4 ’qgg1GREssIoNAL % V EARCH A . M souri - u IQ“ SERVICE \\m\\iu'ii"u°i‘i CONGRESS 01 ‘i jI‘\'\ii’uIuu\ 03860 ACREAGE LIMITATION CONTROVERSY: STATUS REPORT ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB78002 AUTHOR: Simmons, Malcolm Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division Perri, Karla Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division. THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM DATE ORIGINATED 91 DATE UPDATED gg FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 0819 CRS- 1 IB78002 UPDATE-08/19/80 SSUE‘DEFI§ITIO§ The Reclamation Act of 1902 authorized Federally subsidized irrigation projects to aid family farmers in settling arid Western lands. The Act requires farmers to live on or near their land and stipulates water allotment ~ limits at 160 acres per landowner (a farmer and spouse may own a total of 320 acres). The Water and Power Resources Service (previously the Bureau of Reclamation), which administers the Reclamation Act, has allowed some individuals and corporations with irrigated holdings in excess of 160 acres to continue to receive project water. In 1976 an organization of farmers and farm workers brought suit against the Interior Department for failing to enforce the acreage limitation provisions of the reclamation law. The Interior Department responded to the resulting court order by proposing new regulations for carrying out the 1902 Act. If Congress does not amend the 1902 Act before the Interior Department implements the new regulations in 1980, the Reclamation Act will be enforced according to the Interior Department regulations. In addition to the acreage limitations provision, related issues are equivalency, residency, leasing, repayment of construction costs, exemptions, sale of excess land, and public participation. IBACKGROUND AND POLICY ANALYSIS ORIGIN Water on about 150 reclamation projects irrigates some 12 million acres of private land in the seventeen Western States. This represents 1% of the nation's total cropland and about 31% of the total irrigated cropland in the West. In 1975, the gross value of crops produced on project land was $u.u billion (about half of it coming from California projects), representing an important component of many local, State, and regional economies. Recipients of project water receive substantial government subidies in the form of long-term, interest-free loans, and thus receive water priced well below its market value, and well below the delivery cost that they would have obtained if the project had been privately financed. In most early cases the projects were built to provide irrigation water and other services to public land to promote homesteading. In later projects the benefits went mostly to land already in private ownership. In many instances, private attempts to secure long-term supplies of irrigation water were unsuccessful, and Federal assistance was sought. Since the subsidies involved were considerable (see below), one practical problem was to prevent a small number of large landowners from receiving a disproportionate share of the project benefits, or from making excessive profits when they sold their land at a price reflecting the value of the Federal project. The acreage limitation (and residency requirements were designed to»address these problems, and to promote the development of family farms. The acreage limitation was first stated in Section 5 of the National eclamation Act of 1902. With some specific project exceptions (typically modifying the size of the acreage limitation or exempting a project from it), Congress has reaffirmed the limitation in subsequent consideration of lthe CRS- 2 IB78002 UPDATE-O8/19/80 itreclamation program. The most important legislation has been the Omnibus Adjustment Act of 1926 (43 USC Sec. 423), which sets out the acreage limitation in Section #6 (#3 USC Sec. 423(e)). Residency requirements were 7 contained in Section 5 of the 1902 Act, where it was stated that a recipient of project water must be: ...an actual bona fide resident of such land, or occupant thereof, residing in the neighborhood of said land. A Jan. 20, 1909, interpretation of the 1902 Act defined the term "in the neighborhood" to mean within 50 miles. The 1926 Omnibus Adjustment Act substituted joint liability contracting for individual water right certificates and made no mention of residency requirements. Soon thereafter the Water and Power Resources Service (WPRS) ceased enforcement of the residency requirement. According to the San Luis Unit Special Task Force Report: No formal legal opinion has ever been prepared by the Solicitor on the effect of the 1926 Act on residency, except for the legal briefs filed by the Department of Justice on behalf of the Department in the gellen v. gigggl case, in which the Department essentially took the position that the 1926 Act repealed the 1902 requirement by failing to repeat it. Before proposed revisions of August 1977, WPRS regulations (40 CFR 230.65) revised as of Oct. 1, 1977, stated that residency was defined as living within 50 miles, but that this limit may be varied, depending upon local conditions. Also, after water-right application was made and accepted, the applicant was not required to continue his