Agricultural conservation program

Full text

(1)UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committee CentHr, 2aglIahe County, Colorado, January 13, 1961. 08910 774 , ' cr7). c-D. cP, c-.. 7;3 11 z v) S 0. Y. . , 1 .0. 4,11P • N . 0. Mr. Charles R. Corlett, Attorney-at-Law. Monte Vista, Colorado.. c'svzc,2,%6. Dear Mr: Corlett: Reference is made to the discussion at the Irrigation District Meeting on JEJtr 3, Herewith a copy of the reply from the Colorado State ASC office received today. The 'aragraph 8, PartI of ACPS is nuite a document end we 7111 not attempt to copy it, you may review it at this office at your convenience. The payments that have been collected by water users of other systems have been made to the individual farmer who, because he paid for the structure individually, was eligible to collect a cost -share. In order to be eligible for cost-sharing it is necessa ry that a "person" Participate in the operation of a farm as a landlord, tenant or sharecropper. The district in question pays for the practice out of its own funds collected by assessment which, if unpaid, becomes a lien against the land. The district, not being landlord, tenant or sharecr opper, is therefore not eligible to collect cost-shares. S'ncerely. 74,124 Walter Carpenter, Office Manager..

(2) February 9# 1961. honorable GordonlistA Senior ,ienator from OaUralic Senate Office Building Washington, D. C. Dear 6enator Alletts Knowing yetr great interest in the problems of the agricultural people of our Aate, I take the liberty of calling your attention to something we consider particularly unfair in the Farmers Home Administration setup. As you knew* mutual ditch companies* through the use of have been able to secure gavernmertal assistance AROMOMDte* Pooliqg EFthe installation of headgatess checks and even repairs to a reservoir* which occurred in the instance of The Terrace Irrigation Dompany with which p,Toblea you are familiar. Although these services have bow avvil,Able to mutual ditch companies* this govenimmaal agency takes the positioa that Paragraph SG of the Agricultural Commervation Program .;ervi(cie handbook* last brought up to date to Jammer/ 31# 1961* bars an irrigation district from such participations solely an the grOUTA that the assessments are raised by taxation rather than paid through the mutual ditch company setup ncithit the individuals tAkteg water from au irrigation district do not voluntarily participate in aqy repairs or maintenance of their gystemy but that it is strictly a semi-govermental operation. :Ance The Hio Grande Canal Water Users Association* a mutual ditch company and The ,Jan Luis Valley Irrigation District, an irrigation district* serve exactly the same purposes in exactly the sae manner and in the same territory, it is difficult for the board of directors of the District to understand why the water users under one system are grunted this assistance and the water users under their syvtma are not. It would appear to me that prcbalAy this disedimai,ida c‘eld be corrected by a change of the rules it forth in the handbooks but in this I may be in error. •444 Luis Talley Irrigaamours all of the people under The( you can give us in information any tion system would appreciateverymea other than dissolving situation* thib for connection with a possible remedy system. the District and organising a mutual. With best regards to Weida .-Eind yourself, CU sr. oincerely yours.. Charles R. Corlett.

(3) S. S 411. 410. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM SERVICE WASHINGTON 25, D.C.. RECT rEe. 25 1961 February 23, 1961. Honorable Gordon Allott United States Senate Dear Senator Allott: This is in reply to your letter of February 14, 1961, to Mr. Howard Bertsch, Administrator, Farmers Hams Administration, concerning a letter which you received from Mr. Charles R. Corlett, Monte Vista, Colorado, about the eligibility of farmers in the San Luis Valley Irrigation District to receive Federal cost-sharing under the Agricultural Conservation Program. Federal cost-sharing under the Agricultural Conservation Program is limited by law to practices which eligible persons perform "voluntarily". Therefore, if a practice is to be carried out on an involuntary basis, cost-sharing cannot be approved. This question will arise usually on practices to be carried out in drainage, irrigation, weed control, or other districts established under State law with authority to exercise either regulatory or assessment powers, or both.. ,ste 186*. 190. A practice, the performance of which is a legal obligation or business responsibility of an organized district which under State law has been given the paver to levy and collect taxes or assessments against the lands of members to construct, repair, maintain, or replace projects, ordinarily is ineligible for ACP cost-sharing because it would be invo1urity performed. Therefore, cost-sharing cannot be approved for practices for which such a district has taken positive action to levy and collect taxes or assessments or where it is likely to do so. Likewise, ractices carried out or work done by farmers in eu of payment of such assessments are not eliiIale. Even though the members might agiii-to carry out the practice independently, whether the performance is voluntary or involuntary is to be determined by the power which the district has or likely will exercise to obtain its performance.. 04 .. 4GA4cucl''Growth Through Agricultural Progren. /0-;.

(4) Private, nonprofit, or mutual organizations which do not have power to create tax liens on land of members or compel performance will have been voluntarily established by the farmers to obtain finances and for other reasons to construct the project. The charters of some such organizations authorize assessments against the members. Delivery of water or other service to persons who do not pay the assessments may be withheld. Where these assessments are not collected as or in the manner of taxes, and if uncollected do not become liens against the land, 1,1117 are considered as voluntary contributions of the farmers and eligiblirriii-ACP cost-sharing. The cost-shares earned, indIuding those based on costs borne by the organization in their behalf in performing eligible practices, may be paid to the eligible farmers in proportion to their individual contributions, including the assessments paid to the association. The decision as to whether the farmers in either the Rio Grande Canal Water Users Association or the San Luis Valley Irrigation District is eligible to participate in the Agricultural Conservation Program hinges around whether the practice in question is to be performed voluntarily or involuntarily as discussed above. If we can be of further assistance on this matter, please let us know. Mr. Corlettts letter is being returned for your records. Very truly yours, Enclosure 7 2 / Administrator.

(5) March 7, 1961 Honorable Gordon Allott United States Senate Washington, D. C. Dear Senator Allott: I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter of March 3, 1961, in which you enclose the letter you received from Mr. Paul M. Koger, Administrator of The Agricultural Conservation Program in Washington. This letter confirms the construction which the local Farmers Home Administration people place on the rules and regulations and confirms the manner in which this program has been administered, but it does not answer the question which I proposed in my letter of February 9th. The Rio Grande Canal Water Users Association, to whom I refer, is eligible under the rules and has received assistance in the past and no doubt will in the future. The San Luis Valley Irrigation District has not been able to comply for the reasons set forth in Mr. Kogerts letter. My position is this: That this district serves the same purposes as a mutual ditch company does, in exactly the same manner and in the same territory. The mutual ditch companies make the levy of an assessment, which is made upon the basis of a vote of the majority of the stockholders who may be present either in person or by proxy at the annual meeting of the mutual ditch company, which assessment is made for the purpose of defraying the expense of maintenance and operation of the system, which includes the installation of structures for which governmental assistance is paid. The assessment, although not a lien upon the land, is a lien upon the water stock of each individual in the company and upon non-payment of assessments, the stock through proper procedure may be sold to pay the lien against the stock. This is determined to be voluntary. The irrigation district, on the other hand, elects a board of directors at an Election held in the district, by which the landowner in the district elects a board of directors to wham they delegate the power to fix the amount of a levy to cover the same purposes of defraying the expense of the costs of maintenance and operation of the system. The money is expended for exactly the same purposes, but instead of the lien being against the stock, there is a lien against the land, which of course without water, as you know, has no value. The money is used in the same manner to build structures, but in this instance there is no cost-sharing by the government. This is determined to be involuntary..

(6) My question is: Does the Act make this differentiation, or is this differentiation accomplished by the rules set forth in the handbook? In the event it is the former, in equity and good conscience an amendment to the Act under which cost-sharing is accomplished, should be made to correct the discrimination. If not, then a change of the rules should be made. If you can answer this question for me, then perhaps a course of action can be worked out whereby this inequitable situation may be remedied. I appreciate very much the work you have done in connection with this matter and have read this letter to the board of directors of the district and they also express their appreciation. We would appreciate having your ideas on this question so tin may have an idea as to how to proceed to get this matter corrected. Sincerely yours,. Charles R. Corlett CRC:r.

