Fred H. Settelmeyer - University of Nevada, Reno

Fred H. Settelmeyer:Recollections of Ranching in CarsonValley, Work as a Nevada State Senator, andInvolvement with Western Water ProblemsDescriptionInterviewee: Fred H. SettelmeyerInterviewed: 1970Published: 1971Interviewer: Mary Ellen GlassUNOHP Catalog #046Fred H. Settelmeyer, a descendent of German immigrants, was born in Carson Valley in 1892. He and his familyengaged in ranching in the western Nevada-eastern California-Douglas County area for more than seventy years.He attended local schools in the valley, and Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania. He had intended to become alawyer, but family problems intruded and he returned to ranch life.Mr. Settelmeyer became a valuable member of the Carson Valley community. Active not only in ranching, he servedon the local school board, in local political affairs, and from 1947 to 1961 in the Nevada State Senate. He also servedas a member of the California-Nevada Interstate Compact Commission and as a member of the Pyramid LakeTask Force.In the Nevada legislature, Fred Settelmeyer became one of the most influential members of the senate. He is probablymore responsible than any other single lawmaker for Nevada’s conservative postwar financial policies whichhelped to keep the state from resorting to deficit financing in the face of rising demands on the treasury. Interestsin education also made Fred Settelmeyer one of the most prominent supporters of legislation to benefit the publicschools and the University of Nevada.Settelmeyer’s career as a rancher also made him an effective lobbyist for the Nevada Cattle Association after heretired from the legislature. His positions with the Interstate Compact Commission and the Pyramid Lake TaskForce were the outgrowth of his well-known expertise in water matters. Especially in dealing with the Carson Riversystem, probably no other person can claim comparable knowledge.The memoir includes recollections of ranch life in Carson Valley, a discussion of a fourteen-year legislative career,discussion and analysis of western water problems, and a philosophical conclusion.

Fred H. Settelmeyer:Recollections of Ranching in CarsonValley, Work as a Nevada State Senator, andInvolvement with Western Water Problems

Fred H. Settelmeyer:Recollections of Ranching in CarsonValley, Work as a Nevada State Senator, andInvolvement with Western Water ProblemsAn Oral History Conducted by Mary Ellen GlassUniversity of Nevada Oral History Program

Copyright 1971University of Nevada Oral History ProgramMail Stop 0324Reno, Nevada 89557unohp@unr.eduhttp://www.unr.edu/oralhistoryAll rights reserved. Published 1971.Printed in the United States of AmericaPublication Staff:Director: Mary Ellen GlassUniversity of Nevada Oral History Program Use PolicyAll UNOHP interviews are copyrighted materials. They may be downloaded and/orprinted for personal reference and educational use, but not republished or sold. Under“fair use” standards, excerpts of up to 1000 words may be quoted for publication withoutUNOHP permission as long as the use is non-commercial and materials are properlycited. The citation should include the title of the work, the name of the person orpeople interviewed, the date of publication or production, and the fact that the workwas published or produced by the University of Nevada Oral History Program (andcollaborating institutions, when applicable). Requests for permission to quote for otherpublication, or to use any photos found within the transcripts, should be addressedto the UNOHP, Mail Stop 0324, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV 89557-0324.Original recordings of most UNOHP interviews are available for research purposesupon request.

ContentsPreface to the Digital EditionIntroduction1. Ranch Life in Carson Valley2. My Legislative Activities, 1947-1961The 1947 SessionThe 1949 SessionThe 1951 SessionThe 1953 SessionThe 1954 Special SessionThe 1955 SessionThe 1956 Special SessionThe 1957 SessionThe Sessions from 1959 to 1961LobbyistsSummary of My Legislative Career3. Dealing with Water and Associated IssuesLegal Aspects of the Carson River SystemIrrigation in the Carson ValleyThe California-Nevada Interstate Compact CommissionThe Pyramid Lake Task Force and Associated ProblemsObservations on the Washoe ProjectComment on the Soil Conservation Serviceixxi11141

viiiFred H. Settelmeyer4. Summary on Political PhilosophyOriginal Index: For Reference Only5961

Preface to the Digital EditionEstablished in 1964, the University ofNevada Oral History Program (UNOHP)explores the remembered past throughrigorous oral history interviewing, creating arecord for present and future researchers. Theprogram’s collection of primary source oralhistories is an important body of informationabout significant events, people, places,and activities in twentieth and twenty-firstcentury Nevada and the West.The UNOHP wishes to make theinformation in its oral histories accessibleto a broad range of patrons. To achievethis goal, its transcripts must speak withan intelligible voice. However, no type fontcontains symbols for physical gestures andvocal modulations which are integral partsof verbal communication. When humanspeech is represented in print, stripped ofthese signals, the result can be a morass ofseemingly tangled syntax and incompletesentences—totally verbatim transcriptssometimes verge on incoherence. Therefore,this transcript has been lightly edited.While taking great pains not to altermeaning in any way, the editor may haveremoved false starts, redundancies, and the“uhs,” “ahs,” and other noises with whichspeech is often liberally sprinkled; compressedsome passages which, in unaltered form,misrepresent the chronicler’s meaning; andrelocated some material to place informationin its intended context. Laughter is representedwith [laughter] at the end of a sentence inwhich it occurs, and ellipses are used toindicate that a statement has been interruptedor is incomplete…or that there is a pause fordramatic effect.As with all of our oral histories, whilewe can vouch for the authenticity of theinterviews in the UNOHP collection, weadvise readers to keep in mind that these areremembered pasts, and we do not claim thatthe recollections are entirely free of error.We can state, however, that the transcriptsaccurately reflect the oral history recordingson which they were based. Accordingly, eachtranscript should be approached with the

xFred H. Settelmeyersame prudence that the intelligent readerexercises when consulting governmentrecords, newspaper accounts, diaries, andother sources of historical information.All statements made here constitute theremembrance or opinions of the individualswho were interviewed, and not the opinionsof the UNOHP.In order to standardize the design of allUNOHP transcripts for the online database,most have been reformatted, a process thatwas completed in 2012. This document maytherefore differ in appearance and paginationfrom earlier printed versions. Rather thancompile entirely new indexes for each volume,the UNOHP has made each transcript fullysearchable electronically. If a previous versionof this volume existed, its original index hasbeen appended to this document for referenceonly. A link to the entire catalog can be foundonline at http://oralhistory.unr.edu/.For more information on the UNOHPor any of its publications, please contact theUniversity of Nevada Oral History Program atMail Stop 0324, University of Nevada, Reno,NV, 89557-0324 or by calling 775/784-6932.Alicia BarberDirector, UNOHPJuly 2012

IntroductionFred H. Settelmeyer is a descendent ofGerman immigrants to Nevada, born inCarson Valley in 1892. He and his familyengaged in ranching in the western NevadaeasternCalifornia-Douglas County area formore than seventy years. Mr. Settelmeyerattended local schools in the Valley, andGettysburg College in Pennsylvania. He hadintended to become a lawyer, but familyproblems intruded and he returned to ranchlife.Mr. Settelmeyer became a valuablemember of the Carson Valley community.Active not only in ranching, he served onthe local school board, in local politicalaffairs, and from 1947 to 1961 in the NevadaState Senate. He has also served the state ofNevada as a member of the California-NevadaInterstate Compact Commission and as amember of the Pyramid Lake Task Force.In the Nevada legislature, Fred Settelmeyerbecame one of the most influential membersof the senate. He is probably more responsiblethan any other single lawmaker for Nevada’sconservative postwar financial policies whichhelped to keep the state from resorting todeficit financing in the face of rising demandson the treasury. His interests in educationalso made Fred Settelmeyer one of the mostprominent supporters of legislation to benefitthe public schools and the University ofNevada. Mr. Settelmeyer’ s career as a rancheralso made him an effective lobbyist for theNevada Cattle Association after he retiredfrom the legislature.Mr. Settelmeyer’s positions with theInterstate Compact Commission and thePyramid Lake Task Force were the outgrowthof his well-known expertise in water matters.Especially in dealing with the Carson Riversystem, probably no other person can claimcomparable knowledge.When invited to participate in the OralHistory Project, Mr. Settelmeyer respondedgraciously. He was a careful and cooperativechronicler in five recording sessions, all at hishome in Minden, Nevada, between January12 and February 7, 1970. Mr. Settelmeyer’ sreview of his oral history script resulted inonly a few minor changes to the text. The

xiiNamememoir includes recollections of ranch life inCarson Valley, a discussion of a fourteen-yearlegislative career, discussion and analysis ofwestern water problems, and a philosophicalconclusion.The Oral History Project of the Universityof Nevada, Reno, Library preserves the pastand the present for future research by taperecording the reminiscences of persons whohave figured prominently in the developmentof Nevada and the west. Scripts resulting fromthe interviews are deposited in the SpecialCollections Departments of the Universityof Nevada Libraries at Reno and Las Vegas.Mr. Settelmeyer has generously assigned hisliterary rights to the University of Nevada,Reno, with the provisos that no access to thescript will be allowed during the tenure ofthe Pyramid Lake Task Force, and that noquotation or attribution will be made withouthis permission during his lifetime.Mary Ellen GlassUniversity of Nevada, Reno1970

1Ranch Life in Carson ValleyOur outline calls for a brief resume of myfather and mother. Both came from Germanyin the early ’80›s; by that, I mean 1880. I›msure both came for the same purpose, foradventure, some adventure—largely freedomand making their own way in life. They bothworked at the Dangberg home ranch, Mother[Maria Worthmann] for about two and ahalf years, and then she went into Carsonand worked for the then Governor Jewett W.Adams family. Dad [H. William Settelmeyer]continued to work at the Dangberg ranch forseven or eight years.Mother›s family were cabinetmakers;in fact, at least six or seven generations indescendants are still in that same business inGermany. Of course, I always feel that Motherwas a very delightful person, and I have alwayswished that every boy could have the samekind of a mother that I had.And Father›s people in Germany wereagriculturalists, or agriculturist. Dad seldomspoke of any of his early life. don›t know howfar back it went, but others have told methat [the land had] been in the Settelmeyerfamily for some three hundred years inGermany.Prior to coming here, he put in histraining period in the German army, which hedidn›t like at all, as he was in the caste systemthat existed in the old German army of the1870›s. As soon as he got out of the army, hepicked up his younger brother, and they bothcame to Carson Valley, Father beginning hisemployment with the Dangberg Company,and his brother with the H. H. Springmeyerfamily.After working for the Dangbergs, mymother and dad were married and they boughtthe first portion of what finally became theSettelmeyer ranch. This was in 1888.Life was harsh and difficult. Motherworked in the field as much as she could whiletrying to raise six children. Helped makebutter (there were no creameries at the time);they made the butter on the ranch, took it toCarson to sell. And of course, transportationwas entirely by team, winter or summer.The warm part of the year, in summers,why, Dad would leave, oh, one or two o›clock

2 Fred H. Settelmeyerin the morning so he›d be able to deliverhis produce prior to the time that the daysbecame too warm for butter or an occasionalpig or calf that he›d butcher. This was largelythe source of their cash income. About 1895,the creameries were organized. And fromthen on, the so-called peddling of the ranchproduce came to an end.As for the early impressions andobservations and so forth of the early settlers,well, I have very little comment. They gotalong well as neighbors at all times. Becausethere were some of the Mormons who didnot go back when Brigham Young askedthem to come back, some of those peoplewere here. There were people from numerouscountries of north Europe came in. But theyworked together regardless of their individualfeeling about their home country. It wasnever brought up in their business relationsor anything. They came over and certainlydecided to work together, and they›d dosomething worthwhile.The property that Father acquired hadbeen homesteaded by others, of course,knowing that those ahead of him hadacquired earlier water rights that were on thebare land and unreclaimed.I think the ranch operation in its earlydays revolved around just a small dairy andgradually increased. All of us, of course, hadto take part. All of the boys had to learn tomilk. But when the one sister came along,Mother insisted that she was not going tolearn (laughing]. But Mother did help in theearly life on the ranch.About 1900 or shortly prior to that,Dad bought 640 acres of ground from theOccidental Land Company, which was theholding company, the landholding company,for the Newlands family; he [Newlands] laterbecame the senator and was the author of theReclamation Act. He, of course, was a son-inlawof the Sharons who were part of the bigfour or five in Virginia City.Dad was somewhat active. He took hispolitical obligations very seriously. He, ofcourse, filed for his citizenship papers as soonas he legally could do so, and I have oftenthought that perhaps citizenship papers weregiven in those days more by who the sponsorswere than they were by actual examination. Myown reaction is that it wasn›t all bad to do itjust that way. He served on the board of countycommissioners for a number of years, and Ithink largely because there were people that hadconfidence in him. He was not an individualwho sought to be in the forefront at all. He wasa commissioner at the time that the DouglasCounty High School was established. The highschool was opened in January at mid-term. Thelegislation called for the county commissionersto be an ex officio board of education until thenext regular session, I suppose largely becausethey didn›t want to hold a special election. Buthe did not seek further office other than whenwe had just local districts; he did serve on thelocal district school board.My early indoctrination in politics wasgained when some of the candidates camearound. I suppose I was ten or eleven yearsold, and I remember Clarence D. Van Duzer,who was campaigning for Congress on theSilver Party. They had, I think, a four-pieceband with them and had bonfires in thelittle now-extinct town of Sheridan. I alwaysinsisted on going with Dad because I enjoyedseeing these fellows wave their hands andcall each other «thieves» Then on the wayhome, why (of course, this was in a cart orbuckboard, and [it would] take several hoursto get back to the ranch), Dad would alwaystake a blanket along and I›d fold up and beasleep by the time that we got home.I think probably one of the earliestmemories that I have which I have retained,

Ranch Life in Carson Valley3and will, is when our home burned. I wasfour years old. It burned in such a hurry thatthe only thing that anyone had was what theyhad on them. I had been put to bed alongwith the little brother. And Irma, my sister,was just a babe in arms, you might say. Butall at once, the fire started; how, they don›treally know. But we got out, and I startedto go back in, but just before the time thatthe house fell in, one of the neighbors camerunning through the house and picked me up.But the next morning, we didn›t have enoughclothes to wear for breakfast. We were takento the neighbor›s in blankets for breakfast,and lived for a few days within a ramshacklecabin, you might call it, that was on the ranch,and then we moved with our uncle and aunt,and stayed there until the new house wascompleted. But, of course, people did help oneanother. Some carpenters were not working,and the neighbors hauled lumber; and theonly source of lumber at the time was Carson,which meant with teams some twenty milesaway. Others brought flour, and merchantssupplied other things so that Dad and Mothercould make a new start. It›s still a wonderfulrecollection how people did help in times ofan emergency.I have not mentioned what our familyconsisted of. There were five boys and one girl.The oldest brother is William H. Settelmeyerof Elko, who was the county engineer thereand, did private engineering work since1917. The second oldest was [Edward] EdSettelmeyer, who left the ranch and went intothe sheep business, who is now living in Reno,has retired from the sheep business but is amember of the Nevada Tax Commission. Iwas the third son, and I›ll have more to sayof what my activities have been later on thisprogram. The fourth, a son, his name wasGeorge. He passed away in 1915. He was dueto take over on the ranch, and his death islargely what put me in the operation of theranch. And Irma, the only girl in our family,was next. She graduated from Mills Collegeand taught school locally and in Reno for anumber of years. The youngest member of thefamily is [James Theodore] Jim, who grew upon the ranch, but he definitely had no feelingfor livestock. He was mechanically inclined,and eventually, when the time for collegecame, he took mechanical engineering.He isnow with General Foods, and I think it›s fairto say had much to do with the designing ofthe equipment with which Maxwell Housemakes their instant coffee. He›s the chiefengineer for the Maxwell House division ofGeneral Foods.My own education, of course, began in theone-room school in the Fairview district onthe south end of the Valley. At the time thatI entered high school, there were no grades;we just stayed in school for so many years.Young people of those days just had tomake their own fun. I›ve often been askedhow, by young people of the present, «Well,what did you do?»I said, «We kept busy,» at either fishing orsnowballing each other, or did whatever theseason permitted you to do. But we certainlyhad to make our own fun. There was no oneproviding anything for us. And, of course, wehad to take part in all types of ranch work assoon as we were able to do it. Our parents wereinterested in having their children have moreeducation and better education than they did.They sacrificed for us any time.From the Fairview district school, or thegrammar school, I entered Douglas CountyHigh School, which was on the second floor ofthe Gardnerville District School. We startedwith one room. [When] they were able togive chemistry, which was my second year,why, there was just a small room. And the sixor seven boys that wished to take chemistry

4 Fred H. Settelmeyercame into town on Saturday and helped theprincipal build tables and install sinks, andso forth. I rather felt that we got just quite agood course in chemistry, and I think it wasprobably due largely to the dedication of theinstructor that we had, who was E. 0. Vaughn.He later taught in Reno and later served as thecity superintendent of schools in Reno. Hewas certainly one of my great lifelong friendsuntil the time of his death. I completed myhigh school education in that building. Allclasses were taught in three rooms. This wasthe Douglas County High School.We were always busy. When we couldn›tdo anything else, my brothers and I becamereally interested in the mountains, and we dida great deal of hiking in trying to climb all thehighest peaks in our area. There›s a great dealof enjoyment and a great deal of satisfactionin looking back.I think it might be worthwhile to dropback a bit and talk about the grammar schooland what was taught and what happened.There probably were twenty or thirty childrenin this one-room, one-teacher school.Discipline was not always the same. Someof the teachers seemed to have a feeling ofbeing afraid of the youngsters, for which theypossibly had some reason. And others were atthat time, I thought, a bit severe.Shortly after I got out of high school,I took a job almost immediately, shippingproduce out of this valley to the miningcamps. The company that I worked for atthat time was known as the Carson ValleyHay and Produce Company. We shipped hayto Virginia City, to Tonopah, Goldfield, toLuning and Mina, and other small camps.This hay was used for horses hauling ore to themills and whatever transportation was neededin those mining camps. My recollection iswe shipped as high as eight railroad carloadsof hay out in one day. I believe this was themaximum shipment that I made. This wouldamount to about 125 tons.After two years of that, I decided thatI wanted to go on to college, which I did. Iattended Gettysburg College in the 1914-15school year, came home and put in the summeron the ranch and went back. In the fall of 1915,in October of that year, my younger brotherpassed away, and I was asked to come home.I had plans of doing something else, ratherthan to be on the ranch. I suggested to myfather and mother that I thought I›d like to seethem sell the ranch in view of the fact that theolder brothers had started on their own andWeren›t available. Of course, my parents hadbuilt it from nothing, and I realized that thiswasn›t what they would like to do.I enjoyed Gettysburg. In fact, history wasalways my favorite subject, whether I was ingrammar school, high school, or college. Iassume that the fact that Gettysburg, beingsuch a historical spot, helped draw me there. Ienjoyed the teachers, made some friends thatare still friends.And I have a pleasant recollection.The head of the philosophy department atGettysburg was a brother-in-law to Mr. A. W.Hesson of the Hesson Mercantile Companyin Elko. The professor›s name was Dr. C. F.Sanders. When Mr. Hesson came to visitthem, why, I was asked over to their house,and Mr. Hesson and I had just a lot of funtrying to convince the people around theirhouse that evening that we didn›t botherwith pennies. we didn›t use pennies inNevada, which was an absolute fact. Nothingwas priced except in multiples of five at thattime.I also remember on my way to Gettysburg,the train stopped at Fort Wayne, Indiana,which was a division point on the PennsylvaniaRailroad. I felt that I wanted to buy amagazine. I walked into the newsstand there.

