It would appear to me, Mr. Senator, that the Douglas bill protects and the Barrett bills violate these important principles of social policy.

Sincerely yours,

HUBER F. KLEMME, Associate Director.

Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

1163 EUCLID AVENUE, Berkeley 8, Calif., May 8, 1958.

Chairman, Irrigation and Reclamation Subcommittee,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: When I testified before you a week ago today on the excess lands provisions of Federal reclamation law, you pressed me to specify and document my assertion that S. 1887 (Knowland, San Luis project) destroys rather than preserves the excess-land provision.

I have been at some pains to do this in the attached memorandum. Perhaps I have missed some points of weakness in the committee print, but this should suffice to reassure you that you can rely on my very critical statement, made before the subcommittee.

In light of this, I hope you will instruct your staff to redraft S. 1887 again, this time to strengthen national policy.

The words of Secretary Seaton when he rejected the Kings River contract negotiated by his predecessor, Secretary McKay, come to mind; Secretary Seaton opposed at that time a process by which there is a whittling away at a principle until all that is left is a pile of shavings.

Thank you for your patience and courtesy in hearing me on May 1. I appreciate that opportunity, and trust that you will find the enclosed answers to some of the questions you asked me dependable and sufficiently specific.

Sincerely yours,

MEMORANDUM ON S. 1887

PAUL S. TAYLOR.

MAY 8, 1958.

TO SENATOR CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

Chairman, Irrigation and Reclamation Subcommittee.

1. The California State Federation of Labor memorandum on the original draft of S. 1887 opposed any exceptions to Federal reclamation law (CSFL memo, pp. 1-2; original bill, p. 2, lines 12, 13). The committee print, like the original bill, preserves reclamation law only "except so far as the provisions thereof are inconsistent with this act" (p. 2, lines 15, 16). Thus clause providing for exceptions should be deleted. The exceptions, as noted below, are numerous and serious.

2. The committee print makes a precondition of Federal construction of San Luis project a satisfactory assurance from the State of California that "it will make provision for a master drainage outlet and disposal channel for the San Joaquin Valley, as generally outlined in the California water plan, Bulletin No. 3, of the California Department of Water Resources, which will adequately serve, by connection therewith, the drainage system for the San Luis unit mentioned in section 4 of this act" (p. 2, 1.25 to p. 3, line 7).

Presumably this refers to a "master drainage channel extending from Buena Vista Lake in Kern County to Suisun Bay" (Bull. 3, p. 21, col. 1) which apparently would serve Tulare Lake Basin and adjacent areas of the greatest concentration of large landholdings in California. These holdings have been listed by Sheridan Downey, who cites 34 landholders with about 748,000 acres, no single holding being less than 5,000 acres (they would rule the valley, p. 164). Why should Congress seek to influence the State of California, by its power to grant or to withhold funds for reclamation, to construct a drainage system that, in the words of the California water plan (Bull. 3, p. 21, col. 1) is an "integral and indispensable part of the development and utilization of water resources," but is policyless? Surely this is destructive of reclamation law, under which it is proposed to appropriate Federal money.

It is pertinent to quote the recent words of Secretary of the Interior Seaton, rejecting the contract negotiated by his predecessor on Kings River and Tulare Lake project:

"The Kings River Conservation District covers over 1 million acres of land. A very large part, approximately one-fourth, of this land is clearly excess lands within the meaning of the Federal statute * Among the large landowners

• it

are several corporations owning between 10,000 and 20,000 acres each * is my duty not only to conform to the technical provisions of the law but also, within whatever discretion I may have, to seek compliance with the principles on which the legislation rests" (letter to P. A. Gordon, July 12, 1957).

Pine Flat and Isabella Dams, serving portions of the area to be served by the master drainage system, were completed in 1954, but the United States Comptroller General has advised Congress that no repayment contracts have been signed yet, although Central Valley project waters have long ago been contracted for by adjacent landowners under reclamation law (audit report to the Congress of the United States, Central Valley Basin *** December 11, 1957, pp. 33, 34).

Congress has power, of course, to choose between alternatives, either adhering narrowly to what Secretary Seaton calls the technical provisions of the law, or else seeking "compliance with the principles on which the legislation rests." But Congress cannot choose the first alternative and claim simultaneously that it is preserving the principle of reclamation law; it cannot weaken and strengthen national policy by the same act.