(7) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM SERVICE WASH I NGTON 25, D. C.. Faic:1 22, 1)61. Hon. Gordon Allott United States Senate bear Senator Allott: This is in reply to yeur letter of March 16, 1961, with which was enclosed a copy of a letter dated March 7, 1961, from Mr. Charles R. Corlett, Attorney at Law, Monte Vista, Colorado. Mr. Corlett presented further views about the eligibility of the San Luis Valley Irrigation District to participate in the Agricultural Conservation Program. Ps stated in our letter of February 23, 1961, to you, the decision as to whether the farmers in either the Rio GranI5ible to participate in the program hinges arcupd whether the practice in question is to be perfcrmed voluntarily. Payments under the Agricultural Conservation Program are made pursuant to Sections 7-17 of the Soil Conservation and lomestic Allotment Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 590g-5900j; Section 7(a) of which provides, among other things, that "the powers conferred under Sections 7.47, inclusive, of this act shall be used to assist voluntary action calculated to effectuate the purposes specified in this section." The Department has considered this language to preclude payments for practice, the perpractices carried out on an involuntary basis. formance of which is a legal oblination or business responsibility of an organized district uhich under State law has been given the power to levy and collect taxes or assessments against the lands of members to construct, repair, maintain, or replace projects, ordinarily is ineligible for ,LP cost-sharing because it would be involuntarily performed. Therefore, under our legislation cost-sharing cannot be approved for practices for which such a district has taken positive action to levy and collect taxes or assessments or where it is likely to do so..

(8) un the other hand, there are private, nonprofit, or mutual organizations which do not have power to create tax liens on land of members or compel performance which will have been voluntarily organized by the farmers to obtain finances to construct a project or for other purposes. The charters of some such organizations authorize assessments against the members and delivery of water or other service to persons who do not pay the assessments may be withheld. Where these assessments are not collected as or in the manner of taxes, and if uncollected do not become liens against the land, they are considered as voluntary contributions of the farmers. In such situations practices performed would be eligible for ACP cost-sharing. If we can be of further assistance on this matter, please let us know. Very truly yours,. 4. 37,7. " . TiNGAdminiEtratOr. /7.

(9) S MAY 3, 1961. Honorable Gordon Allott Senator from Colorado Senate Office Building Washington 25, D. C. Dear Gordon: I have delved answering your letter of April 4, 1961 in connection with the probleue of The San Luis Valley Irrigation District in securing assistance under the Agricultural Coneurvation progran until I could go over the copies of letters which you received from the Acting Administrator of the United States Department of Agriculture. In the meantime I talked with Mr. Reynold W. Hoeglund mho is in charge of the agricultural and irrigation loans of the Farmers Homo Administration in this State and went over with him the letters which you have received from the Agricultural Department, as well as my letters to you setting forth this situation. He appeared to agree with me that since stock in a mutual irrigation company can be sold for non-payment of assessments and the land to which the water is attached has no value without water, that actually there is no more "voluntary performance" insofar as a mutuel ditch company is concerned, than there is in the case of an irrigation district. He was at a loss to suggest any further procedure we could take insofar as the United States Department of Agriculture is concerned, exrept as suggested in your letter to the effect that this situation be clarified and spelled out in an amendment to the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act. After my conversation with him and on May 2nd I went ovet all of these matters with the Board of Directors of The San Luis Valley Irrigation District and they suggested that since this appeared to be the situation, that it might be advisable to alert the other representatives in the Congress from Colorado in connection with the situation as we find it. I advised them I did not feel this should be done without first securing your consent or suggestions as to how it should be done, but did advise them I would write you requesting you make such a suggestion as to whether we should contact each of the Colorado representatives and Senator Carroll, direct, or whether you would desire to make contacts with them. If it is agreeable to you however, I would be glad to prepare copies of the correspondence between our offices, as well as copies of the correspondence with the United States Department of Agriculture and sand them to each of our Congressional representatives. I shall appreciate your advising me as to the manner in which you would desire to have this handled so I do not cross you up in any way, as we certainly appreciate the work you have done in endeavoring to clarify this matter. With best personal regards to yourself and Wilda. Sincerely yours, CRC:r. Charles R. Corlett.

(10) dra. CARL HAYDEN, ARIZ., CHAIRMAN RICHARD B. RUSSELL, GA. DENNIS CHAVEZ, N. MEX. ALLEN J. ELLENDER, LA. LISTER HILL, ALA. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, ARK. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, VA. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, WASH. SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, FLA. JOHN STENNIS, MISS. JOHN O. PASTORE, R.I. ESTES KEFAUVER, TENN. A. S. MIKE MONRONEY, OKLA. ALAN BIBLE, NEV. ROBERT C. BYRD, W. VA. GALE W. MCGEE, WYO. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, MINN.. STYLES BRIDGES, LEVERETT SALTONSTALL, MASS. MILTON R. YOUNG, N. DAK. KARL E. MUNDT, S. DAK. MARGARET CHASE SMITH, MAINE HENRY DWORSHAK, IDAHO THOMAS H. KUCHEL, CALIF. ROMAN L. HRUSKA, NEBR. GORDON ALLOTT, COLO. ANDREW F. SCHOEPPEL, KANS.. 13La. 9.1Cniteb SzActfez Zenate COM MITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS. April 4, 1961. EVERARD H. SMITH, CLERK THOMAS J. SCOTT, ASST. CLERK. Mr. Charles R. Corlett Attorney at Law Monte Vista, Colorado Dear Chike: Enclosed are two more letters received from the U. S. Department of Agriculture on the problem which you have raised regarding the interpretation of the Agricultural Conservation Program. I think it is now satisfactorily established that exclusio-r"O —r—itirin ~ 0 W4116441 611 rt...0.0.144., - , th—e"Wcirillirrs-155.Tect upon the Department's own interIL .'frieems liter? traTirtrennTrun inequities such as the one you have pointed to will have to be cured by an amendment to the Act. Meanwhile, perhaps you have had further dealings locally which would shed a different light on the situation. After reading the enclosures, please bring me up to date. Best regards. Sincerely yours,. Gordon Allott, U. S. S. GA:ft Enclosures.

(11) S.. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, N. MEX., CH HENRY M. JACKSON, WASH. ALAN BIBLE, NEV. JOHN A. CARRMLL, COLO. FRANK CHURCH, IDAHO ERNEST GRUENING, ALASKA FRANK E. MOSS, UTAH. HENRY DWORS DAD THOMAS H. KUCHE.L, CALIF. BARRY GOLDWATER, ARIZ. GORDON ALLOTT, COLO. HIRAM L. FONG. HAWAII JACK MILLER, IOWA. OREN E. LONG, HAWAII QUENTIN N. BURDICK, N. DAK. LEE METCALF, MONT.. ?,16-vifeb. faite. ertale. COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS. J. J. HICKEY, WYO. RICHARD L. CALLAGHAN, STAFF DIRECTOR. June 2., 1961.. Mr. Charles R. Corlett Attorney at Law Ivionte Vista, Colorado Dear Chike: Just a note to let you know that the San Luis Valley Irrigation District's problem is not going unattended. During the last two weeks the majority leadership has kept us almost constantly on the Floor of the Senate, considering the Federal aid to education bill, with the result that other pressing problems such as yours have had to suffer. IN,eanwhile, additional inquiries are in the mill and I should have a definite suggestion for you in the very near future. Best regards. Since ely yours,. Gordon Allott, U. S. S. GA:ft.

(12) at January 4, 1962. Honorable Gordon Allott Senior Senator from Colorado Senate Office Building Wazhington, D. C. Dear Goricri At the meeting of the board of directors of The San Luis V'3ley Irrigation District yesterday, we again discussed the problen about which we have had considerable correspondence, involving the possible amendment of the Soil Conservation Demotic and Allotment Act so the District could secure assistance as ,Ja mutual irrigation companies for work performed. It appeared to us there would be so many other irrigation or drainage districts in the earns situation as we are, that it would make it worthwhile to secure a proper amendment to this Act to take care of our situation. We, or course, could dissolve our district and organize a mutual ditch coupany to operate our irrigation system, but since this district was organized in 1912, wo would like very much to retain the district organization if possible. I would appreciate any information you can give me in connection with this matter so I may report the same to my board of directors. With best regards to Wilda and yourself, I am Sincerely yours,. CRCIr. Chafies R. Corlett. cc: Mr. W. O. Sander, Sec., The San Luis Valley Irrigation District Center, Colorado.

