1971 (folder 1 of 3)

(1)

HICIfIRMA11.,

1\\

LORIN W. MARKHAM, President (Washington) MIL() W. HOISVIIN, first Vice President (North ))akota) J. A. RIGONS, Second Vice President (Arizona)

C 2 1971

I. J. COURY, Treasurer (New Mexico)

JAMES F. SORENSEN, Past President (California)

CAR) II. BRONN, Executive Director (Washington, D. C.)

897 NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004 (202) 347-2672

December 21, 1971

Colonel Carl Bronn Executive Director

National Water Resources Association 897 National Press Building

Washington, D. C.

Re: SWC File No. A-18 Dear Carl:

I hope that you were able to do a little skiing while you were on your recent trip to Riverton. I also want to congratulate you upon the honor bestowed upon you by the Upper Four Missouri River Basins States. To my knowledge, you were the first person outside of the four states to be afforded such an honor.

As you are aware, Judge Fred M. Taylor ruled in favor of the Teton Dam

following the law suit in Idaho. However, correspondence from John A. Rosholt, Board member, indicates that if an appeal is taken from the order denying the preliminary injunction, a petition from us would be desirable. It is quite possible that this will not be resolved before our Board meeting, consequently, it could be included along with our desires in respect to Rainbow Bridge

and other amicus curiae proceedings.

I am certain, too, that we will wish to go into detail in respect to the Office of Management and Budget proposal to raise the discount rate to seven percent. Apparently, the conservationists support the high discount rate in view of its adverse effects on large projects. It appears to be the attitude that the high discount rate would be stopping such projects causing

less environmental adversities.

Al Grindberg, my Assistant, indicated that he had a brief visit with you. He mentioned the fact that possibly the Stauffer film could be shown by company representatives, if Senator Burdick could make the arrangements. You can rest assured that upon obtaining further details, I will contact the

Senator and I feel quite certain he would carry the ball on such a program.

DIRECTORS I. A. Riggins, Ariz.

I ames I . Sore men, Calif. J. R. Barkley, Colo. Robert 1. Chuck, Hawaii John A. Rosholt, Idaho

Chris C. Green, Kans. Wesley D'Ewart, Mont.

Judge William C. Smith, Jr., Nebr. Ivan P. Head, Nev.

I. J. Coury, N.M.

Milo W. Hoisveen, N. D. Clarence Base, Okla. LaSelle Coles, Ore. Al A. Schock, S.D. John W. Simmons, Tex.

Ed Southwick, Utah Lorin W. Markham, Wash. Marlin T. Kurtz, Wyo. Joe W. Jarvis,

(2)

•

Colonel Carl Bronn December 21, 1971 Page 2

I will endeavor to be in Washington, D. C. several days prior to our winter Board meeting and assist you in any way possible.

MWH:sl CC: Lorin Markham Ted Riggins Bob Barkley ---I. J. Coury John A. Rosholt Sincerely yours, Milo W. Hoisveen President-Elect

(3)

RECD.

KA-11BKAIL

E'ER 2ESARCES

ASSMATEK

J.R. Barkley P.O. Box 679 Loveland, Colorado Dear Bob:

LORIN W. MARKHAM, President I. J. COURY, Treasurer

,i.DED

2

(Washington) (New Mexico)

MILO W. HOISVEEN, First Vice President JAMES F. SORENSEN, Past President (North Dakota) (California)

J. A. RIGGINS, Second Vice President CARL H. BRONN, Executive Director (Arizona) (Washington, D. C.)

December 20, 1971

Thank you for fixing the date of the Board meeting!

Also, I appreciate your sitting in on the Westwide Water Plan-ning, this Friday.

Regarding the enclosed Board letter, you note that I have not mentioned a reception. This afternoon, I will either write or telephone Milo as a basis for soliciting preferences from the members of his Committee about what we shall do the first week of February.

Sincerely,

CARL H. BRONN

DIRECTORS

J. A. Riggins, Ariz. Chris C. Green, Kans. Milo W. Hoisveen, N.D. Ed Southwick, Utah James F. Sorensen, Calif. Wesley D'Ewart, Mont. Clarence Base, Okla. Lorin W. Markham, Wash. J. R. Barkley, Colo. Judge William C. Smith, Jr., Nebr. LaSelle Coles, Ore. Marlin T. Kurtz, Wyo. Robert T. Chuck, Hawaii Ivan P. Head, Nev. Homer M. Engelhorn, S.D. Oliver A. Thomas, John A. Rosholt, Idaho I. J. Coury, N.M. John W. Simmons, Tex. Railroad Representative, Calif.

(4)

NAllgtiAL

&SSOVIAECti

LORIN W. MARKHAM, President I. J. COURY, Treasurer (Washington) New Mexico)

J. A. RIGGINS, Second Vice President CARL H. BRONN, Executive Director (Arizona) (Washington, D. CI

December 14, 1971

To: NWRA Board of Directors

MID-WINTER BOARD MEETING, TIME AND PLACE

The Mid-Winter Board meeting will be held at the Washington Hotel on February 1, 2 and 3, 1972.

Anyone planning to reserve a room at the Washington Hotel is requested to write directly to the hotel, noting that their reservation is in connection with the National Water Resources Association. Also, if you would send us a copy of your letter to the hotel, we could then double check your confirmation.

The first Board session will be held in the Council Room of the Washington Hotel at 1:30 P.M., Tuesday, February 1. At 3:30 P.M., on that same date, there is an appointment

scheduled for the Board to meet with the Commissioner of

Reclamation, Ellis Armstrong.

Your suggestions as to the agenda of the meeting are

welcome. Any preferences as to authorities with whom you wish

to meet, and any other functions, may be addressed to Milo

Hoisveen as Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Mid-Winter

Board Meeting, State Office Building, 900 Boulevard, Bismarck,

North Dakota.

QUO VADIS RECLAMATION?

You recall that Chairman Aspinall stated he is willing to consider field hearings to develop a current basis for high-er priorities to reclamation wathigh-er development. The feasibility may be affected adversely by a Federal court ruling which, ac-cording to Senator Harris, upholds residency requirements of the

DIRECTORS J. A. Riggins, Ariz. James F. Sorensen, Calif. J. R. Barkley, Colo. Robert T. Chuck, Hawaii John A. Rosholt, Idaho

I. J. Coury, N.M.

..continued..

Milo W. Hoisveen, N.D. Clarence Base, Okla, LaSelle Coles, Ore. Homer M. Engelhorn, S.D. John W. Simmons, Tex.

Ed Southwick, Utah Lorin W. Markham, Wash. Marlin T. Kurtz, Wyo. Oliver A. Thomas,

(5)

Board ----2

Reclamation Act.

