dam. It simply limits it to the cost of the canal. In this particular case the Senate has allocated $25 million toward the cost of the dam. It is true that the $25 million must be paid back, but the payment may be postponed until the end of the period of amortization. I think that in view of the fact that this dam has to be built for flood-control purposes, and in view of such allocation, we should exempt those lands in Imperial Valley from the payment of any part of the cost of that dam.

Mr. KING. Then it is apparent that the residents of Imperial Valley will have the benefits of flood control, storage water, the certainty of getting an equated flow, and will be required to pay for nothing except the cost of the All-American Canal.

Mr. PITTMAN. That is the fact; but I think the circumstances warrant it.

Mr. KING. Does the Senator think there should be no distinction between those who have vested rights, who have already appropriated water in the Imperial Valley, and those who have no vested rights, and have never appropriated any water?

Mr. PITTMAN. No; I do not think we can have a successful reclamation project if we attempt to draw that distinction, because undoubtedly even those with the vested rights will have to pay a part of this cost if the Government is to be repaid ***

Although the language of the letter of Secretary Wilbur seems broad enough to include the Coachella Valley District lands, the letter was clearly intended only to apply to the Imperial Irrigation lands. It apparently assumes that all privately owned land in the district was under irrigation and had a vested water right. Nothing in the files indicates whether such is the factual situation, and there is strong indication that the Coachella Valley lands are to a very large degree as yet not irrigated.

Furthermore, an examination of the files reveals that the letter of the former Secretary was written at the request of counsel of the Imperial District who wanted a ruling on the application of the excessland provisions "provided, That such ruling would be that the 160acre limitation did not apply." Purposely, the letter of Secretary Wilbur never took the form of a formal decision. It was written solely for the purpose of giving partisan help to the Imperial Water District, as the delay of the final confirmation of the contract held up the construction of the All-American Canal. Besides, the time of the Hoover administration was near its close. In less than 10 days after the date of Secretary Wilbur's letter (February 24, 1933), President Roosevelt was inaugurated.

In summary, then, I reach the conclusion that in view of section 14 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, which makes that act supplementary to the Federal reclamation law, the excess-land provisions contained therein are carried into operation with respect to the Coachella Valley water lands and should be incorporated in the contracts presently under consideration.

Respectfully,

Approved: May 31, 1945.

SECRETARY'S LETTER ON KINGS RIVER (CALIF.) CONTRACT

Mr. PHILIP A. GORDON,

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

President, Board of Directors,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D. C., July 12, 1957.

Kings River Conservation District, Fresno, Calif.

DEAR MR. GORDON: After painstaking consideration, I have concluded the terms of the proposed contract between the United States and your district-the Kings River Conservation District of Fresno, Calif.-should not be approved.

As you are well aware, your district and the Department of the Interior have been confronted with the settlement of this question since 1946.

There are some fundamental principles involved in the statutory provisions relating to excess landholdings which should be taken into account in this case and other cases of similar import. From the inception of the reclamation law, and by later amendments, the excess land limitations have been designed to accomplish two primary objectives; one, a wide distribution of landholdings by a group of beneficiaries of the Federal investment, and second, the avoidance of speculative profits arising from the Federal investment. The first objective is sought by limiting irrigation benefits to 160 acres in one ownership. The second objective is sought to be reached by requiring owners of excess lands, who seek to obtain water for such excess lands, to execute what is known as recordable contracts.

The decision by the California Supreme Court in the Ivanhoe case is still pending on appeal. At present that case presents some difficult legal issues relating to land limitations. The Federal statutes provide for repayment contracts having the approval of the Secretary, and I must comply with those statutes. I have not been convinced that this proposed contract should have that approval even if these legal issues are satisfactorily resolved.

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. Classified on the basis of excess lands, the record provided me by the Bureau of Reclamation shows the following:

Among the large landowners are several corporations owning between 10,000 and 20,000 acres each.

As Secretary of the Interior, 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. To furnish a regulated supply of water to those landholdings which are so greatly in excess of the provisions of Federal law, under a strained statutory construction, is violative of those principles, in my opinion.

I am fully aware that over the years there have been legal opinions presented and approved which have permitted individual landowners to avoid the excess land limitations of the law by a prepayment of their administratively allocated share of construction costs. However, I cannot justify an aggravation of a prior practice in an effort to remedy an absence of lawful authority.

In this case, I remain unconvinced that I either should or could approve this proposed contract-either as a matter of principle or of law.

The Department continues to recognize and support the basic concept of reclamation law that full and final payment of the obligation of a district to the Federal Government ends the applicability of the acreage limitations.

But the overriding issue here is whether this contract which provides for the release of individuals, rather than a district as a whole, should be approved. As I have pointed out, I conceive it to be the duty of the Department of the Interior, and my duty as Secretary, to exert every effort to see that applicable laws are complied with. Where discretion may be vested in the Department or the Secretary, that discretion should be exercised to obtain compliance with the principles on which the legislation is enacted. What I am concerned about is a process by which inferences are based on inferences and there is a whittling away at a principle until all that is left is a pile of shavings.

What the terms of a contract should be depends on factors in a given case. In the Kings River situation, the proposed options of prepayment, extended to each water user, would reduce the statutory limitations to a mere shadow. This would make the test, not one of public policy, but solely one of the financial capability of each landowner to purchase immunity from the statutory restrictions. So long as the present acreage limitations remain in the basic reclamation law, they should be complied with, until the district has fully discharged its obligations to the Federal Government.

This Department remains willing to work with your district to seek an acceptable solution to the various issues which must be resolved before a contract may be finally approved.

Whether the district will deem it appropriate to seek a solution by special congressional act is for the district to determine.

Sincerely,

FRED A. SEATON, Secretary of the Interior.

JULY 10, 1957.

PROPOSED CONTRACT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE KINGS RIVER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

Bureau of Reclamation: Excess lands

The Secretary of the Interior lacks statutory authority to permit individual holders of excess lands in the Kings River Conservation District to pay the reimbursable costs administratively allocable to those holdings and thereby be relieved from the limitations on supplying water to excess lands.

Bureau of Reclamation: Repayment and water service contracts

Repayment and water service contracts entered into by the Secretary of the Interior for the utilization of flood-control dams and reservoirs operated under the direction of the Secretary of the Army for irrigation purposes must conform with the mandate found in section 46 of the Omnibus Adjustment Act of 1926.

Secretary of the Interior

The Secretary of the Interior is not authorized by Federal reclamation law to agree to provisions in the proposed contract with the Kings River Conservation District whereby individual holders of excess lands will be permitted to pay the reimbursable costs allocable to their excess holdings and thereby be relieved from the limitations on supplying water to excess lands and the consequences of the antispeculation features of the recordable contracts required by law. Statutory construction: Generally

Unrepealed provisions of earlier laws having specific application cannot be infused with new life for the purpose of implementing later law.

Statutory construction: Administrative construction

Administrative rulings cannot thwart the plain purpose of a valid law nor can prior administrative practice remedy an absence of lawful authority.

Statutory construction: Administrative construction

Administrative rulings and practices cannot enlarge the application of the opinion of the Associate Solicitor dated October 22, 1947 (M-35004), which advised that full payment of the reimbursable costs by a district relieved the excess lands in that district from the statutory restrictions on supplying water to such lands.