(13) S.. •. ' CLINTON P. ANDERSON, N. MEX., CHAIRM HENRY M. JACKSON, WASH. ALAN BIBLE, NEV. JOHN A. CARROLL, COLO. FRANK CHURCil, IDAHO ERNEST GRUENING, ALASKA FRANK E. MOSS, UTAH OREN E. LONG, HAWAII QUENTIN N. BURDICK, N. DAK. LEE METCALF, MONT. J. J. HICKEY, WYO.. HEN,RY DWORSHAK, THOMAS H. KUCHEL, CALIF. BARRY GOLDWATER, ARIZ. GORDON ALLOTT, COLO. JACK MILLER, IOWA EVERETT MC KINLEY DIRKSEN, ILL.. 8,2526,D?-. ec53. ',JJertiteb Ziatez Zenctle COMM ITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS. (J, ). .;. ° 4ps. RICHARD L. CALLAGHAN, STAFF DIRECTOR. Cr). January 24, 1962. Mr. Charles R. Corlett Attorney at Law Monte Vista, Colorado Dear Chike: Enclosed are several letters for your information. Even for this Administration, the laxity displayed represents a milestone. I expect that my letter to the Secretary of Agriculture will bring the matter to a head. I'll continue to keep you advised. Best regards. Sincere. non GA:fo encl.. 11,. C4:9 0) —. ours,. llott, U.S.S.. ?3.

(14) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE WASHINGTON 25, D.C.. January 19, 1962. Honorable Gordon L. Allott United States Senate Dear Senator Allotts We regret the delay in arriving at a decisi on as to whether certain projects that would be undertaken in organi zed irrigation districts would be eligible for cost-shari ng under the Agricultural Conservation Program. This matter was the subject of our letters to you under dates of February 23, March 22, and rarch 28, 1961. We indicated at our conference in your office last summer that representatives of the General Counsel of the Depart ment would review the legal question in light of the inform ation you gave us. The matter is under consideration in that office . We are assured that the question will be resolved in the very near future. We will then promptly advise you of the determ inations made. Very truly yours,. Deputy Administrator, Conservation. \i c S. 1962. 1962. Growth Through Agricultural ProgreS3.

(15) CLINTON P. ANDERSON, N. MEX., ChAIRMAN HENRY M. JACKSON, %NASH. ALA. ,BIBLE, NEV. JOHN A. CA"ROLL, COLO. FRANK CHURCH, IDAHO ERNEST GRUENING, ALASKA FRANK E. MOSS, UTAH OREN E. LONG, HAWAII QUENTIN N. BURDICK, N. OAK.. HENRY DWORSHAK, IDAHO THOMAS H. KUCHEL, CALIF. BARRY GOLDWATER, ARIZ. GORDON ALLOTT, COLO. HIRAM L. FONG, HAWAII JACK MILLER, IOWA. LEE METCALF, MONT. J. J. HICKEY, WYO.. "Zertifeb ,Stafez Zenale COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS. RICHARD L. CALLAGHAN, STAFF DIRECTOR. January 24, 1962. Honorable Orville L. Freeman Szcretary of Agriculture Department of Agriculture Washington 25, D.C. Lear Mr. Secretary: A problem posed ay conetituents of mine has its origins in early February, 1961. The nature of my inquiry to your Department dealt with a construction of Sections 7-17 of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 590g.. 590q); Section 7(a) of which provides, among other things, that "powers conferred under Sections 7-17, inclusive, this Act shall be usef.: to assist voluntary action calculated to effect uate the purposes specified in this section.' The exact nature of the problem is fully set out in the exchange of correspond ence between myself and members of your department. In early June, 1961. it became quite evident that a meeting with members of the Conservation Service and of your General Counsel's office was more likely to result in progress. Accordingly, and at my request, on June date, 1961, I met with Messrs. Larson, Sehoonover, and Crumpler to explain in detail the situation giving rise to present difficulties. At the conclusion of the meeting that day, I was assured that Departmental recommendations and suggestions would be forthcoming within a reason able length of time. Seven months and several telephone calls later. I am advised by the Deputy Administrator that the matter is under consid eration and in the Office of the General Counsel of the Depar tment of Agriculture. Frankly, this is not the type of service which the public expects, and is entitled to receive. Your attent ion is called to this situation, undoubtedly an exception to the genera l rule, to.

(16) .Hon. Orvillte L. F January 24, 1962 Page two. a ii. invite your personal consideration of it. I find no room for criticism ordinarily and, on the contrary, appreciate the expeditious manner in which requests are handled. In view of the inordinate delay in this instance, I would appreciate any effort on your part to have a ruling from your General Counsel at the earliest possible moment in order that I, in turn, rn.ay provide rn.y constituents with the needed information. Thank you. and best regards. Sincerely yours,. Gordon Allott, U.S.S..

(17) DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WASHINGTON 25, D. C.. ebruary 1,1962.. Honorable Gordon Allott United States Senate Washington 25, D. C. Dear Senator Allott: This acknowledges your letter of January 24, 1962, concerning the delay you have encountered in resolving a problem of constituents of yours involving the administration of the Agricultural Conservation Program. Representatives of the Office of the General Counsel and of the Office of the Deputy Administrator, Conservation, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, who have the legal and administrative responsfbilities within the Department for the Agricultural Conservation Program, have been considering the problems involved in making ACP assistance available to farmers within organized improvement districts and farmers who are menbers of mutual companies. Agreement on the matter has been reached and these views as they affect the problem of your constituents will be communicated to you within the next few days. I regret exceedingly the delay in this matter. steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence.. Appropriate. Sincerely yours, Charles S. Murphy Acting Secretary.

(18) DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WASHINGTON 25, D. C.. February 9,1962.. Honorable Gordon Allott United States Senate Washington 25, D. C. Dear Senator Allott: This is in further reply to your letter of January 24, 1962, concerning the problem of some of your constituents involving the administration of the Agricultural Conservation Program (hereinafter referred to as the 'ACP ). The problem vas presented by Mr. Charles R. Corlett, Attorney at Law, Monte Vista, Colorado. Mr. Corlett states that the Rio Grande Canal "later Users Issociation, which we understand is a mutual company in the State of Colorado, is considered eligible for ACP assistance under ACP operating procedure, whereas the San Luis Valley Irrigation District, an improvement district organized under Colorado law, is considered ineligible for ACP assistance on the ground that the performance of practices by the district is involuntarily performed and therefore not eligible under Section 7(a) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended (16 U. S. Code 590g (a)), which authorizes assistance only for voluntary action calculated to effectuate the purposes of the let. Mr. Corlett states that the San Luis district serves the same purposes as a mutual ditch company does in exactly the same manner and in the sane territory. The only difference of consequence, according to W. Corlett, is that the assessments levied by the mutual company do not become liens upon the land in the nature of tax liens as is the case of an assessment levied by an organized district; however, Mr. Corlett points out that the mutual company's assessment is a lien upon the water stock of each individual stockholder, which may be enforced by sale of the stock, and that the mutual company may withhold irrigation water from the produeer who does not pay his assessment, so that in practical effect there is no logical basis for determining that the performance by a mutual company is voluntary and that of an organized district is involuntary..

(19) Mr. Corlett recommemds that if the differentiation between the status of mutual companies amd that of organized districts is occasioned by statute the statute should be amended, or if occasioned by the regulations of the Deperiment,that the regulations should be amended to correct the discrimination. 3. Inalosed are ten sets of pages from the ACPS Handbook (14CPS) containing selected paragraphs bearing on this problem. These oonsti tute the current operating procedure of the Depariment governing eligib ility of improvmment districts and mutual companies, as well as of the farmers within such districts and of farmers who are members of such compan ies, to resein AG? assistance.. 4-. Your attention is invited to paragraphs 33 and_36.of 1,4PL, whisk would ordinarily disqualify an improv _ ement district as well ai-C mutual nepany,from_participa_ting in the ACP as all entity. Section '8(b) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended (16 U. S. Code 590h(b)), authorises ACP assistance only to agricu ltural producers; and Section 8(e) of the Act (16 U. S. Code 59011(e)), governing division of payments restricts agricultural producers who are eligible for payment to landlords (including owners), tenants, and shareeroppers. Thus, Mr. Corlett's reference to payments to the kilo Grande mutual company and to the San Luis irrigation district probably meant payments to farmers who are members of the mutual company or who are farmers within the irrigation district.. S . The Department has tab= the position from the incept ion of the Agricultural Conservation Program that it wee not the purpose of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act to furnish assistance under the program to aid in the construction, repair, or maintenance of structures which organised improvement districts had been formed to construct or which had the legal obligation and responsibility to construct. This was based partly on the legal ground of the lack of voluntariness ebieb could well be involved but additionally upon the fact that it was our feeling that the programmes designed primarily to aid individual farmers for conserving their own farms. To use the funds made available for the program to aid in the construction of improvement district work would, at least in.

