Hon. CLINTON ANDERSON, ARIZONA STATE AFL-CIO, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: We, in organized labor, living in the reclamation area are very much concerned with the efforts of some who propose to reduce the 56-year-old antimonopoly, antispeculation provision of the Federal law relating to the excess land provisions which distributes water equitably among the people. We feel that the reasons for retaining the excess land law are as good today as they were when adopted in 1902. We are definitely opposed to S. 2541 and S. 3448, but favor S. 1425 which does provide the vehicle to support the 56-year-old land provision and demands its inclusion in the Small Reclamation Projects Act through its adoption. The Arizona State, AFL-CIO would sincerely appreciate your efforts in supporting our position in the above-mentioned matter. Sincerely, K. S. BROWN, Secretary-Treasurer. Hon. CLINTON ANDERSON, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, Defiance, Mo., April 23, 1958. Chairman, Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: May I express my support of the present excess land law and my opposition to any change in same that will permit irrigation of greater acreage than the present law permits. The current law discourages irrigation of larger acreage than the current 160 acres per individual or 320 acres for man and wife thereby encourages family farming and discourages or curbs monopoly and speculation on holdings of irrigated land. Your support of the current law or measures that will strengthen same will be appreciated. Sincerely, SAMUEL L. NEWMAN, General Vice President, Retired. STATEMENT OF CALIFORNIA FARM RESEARCH AND LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, 740 HILMAR STREET, SANTA CLARA, CALIF. Hon. Clinton P. Anderson, subcommittee chairman, and members of the subcommittee and full committee: At the 17th annual meeting of the California Farm Research and Legislative Committee at the Hotel Californian, Fresno, Saturday, April 26, 1958, the following statement in support of retaining the 160-acre limitation provision of Federal reclamation law was unanimously adopted and I was authorized to submit this to you as our position in respect to Senate bills S. 1425, 2541, and 3440: Our committee urges that there be no changes or alterations regarding the 160-acre provision of Federal reclamation law. We speak for 1,000 committee members who operate their own farms and for affiliated producer cooperatives to which they belong. Our members are located in every agricultural area in California and produce nearly every type of farm commodity. We speak, as well, for church, labor, and community organizations, including soil conservation and water districts affiliated with us who support our reclamation policies. Since the inception of our committee in 1941 we have stood stanchly behind the excess land provision of reclamation law as a means to equitably distribute water for irrigation which is developed at public expense; to encourage widespread ownership of land as the basis for maintaining rural democracy; to preserve family-size farm ownership; to prevent monopoly in farm production and control land speculation; and to curb the growth of corporate farming and concentration of economic power. The reasons for retaining the 160-acre limitation are as valid today as they were when the policy was adopted in 1902 and specifically reaffirmed in the acts of 1906, 1910, 1911, 1912, 1914, 1916, 1924, 1926, 1927, 1937, and 1943. It is our belief that any such major policy, upheld by both political parties under several administrations, can be fairly described as true national policy. The excess land law is especially important to the people of California where there has been a continual struggle against land and water monopoly. Huge land grants under the Spanish and Mexican Governments and later by the United States Government to the railroads, coupled with extensive frauds under the California Desert Land, Swamp Land, and Timber Culture Acts, concentrated potentially arable land in a few hands and greatly reduced acreage available to settlers. The State constitution, the Wright Act of 1887, and the Water Project Act of 1933, have placed the people of the State on record against land monopoly and in favor of use of land and water resources for the general good. We favor enactment of S. 1425 (Douglas, Morse, and Neuberger), which would repeal the Barrett formula in the so-called Small Reclamation Project Act. This formula permits owners of excess acres to obtain project water by payments of their pro rata share of interest on the facilities required to serve their excess lands. We feel that there is no justification for this breach in reclamation law. We see no reason why excess landowners in areas served by small projects should be treated any differently from those served by large projects. We oppose S. 2541 (Barrett) which would extend the Barrett formula to projects delivering a "supplementary supply of water for irrigation" or "to lands which have been subjected to cultivation for the production" of crops for more than 10 years prior to authorization of the project. Application of this principle would virtually eliminate acreage limitation from the Central Valley project service area to the detriment of family-size farms and for the gross enrichment of corporate farms. Unlimited use of project water by a 1000-acre farm in the Central Valley project service area would result in a subsidy to that farm of $577,000 over a 50-year period, according to Congressmen Clair Engle, Harlan Hagen, B. F. Sisk, and John McFall in a letter sent by them to Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, February 4, 1957. Such a subsidy, paid for by power users and taxpayers, cannot be justified. We also oppose enactment of S. 3448 which would permit the Secretary of Interior to set an acreage limit on the Seedskadee project above the 160-acre figure on application of the Governor of Wyoming. Enactment of this bill would open the way for governors of other States to enable special interests to pressure the Secretary of Interior resulting in a general onslaught on the excess limitations of reclamation law. In most areas, 320 irrigated acres (160 each for man and wife), using modern mechanical equipment, are sufficient to provide an ample living for a family. Where land is so unproductive that more than 320 acres are required to yield a fair living, we feel that Congress should thoroughly