project development, and other beneficial purposes the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to acquire in the name of the United States such lands or interests in lands on the Seedskadee reclamation project, Wyoming, authorized by the act of April 11, 1956 (70 Stat. 105), as he deems appropriate to accomplish the purposes above enumerated. Such lands which cannot practicably be acquired by exchange of public lands of equal value outside the irrigable area to be served may be acquired by purchase, at prices satisfactory to the Secretary without reference to increment on account of the construction of the project, or by donation.

SEC. 2. The Secretary is further authorized to administer the public and acquired lands on the Seedskadee reclamation project, to sell, exchange, lease or otherwise dispose of such lands and any improvements thereon, to establish townsites and to dedicate portions of said lands for public purposes, to the extent, in the manner, and on terms that in his judgment are in keeping with sound project development: Provided, That all the lands included in any farm units and made available for settlement, irrespective of whether said farm units are composed of public lands, acquired lands, or both, shall be sold at prices per acre established by the Secretary that in his judgment will, as nearly as practicable equitably provide for the return in a reasonable period of years of the costs of acquisition and disposition of all settlement lands on the project.

SEC. 3. Beginning at such date or dates and subject to such provisions and limitations as may be fixed or provided by regulations issued by the Secretary under the authority of this Act, any public lands and any lands acquired under this Act shall be, after disposition thereof by the United States by contract of sale and during the time such contract shall remain in effect, (i) subject to the laws of the State of Wyoming relating to the organization, government, and regulation of conservancy and other similar districts, and (ii) subject to legal assessment or taxation by such district and by said State or political subdivisions thereof, and to liens for such assessments and taxes and to all proceedings for the enforcement thereof, in the same manner and to the same extent as privately owned lands: Provided, however, That the United States shall not assume any obligation for amounts so assessed or taxed: And provided further, That any proceedings to enforce said assessments or taxes shall be subject to any title then remaining in the United States, to any prior lien reserved to the United States for unpaid installments under land sale contracts made under this Act, and to any obligation for any other charges, accrued or unaccrued, for special improvements, construction or operation and maintenance costs of said project.

SEC. 4. No water shall be furnished from, through, or by means of project works to lands which are held in private ownership by any one owner in excess of the equivalent of one hundred and sixty acres of class 1 lands unless the owner thereof shall have executed a valid recordable contract with respect to the excess in like manner as is provided in the third sentence of section 46 of the act of May 25, 1926 (44 Stat. 636, 649). In computing "the equivalent of one hundred and sixty acres of class 1 lands" under this section, each acre of class 2 land shall be counted as eighty-eight one-hundredths of an acre, each acre of class 3 land shall be counted as seventy-one one-hundredths of an acre, and each acre of class 4 land shall be counted as forty-three one-hundredths of

an acre.

SEC. 5. The Secretary is authorized to perform such acts, to make such rules and regulations, and to include in contracts made under the authority of this Act such provisions as he deems proper for carrying out the provisions of this Act; and, in connection with sales or exchanges under this Act, he is authorized, in his discretion, to effect conveyance without regard to the laws governing the patenting of public lands.

SEC. 6. This Act shall be deemed a supplement to and part of the act of April 11, 1956 (70 Stat. 105).

Mr. DOMINY. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that, as a personal witness and as a veteran, I would not want the responsibility of opening the Seedskadee lands for settlement and placing veterans there if it must be limited to 160 acres per farm unit. I will do my best to prevent the development of the Seedskadee project unless we are given the authority to establish a farm unit commensurate with the need for land at 6,200 feet elevation in a 100-day growing season in a remote area where only certain types of agriculture can possibly be successful.

Senator BARRETT. Mr. Dominy, section 4 of the proposed bill limits the unit to 160 acres of class 1 land or about 180 acres of class 2 land. Is that right?

Mr. DOMINY. Section 4 deals in class 1 equivalents. We have a measure of the productive capacity of the various lands in relationship to class 1. So, the effect of section 4, were it to be enacted, would permit us-if it was all class 1 land-we would limit a farm unit to 160 irrigable acres. If it were all class 2 land, we could go up to around 180 or 190 acres. If it were all class 3, we could go up to 220-230 acres. However, the land does not lay so that we would have farms all of one land class. The net effect, if the Congress were to enact this bill, is that you would be giving the Secretary of Interior the authority to establish farms, taking into account the proportion of the various land classes within a given unit, and permit him to establish the size of farm accordingly. They would range from 160 acres up to about 280 acres. If the committee would want to put limitations of that sort to make it abundantly clear, we would have no objection. The intent of the proposed bill is, clearly, to permit the establishment of a farm, each unit, with proper consideration to the productivity of the particular acres that compose that unit.

So that, on the whole, we could with good conscience, on the basis of demonstrated history and productiveness, assure the veteran that, if he is an industrious worker and uses good management, he can expect a return commensurate with the American standard of living that all of us strive for and are entitled to.

Senator BARRETT. Are these figures that you have suggested in section 4 taken by the Department after a study of the situation of the soil condition on the Seedskadee project?