(20) 3 some areas of the country, somewhat deplete the available funds and tend to impair the effectiveness of ACP assistance to farmers for conservation practices on their individual farms. This policy has been spelled out in paragraph 8 of 1-ACPS. Contributions by an organised district to the carrying out of ACP practices have been regarded as those of an ineligible person, sines.. .the district is not ordinarily an agricultural producer and is in fact an agency having certain governmental functions and attributes. As indicated above, ACP assistance is limited by law to performance by agricultural producers. We could not consider a district merely as a group of farmers within the district. 7. Please note that this policy did not deny ACP assistance to a farmer or group of farmers within a district from receiving ACP assistance for carrying out conservation projects so long as the district has not taken action to make an assessment or levy taxes for the project and it was unlikely that it would do so, or if the district was Inactive.. 8 altual C8fliL.a,1ike iMProvement districts". have the status of entities_alparatcand apart from the_farners who are members thereof. As entities they are ordinarily not agricultural_producers and not !eligible for AC? assistance. However, such companies are usually formed voluntarily by a group of farmers to obtain financing.or to : Such comfacilitate the constructiariction of a project panies are not governmental bodies and have no right'to levy assessments which can be collected by a tax collector as taxes and which if unpaid become liens on the land. Since 1950 the Department has regarded funds in the hands of a mutual iiipany• which were obtained by loan, assessments, or ci_e_n_es_for_ services rendered as being individual contributions by the farmer_ !sobers of the company. This is admittedly. liberal construction and is in the nature of a piercing of the corporate veil; however, ire feel_thatAt_Ls_justified both from a legal standpoint and as a matter of administrative poli_sy. /0 In essence, our treatment of mutual companies vis-a-vis improvement districts has differed primarily in two respects: (1) projects.

(21) 4 carried out through mutual companies wore never considered involuntarily pirforiel whaiise uoder_eertain oonditions they were so considered when prtanaed La improvement districts; and (2) funds lathe bands of an_improvmmeet districted contributed by the &strict to the performing* tot 'practice were considered to be those of ast Ineligible 1011104 eherewfunde contributed_kra -mutual company were eonsidered es the eontributions of the fiimer members of the company in the ratio of their actual contributions. tamers within improvement districts were free to join together in 'poling agreements and to receive ACP assistance for practioes carried out by them with their awn funds on district projects, provided the district had not collected assessments to carry out the practices or was not likely to carry thee out. /Z Af_ter a sooplete review of_existing operating procedure, we have letenninet_tumod=y it to the extent that ACP assistance will no longer be denied farmers within improvement districts whii wish to and use their own funds to osTry_put practices on or in connection with district projects on the ground that they are involuntarily performedt In other vordav count!' ammittees may accept requests for LOP assistance for such purposely (regardless of whether the district has the responsibility the same biiii to carry out the practice or is likely to do it) on _ as any other practice. Of course, the county oommittee would rStin the right to disapprove the request or limit the amount approved because of a lack of funds, or for other good and sufficient reason, just as it has the right to do so in the case of any request for ACP cost-sharing assistance. /3 We feel that we must retain the distinction beta funds in the hands of mutual companies and those held by the improvement districts Pleads held by mutual companies and used by farmer-members of the empany pursuant to a pooling agreement to carry out an ACP practice will be considered to be the contributions of the farmers to the extent that such funds were actually contributed by such persons. Funds held by improvement districts and used in connection with ACP practices will continue to be regarded as the contribution of an ineligible person..

(22) 5 '4- As you perhaps know, under existing procedure the contribution of an ineligible person to the carrying out of an ACP practice does not have the effect of increasing the ACP payments for eligible persons. This discourages producers from obtaining aor such assistance, particularly in the case of State or Federal aid. We are presently reconsidering this procedure with the view possibly of revising it to enable a producer to receive up to his own full contribution to the carrying out of an ACP practice even though there are contributions from ineligible persons. This would be of considerable benefit to farmers within improvement districts who carry out ACP practices under pooling agreements partly with funds contributed by them and partly with district funds. We will notify you as soon as a decision on this matter is mode. If you wish to discuss any of these matters representatives of the Department will be glad to meet with you for that purpose. i.t( Again I want to express my regret for the delay in our response to your inquiries. We appreciate your interest in agriculture and are always glad to hear from you. I assure you that every effort will be made to beadle any future communication from you in a more expeditious manner. Sincerely 'ours, iCharles S. Murphy Under Secretary. Enclosures.

(23) February 20, 1962 bombers of the Board of 3irectors of The an Luis Valley Irrigation Districts Gentlemens I enclose herewith a copy of a letter received by Senator Allott as a result of his untiring efforts on behalf of the astrict in connection with the ACP assistance problem. I also eclose copies of ACP manual referred to in the letters the paragraphs of interest being indicated. I have numbered the paragraphs in the margin of the letter frcek the Under Secretary of Agriculture so you may refer to the letter in connection with py commits in connection with the same. In connection with Paragraph 4% my reforms, vas to payments actually made by a ssitual ditch compeny througn the use of a pooling agreement and the appointment of an agent as provided in such pooling agreement, to receive on behalf of the farmers the ACP contribution payable by virtue of the provisions of the pooling Weenie's In connection with Paragraph 5, since the construction of our gystem was compasted about 1912 and there has been nothing further done in the way or construction, except those things considered normal and usual for the maintenance of an irrigation distribution system simoe that date, the references there to construction did not seem to apply to our District, as I have set forth in my previous letters to Senator Allott, the payments male by otoc.,holders of a mutual ditch company are no more voluntary than ure the Payments made to the County Treasurer for maintenance and operation of an irrigation district. Both are for the benefit of the individual fa arid the individual faro operator. Both types of organisation require their diversion facilities meet the requirements of their organisation before diversion of water can be made by the farmer* In connection with Paragraph 6, the only source from which either the mutual ditch coupany or the irrigation district can obtain funds for maintenance and operation of their systems is fraa the individual farmers themselves who are associated togeither in the enterpriee, regardless of whether some ono determines such association is voluntary or involuntary. I do not follow the reasoning in this paragraph that a group of farmers associated together in a mutual ditch company as stockholders, can be considered a group of farmers who qualify, while the owners of land in an irrigation district likewise are aleph a group of farmers* but are determined not to qualify.. I.

(24) 142 In connection tion district ments at some irrigation. with paragraph 7, both the mutual ditch =WNW sad thy irrige.are non-profit organizations and most of necessity nabs assessnature to raise the funds for the smintenance and operation of system.. The statementeset forth in Paragraph • seem to have been adeqpately covered by statements made by me at prior times, which are summarised'in paragraph 2 of the Under 5ecretares letter. The whole moat of my argmment is contained in paraaraphs 9 and 10 as I am unable to see wily, if the agricultural department can• give ouch a liberal construction to the activities of ow entity, then why by the failure to apply like liberal construction to other entities, can one group of farmers, who pay inc* taxes on the produce raised with water averted from the some general source, in the same manner and in tho same area, be denied the some treatment by construction. Ly understanding of the statement set forth in Paragraph 12 is that the Agricultural Dalartment is now baking a determination that the farmers in a district would be treated in the IMIMS manner under a pooling agreement, as are the tamers in a mutual company, emnept that this treatment is limited by the statemsnt contained in Paragraph 13, which makes a differentiation, which in rey opinion is arbitrary as to the funds held by a mutual ditch company being held to be contributions of eligible persons, while runda held and invested in the same manner by the irrigation district, are determined to be contributions of imaligjble persons. This would seem to me to be in direct conflict with the statements contained in paragraph 12 and would actually result in holding the door open far the farmers in the district until they are ready to walk in and then closing the door in their face. If the change in procedure as proposed in paragraroh 14 is adopted, it would then appear to me that the prcbles which they have sWbmitted is solved and that then there would be no distil:4.ton betrosen the farmers under a asttual ditch company and the farmers under an irrigation district, as both would receive like treatment. A* W4 Win note, the Under 3esretary of Agriculture expresses the hope that they may Make a decision in commection with the reconsideration of the. procedure, ehortly, and we therefor may look fornard with hope to a reasonably empeditious consideration of this matter so the farmers in the district may receive like treatment as do those farmers under tuntuali ditch companies. .iinterely yours,. CRCsr CC: Am. Gorton Ailott Senator from Colorado Washington, 3. C.. Charles R. Corlett, Attorney The Jan Luis Valley Irrigation District.

