CRIPPA MOTOR CO., Mr. EDWIN R. LANG, Rock Springs, Wyo., April 21, 1958. Chief of Water Development, Wyoming Natural Resources Board, Cheyenne, Wyo. DEAR MR. LANG: I understand that your board will appear before the United States Senate Interior Committee in the near future in regards to the 160-acre limitation provisions of the Reclamation Act. I have lived all my life in this western part of Wyoming, can say that it is impossible for a family to make a decent living on this kind of acreage, where the altitude is high and the growing season is short. We urge you to appeal to the Interior Committee to increase the acreage so that it will be economically feasible and adequate for a family to make a decent living. Yours truly, Mr. EDWIN R. LANG, E. D. CRIPPA. April 19, 1958. CITY OF ROCK SPRINGS, WYO., Chief, Water Development, Wyoming Natural Resources Board, Cheyenne, Wyo. DEAR MR. LANG: As mayor of the city of Rock Springs, I have been asked for my opinion in regard to the Seedskadee project west of Green River. It is my understanding that 60,000 acres of land will be set aside for farming purposes. I feel that a minimum of 250-acre tracts per farm should be let out in order to have a successful operation. I base my contention on the following reasons: 1. The altitude that these tracts are located in. 2. The short growing season. Yours very truly, PAUL J. WATAHA, Mayor. ROCK SPRINGS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Mr. EDWIN R. LANG, Chief of Water Development, Wyoming Natural Resources Board, Cheyenne, Wyo. DEAR MR. LANG: The Rock Springs Chamber of Commerce wishes to go on record endorsing the development of the Seedskadee project as soon as possible. This project, consisting of about 60,000 acres of new land located along the Green River between the towns of Green River and LaBarge, Wyo., would improve the sagging economy of southwestern Wyoming. We wish to draw attention to the fact that farm units within this area need to be somewhat larger than 160 acres. The limitations on size of farm encompassed in the Homestead and Reclamation Acts need to be revised for this area so that a family can obtain a suitable level of living. The high elevation and short growing season limit the crops to mostly forage and small grains. We cannot emphaize too strongly the need for legislation, allowing the establishment of family-size farms on the Seedskadee project which would exceed the 160-acre limitation of the Homestead and Reclamation Acts. Yours very truly, ANDREW ARNOTT, President. Senator ANDERSON. Senator Barrett, you are recognized. STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK A. BARRETT, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING Senator BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a short statement. I didn't take the opportunity of doing so when I was presiding. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a very brief statement with reference to my position on these bills, S. 2541 and S. 3448. I believe the time has come when it is incumbent upon the Congress to take a realistic approach to the question of acreage limitations. As I indicated this morning in my question to Senator Douglas, the Congress over the years had done the same thing with reference to the homestead law, and I believe the time has come now when we should approach a new formula for the irrigation homesteads. It seems ot me, Mr. Chairman, that all of the projects in the mountain areas that are suitable for development at the present time require enlarged acreages. It is true that, 50 years ago, a number of the more highly desirable areas were open for development and that the 160-acre limitation worked out in an orderly way and in a good fashion. But the fact of the matter is now that in these high altitudes where the growing season is very short, and where the soil is suitable only to the growing of crops which are supplemental feeds for livestock that the 160-acre limitation law no longer works to the betterment of the settler or for the good of the community where the project is located, or for the best interests of the country as a whole. I think that the United States Government is under an obligation, particularly to veterans and young people who come out to the West and desire to establish a home on an irrigation project, to protect them to the extent that they will not spend all of their savings and all of the money that they can borrow from their folks and find after a few years that the homestead is inadequate to support them and to maintain their family. Unfortunately, we have had that situation prevail in several areas of Wyoming. As a matter of fact, as I indicated this morning, upward of 100 veterans were brought out to the Riverton project in my State. They spent all of their savings in building a little home on the farms. They worked hard, but they found, after a period of 3 or 4 years, that they were unable to make a living on the homestead. It was necessary for us to enact legislation to resettle those veterans in Idaho and in New Mexico and Arizona and elsewhere throughout the country. They lost a great deal of money, and the communities where