that there were eight excess-land owners on the project, and stated that they all had notified the association "personally or through their attorneys that they will comply in the near future." " The Bureau of Reclamation was partially absolved of inefficiency in enforcing the limitation because "it has seldom had sufficient funds and personnel to police adequately" such enforcement," and because of "formidable obstacles" such as the "appraisal of excess lands to be sold under the law," for "the assumptions and procedures necessary to accomplish such appraisals are difficult to establish.""1 Not only was the Bureau treated gently, but the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association was lauded for cooperating in landownership studies on the Salt River project “encompassing an examination of the extent of compliance with the 160-acre limitation provision of reclamation law, and the formation of procedures for bringing about full compliance." 1a It should be remembered that the association had instructions from the Government to withhold water from lawbreakers and had the ability to do so. Since it had failed to carry out its obligation, "general investigation funds" had had to be appropriated. 43 Former Assistant Secretary of the Interior Davidson put it succinctly when he said: "Administratively the Department is doing an excellent job of modifying congressional intent * * *. Such complete flaunting of the statutory authority is scandalous." " But such strong language is rare in the age of the Organization Man. More in keeping with the minimization of noncompliance and with widespread efforts to generate a feeling of good fellowship is the following exchange between a representative of the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association and an Arizona Congressman: "Mr. CORBELL. *** the 160-acre law within the Salt River Valley water users' project is violated only in a few instances. I think that acreage today is practically nothing as far as violating the 160-acre law is concerned. There are just a few people there who own more than 160 acres. * * * The association is working to stop the 160-acre law from being offended against. *** "Congressman MURDOCK. In regard to the acreage over the limit *** I find that it is almost negligible. *** We have been speaking of that as a violation of law. *** At least, we have been trying to live up to the 160-acre limitation, have we not, right along? *** (Violation) is unavoidable in certain ** It must have been soothing to legislators and the public alike to learn that the association was "working" to stop violations which amounted to "practically nothing," and students of linguistics no less than students of government must have reflected on the degree of an excess which was termed "almost negligible." Language which appears more forthright was employed on the floor of the House by Congressman Jackson, of California, when he said: “True, the Bureau of Reclamation says that the 160-acre law will be enforced (in Arizona) But we know that this law has never been enforced there. There is no reason to believe that it will be enforced in the future." 46 It is permissible to assume that such a statement could not have gone unchallenged in the days of Theodore Roosevelt. That it can be made in our time, calmly, without arousing indignation, is an indication of the ambivalence toward the law which is so widely manifested in the United States. But Congressman Jackson was looking beyond mere noncompliance. The House was considering the authorization of the Central Arizona project, the benefits of which would increase the productivity of the Salt River Valley. He realized Testimony of V. Corbell, the Central Arizona Project, hearings before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House, 82d Cong., 1st sess., on H. R. 1500, H. R. 1501, 1951, p. 359. 40 President's Water Resources Policy Commission, A Water Policy for the American People. vol. 2, Washington, 1950, p. 394. 41 Ibid., vol. 1, p. 170. 42 General Study of Irrigation and Reclamation Problems, hearings before the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 82d Cong., 1st sess., 1951, p. 47. 43 Loc. cit. Certain Activities Regarding Power, Department of the Interior (Changes in Power Line Regulations), hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House, 84th Cong.. 1st sess., 1955, p. 15. "What word did you use?" asked Congressman Hoffman of Michigan. "I said 'scandalous.' replied Davidson. (Loc. cit.) The Central Arizona Project, hearings on H. R. 934 and H. R. 935, op. cit., pp. 125-129. 48 95 Congressional Record, p. 10128; July 25, 1949. 26144-58-16 that the landowners who had held on to their excess acreage, which they ought to have sold at prices which did not take into account the increased land value brought about by the construction of the Salt River project, were now in a position in which they were assured tremendous profits if the new project were authorized." "When a large number of individual landowners," he added "have substantial holdings in the proposed project area and spend considerable money for the promotion of that project in lobbying the Congress of the United States it is something that should be looked into by the Members of the House of Representatives." " 48 There could have been no doubt in the minds of legislators or of anyone else who gave the matter any thought that the process of breaking up large landholdings into units of not more than 160 acres would present a formidable problem. On the other hand, there is likely to be partial agreement that this problem was alleviated when the need for the Government to deal with individual farmers was superseded by the assumption of such duties by organizations