(25) CHARLES R. CORLETT ATT. M. COPY. R N EY AT. LAW. NTE VISTA, COLORADO. February 20, 1962. &movable Gesten Allott Senator frau Colorado Senate Office Building Washington, D. C. Doer Clovion During your absence I received a letter from Hr. Eckert your legislative assistant, together with enclosures of communications received from the United States Department of Agriculture. I have carefully gone over this letter, as moll as the mailed sections of the regulations from the ACPS handbook and enclose you herewith, in duplicate, copy of a letter which I have sent to the board of directors of the District, which is self explanatory, emeept that I refer to the paragraphs in the letter of the Under-Secretary of Agriculture, by number, which I have nuibered consecutively as paragraphs 1 to 16 inclusive. I know that this has been a long and consuming work on your pert for the farmers under our district and it now appears that our Worts are cloee to being accomplished. I want te again advise you of the appreciation of the board of directors and of the people in the San Luis Valley Irriation District, for the smells:A manner in which you have handled this matter. I hope the reconsideration set fo Pandinph 16 will result in a fair and aqua treatment to groups of farmers under mutual ditch companies and irrigation districts alike and will wait with inters/it the decision promised an this matter Sincerely yours,. Corlett cc: Members Board of Directors.

(26) DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WASHINGTON 25, D. C.. March. £962. ma7e;. /f 4. Hon. Gordon Allott United States Senate. Ow Senator Allott: In our letter to you under date of February 9, 1962, regarding modification of the provisions of the Agricultural Conservation Program relating to organised (tax) districts, we stated that consideration was being given to a change in the ACP operating procedure relating to aid provided by a State or Federal agency or other ineligible person. This change in procedure has now been developed and is in the process of being distributed to all States. Under the procedure, prior to the change, the extent of an ACP practice carried out with State or Federal aid was reduced for the purpose of computing ACP cost-share payments in proportion to the aid provided by the State or Federal agency. This, as indicated in our letter of February 9, tended to discourage farmers and ranchers from using State or Federal aid which might be available since their cost-share payments would be computed on the reduced extents of the practices. Under the revised procedure the extent of a practice carried out with aid provided by a State or Federal agency or other ineligible person will not be reduced as a result of such aid. The entire cost-share payment for the practice will be credited to the eligible farmers and ranchers who contribute to the cost of carrying out the practice, but the cost-share payment to any eligible person will not exceed his individual contribution. In other 'words, a person's cost-share payment for a practice will not exceed what he personally has put into the practice. The following examples will illustrate how the change in procedure will apply in cases where aid is provided by an organised (tax) district: Example 1. Farmers in the district plan to line a district irrigation ditch to permit more effective use of irrigation water and to prevent erosion, the.

(27) Si cost of the lining to be borne in part by funds pie. vided by the individual farmers and in part by their of the district. /be lining poetics is approret for ACP cost-sharing at the rate of 50 percent a the scat. The farmers contribute $1,000 to the east of the practice and the district also contributes 0000. The cost-share for the practice vould be ,000 math* farmers 'would reeeive this entire amount since it is not in "mess of their contributions. NO cost-share payment vould be mode to the district since it is not an eligible person. (Under the prosedure in effect prior to the champ, the costshare perment to the farmers would have been 50 per cent of their contribution, or 4500. If the liding of the diteh hed been the responeibility_of the _ -district, the practice menld not hers been eligible for any AC? cost-sharing Amax the old procedure.). t. ANimple 2. the senditions are the some as for example 1 except that the district contributes $10200 sod the farmers contribute 000. In this emomple, oleo, the computed coet•shere mould be 40000 (50 percent of the total Coat). However, the cost-snare sapient* to the farmers mould be limited to $800, *Leh is the total of their contributions. This change in procedure will be especially helpful to farmers in organized districts who carry out ACP practices under pooling agreements partly with funds contributed by thee and partly with district funds. Sincerely yours, itenneth M Birkhead Assistant to the Secretary. ;Lir.

(28) o•. • • arcn .19, 1962. ilonorable Gordon Allott Jnited Aates Senate aashington 25, D. C. Dear ..ienator: 1 wish to acknowlelge receipt of your letter of March 12th, together with copy of a letter from Kenneth 14. Birkhead, Assistant to the Secretary of the Department of 4igriculture, in connection with the work you have been doing on behalf of The San Luis Valley Irrigation District, to correct the inequities of ACP practices between mutual ditch companies an4 irrigation districts. I have read this letter very carefully and although it does not actually come out and say we may proceed in such manner as to receive KC? payments for work done on behalf of the farners by the irrigation district, it appears to me that the langaase is such as to give us an opportunity to endeavor to secure such payments by proceeding under the pooling agreement procedure which all ditch companies in this area have used in the past. I am going to recommend to the Deraid of ')irectore of the district that they secure the signatures of the farmers in the district to such a pooling agreement, after which we will make an effort to proceed in this manner. If we can secure assistance in this way without further controversy with the Department of Agriculture, it would appear best to me to do it in this manner. If not, we may have to request you to present our problem again. It is my belief that you have accomplished what we desire and as I have expressed in my previous letters, the directors of our District, as well as the meMbers thereof, are very appreciative of your work. sincerely,. CRC:r cc: Board of Directors San Luis Valley Irrigation District. Charles R. Corlett, Attorney for The San Luis Valley Irrigation District.

(29) Mr. Elmer Reed State Executive Director United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Stablization and Conservation Service New Custom House Denver 2, Colorado Dear Mr. Reed: Pursuant to our conference held on April 13, 1962, in your office I desire to place in written form the various matters which we discussed so that they may be given consideration by your office and some decision made as to the proper procedure for the San Luis Valley Irrigation District and the farmer owners thereof to take in making compliance with the recent rulings of the Secretary of Agriculture in connection with cost sharing. As you know the irrigation practices of mutual ditch companies and irrigation districts in our area are primarily the same since we have no dry land farming areas in our part of the State of Colorado and any crops raised on land in our particular area must be brought about by the application of irrigation water to the land to raise such crops. In either instance land in this area has no value 77. et'etk_ 4/9-1-6—ekt.A.0 t'L. except as it is fertialmed-by theAlaeof,-the application of irrigation water.to-9,184w 14—prvdu4ti*e. Due to this particular situation applicable at least to the projects in our particular area it is unfortunate that the Hon. Charles S. Murphy, Undersecretary of Agriculture in his letter to Hon. Gordon Allot, Senator from Colorado, under date of February. 9, 1962, made no distinction between an irrigation district and an. improvement district. prj. The irrigation district in Colorado is that only; the sole. being the organization of farmers together for the one purpose of securing. and making delivery of irrigation water to that specific group of farmers who voluntarily associated themselves together for the purpose of securing water and water only from said district.. The delivery of water therefrom being based upon. —1—.

(30) •. • their voluntarily so associating themselves together so that they might receive the benefits of the irrigation district act to secure and distribute water to themselves as farmers. We feel that the decisions made by the Department of Agriculture and the Amendment thereof of their regulations as set forth in the letter of Hon. Kenneth.14. Birkhead, Assistant to the Secretary, to Hon. Gordon Allott, dated March 8, 1962, was intended to alleviate this situation. With this thought in mind I believe, it advisable in this letter to. 0•3-4,1,__L. L4LCt. set forth the similar±ti€s birt-wee./. mutual ditch company organization. whose. activities are deemed to be voluntary, and the provisions in connection with an irrigation district whose activities are deemed to be involuntary, under the. AS rules of the Secretary of Agriculture, as applied to the acto aewell as the 6,L1similarities between the two so that your office may have mrthinking in connection with the determination of the Secretary of Agriculture as to the construction of the act. I will therefore in this letter make these comparisions and also advise you of the proposed action which. the board of directors of the San Luis Valley. Irrigation District intend to take so that your office may make a determination (L Li_ as to whether or not the procedure which tvilry-propose to take will comply with the intention of the act so that the farmers under the San Luis Valley Irrigation District may be accorded cost shorting (1A_L_Li-) /1.-ce\A! ditch c OLAIXt. assistance in the same manner as .or mutual cl-. kc-e-fL. XltZ:r. tJA-. MUTUAL DITCH COMPANY ir)ECiL. t LAI 4_,Z_T. The mutual ditch company under the Statutes providing for the organization c QC of the same in the State of Coloradtb, operate in substantially the following manner: 1. The directors of a mutual ditch company are elected at an annual meeting of the stock holders of the company at which meeting the proxy of any stock1;1 - -.4 1 " holder is acceptable for the purpose of voting his stock. (1)4111"—,--` annualyor a one 2. Directors of a mutual ditch company may be elected companies in this area the term of year term or as is the case in a number of ditch -2-.