the projects were located suffered as a result of this terrible mistake in settling these veterans on 160-acre homesteads. I think that the provisions of this bill, S. 2541, will meet the changing conditions of the times and provide for enlarged farm units that will be economically feasible and adequate for profitable familyfarming enterprises. The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior, upon the request of a governor of a State, to permit larger farms where soil conditions, elevation, and climate and long-range capabilities warrant farm units in excess of 160 acres. This bill provides a good many safeguards to protect the people of the country. It also will protect the settler. It will give him a chance to make a living. You certainly do not do a settler any good to locate him on a farm where he doesn't have a Chinaman's chance to make out. Consequently, it seems to me that it is high time for the Congress to recognize this situation and to provide, under certain conditions, and after careful deliberation and upon the request of the governor, that the Secretary of the Interior make a study of the situ ation and determine the precise acreage that is needed in order to support a family on one of these units. I would have no objection whatsoever to an amendment that would authorize these increased acreages only where the committee—this committee and its comparable committee on the House side-would either affirmatively approve the decision of the Secretary of Interior or fail to raise any objections after a period of 60 days. Mr. Chairman, that is all I want to say at this time with reference to the country wide bill. The other bill that I have that is before this committee, and Mr. Lang just testified in support of, provides for the waiving of the limit of 160 acres on the Seedskadee project in Wyoming. As I indicated this morning, my State of Wyoming has contributed more than any other State in the whole country from its own soil in the form of royalties from oil and gas produced on the public lands of our State to the reclamation fund. As a result of the income to the reclamation fund from that source, and from the repayment by the farmers and from the income from power developed on the projects in our State, we have repaid the Federal Government not once but several times for all of the money it has expended on reclamation projects in Wyoming. In addition to that, States such as Illinois have received more money through the rivers and harbors bill for flood-control work than Wyoming has received in the form of reclamation projects. So, Mr, Chairman, it does seem to me that we ought to have a chance to develop these projects that remain in our State, all of them requiring larger homesteads than 160 acres. Either we are going to develop them so that the people who settle on these projects can make out and support a family in a decent American way, or we cannot develop them at all. It would be unconscionable for a State like Wyoming to find itself in the position where we cannot develop the irrigation projects in our State, particularly in view of the fact that we contribute such an enormous sum of money to the reclamation fund. So, Mr. Chairman, it does seem to me that this committee is obligated now to face up to the facts, and I believe the time has come. when we should adopt the more realistic approach to the irrigating farms on the public lands of the West, and I think this bill, while I am not sold that is entirely the only approach, is a fair approach to the solution of the problem. Thank you very much. Senator ANDERSON. Thank you, Senator Barrett. Anyone who served with you on this committee and knows your great interest in the laws of the West, whether they relate to mining or land or rights of States in water, appreciates your interest in it. I am happy to have your statement. Senator BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator ANDERSON. The next witness will be Mrs. Bennett, of the National Sharecroppers Fund. STATEMENT OF MRS. FAY BENNETT, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL SHARECROPPERS FUND, NEW YORK CITY Mrs. BENNETT. Before I begin my statement to this committee, I would like to say, if I may, that I listened very intently Sunday afternoon when the distinguished chairman was on the television program talking to the President about atomic energy. I for one among many Americans was very pleased and happy that we had the kind of thinking that went into what you said at that point, having to do with space age and possibly exploring the moon. I was bringing it to the subject at point. I would think that this was equally as important as the other subject. By way of introduction, the organization I represent, the National Sharecroppers Fund, is a nonprofit membership corporation with a deep concern for the welfare of low-income farm families. Its board of directors is made up of interested citizens and its funds come from voluntary contributions from people all over the country. We appreciate this opportunity to affirm our support for Senate bill 1425, which is on the American concept of family-sized farms, and to protest against the