See excerpts from 10, 1971 as follows:

d-F, FEDERAL RECLAMATION ACT OF 1902

Mr; HARRIS. Mr. President, I invite o the attention of Senators a recent Fed-hi court ruling of Fed-historic significance this Nation. The ruling, made last ,by- Judge Murray in the United 1...tes District Court for the Southern t.i.Tiztrict of California, upheld a residency •-,..lairement of the Federal Reclamation 1.4.,ct of 1902 which has never been en-',,;:ced. The requirement states that ab-•mtee landowners are not entitled to re-, ive federally irrigated water. The pur-of the Reclamation Act of 1902— also includes a provision limiting ,:;erally irrigated landholdings to 160 or 320 acres in the case of man and --ife—was to assure that the benefits of irrigation projects, paid for by taxpayer, would accrue to economi-viable homesteaders rather than s.peculators or monopolists. 2.-Zfortimately, because of corporate ar'ion and Government, nonenforce-. 2nonenforce-.1t of this law, millions of acres of the

-;2 hest agricultural land in this country now held illegally by large landown-,1:-; in the West. The effect of Judge Mur-Ta.y},s decision, if upheld, would be to r.)-4.eal: up the holdings of the large cor-:'orations which now control almost two -rd's of the irrigated farmland in Cal-^,t;,-.-nia's Imperial Valley. The Imperial I1ey, with half a million acres of crops rth-,•$250 million a year, is now the of such corporate giants—with dings of up to 12,000 acres—as United Dow Chemical, Purex, Tenneco, II. the Irvine Land Co.

•:L„'t:r. President, it is long past the time aid the billion dollar water subsidies ete giant corporations are receiving in ila.tion -of the law and at the expense the independent farmer who is getting ae.ezed off the land. Judge Murray's • -,,,aision is a welcome one for those of us stand against the monopoly of our td and water by a few giant corpora-ns and who stand for the rights of independent family farmers. .!.1.r. President, Judge Murray's decision ,..obab/y will be appealed. We must -..:?erefore ask, Will this administration And on the side of the large corporate '0..rosts or for the small homesteader? ne administration's past record on this ect leaves me with little reason to be-' rf,:ve the small farmer will receive ade-..,7r,te support. Already the Nixon admin-a,tton and the Justice Department ia,ve decided not to appeal an earlier ,,nrt, decision involving the Federal Rec-r.flation Act which favored the large ,..;,ndowners. In that decision, Judge ward Turrentine, a Nixon appointee, that the 160 acre provisions of the iaw do not apply to the Imperial

'area in California.

C

the Congressional

And now we are faced with the distinct possibility that, unless the Congress speaks out clearly in support of America's family farmers, this administration will appeal a related case which rules against the large land-owners. It is no wonder that small farm-ers are dissatisfied with the Nixon ad-ministration; it is apparent that their sympathies lie with the corporate giants that are driving small farmers off the land.

Mr. President, I introduced, with Sen-ators BAYH, CRANSTON, and HART, a bill which would enforce the congressional intent respecting the Federal Reclama-tion Act of 1902. Now more than ever I think a bill such as this is needed. I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the RECORD again with a copy of my re-marks when I introduced it. I urge sen-ators to give it their careful considera-tion, and I invite their cosponsorship.

S. 2863

A bill to provide for the creation of an Au-thority to be known as the Reclamation Lands Authority to carry out the congres-sional intent respecting the excess lands provisions of the Federal Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Anierea in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as "The Reclamation Lands Authority Act".

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

SEC. 2(a) The Congress declares that it shall be the purpose of this Act to reaffirm the historic purpose of the Federal Reclama-tion Act, especially as it applies to the de-velopment and use of excess -lands, and to make that intent and purpose operative in the national interest and the direct benefit of its citizens.

(b) The Congress further declares that it shall be the purpose of this Act to make such disposal and uses of these excess lands as will improve the environment of the Na-tion through the use of these natural re-sources to provide resident ownership and operation of family-sized farms, to open new opportunities for veterans and to create open spaces, protect the natural beauty and qual-ity of the habitat of all living things within Federal reclamation project areas, and to provide by the application of the net reve-nues from the sale or lease of said excess ir-rigated or irrigable lands to the demon-strated needs of public education and com-munity development, and for other purposes consistent with the historic purpose of the Federal reclamation law.

SEC. 3. To effect these expressed purposes and others which may become imperative as the Nation faces its responsibilities and op-portunities to create a healthful environ-ment consistent with the ecological needs of the land entrusted to our care, there is hereby created by a body corporate to ad-minister the excess lands resulting from the enforcement of the provisions of the Federal Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388) as amended and supplemented, to be designated as the Reclamation Lands Au-thority (hereinafter referred to as the "Au-thority").

4. m^ _{-- 0}

-Record of December

[In the.U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California]

BEN YELLEN, ET AL. VS. WALTER J. HICKEL (Partial summary judgment No. 69-124

-Murray)

Before the court is a motion for partial summary judgment. The suit was filed un-der 28 U.S.C.A. 1361 to compel the Secre-tary of the Interior and lower level officials of the Department of the Interior to enforce the residency requirement of Section 5 of the

Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 389, 43 U.S.C.A., Section 431,1- against lands located within the Imperial Irrigation Di-trict in California which receives water from , the Boulder Canyon Project through the All I American Canal. It is the government's -Con- ^ tention that Section 5 has been superseded -• by Section 46 of the Omnibus Adjustment j Act of May 25, 1926, 44 Stat. 649, 43 U.S.C.A., Section 423e,, and therefore the residency e requirement does not apply. For the follow-ing reasons this court finds that Section 5 is In force and the residency requirement is a prerequisite to receiving water from the Boulder Canyon Project.

National policy, as expressed in the recla-illation laws, is to provide homes for people. Homes are possible only where speculation and monopolization are not possible. The 160 acre limitation and the national police which it reflects have been upheld by the Supreme Court in Ivanhoe Irrigation Dis-trict V. McCracken., 367 U.S. 275. The

dency requirement in Section 5 is a secoL,. expression of that national policy. Its re-peal by implication would be contrary to the purpose for which Section 5 was enacteti.

Early in reclamation history events showed that "under the private projects where resi-dence is not required, the developments have been very largely along the line of the crea-tion of tenant farms." See Department of Interior, 11th Annual Report of the Recle-illation. Service 11, (1911-1912). Failure enforce residency subverts the excess lane limitation which Ivanhoe, supra, specificall7

upheld. Through the use of corporatio trusts and cotenancies flagrant violations o( the purpose of this limitation are possible. Each of these farms may be used to by-p,

the acreage limitation. The policy behind reclamation law to aid and encourage owner operated farms requires enforcement of the residency requirement to prevent these violations. See Sax, The Federal Reclamat:. _ Law in II Waters to Water Rights, sup.,

The Boulder Canyon Project Act, 45 Stat 1065, 43 U.S.C.A. Section 617m, provides that, the Act shall be deemed a supplement reclamation law which shall govern the cc struetive operation and management of t. works authorized. Inasmuch as Section 5 the 1902 Act has been found in full fo and effect, it must be applied to the 1. perfal Irrigation District as well as to

reclamation projects constructed pursur

to the Boulder Canyon Project Act. No rig.

to use the water for land in private own, ship shall be sold to any landowner "unix he be an actual bona fide resident on suc,__ land, or occupant thereof residing in the

neighborhood of said land. . . . 43 U.S.C.A'.; Sect ion 431.

That portion of the motion for summary judgment determining the applicability of Section 5 of the Act of 1902 is therefore granted, which in effect is merely an inter-locutory adjudication of the applicable law. The posture of the case at this time 14,

not such as the court can determine th4 other portions of the motion, and therefore' reserves ruling thereon._•-

(6)

1\TiNcran,-ETER EES:LENS

ASSOCIIAITOOR.

.REcD.

_r.)