(31) office of a director may be for a three year term with the election of directors so staggered as to provide that one-third of the directors of the company are elected annually. • ( 3.. An assessment is made against the stock of each of the owners owing. stock in a mutual company for the following purposes, if so specified: a) for maintenance and operation b) for the payment of indebtedness on the system • c) for specific construction of projects set forth by the stock holders. d) for. the funding of replacement of equipment. e) for the building of a fund for unusual contingencies not contemplated by the stockholders. S ( 3L- (4-4- C, 4. Such assessment is usually made by resolution of the stockholders upon the recommendation of the retiring Board of Directors as to the amount of the levy for each of the specific items mentioned in the foregoing paragraph and the levy as so made becomes a lien upon the stock of each owner even though no water . ot,L, t47,i CX., 4.,A,1 xtt • wsat is delivered for any particular year. The by-laws of the company usually provide, and the by-law is usually enforced, that no water will be delivered to any stocky a ca-cl holder unless the assessment is paid prior to the delivery of water for a particular water season, or that water may be delivered upon the payment of the assessment after the initial water delivery soascm4. The stock of each individual upon which. the assessment is a lien can be sold by proper procedure for the delinquency. The usual practice by a mutual ditch company is to advertize said stock for sale 0 31after delinquencies have accrued for a period of three (3) Years. C 3114-4 5.. The assessment3so levied. S. 1?,. are payable to a Secretary-Treasurer. appointed by the Board of Directors of the mutual ditch company. 6.. Under this procedure the stockholders may, by the execution of. pooling agreements appoint an agent for all of the stockholders which is acceptable Wider the act as a voluntary. contribution of the individual farmer stockholder.. -3-.

(32) THE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 6---kiL 1. ase board of directors of an irrigation district under the. A._. Colorado Irrigation Acts is elected annually by a ballot at an election and •. no proxies on behalf of the landowners in the district are acceptable at such C._ an election, each land owner being required to vote on a ballot 4N44N4elot*Eacr..,•ayje_ eu-4, 7177-0-Lti_<), (r44---/-6 Cos iqs-5) 2. The assessment is made by the Board of Directors annually and is certified to the Board of County Commissioners who make a levy of the assessment. The assessment may be made for exactly the same purposes as set forth in Paragraph 3 in connection with Mutual Ditch Companies. (14q -. fe. s 1 9,nj. --rOS '". 3. The assessment as so levied is collected as a water tax equally from the owner of each acre of land in the District and if unpaid becomes a lien against the land.. ) 4. Unlike the Mutual Ditch Company the Board of Directors of an. tiu irrigation District aminnot deny to a land owner who is delinquent in the payment 0-442(4.A1A"'" 71-of his water tiamthe delivery of water for any year for the reason that said feet-L:1z_ 54'3) / --if e k' / , ,,L1! 5. Water can be received and the land cannot be taken for taxes until A there is a delinquency of more than three years in the payment of the water assessment assessment is not paidf dcrlt " --VN. CiLl '-4-4Le1 174. in which event the normal procedure for.the taking of the tax deed can be taken by the irrigation district after adjustment with the Board of County Commissioners for any unpaid general County and State Tax.. /4-9 -- /"-. 3(4 A9. f 1 3-. SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE MUTUAL DITCH COMPANY AND THE IRRIGATION DISTRICT UNDER COLORADO STATUTE 1. Both organizations are non-profit corporations awned solely and , c) exclusively by farmersi 6-1.4L4P a-4'JL„..,_zis-,1 * ( 4 14‘,--/-1_ a s ici3.-- j , 0.,(..--)A 2. Both organizations deliver irrigation water to the farmer owners as their sole and exclusive business.. (f-41--- t - if—e-62. ). 3. Both organizations operate by making annual assessments against their farmer owners.. -4-. Or.

(33) April 4, 1962. Mr. Elmer Reed, Regional Specialist Colorado Agrieulturn1 Stabilization & Conservation Commit tee Room 47 New Custom House Building Denver 2, Colorado Dear Mr. Reed: I rlm writing this letter to you for the purpose of securi ng an appointment to met (3:3.1:her you or the proper person, in your office on .Apr3.3. 13th. The mtter I desire to dis..;- uss concerns the cost-shari ng program in connection with farmers under an irriga tion district. Through our efforts., the United States Department of Agriculture has made a change in the regulations. The last letter dated March 8, to Senator Allott from Mr. Kenneth M. Birkhead, Assist ant to tha Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, states that a change in procedure has been developed and is in the process of being distributed to all states. The local ASC offices have not receiv ed the change and it may be that your office has not yet received the change and I have received no copy of the change if it has been issued. Since this change was inaugurated through my office and apparently decisions in connection with the change wip: be decisions of first impression in the United States, I am encle 6wigyal herewith a machine copy of correspondence between Senator Allott„ the Department of Agriculture and myself in connection with the reasoning behind this change. I an forwarding this matter to you so you may consid er the same prior to my meeting with you and also so some State procedure may be considered and so we may proceed in a manner agreeable to the State office. I would appreciate your advising me what time would be an agreeable time with your office on April 13th. Yours very truly,. CRC:r encls.. Charles R. Corlett.

(34) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Catuaittisas Colorado State Office Service New Custom House Denver 2, Colorado. 5678 <I, ,‹ (ID o. 4,0, 4 /0. (;' co NI. , ,s, 0, < 4', ./) 4, 0A,l( 4 ) cc,) , s-c-:" eNkIN",0April 9, 1962 c' 1/eE2aZ‘2,. ui _ : ---7. ( 7 4 -.. Mr. Charles R. Corlett Attorney At Law Monte Vista, Colorado Dear Mr. Corlett: Replying to your letter of April 4, 1962, Mr. Reed can meet with you at 11:00 A.M. Friday, April 13, 1962. The Washington procedure relative to the change in the application of a contribution of an ineligible person, such as the Irrigation Company you represent, toward the performance of a conservation practice has been sent to all ASCS county offices. This procedure was adapted to this practice under the Soil Bank Program back in 1957. The instructions for the Agricultural Conservation Program read in part as follows: "Aid Furnished lay_an Organized District. Aid furnished by an organized (tax) district in connection with the performance of a 1962 program practice will be handled in the same manner as aid furnished by any other ineligible person. Farmers in such a district may receive cost-sharing for 1962 practices carried out by them in whole or in part with their own funds, regardless of whether the district has the responsibility to carry out the practices. "The cost-shares to such farmers will not be in excess of their respective contributions e.114_g.ny_funds provided by the district will not be cons*dered as contributions of the farmers in compting_ e farmers cost-shares. Aid furnished by a mutual organization &E iax tax district) may still be coniideied as contributions of -ale -farmers who have contributed to the funds of the organization ,through assessments or otherwise." This conforms to the example in Mr. Kenneth M. Birkhead's letter of March 3, 1962 to Senator Allott. ery truly yours (Y Allen R. Funk Acting State Executive Director.

(35) April 10, 1962. The Board of Directors The an Luis Valley Irrigation District Center, Colorado Gentleman: In endeavoring to work out the procedure in connection with the possibility of complying with the provisions of the Department of Agriculture to secure ACS payments on ditch construction, I have made an appointment with Ni. Elmer Reed of the State office of this service and propose to meAgwith him on Fridays April 13th. Since I am going to Denver on another matter at the same time, the cost of the trip can be pro-rated between the District and the other client. I also enclose a copy of the letter which I received from Mr. toed, which indicates the necessity of meeting with him to make a determination of how we sheuld proceed to saeure cost-shares, or if it is possible for us to proceed in such manner as to secure any cost-sharing. If some procedure cannot be worked out it may be necessary that we contact Senator Allott again. 1 also enelose herewith a Aachine cow of the water report issued April 1, 1962, for your information. Yours very truly,. Charles The an encls.. Corlett, Attorney is Valley Irrigation District. R..