explore the situation before authorizing and appropriating public funds to provide water for such land for the benefit of a minimum number of landowners. We respectfully ask that this statement be made a part of the record in your hearings. STATEMENT BY H. L. MITCHELL, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL WORKERS UNION, AFL-CIO, WASHINGTON, D. C. To the UNITED STATES SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION: The National Agricultural Workers Union AFL-CIO urges the retention of the 160-acre limitation policy first written into law when the National Reclamation Act was adopted in 1902. We do not believe it to be to the best interest of the people of the United States for the Government to further subsidize corporation farming as is contemplated in the objectives of two of the bills, S. 2541 and S. 3448, now before your committee. We support S. 1425 which provides that the water resources paid for by the taxpayers of the Nation shall be so used as to benefit the greatest number of farmers. Although the National Agricultural Workers Union represents directly only a few of the 2 million farmworkers, it is the only organization in the trade union movement that can speak for those who have been the real victims of corporation farm operation in the United States. In our 25 years of existence under one name or any other, we have seen the Congress of the United States enact one law after another designed to further the interests of big business in agriculture. These interests saw to it that the people who do the work on the Nation's farms were denied any real benefits from the adoption of the first Agricultural Adjustment Act. All agricultural workers were then specifically excluded by Congress from the benefits of subsequent social legislation enacted, such as the Social Security Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the National Labor Relations laws. It was not until 1954 that most farmworkers were brought under the old-age and survivors' insurance provision of social security. We have also seen the large-scale corporate farmers become the chief beneficiaries of price-support laws and the soil-bank program. Throughout the years, special consideration has been given to the corporation farmers by Congress in the importation of hundreds of thousands of workers from foreign lands who are willing to work for low wages and under conditions that Americans must also accept or leave agriculture for precarious jobs in service trades or industries. We have also seen many thousand independent farm families forced to leave the land as a result of competition from large operators and join the stream of the landless and homeless migrant workers seeking to make a living by working on land which they do not own. It appears to us that the time has come when the Congress of the United States should consider many of the programs affecting American agriculture, and that a good place to begin is with the one concerned with the irrigation and reclamation laws. These laws should be strengthened, and we believe that S. 1425 is a good beginning. AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, 425 13th Street NW., Washington, D. C., May 1, 1958. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: S. 2541 provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall have authority to establish a higher acreage limitation on any reclamation project if he "determines that more than 160 irrigable acres *** is necessary for the support of an average-sized family at a suitably profitable level." Although the American Farm Bureau Federation favors increasing the maximum acreage under such circumstances, we believe it advisable that the discretionary authority to do so be vested, as at present, in the Congress, rather than in an executive agency. The bill also would provide that owners of land in excess of the maximum acreage provided in reclamation law may receive water for such excess acreage upon payment therefor of a higher rate, such higher rate to include an interest component. The American Farm Bureau Federation has no policy with respect to the extension of this principle to reclamation projects other than those constructed under authority of the Small Projects Act. Our executive committee has directed that an analysis of this issue be provided to State farm bureaus for our policy development program this fall, as a result of which we may have a policy on this issue next year. S. 1425 would provide that the acreage limitation provisions of reclamation law shall be applicable to projects constructed under the Small Projects Act. It is our belief that the "interest on excess water" formula provided in the Small Project Act is, for purposes of the type of project covered by such act, preferable to the general reclamation law acreage limitations, and that S. 1425 should not therefore be approved. It will be appreciated if you will incorporate this letter in the record of the hearing. Very sincerely, MATT TRIGGS, Assistant Legislative Director. Senator CLINTON ANDERSON, AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION, 1317 Arch Street, Berkeley, Calif., April 17, 1958. Chairman, Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: Having learned that the Senate Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation will conduct hearings, under your chairmanship, on the excess land provision of the reclamation law on April 30, 1958, we should like to make the following statement and respectfully request that you include it in the record of the hearings on S. 1425, S. 2541, and S. 3448. The East Bay Chapter of Americans for Democratic Action supports the historic excess land provision of the reclamation law. The law distributes water equitably so as to justify public expenditure for public benefit, to prevent monopoly and speculation, to curb the concentration of economic power, to preserve family-size farming and a broad economic base for American political and social democracy. The reasons which justify the excess land provision of the reclamation law are as good today as they were in 1902 when the law was enacted. Now as then public money is to be spent for the benefit of the many, not for the enrichment of the few, now as then family-size farming creates more local business, greater opportunity for more people in farming, business, and the professions; now as then the communities which grow as the result of equitable distribution of water for irrigation are more stable, more democratic, and healthier. The public record shows that 160 acres the acreage limit for which the American taxpayer, through the Federal Government, is to furnish water under the law is sufficient to support a family in any region of the United States in which it is considered advisable to build Federal reclamation projects. Areas which, by reasons of soil or climate, require irrigated farms of greater size in order to support a family should be excluded from consideration by the Government as possible sites for irrigation works, for they would require the expenditure of enormous sums of money in order to irrigate a few holdings. 