water supply. These efforts were aimed at improving statutory authorities and mechanics of administration to the end that effective application of the acreage limitation provisions of reclamation law would find the means of practical operation in keeping with changing circumstances and conditions of expanding Federal reclamation undertakings. The evolution of laws relating to the settlement of public and private lands, the amortization of project costs, the transition from individual responsibility to the joint-liability features of the water users organization, and the curtailment of speculation each had a direct bearing on the legislative enactment and administration of the excess land laws. As previously indicated, application of the acreage limitations was extended to nonproject lands served with irrigation water under provisions of the Warren Act of 1911. addition, Congress imposed the principle of acreage limitation on those special projects authorized for construction pursuant to the Water Conservation and Utilization Act (act of Oct. 14, 1940; 54 Stat. 1119).

The Small Reclamation Projects Act (act of Aug. 6, 1956; 70 Stat. 1044) authorizes the loan of Federal funds to local organizations for projects similar to Federal reclamation projects, but not authorized for Federal construction. In this act, the Congress adopted the policy of permitting the enjoyment of irrigation benefits on excess lands and requires the organization to pay interest on that portion of the loan balance attributed to furnishing such benefits.

While the Congress, by special act, has effected certain limited adjustments in acreage limitation provisions, the conclusion is inescapable that the general pattern of its many and successive pronouncements, throughout the growth of the reclamation laws, stands, as a legislative mandate to the Secretary of the Interior that the excess land provisions shall have full application to the lands receiving the benefits of Federal irrigation.

B. ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY

In the early administration of acreage limitation provisions of the act of June 17, 1902, supra, public lands presented but few problems. Principally, concern was expressed as to whether the Secretary of the Interior had the authority to establish units of different sizes on the same project. It was held that this could be done, inasmuch as the only limitation upon the power of the Secretary was that lands must be entered under provisions of the homestead laws, in tracts of not less than 40 nor more than 160 acres. Additionally, entries were required administratively to conform to the legal subdivisions of the land and accordingly were fixed in tracts of 40 acres or multiples thereof up to a maximum of 160 acres. The act of June 27, 1906 (34 Stat. 519), permitted the Secretary to establish farm units as small as 10 acres on projects suitable for speciality crop production. The units could depart from subdivision surveys where desirable. Some entrymen had originally entered 160 acres of land under the homestead laws prior to the establishment of farm units limiting the area per entry under a project. Instructions were administratively issued to provide that after farm units were established the relinquishment of that portion of the er try in excess of the prescribed farm unit would be relinquished (Instructions, Aug. 5, 1904, 33 L.D. 159).

Insofar as private lands were concerned, the problems under the 1902 act were of a more complicated nature. It became apparent at an early date that large areas of land in private ownership would be reclaimed in connection with the many proposed reclamation projects. Two problems were presented: First, since the owner of private lands could not be compelled to purchase water rights, it was necessary to secure advance commitments from enough landowners to insure the return of project construction costs. Second, it was essential that large holdings be broken up into tracts of not more than 160 acres in order that there might be enough eligible owners to apply for water rights and undertake payment of costs. A solution to these problems was sought through private organizations known as water users' associations. Project landowners desiring water were required to purchase one share of stock in these associations for each acre of land owned. In the stock subscription contract, the landowner agreed to make application for water rights for his land upon the issuance of public notice by the Secretary formally opening the project, and the landowner further agreed to subject his land to a lien to secure payment of assessments levied by the association against the stock. Although it was provided by the stock subscription contract that the landowner would pay for his stock by paying to the United States the construction charges against his land, the association undertook to guarantee the repayment to the United States of the project construction costs.

Under the above procedures owners of large tracts were permitted to make initial stock subscription covering all their land, subject to the condition that land in excess of 160 acres subsequently be transferred to a person eligible to apply for a water right. In addition to making initial subscription for stock in the water users' association, owners of excess land were required to execute trust deeds or contracts granting to the association, or to a third party, the power to sell land to persons qualified to apply for a water right. Upon failure of the owner to sell the land within a specified period, and in case of failure on the part of the trustee to enforce the trust deed, the Secretary was given power to designate a third party to sell the land (Aug. 30, 1904, 33 L.D. 204).

