OCR Text |
Show The Situation Congress included in the Reclamation Act of 1902 the following provisions: "No right to the use of water for land in private ownership shall be sold for a tract exceeding 160 acres to any one land- owner, and no such sale shall be made to any land- owner unless he be an actual bona fide resident on such land, or occupant thereof residing in the neighborhood of such land, and no such right shall permanently attach until all payments therefor are made.4 As construed, this means 160 acres apiece for a man, his wife, and each minor child. Further, nothing in the law prevents individual owners from operating their properties as a unit. The purposes of this land limitation provision are: To extend the direct benefits of reclamation to the greatest possible number of people. To promote the development and settlement of public domain and other arid land on the basis of family-size farms, following the principle of the homestead acts. To prevent speculation in lands where the value is increased by the irrigation facilities. The application of the above law to the irriga- tion projects in the Rio Grande Basin is of particu- lar concern in the proposed Valley Gravity Project in Texas and the San Luis Valley Project in Colo- rado. Valley Gravity Project.-Farm costs and returns for the proposed Valley Gravity Project near the Gulf demonstrate that the 160-acre tract is ade- quate as a family-size unit. However, an analysis of the land holdings, the majority of which are now under irrigation, showed that 2 percent of the total landowners held large acreages amount- ing to 34 percent of the project area. These land- owners are of two types: large corporations or groups operating their holdings for agricultural production and having their own related facilities such as packing plants, marketing organizations, and fertilizer plants; and land development com- panies that purchase large areas of land which they improve for resale at a profit. The first group is the one which presents a prob- lem in the application of the 160-acre principle, in- asmuch as the second group, though initially holding large acreages, normally resell the land in individual farm units. The highly successful corporations and large landholders are not willing to participate in the program which requires that they dispose of * Act of Tune 17,1902, § 5,32 Stat. 389, 43 U. S. C. 431. 338 their holdings in excess of 160 acres, if project waters are to be delivered to these excess lands. Through their influence, the project may be de- layed or prevented entirely to the detriment of the large majority of farmers in the area. Similar problems exist in reference to the Rio Grande Project, New Mexico and Texas, and the Carlsbad Project, New Mexico, and may be asso- ciated with future Federal irrigation projects in the basin. San Luis Valley Project.-Another type of prob- lem is found on the San Luis Valley Project. Use of the land for agricultural purposes on this project is divided into two categories. Much of the better- class land is now utilized in growing cash crops and feed for farm livestock. Other lands with high water table are used in producing meadow hay and pasture to support the livestock industry. An analysis of the farming economy with an adequate supply of water indicates that a reasonable family- size unit would contain 160 acres of better-class ir- rigated land. However, Bureau of Reclamation studies show that it requires about a 640-acre irri- gated tract, mostly meadow land used for hay and pasture, to support a family unit based on livestock. Conclusions The principle embodied in the reclamation law that the benefits of Federal financial assistance through irrigation projects should go only to family- size farms, together with other antispeculation and antimonopoly provisions, should be maintained and enforced. It should be extended to apply with- out discrimination to all new projects involving Federal investment in the reclaiming of land, whether by irrigation, drainage, or other methods. The present 160-acre limitation provision should be considered as a maximum, with flexibility for adjustment downward after hearings, to adapt it to types of farming characteristic of different areas. It should apply only to the reclaimable portion of a farm. In regions where it is proposed to deliver sup- plemental water to areas already under irrigation, provisions should be made for the supplying of an equitable share of such water to existing farms ex- ceeding the acreage limitation under utility type contracts. In these contracts the charges for the water should be based on the full cost of supplying water to such lands, including amortization with interest of the full investment allocable to this purpose. |