3. The committee print ignores the request of CSFL memo (p. 2, par. (1) that the words: "under the Federal reclamation law and provided that these are legally recognized in the State of California," be inserted after the words "facilities of the San Luis unit" (committee print, pp. 3, 10, 12).

4. The committee print makes a small improvement in section 3, subsection (9), which the CSFL memo (p. 2, par. (2), asked be stricken from the bill. The committee print (p. 7, lines 4, 5) requires future congressional approval for any transfer of title of San Luis facilities to the State of California; this is desirable by itself. However, even as revised, subsection (e) should be stricken. Since the beginning of the conservation movement, it has been recognized that the proper unit of planning and operation is the natural watershed. The Federal Government has constructed every great conservation structure in Central Valley. For Congress to imply now a willingness to turn over to the State, separately, a single unit of one of the greatest Federal reclamation undertakings in the history of the United States, is to expose a willingness to permit piecemeal dismemberment of what S. 1887 itself begins by calling "an integral part of the Central Valley project" (committee print, p. 2, lines 4, 5).

5. The committee print ignores CSFL memo, page 3, paragraph (3), opposing section 3 (g).

6. The committee print ignores CSFL memo, page 3, paragraph (4), opposing section 3 (h).

7. The committee print ignores CSFL memo, page 3, paragraph (5), asking that section 3 (i) be stricken.

8. The committee print ignores CSFL memo, page 3, paragraph (6), asking that section 3 (j) be stricken.

9. The committee print ignores CSFL memo, page 4, paragraph (7), asking deletion of the word "generally" in section 4 (p. 9, line 21 of committee print).

10. The committee print ignores CSFL memo, page 4, paragraph (8). Section 2, above, of the present memorandum, points out that the worst fears of damage to reclamation law would be realized by committee print, section 1, page 2, line 25 to page 3, line 7.

11. The committee print adds section 7, specifically exempting "water deliveries" or the "use of drainage facilities serving lands under contract with the State to receive a water supply, outside of the San Luis service area described in the report of the Department of the Interior, entitled 'San Luis unit, Central Valley project,' dated December 17, 1956."

This is not preservation of reclamation law; it is one more proposal for piecemeal abandonment. It refers to an area that constitutes probably the greatest concentration of large holdings of irrigable land in the United States.

As long ago as May 13, 1944, Business Week described the several tactics in the blueprint of Central Valley opponents of reclamation law. "If the big landowners in the valley lose out in this particular fight [to exempt CVP], they have several other proposals to accomplish their end." Among these was one "said to have originated among the big landowners of Fresno County" for the "State of California to take over the Central Valley project, paying the entire bill. This, too, would sidestep the 160-acre limitation." Modifying this analysis of 1944 in the light of 1958, it might be said that S. 1887 (committee print) would help the State with Federal funds appropriated under reclamation law to undertake additional construction at its own expense that would sidestep reclamation law.

The destructive character of S. 1887 should not be difficult to recognize; what it preserves of the excess lands provision of reclamation law is hardly beyond a vestige and shreds.

1163 EUCLID AVENUE, BERKELEY, CALIF.,

May 10, 1958.

Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: I shall appreciate it if you will include my letter of May 8, 1958, with analysis of S. 1887 attached, with the present letter, as part of the hearings on S. 1425, 2541, and 3448 on May 1, 1958, since the letter and memorandum answer specifically some questions you asked me orally at the hearing.

You will realize, of course, that while slowness of memory and the fact that I had not previously seen the committee print version of S. 1887 hampered my immediate oral replies to your inquiries, a further difficulty lay in the obscure meaning of some of the language of the bill. As one example, I refer to the reference in the committee print to the "drainage system for the San Luis unit" "as outlined in the California water plan, Bulletin No. 3, of the California Department of Water Resources" (p. 3, lines 1-5). No page reference to Bulletin No. 3 is given in the bill, but apparently this drainage system is a modern, greatly elaborated version of drainage canals investigated by engineers for landowners in Tulare Lake bed as long ago as 1917 and 1924 for improvement of their lands. (California Division of Water Resources, Bull. No. 29, San Joaquin River Basin, 1931, p. 483.) The extraordinary concentration of large landholdings in this area has recently been remarked by Secretary Seaton, who rejected the McKay contract partly for this reason, and who has been unable so far to obtain a repayment contract for dams completed in 1954 covering some of the area that presumably would be served by the "drainage system," construction of which, policyless, S. 1887 proposes to encourage. If my analysis is well founded, I hope the subcommittee will advise the Congress of what these policy effects of S. 1887 would be if it were enacted into law. If I am mistaken in my interpretation of the meaning of page 3, lines 1-7 of the committee print, I would appreciate being so advised.