LORIN W. MARKHAM, President I. J. COURY, Treasurer . P (Washington) (New Mexico)

J. A. RIGGINS, Second Vice President CARL H. BRONN, Executive Director (Arizona) (Washington, D. C.)

December 22, 1971

To: NWRA BOARD OF DIRECTORS

I BOARD MEETING - 2ND NOTICE

a. Just to double check because of mail problems, this restates the Board Letter of December 14, 1971 that:

..The Directors are to meet in Washington, D.C. February 1,2 and 3, in the Washington Hotel, 15th and F Streets, N.W.

..Each Director will please make his own reser-vations. (Advise the Hotel that it is an NWRA block. This does not get a reduced room rate, but does provide us a conference room without charge) Sending a copy of your reservation re-quest to us will assure that Sally will double-check your space with the Hotel. Tell her if you want privileges of the Press Club, also. ..The opening session is 1:30 P.M., Tuesday,

February 1, in the Council Room of the Washington Hotel.

..Commissioner Armstrong meets with us at 3:30 P.M., Tuesday, February 1.

b. New Item -- Through Judge Smith, tentative arrange-ments are made for OMB representatives (Tom Barry and

Don Waldon) to meet the Board. .also in the Council Room,

at 10:00 A.M., Wednesday, February 2 (Tom is on leave; his secretary believes he is free the morning of Feb. 2).

DIRECTORS J. A. Riggins, Ariz. James F. Sorensen, Calif. J. R. Barkley, Colo. Robert T. Chuck, Hawaii John A. Roshoit, Idaho

I. J. Coury, N.M.

..continued..

Milo W. Hoisveen, N.D. Clarence Base, Okla. LaSelle Coles, Ore. Homer M. Engelhorn, S.D. John W. Simmons, Tex.

(7)

BOARD ----2

II CRITERIA -- WATER DEVELOPMENT

f3'

Enclosed is release of the Water Resources Council.

Its optimism is not shared by me. The new criteria were pub-lished in the Federal Register, Tuesday, December 21, 1971. III CLEAN WATER

a. On December 15, the House Committee on Public Works reported favorably H.R. 11896 (quite similar to S. 2770 -- discussed in earlier WERX and Board letters) While the report is not published, a Summary is. But the Summary does not state changes made in H.R. 11896, as heard on December 7, 8, 9 & 10.

..The objective and goals are retained. ..The National Academy of Sciences -- under H.R. 11896 as heard -- is to report to Congress in 2 years, the aspects of achieving, or not, the 1981 goal (eliminate discharge of point source pollutants). The Summary says further that the 1981 and 1985 goals would not be im-plemented until Congress evaluates the NAS report.

..The Summary says: "In States which fail to meet the guidelines (spelled out by the Admin-istrator), the Administrator will carry out the program".

..$27 billions are authorized (total cost of

Reclamation work to date is about $5 1/2 billions; cost of Corps projects fully completed is about $10 billions).

b. From the Summary, one conjectures that the public hearings early this month caused little change; one needs the Report to be certain.

c. Guesstimate -- if State and local governments are going to match the monies authorized, and also build collection systems; if industry and agri-businesses are going to meet the goals sought, then the Federal-State water development program (as visualized by

(8)

BOARD----3

coincidentally realized. Clean Water -- at dis-charge pipes and ditches, but not necessarily in the rivers -- will demand more attention than can be handled well with resources available.

Sincerely, CHB:sgb

Carl H. Bronn ENCL: (1)

Information Only to: Hal Henigson Ken Cook Tom Cahill Doyle Boen Don Doncaster Jack Ross Hub White

(9)

WATER

RESOURCES

COUNCO

NEWS

R

A

wrci,

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037/AN INDEPENDENT EXECUTIVE AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 21, 1971

44c

WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL OUTLINES NEW PRINCIPLES AND STANDARDS

WASHINGTON, D.C., (Dec. 21)--The Water Resources Council today unveiled broad, new procedures to weigh environmental and economic impact in considering proposed land and water resources programs.

Noting that past decisions had been based primarily on monetary considerations, the Council said its new principles and standards for water and land resource planning adopts a multiobjective approach.

As outlined in the Federal Register, the standards will give full consideration to national economic development, environmental quality and regional development.

In addition, procedures provide for broad-based cooperation between multigovernmental units and private groups in establishing regional

objectives, measuring existing resources, formulating alternative land and water resource plans, evaluating beneficial and adverse effects of each plan, and selection and implementation of the final program.

(10)

-more-

-2-Recognizing the value of public participation, the Council said its new proposals encourage increased involvement of private individuals and groups in planning activities to efficiently and effectively develop

meaningful plans for the management of the nation's land and water resources. The principles and standards represent a marked departure from past consideration of primarily economic impact of land and water resource plans. They result from a two-year study and review of decision making practices undertaken by a Special Water Resources Council Task Force.

In effect, the Council explained, there will be a regionalized approach to implementation of land and water resource programs to provide for expression of locally set priorities.

In considering economic, environmental, and regional impact of proposed plans, all positive and negative aspects will be weighed in either quantitative or qualitative terms. The new standards will require

development of alternative plans for each project, the Council said, to provide maximum opportunity to compare advantages and disadvantages of each approach.

The discount rate to be used in planning would be set at 7% for the next five years.

A public hearing has been scheduled for March 20 and 21, 1972, in Washington, D.C. to air public comments and recommendations on the proposals. The new standards are scheduled for implementation in late Spring of 1972.

(11)

-30-14E 441fIS

ift 613$4.01.6 SWIM 10 I IN I.F.A. rag RUT

Ph, 111

For his work in the field of agriculture Joe Jarvis land grant colleges.

Jarvis To Retire From Union Pacific

After 34 Years In Promotional Work

Completing 343/4 years with the Union Pacific Railroad in agricul-tural development work, Joe W. Jarvis, Supervisor of Agriculture and Livestock at Omaha, Nebraska, is retiring December 31.

A 1932 graduate in animal sci-ence with minors in agricultural ed-ucation and journalism of Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, Jarvis taught high school vocation-al agriculture four years in Oregon before joining the Union Pacific Railroad at Boise, Idaho, in 1937. After 4 years at Boise, he was transferred to Omaha as Supervi-sor of Agricultural Development.

During his 30 years in Omaha, he carried out a very extensive agri-cultural and livestock improvement program, established an agricul-tural motion picture program, de-and state officials who have been closely associated with the schol-arship program for many years and who assist with the adminis-tration of the award on a college level.

Addressing the students were the college presidents, vice presidents and deans of agriculture. All paid tribute to the Union Pacific Rail-road and its management for their farsightedness in establishing the scholarship program and for con-tinuing to maintain and improve it through the years. Many of the speakers brought out that while many programs have been started and dropped by the wayside,

veloped eight educational booklets covering agricultural subjects and administered the Union Pacific Rail-road scholarship for 30 of its 50

years.

Jarvis established an agricultural improvement car that toured all Union Pacific states annually for 20 years.

The production of 32 agricultural films and two railroad films was di-rected by Jarvis, with 18 agricul-tural films still in use. A new film on agricultural resources will be released in 1972.

To aid the department in keeping in touch with scholarship winners and those with whom the agricul-tural representatives work, he has edited and published Tracks Ahead on a bi-monthly basis, featuring agriculture, livestock and railroad transportation.

A Union Pacific Railroad voca-tional agriculture scholarship win-ner from Malheur County, Oregon, in 1926, Jarvis has been administra-tor of the program for four presi-dents. In retiring, he has completed the Golden Anniversary year and presented the railroad scholarship checks to eligible 4-H Club mem-bers and _students of vocational agriculture at dinners held on the college campuses during October.