of landowners." Secretary of the Interior Garfield said in 1909 that water users' associations "are essential for the proper development of the projects. We cannot deal with the thousands of settlers as individuals ** #9 50 But in spite of such confidence in water users' associations, subsequent events show that after "the Government took all the chances, put in millions of dollars, loaned the money without interest, gave them 20 years in which to repay it, and then postponed for 10 years the beginning of any payments, and with no interest running; constructed a power project; planned and financed it; made a success of it, and then turned the power project over to the water users in order that they might use the receipts from the power project to pay for the land made tremendously valuable by irrigation," it had to be conceded that "the system did not function as smoothly as was anticipated. *** If the landowner had any reason to suspect that land prices might increase at a future date, he was likely to be reluctant to make prompt disposition of his holdings. Furthermore, in the case of many of the projects, settlement was difficult and with public lands available to settlers at no charge whatever, the sale of lands by private owners was sometimes impossible." 1951 Naturally the landowners on irrigation projects had every reason to suspect that their land would increase in value, and were, therefore, reluctant to sell. But there is little need for the passage of laws which direct people to sell what they wish to dispose of without the enactment of statutes. Furthermore, the difficulty of finding buyers for excess acreage may have been real but is not in point, since the law required but the willingness, as expressed in a binding contract, to sell the excess lands. Close scrutiny of many of the hearings and reports, as well as meticulous inquiry into the meaning of their language, prove fruitful as well as discouraging. After stating that in the face of landowners' refusal to act very few lands were sold, one report continues: "Furthermore, there was nothing to prevent the selling of land at speculative prices.' Flat statements such as this must arouse skepticism. Indeed, the law was there to prevent such transactions, and the public official or officials who approved and registered 47 Loc. cit. 48 95 Congressional Record, p. 10130. 158 49 R. B. Wertheimer, Legislative and Administrative History of Acreage Limitations and Control of Speculation on Federal Reclamation Projects, in Acreage Limitation in the Central Valley, a Report on Problem 19, Central Valley Project Studies, Berkeley, 1944 (mimeo). p. 8. Go Reclamation Projects, hearings before House Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands, 60th Cong., 1909, p. 129. Cf. also Federal Reclamation by Irrigation, S. Doc. 92, 68th Cong., 1st sess., 1924, which stated that when projects are handed over to a water users' association, "all the disadvantages of paternalism are either removed or modified" (p. 106). 51 Congressman Cramton of Michigan, quoted by Congressman (now Senator) Hayden, December 27, 1922, 64 Congressional Record, p. 959. 52 B. P. King, Study of the Excess Land Provisions of the National Reclamation Laws, 1941; cited in Wertheimer, op. cit., p. 9. Cf. also Landownership Survey, op. cit., p. 44: "A*** result of the abandonment of the system of direct dealings between the project officials and the individual water user was that the machinery for bringing to light violations of the excess-land restriction * * and the machinery for enforcing these restrictions were not fully effective." 53 Wertheimer, op. cit., p. 10. them did not do their duty. In all its many hearings, the Congress never determined or berated such culprits. 54 54 Again it was claimed that the public notice regarding the limit of area per entry and of the charges per acre, which the Secretary of the Interior was to promulgate in accordance with section 4 of the Reclamation Act, had not always been punctually issued, and that such delay caused postponement of excess-land disposal. "In the case of the Salt River project *** water was first ready for delivery in 1907, but public notice was not issued till 1917." Undoubtedly such laxity on the part of the Secretary is deplorable, but the fact remains that the maximum limit of entry was fixed at 160 acres, so that public notice was in effect required only for acreage of less than a quarter section, and citizens with good will towards the supreme law of the land could have proceeded to dispose of their excess lands before the notice was issued. Finally, it was stated that "it has not been easy to determine with accuracy the degree of enforcement or nonenforcement of excess acreage limitations.5 This assertion appears wholly untenable, for (1) the degree of enforcement had not been determined at all; and (2) it would have been easy had it been attempted; problems of far greater magnitude and complexity are tackled in this country continually. 58 Available figures include a computation of 1937, when 149 owners of excess land on the Salt River project held 31,924 excess acres, of which 15,349 acres belonged to 10 owners." This shows that compliance with the law by 10 legal persons could have cut the amount of excess land on Salt River project in half." In addition, there are the figures given in the 1946 Landownership Survey, cited above. If both sets of data are correct, there occurred over the course of 9 years a decrease in excess landowners of 15 out of 149, or just above ten percent, and a decrease in excess acreage of 1,204 acres out of 31,924, or about 3.8 percent. 