Ranch Life in Carson Valley5I didn›t have any small change with me, and Iasked for the magazine and gave the girl at thecounter a five-dollar gold piece. She refusedto sell me the magazine since she had neverseen gold money. I tried to jolly her into it, butabsolutely no sale. And, of course, we didn›tknow anything about paper money. I still havea buckskin bag which my dad carried. It wasmade for twenty-dollar gold pieces.I was planning on taking prelegal work atGettysburg, and through the interest, or thekindness, of the president of Gettysburg that Igot to know very well, I did have the promiseof a junior law partnership with a very wellknownfirm if I would go on to Yale for my lawwork and move in. However, I have enjoyedthe life that I have had, and so have no regrets.It was rather disappointing at the time.That brings us now to the time after thedeath of my brother. I then stayed on theranch. And, of course, ranch work was justranch work. We did everything, whether itwas irrigating or moving cattle. We did havea summer range in Mono County, California,which was some fifty or sixty miles away. Wetrailed the cattle; we did not have trucks, evento haul horses or horse trailers. If we hada horse on the ranch that we wanted at thecamp, why, we’d have to ride him there. Or ifwe had a horse at the camp that we wanteddown at the home ranch, we›d have to ride.That distance was right near sixty miles. I rodeit quite a few times in one day and didn›t feelthat it was any hardship.That brings us up about to 1916. By thenwe had all nationalities here in the Valley,but largely those from southern Europe—theItalians, and the Basques. And, of course, wealways had our Indians. And I know verywell that when my dad and his brother leftGermany and landed here, had the Indiansdecided to put them to work to clear land, theywould have gone to work for the Indians justas well as they would for anyone else. In fact,all they were looking for was a job.I recollect a little story that one of theold-timers told about how someone asked anIndian if he remembered when the first whiteman came, and the Indian said, «Oh, yeh. Iremember when white man first come. Whiteman come and run out all the Indian. Thenpretty quick Dutchman come, he run out allthe white man.»But they worked. Certainly the Basquesworked for the Germans, the Germansworked for the Basques; they were all on anequal basis. I don›t feel that there was anyclannishness among them at all.The subject has been suggested aboutwhat the situation was here during WorldWar I. There was some discussion, and thoseof German extraction were just looked downupon a bit for a while, but this was causedlargely by the overzealousness of some, whichI would like to call rabid patriots. There wasno reason for it. There was no violation ofany law, and no thought of sabotage amongthose people. And the people who had livedhere for years were never suspected by anyof their neighbors of [any disloyalty]. Timehas proven that the activity of trying to indictsome of these people was uncalled for.I was not in the service. My oldest brotherwas. I was of age. But at that time, my fatherbecame ill, and the operation of the ranch fellto me completely. It was about as hard a jobas I ever did, to ask for a deferment. But thelocal board gave it to me without my evenasking for it. I was active in Red Cross drivesand helped wherever I could, in additionto operating the ranch. Also at that time,there was a death on the Douglas CountySchool Board, and I was asked to serve onthis. This was in 1917. I served on that boardfor fourteen years. Of course, improvementsbegan to come. A new school building had

6 Fred H. Settelmeyerbeen built in 1915, which at that time was amodern building. Of course, by now, we›veoutgrown that many, many times. We hadteachers that came—some came from themidwest and were excellent teachers. We hadmany people from the University of Nevada. Ibelieve that one of the most inspiring teachersthat I had during my years in high school wasa Miss [Beulah] Hershiser. She taught historyand I just felt that she was a great person.That brings us close to the time of theProhibition era. Well, I remember a man whowas an assistant U. S. Attorney at the timewho lived here in the Valley. He said he wasquite sure that the only place that you couldn›tget a drink was the Methodist Church!And I believe this was [laughing] almost afact. I do not recollect the exact words ofPresident Hoover, but he said this was a “nobleexperiment,” that certainly proved for all timeto me that if you do not have public supportfor a law, the law isn›t worth keeping.World War II came along, and again, therewas some talk of there being disloyalty inthe community. But again, I must emphasizethat it was largely talk around the bars, withpossibly a bit of noise, and I think perhaps thesame arguments that people would have aboutpolitics, which might be a bit heated. But asfar as definite disloyalty, it existed, if at all, tosuch a small extent that I feel that at all timesit should have—ignoring it would have beenmuch the best policy.I have been asked if I remembered theProhibition era and the repeal. Of course, Iwas not a heavy consumer of liquor, but foundthat I could have it if I did want it, whichwas usually for a friendly social drink withsomeone that I knew real well. But the eveningof the repeal, why, there were a number of us,possibly fifteen or twenty—the boys that sortof traveled together—who gathered at a homewith three or four cases of beer. Of course,not being a very good beer drinker, I had agood time just with the gathering. But we justtook it as a matter of course, you might say.We hadn’t really been dry, and it was almostas if the weather changed from a rainstorm tosomething else and just moved into whateverhad to be done the next day and with no greatexcitement at all.[Do I remember any raids by the prohishere?]Yes. I remember I think one, but itwasn’t very successful. I remember a storythat was told about a man that I knew whowas moonshining over in the Mason Valleyarea. The prohis came in there, and this fellowsaw them and knew who they were. He was aman of untold nerve. He walked up to them,and he said, “Are you looking for a still?”He said, “ I have some sheep out here, andthere’s someone running the still out there,and he’s causing me a lot of difficulty with mysheepherders. And,” he said, “if you want, I’lltake you out there and show you where it is.”So, this fellow had a Hudson automobile,took them in it, and took them out into thehills, and he said, “Well,” pointing at a certainspring, “now you go over there, and you’llfind the still.”These prohibition agents got out andstarted to walk, about ten or twelve milesout of Yerington; [there were] about three orfour inches of snow, where he left them. Hekept on driving, and he drove over to wherethe still was operating and destroyed it, anddrove back to town, and let the prohibitionagents walk back [laughing]. This raised theire of the prohibition agents. They eventuallycaught up with this fellow, but it was told withgreat glee for a while.I mentioned sheep just a few minutes ago.We didn’t have tramp sheep bands in here. Iattended meetings of the Nevada LivestockAssociation, which was the predecessor of

Ranch Life in Carson Valley7the Nevada Cattle Association. I attended afew meetings during the time that the TaylorGrazing Act was set up and found them veryinteresting. Of course, there was much to-doabout the so-called tramp sheepmen whowould come from Idaho or at times from theSan Joaquin Valley into the Mono Countyarea without owning land, just living off of thearea as they went. And, of course, they wereparticularly grazing on the so-called publiclands of which no one seemed to have anycontrol. Nevada people attempted to controlit in their water law [Stockwatering Act of1925]. If you owned the water, why, of course,you controlled the range in all but the wintermonths when there was snow. Particularlywith sheep, you could move anywhere if youhad snow; they did not need to have drinkingwater for the sheep.I remember particularly a very, I wouldsay, sharp and able Basque, when they weretalking about it, they felt that allotmentsshould be given on this land to those thatthey were near to. And this very successfuloperator said, “Well,” he said, “what I wish youwould tell me [is], how near is far.” Becausehe came from Idaho, and he just—in otherwords, he just felt he was a little like HenryMiller, who said he never wanted very much;he only wanted what was alongside of him.If the snow was there, he always had feed.And so he felt distance was of no concern.They would move those sheep three and fourhundred miles over the winter out over thedesert and back again.But I believe that the Taylor Act was ofsome help in controlling overgrazing. Not somuch of the local interests, the people whohad established outfits, summer and winterin the one locality, they were not the peoplethat should be accused of overgrazing. It’s theuncontrolled grazing of sheep that hurt theranges, for which, of course, I feel there areconservationists who are blaming the presentoperators unjustly.I will go into a bit more detail on operationof the ranch, problems involved, and how wearranged our drives. Actually, making a cattledrive was just a way of life. But when youstarted on these drives, it meant early hoursand long days. We always attempted to get thelargest portion of our drive over with prior tothe noon hour. This was particularly true onthe spring drives. We usually had breakfast at2:30 a.m., then got our beds rolled and ontothe wagon, and were at the corrals or whereverthe cattle were confined just as soon as wecould see. In the spring of the year, of course,these drives were very comfortable; but in thefall of the year, when we moved out of the hills,which was usually near the end of October orthe early part of November, we would oftenrun into a storm. Arid, of course, most of thetime, we did have substantial beds. But we’dhave to sleep outdoors.I remember one morning, having sleptunder an open shed, when we got out, whenI was cooking my breakfast, it was six belowzero. A few of the boys were rather vain anddidn’t feel they wanted to be bothered withovershoes. It stormed a bit the day before, andwe built a fire to thaw our boots so we couldpull them on. I’m afraid that I must say I wasamong the vain ones that wasn’t wearing theovershoes [laughing].Of course, on the ranch itself, to describeall the things, you could never tell what—there was no routine. And I have always feltthat a large ranch operation was far morecomplicated than that of a factory, eventhough the factory or a business institutionmight employ many more people. But therewas nothing routine about the ranch. Youplan on doing something today that youwere going to do tomorrow, and the weather

8 Fred H. Settelmeyerwould change. It would spoil your routinecompletely. I have felt that the management ofa ranch is more difficult than management ofa manufacturing plant. Someone, whoever isthere, must know whether the hay is too dryor whether it’s too wet to be put into the baleor the stack. When you plant your grain oralfalfa, a frost may come along and destroyit, which certainly has happened to everyonewho has been in the agricultural field for anylength of time.You have no control of prices. I think Ishould like to give an example. [Around 1931or 1932], I sold cows for a cent and a half apound, and they were good cows, weighingabout 1,200 pounds. I sold bulls for threecents a pound. I asked the buyer why. Thismeat certainly is tougher; it isn’t as good asis cow beef.His answer was, “Well, you know, the meatis drier, and before we make hamburger outof it, we add fifty percent water. And it’s goodhamburger.”I have retained sales slips of having soldcows at two cents a pound, steers at three anda half cents a pound. And certainly, we weregoing broke, and we just wouldn’t admit it,was all that it amounted to.And by that time, Father had passed away.And I’d get downhearted and talk to Mother,and she says, “Now,” she said, “just stay withit. The only place you can find it is where youlost it.” [laughing] But it just showed howhardy the old early settlers were. And we hadto be. It was a great feeling when we wereable to pay off our indebtedness right off theranch operation.We had terrific dry spells between theyears 1924 to ’34. 1926 was not quite asbad; 1929 was dry; 1930 and ’31 were verydry. We had received only about betweentwenty and twenty-five percent of our normalprecipitation. That, plus low prices, made it avery difficult time. Feed, of course, was veryhigh. We had to buy hay. We paid eighteendollars a ton. We took the seller’s estimate ofhow many tons there were, and it was a matterof take it or leave it. Trucks were not availableas they are [now]; you couldn’t move feed.Feeds had not been developed.It was during that time that we began toput new dams in some old, old reservoirs,reservoirs that had been filed on many yearsago by some people; they were on the westfork of the Carson River. The rights had beenacquired by the Alpine Land and ReservoirCompany associates, and we purchasedthose. They had all had dams. I would notlike to leave the impression that these werebuilt in violation of, for instance, the federalrights that they acquired in 1902. These rightshad been filed on and had been recognizedas having a priority of 1895 by the federalgovernment prior to their building of theLahontan Dam. The associates were Mr.William Dressler and Mr. Fritz Neddenriep,the fathers of Fred Dressler and presentlyliving William Neddenriep. But I supposebecause I was the driest, I was the ramrod. Imoved my bed into the mountains, and wereconstructed the old reservoirs that were onthese lakes. And it was work that I enjoyed, Isuppose largely because I knew that we wouldhave greener crops thereafter, and bettercrops. I’d like to build those same reservoirstoday with the equipment that we now have.Those reservoirs, they were all put in withhorses, with horse scrapers we had, On theone there, we had fifty head of horses workingon Fresno scrapers.I will speak for a few minutes about thenative wildlife of this valley. The only changethat I have seen is that deer have increased,oh, certainly a hundred percent in the valleyproper. As children, we never saw one. Therewere some deer hunters. They would cross

Ranch Life in Carson Valley9over to the other slope, over on the—. Well,Blood’s where the deer hunters would go.Those people who found time and couldafford to go would go with pack trains. Butthat’s on Highway 4 largely, in the Pacific andHermit Valley-area. But deer became veryplentiful; they seem to be on the decrease. I attimes wonder if there aren’t cycles in them orif a disease gets among them just as it comesin on other livestock, because I know deer arejust another form of livestock.The rabbits, of course, seem to be on acyclic basis. They’re a scourge at times. And,of course, there was a time if there was a goodyear for rabbits, I can remember the Indianshaving rabbit drives would just move througha brush, sagebrush flat. But they’re certainlystill with us. Quail are more abundant; ducksprobably not. However, again, I believe withducks, we have the same situation that Ispoke about with fishing, the pressure andthe number of hunters there are.. I think thereare possibly just as many ducks killed today asthere were in the early days. But they’re killedby more people, and so the duck per hunteraverage certainly has gone down.Time was when we didn’t have insectsbecause we had no problem with [the]alfalfa weevil. And we had no problem withmany of the animal diseases. Perhaps if we’dbuilt a fence around Nevada and had neverpermitted any in-shipments from otherstates, we probably wouldn’t have themtoday. Certainly, I opposed the spraying, theuse of insecticides on alfalfa fields originally,because I felt that when we killed the weevil,we would kill their natural enemies. However,I found out that if I wanted to grow hay formy cattle, why, I had to spray because theybecame so thick that you just couldn’t growalfalfa without spraying. The use of insecticideis done as a matter of necessity. It isn’t as thatpeople want to spend their money for it, butthey have no choice. You’d probably leave yourfields lay blank for a few years, and perhapsthe insects might lose their host. But you don’tpay the taxes today on land by just leaving itlie idle.[Why do I think that there is a problemnow where there wasn’t before?] Well, Irather assume that insects really, you mightsay, are bred and become thicker in warmerareas. I don’t like to blame the automobileand the transportation for everything, butcertainly, we didn’t have insects, the sametype of insects. We didn’t have the same kindof noxious weed until transportation came sofast and so easily that you had people movingfrom all areas. In some cases, I think, forinstance, what I felt was a very bad weed came,and this, I believe, came in with sheep. Andother people feel that way. It was Canadianthistle, which is very hard to control. Thestreams carried some of it. The sheep camein from areas where there was this one; andon the Carson River, I think some of it camefrom California. They were at the headwatersof the river, and they began to grow at theheadwaters of the river. And this, of course,with irrigation and water coming down, why,we had an infestation of Canadian thistle. Wetried to control it; I don’t know how. But Ithink it’s so widespread that people just haveto learn to live with it. But it’s the movementof people and livestock and what have you.At times, people wonder what has happenedto deny them recreation possibilities. I believethat the streams provide the same recreationthat they did many years ago. But, of course,to those of us who grew up here, we knowall too well that, for instance, fishing is notwhat it was when we were boys. My reactionon that is that if we didn’t have any morepeople on the stream now than we did then,the fishing would be equally as good. When I

10 Fred H. Settelmeyerwas small, friends of my father’s did drive outfrom Carson with horse-drawn conveyances,but I imagine we didn’t see more than five orsix—certainly not more than ten people fromoutside of the Valley on our ranch. The adventof the automobile, of course, changed all that.The pressure became so heavy on the streamsthat, of course, nature couldn’t provide thenumber of fish. The spawning grounds are nodifferent, but I must say that the drought yearswere certainly very hard on stream life. (Theyears I usually refer to as our worst droughtcycle of my lifetime was from approximately1924 to ’34.) Streams became very stagnant.The fish were never totally killed off. Withplanting, why, fishing on certain reaches ofthe river has improved. But the native fish,of course, are gone. We no longer—but fora few occasional cutthroats that are planted,why, the fish today are all of another species,rather than the native fish.

2My Legislative Activities: 1947-1961The 1947 SessionThat brings us about down to thelegislative activities to which I was elected in1947. Senator William Dressler, who had beensenator from this county for twenty-eightyears, passed away in September of 1946.Then a number of people in the valley, withoutmy knowing about it, circulated petitions topetition the Republican central committeethat my name be placed on the ballot, in spiteof the fact that another man had filed.I was called, or a call was placed for me.I was at the Dressler ranch assisting FredDressler in working cattle. We did not get inuntil dark, and there was no way of reachingus by phone. When we did get to the Dresslerhome, there was a call for me that I waswanted at the courthouse. I rode my horse toour own ranch, changed clothes, came to thecourthouse without stopping to eat any dinnerbecause the call apparently was very urgent.The petitions had been started. They wereinsistent that I would accept; they wantedassurance that I would run. The kind of peoplethat they were, I just had to say yes. I said Iwould. I was elected, and my first session wasin 1947.There were quite a few old-timers there.I certainly felt that I was stepping into alarge pair of shoes after the twenty-eightyears that Mr. Dressler had been there. Ofcourse, I had followed legislative processessomewhat, had been interested. Was quite anadmirer of Governor Boyle. I have a copy ofhis valedictory address* that he gave when hedecided to retire as the governor of Nevadain 1921, which impressed me a great deal.And I suppose I must say that the philosophythat he expressed more or less rang so truethat I believe that it probably still affects mythinking today.That year was a bit unusual. I was certainlya green hand, and I had no resentment that Idid not receive any committee chairmanships.I worked on the agricultural committee,the education, labor, livestock. I sometimes*See Nevada Tax Review (December,1926).

12 Fred H. Settelmeyerbelieve that I probably knew more about thelegislation that was being acted on that sessionthan any session after that time, the reasonbeing I had no chairmanship, and no realresponsibility. But I knew something aboutevery bit that came before me. I brought mybill books home, and the next day’s daily file,and was prepared to either state why I wasvoting the way I did or why I was opposing.Just because I had the time, I think, I wasperhaps something like in the present-dayCongress, where they have staff assistantswho do the research for them, I knew whatwas going on. I wasn’t an expert legislator atthat time, probably never was, but I did havesome valuable lessons taught to me that year.Of course, that was the year the “postwarreserve fund” still existed, and this was kindof a nuisance. This was established by aprior legislature for the purpose of havingsome money set aside that could be usedimmediately when the boys came home fromWorld War II so they could give employmentto the veterans of that war.Well, of course, the economic conditionsnever got that bad. There was work to bedone, but this money was laying idle, andsome of the senators were jealous about it and[thought] it should be left there.The economic recession did not occur.Unemployment was not a problem. Thefund was being invaded for other purposeswhenever someone had a special projectwhich was not financed in the budget. Wedecided that—and when I say “we,” a few of usthat were working on the financial conditionof the state— decided that it would be betterto abolish that fund and transfer all of themoney into the general fund so that it couldbe appropriated by the legislature to thoseprojects that qualified. This was done.At the same time, we found there weremany special taxes, such as the cigarette taxand others, where a percentage of the taxreceipts were earmarked for administrationof those particular acts. We removed all ofthose and found that somewhere in the realmof $2-$300,000 was lying idle in those fundsunexpended, which, of course, was a credit tothe administrator of those taxes. It could wellhave dissipated those funds and hardly anyonewould have known the difference, becausethere was no auditing department in thoseearly years. All of those were transferred to thegeneral fund, and thereafter, appropriationswere made by the legislature to take care ofthat enforcement and administration.I think it would be appropriate to speaka little of my predecessor, Senator Dressler.I, of course, grew up on a ranch adjoiningthat of Senator Dressler. Senator Dresslerwas a man [who was] certainly unusual, Ofcourse, having operated adjoining ranchesand irrigating out of the same ditch and—andwhen shortages of water occur, why, of course,tempers flare, which it did between us. ButI learned early that if you had an argumentwith Senator Dressler today, it was nevercarried over into tomorrow’s business. Andit was a very valuable experience. We mightdiffer at times, but if anyone took after me,why, they also took after Bill Dressler. I, ofcourse, was honored to follow him, and hehad established such a reputation as beinga member of the “bull bloc,” which actuallywas, you might say, a coalition, because in thatbloc were, I believe, almost an equal numberof Democrats and Republicans.I have been told that if one wasn’t sureof just what they should do about a bill, theyoften looked over to Jack Robbins, who wasa Democratic member of that bull bloc. (AndJack Robbins, of course, later became one ofmy own very close friends in the legislature.)But they would just look over, and if Jackput his thumbs up [gesture], why, it meant

My Legislative Activities, 1947-196113vote “aye,” and if he turned his thumb down[gesture], why, they all voted no.They were certainly members during thetransition years in Nevada prior to the veryrapid growth. I think they are entitled to theirplace in Nevada’s history. In certain areas, theymay have been over-conservative. In SenatorDressler’s case, he certainly tried as far asthey could make the money reach. He wasinterested in education and helped education.He was a very close friend, and Miss MildredBray admired him greatly. They were a hardycrew. And if I had been there during theirtime, I would have much preferred that I wason their side rather than to be against them[laughing].I found Jack Robbins to be one of thefairest men. There were times when peoplefelt that he might be receiving a retainer. Butat no time did I ever feel that he did anythingthat would injure Nevada. He was a veryable legislator. And he was highly respected.During the years that I was there with JackRobbins, of course, the Republicans were incontrol of the Senate. He had referred theAssembly bills when they had been passedby the Assembly and came over to the Senate.He had referred those bills at a time prior,when the Senate was controlled by his ownparty, the Democratic [party]. We never fora moment thought, just because we werethe majority party, that we would take thereference of the bills away from Jack Robbins.Normally, of course, the majority leader refersthe bills.I remember one time an instance whenone of the Republican senators felt thathe’d like to have a certain bill referred to adifferent committee, and I think there wasa selfish purpose for wishing this reference.Jack Robbins referred it to the committeethat I felt was entitled to the bill. But thisindividual made a motion that he objectedto the reference and made a motion that itbe referred to someone else. Senator Robbinsrose to his feet and said, “I have referred thebills in this house for I don’t know how manyyears. I would like to call for a vote on thatmotion.” And, of course, the vote was sixteento one in favor of Senator Robbins. I enjoyedworking with him.Actually, I feel that the men in theselegislative bodies are much like peoplethroughout the state. It’s a cross section. Forone reason or another, you become closerto some of those individuals, just as we doin everyday life. If you asked me why I’m abetter, closer friend of this person than ofanother, I can’t tell you. And this is the wayit is in the legislature. I became very closeto Senator [Herman] Budelman. In fact,our friendship continues to this day. There’smany of those. But you get into a little group,and what makes the groups gather, I don’tknow. But you have a certain four or five thatare regular associates for lunch. Sometimessome of them want a martini before theyhave lunch, and some others did not. And soI think this helps groups form. And this is notin derogation of the other people at all. On anindividual basis, I certainly worked closelywith Senator Johnson. And, of course, thenthey move away. They’re no longer there. Ienjoyed them while they were there—Duffin,Loomis, McGuirk— enjoyed some more thanothers [laughing].I think it’s true that there are a few peoplecome there and probably have quite a nicevacation with pay. Some do not have thedesire to be on such committees as finance orjudiciary or education. In my judgment, theycertainly are the hard-working committees.And in addition to that, there are timeswhen—perhaps this isn’t right, but if you donot spend quite a few years there, you justdo not get the committee assignments. Of