Active in water, irrigation and re-source development, Jarvis was granted a life membership in the National Water Resources Associa-tion and served on its board of di-rectors three times. He received an honorary American Farmer and several State Farmer degrees and plaques from the Future Farmers of America and has been recog-nized by 4-H Clubs in several states. He has been president of the American Railway Develop-ment Association, active in Cham-bers of Commerce, farm associa-tions and organizaassocia-tions throughout the eleven western states. He has served many years on the board of directors of the National West-ern Stock Show in Denver.

Recognition was given Jarvis at the 50th Anniversary dinners by several colleges. Certificates and plaques designed to fit his situa-tion or gifts were presented by the president or dean or both. In mak-ing the presentations, all in their own words commented on Jarvis' dedication to agriculture and his support of the land grant college system and to the railroad for which he worked. The president and dean at Oregon State Univer-sity welcomed him back to Oregon where he and his son own and op-erate a farm in eastern Oregon, at Summerville.

(12)

4 _{TRACKS AMEAD}

Union Pacific Personnel Department

To Administer Railroad Scholarship

Cooperative Project Rehabilitates Land

In Idaho Disturbed By Open-Pit Mining

(Continued from Page 1)

Mr. Krider has a B.A. degree from Kalamazoo College, Kalama-zoo, Michigan, in psychology and economics, and a Master's degree in business administration from the University of Chicago. He is a member of the American Society for Personnel Administration, the Personnel Association of Omaha, and the Railroad Personnel Associ-ation.

Mr. Rouse joined the Union Paci-fic in July, 1971, bringing with him several years experience in public and private education. He has served both as a teacher in high schools and college, and as an ad-ministrator, having been principal of Notre Dame Academy at Omaha. Immediately prior to joining the Union Pacific, Mr. Rouse was as-sociated with the public relations firm of Cosgriff Associates. His as-sociation with the Union Pacific is in family tradition, as his father and a number of other relatives have also been employes.

As Supervisor of Training, Mr. Rouse is responsible for the devel-opment, implementation, and op-eration of company educational ac-tivities. This includes training at all levels. He will assist and work jointly with Mr. Krider in the con-tinued operation of the scholarship program.

Mr. Rouse has attended several institutions of higher learning, hav-ing earned his B.A. degree from

FROM

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

DEPARTMENT OF TRAFFIC AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

OMAHA, NEBRASKA 68102

ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED

Cal WI L11 1.IC V C/Upiiic.ILL, .L.11,411,A, I

Dedicated to Agricultural Improvement Joe W. Jarvis

Supervisor, Agriculture and Livestock

Omaha, Nebr.

AGRICULTURAL AGENTS Wesley D. Soulier, Salt Lake City, Utah

E. Boyd Baxter, Boise, Idaho Floyd D. Wentz, Greeley, Colorado Chas. W. Manke, Portland, Oregon

Golden Anniversary Award Dinners

Held At Nine Land Grant Colleges

The 50th year winners of the Union Pacific Railroad scholarship received their $400 checks at Gold-en Anniversary dinners held on nine land grant college campuses in October.

Presentations of the checks were made to 220 recipients by Joe W. Jarvis representing the Union Paci-fic Railroad.

Since the program was started in Nebraska in 1921, the first din-ner was held at the University of Nebraska on October 7, followed by Kansas State University, Octo-tober 8. Others were held as fol-lows: Oregon State University, Oc-tober 18; Washington State Univer-sity, October 19; University of Ida-ho, October 20, Montana State versity, October 21; Utah State Uni-versity, October 26; University of Wyoming, October 27; and

Cobra-(Continued from Page 1)

generally adapted best. The most successful species of grasses are intermediate wheat, smooth brome and hard fescue. The leading forbs appear to be Ranger alfalfa, yel-low sweet clover and crown vetch. Three years ago, county agent Cecil Alldaffer received permission from Monsanto for a local 4-H Club, "The Sod Busters", to try their hand at land reclaiming in the Ballard mine area. During the past three years, these boys and girls have planted over 1,200 trees and shrubs and 13 varieties of grass. The trees were purchased by Monsanto from the Univ e r sit y of Idaho Clark McNary Nursery at Moscow. Other organizations saw the importance of the project. For instance, the State Land Board supplied the 4-H Club with eight different varieties of dry land grasses.

With the continued expansion of surface mining, the results of this study may affect many areas. The primary purpose of rehabilitation is mainl y: (1) soil stabilization, (2) protect water quality, (3) return to production, and (4) restore aesthetics.

Creighton University, Omaha, and his M.S. in education from the Uni-versity of Omaha. In addition to various professional organizations, Mr. Rouse is currently serving as an elected member of the Omaha School Board. TO NORTHFRN COLO. W CONSFRVANCY DIS' P.O. F-4X ii7 f,(0/hAt4r14

(13)

MYER -1-SSCUACES

ASSMAIrllak

LORIN W. MARKHAM, President I. J. COURY, Treasurer (Washington) (New Mexico) MILO W. HOISVEEN, First Vice President

(North Dakota)

REM

DEC 28 1971

JAMES F. SORENSEN, Past President

J. A. RIGGINS, Second Vice President CARL H. BRONN, Executive Director (Arizona) (Washington, D. CI

897 NATIONAL, PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTOV, D. C. 20004 (202) 347-2672

December 20, 1971

Keith Higginson Director

State of Idaho

Department of Water Administration Statehouse - Annex 2

Boise, Idaho 83707 Dear Keith:

Thank you for your letter of December 14, together

with the article for Water Life, and the draft bill of the

Association of Western State Engineers.

I am sending your article down to Morley Fox, still

in Arizona, so to give him ample time to study it before

pre-paring the next issue of Water Life, soon after the first of

the year.

Harvey Banks probably has the draft of the Western

State Engineers. In as much as the NWRA Board of Directors

will meet in Washington, D.C., on February 1, and since you

are awaiting replies from several more key states, I propose

not to submit the draft bill to NWRA's Water Rights Commi-Etee

until February. This proposal will, of course, be reviewed

by the officers of the Association (on the basis of this letter)

Regarding the draft bill, there is a point which I do

not understand. Section 1 states that the Federal government's

rights shall be limited to such quantity of water whicS'has

been put to beneficial use prior to the time of filing and

pub-lishing the inventory. However, Sub-paragraph 3, Section 1,

establishes rules for the determination of the quantity of water

on a different basis. To me, the two provisions are not

com-patible.

Thank you Keith, for the information. I shall keep you

advised of NWRA's actions. _Sincerely,

CC: NWRA Officers

Morley Fox Carl H: Bronn

I. J. Coury, N.M.

Milo W. Hoisvecn, N.D. Clarence Base, Okla. LaSelle Coles, Ore. Homer M. Engelhorn, S.D. John W. Simmons, Tex.

Ed Southwick, Utah Lorin W. Markham, Wash. Marlin T. Kur Wyo Oliver A. Thomas,

(14)

COMMENTS OF R. KEITH HIGGINSON

DIRECTOR

IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF WATER ADMINISTRATION

Like many other westerners, I was encouraged by the Eagle River decisions which

upheld and interpreted the McCarran Amendment's consent-to-suit provisions.

