Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Senator BARRETT. Let me ask you one more question, then, Mr. Kenfield. On page 3 of your statement the prices that you are comparing are present day with Korean war prices, are they not? Mr. KENFIELD. When was the Korean war? Senator BARRETT. I think that is it.

Mr. KENFIELD. It is true they were the high-level prices. However, even at that time there were many families on the farm that were not getting an adequate income.

Senator BARRETT. Is that all you have to say?
Mr. KENFIELD. Yes.
Senator BARRETT. Thank you very much.
Do
you

have a statement you would like to make, Mr. McDonald ? Mr. McDonald. Yes, Mr. Chairman. STATEMENT OF ANGUS MCDONALD, COORDINATOR, DIVISION OF

LEGISLATIVE SERVICES, NATIONAL FARMERS UNION Senator BARRETT. You may proceed.

Mr. McDONALD. My name is Angus McDonald. I am coordinator for the National Farmers Union in Washington, the legislative division.

First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that this statement which I will pass over in just a second be filed in the record. I have a telegram from Carl Kraenzel, professor of rural sociology, department of agriculture and economics, Montana State College, and this telegram authorizes me to request the chairman to have this filed in the record. Professor Kraenzel failed to send his statement in to the chairman as he should have, and I suggested to him if he wanted it filed to authorize me to request this statement be made a part of the record.

Senator BARRETT. Mr. Kraenzel's telegram and statement will be printed in the record following your remarks.

Mr. McDONALD. I would like to read part of it and present it in the record in toto.

Senator BARRETT. Do you want to take some parts of it out?
Mr. McDonald. I would like to read some parts of it and I would

.
like Mr. Patton's summary statement printed as presented.

Senator BARRETT. Mr. Patton's summary statement will be received for the record at this point.

(Mr. Patton's summary statement follows:)

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF JAMES G. PATTON, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS

UNION The position of the National Farmers Union in regard to the excess-lands provisions of the reclamation laws may be summarized as follows:

(1) The National Farmers Union looks on the excess-lands provisions as an accepted policy of the Nation dating from 1776, when entail was abolished by the Legislature of Virginia. Subsequent laws enacted by the Congress had as their purpose the encouragement, preservation, and creation of family-sized farms. The keystone of land policy was represented in the Homestead Act of

1862.

(2) The Reclamation Act of 1902 was merely an extension of the family-farm policy carried on in the 19th century. Sponsors of the legislation said that

"It is a step in advance of any legislation we have ever had in guarding against the possibility of speculative land holdings and in providing for small farms and homes on the public lands, while it will also compel the division into small holdings of any large areas. * * * in private ownership which may be irrigated under its provision."

(3) The excess lands limitations is actually 320 acres, not 160, since a Department of Interior ruling permitted the owner to transfer 160 acres in excess to his wife. The excess-lands provisions should therefore be referred to as a 320acre limitation.

(4) Economic studies in Montana showed that 320 acres of irrigated land is more than sufficient to maintain a family. One study indicated than 58 of 100 irrigated farms included 158.6 acres or less of irrigated lands ; 88 percent included farms on which 308.2 acres or less were irrigated. Significantly, much of the land was not irrigated but was considered to be of great economic importance to the farmer.

In the subhumid cotton area of Oklahoma, a study showed that farms in 1 area averaged 304 acres, 132 irrigated and 172 dry land; two-thirds of these had 130 acres or less of irrigated land.

An Oregon study of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics showed that 99 percent of the farms in 1 project had less than 200 acres irrigated and that 86 percent had less than 80 acres under irrigation. Another study showed that even in the so-called large farm areas that only about 100 acres per farm on the average were irrigated.

(5) Studies of the Department of Agriculture and State agricultural experiment stations indicate that a good income may be made on a 320-acre farm or less of irrigated land.

In the ranch area of North Dakota 45 acres of irrigated land increases income by 30 percent. On a similar ranch it was estimated that a 162 acres of irrigated land would increase income by 65 percent.

In the San Joaquin Valley in California net income on 80 irrigated acres amounted to $7,862, on 160 acres to $17,194, on 320 acres the net income was $35,705.

In the Pecos Valley, N. Mex., net income of irrigated farms of 40 to 320 acres ranged from $2,995 to $28,933.

In North Dakota a study indicated that with from 71 to 135 irrigated acres and with 160 to 880 dry acres, net income could be from $6,430 to $9.683.

These studies prove that 320 acres of irrigated land is sufficient for a family. The question may be raised quite properly that if a crop is so low priced or land production is so poor as not to produce enough to support a family, should a reclamation project subsidized heavily with taxpayers' money be developed in the first place?