14 Fred H. Settelmeyercourse, there are times you might feel that theseniority business is something for the birds.I do not feel that way, because the peoplewho are sent back by their constituents musthave something. And seniority is broken, wasbroken in the Nevada senate, because when Ibecame chairman of the finance [committee],there was one, a Republican senator, came tome, said, “Well,” he said, “I have seniority, andI want to get on finance.”I thought far a moment it’d be ratherunpleasant and I was going to try to evade itand so forth, and suddenly I said to myself,“Well, fellow, you might just as well get thisbehind you.I didn’t feel that he had the qualificationsfor being on finance. I shall mention no namesin that connection. I said, “Well, I’m goingto tell you, if I’m going to be the chairmanof finance, I intend to have something to sayabout who’ll be on from my party. So, if youfeel that you have the horses, why, you takethe entire committee. But other than that, I’mgoing to have something to say about it.’Of course, he backed away, and I got theman that I wanted, and he did not have theseniority that the other man did. But it wasmy humble judgment that he was a man thatI could work with, intelligent, and the recordof the other man was such a factor [that] Isuggested to him that he’d be in trouble withhis constituents. If he was on finance, or if helegislated for the state, he’d be in trouble eitherwith the state or his own constituents, one orthe other. And I says, “You’re not going to beon if I’m the chairman.” And so those thingscome up, just as they come up in everyday life.Just circumstances placed me closerto Baker, Budelman, Cox, Johnson, andLemaire. That was my first year. That was inmy party. I was also very close to Robbinsand Sommer. But again, this is just becausewe were working in the same field, you mightsay, although I had no committee assignment,but they thought it was an oversight andthat didn’t bother me. But the people on thefinance committee asked me to sit in on theirdeliberations, which I did when I had theopportunity.Certainly—I was just certainly a greenhand in that first session, and had very fewsessions with the governor, with Governor[Vail] Pittman, but we got along very well.Fact is, I think there was more camaraderiein the first—oh, in the early sessions, becausewhoever was a Republican was a Republican;whoever was a Democrat was a Democrat.But my own reaction was that about the firstfour or five sessions, why, we generally forgotwhether we were Republicans or Democratsafter organization. We certainly never votedthat way. There was no one cracking the whipat all. I had eight sessions, or more than that,counting the special. There seemed to be acertain sadness of breaking apart at the lastnight of the session. Sometimes they used—as I say, they worked nights (and I abhorredthat). But it’d be two or three o’clock in themorning, sometimes, before we’d get out ofthere.The 1949 SessionWell, now I’ll talk about the 1949 session.Of course, that session, I became a member ofthe finance committee, and the other memberswere Senator Lattin, Senator Lemaire, SenatorBudelman, and Senator Baker. They wereall capable. I probably was closer to SenatorBudelman than the others; however, I workedclosely with Senator Lemaire and SenatorLattin. In fact, Senator Lattin’s health wasnot good, and I remember distinctly that weweren’t making very much progress. We didnot have the facilities of the budget director’soffice. At that time, Bob Cahill, who was the

My Legislative Activities, 1947-196115secretary of the Tax Commission, had perhapsthe best information of state finances. Thingswere rather quiet, waiting for appropriationbills to be prepared. We had several verysnowy afternoons that Senator Budelmanand I retired to Bob Cahill’s office, and in amatter of about two days, we came up with theappropriation bills. It was a very rewardingexperience to have worked with Mr. Cahilland Mr. Budelman who had served on thefinance committee for several sessions prior tothe time that I joined the finance Committee.As for the other members of the financecommittee, Senator Lemaire had had a heartattack. So he couldn’t be there, and SenatorLattin was ill. And so perhaps—I supposethis could be questioned, whether this wasthe proper way to do it—but I think weaccomplished our ends, and apparently, theSenate was very glad that someone took overon the chore, and followed us almost withouta question.[Mr. Baker has been credited with doingso much for southern Nevada.] Senator Baker,of course, had just come out of the army. Igot along very well with him, but some ofthe boys seemed to rather resent his militaryapproach. And he was involved in southernNevada problems, and was more interested,and, of course, had more problems to facethan I did in my county. He was a competentindividual without a doubt. Certainly, he didwell enough for himself to prove that.Some new senators came in that year—Senator Horlacher from White Pine, SenatorMunk from Pershing, Senator Nores fromLincoln, Senator Strosnider from Lyon, andSenator Wilson from Mineral. Senator Munkjoined the finance committee, and in myopinion, made a real contribution.It is interesting that in the ‘49 session, itwas recognized that Lake Tahoe was growingso fast that problems would arise. And SR5,forming an interim committee on Lake Tahoeproblems, was passed. However, it gave noauthority, but discussions were started, whichultimately were resolved in what today mightbe termed the Tahoe Regional Agency, whichhopefully will be worthwhile in trying topreserve Lake Tahoe.1949 was also the year when livestockand people were isolated due to the unusuallyheavy snowstorms. This was particularly truein eastern and central Nevada. It caused a greatdeal of discussion. There were, among thelegislators, opinions that the state should stepin with a large contribution. However, aftercarefully examining the finances that wereavailable and which had been accumulatedin the Department of Agriculture, why, thethought eventually prevailed that this moneywhich had been taken from the livestockpeople and placed under the control of thestate Department of Agriculture was theproper source of funds for that. The livestockpeople paid for their hay. The state did provide$25,000 for certain administration. But themoney was all returned; it did not cost thetaxpayers anything to feed the livestock. Iremember that Governor Pittman and I wereat a firemen’s party; we were guests. And therewas a little difference between GovernorPittman and myself in how it should behandled. There was no difference in what wewere trying to accomplish. Governor Pittmanfelt it should be an appropriation from thegeneral fund, and I took the position thatthe cattlemen should take care of themselves,which they did.The hay was somewhere in the area. Therewere some large cargo planes. They loadedhay at the Minden airport on those planesand flew over the isolated areas and justkicked the bales out. And I certainly wouldhave gone on one of those flights, but I justcouldn’t get away. But there were a number

16 Fred H. Settelmeyerof people, and among them, Fred Dressler,who flew over in those planes and helpedkick the bales out.[I didn’t agree with any of the accusationsof pinpoint bombing on those cattle?] No.I think they did very well not to hit morecattle than they did. But it was certainly aninteresting thing to watch.[What were the attitudes of some of theother senators from agricultural counties onthis haylift?] They went right along with it. Ofcourse, it gave training to the young fellowswho were being trained to fly these planesand to drop the bales of hay, took the placeof bombing, and then they were getting somevery excellent training in the process.The negotiations with the Air Forcewere handled entirely by the ExecutiveDepartment. It was, of course, largelyGovernor Pittman. They provided, of course,the planes at no cost because they had tokeep the young fellows flying anyway there.But this was—it was dusty. Those boys whogot in there, flying with the doors open, why,when the hay went out, of course, they werejust covered with hay dust before they gotthrough. But I know Fred Dressler said thatthe boys weren’t afraid to fly low enoughso they could spot the cattle. It was veryinteresting to have been a part of it.I believe that takes us to the ‘51 sessionwhere we had a topic here [in the suggestedoutline] of relationships with the executiveand administrative agencies. And I just don’tbelieve that I ever had any problem with theagency heads. I could always reach them.The 1951 SessionI think we are now ready to talk about the’51 session and, of course, the committees. I’mnot sure whether I was the chairman of thebanking committee that year or not.[The political writers said before the ’51session that the chairmanship of the financecommittee was the center of a strugglebetween myself and Mr. Lattin, Mr. Lemaire,Mr. Johnson, and Forest Lovelock.] SenatorLovelock did not serve on the finance, andI don’t remember very much of a struggle.The only struggle that I remember was myfirst session (1947) when there was a contestbetween Senator Tallman and Senator Coxfor the chairmanship. And in the caucus,why, Senator Cox won out. But SenatorJohnson, I believe he came into the 1943session. He and Walter Cox had seniority.And during the entire time when I was in thesenate, Senator Johnson just won, you mightsay, without any contest, the chairmanshipof finance up until the time that he wasdefeated in 1958. And Senator Johnson wasa capable legislator. But the membership,there were certainly—Forest Lovelockhad qualifications for being chairman offinance, but others had served and they hadseniority.And no one yields, because I can tellyou, when you get into—as I was told at myfirst caucus, that a caucus was not a Sundayschool picnic. You played for keeps. And ifyou desired something, usually, you didn’tsay, “Well, oh, no, you take it.” As they oftensay in the legislature, if you “had the horses,”why, you’re going to take the position.And certainly, on the whole, I found outwhoever lost was always a gracious loserbecause it’s the only way that you can—youhave to forget that tonight’s or today’s battlewas in caucus, and just be thankful for theassignments you did get. And after you haveso much seniority, why, it is a good bet to saywhat you want and what you can get.

My Legislative Activities, 1947-196117I believe in ’51, we had a very bitter battleon the savings and loan legislation, on savingsand loan association measures. Nevada at thattime had a man who was very capable, whowas operating a savings and loan associationin Las Vegas, but he was not above trying toget self-serving legislation through. We spentlong hours. It was at that time I was gratefulfor some of the legislative representatives,sometimes called lobbyists, for the help thatthey gave.It was an all-inclusive bill. Included inthis bill was also provisions that took care oftitle insurance and so forth, and neighborscouldn’t’ve sold their house to each otherwithout going through a broker, even thoughthey were in complete agreement. We wereable to keep this desired legislation frompassing; it was amended. And the provisionthat this man particularly wanted in thebill was deleted. After that, why, the mandecided to move to California, and he wasvery successful for a number of years in a verylarge savings and loan deal, but got into realdifficulty just within the recent past. I believeI would prefer not to mention his name.Anyone in finance would know exactly whowe’re talking about. His stock was removedfrom the New York Stock Exchange by theSecurities and Exchange Commission.Of course, this ’51 session followed one ofthe very devastating floods that the area hadseen. Money was appropriated for cleanup.Also, we began to plan for the Centennialcelebration of the first white settlement. Wehave the subject of lobbyists here again [on thesuggested outline], and with rare exception, Ifound them to be helpful. Of course, you hadto make up your own mind as to whether theyhad an interest in what they were representingor working for, and we didn’t necessarily goalong with what they suggested. But at alltimes, they were more helpful than damaging.I’ll have to turn back, but I believe thatthe acquisition of Basic Magnesium cameup in the ’47 session. It may have beencompleted in ’51. We were beginning tonegotiate for it, and it appeared to me thatif Nevada did not act, it would be sold tojunkies, and it would have been hauledaway. I remember very well at a Republicanconvention (this was a state convention)someone got up and was going to be criticalof this acquisition and was criticizing theDemocratic administration, which, ofcourse, was under Pittman, for having thestate go into [the] private business of owningproperty. Well, at no time did the legislatureintend the state to operate or to hold it. Andat that convention, I opposed this motion,saying that I thought it was something lessthan good judgment to be critical of thestate acquiring that. It did not cost the stateanything. We did have to pay, or guarantee,$4,000,000 for it.[What did I see as the Mueller-Biltz role inthis Basic Magnesium affair?] Well, Mueller,of course, represented General ServicesAdministration. If there was any hanky-pankyabout this—and which was rumored—I didnot know of it. All that I do know is that, bythe state acquiring it and keeping it frombeing junked, that American Potash camein, Stauffer Chemical came in and acquireda portion of the plant, Titanium Metals, andthere were others. But in retrospect, I wouldsay that the people who managed to save thisfor Nevada can be nothing but proud of it. If ithad once been pulled out of the state and sold,it would have been sold for a pittance. I’m sureit would’ve gone to junkies, and we certainlywould not have the industrial complex insouthern Nevada that we have.[What kind of rumors of hanky-pankydid I hear?] Well, I heard that Mueller was

18 Fred H. Settelmeyersupposed to have gotten something out ofit. I just don’t believe that Mueller neededit or that he accepted anything. [And it wasrumored] that some of the large companiesgot a bargain, and so forth. I think this isjust standard for any deal of that size. There’ssomebody always ready to point a finger atany kind of a deal, because it was certainly abig deal. If anyone knew different, why, I thinkthey were derelict in their duty in not bringingit to the surface. Certainly if I had known ofanything like this, that there was somethingbeing gained by an individual, I would havebeen critical of it and would have said so. Sowhether this is true or not—and certainlyanyone in the position of John Mueller, you’dhave someone gunning for him.Just as in a few instances where peoplemade comments about me, certainly inconnection with some banking legislationat one time, that I had a personal interest inthis, and that’s why I opposed it. I did walkinto the governor’s office one day. He hada group sitting around, and I said, “Well, Iunderstand that this is—that it was said thatI have a personal interest in it. And I want totell you here and now that I can look everydamn one of you in the eye and say, ‘Go jumpin the lake!’” Because I did have—owned—perhaps I was cutting it too fine. I did have alittle stock in Bank of America, and when Ibecame a member of the banking committee,I immediately sold all the bank stock thatI owned because I wanted no conflict ofinterest. [It was] to my own detriment becausethe stock moved up, of course, during thetime. I’ve often thought in that connectionof a very good friend; he was a judge over inAlpine County, California. The day that I wasfirst elected, or a few days shortly thereafter,Judge L. T. Price came to me and he said,“Well, Fred, I’m sorry that I wasn’t votingin Nevada so that I could vote for you. Butif you’ll just remember that you’re going tolive a little longer with yourself than anyoneelse in this world, why, you’ll get along.” AndI tried not to forget that. He was a very closefriend of mine, and just had kind of a fatherlyinterest in me. I was young compared to him.[In this same ’51 session, there wasthe “Right-to-Work” petition. Did I wantto comment on that? Yes, I believe that iswhat labor took the position on. Those ofus who supported it, [I] think the followingmorning—I don’t know how they evermanaged to get handbills printed as fast asthey did, but every one of us had a—this wascalled the “yellow dog” bill—every one of uswho supported it, why, of course, had one ofthose fliers on our desk. Of course, we werenot impressed by it. We did what we thoughtwas right. I did have some friends amongthe union-labor people who told me of thecircumstances where the business agent hadbeen wholly unfair.In fact, a direct example was about twobrothers who were members of the unioncame out from Reno and reshingled ourhouse, and we got to talking about it, and theysaid they, on a Saturday morning, they wereshingling a house in Reno. They were gettingabsolutely nothing for it, and this womancould not afford to have paid anyone for it.The business agent happened to come along—and I wouldn’t be sure of the figures—butthey were immediately fined either twentyfiveor seventy-five dollars apiece. And therewere a few instances like that. And they weresupporting the Right-to-Work bill. This is therank and file of union labor. If this were nottrue, it would have been defeated, because Ibelieve this was referred under a referendum,was referred back to the people three times.And the rank and file of labor supported it.And, of course, labor leaders tried severaltimes to get something to override that, just

My Legislative Activities, 1947-196119by manipulation of the law. But they were notsuccessful in the legislature, either. And theyjust quit trying. They realized that their ownpeople were not supporting them.[There was a controversy over JeffSpringmeyer’s role as legislative counsel.Would I like to comment on his contributionsto legislative efficiency and his own activitiesthere?] Well, actually, I think it’s something ofa tempest in a teapot. Jeff had the unfortunate,if you want to call it a failing, of perhapsbeing overenthusiastic with things thathe felt were proper. Jeff was an excellentresearch man. I contacted him often. But itwas largely a personality clash. It was difficult,apparently, for him to work with others. Butthe information that he gathered was verygood. I found that, oh, in a few cases onaudits and so forth that he hadn’t thoughtit through completely or didn’t realize. Jeffand I continued to be good friends. Ofcourse, he submitted what was known asthe Gorvine report. The thought was tohave, my recollection is, seven counties inthe state. Certainly that was not acceptableat that time. Looking back, and in view ofreapportionment, why, the things that Mr.Gorvine suggested would probably be afact, although the legislation wasn’t passed.But it would [have] been impossible at thattime to’ve gotten it through the legislature.And I don’t believe it would’ve increased theefficiency of government. Certainly I don’trecollect all the details of it at the presenttime, but even though it had been good, why,it was just politically impossible to pass that.But there were personality clashes, and therewere two sides to the story also.I have never been enthusiastic about lineitem budgeting. There were areas perhapswhere it was necessary. Because when webegan talking about it, we found agenciesthat did have the desire to spend their entirebudget. And we found where in one agency,I think they had a paper supply stacked awaythat— it was estimated—would carry themfor seven years, just so their budget wouldbe spent.I believe that Dr. Love was the presidentof the University. And I was getting verytired. And I think I was beginning to have alittle authority in the finance committee bythat time. And I suggested to the group thatwe give the University what money we couldafford to give them. Because if you only haveso much money, it certainly becomes the dutyof the finance committee to apportion it. Youmay think there’s need, but if you can’t satisfythat need, why, you just can’t give them themoney. But I suggested to the group, I says,“Well, the way that our finances are, I wouldjust like to try to give the University all themoney that we think we can afford to givethem without injuring other departments,”which we did. And I think from that time thatwe had less complaint from the Universityby so doing than we did any other way. Ofcourse, this was prior to the sales tax, andwe didn’t have money to go around. We werelimited on bonds; the assessed valuation ofthe state had not been growing; we didn’t haveany room to issue bonds. We were limited toone percent of the state’s assessed valuation.We had crying needs certainly at the mentalhospital and at the prison. But I was pleasedwith the lump sum appropriation. And I stillfeel that way. Actually, I never wanted to be aregent of the University and a member of thelegislature at the same time. I didn’t want togo into the details of whether this was right orthat was right. I felt this was a responsibilityof the regents, and if the regents were notdoing a good job, why, then it would be up tothe people of the state to change the regents.And I disagreed with people who wanted to

20 Fred H. Settelmeyerinvestigate the University from the legislativestandpoint, and was never interested in that.Costs have gone up; everything has grown.Of course, there’s been more money available.The University has been growing, so I don’tknow whether we could still appropriate thatway or not.I feel the same way about other agencies.I believe when you line item, why, an agency,be it the Department of Education, be itthe Division of Natural Resources, theymight be planning a worthwhile program,or they’d feel it was a worthwhile program;and then when they’d get into it, they’d feelthey should be doing it some other way. Sothey can’t abandon the program. I thinkthat the agency head should be responsibleenough. to make that decision, and if heisn’t able to make an intelligent decision, heshould be removed completely. I’ve run intoinstances in the Department of Education.I’ve run into it in the Department of NaturalResources. And I was about ready to take aposition even though I was no longer there,and discourage it. But I probably won’t dothat until I’m deliberately asked to do it. Sothat’s my position on it.Since I have introduced this topic ofagency heads, I would like to discuss therelationships with these agency headswho come and have the hearings beforethe finance committee. Their approachmakes a great deal of difference. If a mancomes in with a chip on his shoulder andis antagonistic, of course, he has a moredifficult time. But I think legislators are—most of them overlook that. If he justifieswhat he wants to do, it’s given consideration.And, actually, the record has a great deal ofinfluence on that. When we found an agencythat was starting a new program, attemptingto start a new program, the new programswere always looked at very carefully. I mayhave some comment on this a little later,but perhaps we might just as well carry itthrough.Just at this last session, the 1969 session,representatives of the University came to seeme. They were having some difficulty with aprogram. A severe cut had been made in theUniversity budget, and it affected principallythe school of agriculture. I felt they justifiedtheir position to me, and with the help ofMr. Knisley, we were able to restore that cut.It has happened in a few other cases.Someone, in one manner or another, alegislator, will be piqued, and an arbitrarycut is made. But quite often, with the properapproach, it can be restored. It’s just a humanrelationship, is what much of it is.I believe, generally, Dr. Love was moreacceptable [than his predecessor]. Andcertainly, I had to say no. Quite often,why, some of the educations bills and billsaffecting the University were just left for meto handle. I can remember [a] more recentpresident, Armstrong, who came over andI had finally suggested to Dr. Armstrong,I said, “You know, I’m going to do what Ican for the University. But your being hereevery day is going to make it more difficult,because legislators soon—or, the opinion is,if there’s someone there hounding them toomuch, they feel that they aren’t very busy atthe job they’re hired for, and just positivelyresent having someone who’s desirous of anappropriation just,” as the saying is, “lookingdown their neck.” And I told Dr. Armstrongthat I thought he would do better if he’d leaveit to us to do what we could, because there’sno one out to crucify anybody.But certainly the finance committee hasrather a heavy responsibility in distributingthe funds that are available. And the revenueis just limited to so much. You’ve got to workwithin that, unless you know that you can pass