These

decisions were a great leap forward in clarifying the meaning of the law which gave

consent to join the United States as a defendant in suits for adjudication

and

admin-istration of water rights. However, as important as those decisions were,

I don't

share the view of J. A. Riggins, NWRA Director for Arizona, as expressed

in the

October issue of "Water Life." He said that "Colorado's Eagle County case, and not

federal legislation, is the tool which we must now use to settle our water problems with the federal government."

It is important to recognize that joinder of the United States in water adjudi-cation suits is not new or unique to the Colorado cases. Some states have

success-fully joined the United States as a party for many years. The experience in those states leads me to conclude that reliance upon the consent to join the United States in state water rights adjudications alone will not "settle" our water problems with the federal government for the following reasons:

(1) Reservation rights adjudicated by a state (or federal) court will not be final. One of the most perplexing problems surrounding the reservation controversy has been the open-endedness of the claims. A rather usual procedure for the United States where they have cooperated in state water right adjudications thus far has been the filing of claims specifying those identifiable uses presently taking place within the basin and then to claim, in addition thereto, unspecified quantities of water for unspecified future uses. I know of no way any court can finalize, "settle" or give meaning to such unspecified claims. It has been attempted, on numerous occa-sions. The Utah Supreme Court in the Green River Case, after discussing the need and importance of finality in a water rights adjudication and after determining the

existing uses said, "However, in order to guard against misunderstanding insofar as

possible, perhaps it is not amiss to further observe that our decision should not be construed to mean that the United States, or any other party, may not assert and if necessary seek adjudication of any rights to water which may arise or which may be discovered in th..e future, but which for any legitimate reason were not assertable and were not adjudicated in this lawsuit."

(15)

I su:Tect that the United States will now submit its claims to the

Eagle County

Court for adjudication just as they have been doing for many years

in other states,

but I will be gr,s;Iclv surprised if those cinims do not include

unspecified amounts of water for unspecified future uses. No court can do more than recognize

that such

rights may exist. It certainly cannot "settle" the quantity,

source, location, use

or any other aspect of such a claim as suggested by Mr. Riggins.

In Idaho's Payette River Basin water rights adjudication the United States, while specifying the extent of its rights which are based upon

permits issued by the

state, also claimed reservation rights but, so far, has not agreed

to quantify such

claims so that they may be final and specific. The sole purpose

for undertaking the basin-wide adjudication of rights to Payette River water at this time

is to aid in

development of the Southwest Idaho Water Development Project. Planning

for that

project must take into consideration the present and future requirements

for water

within the basin so that water available for new land development can be

determined.

Adjudication of the fact that the United States has undeterminable reservation

rights

will not provide the necessary answer for planning and water use administration. Riggins indicates that the United States can now be tied down to a quantity

of water

so that planning and development may proceed. This would be a tremendous

accomplishment

but .I am skeptical of Colorado's ability to accomplish this feat

based upon the United States' past performances. Federal legislation is still needed to limit

and quantify

the federal claims.

It is significant that the Supreme Court made the following statement

in the Eagle

decision. "All such questions, including the volume and scope of particular reserved rights, are FEDERAL QUESTIONS which, if preserved, can be reviewed here after final judgment by the Colorado Court." The batting average of the Western States in the

Supreme Court has not been very good where questions of limitation of

the reserved right are concerned.

(2) The McCarran AMendment may not permit uniform joinder of the United

States

in adjudication procedures in every state. Admittedly the fault here may

lie in the varying procedures followed in each state. Some states adjudicate claims through an "expert" board or by an examiner. Others follow an admi,nistrative procedure

subject

to review by the court only if appealed. In some states the court adjudicates each

use before it takes place in separate court-initiated actions. Adjudication

in other

areas rlav he a matter for private litigation among parties. My point

is that while

the court found Colorado procedures adequate to allow joinder of the United

(16)

the same may not hold true of the procedures followed in every state.

More now than ever before we need federal legislation which would do the following things:

(1) Require the United States through its agencies to inventory and quantify all present uses of water on reserved lands.

(2) Limit the claims to future reserved water rights to uses contemplated at the time the lands were reserved and require identification and quantification of such claims.

(3) Require notice of the federal claims to be given to the affected state or states.

(4) Provide for finalization and adjudication of the federal claims.

(5) Require that all future uses of water for which rights are not adjudicated to be made pursuant to state law.

(6) Provide for compensation where future reserved rights interfere with rights established under state law.

The Eagle County cases were a victory for the arid Western States through their interpretation of the McCarran Amendment provisions. But now is not the time to relax in our effort to gain a resolution of the over-all problems. Several efforts are being made to draft legislation to accomplish the long sought-after goal. The 'rational Water Resources Association should join in this effort.

(17)

ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN STATE

FNGINFERS COTI:NUTTFT 11(q7I

A BILL

To clarify and quantify the interests of the United

States and of States in-t.e. use of t'2e aters arising on, mierlyine,

traversing or underlyini".

'.ands reserved or -ithrirP.rm fro'. the Tublic rlomain

includi . lands

reserved or withdrawn for Imlians,

Be it enacted by the Senate and -:iouse of Representatives

of the United

States in Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. In order to insure the orderly development and

beneficial

use of water resources in the United States, to eliminate

uncertainty arising out of judicial decrees declaring that previous Acts

of Congress or

Executive Orders h4ve impliedly reserved water for the purposes

of certain

Federal Reservations o prevent injustice to the owners of

water rights law-fully:initiated under state law, and to nromote cooperation

between the states

and the Federal Government in water resources development,

the right of the

United Seates, its agencies and wards, to divert or use

waters traversing or urillerlying any reservation of lands withdrawn from the

public domain, except for water rights acquired pursuant to state law, shall

be limited to

the quantity of water necessary to satisfy the uses contemplated

at the time

of the reservation and the rurpoSes for which the reservation

was made and .which has been put to beneficial use prior to the time of filing

and

publi-cation of the inventory required by this section. For all

surveyed or un-serveyed withdrawn, or reserved lands, including lands withdrawn

or reserved

for Indians, each department head or other authority having

jurisdiction of such lands shall compile an inventory of the type of use,

source, location, quantity of ater and date of priority of each water right claimed for present uses in the following manner:

(1) The priority date of each water right claimed shall not be earlier than the date of the reservation or withdrawal of the land

to which the water right is appurtenant.

(2) The use or purpose claimed shall include only the

purpose or

pur-poses specifically mentioned or reasonably implied in

the Act of Congress, Presidential Proclamation, or Executive Order authorizing

the withdrawal or

reservation.

(3) The quantity of water claimed shall be

computed in the following

Z.annpr:

maximum cluanttt:- shall he an-amount of 'later sufficient

to

(18)

uses for which the land was set aside

In no case shall the amount exceed

that which could reaaa.)nAbla have leen

anLeicinated for the specified purposes

of the reservation at the Lime of the

reservation or withdrawal. (b) In preparing the inventory and

determining the quantity of

water claimed to be reserved, the

amounts shall be determined by each

indi-vidual use within each watershed and

from each stream, spring, lake or

ground water aquifer.

(4) The transbasin diversion of water

pursuant to reserved or

with-drawn water rights shall not be permitted. SECTION 2. ‘lithin five (5) years of

the effective date (f this act,

the department head or other authority

charged with the admin stration of

such reservation shall compile the

inventory. required in Sect on 1 of this

act and cause such inventor to be

7)rinteal in the Federal Register and shall

serve ,a copy of such inventory upon

the Governor and also upon the

appropri-ate stappropri-ate agency lurisdiction of water

and water rights of each state

in which all or a port'ion of the affected watersheds

or ground water aquifers

are situated.

