OCR Text |
Show 225 a partial alleviation of the credit problem. As to the entry- man, the statute entitled him to a patent before payment of construction charges upon prescribed proof of residence, rec- lamation, and cultivation.444 The foregoing 1912 legislation also tended to reenforce the acreage-limitation provisions of the 1902 Act. For it prohib- ited delivery of project water to land in excess of 160 acres, or in excess of a farm unit as established by the Secretary, until payment in full of all installments of construction costs on such excess lands.445 The 1912 statute also provided for inclusion in patents and water-right certificates of a detailed provision for forfeiture of acquired if it is disposed of within a reasonable period of time. Glenn L. Kimmel and Goshen Irr. Dist, 53 I. D. 658 (1932) ; James P. Balkwill, 55 I. D. 241 (1935). 444 § 1, 37 Stat. 265, 43 U. S. C. 541. 445 § 3,37 Stat. 266,43 U. S. C. 544. Under this section, the Associate Solicitor of the Department of the Inte- rior has determined that payment in full of the charges under a water-right application, except operation and maintenance charges, removes the lands for which the water right is acquired from the excess-land restrictions. And it was likewise determined that payment in full of construction costs due under a joint-liability contract with an irrigation district relieves the land receiving water under such contract from the excess-land restrictions. Department of the Interior Solicitor's Opinion No. M-35004, October 22,1947. Under this opinion, the Bureau's Chief Counsel has advised that, where it is possible to identify the portion of the joint-liability construction charge allocable against an individual ownership, the owner may free his land from the acreage limitation by full payment of his share of the construc- tion charge, even though the general repayment obligation of the organiza- tion has not been discharged and even though the land involved is subject to a contingent liability for amounts representing possible defaults in payment of construction charges on other lands. Memorandum from the Chief Counsel, Bureau of Reclamation, to the Commissioner of Reclama- tion, September 3, 1948. It has been judicially determined that lands susceptible of irrigation within a district and benefited by the project to the enhancement of their value are properly included within the district and assessable accord- ingly, independently of ownership conditions or of the inability under federal law of the owner to receive water for more than 160 acres. Bhoshone Irri- gation District v. Lincoln Land Co., 51 F. 2d 128 (D. C. Wyo. 1930). See also statement by the Bureau's Chief Counsel, Hearings before a Subcom- mittee of the Senate Committee on Public Lands on S. 912, 80th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 1270-1281 (1947). |