ing, this cost would be prohibitive. The report on tentative investigations of irrigable lands, by the Missouri River Basin investigations,

states:

Examination of the topographic maps prepared by the Corps of Engineers and the reconnaissance survey maps of the United States Bureau of Reclamation discloses no potential irrigable areas within the residual reservation which can be feasibly irrigated by the pumping of water from the Garrison Reservoir. First impressions might indicate that the area lying within southeast Mountrail County located within the peninsula formed by the Missouri River on the west and south and Shell Creek Valley on the east could be supplied with water by pumping from Garrison pool to the top of the divide which roughly parallels the Missouri River and the relatively short distance to the east of it.

The low points along the top of the ridge are at an elevation of approximately 2,200 feet mean sea level. The operating level of the Garrison pool will be at elevation 1,830 feet mean sea level. At the nearest point the 1,830 contour is approximately 11⁄2 miles from the nearest saddle in the ridge. This means that any installation to pump water to the top of this ridge would require 11⁄2 miles of pipe line operating under a maximum static head of about 370 feet.

Since the maximum static head of approximately 150 feet is considered to be the outside limit at which irrigation pumping can be considered with all other conditions (power rates, quality of the land, climatic conditions, etc.) extremely favorable, it seems obvious that the proposal to irrigate any of the area lying on this peninsula is not feasible.

The greatest possibility of these Indians having irrigated lands will be in some bottom land which they may acquire. There is the possibility of purchasing or exchanging dry farm land east of the river for land south of the reservation in the future for the livestock program and settlement. If the land were acquired in the neighboring valley of the Knife River, it would probably be subject to irrigation from the proposed Knife River Reservoir.

Enactment of section 5 ought not to be opposed, but it is not possible to be sanguine that any substantial benefit will accrue therefrom to the Fort Berthold Indians.

V. PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON FUND OF $5,105,625 (SEC. 7)

Section 7 provides for the payment of 4 percent interest on the fund of $5,105,625, appropriated by Public Law 296, from July 31, 1947, the approval date of the said statute. The interest is to be credited to the tribes. Both the fund and the interest are to be nontaxable.

Inasmuch as there is no contract and no conveyance of property until ratification of the contract by the Congress, the payment of interest from the date of the approval of the appropriation act appears to be questionable. However, payment of interest from the date on which the contract was executed would be justifiable. It is recommended therefore that section 7 be amended by striking out "July 31, 1947" and inserting "May 20, 1948." This date is that on which the Indians and the United States executed the contract in accordance with Public Law 296. It is reasonable to apply the doctrine of nunc pro tunc, once the contract comes into effect through congressional ratification.

The last sentence of section 7 which reads, "The said funds shall be and remain nontaxable" has the effect of relieving the compensation received under the contract by the tribes and the members thereof from the imposition of the capital-gains income tax. In view of the fact that the lands being taken from the Indians and the income pro

duced by such lands are at present tax-free, the fact that the taking is involuntary and fraught with such serious consequences to the Three Affiliated Tribes, the fact that the replacement value of the property to be taken is not recognized in the appraisal thereof, and the further fact that the Fort Berthold Indians will require all the compensation received to buy new homes and lands, this provision in section 7 should be endorsed.

VI. PROTECTION OF SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS FROM COLLECTION OF DEBTS (SEC. 8)

Section 8 has the following effect: It bars the collection of debts of the tribes and their members out of any funds received under the joint resolution, including the contract of May 20, 1948, except debts due the United States and the tribes. It also cancels all debts of the tribes and their members incurred in connection with the Farm Security Administration, Farmers Home Administration, and seed and feed loan programs.

It should be noted that, except for the three specifically named kinds of debts, section 8 does not cancel the debts of the tribes and their members; it operates only to make debts noncollectible from proceeds derived under the joint resolution. This is appropriate since the proceeds received from the Garrison taking are being made available by the Congress for specific purposes, and should be protected against diversion through the collection of old debts which would militate against the successful removal and rehabilitation of the tribes. However, the proviso to the section which would cancel debts incurred in connection with certain Federal agricultural programs does not seem to be consistent with the rest of the section, and the elimination of this proviso is recommended.

VH. STIPULATION OF FINAL SETTLEMENT (SEC. 9)

Section 9 stipulates that the executed contract and the supplementary sections of the joint resolution shall be in "complete and final settlement of all rights, interests, and claims whatsoever of the Three Affiliated Tribes and the members thereof against the United States by reason of the construction" of the Garrison project.