SECTION 3. After the publication of

such inventory and service of

such inventory upon the Governors and

appropriate> state agencies as provided

in Section 2, any state acting on

behalf of its citizens, or any person or organization whose rights to the diversion,

storage or use of any waters,

navigable or non-navigable, acquired

under and recognized as being valid by

the laws of a state in force as of the

effective date of this Act, have been

injured, impeded or impaired in any way,

or who desire that the claims of

the United States, its agencies and wards

as set forth in such inventory be

determined and finalized, may petition the head

of the state agency living

jurisdiction of water and water rights for

a general adjudication of the

rights to the use of the waters of

the affected watersheds or ground water aquifers. If the head ofithe state agency does not have

authority to

initiate a general adjudication proceeding,

then such peition may be filed

in a state court of competent jurisdiction.

The head of the state agency or

the court shall proceed with an adjudication

of the rights to the use of

water frem ee afr watersheds or ground

water aquifers to determine the

validity eS 111 water - ights claimed by

the United States, its agencies and

- wards. Such adHdicaon

coneucted in accordance with the state

laws - (.7).w.2rning heirinna hef- re administrative

agencies ot state courts and •

all ;pe' free-- The !.inal determination

or decree in such action shall be the [awe of h slite. Upon entry of the ,mec, court decree in such action, enforcement

(19)

of the said detc:r7Altion or decree shall

he assigned to the appropriate

water management offi,Ji.al of the

off td statc. SECTION 4. no United Stats shall

sue and be sued in the State courts

or in administrative agency prc

,eeins involving, th acquisition,

determin-ation, or exercise of rights to tn,

beneficial diversion, storage, use, or

development of Yater, arid such

suit-, shall not be rEmoved to a

Federal court

upon petition of the United States,

In such instances no judgment for

Costs shall he entered aainst

the United States. Process may be served on

the Attorney General of the ':Tlited States,

on the United States district

attorney for tr district which ,rnraces

the area of jurisdiction out of

which the process issues, or on the

United States district attorney for the

District in which the claim arose. SECTIO:7 5 After quant1fica

[i.7.-Lci final determination of any water

right under the provisions of tin

act, such water right shall be

subject to

the laws of the State in which the

water right has been quantified. SECTION (. From and after five

(5) years from the effective date of

this Act any claim, not theretofore

quantiffed, to the beneficial diversion,

storage, distribution, consum7tive use,

or ..!evelooment :of water, under the

provisions of this Act, by the T.init2d

States, its permirrees or licensees,

shall be initiated and perfected in

conformity with the laws and procedures

of the respective States relating

to control, aporopriation, adjudication,

abandonment, change of point of diversion,

change of use or -place of use, or

any and all other water matters within

State jurisdiction. Provided, however,

That the United States may acquire

such rights, when authorized under

Federal

law, by purchase, exchange, gift,

or eminent domain. SECTION 7: Y.Thenever the exercise by

the United States, its agencies or

wards, of any r'ater rig''t, not acquired

Pursuant to state law, either before

or after administrative or judicial determination

of the said right, shall

result in any injury to the owner of

a water right lawfully initiated under

applicable Ltlate la,a prior to the

effective date of this Act, the

United

- States shall provide compensation therefor,

exCeot that no compensation

shall be provided -here th.2 actual

use of the IJater under the rigi-t exercised

by the Unite' States predates 'he right

initiated under state law for which

compenst

withdr:IwAi or rervation of

!and heretofore or

here-after made by or under the auth..7

-nity Df the United States impairs

or

inter-feres witH the utilizltion of any right to the

diversion, storage or other

use of .., tr,,r corresable under

Section 7, and if no agreement with

(20)

the crner of said right as to the eallnensatine due for such impairment or interference 'a-1.0 such r:eht has been -11(e, the United States shall initiate and diligently prosecute procendines to condemn the same under apnropriate Federal or State laws of eminent domain. If it shall fail to do so, no

statute of limitations shall apply against a suit by an injured party against the United States for compensation for such impairment or interference in a court of competent jurisdiction.

SECTION Q. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, any claim or part of a claim by the United stares, its agencies or wards, to the right to divert or use water for the purposes of a reservation heretofore made and not put to beneficial use prior to the time of filing and publication of the inventory provided for in Sections 1, shall be conclusively deemed to be relinquished by the United States.

SECTION 10. In any case where lands withdrawn or reserved by the United States are taken out of government ownership or control, all water rights appurtenant to such lands claimed by reason of the withdrawal or reservation shall be automatically forfeited and cancelled and the water under all such rights shall become a part of the public water of the State in which such rights have been rigister4d. To the extent water under Such rights has been put to beneficial use, su sa rights may be transferred to the new owner in accordance with the laws of the affected State provided that the purpose and place of such use does not change.

SECTIO!! 11. For all withdrawals or reservations of land hereafter made by the United States or under its authority, no reservation of water or water rights shall attach to such withdrawal or reservation unless an Act of

Congress,autorizing such withdrawal or reservation expressly withdraws from the Previously unapproPriated water of a stream or otherewater source, a specific quantity of water for a stated purpose or purnoses.

SECTION 17. All rights to water on any lands npw or hereafter adminis-tered or controlled as public domain, reclamation projects, land under the administration of the Bureau of Land slanagement, or acquired lands shall be subject to all State laws and procedures relating to water and watet rightn.

SECTION 13. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as:

(1) odtfyinc. or repealing any provision of any existing Act of Con-gress requiring that rights of the United States tothe use of water be acquired pursuant to State law;

(2) Permitting appropriations of water under State law which interfere with the provisions of international treaties;

(21)

5

-(3) Amending, altering, or repealing

any provisions of any law which

limits the acreape in sineele oNnershie

that may be served with water made

available under the reclamation

law; or

(4) Affecting, impairing, diminishing,

sul,ordinaring, or enlarging

(a) the rights of the United States

or any State or other parties to

waters

under any interstate compact or existing

judicial decree, (b) any water

right heretofore acquired under

any federal or State law, except for

rights

claimed in connection with federal reserved

or withdrawn lands, including

lands reserved or withdrawn for

Indians or Indian tribes, (c) any

right of

the United States to use water which

is hereafter lawfully initiated irithe

exercise of the express authority

of any present or future Act of

Congress

or State law when such right is

initiated prior to the acquisition

by others

of any right to use water pursuant

to State law, or (d) any preferences

accorded by Federal or State law to

any pulic agency with respect to

electric

power.

SECTION 14. This Act may be cited

as the 'Water Rights Act of 1071::

SECTION. 15. If any provisiion of

this Act or the application of such

provision to any person, governmental

department or agency, organization, or

circumstance shQ;1 be held invalid,

the remainder of this Act and the

appli-cation of such provision to persons, governmental

departments or agencies,

organizations, or circumetances other

than those to which it is held invalid

(22)

NA110

MITER REA

ASS

RCES

DIMATION

LORIN W. MARKHAM, President (Washington) MILO W. HOISVEEN, First Vice President (North Dakota) J. A. RIGGINS, Second Vice President (Arizona)

I. J. COURY, Treasurer (New Mexico)

CARL H. BRONN, Executive Director (Washington, D. C.)

