Allotment work on the Pine Ridge Reservation was discontinued in 1916, and requests for allotments in the available area were denied because the lands were worthless for allotment purposes. 19, of the act of May 28, 1908 (35 Stat. 451) established a continuing allotment right so long as there were remaining tribal lands available; hence, with regard to the character of the lands, the 979 claimants were entitled to allotments out of the badlands area. As approval of the 979 claims was founded upon failure to receive allotments in the bad lands, each claimant is entitled only to the value of a badlands allotment. The badlands have no known mineral value and are practically worthless for agricultural or grazing purposes. They do have some scenic value which, reduced to terms of economic value, can only be estimated. Their nuisance value may also be considered, arising from the fact that at the time the claims were filed the claimants had allotment rights under the act of 1908. The cost of the United States of allotting this land would have been in the neighborhood of $10,000. The settlement proposed is on the basis of 50 cents an acre. The attorney for the claimants contended for a price of $4.41 per acre, based on the alleged value of the Pine Ridge lands in Bennett County, plus interest from 1910, less the proportionate share the claimants received as members of the tribe from the sale of the said lands. The surplus Pine Ridge lands in Bennett County were sold at their appraised value under the act of May 27, 1910 (36 Stat. 440), and the proceeds deposited to the credit of the tribe. Sections reserved for school purposes were paid for at the rate of $2.50 per acre without appraisal. Concerning the attorney's contention that the Indians should be paid $4.41 per acre, the following observations are submitted: (a) That the claims have been approved on the grounds that the claimants were entitled to receive allotments from the bad lands and failed to receive them; there is no basis for a claim for loss of an allotment from the surplus lands in Bennett County, which were lawfully sold in accordance with an act of Congress and the proceeds deposited to the credit of the tribe. It is not believed that lawful diminishment of the tribal domain, whether it be by treaty, agreement, or act of Congress, gives rise to valid claims on behalf of later-born individual members of the tribe. (b) That in any event the suggested $2.50 per acre for the Bennett County lands is too high, inasmuch as these lands were appraised and sold at an average price less than that. (c) That the Government of the United States is not primarily responsible for the fact that these bad lands, a part of the original domain claimed by the Sioux Indians, are practically valueless for allotment purposes; the treaties with the Indians in no way guaranteeing the value of such lands for any purpose. (d) That no interest should be awarded on any loss, as these are not legal or equitable claims; there has been no taking of land by the United States as in the recent Creek or Shoshone cases where the courts have allowed interest; that allowing interest will give rise to pleas that interest should be allowed on the amounts awarded the claimants on other reservations where none was allowed; that in any event interest should not be allowed on all the claims from 1910, as most of the claimants were born later than that time. All claims under the act of May 3, 1928 (45 Stat. 484), have now been considered. An appropriation of $19,357 was made by the act of March 4, 1933 (47 Stat. 1609), to cover approved claims for the loss of personal property, and, as stated above, the sum of $81,540.49 was appropriated to pay lost allotment claims on the other Sioux reservations. An appropriation of $79,038 to pay the 979 Pine Ridge allotment claims will mean a total cost of $179,935.49 for payment of all approved claims filed under the act of 1928. This is the third and last action necessary to carry out the directions of the act of May 3, 1928, and this will be a final settlement in connection with the Sioux claims. Mr. LUDLOW. How do you segregate it as between the payment on account of the allotment of lands and the compensation of attorneys? Mr. DODD. Not to exceed 10 percent of the amount of the Sioux claims can be used for attorneys' fees. The attorneys have done a great deal of work in connection with the matter, and have been of considerable assistance. Mr. LUDLOW. Is that 10-percent limitation in the statute? Mr. DODD. Yes, sir. Mr. LUDLOW. That is the usual limitation. Mr. DODD. Yes, sir. Mr. CANNON. What was the acreage of land supposed to be allotted to these tribes, which they did not receive? Mr. DODD. The acreage, as I recall, was 160. Mr. CANNON. To each? Mr. DODD. Yes, sir; to each. Mr. CANNON. The amount is $79,038. That would be, approximately, how much per acre? Mr. DODD. The settlement was on the basis of 50 cents per acre. The attorneys contended that the land was worth, and that the Indians should be paid at the rate of $4.41 per acre. Mr. LUDLOW. You say these Indians were entitled to allotments, but that they did not receive allotments. Why did they not receive