My Legislative Activities, 1947-196121another revenue measure. And this isn’t easyto do. So I believe that about suffices.[The president of the University isprobably a representative agency head.Otheragency heads in the same position would betold substantially the same thing?] Absolutely.Yes.I think the Department of NaturalResources, which includes the state engineer,of course the Division of Water Resources—Ihave been close to certainly all of them,Hugh Shamberger and all of them. But theDepartment of Natural Resources, or formerlythe state engineer, they came in with rather arealistic budget. If they had funds left, it wasreverted. And that type of performance seemsto be appreciated by the legislature.I remember specifically at one timewhen we were involved— and by we, Imean the state of Nevada—were involvedin the Colorado River suit. Mr. Shambergerfelt that he could get along with a certainamount of money to defend that suit. Wein the legislature felt it was an awfully poorplace to be short of funds. We increasedthe amount for the defense of the ColoradoRiver involvement, and all of it was not used.At the next session, some of it reverted. Ithink historically perhaps that agency hascome nearer getting what they ask for thanany other agency because, of course, theycertainly are the protector of the state’snatural resources. I think there’s some reasonfor that. But they have been doing a real goodjob in justifying their expenditures. [Thenit’s because of the conservative leadershipfrom people like Mr. Shamberger?] Yes.Mr. Shamberger and Mr. [Elmo] De Ricco,and certainly now Mr. [Roland] Westergardpresently as the state engineer heading up theDivision of Water Resources. I found themto be very responsible. Of course, perhaps Ialso know more about that field than I do ofeducation.I think I probably had more difficulty withthe Welfare Department in getting them tojustify their budget than probably any other.I remember distinctly that for some numberof years, I opposed the ADC program, or theAid to Dependent Children. One does get alittle tired of championing a lost cause, and Ifinally told Barbara Coughlan one day in [a]finance committee meeting, “Well, Barbara,I have opposed this for quite a while. I thinkit’s going to be a fact, and I’m going to stopopposing it. But prior to the time that Iapprove of the program, I must tell you thatI believe that we’re going to find that it’ll puta premium on illegitimate children.”Barbara Coughlan said, “Fred, you meanto tell me that there are women who willhave children to get another thirty dollars amonth?”And I said, “Precisely what I mean.”There was a woman from Reno who wasvery enthusiastic in lobbying for the program,and just several years ago, we happened to beat the same place, and she came over and saidto me, she says, “I hang my head in shame. Youwere so right when you made that statement,and I remember it well.”It was just a little hard for me to begracious, but all I said was, “Well, Mrs. _____,I’m afraid it’s too late.” And certainly, I thinkI have the same compassion for unfortunatesthat anyone has. But I do not think theprogram has been an unqualified successby any means, because I knew too manypeople—it was the abuse of the programs thatI objected to.Mrs. Coughlan was very qualified. AndI never held it against her to be enthusiasticfor the program that she was responsible for.I think the head of every department shouldbe, or they shouldn’t be holding the job. But I

22 Fred H. Settelmeyerfelt that you needed someone whose emotionscouldn’t be appealed to as easily as Mrs.Coughlan’s. I think anyone administering aprogram like that has to look at the facts andbe able to take a position. She was certainlyan able advocate for her cause, but I don’t liketo say that it should be headed by a man, but Isay by someone who would be actually morerealistic. And this meant being sometimes lessthan polite in handling the program, and havethe ability to say no.I could expand on that a little. Well, I wastold of what happened during that time. Iunderstand it’s being more carefully watched,but in southern Nevada, the welfare agency ofone of the major churches in the state followedthe state’s caseworker there. And when they gotinto where the heaviest case load of the ADCprogram existed, there’d be a group of childrenplaying in this yard, or near this house [gesture],and before the caseworker could get into thedoor of the next house, these youngsters wouldbe over at the next house. And it was situationslike this, and I was told this by certainly anindividual whose reputation and his interest indoing the right thing would be unimpeachable.They suspected this was going on. And, ofcourse, a number of cases arose where—butthe abuse continued. So at times, I thoughtMrs. Coughlan was prospecting for cases andaccused her of doing that, and she denied it[laughing].[In this 1951 legislature, Governor Russellmentioned in his charge to the legislature anumber of problems about the land and thedepletion of state lands that had previouslybeen for sale. It became a bit of a scandal.] Yes,there was. The only thing that I would say is,I believe that it was wrong for a state officialto be involved in it. I, of course, was in noposition to prove anything. It may or may nothave been illegal. It was something less thandoing the right thing by the state. I don’t knowwhat could have been done about it. But, ofcourse, the office of Surveyor General wasabolished, and the Division of Lands was setup in the Department of Natural Resources.And there was certainly some justificationfor it. It should have been caught prior to thetime that we had a change in administration.It was either dereliction or oversight on thepart of the administration while it was goingon. But I don’t think it serves any real purposeto discuss it, except to say that it was wrong.And details, I’m not familiar with.I do feel that there weren’t very many ofthe members of the legislature—there were afew were in on it and benefited by it, but therewere only a few. And I’ also know many ofthem would have refused to’ve been a party toit; such men as Budelman and Lattin and soforth would not have been a party to it, evenif the opportunity arose.The 1953 SessionWell, I think the ’53 session was just anormal session. It became apparent that ourpopulation was increasing, of course, and thisis when we began to plan for the sales tax.[There was also Governor Russell’spresentation of his budget, presented in adifferent way this time for the first time.] Well,in my own opinion, it was something new. Inmy own opinion, the legislators could haveaccepted that budget as written and passedit and taken care of what few other problemsthere were. And by and large, I found thatthey might just as well have taken the budgetofficers, ever since then, and passed it becauseso many portions of the expenditures that thestate makes are by formula, certainly all thematching funds where there are federal fundsinvolved. Why, there isn’t anything you can do

My Legislative Activities, 1947-196123about it. Your apportionments to schools are byformula. And certainly this has been true since’55, after the acceptance of the Peabody report,that the people look at the budget, and they justdon’t have the time, except just a few people onthe finance and the ways and means committeego into it. But I feel that committees spendneedless time, and they did even after I was thechairman, in trying to see where they can cut.Usually, the people who are critical of it are thepeople who want to cut without knowing why.They just feel it’s too big and too large. But I feltit was a great help, and I was not one of thosewho felt that we were handed “Sears-Roebuckcatalog.” Actually, it was a help to have gottenit. Imperfections, yes, but I think imperfectionsthat any human being would be apt to make. Ithink budget officers, even to the present, feelthat they have better control with line items. I’mnot entirely in agreement with that.[It was this session, also, that put thestate on a fiscal instead of a calendar yearbasis. What was my thinking on that?] Well, Ithink largely because I believe that the federalgovernment operates on a fiscal year, and Ifeel that you have better fiscal managementwhen they coincide. Also, I believe that thestate knows better just what—they can getthe feel of what’s happening in the state ona fiscal year rather than a calendar year. ButI think it was largely the desire that we wererunning on the same [basis]; with the amountof federal funds coming into the state, why,it was an improvement to go on to the fiscalyear. So I think that’s about all.[Governor Russell brought up an issueof gambling control, asking for eliminationof racehorse books.] I agreed. Certainly, Inever understood gambling and the virtuesof not having this or having it. But I feel thatGovernor Russell’s position was right on it.I believe that Senator Robbins probablyknew more than any individual about whatwas desirable and what was undesirable ingambling. My recollection is this was theposition of Senator Robbins. I also rememberthat Senator Robbins was violently opposedto dog racing. He felt it would add nothingto our economy and would increase ourproblems a great deal. And on the whole,I followed Senator Robbins’ judgment ongambling issues.[Do I think that there was an awareness inthis session of educational problems building?]Very, very definitely, because quite a few of uswere aware of it before. But we didn’t think theclimate was right to start trying to pass a salestax bill. And I remember distinctly talkingabout it to [Harold] Butch Powers who wasthe lieutenant governor and president of theCalifornia senate. And we were, oh, just ratherlightly joking each other, and Butch Powerssaid to me, says, “Well, Fred, you are goingto find out that whenever your populationincreases above a certain percentage within agiven time, you will have nowhere else to go.”And then when Maude Frazier, who wascertainly a distinguished educator, told us thatthere were some—I wouldn’t want to be heldto the figures exactly, but I believe she told methere were eight thousand trailers in ClarkCounty, and they averaged 2.3 children pertrailer. Their assessed valuation was just very,very minimal. With information like that,we decided that there was nowhere else togo. We weren’t prepared to move on it in ’53.But there was [a feeling] among the realisticthinkinglegislators that we knew we had tobegin to move. And, of course, this is why in1955—. We realized the need in ’53, but feltthat we should go in ‘55—which we did.Mention has been made of the legislationcreating the Oil and Gas Conservation

24 Fred H. SettelmeyerCommission [1953].This came about byreason of the discovery and a rather smallproduction of oil in this state. But, I believethat production of oil is classed as a mineral,and taxation will be on the same basis asminerals, of net proceeds. Of course, everyonewas anticipating an oil boom in Nevada, thatyou could put gold roofs on all the schoolsand a few other things. That, of course, hasnot happened.During this session, why, we had newmembers join us— Black from HumboldtCounty, Frank of Nye County, Gallagher(of course, “Senator” precedes each one ofthose names), Senator Orr, Senator Seevers,Senator Whitacre from Lyon County. PerhapsSenator Gallagher was, we might say, unusualbecause he was well along in years but hadthe enthusiasm of youth and had a greatinterest in young people, a hard worker, anda delightful person to be with.I personally became very fond of SenatorOrr who represented Lincoln County andenjoyed working, and as years went by,worked very closely with Senator Whitacre.My relations with all of them certainly wereeverything that one could ask for, and whenI do not mention them, all their individualqualities, certainly it’s not in derogation ofany one of them. There wasn’t a single one ofthose that ever really took a partisan positionon legislation during that session. I felt thatwe were just a team.Personally, and certainly in the early days,I was a Republican until the session opened.Most of the people were on that basis. And thiswas, I think, more true in the early sessions,and I’ll probably have some observations onthis in some of the later sessions. But we werenever grouped on a party basis when we wentto lunch. In any gathering, why, there’s five orsix people who I suppose the kids would callthem “against,” but you’d just have your—itbecomes habit. Unless there’s somethingspecial arose, why, the same five or six peoplewere always at the same luncheon table. Thosethat enjoyed a martini, that was another set.Those that didn’t, why, it happened to beanother set. But we worked with them all.And I happened to be with the set that didn’thave a martini with their luncheon [laughing].The 1954 Special SessionOn the ‘54 special session—of course,this was largely education problems, as Iremember it. We began to really sort of put adent in our general fund, trying to help out,but we couldn’t do enough. I think that ’54—that was the main reason for calling the ’54session, just to wonder what could be done.[What did I think of Governor Russell’snaming of the school survey committee?]I felt that was well done because the peoplethat he appointed involved many of the heavytaxpaying people. And I thought it was verywise to involve those people. Of course, he hadpeople from all segments. But it was highlydesirable that he involved representatives ofKennecott, of the larger land interests, of theutilities, and those are the people that had tobe sold on the deal, because they were the onesthat would feel the effect of the new taxes. AndI think it can be said that those people, afterhaving served on the committee, were muchmore pliable in the needs of education. Oneof those individuals I knew very well. And hewas just chronically against all taxes. But afterhaving served on that committee, he certainlywas ready to stand up and be counted foreducation. And I think if he hadn’t beenidentified with that school survey committee,he would have been opposed. I thought theydid an excellent job. The formula that wasdeveloped by the Peabody group was an

My Legislative Activities, 1947-196125excellent one; of course, it needed changing asconditions changed. But the overall principleof that, I believe, could have been used withslight modifications. If we hadn’t had a fewheroes who wanted to change for the sakeof change, I think we could’ve continued touse it.And the effectiveness of the specialsession: I happen to be one that prefers specialsessions when the need arises. There is this tobe said: the governor is in control, and youconsider those things that are apparent. Ifyou have regular annual sessions, you havethe same introduction of bills; it apparently isimpossible to hold it to a budget session. AndI think the only way that you can control thenumber of bills that are introduced is to callspecial sessions. I also occasionally felt thatperhaps in special sessions that are called,you should meet more as a committee of thewhole, so that all legislators were involved,because it’s obvious if they do not meet asa committee of the whole, if it’s called forfinancial reasons, then it’s only the peopleinvolved with the members of the moneycommittees who work. Or if education, thecommittee on education might be involved.It would still leave quite a few people thatwouldn’t be involved. I have some mixedfeelings on it, because at a committee of thewhole, you have many, many people to satisfy,and also it’s apparent to me that a smallercommittee can work more rapidly. I still am ofthe opinion that special sessions are not bad.The 1955 SessionIn 1955, why, I was given the honor ofbeing president pro tem. It was not veryinvolved, required few conflicting decisions.My recollection is we ran a bit overtime, butthis was, of course, due to the financial bindthat Nevada was rapidly approaching. And ittook, oh, some time to clear up the variousideas on sales tax and the opposition to it.[The] opposition to it became, I think, largelyselfish—how it would affect one group andnot affect the other, and whether or not itwas regressive. Of course, we ultimately hadto make the decision on that. And I think it’sobvious—you could take a position that anytax is regressive. And I think you were justwidening the base, and this was certainly theonly way that we could go.It was a very interesting discussion. Thepeople who were in the western part of thestate, who adjoined California, seemed tofavor the California pattern of the sales tax.The people who were on the eastern part ofthe state approached it from the Utah plan.We were meeting quite late one evening.We visited with some of the people from theeastern side of the state, and after listeningto it, I became convinced that that was theway to go because Utah had had this basetax with no exemptions, and it was low.California’ s tax had exemptions. When wegot through with the plan, why, I was surethat the Utah plan would produce the mostrevenue with the least cost of administration.And I turned that way. I did have someinformation on the number of auditors that[the] state of California had going all over theUnited States. Nevada would’ve had to do thesame thing. The sales tax collection divisionprobably would have cost what another centon the tax would have added. And it’s suchthings as in California, [I] found out that ifa cookie had an icing on it, it was subject tosales tax. If it did not, it wasn’t.Of course, certainly, there’s a big questionof exempting food, or exempting unpreparedfood. My own position was that if you startedexemptions, it would be never ending.When we started to pass the bill, our financecommittee decided to go along with the Utah

26 Fred H. Settelmeyerplan, which was proposed by the Assembly,and they deserve the credit for bringing upthe plan of no exemptions.But that evening, a representative ofthe agricultural industry came to me andfelt that farm tractors should be exemptedbecause they would produce a product whichwould ultimately be taxed. A representativeof another industry who used a great dealof coal for development of power and in ageneral mining operation felt that coal shouldbe exempt. That was used to produce theelectricity which produced something else,and should be exempt. And I don’t knowwhy, but I think the argument in supportof the sales tax apparently fell to me. I wasnot the chairman of finance. But I told therepresentative of agriculture, industry, I said,“If we’re not going to exempt food, we’renot going to exempt tractors..” I told therepresentative of the coal user that if therewere no exemptions, there were to be none. Toa representative of the agricultural industry,I said, “You just go back and call your farmbureau president and [inform him] thatyou’re not going to have any luck. You’ve beendenied.” I told the representative of the miningindustry the same thing.I said, “This is a goodbill, and we’re going to pass it tonight becauseby tomorrow morning, why, the pressure’ll beon, and we may lose it. So it’s now or never.Ijust will not consider any—.”There are a few exemptions here writtenin that tie into California law. I think oilfor heat, and I believe (I think it can bejustified entirely) feed for cattle that are to beslaughtered, there isn’t any sales tax. But feedfor horses which don’t ultimately reach theretail market is taxed.I think it was received very well with the“no exemption” provision by retail merchants.A drugstore would have had an untold amountof trouble if drugs had been exempted. But,of course, the way it keeps going up—and itwould have gone up— we would have neededat least another half percent if we had startedexemptions, and possibly more. I think thatwas the major accomplishment of the 1955session.There were two other things that cameup in that session, like the Personnel Act andthe centralized purchasing. I had some mixedfeelings on the Personnel Act at the time; ofcourse, events have proved that—just a fewinstances—the Personnel Act was needed.But perhaps I was in a little different position.I always felt that if I had a boss—and I didwork for wages—who was unhappy with me,I would never want a law to protect my job. I’djust leave. But after you’ve given so many yearsto public employment, you certainly don’tlike to be put out just because you happen tobelong to the wrong party. So although I thinkthat it’s been a worthwhile thing, I think thereare times now when it’s abused when peopletry to hold their jobs. It seemed apparent tome that agency heads didn’t always advancetheir people on merit, but they were upgradedquite often when, if it had been in privateindustry, it wouldn’t’ve happened. Perhapsit does happen in private industry the sameway. But I don’t believe that it happens to theextent that it happens in public employment.I believe, over the long pull, it was advisableto pass it. But at the time that it came up, Iwasn’t one of the enthusiastic supporters. ButI did support it.I think on the whole, I believe [centralized]purchasing has been worthwhile. You findthat the human element comes into it, andthe judgment of individuals. I believe priorto purchasing, in large items and agenciesthat use large, certain expensive things,I believe that there are places where theyunderstand their needs better than thepurchasing department does. I believe this

My Legislative Activities, 1947-196127has happened, oh, in the University level inlaboratory facilities. But [if] I’m not mistaken,that was eased so that they can do their ownpurchasing.But when we started to work on thatpurchasing, central purchasing, why, wefound that a secretary would be going toone store and buying a dozen pencils, and itwas scattered all over the place; there was nocontrol. There are some companies that objectto the purchasing department, but I thinkthat has brought about more competition.And I feel that the purchasing departmenthas proven its worth.[Did I know about any of the abusesthat brought about a request for centralizedpurchasing?] Well, it was just various littlethings. One store’d sell a dozen pencils, or acertain number of tabs or pads of paper, andthere was no rhyme or reason. And, of course,Nevada was consuming and needing so muchmore stuff in the way of tires, gasoline, fueloil as the growth came along, that favoriteswere being played, without a doubt. It justdepended on who you know as to who gotthe business.[There were suggestions that certainpeople could sell cars to the state, or expectedto sell cars to the state in return for politicalfavors?] Yes. It was going on.There was some discussion about thelegislative commission in this session. I thinksome good has come out of the legislativecommission. There was some opposition toit, but usually this was by members who had adesire to be on and weren’t appointed. I neverwas on the commission. I had so many thingsto look after during the off session period thatI never did have any desire. But I attendedmeetings, and when things of interest [werediscussed] that I was particularly interestedin, why, then I would attend the commissionand take part in the discussions. And I felt Iwas just about as effective as if I had had avote, which I did not have.In fact, with the recodification of Nevada’slaws, without the legislative commissionhaving the bills prepared for the repeal ofcertain sections, I’m not sure that it wouldever [have] been accomplished, even thoughwe had people working on it. But they werehelpful and I wouldn’t be one to abolish it atall.Cliff Young was a congressman at thetime. He introduced the legislation [fortermination] of federal control or supervisionof certain tribes. My attention was calledto it by an Indian, and then I checked withvarious county officials. I was familiarwith the [situation]. While there was noarea of termination in Douglas County,there was in Ormsby County. I called thepublic health officer in Ormsby, called thecounty commissioner to ask if they were ina position to take over all the obligationsof the federal government to the Indians,such as hospitalization and medical care.The reply was they absolutely could not.If the termination bill had passed withoutprovisions for continuing [care], it would havebeen a terrific hardship on many counties. Ifound the same situation in Pershing County.I thought perhaps shortly thereafter, if thistype of legislation is theoretically proper, [it]could not be absorbed by the Indians. So Iwas co-introducer of that resolution [SJR 13].I had rather lengthy correspondence withCliff Young. I had also rather carefully readthe testimony that was given at the variouscongressional hearings. I could not findany unanimity among the Indians of whatthey desired. I thought often in the hearingsanswers were put in the Indians’ mouth. Itmade me think of some of the discussions

28 Fred H. Settelmeyerthat I’d had with them, as I felt like often theywould say, “Yes, I don’t know” [laughing].And this is the way it appeared to me. So Isupported that in the interests of the state. Ido believe that the Bureau of Indian Affairshave waited on and cared for the Indians sothey know no other way of living, and it’shard to break them from their habits becausethey’ve been probably overindulged at certainperiods, rather than made self-reliant.The 1956 Special SessionThe ’56 special session was called toremove some conflicts in the new school code,also to remove a conflict in the absent voterslaw. I do not recollect what the difficulty waswith the driver’s license statute which washandled by a committee that I was not activeon. There was also a resolution introduced toput food and drugs on the exempted list. It wasmy feeling that this was done largely for homeconsumption by legislators [who believed]that it would help them in the forthcomingelection. However, this resolution was voteddown. The resolution asked that the governorput it on the agenda for the special session. Theresolution was defeated with very little fanfare.[Do I think that the passing of the salestax diluted the possibility of firm gamblingcontrol?] No, I do not believe that thatsuggestion was a fact at all. Because at thesame time that we passed the sales tax, wealso increased the gambling tax. We felt thatwithout increasing the gambling tax, wecouldn’t possibly pass the sales tax. It was astory that was put out, but it had no basis infact whatsoever.We have here [on the outline] theobservations on the session in comparisonor in contrast with previous special sessions.I saw no great difference between this andthe previous special session which we hadin 1954. And I believe that I have referred tothis before, that I feel that special sessions, ifthere is reason to call them, are better thanthe annual sessions. I may refer to this againin a later comment on the one regular sessionthat we had in 1960.The 1957 SessionThat brings us to the ’57 regular session.I think the highlight of that session certainlywas the famous—or the infamous—SenateBill 92. It consumed a great deal of time, andin my opinion, it was possibly the best, or ifyou will, the worst example of special interestlegislation. That bill, of course, was passed byboth houses of the legislature. The pressurewas very heavy. It ultimately was vetoed byGovernor Russell. And in a very tense session,the veto was sustained by the switch of onesenator. Had that bill become law, in myopinion, the gamblers would have had—or Ishould say those engaged in gambling wouldhave had far greater privilege than almostanyone in any other business. I would compareit to the insurance business. If an insuranceagent abuses, or willfully does wrong, almostany other industry, certainly where they’relicensed, their license may be withdrawn.If Senate [Bill] 92 had been upheld, why,the gambler had recourse to the courts. Theonly cause for immediate revocation wascheating. But there could be undesired—orundesirable—interests in the operation of agambling casino, and they could be chargedby the (then) Tax Commission with havingundesirable elements around, or interested inthe operation. They would have the right togo to court. They could continue to operate,and it certainly is a well-known fact that onceit is in the courts, there can be motions todelay for an unknown length of time, possibly

