OCR Text |
Show affected by these decisions. Allocation of water rights, and social costs resulting from farm failures, exemplify the varied interests a state can have. In most of the West, state governments have established regulatory agencies to allocate scarce water rights and have assigned priorities for water use among domestic and municipal uses, agricultural uses, and industrial uses. These priorities generally become part of a state's economic development plan. Thus, a state government, through its state water engineer or another agency, should have the power to determine if water rights are available and should be committed to Federal lands for irrigated agriculture. It is particularly important that the state be given the opportunity to determine the effect of water transfers, especially if changes in points of diversion are involved and existing return flows and subsequent appropriations are disturbed. As in other parts of this report, the Commission endorses the concept embodied in the Public Land Sale Act of 1964, which contains a provision that lands should not be disposed of until zoning regulations have been enacted by the appropriate local authority.14 It is not likely that state or local governments will object to the establishment of most farm enterprises; but since they will be required to provide whatever additional social services may be needed for the new enterprise, it is appropriate to give them the opportunity to determine whether allocation to intensive agriculture would be consistent with overall state and local development plans. If they fail to utilize the opportunity, and water is available, the Federal Government should be able to proceed with disposal. Future agricultural development in Alaska should be based entirely on lands selected by the state under the statehood grant. Direct participation of the state in the whole process of making lands available for development is especially important in Alaska because of the relative lack of development and the high cost of making governmental services available to remote locations. The statehood grant of over 100 million acres, however, gives Alaska an opportunity to exert control over agricultural development in the state. At the present time, there is no statutory authority for classification of public lands in Alaska other than that provided under the temporary Classification and Multiple Use Act of 1964.ir> The kind of classification under the Taylor Grazing Act1G that controls agricultural entries on public lands in the lower 48 states does not apply to Alaska, which is excluded from the provisions of the Taylor Act. Thus, Alaska 14 43 U.S.C. § 1422 (1964). 15 43 U.S.C. §§1421-1427, as amended, (Supp. IV, 1969). 1G43 U.S.C. § 315f (1964). 182 is the one state in which agricultural entries under the Homestead Act17 can be made anywhere on unappropriated, unreserved public domain lands. The Homestead Act has been generally unsuccessful in Alaska. We note that only one-third of the claims went to patent and less than 6 percent of the patented land is now cultivated. To an even greater extent than in other areas, homesteading was used as a means of acquiring public lands by people who were interested in settlement, but not necessarily in farming.18 The lack of control over the location of homesteads has caused a substantial expenditure of public funds to provide schools, roads, and other services to remote areas. Because, as indicated above, the Taylor Act does not apply in Alaska, there is no machinery for screening homestead entries on a case by case basis. This lack of control by either the Federal or the state government would be rectified by our proposal. The State of Alaska has already selected most of the suitable agricultural land. Any Federal approach to making lands available for agricultural use on an indiscriminate basis without fullest consultation with the state would only succeed in encouraging fraudulent use of the Federal laws and in frustrating state efforts to plan land uses statewide. Consideration of Restraints Recommendation 71: The allocation of public lands to agricultural use should not be burdened by artificial and obsolete restraints such as acreage limitations on individual holdings, farm residency requirements, and the exclusion of corporations as eligible applicants. The agricultural land laws contain a number of restrictions designed for the settlement objectives of those laws. The principal limitations deal with individual acreage holdings, residency requirements, and the ban in some cases against corporate farming. We can understand the reasons that led to the use of such restraints in the agricultural land laws. But our review has convinced us that the continued imposition of limitations that were designed for an earlier era is not wise and that great care must be taken in imposing new limitations. The great speed with which changes in technology and the organization of agriculture take place today can make policies that appear to be modern obsolete within a few years. 17 n. 1, supra. 18 University of Wisconsin, Federal Land Laws and Policies in Alaska, Ch. V. PLLRC Study Report, 1970. |