Another example of the difficulty of answering immediately and precisely your oral questions is that a new section (sec. 7), added to S. 1887 in the committee print (which I had not previously seen) prohibits application of reclamation law, including the excess land provision, of course, to lands "outside of the San Luis service area described in the report of the Department of the Interior, entitled 'San Luis unit, Central Valley project,' dated December 17, 1956." While it is virtually certain that this exclusion of lands gaining advantage from Federal construction proposed in S. 1887 would have the practical effect of destroying the excess land provision in an area of very great concentration of landownership, the extent of this exemption is not fully known. Although our library is unusually well supplied with public documents on water development of California, the documents department has been unable to provide me with a copy of the report entitled "San Luis Unit, Central Valley Project," dated December 17, 1956, on which S. 1887 places so much reliance that it accepts it as defining the outer limit beyond which Federal policy (but not the benefits of Federal aid under reclamation law) shall not apply.

If these difficulties in making an analysis of the effects of S. 1887 impede one with such advantages as I have had in understanding reclamation law, you can appreciate readily the difficulties of citizens generally in realizing how destructive of national policy S. 1887 would be.

Sincerely yours,

PAUL S. TAYLOR.

BERKELEY, CALIF., May 28, 1958.

Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: A release from the office of Congressman B. F. Sisk, dated May 26, 1958, denies that there are "loopholes" in his San Luis project authorization bill "which would permit evasion of land acreage and antispeculation requirements of Federal reclamation laws." The release refers

to an "identical" bill pending in the Senate, apparently the Knowland bill, S. 1887.

Since I criticized S. 1887 before your subcommittee, specifying then and in a subsequent communication to you precisely where I believe the loopholes to be, I owe it to you, and to myself, to supplement my previous statements to you by noting briefly, and commenting on, what the Congressman's statement says. You will recall that I was not alone in making objection to S. 1887. Congressman Sisk's statement is emphatic as to the Congressman's intention to require compliance with Federal reclamation laws by excess landholders accepting water from the project. His statement expresses also a complete confidence that his bill (and presumably S. 1887) carries out his intention without deviation. He does not question the "sincerity" of critics of the bills, but believes we see "bogeymen."

Comment No. 1: Against a bill of particulars charging that S. 1887 (and presumably identical House bills) is full of loopholes, the Congressman merely enters a general disclaimer. The reassertion of general confidence in his own bill is surely no sufficient answer to specific charges.

Comment No. 2: House hearings on San Luis project brought out the fact that at least one owner of lands in the general area has publicly stated an unwillingness to accept project water for excess holdings under Federal reclamation law (Hearings on January 15, 1958, pp. 41, 42).

Comment No. 3: An Assistant Secretary of the Interior testified that inclusion or exclusion of this single landowner would be "quite important to the feasibility of the project."

In my opinion, nothing has been said to give confidence that S. 1887 (or its House counterpart) would enact into law what Congressman Sisk believes it would enact, and says, undoubtedly sincerely, that he wants.

Sincerely yours,

PAUL S. TAYLOR.

BERKELEY, CALIF., June 4, 1958.

Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: With full appreciation of your interest in assuring that Federal reclamation law is not to be sacrificed on San Luis project, California, I attach a letter I have just addressed to Congressman Wayne Aspinall, chairman, House Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation, regarding a bill, H. R. 9969, which was not mentioned when you questioned me at the hearing on May 1, 1958.

Perhaps because of the objections made before your subcommittee by the California State Federation of Labor and others to S. 1887, it may be that those desiring Federal help under reclamation law without complying with its policies for distributing benefits and water resources are preparing to drop H. R. 6035 (counterpart to S. 1887) and to substitute another bill not yet subjected to critical analysis, viz., H. R. 9969.

Like S. 1887 and H. R. 6305, H. R. 9969 sacrifices Federal reclamation law. It exempts San Luis project and at least portions of Central Valley project from the Warren Act provisions of 1911. This is what was attempted in another form in 1944 and again in 1947, under the leadership of former Congressman Alfred Elliott and former Senator Sheridan Downey.