This early system of stock subscriptions and trust deeds as a mechanism for breaking up excess holdings was only partially successful. Adverse legal decisions, failure in some instances to secure enough settlers to carry the burden of project costs, and reluctance in some cases to take sufficiently vigorous action to enforce the terms of the trust deeds were among the difficulties. Another reason this system was not successful was that the trust deeds became effective only upon the issuance of public notice formally opening the project and on some projects the issuance of such notice was delayed, justifiably or not, for several years. In a few instances, due to subsequent legislation authorizing the execution of joint-liability contracts with irrigation districts, no such notice was ever issued.

Use of the water-right application on these private holdings proved a more effective vehicle for securing compliance with the excess acreage limitations. Such applications were required of all project landowners after issuance of public notice pursuant to section 4 of the Reclamation Project Act of June 17, 1902, supra, as a condition precedent to securing project water (Reg., May 31, 1910, 38 L.D.

637, 639). The application included a form affidavit by which the applicant was required to disclose whether he owned any other land subject to water-right application. The applicant was required to furnish information as to the nature of his interest in the land and no application was accepted unless it was shown that the interest of the applicant would ripen into fee simple title before the last payment of construction charges would fall due. It was further provided in the water-right application that if the land should at any time pass into the hands of a person not qualified to apply for a water right under the Reclamation Act, the application would be subject to cancellation with forfeiture of all payments previously made. It was also stipulated that no final evidence of title to the water right would issue when final payment of the construction charges had been made if the then owner of the land should hold in excess of 160 acres of land subject to the provisions of the Reclamation Act.

At an early date, water-right applications for not to exceed 160 acres of land appear to have been accepted from persons owning more than 160 acres of project land (Reg., May 31, 1910; 38 L.D. 640). After the 1912 act became effective, however, a water-right application was not accepted unless it included all the land of the applicant for which application could be made (Reg., Apr. 29, 1912; 40 L.D. 665). This, in effect, meant that the owner of excess land would be required to dispose of his excess holdings as a condition precedent of securing water for his nonexcess land (40 L.D. 665). Although this was covered by appropriate regulations having as their purpose to induce large landowners to subdivide their holdings, the regulations also permitted the owner of private land, who had made water-right application for 160 acres of land and had disposed of the land, to acquire another tract and apply for a water right (Reg., May 10, 1910; 38 L.D. 637).

It has also been noted that, under the 1902 Reclamation Act, no water right was to be sold to any landowner "unless he be an actual bona fide resident on such land or occupant thereof residing in the neighborhood." The water-right application also served as a vehicle for the enforcement of this requirement and the applicant was obliged to furnish information as to residence. Residence within a maximum of 50 miles of the project was then held to be compliance with the law (Reg., May 31, 1910; 38 L.D. 637).

For several years this interpretation of the residence requirement was construed as continuing so long as construction charges remained unpaid and a transferee of privately owned land had to show compliance in his supplemental water-right application. However, in 1916, it was administratively determined that the provision was applicable only to the initial water-right applicant (Apr. 25, 1916, C.L. No. 557).

The practice was adopted during early years of requiring each subsequent purchaser of private lands to execute a supplemental water-right application even though the former owner had made application while the land was in his ownership (Reg., May 31, 1910; 38 L.D. 638). The reason for this was apparently that early waterright applications were not placed on record and it was thus necessary to secure a new application from a subsequent purchaser in order to assure the validity of the Government's lien. The practical effect of this system, insofar as excess land restrictions are concerned, was

to require each successive owner to submit his qualifications to hold project land to the scrutiny of project officials. This served as an expeditious system for preventing the accumulation of excess land in single ownership as a result of land transfers.

Under the act of June 23, 1910 (36 Stat. 592), entrymen could, in certain conditions, assign their entries. Such assignments were, however, subject to the terms, conditions, and requirements of the Reclamation Act. Accordingly, for purposes of enforcement, the assignee of a farm unit was required to furnish an affidavit that he did not own any other farm unit subject to reclamation laws and that the total area of land owned by him, including the farm unit, did not exceed a total of 160 acres (Reg., Apr. 29, 1912; 40 L.D. 660). This amounted to an interpretation of the reclamation laws as permitting the acquisition of a water right for a farm unit and additional privately owned land up to a maximum of 160 acres of both classes. However, this interpretation was overruled by the legislative provisions of the act of August 9, 1912 (37 Stat. 265), forbidding the acquisition of a water right for land in addition to a farm unit entered under reclamation laws before payment in full of all charges against the land in excess of one farm unit.