60 How were so many landowners enabled to obtain water in defiance of the law? A revealing aspect of the operating procedure of the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association was made public in the transcript of the record pertaining to the hearing in the United States District Court for Arizona of Charles F. Reynolds et al. v. S. R. V. W. U. A. in 1943. The case dealt with wage claims of certain employees of the association. During the examination of witnesses, it appeared that one kind of employee is called “zanjero”; he “receives his order from the farmer for water, *** takes the total amount of orders from the farmers (and) turns them in to his watermaster." «2 On the Salt River project there were about 60 zanjeros, each taking care of "1 division"; they delivered the farmers' orders for water to 4 watermasters, who in turn relayed their orders to the superintendent of canals. The latter than "starts the water from the reservoirs to deliver it to the watermaster." Before this was done, the farmers paid for the water, and the association sent release slips for water to the zanjeros who then proceeded to inform the watermasters of the amount of water they had to distribute." 1963 There was no direct evidence that the release slips authorized the same amount of water as the farmer had orally ordered from the zanjero on every occasion, but it may at least be surmised that during the examination of several zanjeros and pump operators one or the other witness might have recalled an occasion of a refusal by the association to deliver water to a farmer because 54 In this connection, note that Senator Murray of Montana was "gravely concerned by the growing tendency of the executive agencies to assume prerogatives which constitutionally belong to the Congress," partly "through failure to furnish objective reports which make a full disclosure of the facts" (Joint hearings before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and the Committee on Public Works, Senate, 84th Cong., 2d sess., on S. Res. 281. July 6, 1956, p. 3). 55 32 Stat. 389. 56 Wertheimer, op. cit., p. 11; cf. also Landownership Survey, op cit., p. 44. 57 Wertheimer, op. cit., p. 50. 58 Wertheimer, op. cit., pp. 51, 53. 59 Ibid., p. 55. 60 See text at footnote 36. 1 Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Arizona, Transcript of Record, U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Charles F. Reynolds et al., Appellants, v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Association, a Corporation, Appellee, No. 10618. Ibid., p. 109. 3 Ibid., pp. 109, 110. 4 Ibid., p. 135. 65 he had exceeded his quota. In fact, the chief superintendent and chief engineer for the association testified that the association "keeps no record after the water leaves the point of delivery" and that "the amount of water that is run on the order of a farmer *** is recorded and charged against" his tract, and that nothing was shown as to what the water was used for. The secretary of the association testified that "the association, as a service organization, delivers water to the various shareholders of the organization who are the landowners. Each landowner owns one share of stock for each acre of land he owns. To that land, why, he is apportioned certain water rights to which he has call for a certain amount of water, and the association's duties are to deliver that water to him." 66 The office, he went on to say, kept a complete record so as to know how much water each farmer used and to see to it that "he keeps within the allotment that has been given to him.' It is true that since this was not a case concerned with reclamation law, more clearly stated assertions pertaining to the apportionment of water were not required. It appears, on the other hand, that the operators of a project which was administered in compliance with the law would have felt no compunction to say so, especially since short statements on the part of executive officers of the association to the effect that farmers were entitled to water for 160 acres each, or for 320 acres for man and wife, and that each was entitled to, say, 4 acre-feet per year, would have simplified their testimony considerably. It must not be forgotten that the organization was acting on behalf of the Government and, supposedly, in accordance with reclamation law and the rules and regulations of the Department of the Interior. It appears unlikely that the association would have declined to take a forthright stand on questions such as pertained to the records of water delivery unless it felt compelled to hide from the public gaze certain particulars of its operation which contravened the law. In addition to this admittedly circumstantial evidence, there is, as reported above, the long record of freely admitted transgressions. When taking over the operation and maintenance of the Salt River project from the Reclamation Service in 1917, the association had become the administrator of public policy; it had assumed the obligation to exercise its function in the public interest. Given reasonable efficiency and conscious devotion to the American system of government, it ought to have been able within a few months to determine who were the transgressors against the law, and to cut off their water as it was obliged and instructed to do. The duty of the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association was clear. Nevertheless, the Department of the Interior had retained responsibilities of inspection and supervision toward reclamation projects. It recognized this explicitly in several of its annual reports." 68 In spite of this Senate Document 92 had to declare in 1924 that “attempts on the part of the Reclamation Service to enforce the law have proved fruitless, and it is evident that section 12 of the 1914 act is now practically disregarded." 