 feet on each side of the road and the privilege of using the timber on the public lands, for 100 yards on each side of the railroad.

Development of railroads under the special grants that involved in-place sections began on September 20, 1850 (9 Stat. 466), when the States of Illinois, Mississippi, and Alabama, were granted tracts of land in aid of construction and for right-of-way purposes. This right-of-way was for 100 feet on either side of the road and the alternate "even numbered" sections, for 6 sections in width on either side of the road, were also granted.

Extending through the act of March 3, 1871 (16 Stat. 573), this period of transportation development activities resulted in the issuance of 89 grants, 17 of which later were declared forfeited by Congress for failure to carry on the construction work.

The special grants of rights-of-way came to a close with the passage of the act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat. 482, 43 U.S.C. 934). The 1875 act, supra, was a product of the sharp change in congressional policy after 1871. This act made no land grants but granted a right-of-way for 100 feet on each side of the centerline of the road. It also granted the right to take, from the public lands adjacent to the line of the road, material, earth, stone, and timber necessary for the construction of the railroad. Included also were rights-of-way for ground adjacent to trackage right-of-way, for station buildings, depots, machine shops, side tracks, turnouts, and water stations, not to exceed in amount 20 acres for each station, to the extent of one station for each 10 miles of its road.

Over the years, the courts have held that as to the special land-grant rights-of-way they were in the nature of a base or limited fee. Thus the railroad had an exclusive right to use for railroad purposes and held such right so long as it was used for that purpose. Because of the implied condition of reverter the United States retains its "possibility of a reverter" should the railroad no longer use the rightof-way for railroad purposes.

As to the general grant of right-of-way the courts first held that it was a base or limited fee but the current holding in this matter is that the right granted is in the nature of an easement.

Prior to the act of September 29, 1890 (26 Stat. 496), there was no forfeiture provision for the special grants when nonconstruction was involved. However, under the 1875 act, supra, which governed the general grant of railroad rights-of-way, there was an express provision of forfeiture for nonconstruction, but this required a judicial or legislative action.

The Congress, by the act of June 26, 1906 (34 Stat. 482), and the act of February 25, 1909 (35 Stat. 647), made a legislative adjudication of forfeiture for nonconstruction under the 1875 act, supra, prior to February 25, 1909. It is of interest to note that under this statute "the United States resumes the full title to the lands covered thereby free and discharged from such easement, and the forfeiture declared shall, without need of further assurances or conveyances, inure to the benefit of any owner or owners of land conveyed by the United States prior to such date subject to any such grant of right-of-way or station grounds." Today the problem of abandonment or forfeiture of railroad rights-of-way, whether by court or congressional action, is governed by the act of March 8, 1922 (42 Stat. 414).

Congress, in passing the act of May 25, 1920 (41 Stat. 621; 43 U.S.C. 913), authorized the railroad companies to make conveyances for a public highway or street to a State, county, or municipality. A similar provision is also found in title 23 of the United States Code, section 316. However, except for the above purposes, there is no general authority for the railroad companies to make conveyances of a portion or all of the lands within their right-of-way.

This, in essence, is the reason why legislation is necessary and we in the Department believe that, in order to relieve all concerned of the necessity of considering many private bills and also to provide a uniform procedure for handling such claims, it would appear desirable that general legislation be enacted. Accordingly, we have recommended that the private bills noted above not be enacted and suggest that they be handled administratively pursuant to the general legislation to be enacted.