In further regard to assignments, departmental instructions issued in 1911 (39 L.D. 504) permitted a married woman to take an assignment of a farm unit made by the owner under the act of June 23, 1910, supra, despite the provisions of the homestead laws limiting entries to heads of families or single persons over 21 years of age. Under the procedure confirmed in 1914 (43 L.D. 364), a husband forced to relinquish that portion of his entry in excess of one farm unit was permitted to assign a portion of the entry to his wife. The wife was required to show by affidavit that the assignment was paid for out of her own separate funds, in which her husband had no interest or claim; that she was not trustee for or on behalf of the assignor; and that the assignment was accompanied by a conveyance.

Although an entryman was not permitted to conform his entry by making assignment to a minor (Instructions, Feb. 1, 1916; 45 L.D. 22), it was held at an early date that the owner of more than 160 irrigable acres of private land could transfer the excess to his wife or minor children and thus entitle them to receive project water consistent with the provisions of the Reclamation Act (Instructions, May 21, 1904; 32 L.D. 647). It was also administratively ruled in 1916 that where applicants for project water owned land jointly or as tenants in common each was to be charged only with his fractional interest in the land (June 13, 1916, C.L. No. 565). Under this interpretation, water may be supplied to a tract of land not in excess of 320 acres owned by husband and wife as joint tenants or tenants in common. It was also determined that a husband and wife might acquire a water right for a tract of land not exceeding 320 acres held in community ownership even though the title might be in the name of one of the spouses only (Solicitor's Opinion M-34172, Aug. 21, 1945). The eligibility of husband and wife to receive water for 320 irrigable acres, held as community property, is today recognized on all reclamation projects. At the outset, corporations were permitted to make application for water rights provided that a showing could be made that the land owned by the stockholders, plus the land of the corporation for which application was made, did not exceed 160 acres (Feb. 2, 1909, 37

L.D. 428). In 1913 this ruling was reversed and it was held that a corporation was not qualified to make water-right application (Instructions, July 11, 1913; 42 L.D. 250; July 19, 1913, 42 L.D. 253). This holding was subsequently modified to exempt charitable corporations from its provisions (Departmental Decision, Dec. 5, 1916, unpublished) and to permit a corporation to purchase land with appurtenant water rights where application had previously been made by a properly qualified person (Departmental Decision, Dec. 6, 1916, unpublished). Since the effective date of the act of May 25, 1926 (44 Stat. 636), corporations have been permitted to acquire private land in tracts not in excess of 160 irrigable acres and secure project water therefor in the same manner as natural persons, subject only to the requirement that the purpose and business intent of each such corporate entity will be considered individually and no corporation can receive project water if it is determined that said corporation was established for the purpose of holding project lands in a manner inconsistent with the acreage limitation provisions of reclamation law.

When the 1912 act (act of Aug. 9, 1912; 37 Stat. 265) became effective, a number of questions of interpretation arose with specific reference to section 3 thereof. With respect to private land, in addition to a farm unit, being eligible to receive a project water supply, the rule prior to the 1912 act, supra, permitted such an arrangement so long as the total of both classes did not exceed 160 acres. Section 3 of the 1912 act, however, defines excess land as "land in excess of one farm unit *** or single ownership of private land for which water may be purchased respectively, nor in any case in excess of 160 acres ***"" The precise question as to whether this proviso precluded the holding of a farm unit and additional private land was presented in the case of Keebaugh and Cook (Oct. 31, 1913; 42 L.D. 543). Keebaugh and Cook, each of whom held a farm unit with appurtenant water rights, made water-right application for a tract of private land which they owned jointly. In the finding on this case it was held that the application could not be accepted inasmuch as they could not hold and obtain water rights for both a farm unit of public land and a tract of privately owned lands unless the installments on water rights for the private lands, not exceeding 160 acres, had been paid in full.

Despite this decision, regulations issued in 1916 (45 L.D. 394) continued to carry a provision that ownership of a farm unit and of additional private land was permissible without payment in full of construction charges so long as the total did not exceed 160 acres. However, the question was finally clarified and resolved by instructions issued on July 1, 1920 (47 L.D. 418), that water will not be furnished to private lands in addition to an unpatented farm unit unless all water charges on one of the tracts have been paid in full.

Some question also existed as to whether, upon issuance of patent, a farm unit which had then become private land still retained its identity as a farm unit and thus remained subject to limitations thereon as provided by statute. Varying interpretations of the effect of section 3 in this connection have been indicated. The early decisions and instructions of the Department are consistent with the view that the issuance of a patent does not vary the rule for purposes of excess land considerations. Any confusion resulting from early instructions