Mr. DOMINY. Yes, sir. Those figures are a composite that results from careful analysis of these lands by technicians of the Department of Agriculture, by technicians of the Bureau of Reclamation, and by technicians of the University of Wyoming. These are substantially in accord, if not completely-and I believe they are—with the testimony of Dr. A. F. Vass, recently retired from the university staff. I might add that Dr. Vass is probably the best informed man in the Western States on size of farm and productive capacity of rangeland and irrigated lands. I think, without exception, that he has analyzed more actual farm records-not theoretical ones dreamed up in a classroom, but actual farm records from bona fide operatorsthan any man in the Western States.

Senator BARRETT. I certainly agree with you on that statement, Mr. Dominy. The question that occurs to me is this: Was the decision on the Riverton project for enlargement of the homestead more liberal than the proposal in section 4?

Mr. DOMINY. No, sir. The adjustments on the Riverton project were not this liberal, although I do not want to use the term "liberal." The adjustments authorized were fully consonant to this but, because of a different set of circumstances, we did not need to exceed on the Riverton project 160 irrigable acres per farm. Our problem on the Riverton project, Senator Barrett, as I am sure you will recall as I explain this, is that we had two limitations under the homestead laws that governed reclamation homestead. One was the Desert Land Act, under which we could not give the settler more than 160

acres total, even though only 100 of it might be irrigable. We had a maximum limitation of land area. Even when we broke the 40-acre subdivisions down to 20-acre subdivisions, we were unable, within that limitation, because of the varied texture of the soils in the Riverton project, to get close enough to 160 irrigable acres to provide an adequate unit.

The second factor that ran us into trouble on the Riverton project. was our failure to recognize that there was a sodium condition in the Riverton project soils that, when irrigation water was applied, tied the land up in such a manner that it could not be readily drained. Frankly, we did not find that condition in our original investigations. What had happened there was that this land, which is sedimentary in nature, had lain there for geologic ages in a very sparse rainfall area, and the limited rainfall that had come down over the ages had washed the sodium down from the surface soils into the land and had deposited it in thin layers.

In some places, these layers are 3 or 4 feet below the surface-in some places, 8 or 10 feet. It varied with the texture of the surface and subsurface soils. In some areas, it was absent. We failed to weigh the significance of these sodium layers and, when we applied water to the lands, the sodium tied up the drainage in such a way that we found we were in trouble.

So, for two reasons we needed remedial legislation on Riverton. The first was to allow the man to have more than 160 acres total, but we did not ask for more than 160 acres irrigable. We wanted to give him a large enough area to give him 160 acres irrigable. To do that, we needed sometimes to give him as much as 320 acres total because only half of it was irrigable and half nonirrigable.

On the Seedskadee project, we need more than 160 acres total. There are very obvious reasons for the difference. The Riverton project is at an elevation of about 5,000 feet. It has a much more equitable climate and a considerably longer growing season. The type of agriculture there can be one of general irrigated agriculture with grains and beets and beans and potatoes, whereas on Seedskadee that type of irrigated agriculture cannot be practiced. The physical conditions will not permit as intensive agriculture under irrigation at Seedskadee as at Riverton. Does that answer your question?

Senator BARRETT. That answers the question. To go back to section 3, is there any statute in Wyoming that would take care of subdivision 1 of section 3?

Mr. DOMINY. Yes, sir. We have a conservancy district act in Wyoming that was passed at the last legislature. The requirement of the Colorado Storage Act, except where the lands are predominantly in Federal ownership, is that we must have a repayment contract executed with a conservancy district type organization before we construct the project.

In the case of Seedskadee since the lands are predominantly public we are permitted to construct the project in advance of a repayment contract. We did, however, stipulate that there must be a conservancy district act on the statute books of Wyoming so that after we got the project settled we would have the mechanism legally to form the kind of a district required by the Colorado Storage Act. That

has been accomplished. The State cooperated very quickly at their last session.

Senator BARRETT. Who is the largest landowner there?

Mr. DOMINY. Union Pacific Railroad has the largest tract of land. We have every assurance that they are agreeable to an exchange of lands or to otherwise cooperate under this bill.

Senator BARRETT. You have such an arrangement with the State of Wyoming also?

Mr. DOMINY. Yes. We have that assurance, sir.

Senator BARRETT. So you think there will be no difficulty getting the title to all that land in the Federal Government?

Mr. DOMINY. I do not believe we will have any problem were this bill to become law.

Now, as to the final bill, and the one I believe was the subject of most of the testimony received by your committee, the Department reports as follows:

This responds to your request for the views of this Department on S. 2541, a bill to permit the Secretary of the Interior to fix the size of farm units on Federal reclamation projects at more than 160 irrigable acres in certain circumstances, and for other purposes.

Section 1 of the bill would provide that, when the Secretary of the Interior determines, after investigation into the economic adequacy on a Federal reclamation project of the land limitation provisions of the Federal reclamation laws, that more than 160 irrigable acres is necessary to support an average-size family at a suitably profitable level, he would be authorized to waive the limitation of 160 irrigable acres provided for in section 46 of the act of May 25, 1926 (44 Stat. 636, 649; 43 U. S. C., sec. 423e), and the limit of 160 irrigable acres and 320 acres, provided for in section 9 of the act of August 13, 1953 (67 Stat. 566; 43 U. S. C., sec. 451h), and to substitute therefor such greater acreage or acreages as in his judgment would be necessary to support adequately an average-size family.