residence on the land or in the neighborhood. The 1902 Act does not expressly authorize or prohibit the holding of project land which is eligible to receive project water but is in excess of 160 acres and is in more than one irrigation district. The administrative practice followed by the WPRS has been that an individual's ownership of land in one district has not been considered in determining his eligibility to receive project water for lands in another district. This policy was described in a letter of Apr. 23, 1954, from Assistant Secretary Aandahl to Representative Harlan Hagen, and a letter of Mar. 12, 1954, from Regional Counsel Graham to Mr. H. G. Hoffman. A Private leasing of lands benefitting from Federal reclamation projects was not expressly authorized or prohibited by the 1902 Reclamation Act. Over the years, however, a body of administrative interpretations generally permissive of leasing arrangements has developed. ~ As a means of limiting the subsidy an individual could receive, the 1902 Act placed a limit of 160 acres on the quantity of irrigable land in a single ownership to which project water could be supplied. By administrative interpretations over the years this ownership limitation has been construed to allow water delivery to a unitary farm operation consisting of many separate ownerships of 160 acres each. The initial ruling allowed delivery to 160 acres owned by the wife as well as to 160 acres owned by the husband. It was expanded to include ownerships by children and ultimately by unrelatef tenants in common. CRS- 3 IB78002 UPDATE-08/19/80 In most projects certain individuals or couples owned land in excess of the statutory limit prior to the construction of the project. In such cases, reclamation law evolved to allow them to receive project water for their ‘excess land" only if they signed a recordable contract wherein they agreed -0 sell the excess land to an eligible purchaser in a specified period of time, usually ten years from the start of water delivery. The sale must be at a price approved by the WPRS, which does not reflect the enhancement of the land's value attributable to the construction of the project. During the grace period, the seller retains the right to select the purchaser. Thereafter, the Secretary exercises a power of attorney to conduct the sale. The initial sale of excess land into non-excess status has traditionally been at the Bureau's approved price, but subsequent resales have not been monitored nor have the prices been approved. LITIGATION National Land for People, a non—profit organization representing farmers and farm workers who unsuccessfully sought to purchase excess land in the Westlands Water District of California, brought suit in the U.S. district court for the District of Columbia against the Bureau, alleging failure to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (5 USC 553) in formulating regulations for sales of excess lands in the district. National Land requested rules and regulations that would require the enforcement of the acreage limitation provisions of the Reclamation Act of 1902 (H3 USC 431) and the Omnibus Adjustment Act of 1926 (43 USC 423(e)). Specifically, it was requested that owners of excess lands be required to sign recordable contracts disposing of excess lands: (1) in lots of not more than one hundred and sixty (160) acres per buyer; (2) to residents of the land or those living in the neighborhood; and , (3) at prices that reflect the value of the land without the federally subsidized irrigation. The HPRS offered as a defense that the law could best be enforced on a case—by—case basis following criteria and rules set out in the published opinions of the Solicitor of the Department of Interior §a§;g_ ggligitgggg QB;Q;QQ§L January 1976)- I on Aug. 9, 1976, the Court ruled that the WPRS had not complied with the Administrative Procedure Act, and several days later issued a preliminary injunction to prohibit the WPRS from accepting or approving any new contract for the sale of excess land in Hestlands until rules and regulations could be properly promulgated (flafienal Land For P§92;elv- §2£§a2-9£-3s9lama:i9n. 417 F. Supp. 4H9 (D.D.C- 1976)). An administrative order issued by Secretary Andrus on June 27, 1977, put a moratorium on all sales of excess land and on entry into recordable contracts for all reclamation lands in the 17 Western States. This moratorium is still in effect. on Aug. 25, 1977, the WPRS published proposed regulations (Federal “egister, vol. n2, no. 165) and invited comment by Nov. 23, 1977. Opponents f the proposed regulations filed suit against the Department of Interior to prevent the implementation of the final regulations until a comprehensive environmental impact statement (EIS) had been prepared. On Dec. 2, 1977, a CRS- 4 IB78002 UPDATE-O8/19/80 U.S. district court (8th district, California) issued a preliminary injunction against implementation until the statement was completed. The Department of Interior announced on Jan. 7, 1978, that the impact statement would be prepared, and now expects the impact statement and final regulations to be completed by Dec. 15, 1980. The U.S. supreme Court has focused attention on the exemption of projects from reclamation law. In June 1980 the Cout ruled unanimously that Imperial Valley farmers are exempt from acreage limitation requirements. The ruling overturned a 1977 Federal appeals court decision that upheld the acreage limitations contained in the 1902 Act. The decision does not exempt any other reclamation area from the limitation. LANDS AFFECTED In November 1979 testimony before the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources, Secretary Andrus presented the preliminary results of the Interior Department's land tenure survey. Reclamation project water serves nearly 12 million acres of land in the 17 Western States. 