them? Mr. DODD. Because there were no lands on the reservation. Mr. TABER. Why should we pay these Indians for land not allotted to them, when there was no land to allot? Mr. DODD. It is based on the Sioux Treaty. Mr. CANNON. Each one was to receive approximately 160 acres. Mr. DODD. Yes, sir. Mr. CANNON. How many Indians were involved? Mr. DODD. There are 979 claimants. Those were the approved claims. Mr. CANNON. It involves an allotment of 160 acres, approximately, at 50 cents per acre. Mr. DODD. Yes, sir. MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENTS, INDIAN LANDS, MIDDLE RIO GRANDE CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, NEW MEXICO Mr. CANNON. The next item is $12,570, for maintenance assessments, Indian lands, Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, New Mexico. Mr. DODD. I offer for the record a complete statement covering this item. The pueblos of Cochiti, Santo Domingo, San Felipe, Santa Ana, Sandia, and Isleta are situated within the boundaries of the Middle Rio Grande conservancy district. In accordance with the act approved March 13, 1928, and the contract dated December 14, 1928, the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District has constructed diversion dams, canals, main laterals and a storage reservoir for the irrigation of the lands of these pueblos, as well as non-Indian lands in the district. The conservancy district has also constructed drains and flood-protection works for the benefit of these lands. In accordance with the act approved August 27, 1935 (49 Stat. 887), the United States has agreed to pay operation and maintenance costs to the district for 5 years beginning with the fiscal year 1937. Funds in the amount of $11,250 were appropriated to make these payments during the fiscal year 1937 for water delivered during the calendar year 1936. No provision has been made for payment of operation and maintenance assessments for the calendar year 1935, although the district delivered water to irrigated Indian lands and maintained its works for the benefit of Indian lands. The conservancy district's statement of the amount due for operation and maintenance during the calendar year 1935 is $12,569.76. For the calendar year 1937 the district estimates the total assessments for operation and maintenance will be $10,169.46. The total amount due for the calendar years 1935 and 1937, as calculated by the district, will be $22,739.22. It is believed that the acreage of Indian lands claimed by the district is somewhat large. A soil survey now being made will determine the exact amount of lands which should be included in the area on which assessments will be paid. Our present estimate of the entire area of Indian lands within the district is approximately 20,084 acres, of which approximately 8,483 were under cultivation at the time the construction contract was made and which, therefore, do not have to share in the operation and maintenance costs, leaving 11,601 acres of new lands upon which the operation and maintenance cost will have to be paid to the district. The survey being made may raise or lower this figure. The following figures include the costs for 1935 and estimated costs for 1936 and 1937 of all operation, maintenance and betterment work, including the cost on account of the newly reclaimed Pueblo Indian lands and the now irrigated Pueblo Indian lands: Labor-Cleaning and maintenance: Spring cleaning, repairs to struc- Administrative and legal: General office.. Superintendence and engineering: Division offices, warehouses, shops, Total. 1 Does not include extra expense which may arise during balance of calendar year 1936 and in 1937 in connection with Texas-New Mexico water-right litigation. On the basis of actual costs for the year 1935, the amount due the district for operation and maintenance on newly reclaimed Pueblo lands is determined as follows. (See par. 13 of contract): Total operation and maintenance cost. Less assessments made for operation and maintenance against property other than agricultural___ Balance of costs in which newly reclaimed Pueblo lands par- Total agricultural lands in district: Non-Indian Old irrigated Pueblo lands...- Newly reclaimed Pueblo lands (estimated). Total.. $217, 026. 46 97, 440. 09 119, 586. 37 Acres 98, 928 8, 346 12, 600 119, 874 Unit-per-acre cost chargeable to newly reclaimed Indian lands— Carrying through the years 1936 and 1937 in the same manner, it will be found that the unit per acre and total cost to newly reclaimed Indian lands for these years are as follows: 1936-unit-per-acre cost 74.89 cents; total for 12,600 acres. 1937—unit-per-acre cost 80.71 cents; total for 12,600 acres Assessments against properties other than agricultural are $108,667, that being the amount actually assessed for 1936. 1935 1936. 1937. -- $9, 436. 14 10, 169. 46 estimated to be Summary of estimated cost to newly reclaimed Pueblo lands $12, 569. 76 9, 436. 14 10, 169. 