I hope you will print this correspondence in any hearings in which H. R. 9969 or a similar bill might come before your subcommittee.

Sincerely yours,

PAUL S. TAYLOR.

BERKELEY, CALIF., May 31, 1958.

Congressman WAYNE ASPINALL,

Chairman, House Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation,

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN ASPINALL: According to a Washington dispatch appearing in California newspapers on May 29, 1958, you are scheduling San Luis bills for subcommittee consideration "at the earliest opportunity." In earlier communications I indicated some specific objections to S. 1887 (and its House counterpart H. R. 6305); attached hereto please find objections to S. 1887 submitted by the California State Federation of Labor to a Senate subcommittee, in which I concur.

The newspaper item before me mentions the Hagen bill, evidently H. R. 9969. It says the Interior Department "has no objection" provided "the bill is amended to protect the Federal interests." It does not specify what amendment the Department desires as a condition of full approval of the bill; I should appreciate specific information on what aspect of the "Federal interest" the Department believes to be in need of protection. In my opinion, H. R. 9969 proposes to make Central Valley project (as well as San Luis) the instrument for sacrificing the Federal excess land law under which Central Valley project was constructed, wherever the State of California may decide in the future to use it in supplying water or drainage. This cannot be described as applying reclamation law by any stretch of language; nor will the “Federal interest" be protected until the bill is drastically revised.

H. R. 9969, like S. 1887 and House counterparts, applies Federal reclamation laws "except" and the exceptions probably will be found to be more weighty than the applications.

Section 5 specifically makes Central Valley project and San Luis project works, constructed with the financial generosity of Federal reclamation law, available to "store or transfer water" for "ultimate delivery by the State." Section 9 specifically exempts from the excess land provision of Federal reclamation laws any "water deliveries" or "use of drainage facilities serving lands under contract with the State ***."

It would be reasonable to entitle these proposals "a bill to repeal for a large part of Central Valley, Calif., the provision in Federal reclamation law declaring 'that water shall not be furnished from any such reservoir or delivered through any such canal or ditch to any one landowner in excess of an amount sufficient to irrigate 160 acres' " (36 Stat. 926; also 925).

It is unclear precisely how large a part of Central Valley is to be exempted because its lands may ultimately be served with water or drained "under contract with the State." It is unclear, likewise, how extensive the concentration of landownership is in the area to be given access to Federal facilities minus Federal policy. It is well known, however.

(1) that the region in general proximity to San Luis project, and presumably to use its water transfer, drainage and other facilities, is characterized by perhaps the greatest concentration of ownership of irrigable land to be found anywhere in the United States (see Sheridan Downey, They Would Rule the Valley, p. 164);

(2) that as long ago as 1944 a "proposal," "said to have originated among the big landowners of Fresno County," to "sidestep the 160-acre limitation" by making use of the State of California, was reported in Business Week Magazine (May 13, 1944);

(3) that the United States has been unable so far to obtain repayment contracts under reclamation law on two great rivers adjacent to the San Luis area where landholdings are large, for dams completed as long ago as 1954, although other water users in the same Central Valley have accepted water under reclamation law by overwhelming votes;

(4) that in an adjacent area Secretary Seaton recently repudiated a repayment contract negotiated by his predecessor, Secretary Douglas McKay, because it undermined the excess-land provision in an area of great landholdings. He said: "it is my duty not only to conform to the technical provisions of the law but also, within whatever discretion I may have, to seek compliance with the principles on which the legislation rests" (letter to P. A. Gordon, July 12, 1957).

H. R. 9969, like other San Luis bills, proposes a substantial Federal contribution toward a partnership venture to be shared in some way by the State. Should it not give your subcommittee pause that despite years of effort and extraordinarily persistent and vigorous promotion, the California legislature has refused flatly to vote one penny for construction of Feather River project, named in H. R. 9969 as the State's part of the undertaking?

The objection to acceptance of water under reclamation law expressed publicly by a single landholder of 120,000 acres in a single district is sufficient, according to testimony of an Assistant Secretary of the Interior, to endanger the "feasibility of the project." (House hearings on H. R. 6305, H. R. 9969 et al., pp. 41, 42.) Should this not also give pause to your subcommittee before authorizing the spending of Federal funds?

I think that fuller and closer scrutiny of H. R. 9969 would disclose other loopholes for destruction of Federal policy than those already mentioned above; at any rate, the marks of draftsmanship on the bill are not those of believers