(36) May 2$ 1962. Honorable Gordon Allott Sonate Office Building Waehington, D. G. Dear Senator Ailott: I enclose herewith a copy of a letter which I have addreseed to Mr. Elmer Heed of the Agricultural Stabilization Committee in Denver, which came about as a result of a conference I had with him in connection with the working out the manlier in wbich The San Luis Valley Irrigation District could comply with the rulings of the Agriculture Departiacut in connection with cost sharing payments. Mr. Breed indicated to me when I had the conference, that if I would p:,:t Ay statements in letter fore, he felt the attorneys in his office could follow through so this situaticin would be taken care of without further action. With best pereonal regards, Sincerely,. Charles k. Corlett CRer.

(37) •. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, N. MEX., CH HENRY M. JACKSON, WASH. ALAN BIBLE. NEV. JOHN A. CARROLL, COLO. FRANK CHURCH, IDAHO ERNEST GRUENING, ALASKA. DAHO HENRY DWORSH: THOMAS H. KUCHEL, CALIF. GORDON ALLOTT, COLO. JACK MILLER, IOWA MAURICE J. MURPHY, JR., N.H.. FRANK E. MOSS, UTAH. JAMES B. PEARSON, KANS.. OREN E. LONG, HAWAII QUENTIN N. BURDICK N. OAK. LEE METCALF, MONT. J. J. HICKEY, WYO.. ?Anita,Zfatez Zenate COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS. JERRY T. VERKLER, CHIEF CLERK. May 8, 1962. Mr. Charles R. Corlett Attorney at Law Monte Vista, Colorado Dear Chike: I was very interested to read the copy of your letter addressed to Elmer Reed. It represents an excellent summary which, I trust, will prove persuasive in reaching your objectives. Moreover, I am very glad to have it for my own files. Best regards. Sincer. y yours,. Gordon Allott, U.S.S. GA:fo.

(38) t,. • UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committee Service Colorado State Office New Custom 7ouse Denver 2, Colorado. June 7, 1962. fn1. _ t,. c. 05 CO ,114/? OJ 4141,2.4.• rc.:1 cbz,' C-). 72. Mr. Charles R. Corlett Attorney At Law Monte Vista, Colorado Dear Mr. Corlett: The proposal Pertaining to ACP eligibility of the San Luis Valley Irri,7ation District which you presented in your letter to our office under date of May 2, 1962, was forwarded to the Deputy Administrator, Conservation, kSCS, for his consideration. For your information, we quote below the opinion expressed by the Deputy Administrator in this matter: "The file submitted by the State Office has been discussed with representatives of the General Counsel. We do not find any basis from the information and arguments presented by Mr. Corlett to change the policies expressed by the Under Secretary in his letter of 7ebruary 9, 1962, to Senator Gordon ALlott. Nor do we find any basis to change the policies currently contained in pararraph 8 of 1-ACTS with respect to the different handlirg of contributions by organized tax districts and of contributions of private, nonprofit, or mutual districts. Mr. Corlett proposes that his district identify funds collected for conservation work on the district system and that such funds could then be considered as having been contributed by individual members. In our opinion the proposed change of separately identifying the funds would not make such funds those of the individual members; and thereby make the eligible contributions for AC? purposes." We believe that the comments of the Deputy Administrator are self-explanatory. 7N truly yours, /. --t.--- -6-- .-/ ."-- • - C ...., ___. Allen R. Funk Acting State Exec-i_ltive Director.

(39) October 3, 1962. Honorable Gordon Allott Senior Senator from Colorado Senate Office Building Washington, D. C. Re: The San Luis Valley Irrigation District Dear Gordon: 6ome time ago the Department of Agriculture, through the Agricultaral Stabilization and Conservation Committee Service, male a ruling that our District is not eligible for participation in their program. It appears that the District will have a considerable amount of headgate and repair work to accomplish within the next several years and it would certainly be beneficial to us if the eligibility rules could be amended, or same different interpretation made so we could receive the same benefits as like water users under a mutual gystem. I enclose a copy of the letter from Mr. Allen R. Funk, Acting State EXecutive Director, for your file. It has occurred to me that the %lick Spending Bill recently passed for community and irrigation projects, a copy of which I do not have, may provide same procedure misreby the irrigation district might secure funds for the work they contemplate. It appears to me imperative that we work out same financing problem if the District is to proceed with this work, as unfortunately they had a failure of their spillway this year and are now in the process of repairing the same, which will cost approximately $180000.000 which depletes rather severely the treasury of the district. The Board of Directors at their meeting last night discussed this matter rather thoroughly, even the probability of reorganizing the district into a mutual ditch company, which of course would involve considerable expense both in making the change over and involve additional operating expense over a period of years. It would not seem to me that this should be necessary. We will all appreciate whatever you can do to equalize this situation between like water users. Sincerely yours,. CiikIsr Encl.. Charles R. Corlett.

(40) 239 New Custom House Denver, Colorado October 25, 1962. Mr. Kenneth M. Hirkhead Assistant to the Secretary Department of Agriculture Washington 25# D.C. Dear Mr. Birkheads On March 8# 1962, you wrote to me describing the change in procedure which was developed insofar as the Agricultural Conservation Program is concerned. The change in procedure suggested that it oould prove beneficial to the farmers in organised districts carrOwsuti1640. praotices under pooling agreements, partly with funds contributed by them and partly with District funds. Accordingly, and acting on pv..bisitoesti...Pur letter, Mr. Charles R. Corlett, Attorney at Law, parresentimg the San Luis Valey.irrigmtion District, contacted Mr. Elmer Reed, the State axecutive Director of the Department of Agriculture, Agricultural StabilisatisiVailigeneerastion americe, in Denver. 1962, remultepk a letbsr frau A eonferenos heA4on 401 drew a •ossmirison betas*. L; JOkilab 2, May dated Kr, Corlett Ditch Company ander on -Muteal the IrrigetionaistriMienik to WasAington and, to This l.torr Colorado law. Ixecutive Direstor, State Acting the R. Funk, Allen June 7, 1962, there is no that indicated or, AdminiOrat quotiN144MIIIIINV paragraph 8 at in oontained itly twig tOOpoge the poliorreec of contrtbutions eat handling Viitdi.ittivr 1.ACPS with respect to • • 4,privato# ons -attributi of nd Womanised tax distristala iiistrict wordsobips .IsLotiesr n. -profit, or mutual 44str4Ots, was turned dim sakbrolti.'. TJ mgr.& to aLaTC TLI-Oisc.0 GAITICA PUT;t10 'a 41;t1. rim b. 1 pi.Tir r"Orit Alg idiethior Vae..latost de lel is Wthout ctonenting )' ivigtified, the though% that scours As !Re es t4ukt the iArerilleent of Agriculture could "wimps proimbor*.t stare helpful in this case. It appears to me that vs are now in an area where assistance might be possible, and I suggest that it would be moat hslpful to have recommendations which could be passed along .ollmt indicating how, within the phirview se the to my sonstAb regulatierspar*of are presently amended, the District could qualify for assistance..

