| OCR Text |
Show Approximately 265,000 of this million acres are re- ported to be held by three companies, and around 650,000 of the million are in 34 holdings of more than 5,000 acres each. The concentration of such large areas of land in the hands of a few owners, and the resultant limita- tion on opportunities for owner-operated, family- size farms and attendant social benefits, are generally recognized to be not in the public interest. But the question to be faced is whether or not the acreage limitation of reclamation law is the solution. Con- tract arrangements for the sale of water were not concluded prior to project construction. If the large owners do not wish to comply with acreage limitations, and supplemental water is not made available to them, it is possible that they will make up their water deficit by pump irrigation, using water derived from the supplemental surface irri- gation. On the other hand such pumping may be definitely limited by ground water shortages. Application of reclamation law in those Central Valley areas where additional supplemental water supplies have already been developed thus is faced with difficulties. Other means of attaining objec- tives may have to be considered. The Tenant Pur- chase Program of the Department of Agriculture can be applied to financing the division of all or parts of surplus holdings which might be offered for sale. State legislation limiting the size of irrigated land holdings, especially by corporations, might be considered. If developed water is to be made available to acreages above the legal limitation, the public inter- est should be protected by preventing any windfall or speculative advantage accruing to the owner. This could be done by making an additional charge for those increments of water received in addition to the acreage limitation base. Or the additional water can b>e charged for at a rate which would re- pay the Federal irrigation investment with interest. A problem relating to ground water may develop in connection with application of the acreage limi- tation. With surface water supplies, the delivery of water to excess lands can be restricted without un- due difficulty, but such is not the case with water used for ground water replenishment. Recent con- tracts between the Bureau of Reclamation and districts along the Friant-Kern Canal have per- mitted Central Valley Project water which is sup- plied to nonexcess lands and which unavoidably reached the underground strata of excess lands to be pumped by the owner of those lands. Conclusions The policy choice in this instance is not whether the family-size farm is desirable. That is consid- ered an appropriate and just national objective, especially as the virtue of mechanization is now modified by the adaptation of farm machinery to family farm use. The promotion of family-size farms embodied in the reclamation law is in the national interest. No particular difficulties are ex- pected in applying the acreage limitation law to new lands that may be developed by irrigation in the Central Valley. Furthermore most family-operated farms in the Central Valley today have less than 160 irrigated acres. The policy choice rather relates to tjie rigid ap- plication of acreage limitation to already irrigated lands for which supplemental water becomes avail- able through projects under construction. An un- usual situation prevails at the present time in the Central Valley. Because of the location of irrigable land, and established water rights, some supple- mental water supplies, as in the Kern River area, can be used only on certain large holdings. If strict acreage limitation immediately is insisted upon, one of two eventualities appears likely. Land purchase or new legislation will be required for the division of the large holdings, or the water will be wasted. Where water is in such short supply and great de- mand, waste of water cannot be countenanced. The difficulties could have been avoided by in- sistence upon the signing of contracts before con- struction commenced. Since that was not done in this case the general recommendations of the Com- mission for this situation should be considered for the large holdings which stand to benefit from sup- plemental water. In this, the ultimate objective would be the creation of family-size farms within the holdings. For the time being, however, in order to make the best use of land resources and water in these areas, the water could be made available to entire units insofar as consistent with good irriga- tion practice. If this is done, the public interest should be pro- tected by preventing windfall or speculative values accruing to owners of land holding units in excess of family size. Such owners should be required to pay water charges to prevent such windfall or specula- tive advantages. Nontransferable utility-type con- tracts for such water should be for a period of years, subject to renewal or revision at the end of the period. One consideration in renewal would be the local 114 |