My Legislative Activities, 1947-196129interminable. It’s to the everlasting credit ofGovernor Russell that he had the courage toveto the bill. And I must say the same thingis true of Senator Lattin when he switchedfrom having supported the bill to that ofsustaining the governor’s veto. It turnedpowerful interests against both men. And it’sprobably not exaggerating to say that it causedthe political demise of both men. I believe itwas the most tense moment that I experiencedduring my time in the legislature. But then Iwas relieved to see the veto sustained.[Would I discuss some of the pressures thatwere put on the legislators? The newspaperswere very explicit about Marion Hicks andClifford Jones being the ones who were tryingto influence the legislation.] The bill was ratherexplicit in saying that it would not affect anycase before the courts. So it was projecting itinto the future. The fine hand of the peoplementioned was evident. I was never approachedby them. I knew the pressure existed. But Idon’t know why I wasn’t; perhaps they feltit was useless. But it was apparent that thepressure was on, and I believe that a few of thelegislators committed themselves prior to thetime that they understood it, because a numberof legislators told me afterward that, “Well,I’ve been trapped once. Before I say yes on athing that is presented the way this was, why,I’m going to be more careful.” [Some of themen who voted to override the governor’s vetohad voted in favor of the bill before; are thesethe ones I’m talking about?] Yes, they were.Yes, some of those that had supported the billregretted that they had. But they had given theirword that they would support it, but were gladthat the bill was killed by reason of the veto.I was being very active in finance, and Ididn’t follow the education bill. I followed thecommittee’s report, and I do not rememberthe details without going to the Senatejournal. Well, I knew that Senator Crumley,who was also a regent, was opposed to the[McHenry] report in principle. But it justwas apparent that it was going to pass, and,of course, then the legislature appointed theregents to increase the size of the board. ButI do not have enough recollection to speakon that factually.Then there was the adoption of therevised statutes at this session, which was theculmination of a number of years of work.Of course, that was highly necessary, that theNevada laws be, you might say, recompiled.You had such things on the books as that anautomobile had to give any team that they metthe right of way on the road, and you could notdrive over a bridge faster than twenty milesan hour, or possibly fifteen miles an hour.Many, many statutes needed repealing. And,of course, Russ McDonald did an excellentjob of compiling. And the system set up inNevada is now being followed by a numberof other states. I’ve talked to many attorneys,and they’re so glad that it’s put out in the looseleafform, so when a statute is repealed or isamended, you can open it up and put the newsection in. And it’s kept up on an absolutelylive basis. And attorneys tell me that it has, infact, reduced litigation, because under the oldcompilations, why, one attorney would pullone thing, one law out, and the other attorneywould pull out another section. And theyhardly knew—and the judge hardly knew—which section he should follow. Today, with thecompilations that Nevada has, why, I believe it’sbeen followed by Arizona. They sent people uphere to go over it, and a number of other states.And how far it’s spread by now, I do not know.The Sessions from 1959 to 1961I think it would be well to mention here, ofcourse, by the ’57 session, we began to realize

30 Fred H. Settelmeyerthat the sales tax would yield a substantialamount of money. And we on the financecommittee adopted the policy of using someof this money for capital improvements. Wealso realized that in government— I believeit’s the Parkinson’s law, where expendituresin government equals the amounts available.So we knew that there was an urgent needfor making capital improvements in variousplaces. Prior to the time that everyone seemedto realize it, why, we would introduce bills toappropriate capital funds to such institutionsas the University, the correctional institutions,because at that time, the assessed valuationthroughout the state was not enough to issuebonds.I’d like to refer to some notes that I madeat one time, that between 19—well, I wouldsay 1957—in 1955, you did not know howmuch the sales tax would yield. The first fewyears following, we would assume that thesales tax would yield the same as it did theprevious year, because I think there is nothingworse in government than to overestimateyour revenues. As years went by, we’d assumethat we took a percentage increase, becausethe money committees in the legislature haveto estimate revenues approximately a year anda half ahead. And I certainly never wanted tobe guilty of overestimating. But from ’57 to‘62—and those are the years that I’m familiarwith— why, we appropriated somethinglike $15 million to the University for capitalimprovements. This included buildings onboth campuses, Nevada Southern as wellas University at Reno. We appropriatedsome $2 million to the mental hospital outof the general fund. No bonds were issued.We built the new complex at the School ofIndustry, costing $1 million. We built thegirls’ training center at Caliente, costing some$910,000, plus substantial amounts to otherstate government buildings.But we would putthese appropriation bills out early before thepressure was on for increased salaries hereand there. We generally felt that our statesalaries were in line with what they were inprivate industry. Of course, certainly everyonedidn’t agree with this, that this was the way todo it. But it was the only way that we had ofproviding these needed capital expenditures.This became a matter of some considerablecontroversy in the 1960 session, whenGovernor Sawyer tried to hold out againstthis attitude. This, of course, came in the ’59and the ’61 session; we did appropriate somemoney in the ‘6O session. And, of course, bythat time, I was the chairman of finance, so Iwas really in the middle of it. And I had somevery fine support from Democrats in this. Iremember very well one morning, we weremeeting in joint session with the ways andmeans of the assembly. We were consideringthe appropriation for the new engineeringbuilding. We thought we had the thing settled.This became rather a battle, I perhaps shouldsay, between the executive and legislativedepartments.In connection with appropriating out ofthe general fund for capital improvements,I am reminded of an interesting happeningconcerning the appropriation for the schoolof engineering at the University. At the closeof the weekend, why, we felt that we weregoing to appropriate for the construction ofthe engineering building. Over the weekend,apparently a number of the regents of theUniversity succumbed to the pressure ofGovernor Sawyer, that they would forego theconstruction of the new engineering buildingeven though we had been notified that theengineering school might lose its status by theagency which accredits, whatever that namemight be, if the new facilities were not built.This had been prearranged just prior to theweekend recess.

My Legislative Activities, 1947-196131On Saturday, it came over the wire thatthe regents had succumbed and would settlefor a nuclear reactor for the ’60 year, with theunderstanding that the engineering buildingwould be the first recommendation in theexecutive budget for the following session.There were those among us who were notsure that the funds would be available if wewaited, and we felt there was an urgent needfor this building to be constructed.It appears to me to be appropriate that Igive the basic reason for our moving on makingcapital improvements out of the general fundthe way we did from 1957 through 1961. Itbecame apparent to us that construction costswere rising very rapidly, almost ten percentper year. In other words, if there had beena two-year delay in the construction of theengineering building that we have just beentalking about, the increased cost would havebeen in the area of $25O,000. During that sameperiod, 1957 through 1961, the legislatureappropriated more than $20 million fordesperately needed new construction. In myopinion, all other justifiable needs were alsomet. Let me assure you that there were otherdemands that the legislature did not feel wereentitled to the same priority. I will alwaysbelieve that the action of the legislature duringthat period saved the taxpayers of Nevada aminimum of $2 million in direct constructioncosts. Obviously, if bonds had been issued forthe construction involved, the cost would havebeen a great deal higher.On Monday morning, just prior to goingto the joint meeting of the ways and meansand the finance committee, I met one of mygood friends and associate on our way overto the meeting. This was Mr. Ray Knisley, agood friend then and now. He informed methat he had to stop at the governor’s office, andmy comment was that, “I suppose I’d have tobreak in the door to get in.”His comment was, “Well, haven’t you beenasked in?”I said, “No, I have not.”His comment was that, “If this is deliberate,I think it’s unpardonable. And if it is notdeliberate, it’s rude at its best.”However, he stopped there, and I wentover to our joint session of ways and meansand Senate finance committees, and I calledfor the consideration of the bill that carriedthe appropriation for the engineering building.We discussed it at some length, and [I] wasthen informed by a member of the planningboard that it perhaps would not be necessary toappropriate all of the money at this time becauseconstruction could not be moved that rapidly.Mr. C. V. Isbell was chairman of the planningboard at that time. I called him in Reno,knowing that he was very much interested inthe construction of the engineering building.He informed me that an appropriation (andmy recollection is that what we would needfor this immediate year was $l,800,000) wouldsuffice until the next legislature met. Anamendment was offered to place that figure inthe appropriation. And it was moved that thisparticular bill be approved and carried.And just about that time, Mr. Knisleywalked in with a communication from thegovernor, saying that we could appropriatemoney for the building of the engineeringschool. I informed Mr. Knisley, who came inand sat down alongside me, and I said, “Well,Ray, this bill has already been approved, andaction has been taken.” I was rather sorry forthat in a moment, but my temperature wasstill slightly above normal, and it could havebeen probably less embarrassing for him tohave read his letter, or ask him just to sit downand not do anything. But it was an interestinginterlude [laughing] in the legislative process.And I might add that at the ‘61session, one of the very early bills that

32 Fred H. Settelmeyerwas introduced was one that carried anappropriation necessary to complete theengineering building out of the generalfund appropriation. And Governor Sawyerdecided not to oppose that.[What was Mr. Swackhamer’s role inthis? He was the chairman of the assemblycommittee on ways and means.] I thinkMr. [William) Swackhamer at that time wasnot in favor with the administration. Mr.Swackhamer was a very close friend of mine,and I believe was one of the hardest-working,and also a very fair-minded individual. Hestudied details of finances about as well asanyone. And he and I discussed the matter ofthe availability of this money. And certainly,again, he proved that he knew what he wastalking about. He was certainly a great deal ofhelp to me. With all the seniority that he had,why he was punished by, I suppose, for whatmay have been called his non-cooperationwith the executive department at that timewas beyond me.[There were complaints about GovernorSawyer’s dictatorial attitudes toward thelegislature?] Well, I must say that the ’59session was perhaps the only session wherethere was just a strong atmosphere ofpartisanship.The ’59 session, of course, was anextraordinarily long session due to thepartisanship that existed. Quite often, theRepublicans just occupied their seats whileeither all of the Democrats, or at least theleaders, were in conference with the executivedepartment. Even some of my long-timeDemocratic friends became unhappy withthe way it was going. However, certainly onthe gambling legislation, they stood behindthe executive department, and a number ofRepublicans also joined them.This was known as AB 144, which wasa reorganization, taking gambling controlaway from the Tax Commission and settingup an independent gaining board. I was nottoo concerned about creating a new board. Iwas very concerned that there was wordingin the original bill which said that the gamingboard should be composed of so many people,preferably those who had experience ingambling. I also felt that that Tax Commissionhad done a reasonably good job, with the TaxCommission composed of people selectedfrom various industries, because I felt that thepeople of Nevada had a better representation.This caused a great deal of maneuveringwithin the legislature, particularly in thesenate. The assembly passed the bill almostas it was introduced.Looking back, I think that I will admit thatthe feature of setting up a separate board forgambling was not bad. However, the way the‘59 bill was written, suggesting that the boardbe made up of people who had experiencein gambling, seemed to me to be the wrongapproach entirely. But the bill passed. It wasin effect as it was written until the ’61 sessioncame around.Governor Sawyer, I believe, saw thepotential danger in making appointments assuggested by the legislation. Governor Sawyercertainly had a desire to control gambling.He moved some people over from the TaxCommission over onto the gambling board,and had he not done so, and appointed peopleas suggested by AB 144, he would have beenin trouble.And I think I should, for continuity’s sake,move over into the ‘61 session on this gaminglegislation. By the time the ’61 session camearound, why, more members of the legislaturefelt there was danger in AB 144 the way it waspassed. Early in the ’61 session, one of therepresentatives of one of the major industries

My Legislative Activities, 1947-196133(it was not gambling) called several of us toReno and said, “What can we do about this?”He said, “Well—.”And there were Democrats as well asRepublicans; it was approached strictly on anonpartisan basis.I said, “Well, I think that we should go atthis completely on a nonpartisan basis.”We pulled together what is known as SB203. That bill, as it relates to the GamblingControl Board, pulled the words on thequalifications “preferably with gamblingexperience,” and inserted the words that “thegambling board shall consist of (I believe) fivemembers, not more than two of which shallbe from any one industry.” This, of course,removed the objection that I had in 1959.At one of those meetings that were heldon this, why, Governor Sawyer was included,and I remember so well this man. We wereall just sitting around, visiting informally,and this man pointed his finger at GovernorSawyer, and he says, “Grant, you know you’rein trouble with this. I don’t need to tell you so.And I’m sure you’re willing to do somethingabout it.”He said, “Well, yes, I am.”So we pulled together SB 203 that I havejust talked about. We had every senator’sname on it. And, of course, it was introducedand passed and sent over to the assembly, and,of course, my recollection is I believe it wasalso passed unanimously. I know it passed thesenate with a unanimous vote. I think it canbe said that there’s a certain satisfaction inhaving opposed the bill at one time, and thenhave your position approved at the followingsession.But the ’59 session was a partisan session,the worst that I experienced. I have workedunder three different governors. In 1961, why,Grant Sawyer also became less partisan. Butthe Democratic leadership in the Senate cameback in the ’61 session and said, “We don’twant another session like the ’59.” So it wasrewarding to’ve been a part of it.I think in the 59 session I supported, wasthe introducer, of several other bills. I thinkthey are worthy of comment. They wereSB 289, SB 295. The bills were introduced,passed with some opposition to permitthe Retirement Board and the IndustrialCommission to invest their funds in otherthan state and municipal bonds within thestate.There were people who felt that these werefunds that belonged to the state of Nevada.I took the position, and had support, thatthey were not funds that could be calledstate funds. In my opinion, they were andare trust funds. In the case of the IndustrialCommission, they are funds that are acquiredentirely at the expense of the employers. Andthe funds are in trust for people that they haveon hand, are there for the benefit of peoplewho have been injured in industry. In the caseof the retirement fund, they are funds thathave been acquired by contributions fromboth employer and employee.In checking this, we found that fortypercent of the Retirement Board funds atthat time were invested in one county. Hadsomething serious happened to cause arecession, or the county got into trouble, peoplewho were beneficiaries of the retirement fundcould have been hurt. I found that bothparties were equally guilty because they wereloaning these funds at rates substantiallybelow what other sound investments couldbring them. So by throwing it open, we wereable to increase benefits to those people whowere entitled to them without increasing coststo either employee or employer. We furtherbelieved that the fund would be much safer.That particular year, many municipalitieswere unhappy because the funds of the

34 Fred H. SettelmeyerRetirement Board and Industrial Commissionwere no longer available. And I was calledby the executive secretary of the municipalassociation to come and speak to thisparticular issue at their convention; [it] washeld at Cal Neva, as I remember it. But I wasalso advised that I might be chewed on; I hadbetter be prepared for that.Originally, I had Mr. Marvin Humphrey,who was then in the assembly, working onthis legislation, and he became involved insomething else, and he turned his assignmentover to Ray Knisley, who had a very finebackground in investments. So Ray and I were,you might say, the accused, or the sponsors ofit, depending on which side you were. So Mr.Knisley and I had come to this meeting withthe state bank examiner, who was on the stateboard of finance and was in charge of some ofthese investments. He took the position thatthey had done a good job because no moneyhad ever been lost. Mr. Knisley and I tookthe position that this was not state money;it was entitled to receive the same price thatmoney that could be had on the open market,providing that you had equal security.We found many of the people there,such as mayors and other employees andpeople working for these municipalities,were violently against us to begin with.And within an hour after the discussionwas over, why, we had people coming tous and telling us how grateful they were. Aman from southern Nevada said, “We justconcluded you’re right. After all, this is notstate money. This is our money that they’replaying politics with.” we had the satisfactionof facing a completely hostile audience to onethat was completely over on the other sidebefore we got through.Today, of course, I think the retirementfund has well over a hundred million dollarsin it. The industrial fund is substantially less,possibly twenty or thirty million. But, ofcourse, the price of all investments, the yieldfrom investments, has gone up. They investin very, very little common stock. We advisedagainst this. The legislation also included theprovision that they could select investmentcounsel, which they have done. But withina year, why, the yield of these trust fundsincreased, I think by one percent. And whenyou’re talking of something that’s approaching$150 million, why, you’re talking about asubstantial return. I believe I have gottenpossibly as much satisfaction in handling thatlegislation than anything else.We’ve sort of combined the ’59, ’60 and’61 sessions. But you have to put thingsinto context as you see them. I feel when itrelates to the same subject, why, I believe incompiling it together.The civil rights legislation, I think,probably brought about more heat than light.I suppose by background training, I am not anardent advocate of much of the legislation thathas been passed. I think I knew what it was tobe a member of a minority group because Ithink I experienced it when I was a child. I wasoften pointed at as being a “Dutch kid,” and soforth, by the children whose parents did nothave a European background as close as I had.All of us in our family rather felt that. I havehad some fine friends of minority groups,both among the Indians and Negroes. Therewere times when I felt that everyone shouldbe satisfied as long as they were measuredby the same yardstick. At one point, we hadsomething of a Republican leader who feltthat we should make an issue of it and makea party issue of it by really doing somethingthat you might term drastic for one of theminority groups for our party. I didn’t supportthat position because I felt to do that wastrying to buy loyalty. And if you’re able to doit, you know the man is for sale, and so he has

My Legislative Activities, 1947-196135a price. And I refused to go along with thatphilosophy about trying to give more whetherit was right or not.I feel that I have the same compassionfor disadvantaged people that any other manhas, but I also feel to give without knowingthat it’s going to really help, why, you mightsay, “Give.” Without having done somethingfor the country in return, why, I’m not surethat this is a kindness to the disadvantagedperson. I would disagree completely if therewere two people who were equally qualifiedand then not give someone from a minoritygroup a chance to prove himself. But I thinkthat everyone should have qualifications forjobs. You cannot arbitrarily give to a personjust because he happens to be of some raceother than white.At the ‘61 session, well, there was somemarching through the capitol. And if I were toadvise people, I would attempt to discourage(that), because I do not feel that it impressed toomany legislators, and I think it was resented bysome. I believe I felt [more] sorry for those whowere picketing. I know that in certain cases, why,they lost support of people who were as fairmindedas they could be but were somewhatdisgusted with the show that was put on. There’sprobably a need for it, but I completely approveof training and giving of opportunity. I do notsupport the giving of more because I think afterseveral generations, why, they become so in thehabit of getting something without trying tobetter their condition that it is of little help inthe long pull for them.What happened to the legislation, I believethere’s some legislation was passed. It wasn’tsatisfactory to the people, and perhaps it willnever be enough. I do not have the answer toit. I have some feelings about it and wished itcould be otherwise.I believe that the gaming legislation, alsothe commission on equal rights and so forth,was the cause for the longest session [1961]because we began to find that it looked as ifmaking capital construction available mightwell be a thing of the past. Of course, in ’61,we did appropriate considerable money forcapital construction. But I suppose we mightsay we found out that too many people beganto know how much money was available andbegan to find other uses for it [laughing].Of course, we have the subjectof relationships with the executive andadministrative agencies. I think with theadministrative agencies, I felt that we neverhad very much trouble with that; I think ourrelations were very good. And in ‘61, ourrelations certainly improved with GovernorSawyer. I found that he was delightful to bewith socially.Lobbyists[How did it feel to be on the other sideof the rail, then, when I was a lobbyist forthe Cattle Association?] I felt quite at home.When I was asked to represent them, I said,“Well—.” I had known the young man whowas the president of the Nevada CattleAssociation who asked if I would do this,and I thought a moment, and I said, “Well, Ithink your asking me is—I just feel that I can’tturn you down. However, I think you mustunderstand that if I do not believe that you’reright, why, I won’t be able to do anything forthat particular bit of legislation.” I knew theydidn’t have any money for a paid lobbyist.And I didn’t want to be a paid lobbyistbecause I personally felt that I would lose myeffectiveness. And I believe I’ve mentionedbefore that I was associated very closely withMr. Knisley in this. And we went beyondthe interests of the cattlemen. But we bothdecided that to accept pay would remove oureffectiveness a great deal.