December 17, 1971

Mr. J. R. Barkley

Second Vice President-Elect

National Water Resources Association P. 0. Box 679

Loveland, Colorado 80537

Re: Board Program Planning Committee SWC File No. A-18

Dear Bob:

As a result of receiving a copy of a letter written to Lorin Markham, President, from Carl Bronn regarding items of interest for National Water Resources Association Agenda, I suggest that we follow Carl's advice and question Commissioner Armstrong relative to the role we should play in combating Nader's effects on reclamation.

Several other items have occurred that may be of interest. Certainly, one of them would be the report from Ted Riggins' Committee on obtaining funding for opposing some of the extremists in the EPA as well as some of the contents in S2770.

REca

Another item that may be of interest in aiding the benefit-cost ratios on the flood aspects of both Bureau and Corps of Engineers projects is the fact that no credit is permitted in the benefit-cost ratio for subsidies given to farmers. In a number of areas, subsidy allowances in the benefit-cost ratio would greatly enhance the effectiveness of the benefit-cost ratio. In other words, rural areas should be treated in the same manner as urban areas as far as subsidies are concerned.

Your consideration of these items for the Agenda will be greatly appreciated.

MWH:sl cc: Lorin Markham Carl Bronn Sincerely yours, LoeeD Milo W. Hoisveen President-Elect Similar letters also mailed to Ted Riggins and I. J. Coury

I. J. Coury, N.M.

(23)

December 20, 1971

Mr. Milo Hoisveen, President

National Water Resources Association State Office Building

900 Boulevard

Bismark, North Dakota

Re: Winter Board Meeting Dear Milo:

I have only a few comments related to the request in your letter of December 15.

In reference to entertainment of the Congressional delegations, I have no guess as to a means of attracting those from the Eastern States. However, I am sure there is value in retaining, at least, those Western friends that we have.

Certainly, I agree that we should make no appearances before the Interior and Insular Affairs Committees.

Under your item

(4),

I would hope that the Commissioner and his staff will be prepared to clarify aspects of that "monster" known as Westwide Water Study.

I know that, since your letter, you received Gordon Scheer's suggestions and I agree that the Board should deal with those items.

Other than the above, I can only add Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. JRB:jm CC: J. A. Riggins, Jr. Lorin Markham Carl Bronn Sincerely, J. R. Barkley Colorado Director

(24)

C-7

Hir OHL

ER RESARCES

ASSDVIATA

LORIN W. MARKHAM, President (Washington) MILO W. HOISVEEN, First Vice President (North Dakota) J. A. RIGGINS, Second Vice President (Arizona)

I. J. COURY, Treasurer . (New Mexico)

CARL H. BRONN, Executive Director (Washington, D. C.)

December 15, 1971

Mr. J. R. Barkley

Second Vice President-Elect

National Water Resources Association P. 0. Box 679

Loveland, Colorado 93277

Subject. Ad Hoc Committee on Winter National Water Resources Association Board Meeting Agenda - SWC File No. A-18 Dear Bob:

Today I discussed over may desire to consider Board meeting which is

telephone with Carl Bronn some of the items that we at our coming National Water Resources Association scheduled for 1:30 p.m. on February 1, 1972.

1) At our recent Convention Board meetings, some discussion was held regarding the holding of a cocktail party similar to the one we held last year in the Rayburn Building. There are several pros and cons regarding this type of a party inasmuch as we will have no new Congressmen and Senators to entertain. To a certain degree, we would be talking to our friends unless we find some method of obtaining attendance from eastern

Senators and Congressmen. Your suggestions regarding this situation will be appreciated.

It is also doubtful if we should appear before the Interior and Insular Affairs Committees inasmuch as we do not have any new issues.

2) Some concern is being indicated by Interior in view of Nader's continuing drive to give the Indians all the water in the West.

3) A recent federal court ruling in California indicates that the property owners must live on the land in order to obtain irrigation water from the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation.

4) Carl has contacted Commissioner Armstrong relative to being in Washington, D. C. for conference during our Board meeting. He has agreed.

I. J. Count, N.M.

(25)

Mr. J. R. Barkley December 15, 1971 Page 2

5) Judge Smith has been working with the Office of Management and Business relative to having representation at one of our sessions. The Judge was assured participation.

6)

Indications are that a new Land and Water Policy bill will be drafted during the Holidays and may be available for discussion at our Board meeting.

7) Committee representation in the House are of the opinion that they will have a markup on S2770; however, no action is antici-pated until after the Holidays.

8)

Executive Vice Presidents and Secretarys to Water Users Associations

have expressed a desire to be present when the Board holds its summer session. This should be discussed.

9) The National Association of Outdoor Recreation Directors has made some overtures to working with us on recreation in support of water projects.

This information is being forwarded to you for consideration and I am hopeful that it will provoke a number of other suggestions. It is doubtful if a meeting with Secretary Morton, at this particular time, would be fruitful

inasmuch as we do not have matters of direct concern to discuss with him. Sincerely yours,

7Aje,

Milo W. Hoisveen President-Elect MWH:sl cc: Lorin Markham Carl Bronn

(26)

-C•,1

NA-0DNA

Assocharn

LORIN W. MARKHAM, President I. J. COURY, Treasurer (Washington) New Mexico)

MILO W. HOISVEEN, First Vice President JAMES F. SORENSEN, Past President (North Dakota) (Caliiornia)

1. A. RIGGINS, Second Vice President CARL H. EiRONN, Executive Director (Arizona) (Washington, D. C.)

To: NWRA Board of Directors

RECD -,1 ;.1L124.2271 December 14, 1971

MID-WINTER BOARD MEETING, TIME AND PLACE

The Mid-Winter Board meeting will be held at the Washington Hotel on February 1, 2 and 3, 1972.

Anyone planning to reserve a room at the Washington Hotel is requested to write directly to the hotel, noting that their reservation is in connection with the National

Water Resources Association. Also, if you would send us

a copy of your letter to the hotel, we could then double check your confirmation.

The first Board session will be held in the Council

Room of the Washington Hotel at 1:30 P.M., Tuesday, February

1. At 3:30 P.M., on that same date, there is an appointment

scheduled for the Board to meet with the Commissioner of

Reclamation, Ellis Armstrong.

Your suggestions as to the agenda of the meeting are

welcome. Any preferences as to authorities with whom you wish

to meet, and any other functions, may be addressed to Milo

Hoisveen as Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Mid-Winter

Board Meeting, State Office Building, 900 Boulevard, Bismarck,

North Dakota.

QUO VADIS RECLAMATION?

You recall that Chairman Aspinall stated he is willing to consider field hearings to develop a current basis for high-er priorities to reclamation wathigh-er development. The feasibility may be affected adversely by a Federal court ruling which, ac-cording to Senator Harris, upholds residency requirements of the

I. J. Coury, N.M.

..continued..

Milo W. Hoisveen, N.D. Clarence Base, Okla. LaSelle Coles, Ore. Homer M. Engelhorn, S.D. John W. Simmons, Tex.

(27)

Board----2

Reclamation Act.