(6) According to Representative Engle, chairman of the House Interior Committee, capital investment on land averages $350 per acre in the Central Valley of California. Of this amount the irrigator, even with an interest free loan, will pay back only $123,000, even though under the Engle formula excess landholders would pay interest that would be subsidized to the extent of $227,000 per 1,000 acres. The question is whether or not the United States Government should subsidize large landowners and corporations who own many thousands of acres. According to records published by this committee, the Kern County Land Co. owned in 1946--231,037 acres, the Standard Oil Co. owned 79,844 acres, and other corporations smaller amounts.

According to one report, the Southern Pacific Railroad owns 150,000 acres in potentially irrigable areas.

(7) The National Farmers Union recommends that the 320-acre limitation not be increased but that the Secretary of Interior, after hearings, be authorized to adjust the limitation downward to adapt it to types of farming characteristic of different areas.

Senator Barrett. You may now proceed with Mr. Patton's statement.

Mr. McDonald. I will proceed to cover the statement of James G. Patton, president of the National Farmers Union.

Let me inject, Mr. Chairman, a statement in regard to S. 3448 which is not covered in this statement.

We are not at this time taking any position on this bill due to the fact that the Department of the Interior at the time we composed our statement had not released its report. I gather that the Department of the Interior will report or is reporting today, perhaps, on

your bill and we were waiting until we got some expert opinion before we made up our minds on this particular bill.

Senator BARRETT. I understand. You can file a statement later if you want to on S. 3448.

Mr. McDONALD. Thank you.

We are appearing here in support of the so-called excess lands provisions as set forth in the reclamation laws and in support of S. 1425 which would amend the Small Projects Act to conform to the excess-lands provisions and in opposition to S. 2541 which would permit the Secretary of the Interior to exempt farms from the excess sands law. We call attention first to the resolution approved by the biennial convention of the National Farmers Union convened in March 1958:

The excess lands provisions governing the use of water in Federal irrigation projects in the Federal reclamation law should be preserved.

The position of the National Farmers Union in regard to distribution of subsidized water from Federal projects has, we feel, not been inconsistent with the land policies of the United States Government which originated in Colonial times and which have been reaffirmed many times since. The Legislature of Virginia abolished entail in 1776, curbing the right of individuals to hold landed estates intact. Thomas Jefferson deemed such a practice "essential to a wellordered republic.” Its purpose, he said, wasto annul * * * privilege, and instead of an aristocracy of wealth, of more harm and danger, than benefit to society, to make an opening for the aristocracy of virtue and talent, which nature has wisely provided for the direction of the interests of society, and scattered with equal hand through all its conditions. * * *

This view of Thomas Jefferson became accepted as a national policy as is evidenced by the action of Congress in attempting to secure as wide a distribution of lands in the public domain as was economically feasible. Laws were passed which made it possible for veterans to carve homes and farms out of the wilderness and in 1862 the great homestead law was passed which allowed a man and his wife to settle on the public lands and to secure title to such lands after meeting certain conditions.

The passage of the Reclamation Act in 1902, in our view, was merely an extension of the family farm policy carried on in the 19th century.

The sponsors of the reclamation law clearly stated the objectives of the 160-acre limitation. Congressman Frank Mondell said in discussing the legislation:

It is a step in advance of any legislation we have ever had in guarding against the possibility of speculative land holdings and in providing for small farms and homes on the public land, while it will also compel the division into small holdings of any large areas. in private ownership which may be irrigated under its provision.

Congressman Newlands, another one of the sponsors, said:

Lord McCauley said we would never experience the test of our institutions until our public domain was exhausted and an increased population engaged in a contest for the ownership of land. That will be the test of the future, and the very purpose of this bill is to guard against land monopoly and to hold this land in small tracts ... to give to each man only the amount of land that will be necessary for the support of a family. . .

One of those responsible for the antimonopoly or family-farm provision in the 1902 Reclamation Act was President Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt was so concerned about landownership that he feared if a time ever came when it was concentrated in the hands of a few that the foundations of our democratic government would be undermined. Roosevelt expressed those fears before the Commonwealth Club of California in 1912:

Now I have struck the crux of my appeal. I wish to save the very wealthy men of this country and their advocates and upholders from the ruin that they would bring upon themselves if they are permitted to have their way. It is because I am against revolution; it is because I am against the doctrines of the extremists, of the Socialists; it is because I wish to see this country of ours continued as a genuine democracy; it is because I distrust violence and disbelieve in it; it is because I wish to secure this country against ever seeing a time when the "have-nots" shall rise against the "haves"; it is because I wish to secure for our children the same freedom of opportunity, the same peace and order and justice that we have had in the past.