36 Fred H. SettelmeyerWe worked on some of the tax bills [which]some of the cattlemen had an indirect interestin. We worked on several conservation bills.One of them [was] establishing the CentralNevada Resource Agency, and it came inas what we decided was a very bad piece oflegislation. We told them that in the form,the way it was presented, we would opposeit. Their legislation was introduced in anotherform and we supported it, and helped pass it.And the fact is that that legislation, as written,was one of the most—would have given themmore power than any agency should have.We pointed this out, and they agreed thatit should be different. The bill would havenecessitated eventually an appropriation fromthe state. We did not feel it was justified andremoved that. The sponsors of it, apparently,were very happy after it was worked over. Butthey knew very well that if Mr. Knisley and Iopposed it, it probably wouldn’t pass. I thinkwe were helpful. And there were other areas.I didn’t think that I could take sixty days of itbecause I’d become impatient, I’m quite sure[laughing].[Do ex-legislators make the best lobbyists?]Oh, I don’t know whether we were the bestlobbyists. I think this certainly would depend.I think just being an ex-legislator might nothelp at all. Well, I think much depends on therecord. I can see some of the legislators, if theyattempted to come in and lobby, could verywell be the “kiss of death.”I think a successful lobbyist really mustbe constructive in his attitude. And I carenot whether they’re representing labor orindustry. If they’re simply against something,or simply for something, I’m afraid theirrecord wouldn’t be good. If they can’t makea contribution, why, they would not besuccessful lobbyists. I feel that way verystrongly, that they must make a contributionof some kind.[I’ve seen a lot of these lobbyists come andgo. Do I feel that the paid ones, too, make thiskind of contribution that I’m talking about?]Oh, yes. I found most of those people [useful].Lou Paley has also made a contribution. Hehas a certain job to do. Of course, beingdirectly elected and drawing a salary, why,it becomes a bit more essential for him tobe able to go back and tell his people whathe has accomplished. Some of the [others],of course, I think the same is perhaps true,but in just a slightly different way. If you hadlegislation—oh, at one time, the railroademployees, they came in with something thatwas known as the bill, the “surrey with thefringe on top,” and so forth. It was demandinglegislation that the handcars that were used bysection workers should have tops on them. Ididn’t approve of it completely because I feltthis should be negotiated in their contract ofemployment, rather than have to come to thelegislature for legislation. There were just anumber of bills like that came in.Certainly, when legislation was introducedto make industrial-connected illnesscompensable under the Industrial InsuranceAct, labor had no argument with me becauseI felt that a man was injured just as much, orperhaps more, with silicosis, or even in [the]case of working with cattle, such as contractinganthrax. Why, I felt he was injured fully asmuch as if he’d had a broken leg or a brokenback and was entitled to compensation underthat. There were some bills, as I say, that I feltshould have been the subject for negotiationthat I did not go along with.[What about the man who lobbied frominside the legislature? There are a numberwho obviously represent special interests,

My Legislative Activities, 1947-196137such as Sailor Ryan. What do I think theireffectiveness is as lobbyists and legislators?]Well, Sailor Ryan was in a—some people felthe was utterly ruthless. I did object to someof his tactics. But I think, generally, peoplehad courage enough—if they disagreed withhim—that he wouldn’t pass his legislation.I must say for Sailor Ryan that he neverbroke a commitment. Certainly he did notsupport some of the legislation, and I canwell understand how a man who representedlabor—for instance, on the sales tax—couldn’thelp but have his official vote recorded asbeing against it. Because it has often been saidthat it was regressive taxation. Well, of course,those same people were all the beneficiaries ofeducation, and there just wasn’t anywhere elseto go. But we told certain people who felt—and people who were making a contribution,“Just so that we have enough votes for thetax to pass it, we want to see you back here.And if you feel the difference of your votingagainst this or voting for it would be critical,why, vote against it.” And this happened. ButI felt, [although] I was completely on theother side of the fence at times from labor,my relations with Sailor Ryan were all right,and Van Englestead, who was representingCIO. And in fact, I believe it was a memberof the Railroad Brotherhood came to me oneevening, and after the close of the session,talked about it, and he said, “Well, if youran for a higher state office, if you think thatlabor’s all going to be against you, you’remistaken, because we have a job to do, so wehave to take a position. But I’m going to tellyou they know you’re not all bad” [laughing].Some others represented really specialinterests within the legislature. Mr. [C. C.]Boak obviously represented mining and fishand game. He wasn’t there for very manyyears. Mr. Budelman, in a sense, representedmining, too. I believe that Senator Budelmanwas a better representative who was alsoa senator. He did not want mining to be astepchild. And, of course, [he] did introducesome legislation for exploration on thepart of the Bureau of Mines, with the stateappropriation. But he did not have a singletrackmind.And I think the people who do havesingle-track minds who are members ofthe legislature lose their effectiveness ratherrapidly. At least, this was my experience withthem. You could always talk to them. Andcertainly, by the same token, why, I felt thatI could always be talked to by opponents.Members of the legislature were just a goodcross section. You would find, just as you doin all walks of life, a few who are less effective,perhaps less altruistic than others. I just feltthat the vast majority took their job seriouslyand were trying to do a good job. And Ienjoyed working with them.I think you have to accept that people suchas Sailor Ryan has a job to do. And he nevertried to deceive anyone. And Sailor Ryanintroduced some good legislation. And helost some that I questioned that he expectedto see passed.A Summary of My Legislative CareerI have been asked to comment, or to givea summary of events during my time in thelegislature. Certainly they were rewardingyears. I found that making the decision toclose my legislative career was the secondmost difficult thing of my life to this time,the first, of course, being the disposing of theranch on which I was born.At various times, I was accused, or perhapscredited, with having substantial power.Personally, I never felt that way. I certainlyfound that working in the legislature wasa give-and-take experience. I just never

38 Fred H. Settelmeyerfelt that any position that I took couldn’tbe discussed with other people.I also havemany close friends. At all times, I’ve felt thatI enjoyed being in the legislature, and hopedthat I might have the friendship and respectof everyone. But if it ever became necessaryto settle for one or the other, it seemed justelemental to me that I would rather haverespect than friendship. Accomplishmentswere not made entirely with personal effort.It was always with the assistance of otherpeople. I do not believe that I ever sponsoredany self-serving legislation. And I do believethat a legislator in that position can be moreeffective than if he has acted otherwise.I sometimes wonder why there are peoplewho feel that I have power. I never felt that Idid. If I did, I rather hope that I exercised itjudiciously. I think I was motivated almostentirely by what I felt, and at times I mighthave been wrong, about what I honestlybelieved was good for the state of Nevada.I feel that I have little to add except that Ienjoyed the help and cooperation of manypeople, regardless of party affiliation.The financial picture as I saw it evolve,I believe it was a team effort. The financialprocedures that were developed there duringthe time that Ken Johnson was the chairmanof finance, he felt there were spots that wouldbe rejected if he was the out-and-out sponsorfor it. And I think that it was—is—true onthe other side. There were spots where oneof the other senators could do a better jobthan I could. I remember at one time, theassembly had cut a substantial portion of theUniversity’s budget. Senator Johnson said tome, he says, “You know, I can’t handle thechairman of ways and means. I think you’dbetter try it.” I did, and I was successful inmaking the restoration.We worked together closely, and I thinkby so doing, why, if accomplishments weremade, we did it as a group. And I’m flatteredby having people say that I had power, but if Idid, I never was sure that I used it [laughing].In a few areas I was accused of being toomodest and let others get the credit. And Iwas totally indifferent to that, because all Iwas interested in was doing the job. And I belive in the—certainly, the rewards were many,and the letters that I received upon retirementwere, I think, certainly wholly unexpectedand surprising to me—one of them froman Indian, which was really one of my mostprecious letters.[Why did I decide not to run again?]Well, I definitely felt that there was a time. Icertainly did not retire from fear because Ihad been on the ballot often enough that if Icouldn’t accept defeat, I knew I didn’t have anybusiness being in politics. I feel that I could’veaccepted defeat just very graciously, withno hard feelings toward the individual thatmight have filed against me. I had opposition,of course, even when I was running for theschool board, and had opposition, I think,twice, running for the senate. We certainlyvisited and were ready to buy each other adrink or what have you the day after election.It was never my position that someone elsedidn’t have a right to file.I felt that I had seen a few people whostayed too long because they were no longereffective by reasons of health, and also byreason of mental, you might say, agility. Ipromised myself that I wasn’t going to dothis. I also felt that anyone staying too longloses touch with problems. I can see veryvalid reasons for people in industry havingmandatory retirements. I also felt that I had aman who I was sure would at least file for theoffice, who I had tried to bring along in hislegislative work, and he was entitled to move.And I had reached the age when I could fail,

My Legislative Activities, 1947-196139begin to fail. And some of these people that Ihad watched didn’t realize they were failing.So I just simply made up my mind that I wasgoing to move out and make room, becauseI did not feel that I was indispensable, andmake room for someone else while I still feltthat my faculties were intact [laughing].Of course, Rex Bell, when he filed forgovernor, really wanted me to be on the ticketwith him as lieutenant governor. And I felt,well, if I’d wanted to stay in public life, I’dprefer to be the chairman of finance ratherthan to be lieutenant governor because Iwould not have been comfortable to’ve justbeen the presiding officer and not have avote or my hand in. What I enjoyed was statefinances, and so I had to say no to Rex Bell.

3Dealing with Waterand Associated IssuesLegal Aspects of theCarson River Water SystemToday has been more or less set asideto discuss water issues and problems in theCarson Valley. [Consulting papers] I believeI would like to begin with what was the firstmajor litigation, in which the Union Mill andMining Company were the complainants, orthe plaintiffs, and the upstream water users,who were the defendants. In going over thenames of the defendants in that case, it hasbeen interesting to me that no Californiaresident was named as a defendant, althoughthey were diverting water from both forks ofthe Carson River. As far as I have been ableto learn, this was the first suit in which thedoctrine of priority was used. In other words,the defendants, who have a right prior to 1860,had an unrestricted right as far as the plaintiffsin the action were concerned. The waterthat the Union Mill and Mining Companyasserted belonged to them was used to drivethe mills on the Carson River where the orefrom the Comstock was milled. It was a longfought case, filed sometime prior to 1890. Thedecree was handed down by Judge [ThomasP.] Hawley on September 20, 1897,An interesting statement showed up insome of the evidence that I read in the PacificReporter, wherein the mining company agreedthat when the stream dropped to a certainflow, it was useless to attempt to bring thewater to the mills. They gained a right to use6,0O0 inches, which today would be statedas l50 second feet, with which to operate themills. They attempted to come to the upperreaches of the river and shut down ditches,and found that the river lost a great deal ofwater in conveyance. When they didn’t havesufficient water, of course, it didn’t do themany good. The ranchers in the upper Carsonwere permitted to divert the entire flowduring the months of June, July, and August.Certainly, many rights after 1860 underthis decree were prohibited from using anywater. If there was sufficient water availableto drive the mills, these ranchers were cut off.This, of course, was a theoretical fact—or, I

42 Fred H. Settelmeyershould say, was a theoretical conclusion. Iseriously doubt that it ever was a fact. I thinkthey found it very difficult to police at alltimes.It is a very interesting case to research.However, the conclusions of that case arecompletely moot at this time. I don’t knowjust how they milled their ore. Perhaps afterelectricity came in, they had mills right onthe Comstock. Of course, production by1900 or shortly thereafter was almost nil. Therecord shows that the Union Mill and MiningCompany was completely dissolved in theyear of 1906.There, of course, were many small or civilsuits on various small streams, commonlyreferred to as the mountain streams, wheretwo neighbors or more were using water outof [the] same stream. And those cases wereall filed in the local state courts.But then the next major lawsuit was filedby water users in Nevada on the west forkof the Carson against water users within thestate of California. The decree entered in thatcase was No. 12857, Ninth Circuit Court,District of California. Of course, water rightshad not been established; priorities had notbeen established. And during the later partof the season, the water users on the upperreaches of the river would dry up the streamcompletely. They needed a cutoff place, Isuppose, so the Nevada users decided to sueeveryone above the state line. They probablycould’ve sued some of the upper users justbelow the California state line, also, but thisis the way it was done.I remember when I was rather a smallboy, that in order to get stock water andwater for the garden and just a little waterin the stream to freshen it, why, usuallyabout sundown or shortly thereafter, someof the water users in Nevada would decideto go into California arid break dams andhopefully get eight or twelve hours of water.My dad accompanied them a number oftimes in my recollection. But, of course, thissettled no problem. So the suit was brought,and again there was quite a little hard feelingby people who in normal times were veryclose friends. And this continued for a shorttime, I would say a few years, after the decreewas filed.Well, on paper, it appeared that Californiausers got just a little the best of it. However, theNevada people were satisfied if they would justget a little water on a sure basis for a certainlength of time. It actually eventually wound upto be a consent decree arranged by water userson both sides. The gist of it was that after acertain day, which was designated in the suit asthe first Monday in June, water users in Nevadawere permitted to take all of the water that wasin the west fork; and thereafter, on alternateweeks, California users were entitled to the useof the entire river. As a matter of fact, there issomething over 3,000 acres in California thatwere being irrigated, and near 10,100 acres onthe west fork in Nevada.It must be said that the lands in Californiarequire more water than some of the land inNevada. however, this decree was entered asNo. 12857. This decree applies only to waterusers on the west fork of the Carson Riverin California and Nevada. No master wasever appointed to enforce the provisions ofthe decree. The decree did impose certainlimitations as to quantities of water on some ofthe defendants’ lands. These lands were knownas the non-riparian lands. It was realized byboth the plaintiffs and the defendants thatthe literal imposition of the quantitativeallocation would not only injure individuals,but would also cause an unnecessary wasteof water by reason of the user not having ahead of water that was sufficient to efficientlyirrigate his land.

Dealing with Water and Associated Issues43Essentially, the only portion of the abovedecree that is used today is a provisionfor rotation after a certain date. Today itis completely accepted, and it is my firmconviction that the principles of that decreeshould go into any future [settlement], orspecifically, the U. S. vs. Alpine, which is, ofcourse, a case that was filed in 1926 against allupper users. By that, I mean the water usersabove Lahontan reservoir in both Californiaand Nevada. That will be the next piece oflitigation that we will discuss.This suit was filed in 1926, and actually,many of us felt that it was what might betermed a suit to quiet title. A great deal ofevidence was taken, objections were filed,briefs were filed, and then for one reason oranother, it was never completely submitted tothe court. I have felt that much of the delay canwell be laid at the doors of the Department ofJustice of the United States. I was a party tomany conferences attempting to work out asettlement. It appears that it was necessary tohave a number of funerals [laughing] to getpeople into the frame of mind that this shouldbe discussed by farmers and water users inboth areas, rather than to leave it entirely tothe attorneys.I made a number of trips to the Fallon areawith people who were very much my senior.We didn’t seem to get anywhere. And thenabout 1950, I was called into George DeVore’s office; he was at that time the engineer incharge of water for the Sierra Pacific PowerCompany on the Truckee River, and hadbeen deeply involved in all the Truckee Riverlitigation. He asked if I could get a group ofwater users in the upper Carson to attendthe conference. And he and I talked to someunderstanding people from the Fallon area,and we were moving along very nicely. Wereached agreement with attorneys for boththe plaintiffs and defendants.Mr. William J. Cashill of Reno at thattime was the deputy U. S. Attorney incharge of federal water matters for this state,but it seemed impossible to get people inWashington to move. But Mr. Cashill passedaway, and that was a severe loss, in myopinion, to all concerned.It remained a dead issue for quite sometime, and this was particularly true duringthe time that the Bureau of Reclamation wasinvestigating the Washoe Project. Of course,before the Washoe Project was constructed,why, it seemed apparent, especially to me,that the U. S. vs. Alpine suit must be settled.There were others who felt—or who held adifferent opinion.But during the 1960’s, Washington againbecame interested in reaching agreement. Iaccompanied several attorneys to Washingtonat least two times. At that time, we foundthat the agencies of the federal governmentwere having more differences amongthemselves about this suit than we hadwith the government. It’s strange to me whythis should be. I cannot help but make thestatement that any litigation that must lieinactive the way this has must be proof thatno one—or particularly the plaintiffs inthe action—were suffering any damage. Ifthere had been, certainly it would have beenprosecuted to gain what was their just due.I had hoped that I could see that litigationsettled during my lifetime. I felt if that couldhave been settled the way that the farmersin Fallon and on the upper Carson hadagreed, it would’ve been—well, I don’t knowhardly what else to say, except my crowningachievement. I would’ve [laughing] beenwilling to say that my work was finished.Today, I have no reason to think that it willbe settled in the foreseeable future.I believe that I can say this? [theDepartment of] Justice tells us that if it

44 Fred H. Settelmeyerwere not for the Pyramid situation and afew people who have civil service status inthe Department of Interior, why, we couldsettle it.Of course, within recent years, why, thePyramid tribe has attempted to intervenein the Carson River suit under the guidanceof Mr. Robert Leland. Judge [Roger] Foley,in the Nevada district court, rejected hispetition to intervene. The defendants, ofcourse, filed an answer with the appellatecourt in San Francisco that that petitionbe rejected. The appellate court at this timehas not come out with any position. I amsure that if the appellate court permittedthe Pyramid Lake tribe to intervene, itwould be taken to the Supreme Court ofthe United States by the defendants. Ofcourse, the Supreme Court might refuseto hear it, which is within their province. Ido not know what the position of the tribewould be if the appellate court rejected thepetition to intervene. If it were rejected andnot appealed, it could well be that we couldmove toward settlement.Of course, my own position is that not adrop of Carson River water has ever gone toPyramid. Certainly, Carson River water userscould in no way injure the tribe. I have told asolicitor for the Department of Interior thatif they were able to intervene and cut the useof water on the Carson River just to a barebones allotment, why, they would not gain10,000 acre feet for Lahontan that they donot now receive. I further stated that, in myopinion, one good windstorm on Pyramidwould evaporate that much water or more.There’s no logic in their attempting to movein on the Carson.In discussing the position of the tribe atPyramid Lake, I certainly would not wish toconvey the impression that I am anti-Indianany more than I am “anti” anyone else. I havehad lifelong friends among the Indians; infact, they were among my earliest playmateswhen I was a child. I do have a high regardfor them, and in this case, it might be saidthat their interests were damaged. However,it was not people on the Carson River, or notpeople on the Truckee River. If you believethat they have been damaged, I believeyou should recognize the fact that it wasan agency of the federal government thatis responsible. And if this is the decision,they should be compensated by the federalgovernment rather than attempt to havepeople in the local area pick up or take careof the dereliction of the federal government.Irrigation in the Carson ValleyAt this point, it would perhaps be notamiss to discuss the history of irrigation inthis valley, which, of course, I have talkedabout some at a previous time.Of course, the earliest water rights inthis Valley are 1852, and gradual increase inclearing land came about. But I suppose thereare near three or four thousand acres that wereirrigated and have rights during the 1850’sand the early ’60’s. If you would include allof the 1860’s, you would run into an acreagewell in excess of ten thousand acres. Today,on the Carson River area above Lahontan,there’s slightly in excess of 40,000 acres beingirrigated.The property in this area is still, in largepart, in the hands of people who’ve been herefor—well, some second and third and fourthgeneration. In fact, there’s a few propertiesthat are—the fifth generation is growing upon the same property. Many of those peoplehave land that would be susceptible of beingirrigated. But these people understand thatshortages of water exist. And it would serveno good purpose to put in additional acres

Dealing with Water and Associated Issues45when you realize that the area does have awater shortage.Not each year. I think it would be wellto bring out that the Bureau of Reclamationhas figured—made the statement—that onthe average, the upper Carson River hada shortage running from twenty to fortypercent. Of course, averages in water arerather meaningless to me because it’s afeast or a famine. One exceedingly big yearbrings up the average, and you might havejust two or three normal years during aten- or fifteen-year period. I believe that theagricultural people have used their waterwisely, and their decision not to expand theiracreage was certainly in the field of goodmanagement.The more I thought of my going intoany story on the Alpine Land and ReservoirCompany, the more I felt it would be just abit presumptuous on my part because I didn’tknow enough. And I did not have the time toresearch it. I found that [referring to papers]Reinhold Sadler was a member of the groupthat filed on all of those potential reservoirsites on the upper Carson. And this groupwas composed [most importantly] of WilliamThornburg and H. F. Musser of Alpine County,California. I’m sure those two men were thepeople who knew the mountains, where thevarious lakes and basins were.The Nevada residents that were involvedin this was George I. Lamy, George W. Keith,Elizabeth E. Jones (who happened to be awidow of a man who was involved with themen prior to his death), Reinhold Sadler,and Adolph Livingston. That group formedwhat was known as the Alpine Land andReservoir Company. They filed on all ofthese potential reservoir sites in 1895. Thefilings were all made in the courthouse of thecounty in which the lakes were located. Allof the lakes were in Alpine County. This isall that the law required. There was no statedivision of water rights. It was entirely onthe county level.In 1896, a group of Carson Valleyranchers purchased the rights that had beenfiled on by the aforementioned people. Ibelieve that transfer was made in June of1896. The first directors of, you might term—Ibelieve it had another name— but they againchanged the name to the Alpine Land andReservoir Company. I believe they calledit a water and land development companyoriginally. But the first local directorswere C. M. Henningsen, Fritz Heise, H. F.Dangberg, Jr. (he was a son of the original H.F. Dangberg, who was a major landowner inthe valley), John Franzten, and I believe H. H.Springmeyer was a member of that group. I’mjust going to have to plead ignorance of whattheir activities consisted of, other than whenthe Dresslers and we—perhaps I should saythe Settelmeyers—decided to build reservoirson the west fork of the Carson on which theAlpine Land and Reservoir Company hadapproved filings which we purchased fromthem.In these cases, why, we owned the land,but they had the recognized water rightswhich had been accepted by the federalgovernment. The federal government haddenied some of the filings. But the lakes thatwe were interested in were Red Lake, ScottLake, and Crater Lake. I have not been ableto find the document. They were, of course, offederal origin, but Mr. [Carsten] Henningsenassured me that their filings had been acceptedby—I don’t know whether it was the Bureauof Reclamation or the Department of Justice.An investigation had taken place. And so weacquired those rights which we used to defendour claims in the U. S. vs. Alpine.Now I was told that all of the early recordsof the Alpine —minutes and organization,