19 69 It is instructive to read such a statement, especially since it reflects on the governmental agency entrusted with enforcing the law. Its tenor of helplessness is a regrettable commentary on what an American public agency may conceive to be its obligations. At a recent meeting of the American Political Science Association, the following statement was contained in one of the papers presented: "It is not particularly difficult within the Government to reach generalized agreements as to the desirability of careful planning, sound river basin organization, accurate evaluation of cost and benefits, etc. However, when an attempt is made, either through administrative action or by law, to establish concrete standards and procedures, the advocates of projects, programs, or agencies which might be adversely affected are extraordinarily vigorous and successful in opposing changes in the status quo." 70 It is distressing but justifiable to speculate that a public administrative agency may look upon that statement by a political scientist as a satisfactory explanation for its failure rather than as a spur to action in the public interest. 65 Ibid., pp. 272. 273. 60 Ibid., pp. 227, 228. 67 Ibid., p. 233. 69 USDI, Annual Reports: 1918, p. 87; 1919, vol. I, p. 103; 1921, p. 90; 1927, p. 23. 69 S. Doc. 92. op. cit., p. 133. 70 A. L. Dean, The President's Water Resources Policy Commission, a paper prepared for the panel on "Ad Hoc Commissions and Policy Formulation," American Political Science Association annual meeting, New York, Sept. 5-7, 1957, mimeo, p. 7. Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, Chairman, Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation, Senate Interior Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: I am writing in connection with the 160- and 320acre water limitation of the Reclamation Act. I doubt very much that an argument on economic grounds (i. e., efficiency grounds) can be made to the effect that output per unit of input (i. e., efficiency) increases with acreages above 320 irrigated acres. Certainly such an argument cannot be made for good Corn Belt farm operations. And 320 acres of irrigated land represents as large, or perhaps a larger, operation than 320 acres of good Corn Belt land. Constant returns to scale have set in before an acreage of 320 acres has been reached, which means that decisions with respect to size of farm must be made on grounds other than efficiency at and above the 320-acre level. What are some of these other grounds? Well, the purchase of land for speculation could be one, but such grounds hardly justify the expenditure of public funds. Or the development of units sufficiently large to bargain with processors, or labor unions, or bankers could be another. But I would prefer to cope with this bargaining problem in agriculture not through the growth of huge farm units but rather through the joint use of cooperative and governmental action. It seems to me that the grounds stated by Paul S. Taylor for the 160 and 320 irrigated acreaged limitation are proper and just (i. e., represent desirable land and water policy), namely, "The reasons for retaining the excess land law are as good today, and the same, as they were for adopting it in 1902. There is no more reason now than there was then to concentrate the benefits of public expenditure in a few fortunate hands, to enrich a few large landowners by opening the public purse to them without restraint. Family-size farms, now as then, create more local business, more opportunity for more people in business, farming, and the professions, more stable, more democratic, healthier communities." In sum, if one favors the family farm type of organization for agriculture, as I do, then one must come down in favor of something close to the present excess land provision of the reclamation law. Very truly yours, Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. WILLARD W. COCHRANE, Professor. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: I notice that hearings under your chairmanship are to be held on April 30 in regard to various proposals to suspend the 160-acre limitation of the Reclamation Act. I think it would be a serious mistake to modify our public policy on this matter. I am a native of the State of Utah, born and reared in a farm village, where my family operated a small, irrigated farm. Although in the coming July I shall retire after 21 years of service at the University of Minnesota, I clearly recall from my earlier days the crucial importance of the control of water in an arid region. As a representative of a State in which irrigation water also is of paramount importance, you will appreciate, I am sure, the importance of water-control policies. When this issue was up some years ago, I had occasion to write Senator Watkins, whom I had known for many years and whom I admired. As I pointed out to him then, most of the villages of Utah might have been mere ranches operated by a single operator had it not been for the community control and the wide distribution of the ownership of water. Land, itself, as you know, in those areas is of little value. It is water that gives it life and value and which provides a basis for community life. The morning paper contained a brief analysis of the so-called Rockefeller report in which it is recommended that 1,200,000 farmers be assisted to leave the land. That is a favorite proposal of my economist friends, and, on strict economic grounds and for the immediate future, it may make some sense. But I can't help thinking what will happen in the next 2 decades when war babies come into the labor force and upward of 30 million new jobs have to be found for them. This number of new jobs will have to be found, too, in the face of |