46 The district has carried on operation and maintenance on Indian lands for which it has not been paid. The amount requested will settle the delinquent obligations. This amount was requested in the Indian Service estimates for 1938 but was disallowed by the Bureau of the Budget, because it covered an obligation incurred in a prior fiscal year and properly was for consideration in connection with a deficiency bill. Mr. DODD. I will ask Mr. Wathen, the director of our irrigation division to explain briefly the necessity for this item. Mr. WATHEN. This is to take care of the payments to the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District for the calendar year 1935, in accordance with the act of August 27, 1935. Mr. CANNON. Is the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District a private enterprise? Mr. WATHEN. Yes, sir; it is a private enterprise. They are serving 12,600 acres of newly reclaimed Pueblo Indian lands. The act of August 27, 1935, authorized the payment, by appropriations, of the maintenance and operation costs chargeable against the Indian lands for a period of 5 years, beginning with 1935. The first appropriation was for the fiscal year 1936. The appropriation is taking care of it this year and has taken care of it for last year. This deficiency is for 1935. Mr. CANNON. Is the service given by the conservancy district entirely satisfactory, and has it made the land arable? Mr. WATHEN. Yes, sir. Mr. CANNON. How much land is involved? Mr. WATHEN. 12,600 acres of Indian lands. Mr. CANNON. The assessments are what per acre? Mr. WATHEN. About 90 cents. Mr. LUDLOW. Why has this not been taken care of before this? Mr. WATHEN. We discussed it with the subcommittee in charge of the regular bill, but it was decided that, as it was purely a deficiency, it should be carried as a deficiency. They carried in the bill the current year's assessment. They approved that, and it is contained in the regular bill. Mr. CANNON. Was there any expression of opinion on the part of the subcommittee in charge of the regular bill as to the merits of this proposition? Mr. DODD. No, sir; except that it was a deficiency, or that it was for a year prior to the 1938 fiscal year. Mr. CANNON. They provided for the same charges for the current fiscal year? Mr. DODD. Yes, sir; and for the fiscal year 1937. CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF SUNDRY INDIAN IRRIGATION PROJECTS Mr. CANNON. We have here a draft of a proposed provision pertaining to existing appropriations, as follows: The unobligated balances of appropriations for the Indian Service for the construction, operation, and maintenance of sundry Indian irrigation systems and power systems in connection therewith, as were repealed by section 4 of the Permanent Appropriation Repeal Act, 1934, together with the unobligated balances remaining in any receipt limitation account appropriated pursuant to said Act shall be added to and become a part of receipts accruing during any subsequent fiscal year. Will you tell us something about this provision? * * Section 4 of the Permanent Appropriation Repeal Act, 1934, provides in part as follows: "** Provided, That if the total of receipts for any one fiscal year for any of the foregoing purposes under this authority is greater than the amounts appropriated for such purpose, such excess is authorized to be appropriated for the following fiscal year. The use of the word "appropriated" instead of "obligated" technically, in instances where the entire appropriation for a particular fiscal year is not fully obligated, reduces the amount available for adding to the receipts accruing from each project during the ensuing fiscal year. The intent of Congress was, of course, only to control the amounts appropriated for use and had no intention of losing the use of any unexpended balances remaining in such appropriation accounts for any fiscal year. The General Accounting Office is using the technical interpretation and allowing only those receipts over and above the amounts appropriated for the previous fiscal year to be added to the receipts accruing during the ensuing fiscal year regardless of the amount actually expended from the appropriation for the previous fiscal year. This will not increase the appropriations. Mr. WATHEN. The purpose of that language is to correct a technical defect in the Permanent Appropriations Repeal Act, under which the General Accounting Office has ruled that receipts from water users in excess of the actual appropriation during any one fiscal year cannot be credited to the total balance of receipts or money available for appropriation during subsequent fiscal years. Mr. CANNON. That was the act of 1934. Is this the first year you have had such an excess. Mr. WATHEN. Yes, sir; it is the first year we have faced this situation. The recent ruling by the Treasury and the General Acounting Office makes it necessary to have this correction in that act. The way it actually works, for instance, is this: If we have an appropriation from the receipts of $12,000 in one year, and actually collect $14,000 that year, and we spend only $10,000 that year, instead of being able to carry forward the difference between what we spend and what we collected, or $4,000, the present interpretation means that we can only carry forward in the appropriation for the subsequent year the difference between the $10,000 we actually spent and the $12,000 appropriated. |