46 Fred H. Settelmeyerbylaws, and so forth—are on file with thesecretary of state. So I’m sure that yourdepartment would have access to those. Andwhen I found out that fact, why, I felt I wasgoing to forego the research. And certainly, Idid not have time. And as far as I know, theystill are a corporation. And, of course, thisis the reason for them being on file in thesecretary of state’s office.[In the Carson Valley, there has beenopposition to the Newlands Project, andpersonal animosity to Senator Newlandsbecause of this project. Can I explain that?]The feeling was engendered, I think, largely,of course, by the water litigation that wasfiled in 1926. Prior to that time, why, thepeople didn’t—their paths did not crossoften. And, of course, many years ago, peoplein this area were hopeful of a reclamationproject, a federal project. Senator Newlandsor his family owned quite a lot of land in thisvalley at one time. He also acquired, or theyacquired a larger acreage in the lower end ofthe Carson. Of course, I could be wrong, but Ihave many times felt that Senator Newlands’sreason for introducing this reclamation actwas not entirely altruistic because it was theone way that some of his land might be sold.I’m not sure, but I believe that theOccidental Land Company, which was theNewlands family holding company, ownedmore ground there than they did in this[Carson] valley. This valley, of course, at alltimes turned the federal project down largelyon account of the 160-acre limitation. I don’tfeel that people were more aggressive here inCarson Valley than other places, but it wasjust a business proposition. They found thata small area, or small ranch, did not do forthem and their families what they wished tobe done. They found it could be done, it waseasier to do it, and more efficient to do it, onlarger units. And so they consistently turneddown reclamation projects due to the 160-acre limitation.There was this. There were some, oh, youmight call them “personal animosities.” I wasinvolved in that when I was quite young. ButI never found that they refused to drink eachother’s whiskey [laughing].The California-NevadaInterstate Compact CommissionWe’re about to discuss the California-Nevada Interstate Compact Commission.I know of nothing that has been moremisrepresented and created moremisunderstanding than this particular bitof legislation. This was brought about bydiscussion of people connected with the waterproblems in both California and Nevada.Responsible people felt there was a potentialfor very long and extensive litigation betweenthe people living near the border of Californiaand Nevada. It was suggested that the bestmanner of handling this, or solving it, wasthrough compact legislation.I, along with the other Nevada senatorswho represented counties in westernNevada adjoining California, introduced thelegislation in the Nevada legislature. This wasin 1955, and the act became effective on July 1,1956. Commissions were set up in both states.It was also consented to by the Congress ofthe United States, which was necessary; andnegotiations began.It was difficult for people who wereappointed to the Commission in the firstfew years to understand the charge that hadbeen given them, that charge being in largemeasure to allocate waters between the stateof California and the state of Nevada on theWalker, the Carson, and the Truckee Rivers,and Lake Tahoe. There have been severalcompacts negotiated in various other states,

Dealing with Water and Associated Issues47but none of them, in my opinion, with thecomplexities of this particular one. None ofthem involved more than one river.Of course, compacts usually areinstruments that cross state lines. Negotiationswere at times difficult. They were able menrepresenting both states, and they were hardheaded.There are times when it reminded youof a boxing match with the sparring that wenton. They gradually developed the feeling thatno compact would be successful unless yourecognized existing issues.Of course, water rights in all cases havenot been adjudicated. If there were uses,such as domestic uses along a stream, orperhaps close to a spring where someone hadestablished a summer residence in California(and there were a number of these), why, theywere accepted as a use and so recognized. Weattempted to recognize existing decrees suchas Decree No. 183 on the Walker, and the U.S. vs. Orr on the Truckee, and while we do nothave the decree on the Carson, we recognizethe uses as being substantially that as statedin the Mueller findings.*The Mueller findings followed ratherclosely the preliminary findings made bythe state engineer who had hoped to enter adecree on Nevada users on the Carson River,but, of course, was precluded from doingthis by the filing of the U. S. VS. Alpine, andwhereupon the state engineer of Nevada lostcontrol of the Carson River. The compactwas not charged, nor did it have the authorityto grant rights, be it to an individual or anassociation of individuals.Much has been said about the injusticethat the compact does to the Pyramidtribe. In my opinion, even though theCommission had desired to allocate water toPyramid Lake, under the legislation and thevarious acts that authorized the compact,the Commission would be acting beyond itsauthority to allocate water. They felt they didrecognize the right that had been granted tothe Indians under the U. S. vs. Orr decree,and recognized the priority to the completeamount of water that they have, even thoughthey did not have or could not show that theyhad used the amount of water that the decreeallotted to them—this, in spite of the factthat under Nevada law, no one gains a rightby application for a right unless that water isused beneficially.Ultimately, why, of course, the compactwas arrived at. It was ratified by the membersof the joint commission at a meeting on July25, 1968. I believe it is worthy of approvalby the state of California. Of course, thestate of Nevada legislature approved it byan overwhelming vote, and it should also beapproved by Congress.In absence of this eventual approval, I seeextremely expensive and lengthy litigation.Lake Tahoe, without the compact, has noauthority to export sewage, which is beingdone. The compact gave authority for theexport of sewage. There are questionable usesof water at Tahoe without the compact. Thecompact set aside 34,000 acre feet of waterto the Tahoe Basin, with roughly 23,000to the state of California, and 11,000 acrefeet to Nevada. This could well be termed aconcession of sorts by lower Truckee Riverwater users because title to all the storage inLake Tahoe rests in the name of the UnitedStates, for the benefit of the Truckee-CarsonIrrigation District and possibly for otherfederal uses. I am referring to the six feetof storage permitted, or agreed to. Legally,the federal government might insist, oreven perhaps two feet higher. There’s some*Mr. John V. Mueller was the federalmaster who heard the arguments.

48 Fred H. Settelmeyerdisagreement on that. But then by agreementto avoid damage of high water, why, the socalledTruckee River agreement set the figure,the six feet of storage limit, which, of course,amounts to 720,000 acre feet for that area.The federal government acquired this rightby condemnation proceedings against theTruckee River General Electric Company, thepredecessor of Sierra Pacific Power Company.California interests were not parties to theU.S. vs. Orr Ditch degree. Nevada water userswere.But there are many diversions withinNevada that have made sense, and certainlythe Compact Commission did not feel thatthey could go to people at Tahoe and say,“We’re cutting your pipeline. The waterwill no longer come out of your taps. Thisis an illegal diversion.” So we attempted torecognize uses. There was general agreementamong these people, and they were manycompetent engineers with a good backgroundin hydrology who felt the development shouldstop at Tahoe and never have made use of the34,000 [acre feet]. In certain areas, it mightbe said that this was concession on the partof California because California, of course,has water rights known as littoral. Groundbordering a lake, just because it was adjacentto the lake, had certain water rights, and alsoriparian which is rather a complicated right,but they do exist at Tahoe. there certainlywas no attempt to injure anyone, and it wasbeyond the province of this Commission topermit initiation of new rights and new usesto the detriment of those presently beingbeneficially used.I believe it would be well that everyoneunderstands that at the many joint commissionmeetings, as well as the various subcommitteemeetings on the rivers involved, there werepresent at all times representative of thefederal government, the chairman of thejoint commission who represented theDepartment of the Interior. Also presentwere representatives of the Indian Service,representatives of the California and NevadaFish and Game Commission. And at most ofthe meetings, there was a representative, one ormore, of the tribal council at Pyramid. No onecan deny that they did have the opportunityto be informed of all the problems andnegotiations involved. Unless one followed itclosely, you could not help but be confused,but the opportunity was there at all times tobe informed.Quite a few of these meetings were notentirely pleasant because certainly each statehad individuals that were well informedand felt that this was a game that was beingplayed for keeps. I remember a few instances,particularly one case, where a commissionerrepresenting Nevada took offense when arepresentative of California felt that they weregoing to, you might say, rewrite, or break, afederal court decree. Nevada’s representativeat that point just threw his pencil on the table,closed his book, said, “Well, if you’re—if thatposition is irrevocable, I’m leaving as of now.”However, the California representative didnot have the support of his commission in hisrequest, and they went on and kept workinguntil they resolved the Walker River situation.I am sure that the solution is infinitelybetter than had the Commission broken upand litigation had resulted. Everyone thereknows what their potential is. I feel thesame situation arose on all rivers. I thinkthat, generally, the decision on Tahoe wasacceptable with less discussion than any ofthe rivers.At one point, California felt they were notbeing given the proper consideration. In fact,they were attempting to claim more waterthan the decree which covers the diversionfrom the Truckee to Sierra Valley, which use

Dealing with Water and Associated Issues49was initiated many years ago, then finallywas taken to court, and again, a consentdecree was arrived at. But we did have somepressure to permit California to increase thatdiversion. Well, this certainly would havebeen just as wrong as could be for Nevadainterests. There were people on the Truckeerepresenting the Truckee River who insistedthat a court action would be far to be preferredto permitting this to happen. Then afterlengthy discussions, why, California agreednot to press this.But there are many times it appeared thatthe Commission was going to break up. Andthen suddenly, it appeared that everyone feltthat they realized after all the studies thatwere involved, that all of the eastern slopeof the Sierras was in a water-deficient area.No one could have all that they desired.The supply just was not there. And this is, Ithink, a surprising thing, how things fall intotheir proper place. People seemed to realizethat it was a give-and-take, and they werenegotiating in good faith, and the area ofsuspicion seemed to disappear.Of course, there were many changes,some by death, a number by resignation, anda number due to change in positions. But thisremoved some of the personality clashes thatwere involved. And I would say perhaps someof those things were necessary, and with nodiscredit to any individual.[When it came time to negotiate on theCarson River, what did I take with me to thesenegotiations? With all of my knowledge of theriver and its allocations and so forth, did I have awritten study, or just my own knowledge of theriver?] At one point, California people came inwith rather a long statement of how the CarsonRiver should be settled. They expected toreceive—or they requested that a flat acre-footallocation be made to the area in California. Myrecollection is this was in the neighborhood of44,000 acre feet. Their position was that theywould be satisfied with this, but they wantedthe first priority. In other words, the first 44,000acre feet that came down the river during theirrigation season would belong to California.Well, this, of course, would be a very simpleway to do it. Certainly, at that point, I wasrepresenting the upper Carson. And this isone of the days that I felt that I didn’t mind ifwe blew the compact. Fortunately, I took theposition that the only year that this would beat all fair to Nevada is that when you have avery high water year. And fortunately, I hadthe support of the California representativerepresenting the upper Carson River.For another involvement on the CarsonRiver, I had gotten all of the daily flow sheetsfrom the USGS. I was familiar with the shortyears and the dry years, not only from thestudy made of these flow sheets, but also,of course, by being a ranch operator on thestream. We had years such as 1924, when thewest Carson River only flowed 28,000 acrefeet for the entire year. California interestsdid recognize the Anderson-Bassman* decreewhere that rotation would come in just as itdoes now. But other than that, certainly in thatyear, the Nevada interests suffered terrifically.I want to repeat—when this was broached,it was possibly the day that I was moredisturbed than almost any day. But I did havethe support of the California representative. Iinsisted that we were all on the same river, andhistorically, we had shared the heavy waterflows, and I thought we should also share thewater in years of low yield. And you mightsay we threw out this document that wasfiled. It was interesting, and if you had thesame amount of water and had an excess—*John Anderson vs. Henry Bassman,et al.

50 Fred H. Settelmeyeror, we’ll say, an ample—supply of water, thissuggestion would have been just simple andeasy to operate. It appeared that there weremembers of the Commission who wouldbuy it, but they did not have the intimateknowledge of the stream system.We later developed a formula which Isuppose it must be said that I worked it outmore or less on a flow allocation, hoping thatwe might be able to incorporate the samematter in the U. S. vs. Alpine suit. Well, wewere able to convince the Commission thatthis was reasonable and also logical. But ittook months and months to work this out. Infact, at one point, I was about ready to resignas a consultant because I was having difficultywith—we had our problems within our owncommissions, also. And it had reached thepoint where I felt that I wasn’t of any use. Idid file a letter of resignation which the stateengineer refused to accept. And lookingback, why, I think it was well that he did not.Those are examples. Meetings of the CompactCommission certainly were not Sundayschool picnics [laughing].[How was this 44,000 acre-foot proposalfirst made?] Well, that first proposal cameabout by the state engineer of Nevada,who was then Mr. [Edmund] Muth, anda representative of the Division of WaterResources in California, who had workedout this schedule. I’ve often called it the“California plan,” but I was informed by Mr.Muth that this was not that, that Nevada wasinvolved in this. Without wishing to discreditMr. Muth at all, it was worked out on paper,and it looked like the theory was fine. Butthe plan was submitted, and they felt thiswas going to be the answer. It was kickedaround, and I believe, at this same meetingor the following meeting, I submitted whatI felt was nothing more or nothing less thanthe method that had been used for more thanfifty years. And the California representativesdropped the plan that had been submitted bythe representatives of the state agencies.[Did Mr. Muth not consult with me beforehe drew this plan?] He did not. Not prior tothe time that they designed it and presented it.[Do I know what advice he had in proposingsuch a figure?] No. Of course, he had far moreexperience in the technical handling of waterthan I did, and I suppose he felt he was selfsufficient.It did come to me as a completesurprise.Of course, the studies that were made,all these studies were made on certainassumptions, I suppose, made on assumptionsof strict enforcement of decrees and strictconformance with decrees. And there’svolumes of them. But, of course, eventually, itseems to me that the commission consideredall of the studies. But finally, the ultimateconclusions were made with intimateknowledge of how this water had beenhandled, and with the realization, whichseemed difficult to sell, that we were in adeficient water area. And so you had to havea give-and-take attitude.The Pyramid Lake Task Forceand Associated ProblemsOur subject of discussion today is thePyramid Lake Task Force. This came aboutas a result of the meeting between Secretaryof the Interior Walter Hickel, GovernorRonald Reagan, and Governor Paul A. Laxalt.Of course, they covered the area in one day,which is hardly enough time to understandthe problem completely. They did decide thatthe governor of California would appointtwo people more as consultants, or observers,due to the fact that, of course, there wereCalifornia interests involved. There was ratheran extensive group of federal agency people

Dealing with Water and Associated Issues51representing the Department of the Interior,the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Bureauof Indian Affairs. The governor of Nevadaappointed people from the various river areas.The Walker River, of course, was not involvedin this, and there was no representative of theWalker River appointed. There were people onthe Truckee and representatives of Truckee-Carson Irrigation District, and a representativeof the tribal council at Pyramid Lake. I wasappointed by Governor Laxalt to represent theinterests of the upper Carson River.The problem that has been placed beforethis committee is a very involved problem, Iwould say largely due to the fact that we arein a very water-deficient area. In addition tothat, the water rights have been establishedunder state law; federal rights were gainedin compliance with state law. And a longand extensive amount of litigation occurredon the Truckee River, which gave certainrights to upstream users on the Truckee, thedownstream users on the Truckee, of course,being principally the diversion from theTruckee to the Carson River basin throughthe Derby canal, which carried water fromthe Truckee to Lahontan for use on theTruckee-Carson Irrigation District. To thebest of my knowledge, that suit was droppedby the government on behalf of the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District and the Indiantribe at Pyramid Lake. This apparently wasconsidered to be a settled condition untilrecently, when the demand arose for morewater for Pyramid.For me, it is rather difficult to separatethe work of the Task Force from that ofthe compact. However, the federal officialsadvised us that we were not to consider thecompact discussions in this assignment oftrying to get more water for Pyramid.I suppose the reason that I was appointedwas due to a motion that was filed by Mr. RobertLeland on behalf of the Indians to intervene inthe Carson River. My contention is— and thishas been the contention of, I would say all, orat least well over ninety percent of the actualwater users on the Carson River—that nowater, no Carson River water had at any timein history been delivered water to PyramidLake. Certainly no Carson River water everreached Pyramid after the disappearance ofthe prehistoric Lake Lahontan. I am of theopinion that the rather rapid drop in PyramidLake was due in large measure to the ratherserious drought that occurred in westernNevada, which I experienced during the yearsapproximately from 1924 to 1934. I do notdeny that the building of the Derby canal andthe construction of Lahontan Dam may haveaccelerated it slightly. But the lake would havedropped during that time if the Derby canalhad never been constructed. And certainly,there were other years. I believe there aresome statistics available either in the studymade by Dr. Church and Dr. Boardman ofthe University of Nevada, or someone elseconnected with the University. Historically,I’m sure there was a drought in Pyramidduring the early 1860’s. I remember an elderlyneighbor of ours telling my father that in theyear 1861 he had to use a scraper to scrapeholes in the riverbed so that his cattle hadwater to drink.In 1862, they had one of the heaviestfloods, which Dr. Church spoke of in hisstory of the floods of Nevada during the timeof the white settlement. In 1862, there was aflood which changed the course of the westfork of the Carson completely, making whatwas known as the Brockliss Slough the majorstream. So, during those years, I’m sure thatPyramid took a very rapid drop because atthat time, there was no storage on the Truckee,no storage at Tahoe. And so when the floodwas past, when the runoff was over with, why,

52 Fred H. Settelmeyerthe heavy increment to Pyramid was overwith. Likewise, when you had a dry year, theTruckee would produce very little water. Thengoing over the flow studies that I developedfrom USGS records, why, the years from1900 to 1910 were nearly all above normal.And during those years, Pyramid, of course,would rise. And I suppose that is the timewhen Winnemucca Lake was just an addedlake in the Pyramid basin.I am at a loss to know how this Task Forcecan improve the situation to the extent thatis desired with the streams and the flows thatare presently available, unless we again havea long, wet cycle such as we had from 1900to 1910. The only possibility of stabilizingPyramid—well, I should not say stabilizing,because I do not believe that a terminal lakecan ever be stabilized. The winter of 1968-69,of course, produced a tremendous amountof water. But the lake hasn’t risen [morethan] about eight feet. It is again in 1970receiving a very sizable accretion. It has raisedapproximately one foot from its low pointof 1969 at the present time. So, with normalprecipitation from now until May 1, Pyramidwill again rise. So we’ll have Pyramid—if thisoccurs, we’ll have Pyramid rise again.It must be remembered that theevaporation on Pyramid is very high. Fora number of years, why, I was told that theaverage evaporation on Pyramid was aboutfive feet vertically per year, which wouldindicate that there was near a half millionacre-feet evaporated. Now, federal people,or federal agencies, tell us the averageevaporation is about 3.75 feet. Actually, thereis no one, other than perhaps God Almighty,who could arrange to keep Pyramid anywherenear a stable elevation, So I think stabilizationis completely out of the question.It is perhaps true that by regulation andby improvements at excessive cost, in myopinion, by lining all ditches, or as one federalrepresentative suggested, of pipe-lining all ofthe ditches in the Truckee-Carson Irrigationarea, some saving could be made, but notto the extent of the 150,000 acre feet that isdesired by the Pyramid interests on an averagebasis. There isn’t anywhere near that muchwaste in the Truckee-Carson basin that canbe reclaimed without serious injury to waterusers who certainly settled and reclaimedland in the Fallon area, and in complete goodfaith with the assurance that they would havethe water that was necessary. In addition tothat, if in the lining of those ditches they didreclaim water and conveyed it without loss, ofcourse, the drains would not supply water tothe Stillwater wildlife area for the duck andmigratory bird life which is so necessary, ifyou are interested in that sport.Without taking away from some presentusers, why, there isn’t any possibility ofproviding the water that has been asked for bythe federal people. It has been discussed thatwater rights might be purchased—in otherwords, they would move into the various riverbasins and purchase lands and have themrevert to desert for the benefit of Pyramid.I do not believe that this is a practicalpossibility. Certainly the only place that theycould do this would be in the Truckee Riverbasin above Derby, or in the Reno area, or inthe Fallon area. With the potential needs fordomestic use in the Reno area, It seriouslydoubt that this is economically feasible.When you move down into the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District area, the removalof water from much of that area destroys theeconomic situation of the area a great, greatdeal. The economy of the town of Fallondepends in large measure on the activity inthe agricultural area. So I would feel that ifit was deemed desirable to buy water rights,they would also have to buy, or compensate,

Dealing with Water and Associated Issues53the business interests that depend on thefarming interest in the area.Of course, my particular assignment isthe upper Carson. And when we get down tothe real nuts and bolts of this discussion, why,I feel I cannot do otherwise than to opposethe suggestion that was made by the formerSecretary Udall and the present SecretaryHickel to maximize the use of the CarsonRiver water, which would mean essentiallyto take water from the Carson River for theuse in Lahontan, and thus make more wateravailable to Pyramid from the Truckee. I willhave no choice but to oppose that with all thestrength that I have.The Carson River, by the Bureau ofReclamation, which is certainly an agency ofthe Department of the Interior, shows thaton the average, the upper Carson experiencesa shortage of from twenty to forty percent.Some of the older rights had a history oftwenty percent shortage, some of the newerrights a forty percent shortage each and everyyear.And I have far more than an academicbackground in this. I know that the shortageexists on something besides paper. I knowthat in one of the drought years that we hadwell over a hundred acres that we never puta mowing machine on, and on the rest ofthe area, we cut less than half a crop. Thereare only a very few years when there is anyunused water on the Carson, if we respectand serve the rights of the irrigation districtat Fallon. I informed Mr. [Charles] Renda,who’s the present solicitor for the Bureau ofReclamation in the Sacramento area, whoare also in charge of the Bureau’s activitiesin western Nevada, that in my judgment,without doing serious injury in the upperCarson, to just serve water to its minimumthat they were hoping to do, they could notgain more than ten thousand acre feet ofwater. I have since discussed this with the manwho’s in charge of water distribution, and hefeels that the figure that I gave was high. Thiswater commissioner felt you would not gainmore than six thousand feet. Well, at the timewhen I discussed this with Mr. Renda, I wassure that one good windstorm at Pyramidwould evaporate far more water than theycould ever gain.So, of course, my interest, being only onthe Carson,. I attend meetings and, you mightsay, just sit there waiting for them to attackthe Carson, at which time I suppose I will bespeaking my mind.The further criticism that I have of thissuggested thought of stabilizing, or at leastmitigating the fluctuation of Pyramid, isthat we find there are private interests whoare hopeful that Pyramid will gain thiswater so that you can have extensive resortdevelopment at Pyramid, which, of course,means—because certainly, in Nevada, noresort will be built that does not envision theidea of having a major gambling casino. So wewould have an acceleration of that. And as faras I am concerned, this will not make PyramidLake more attractive. It took some time tosmoke this out, that this was the proposeddevelopment. But I finally got this from thechairman of the Tribal Council.[What’s the conclusion on this? Whatis the Task Force going to have to concludein my opinion?] Well, certainly, when theSecretary of the Interior and the governors ofthese two states requested this, why, I thinkthe people who serve on the Task Force shouldapproach it with an open mind because Iwould not object to doing something to helpthe Indians and to help Pyramid stay alive aslong as possible. But I believe the Task Force isobligated to come up with recommendations.I don’t know what they will be. They haveeven considered going into the Smoke Creek