In making this determination, the Secretary would take into consideration the elevation, climate, topography and soils of project lands, the crops to which they would be best adapted, and estimates of their long-range earning capacity. In the light of these factors, he would be permitted to fix varying maximum sizes for the farm units on the project. The investigation and determinations would be made upon receiving a request therefor from the Governor of the affected State.

Section 2 would provide that the provisions of S. 2541 would not affect existing contracts entered into under such contracts. Similarly, they would not affect any project which, by an act of the Congress, either has been exempted from the excess land provisions or has excess land provisions applicable to it which are different from the general excess land provisions of the Federal reclamation laws.

Section 3 of the bill would amend section 46 of the act of May 25, 1926, to provide that recordable contracts in accordance with the provisions of said section 46 would not be required if an irrigation district should undertake, in its repayment contract, to pay to the United States interest on that portion of the construction charges attributable to excess lands within the district.

This exemption from the recordable contracts requirements of section 46 would be available only when (1) a supplemental water supply is involved or (2) "water is delivered for the irrigation of lands which have been subjected to productive cultivation *** for more than 10 years prior to" project

authorization.

A restriction on the acreage in individual ownership for which irrigation water is supplied by means of works constructed under the Federal reclamation laws has been an important part of those laws since the beginning.

Thus it was provided in section 5 of the act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388, 389), that "No right to the use of water for land in private ownership shall be sold for a tract exceeding 160 acres to any one landowner, and no such sale shall be made to any landowner unless he be an actual bona fide resident on such land. * * *11

A limitation provision, the effect of which has been held to be similar to that just quoted, was incorporated in section 2 of the act of February 21, 1911 (36 Stat. 925, 926), commonly known as the Warren Act.

In section 3 of the act of August 9, 1912 (37 Stat. 265, 266), it was provided that: "no person shall at any one time or in any manner*** acquire, own, or hold irrigable land for which ** * water right application shall have been made * ** in excess of one farm unit as fixed by the Secretary of the Interior, as the limit of area *** per single ownership of private land for which a water right may be purchased *** nor in any case in excess of 160 acres, nor shall water be furnished * * * nor a water right sold or recognized for such

At this point I would like to comment, as I promised Senator Anderson I would, on the statement made before your committee yesterday by Attorney Horton.

I have no quarrel with the legal premise that Harry Horton made. Under the 160-acre excess land law it could very probably be interpreted that the Congress intended that limitation to apply throughout the 17 Western States west of the one-hundredth meridian. However, it has never been so interpreted or applied by any of the administrators, past or present, in the Department of the Interior.

The interpretation of the law as practiced has been confined project by project. So that a man could own 160 acres on project A, he could also own 160 acres on project B or project C.

As I say, I think it is entirely possible to interpret the law as Mr. Horton stated, but I also would like to say that I am sure that Harry Horton knows that it has never been so administered.

Again, in section 12 of the act of August 13, 1914 (38 Stat. 686, 689), the provision was "That before any contract is let or work begun for the construction of any reclamation project hereafter adopted the Secretary of the Interior shall require the owners of private lands thereunder to agree to dispose of all lands in excess of the area which he shall deem sufficient for the support of a family upon the land in question, upon such terms and at not to exceed such price as the Secretary of the Interior may designate; and if any landowner shall refuse to agree to the requirements fixed by the Secretary of the Interior, his land shall not be included within the projects if adopted for construction."

Finally, section 46 of the act of May 25, 1926, provided that every repayment contract entered into with an irrigation district in connection with a new project or new division of a project should provide, among other things, that no water should be delivered to any land in excess of 160 irrigable acres owned by a single owner until the land had been appraised without regard to the Federal irrigation works proposed to be constructed and until the owner had agreed, in a recordable contract, to dispose of the excess acreage on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Secretary of the Interior and at prices fixed by him.

This persistent limitation on areas in private ownership which may be served from Federal reclamation works has, of course, been paralleled by a similar and, in some cases, more stringent limitation on the number of acres of public land under reclamation projects that may be homesteaded.

Both are based on a recognition of the importance to the national economy of spreading the benefits of Federal investments in reclamation works. Both, likewise, are an important basis for the Federal Government's furnishing, as it has from the beginning of reclamation history, interest-free money for the construction of irrigation works and for providing other benefits in aid of irrigation. It must be recognized, however, that since 1926 there have been many economic developments affecting irrigation farming operations on existing Federal projects and those projects which may be constructed in the future, which make desirable some adjustments in the excess-land laws as they apply to particular projects. Evidence of the need for some adjustment in the standard of the size of irrigated farm units may be found in those instances in which the Congress, by special legislation, authorized increases beyond 160 acres in the irrigable acreage in individual ownership which may be served by water from a Federal project, or provided for a complete exemption from the 160-acre limitation.