The effect of section 9 is to cancel the tribes' right to bring suit in the Court of Claims under the authorization contained in Public Law 296. As pointed out elsewhere in this memorandum, the proposal to make a complete and final settlement as set forth in the joint resolution is highly desirable. Yet as section 9 is now written it contains no express provision for acceptance of this settlement by the tribes. Without such acceptance the section would, of course, be binding on the tribes, but its force would be merely that of a unilateral settlement imposed on the Indians by law, and not that of a bilateral settlement mutually agreed to by both parties. Accordingly, it is believed that section 9 should be amended so as to provide that the terms of settlement embodied in the joint resolution shall become effective only upon the acceptance of these terms by the Three Affiliated Tribes. This could be accomplished by inserting after the word "when" in line 15 of page 76 the phrase "accepted by the tribal business council of the Three Affiliated Tribes and."

VIII. CORRECTION OF ARTICLE XII OF CONTRACT (SEC. 10)

Section 10 corrects article XII of the contract by making it apply also to any minerals found in the future in the taking area, not merely gas and oil.

The correction provided in section 10 is desirable.

IX. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS TO CARRY OUT JOINT RESOLUTION

Section 11 authorizes appropriations necessary to carry out the conditions, provisions, and requirements of the joint resolution.

By section 3 of article III of the Fort Berthold contract, no portion of the appropriation of $5,105,625 may be expended by any Government agency for any cost or expense incurred by such agency in carrying out the terms of the contract. Inasmuch as the contract imposes many responsibilities on this Department, section 11 is indispensable to an effective execution of the contract.

A careful analysis of the contract indicates that an appropriation of at least $500,000 should be authorized for expenditure by the Department over the next few years. Funds appropriated to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for Missouri River Basin investigations and surveys are not sufficient to cover these costs and, moreover, could not be used for several of the purposes. Responsibilities of this Department under the contract are as follows:

1. Appraisal of the Indian lands and improvements located in the Garrison taking area.

2. Appraisal of lands and improvements to be acquired with proceeds to be received under the contract.

3. The preparation of detailed plans and estimates of cost for the removal of the Indians from the taking area; the investigation of the lands and water resources of the residual Fort Berthold Reservation; and the supervision of the Indians' removal and relocation.

4. The preparation of detailed plans and estimate of costs for the removal and relocation of Indian cemeteries, monuments, and shrines from the taking area, and the supervision thereof.

5. The investigation of grazing areas below the taking line and the preparation of recommendations to the Chief of Engineers as to areas to be reserved for Indian use.

6. The planning and supervision of salvage operations, including the cutting and disposal of standing timber located in the taking area. 7. The legal representation of Indians who exercise their option to reject appraisals of their lands as prepared by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs.

8. The augmenting of the Indian Bureau staff at the Fort Berthold Agency, necessitated by the need for additional personnel to make cash disbursements to individual Indians, and to lend assistance to the Indians in planning the reconstitution of their farming and livestock activities, in supplying them with advice in readjusting their home economics, and in safeguarding health and welfare during the period of their removal.

9. The repair and renovation of Government quarters on the Fort Berthold Reservation for the accommodation of additional personnel required for the planning and supervision of the Indians' removal; and the purchase of necessary automotive equipment.

Expenses to be incurred by this Department for the discharge of the further duties created by sections 2 to 10 of the joint resolution are summarized as follows:

Sections 2 and 3: Costs of administration would be payable from the appropriation of $3,000,000 authorized by these sections.

Section 4: Costs of administration cannot be presently estimated, since they would depend upon the uses to which the appropriation of $6,500,000 authorized by this section is put, and upon the extent to which the tribal business council would seek assistance from the Department in administering said uses.

Section 5: The reservation of the block of power authorized by this section would not involve any expenses; costs of constructing the power-distribution system would be spread over a period of years commencing when power from the Garrison project became available; these costs when reduced to a present value basis are estimated at $2,500,000.

Section 6: $10,000.

Sections 7, 8, 9, and 10: None.

O

REQUIRING SETTLERS ON PUBLIC LANDS IN ALASKA TO RECORD NOTICE OF THEIR SETTLEMENT CLAIMS IN THE LAND OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE LANDS ARE SITUATED

MAY 9, 1949.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. PETERSON, from the Committee on Public Lands, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 4289]

The Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 4289) to require settlers on public lands in Alaska to record notice of their settlement claims in the land office for the district in which the lands are situated, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

The amendments are as follows:

Page 2, line 1, strike out the comma following the word "years". Page 2, line 2, strike out the comma following the word "commute".

EXPLANATION OF THE BILL

The purpose of this bill is to require settlers on public lands in Alaska to record notice of their settlement claims in the land office for the district in which the lands are situated.

Under present procedure, land claims are registered with the United States commissioners but not in the Bureau of Land Management district offices. As a result, in many instances the Bureau of Land Management records do not show existing valid claims based on settlement. This has interfered with efficient administration by the Bureau, since the lack of adequate records may result in claims being allowed for which there is a preceding valid claim. The enactment of H. R. 4289 would assist applicants in learning which lands were available for settlement.

H. R. 4289 also would replace the existing recordation requirement with one which would apply to both surveyed and unsurveyed lands, and would apply to a broader range of claims.