1958, the year of Theodore Roosevelt's 100th birthday, is a fitting year in which to reaffirm our country's belief in the democratic ideas of the Great Conservationist who realized that in water no less than in land, monopoly must not be tolerated, and that equitable distribution of benefits arising from the spending of public money is in accord with the principles underlying our Constitution. Being unable to be represented before you in person but living in an area which will be strongly affected by the proposed legislation, we should, therefore, like to go on record as supporting S. 1425, introduced by Senators Douglas, Morse, and Neuberger, and as opposed to the bills introduced by Senator Barrett. Respectfully, CARL LANDAUER, Chairman, Action Committee. YOUNG DEMOCRATS OF FRESNO COUNTY, 844 Van Ness Street, Fresno, Calif., April 25, 1958. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, DEAR SIR: I enclose a copy of the resolution which was passed at a meeting of the Young Democrats of Fresno County on April 24, 1958. Will you please have this resolution published in the record of the hearings of the Senate Irrigation Reclamation Subcommittee, which opened April 30, 1958, on S. 1425, S. 2541, and S. 3448. Very truly yours, JEFFERSON E. HAHESY. RESOLUTION OF YOUNG DEMOCRATS OF FRESNO COUNTY Fresno County Young Democrats favor the restoration of Federal reclamation regulations against water monopoly and land speculation to their full vigor. We favor the plugging of all loopholes and evasions of this bulwark of democracy and equal opportunity on water projects in the West. Specifically, we favor S. 1425 introduced by those great liberal Democratic Senators, Paul Douglas, Wayne Morse, and Richard Neuberger, which would restore to the Small Reclamation Projects Act the full force of reclamation law which was designed to bring water to the West and prevent large landowners from reaping a perpetual financial and political harvest at the expense of Federal taxpayers across the land and to the permanent disadvantage of family farmers, small-business men, workers, and liberal democratic institutions. We oppose S. 2541 and S. 3448 introduced by Republican Senator Frank Barrett, which would further emasculate reclamation law. The so-called 160-acre limitation, even strictly enforced, is interpreted to allow a man and wife water for 320 acres, and even more depending on how many children they have and/or how many loopholes they can find. But even these liberal interpretations do not satisfy the greedy corporate farmers in California. Most of them obtained their present powerful positions through devious political and financial deals in former generations. As a result, they already wield an unhealthy influence in our political affairs. But they smell more dollars; their hunger apparently knows no bounds. They are more than willing to wax fat off the substandard wages and working conditions of their workers or to beef up their bank accounts at the Federal Treasury trough as they are now doing at Pine Flat or as they are planning to do at San Luis. If they get their way, if the Barrett bills and other dodges are provided them, we can prepare the great Central Valleys for an endless string of squalid farm labor camps occupied only seasonally by workers imported to do the bidding of California's land barons. CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF YOUNG DEMOCRATS, Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, April 28, 1958. United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: The California Federation of Young Democrats has long been interested in water policy as it effects California and other States. I enclose a copy of a resolution which was passed on April 26, 1958, at a meeting of the Central Committee of the California Federation of Young Democrats. We request that this resolution be recorded in the record of the hearings of the Senate Irrigation and Reclamation Subcommittee on S. 1425, S. 2451 and S. 3448. Very truly yours, RICHARD NEVINS. RESOLUTION OF CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF YOUNG DEMOCRATS California Federation of Young Democrats favor the restoration of Federal reclamation regulations against water monopoly and land speculation to their full vigor. We favor the plugging of all loopholes and evasions of this bulwark of democracy and equal opportunity on water projects in the West. Specifically, we favor S. 1425, introduced by those great liberal Democratic Senators, Paul Douglas, Wayne Morse, and Richard Neuberger, which would restore to the Small Reclamation Projects Act the full force of reclamation law which was designed to bring water to the West and prevent large landowners from reaping a perpetual financial and political harvest at the expense of Federal taxpayers across the land and to the permanent disadvantage of family farmers, small-business men, workers, and liberal democratic institutions. We oppose S. 2541 and S. 3448 introduced by Republican Senator Frank Barrett, which would further emasculate reclamation law. The so-called 160-acre limitation, even strictly enforced, is interpreted to allow a man and wife water for 320 acres, and even more depending on how many children they have and/or how many loopholes they can find. But even these liberal interpretations do not satisfy the greedy corporate farmers in California. Most of them obtained their present powerful positions through devious political and financial deals in former generations. As a result, they already wield an unhealthy influence in our political affairs. But they smell more dollars; their hunger apparently knows no bounds. They are more than willing to wax fat off the substandard wages and working conditions of their workers or to beef up their bank accounts at the Federal Treasury trough as they are now doing at Pine Flat or as they are planning to |