See excerpts from the Congressional 10, 1971 as follows:

EDERAL RECLAMATION ACT OF 1902

.tor. HARRIS. Mr. President, I invite

t

to the attention of Senators a recent Fed-cptirt ruling of historic significance 'to thiS Nation. The ruling, made last week by- judge Murray in the United ives District Court for the Southern Oistrict of California, upheld a residency requirement of the Federal Reclamation :act of 1902 which has never been en-.z"orced..7he requirement states that ab--4:pentee landowners are not entitled to re-,tkeettie-federally irrigated water. The pur-:.kpose of the Reclamation Act of 1902— ' -„aaich also includes a provision limiting ..--federally irrigated landholdings to 160 aares, or 320 acres in the case of man and wife--was to assure that the benefits of federal. irrigation projects, paid for by the taxpayer, would accrue to economi-cally viable homesteaders rather than land speculators or monopolists.

Unfortunately, because of corporate ..-Jveasion and Government nonenforce-ment of this law, millions of acres of the j4icheat agricultural land in this country are now held illegally by large landown-ers in the West. The effect of Judge Mur-ray's decision, . if upheld, would be to 'break up the holdings of the large cor-mrations which now control almost two-1.1iirds of the irrigated farmland in Cal-ornia's. Imperial Valley. The Imperial Valley; with half a million acres of crops worth $250 million a year, is now the 4iome of such corporate giants—with iioldings of up to 12,000 acres—as United •_•:`ruit, Dow Chemical, Purex, Tenneco, and the Irvine Land Co.

• Mr. President, it is long past the time ia end the billion dollar water subsidies these giant corporations are receiving in violation of the law and at the expense of the independent farmer who is getting ...c...-aeezed off the land. Judge Murray's decision is a welcome one for those of us .v,''ho stand against the monopoly of our .a-ald and water by a few giant

corpora-tions and who stand for *the rights of 'America's independent family farmers. Mr. President, Judge Murray's decision brobably will be appealed. We must therefore ask, Will this administration stand on the side of the large corporate interests or for the small homesteader? The administration's past record on this 'sulaject leaves me with little reason to be-iieve the .small farmer will receive ade-?anate support. Already the Nixon admin-,aaration and the Justice Department

-.awe decided not to appeal an earlier aourt decision involving the Federal

Roc-.uniation Act which favored he large landowners. In that decision, Judge

-„4:71,0ward Turrentine, a Nixon appointee,

ed.that the -160-acre provisions' of the 2'.16,:w 'do not apply to the Imperial

ey area in California.

And now we are faced with the distinct possibility that, unless the Congress speaks out clearly in support of America's family farmers, this administration will appeal a related case which rules against the large land-owners. It is no wonder that small farm-ers are dissatisfied with the Nixon ad-ministration; it is apparent that their sympathies lie with the corporate giants that are driving small farmers off the land.

Mr. President, I introduced, with Sen-ators BAYI-1, CRANSTON, and HART, a bill which would enforce the congressional intent respecting the Federal Reclama-tion Act of 1902. Now more than ever I think a bill such as this is needed. I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the RECORD again with a copy of my

re-marks when I introduced it. I urge Sen-ators to give it their careful considera-tion, and I invite their cosponsorship.

S. 2863

A bill to provide for the creation of an Au-thority to be known as the Reclamation Lands Authority to carry out the congres-sional intent respecting the excess lands provisions of the Federal Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Amerca in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as "The Reclamation Lands Authority Act".

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

SEC. 2(a) The Congress declares that it

shall be the purpose of this Act to reaffirm the historic purpose of the Federal Reclama-tion Act, especially as it applies to the de-velopment and use of excess -lands, and to make that intent and purpose operative in the national interest and the direct benefit of its citizens.

(b) The Congress further declares that it shall be the purpose of this Act to make such disposal and uses of these excess lands as will improve the -environment of the Na-tion through the use of these natural re-sources to provide resident 'ownership and operation of family-sized farms, to open new Opportunities for veterans and to create open spaces, protect the natural beauty and qual-ity of the habitat of all living things within Federal reclamation project areas, and to provide by the application of the net reve-nues from the sale or lease of said excess ir-rigated or irrigable lands to the demon-strated needs of public education and com-munity development, and for other purposes consistent with the historic purpose of the Federal reclamation law.

SEC. 3. To effect these expressed purposes and others which may become imperative as the Nation faces its responsibilities and

op-portunities to create a healthful environ-ment consistent with the ecological needs of the land entrusted to our care, there is hereby created by a body corporate to ad-minister the excess lands resulting from the enforcement of the provisions of the Federal Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 338) as amended and supplemented, to be designated as the Reclamation Lands Au-thority (hereinafter referred to as the "Au-thority").

're 4. rre

Record of December

[In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California]

BENVELLEN, ET AL. VS. WALTER J. HICKEL

(Partial summary judgment No. 69-124--Murray)

Before the court is a motion for partial summary judgment. The suit was filed un-der 28 U.S.C.A. 1361 to compel the Secre-tary of the Interior and lower level officials, of the Department of the Interior to enforce'? the residency requirement of Section 5 of the:t, Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat;' 389, 43 U.S.C.A., Section 431,1- against landst located within the Imperial Irrigation Dis-trict in California which receives water from, the Boulder Canyon Project through the AlIi American Canal. It is the goverrirnent's-con4 tention that Section 5 has been superseded by Section 46 of the Omnibus Adjustment( Act of May 25, 1926, 44 Stat. 649, 43

Section 423e,2 and therefore the residency,. requirement does not apply. For the follow-ing reasons this court finds that Section 5.10: In force and the residency requirement is a-prerequisite to receiving water from the' Boulder Canyon Project.

National policy, as expressed in the reciae illation laws, is to provide homes for people" Homes are possible only where speculation and monopolization are not possible. The 160 acre limitation and the national policy. which it reflects have been .upheld by the Supreme Court in Ivanhoe Irrigation Dis-trict v. McCracken., 357 U.S. 275. The rud. dency requirement in Section 5 is a second -expression of that national policy. Its re-peal by implication would be contrary to the purpose for which Section 5 was enacted. Early in reclamation history events showed that "under the private projects where resi-dence is not required, the developments have been very largely along the line of the crea-tion of tenant farms." See Department of Interior, 11th Annual Report of the Recla-mation Service 11, (1911-1912). Failure to enforCe residency subverts the excess land limitation which Ivanhoe, supra, specifically -upheld. Through the use of corporations, trusts and cotenancies flagrant violations of the purpose of this limitatiott are possible., Each of these farms may be used to by-pass the acreage limitation. The policy behind reclamation law to aid and encourage owner operated farms requires enforcement of the residency requirement to prevent these violations. See Sax, The Federal Reclamation Law in II Waters to Water Rights, 'supra',

ol n 004

The Boulder Canyon Project Act, 45 Stat. 1065, 43 U.S.C.A. Section 617m, provides that the Act shall be deemed a supplement to reclamation law which shall govern the cou.7 structive operation and management of the works authorized. Inasmuch as Section 5 of the 1902 Act has been found in full force and effect, it must be applied to the Ii.a-perial Irrigation District as well as to all reclamation projects constructed pursuant toethe Boulder Canyon Project Act. No right to use the water for land in private owner--ship shall be sold to any landowner "unless be be an actual bona fide resident on:, such land, or occupant thereof residing in the neighborhood of said land. . . . 43 U.S.C.A., Section 431.

That portion of the motion for summary judgment determining the applicability of-Section 5 of the Act of 1902 is therefore granted, which in effect is merely an inter, locutory adjudication of the applicable 'la* The posture of the case at this time. 14 not such as the court can determine the other portions of the motion, and therefoie reserves ruling thereon. ,

Done and dated this 22nd day of NoVeni!e her, 1971.