54 Fred H. SettelmeyerDesert. They plan on studying that waterbasin. The U. S. Geological Survey and theDivision of Water Resources in Nevadahave agreed to make a preliminary study tosee what amount of water is available on anannual basis. They feel there is a substantialamount of water underground, but this wouldmean, I think, some thirty or forty miles ofpipeline with innumerable wells, if it happensto be an area that is a desert area, so the annualrecharge in that area is not large. You couldmine it, and someone said, “Well, perhapswe could mine it and drop that water tablemuch below its natural recharge and helppreserve it.”And, of course, then everyone says, “Well,the only way that it can be completely takencare of is bringing water from the northwest.”And informed people say, “Well, you’vegot to go beyond the boundaries of the UnitedStates proper. You have to go into Canada, andyou might have to go all the way to the Yukon.”So, of course, that will not happen in time tobring out any substantial assistance duringthe lifetime of people now living.So there are a few of us that feel that weshould just face facts. They got into a shortdiscussion and they were planning somerather expensive studies, which I feel havealready been made by both the CompactCommission and the present advisorycommittee set up by the federal government.The result of those studies will show to methat we’re still 150,900 acre feet short. Thereare those that feel that this is not true. PerhapsI’m so close to the situation that I can’t seethe trees for the forest. We certainly havenot gotten to the point. There are manysuggestions which have been made, andwe’re going to have to begin to delete someof the suggestions and admit that they arenot possible. (I think I’d like to say now thatI’m hopeful that this recording will not bereleased until the Task Force has completedtheir work.)What do I think is going to happen interms of politics when such a report comesout?] The Indians do have support. I cannotsee that it’s going to have a great effect on thepossible political changes or the effect on it.For the present time, certainly, GovernorLaxalt is not a candidate. So the people whoare supporting this Pyramid question [do it],I think, largely on an emotional basis. Well,I don’t believe that they’ll carry it over into acampaign. In fact, the real, basic problem ofPyramid is people.If you were interested only in restoringthe fisheries at Pyramid for the Indians, theway to do it, that would be to build a chainlink fence around the entire reservation andpermit free egress and ingress to the Indiansand not permit the pressure of the whitefishermen—I’m sure that some descendantof Mr. Skimmerhorn could go out and catchanother world-breaking trout. Pyramid,like many other fishing areas, is subject tojust terrific pressure. And I do believe—andI have urged strongly that what is knownas the Marble Bluffs dam be constructed. Ibelieve I referred to this before, but I wantto repeat this. If the Marble Bluffs dam, withthe proper controls and diversion were built,the fish could get upstream to spawn. This,for what’s involved, I believe can be justifiedon an economic basis. It would cost a greatdeal of money. The lake might still fall in anydry cycle, which I—well, I’m sure it will. But,depending on the precipitation that occurs,it will move within the range of betweeneight feet up or eight feet down. But the fishget upstream, there would be some naturalspawning, and the fishery would be enhanced.But if the fishing pressure increases, why, it’svery questionable whether you can makethis one of the most wonderful fishing places

Dealing with Water and Associated Issues55in the world. Whoever insists on having thegreatest fishing in the world must go in thearea of the Arctic Circle, certainly into thevery isolated areas of Canada and Alaska.[What’s the answer, then, for the Indianswho have to maintain themselves out there?Do I think the reservation ultimately willbe abandoned?] Well, no, I don’t think so.I think they will continue to live there. Asthey begin to become educated, they willfind work and good-paying jobs (and some ofthem have done just this), if, as I said before,you prevented the white people from comingthere. There was a natural barrier to relievethe pressure prior to the time of Frémont. Itwas isolated then from all fishing pressures.Prior to that time, it had been that way forwe don’t know how many hundreds of years.If the same thing [occurred] and the Indiansdesired to live off the land as they did thenwith hunting and fishing, they could dry theirfish and dry their rabbits and gather pine nutsjust as they’ve always done.I’m not one of those who feel thatthe Indians have been so wronged, thatopportunity was taken away from them. Andif the desire of the majority of the people inthe United States who want to have themhave their natural condition, why, this is theway to do it, is to keep the other people out,completely. And if they enjoy living that way,why, this is the way to do it.I don’t think you can put enough fish inthere and get enough fishing people and putenough boats on that lake to really provide$40,- and $50,000 homes for the Indiansand to maintain the kind of life that thiswould seem to be in keeping [with] off of thefisheries.[Do I really consider this a major orideal recreational resource?] I do not, forthe simple reason trees do not grow there.There’s something in the soil, so there’s nosign of any deciduous growth around the lake.I just don’t believe that there’s any way. Youcould just blow the dam, Derby Dam, out ofthe Truckee River, and you could not createan area like Lake Tahoe. Natural conditionsdo not permit that—soil, dry atmosphericconditions—whatever it is that’s necessary.Of course, you can go back into some ofthe canyons where those little ranches are,which is private ground and apparently mustpredate the Indian reservation, which is 1859,or those private properties would not exist.Now, there are, on those creeks away fromthe lake, away from the natural lake bed, orthe old lake bed, [places which] apparentlysupport tree life. There’s fruit trees; there’sapple trees. I’ve never checked, but I believethose places just—that wherever you go inNevada, wherever there was a small stream ofrunning water, someone decided they’d like tolive there, So that must be the only reason forthose private developments, or ranches. Theywere a basis for a sheep or a cattle operation,and they used that where they lived for theiroperating quarters, and then moved on toopen range.In all of these discussions, of course,we hear what is often referred to as “experttestimony” by noted and sometimes, I think,would-be noted hydrologists who have theanswer as to just how much water ranchoperators and irrigators need to raise theircrop. I can’t help but observe that, to myknowledge, I know of no hydrologist who isoperating a ranch property on a fluctuatingstream. I believe you can forecast somewhatmore accurately where you use water out ofa completely controlled lake, where the flowcan be released as desired, or as necessary.But in addition to that, I’d like to make thefurther observation that the need for wateris, I would say, never exactly the same in oneyear that it is in the other.

56 Fred H. SettelmeyerI remember well, many years, if you hada late spring, or had late spring storms, youdid not need to irrigate as early. Your weathermight be cooler, and you would not desire toirrigate—well, when it was still freezing. Itwould serve no purpose. So I firmly believethat to arbitrarily set a figure is beyond thecompetence of any human being. I’ve knownpeople to irrigate in March; I have, on certainareas, if you’d have an exceedingly dry winter.And I have known at times when that sameland would not be irrigated until the first ofMay if you’d had a wet spring. So to set a firmfigure, to me, is impossible.Of course, during the years we haveheard a great deal of discussion of theNewlands Project. Just as in almost allirrigation projects that I am familiar with,they planned a development far in excess ofthe water available. People just never seemto understand this; certainly, this is true ofthe past.When the Newlands Project wasorganized, [the] Department of Interiorwithdrew—give or take a few thousandacres—for the Truckee-Carson irrigationproject some 230,000 acres. It certainly wasoverextended. It has now dropped—I thinktheir estimate of cultivated land is—they arestill talking of something [around] 74,500acres, and it is seldom that there’s this amountof land under cultivation. This is for severalreasons. Of course, people must, in irrigatedfarming, occasionally, for one reason oranother, such as an infestation of grasses[for] which they have to leave land lay idle,keep working it. So as a practical standpoint,although they have water rights for someseventy-odd thousand acres (and which I amin agreement with, they should have), theyseldom are raising crops on that many acres.And only the test of time really proves howmuch land you may bring into cultivation.Exactly the same thing happened on theWalker River. They sold water rights to amuch larger area than they had water for, andthere were just a substantial number of peoplelost their life’s savings in trying to bring landin cultivation, which was not possible. And, ofcourse, the same thing happened in the Fallonarea. You can find numbers of abandonedplaces which are gradually acquired by othersin enlarging their development. The unitswere not self-sufficient. And in many cases, Iunderstand that the district has repurchasedthose lands and then resold them to providemore water for other areas, So these projectsare all over ambitious. I think it’s a greatunkindness, and—well, more than that. It’s aninjustice to move people on an area that—ifthey were experienced, they would know thatthey couldn’t hope to pay out. So I feel thatthe project left something to be desired in itsoriginal planning. It is today an establishedcommunity, and I believe it must be givenconsideration as such by everyone, ratherthan to just simply say that there’s water beingwasted and it should be diverted to Pyramid.And I’d like to ask that some of the criticsof the system go into an area, [In] fact, if Icould afford it, I would like to give some ofthe critics or experts a piece of ground withthe understanding that they pay the taxes andstay on it for twenty years to see whether ornot they made it. I question that they wouldmake it.Observations on the Washoe ProjectI believe that we were hopeful that wecould overcome the 160-acre limitation.And I believe it was about 1914—of course,I wasn’t living quite as seriously then as[laughing] I ultimately did, but there wasquite a movement on. And they formed whatwas known as the Carson Valley Irrigation

Dealing with Water and Associated Issues57District, Unit No. 1, and I remember that H.F. Dangberg, Jr. and C. M. Henningsen andWilliam Dressier made a trip to Washingtonfor the purpose of trying to interest the thenSecretary of the Interior, and I’m sure theBureau of Reclamation, in construction of aproject on the upper Carson. But again, theywere faced with a 160-acre limitation, and,of course, you could not get public supportfor any project in this valley that includedthe 160-acre limitation. It, of course, was justdropped. And there was some opposition, ofcourse, by Truckee-Carson Irrigation District,but whenever they ran against that wall, that160-acre limitation, why, people in this areabacked away. There’s some testimony of recordshowing the number of farms that were overthat size, and we tried to include it in thetestimony before a congressional committee.Of course, the Washoe Project was passed,which included what was known as theEngle formula. Congressman Clair Engle ofCalifornia realized no 160-acre farm was aneconomic unit. In some areas, they resortedto subterfuge and just went ahead and soldto each other and nothing happened. Andothers, why, of course, if you had a largefamily, why, I think the people deeded; ifthey had five children, they’d deed 160 acresto each child and to each mother and to eachhusband. And, of course, in my opinion, thatis still subterfuge. And people in this area feltit would be a cloud on the title if they everattempted to sell. And they just refused togo for it.But the Clair Engle formula on theWashoe Project included the provision thatyou could furnish water to land in excess of160 acres provided that the interest was paidon the construction costs for that particularproperty which was in excess. But this morethan doubled the cost of the water; they feltthe ability to pay was something like $1.75an acre-foot, and again, this recollection, butit’s reasonably close. And, of course (I thinkwe had a 160-acre limit), the excess paymentsabove 160 would come to about $3.50. Well,I suppose at present prices, this might havebeen acceptable. It was not at the time thatthe Washoe Project was initiated.And the other difficulty, certainly on ourranch property, when they attempted to havecontracts signed for the Washoe Project—wewere off of the ranch. But the people that hadpurchased it came in with their contract thathad been offered to them, and the Bureauof Reclamation figured that that particularproperty, the purchase, 720-odd acre feet ofwater, said they would have a full water right.And he asked me what my opinion was, arid Isaid, “The only answer I could give is to—I’mnot going to tell you what to do, but I can onlytell you what I would do if I were still on theproperty. And that is I would purchase andobligate the ranch to purchase 250 acre feet.”But with the amount of water that we had andstorage that we had already paid for, why, theranch couldn’t possibly use an additional 700acre feet unless we were deprived of much ofthe water that we had historically used. Inother words, the water that had been usedfor a period of fifty or sixty years, which wecertainly felt was ours as it came down thestream, would be stored and then sold to us.And I said, “I’m just telling you that I wouldnot sign the contract. Now if your opinion isdifferent and you’re more anxious for waterwhy, you must know.”And to one man, one of the owners whocould very well afford to make the investment,could have paid for this water, I said, “Well,I don’t think that you can sell it. I wouldcontract for some of that water myself at $1.75if I could gain a property right.” But you couldnot gain a property right. And, of course,the result was those people did not sign the

58 Fred H. Settelmeyercontract. So one of the reasons—and theBureau of Reclamation knows the reason—that I opposed the way that they were tryingto sell the project was the fact that we didn’tknow how much of the river would belongto us after the dam was built, whether waterthat we stored, historically had used, andeveryone in the valley had used, was going tobe stored and then sold to us. Why, of course,it made a great difference, and the area neverfound out. Of course, I understand that somefigures that were suggested that what portionof the stream flow should be available forpeople in the valley, which were developed incompact negotiations, was acceptable to thelocal Bureau of Reclamation representatives.But they were not acceptable to agencies inWashington. And we found out, in the severaltrips that we made to Washington, that therewas more conflict between the agencies therethan there was between the local people, byfar. You’d run into this every once in a while:“Well, if it wasn’t for so and so, we could dothis, but don’t say I said so” [laughing]. Soyour hands are tied too often.should pay for himself. But that, of course, isa matter of opinion, whether this is the wayit should be. The people [who] have reallyused them, of course, would disagree withme on that, and I have no objection to that.It’s an established agency. You might questionwhether the government or the people neededthem all, hut once there, when the Congresssets this up and it’s available, I suppose weshould use it.Comment on the Soil ConservationServiceThey have been of real assistance infurnishing technical assistance in levelingland and in getting community effort indiversion dams. Certainly, they have donetheir part in being interested in reservoirconstruction and in technical help. And, ofcourse, I think they almost have the sametelephone number; there are times whenit’s just hard for me to know where theSoil Conservation’s authority ends and theagricultural stabilization committee begins, orvice versa. But they work closely together, andthere are times when I think that they furnishmore assistance that perhaps the cooperator

4Summary on Political PhilosophyWe perhaps should discuss the generalpolitical philosophy of Douglas County. Ofcourse, over the years, Douglas County has beennoted for being the banner Republican countyof the state of Nevada. However, I must alsosay, on the local level, they were never—well,never afraid of crossing party lines. am surethat many of the candidates of the Democraticparty that were serving in the courthouse anddoing a job had Republican support. If thecommunity felt they were doing a job, theydisregarded political affiliation completely. In[the] case of the recorder’s office, I’m certainthat every recorder for more than fifty yearshas been a member of the Democratic party.We have elected Democratic sheriffs.People certainly took their partyorganization seriously, but they took theirobligations of citizenship even more seriously.I believe it’s just the tradition of DouglasCounty, or has been that way for many, manyyears. I might add we are not sure that we canalways keep it that way.[How about my own political philosophies?][Consulting papers] Well, I could read you oneparagraph, and I believe that would cover it all.I had occasion to put together a few remarks atone time. I was in the middle of, or you mightsay in the front line of state finances. I probablywouldn’t think of writing it today, but I stillbelieve what I said then:It is painfully written in the pagesof history, and it is obvious to allwho will read, that long before anygovernment can give its people allthat they want, it will have takenfrom them all that they have, thata people which characteristicallyseeks freedom from responsibilityeventually ends up without freedom.I have nothing to add to that.

Original Index:For Reference OnlyIn order to standardize the design of all UNOHP transcripts for the online database, they havebeen reformatted, a process that was completed in early 2012. This document may therefore differin appearance and pagination from earlier printed versions. Rather than compile entirely newindexes for each volume, the UNOHP has made each transcript fully searchable electronically. Ifa previous version of this volume existed, its original index has been appended to this documentfor reference only. A link to the entire catalog can be found online at http://oralhistory.unr.edu/.

62 Fred H. SettelmeyerAAdams, .Jewett W., 1Agriculture, Nevada department,33Air Force, U.S., 33-34Alpine County, California,99Alpine Land and ReservoirCompany, 18-19, 99-101See also: U. S. vs.AZpineAnderson, John Vs. HenryBassman, et aZ, 109-110Arizona vs. CaZifornia, 46Armstrong, Charles J., 45BDC28, 30,Cahill, Robbins E., 31-32California-Nevada InterstateCompact Commission,102-112, 113, 120Carson City, Nevada, 2, 5Dangberg, Henry Fred, Jr.,100, 127Dangberg Land and LivestockCompany (Carson Valley),2Democrats, 26, 30-31, 37,69, 73, 75, 131De Ricco, Elmo, 46-47DeVore, George, 94-95Douglas County High School(Carson Valley), 4, 7Douglas County SchoolBoard, 12

Original Index: For Reference Only63Dressler, Fred, 18-19, 23,34Dressler, William F., 18-19,23,26,27,127Duffin, Press w., 29Engle, Clair, 127, 128Englestead, Van, 84EFHermit Valley (California),19Hershiser, Beulah, 12Hesson, A. W., 9Hickel, Walter, 112, 117Hicks, Marion, 65Horlacher, Fred C., 32Humphrey, Marvin, 77Iu. S.Fairview district school(Carson Valley), 6, 8Fish and Game Commission,California, 107Fish and Game Commission,Nevada, 107 ~Foley, Roger, 96 ~~a .Fort Wayne, Indiana, 91tl:~:Frank, William J., 53 ~~~Frantzen, John, 100 1tl '.~Frazier, Maude, 5 ~~o~~agh~ y rles D., 53~, mbl ~c5ntrol BoardSE?-' Gaming CommissionGa ~ng Commission, Nevadastate, 73-75General Foods Corporation,6General Services Administration,U. P., 38Germans, 1-2, 11Germany, 1Gettysburg College (Pennsylvania),8-10Goldfield, Nevada, 8Gorvine, Albert, 41Hawley, Thomas P., 90Heise, Fritz, 100Henningsen, Carsten M.,100, 127HJ71Johnson, Kenneth F., 28,30, 35, 85Jones, Clifford, 65Jones, Elizabeth E. Weyburn,99Justice, U. S. Department,94, 96Keith, George W., 99Knisley, Raymond L.,70-72, 77, 81, 82KL44,Lamy, George I., 99Las Vegas, Nevada, 36Lattin, Ralph, 31, 32, 35,50, 65Laxalt, Paul A., 112, 121Legislative Commission,Nevada state, 61Legislature, Nevada state,23-89, 102Leland, Robert, 96, 113

64 Fred H. SettelmeyerLemaire, Rene W., 30, 31,32, 35Livingston, Adolph, 99Lobbyists, 36, 37, 81-86Loomis, E. Frandsen, 29Love, !1alcolm, 42, 45Lovelock, Forest, 35Luning, Nevada, 8McMcDonald, Russell, 66McGuirk, Don, 29McHenry [university]report, 66aOccidental Land and ImprovementCompany, 3, 101Oil and Gas ConservationCommission, Nevada state,53Orr, R. R., 53PValleyMMarble Bluffs dam (Nevada),Mason14Mills College, 634,52Pyramid LakeNNeddenriep, ~ritz, 18-19Neddenriep, l'1i:lliam, 19Nevada Cattle Association,14, 81-82Nevada Industrial Commission(NIC), 76Nevada Livestock Association,14Newlands, Francis Griffith,3, 101Newlands ReclamationProject, 101-102, 125-126See also: Truckee­Carson IrrigationDistrictNores, Edgar L., 32RReagan, Ronald, 112Reclamation, U. S. Bureau,95, 98, 112, 117, 118,127, 128, 129Red Lake (California), 100Renda, Charles, 118Reno, Nevada, 6, 7, 40Republicans, 23, 26, 27,28, 29, 30-31, 37, 54,73, 131

Original Index: For Reference Only65Retirement Board, Nevadastate, 76-78"Right to Work" law,Nevada, 40-41Robbins, John E., 26-28,30,51-52Russell, Charles H., 49,50, 51, 54-55, 64-65Ryan, James G. "Sailor,"84, 86Strosnider, Fred, 32Surveyor-General, Nevadastate, 49Swackhamer, William, 72T104,33SSadler, Reinhold, 99Sanders, C. F., 9Sawyer, Grant, 68, 69, 72,73, 74, 75, 81Scott Lake (California),UTrma, 5, 6James Theodore,Worth-Settelmeyer, William H., 5Shamberger, Hugh A., 46-47Sierra Pacific Power Company,105Sierra Valley (California),108Soil Conservation Service,U. S., 130Sommer, Clarence E., 30Springmeyer, H. H., 2, 100Springmeyer, Jeff, 41Stillwater Wildlife Refuge(Nevada), 116Udall, Stewart, 117Union Mill and Mining Company,90-91United States vs. AlpineLand and ReservoirCompany, 94-97, 100,104, 110See also: Carson RiverUnited States vs. Orr DitahCompany, 103, 104, 106See also: TruckeeRiverUniversity of Nevada, 42-43,44, 45, 67, 68, 69-70,71-72, 87

66 Fred H. SettelmeyervVan Duzer, Clarence D., 4Vaughn, E. Otis, 7Virginia City, Nevada, 8WWalker River (Nevada­California), 103, 107,112, 125-126Washoe Project (Nevada­California), 95, 126-130Welfare Department, Nevadastate, 47-49Westergard, Roland, 47Whitacre, Walter, 53Wilson, Loyd, 32World War I, 11-12World War II, 12-13, 25XYZ