OCR Text |
Show 236 empt additional projects have not been successful. Thus, in 1944, the House adopted an amendment to a River and Har- bor Bill which would exempt the Central Valley Project from the excess-land provisions.500 But this provision was elimi- nated by the Senate Committee on Commerce.501 In 1947, a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Public Lands held extensive hearings on a bill providing that the land- limitation provisions should not apply to the San Luis Valley Project, Colorado, the Valley Gravity Canal Project, Texas, and the Central Valley Project, California.502 But the bill was never reported out. Still more recently, Congress passed a bill to raise the 160- acre limitation to 480 acres in the case of the San Luis Project, Colorado.503 But President Truman pocket vetoed the bill saying, in a memorandum of disapproval:504 in the area of acreages exceeding 160 acres, they are relatively few in number. Many of these larger farms are held by loan companies and Fed- eral credit agencies which in time probably will liquidate their holdings in small parcels, as more intensive cultivation in the area develops with the increased water supply furnished by the Colorado-Big Thompson proj- ect. The same tendency toward subdivision will probably occur with respect to those larger farms held by individuals." H. Rep. No. 2620, 75th Cong., 3d. sess. (1938). TrucJcee River Storage Project and Humioldt Project: The excess-land pro- visions were here made inapplicable to certain lands irrigated from these projects. Act of November 29, 1940, 54 Stat. 1219. During debate on this proposal on the floor of the Senate, it was said that, "The two projects which are involved in this bill are situated in a place in Nevada where 160 acres are not enough. A person must have more land than 160 acres in order to farm successfully and carry on livestock feeding operations." 86 Cong. Rec. 13681 (1940). Similarly, when the measure was before the House, it was said that, "In areas of high altitude and early frosts where hay for livestock is the chief crop, it has been found very difficult to limit one per- son's holding to 160 acres as an economic unit." 86 Cong. Rec. 13646 (1940). 800 See H. Rep. No. 63, 79th Cong., 1st sess., p. 1 (1945). 801 IUd. 602 Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Public Lands on S. 192, 80th Cong., 1st sess. (1947). 503 S. 1385, 81st Cong., 1st sess. (1949). 804 95 Cong. Reo., unbound ed., p. A7128 (November 4, 1949). The Presi- dent also said that, "In the meantime, I hope that the Congress will con- sider legislation amending the excess-land provisions of the reclamation laws so as to authorize appropriate adjustments in maximum acreages, |