enactment of S. 3448 and S. 2541, whose effect would be to weaken or even to destroy that concept in certain areas. When the wasting away of our irreplaceable natural resources attracted widespread public concern, followed by legislation, at the turn of the century, two basic concepts emerged as the American method of handling land and water resources. The first was that when the Federal Government stepped in, every practical use should be made of funds expended in order to secure the maximum possible returns to the people; that is, a dam was not to be built for flood control alone if by intelligent planning it could also serve the people by irrigation of land, generation of power, protection of wildlife, and other constructive purposes. The second, in which our whole public land policy was rooted when this continent was settled by homesteaders, was that family ownership, occupancy, and development of land strengthened the social basis of republican government and deserved the support of law. From these two viewpoints the democratic water policy of the United States evolved. This subcommittee is now reviewing that part of this policy commonly called the excess land provision, which was written into the Reclamation Act or 1902. It allows enough water to be furnished from federally constructed dams to irrigate a family-sized farm, defined as 160 acres, with provision in specified cases for 320 acres for a couple, and 160 additional for a child. So we are not talking about 160-acre farms. Senator ANDERSON. It does not specify that in all cases? Mrs. BENNETT. I believe most States allow a husband and wife each to have 160 acres. Senator ANDERSON. That is a ruling by the Department of Interior. Mrs. BENNETT. It operates that way. Senator ANDERSON. I am worried about your term "specified cases." I do not think there is any provision of specified cases. I think it says 160 acres and the Department of Interior has construed that the husband and wife can each have 160 acres, and each child 160 additional. Mrs. BENNETT. I realize that. Senator ANDERSON. Somebody might conclude from your language that you felt that the Department of Interior could say this is poor land, we therefore will let you have 320 acres. That is not the distinction at all. Mrs. BENNETT. Yes; I understand there is not that leeway. The desirability of this limitation is seen in the fact that even its opponents do not directly challenge its validity, but are chipping away at the edges, asking for special exemptions, claiming unusual circumstances, raising variabilities in land productivity. But there is danger that this very piecemeal approach may result in the destruction of sound and fundamental American policy without real understanding of what is happening either by the Congress or by the American people. The first question raised by the proposed change in policy is: Who would derive the benefits of this Federal expenditure of funds, if not the American farm family? The answer is, the corporation farm, whose holdings run into thousands of acres, whose value might be raised by an estimated $500 an acre. These corporation farms substitute the hired, homeless labor of migrant workers by hundreds of thousands for the independent, community-oriented, land-loving American farm family. Such farms substitute absentee ownership for personal participation in land and community development. They reap profits out of the community where the independent farmer helps to develop the wealth of his neighborhood by his pride in his own home, his spending in local businesses, his contribution to church, school, hospital, and other local institutions. Millions in profits are at stake in the possible opening of Federal subsidy to these already gigantic corporations. The situation is aggravated by the vast landed interests of nonagricultural corporations-railroads and oil companies-who could make more millions if Federal policy were changed. I might say I am not against the oil corporations and railroads. I am even a small stockholder in it. I think the public good overcomes the profits that come to those corporations when Federal funds are involved in irrigating lands. Such powerful interests are well organized, rich, and able to lobby for themselves much better than small farmers and farm laborers can. But this is no reason for Congress to yield legislation that would benefit the few rather than the many. The question of efficiency is raised in the quest for special exemptions for special privilege. In this day when democracy is beleaguered throughout the world, and the United States should serve as its great example and leader, it is not irrelevant to assert that what strengthens democracy in the long run must be an efficient policy for a Government whose first concern is the liberties and well-being of its people. Surely the alternative between the family and the corporation is no alternative at all. At this point I would like to interpolate one small paragraph from an article on this subject, referring to the Columbia Basin, under which the administrative law of the Department of Interior allows 320 acres per couple for irrigated land. 26144-58 |