It should be pointed out that the excess lands limitation is at least 320 acres per family rather than 160, as is commonly believed. As early as 1904 a Department of Interior ruling permitted the owner to transfer ownership of the excess to his wife and minor children so that they too might receive water rights. The excess lands provision should therefore be referred to as the 320-acre limitation. An examination of a number of Department of Agriculture publications indicates that 320 acres of irrigated land is more than sufficient to maintain a family. Here are the results of a few of the studies:

Senator BARRETT. You remember that this morning we discussed the matter that you could only get 160 acres of public land presently.

Mr. McDONALD. I am aware of that. This limitation we are considering here refers to water rights from Federal reclamation projects. Unless an owner and his wife have 320 acres it is impossible for them to get the water because the water does not make any sense without land to go with it.

Land, of course, does not make any sense without water to go with it.

Senator BARRETT. A settler on a public-lands project can only get 160 acres. His wife cannot get another 160 acres. That is my

understanding of the public-land laws.

Mr. McDONALD. One hundred irrigated farms were studied in Montana, 50 of them in the Clarks Fork area in the southern part of the State, and 50 in the Greenfield and Conrad-Valier area in the northern part of the State. Fifty-eight of these 100 irrigated farms included 158.6 acres or less of irrigated lands; 88 percent included farms on which 308.2 acres or less were irrigated. Much of the land was not irrigated at all but was considered to be of great economic importance by the farmers and by those making the study. (For further details see Farm Organization and Production Requirements in Selected Irrigated Areas, Montana State College Bulletin No. 453, October 1948.)

Another Montana study is significant from the standpoint of income. This bulletin (Resource Needs and Income Potentials on Newly Irrigated Family-Operated Farms Lower Marias Project, Montana State College Bulletin 521, June 1956) indicates that a dairy farmer could make a good living on 160 acres or less of irrigated land. Five different farm plans were studied. Results varied, but it was concluded in all instances that 140 acres of irrigated land was enough to

support a farm family. One of the farms, it was found, would yield at 215 index price levels (that is at prices 2.15 times as much as they were during the period 1910–14. This was a prosperous period for farmers) a net farm income of $5,677.

Looking at Oklahoma (Irrigated Farms in a Subhumic Cotton Area, PSDA Circular 980) a 1956 study was made of an irrigation project which included 341 cotton farms. These farms averaged 304 acres, 132 of irrigated land and 172 of dry land. Significantly, 285 of the 341 farms had 179 acres or less of irrigated land; 247 included only 130 acres or less of irrigated land. In this study, as in others, it was pointed out that size of farms in the project was not an adequate measure of an irrigated farm. Most of the farms included land that was not irrigable and on the farms as a whole, nonirrigated land exceeded that which was irrigated.

In Utah, in 1952, the State agricultural college published a study of the Webber Basin reclamation project. The study as a whole included 50,000 acres of irrigated land, plus 24,000 supplementally irrigated. Here also dry land is significant, particularly in the mountainous part of the project where only 71.4 acres on the average were irrigated in an average 310.4 acre farm.

An Oregon study of Bureau of Agricultural Economics showed that of 79 farms in 1 project 99 percent had less than 200 acres irrigated and 92 percent had less than 100 acres under irrigation.

We call attention to 2 other studies, 1 made in Nebraska and another in North Dakota. Because these studies, relate to so-called large farms they are of particular interest. In the Sargeant area of Nebraska a project referred to as the “big farm area” showed average size of the farms was 472 acres. However, only 102 acres per farm on the average were irrigated.

The North Dakota study which was published in June 1955, by the agricultural experiment station, pertains to cattle and sheep ranches and attempted to determine what effect irrigation would have on farm income in a ranching area. On one 1,120-acre cattle ranch it was estimated that 45 acres of irrigated land would increase the income from $1,773 to $2,298, or 30 percent. On a similar ranch it was estimated that 162 acres of irrigated land would increase income from $3,906 to $6,462, or 65 percent. On a sheep ranch of the same size, income resulting from irrigation would increase from $4,280 to $7,091, or 86 percent.

Results of other studies in regard to acreage and income may be summarized as follows:

In the San Joaquin Valley in California net income on 80 irrigated acres amounted to $7,862, on 160 acres to $17,194; on 320 acres the net income was $35,705 (County Cotton-Potato farms—Costs, Returns, and Scale of Operation, Chester 0. McCorkle, Report No. 143, California Agricultural Experiment Station).

In the southern San Joaquin Valley net income amounted to $5,856 on 92 acres, $3,708 on 71 acres and $10,082 on 288 acres (Economics of Scale of Farming in the San Joaquin Valley, Calif. J. Karl Lee, Berkeley, April 1946, pp. 106 and 114).

In the Greeley Triangle area in Colorado, net income from 187 acres amounted to $9,148 (R. T. Burdick, Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Miscellaneous Series 494, August 1951).

« ForrigeFortsett »