(41) usivrnpir...,ce• or. 44mneth Pt. Atipidadd ilea' fictooer 25, 190 7. 1`: priik* .. sp ;Iff:b Page 2 Lnc,r; f..Ilirrit1101)2 APrk..,1 • 6it•-;. a =•(1. ç. irL'Cr Gorrry. 1)(lAA o, 71* CO 1T -.'( TCU'.. r7€.' fl'y j1t7s. :, 41 r4 T r.C‘ -TT ':'ii "V 14.1 !rt. J.' rt. t,1114-. omen% the jeparturnt ssimbiel*o ',1 with traoh veooraftendattionsi Utak lead *Ilit that J11 draft of •••• a- propriate lagi viatica be prepared to •ortior toemend trio law and bring about the RDOVO change which the Jepartment 1.wsoll if nemeeeary in ardor to remit irrigation die* tristo to quoltiv 04r %MU two*. I haws issitoik tick and emaainloct at.1010 1,044.4 Vie .boolo tobsilarLes in the two tryaburos• suwip in-ofiklitiQa41 44(rer. Ciorlobt, it his lotter of ha.- 24, al,eo pre/sante the LM t4j5 .eati ktr appears to rso %het easista.too ot-Ao.44,14 claw squdaly to botit of • %tie"..typo entities. , •• , • 3• • , „.• • egimatat* Awing Jour cizoneuto it.th reopoot to •.9th Joe t.lows at 2our ear3fieet outireatenoe• qia you IVIOP410 10,-Liatrictivia .43 osouot 4: vas* with* moods to, is* lioafist 4.1401434111.14 ah. goisposal• PAuge,.444 4tIzeAdy ,n We. ," 1110. to. Ai*. s bwa..-4reggias le mime,Febramai.1961. y.„0AeL• Lqc{ , of. oi. pJe T,r411,111..PA up c. -*atm S'0401141% :-ou • r(.,;40 ‘fvoLival tr.r j) VI 71, ticrTue. oc. LI.'. ire( I.. "111110.11. Jo;. -etcj'Ax. 444: t -TerLi cp aucpP t,00rrc". tr.i.e0041,v,) t.,t.Lcr PiTeti Lrft.-/Ta clumTr Tu o-w.ruTleci g42;14-cpu cua.4101111,4103.$11.,44160.ol aez lc fpwc Tr CO 97 PaTh.-JCTVT rvl Aliterrnwi 1.1). Lint T2 CO'•. :Vflo. 111"4‘4.. . J Ji/ • 6. vu ,irLoo. :0 1.•. s. , k;.1 AVU qemal otdoq 4%.7:.101111. We 1-,ws) 103 ALOrG 410 Tr. Cfet1G141111.1tt. /TL7pewq:. 1.740.; s: ) .,. -. ry,?,•. 66E4411.'14 ot yKLIcturrads, vsralrupiruc 4ND 4i5Jq. 2scuse pla WL•. GirJecp. y• N'Lnisuq. DGco oz. ' DISJAL1 (' ()LINO 5) 03 i!,744 ^4Ilicu.11 hOilLO.

(42) •. CARL HAYDEN, ARIZ., CHAIRMAN RICHARD B. RUSSELL, GA. DENNIS CHAVEZ, N. MEX. ALLEN J. ELLENDER, LA. LISTER HILL, ALA. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, ARK. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, VA. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, WASH. SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, FLA. JOHN STENNIS, MISS. JOHN 0. PASTORE, R.I. ESTES KEFAUVER, TENN. A. S. MIKE MONRONEY, OKLA. ALAN BIBLE, NEV. ROBERT C. BYRD, W. VA. GALE W. MCGEE, WYO. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, MINN.. LEVERETT SALTO , MASS. MILTON R. YOUNG, ..AK. KARL E. MUNDT, S. OAK. MARGARET CHASE SMITH, MAINE THOMAS H. KUCHEL, CALIF. ROMAN L. HRUSKA, NEBR, GORDON ALLOTT, COLO. NORRIS COTTON, N.H. CLIFFORD P. CASE, N.J. JACOB K. JAVITS, N.Y.. e. v2122,,,,,. 'JCnitciZiatez Zenate COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS LID c--:51.. cc). .-0. EVERARD H. SMITH, CLERK THOMAS J. SCOTT, ASST. CLERK. 239 New Custom House Denver, Colorado October 25, 1962. '' C, ' , ( C\ 0 cp v. -—A ...J.. , I* v, o • < :. —, e•-• 9 oo 0 \..). ,cy. ...A. 99V q--_-. 66) /. 3. Mr. Charles R. Corlett Attorney at Law Lonte Vista, Colorado Dear Chike: As you know, I have been traveling between Washington, New lork, and Denver during the past four weeks. All of this traveling, resulting in part, at least, from my responsibilities as a Congressional Delegate to the u.A., has somewhat delayed my mail. I have now had an opportunity to review your recent letter, and here are my thoughts. The Public Works Acceleration Act does not appear to offer encouragement so far as the Irrigation District is concerned, the basic purpose of the Act being to stimulate the economically depressed areas and areas of persistent unemployment, and, at present, at least, the District does not fall within such an area. I am exceedingly distressed at the attitude of the Department as reflected, particularly, in the letter of June 7, 1962, from Allen R. Funk, the Acting State Executive Director. Kenneth 3irkhead's letter to me dated May 8, 1962, appeared to offer a change of thinking within the Department which could prove helpful to the District in meeting its financial problems. Despite all of your work, your conferences, and exceedingly good letter outlining the similarities between the Mutual Ditch Company and the Irrigation District, nevertheless, the Department proceeded to reverse itself entirely and come up once again with a denial. Before resorting to the reorganization which the Board of Directors considered, I am going to take up the matter again with the Department. As you know, amendatory legislation is not a quick process, but at least the possibilities of approaching this problem in such fashion are warranted at this time. I want to examine the possibility.

(43) GORDON ALLOTT COLORADO. Mr. Charles H. Corlett October 25, 1962 Page 2. thoroughl,y, however, end if it can prove helpful reasonably soon, then this may be the answer. I will continue to keep you informed, and let's hope that a satisfactory solution can yet obtain. Best regards. Since.r.ly yours,. 42e,e4.‘i. uor n -Allatt, U.S.S. and U.S. Representative to the United Nations ;A:fo. 26f.

(44) CARL HAYDEN, ARIZ., CHAIRM RICHARD B. RUSSELL, GA. DENNIS CHAVEZ, N. MEX. ALLEN J. ELLENDER, LA. LISTER HILL, ALA. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, ARK. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, VA. WARREN G. MAGNUSON. WASH. SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, FLA. JOHN STENNIS, MISS. JOHN 0, PASTORE, R.I. ESTES KEFAUVER, TENN. A. S. MIKE MONRONEY, OKLA. ALAN BIBLE, NEV. ROBERT C. BYRD, W. VA. GALE W. MC GEE, WYO. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, MINN.. LEVERETT SA TALL, MASS. N. OAK. MILTON R. YO KARL E. MUNDT, S. DAN. MARGARET CHASE SMITH, MAINE THOMAS H. KUCHEL, CALIF. ROMAN L. HRUSKA, NEBR. GORDON ALLOTT, COLO. NORRIS COTTON, N.H. CLIFFORD P. CASE, N.J. JACOB K. JAVITS, N.Y.. EVERARD H. SMITH, CLERK THOMAS J. SCOTT, ASST. CLERK. 741Cnifeb Zfatez Zenafe. 2.345. COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS. 239 New Custom -douse Denver, Colorado November 5, 196?. Mr. Charles R. Corlett &ttorney at Lau Monte Vista, Colorado Dear Chike: Just a note to let you know that I have received an interim ren1:, from the Director of the Conservation 2ror;Tams Division, Department of k,ricalture, regarding my October 25 letter. A copy of the letter is enclosed. for you. and, as soon as further word is received, I will be in touch with you again. Jest regards. Since. yours,. A./ U.S.3. Representative and U.S. to the United Nations. encl..

(45) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE NG-royn65,151c_ vision ConservatAcnro October 31, 1962. Hon. Gordon Allott United States Senate Dear Senator Allott: This is in reply to your letter of October 25, 1962, regarding the procedure used under the Agricultural Conservation Program for computing cost-share assistance when part of the funds are contributed by an organized irrigation district. In view of the policies involved, this matter needs further consideration before giving a complete reply to your questions. As soon as the matter has been thoroughly considered and a decision reached, you will be advised further. In the meantime, if we can be of assistance, please let us know.. Very truly yours,. Growth Through Agricultural Progress.

(46) Novedber 8, 1962. Honorable Gordon Allott Senior Senator from Colerldo 239 New Customhouse Building Denver, Colorado Dear Gordon: I wish to acknowledge reeeipt of both of your letters dated October 25 and your more recent letter of NoveMber 5 in connection with our endeavors with the Department of Agriculture on behalf of The San Luis Valley Irrigation District. I read both of these letters to the Board of Directors at its rneting yesterdy and they recp, ,stol me to advise ycu they apprec4ate your efforts on our behLaf. As you know, directors are quite contsnoken in this type of meeting and they discussed the fact that althoulh we 1114 been working on this for a considerable length of time, that apparently the Government offices are particularly adept at avoiding a defjlite z'onmitmeat af any kind until forced to do so. They appear to feel that 7,roll now have these people in a position where they are going to be required to do something definite to take 'are of this situations either through a ruling which it appears to me tlx.y couMf rake, or by the preparation of approptiate lezinlation, We have already made our annual appropriation resolution which vpi.. were required to do prior to thil time a it would al:Pear that this year we probably aannpt carry through the levy procedure 41ich I suggested, but it would be helpful :t.f same favorable decision amid be made on this natter so tie can have the benefit of the nonzervation programs next year. Sincerely yours,. Charles R. Ccrlett CRC:r.

No results found