30% of this project land is held by 2.5% of farm operations which exceed 960 acres. 1% of farm operations exceed 1920 acres and represent 1.5 million acres. 97.5% of farm operation on project land are within 960 acres, 96.u% within 640 acres, and 73% within 160 acres. It is important to note that acreage equivalency has not been applied to this data. Agriculture Department data for all irrigated farms in the West (not just those receiving Federal reclamation water) show that 97% irrigate less than 1000 acres and 91% irrigate less than 500 acres. The following table shows the farm sizes for all irrigated farms in the 17 Western States. CRS- 5 IB78002 AVERAGE ACREAGES OF ALL IRRIGATED FARMS WITH SALES OF OVER $2,500 PER YEAR FOR THE 17 WESTERN STATES State Arizona California Colorado Idaho Kansas Montana Nebraska Nevada New Mexico North Dakota Oklahoma Oregon South Dakota Texas Utah Washington Wyoming Range Median value of State, figures Explanation: acres on a farm. the acreage limitation concerns, limitation also applies to the number of acres irrigated. Source: Percent over- In this sense, U.S. Census of Agriculture, 1974, Average 1,000 acres 500 acres 372.0 8.9 20.9 199.2 3.8 8.5 226.3 2.6 10.0 190.9 .2 .7 305.6 6.2 18.5 228.2 2.9 9.1 197.1 1.0 6.3 508.9 10.9 23.4 200.0 2.9 10.0 142.3 .6 4.3 139.7 2.0 0.4 171.6 2.4 6.6 105.1 .3 3.5 329.6 6.0 20.8 123.2 1.0 3.1 119.1 1.1 0.1 300.1 5.8 16.0 119.1-508.9 .3-10.9 3.1—23.4 200.0 2.9 9.1 The numbers above represent total irrigaged they are precisely since the table 12. UPDATE-08/19/80 200 acre 37.8 18.6 34.7 24.9 43.6 34.8 33.8 48.9 29.6 22.7 19.2 20.1 23.8 47.8 17.3 15.5 46.8 15.5-48.9 29.6 CBS- 6 IB78002 UPDATE-O8/19/80 Certain difficulties exist to obtaining the actual number of acres in excess status. An official at the Department of Interior has noted some of " these difficulties: 1. As an alternative to selling excess land, many owners might opt to develop their own private sources of water. 2. Court decisions may not allow many irrigation districts now exempt from acreage limitations to continue in this status. 3. Unknown at this time is how many owners would be holders of excess lands if their holding in different irrigation districts were summed. H. Leased lands held in excess are unknown at this time. 5. Data sources for excess lands are the irrigation or water districts, and in some cases doubt exists as to valid reporting to the WPRS- LEGISLATIVE ACTION 95th congressional reaction to the proposed Interior Department regulations took two forms. Initially the Congress responded with thn introduction of numerous bills and resolutions to delay administrative action through a placing of a moratorium on the enforcement of acreage limitation and residency requirements of basic reclamation law. Later, congressional reaction shifted to proposals to amend basic reclamation law through modifying or eliminating acreage limitations, residency requirements, and leasing requirements. other congressional proposals included consideration of the comparative productive potential of irrigable lands in determining the amount of land eligible to receive Federal project water, and exemption of certain projects from the acreage limitation of reclamation law. The focus of reclamation reform in the 96th Congress is S. 1n, the Reclamation Reform Act of 1979. In March 1979, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Research and Development, heard testimony on S. 14. The bill passed the Senate, amended, on Sept. 1a, 1979. The amended Senate bill proposed to raise the acreage limitation to 1280 acres per family or corporation of fewer than 25 shareholders. The bill provided for the equivalency of 1280 acres for a qualified recipient for lands of lesser productive potential than Class I lands. Qualified recipients did not have to reside on or near the land. Leasing would be permitted, but leased lands would have to be included in the acreage limitation. Lump-sum and accelerated payout provisions which would have exempted paid projects from acreage limitation provisions would be permissible. Lands in the Imperial Irrigation District and Corps of Engineers projects would be exempt from acreage limitations. The measure was debated in the Senate on September 13 and 1a, and passed the Senate amende on September 14. CRS- 7 IB78002 UPDATE-O8/19/80 The amended Senate bill contains different provisions from the Interior Department proposals which are required as a result of the decision in the case of !eri9ue;.LenQ-£9£_§he-£e92le v- §9£eeu_ 2:- Besl§met;9m- Secretary ndrus stated in November, 1979 that S. 14 as adopted by the Senate "almost systematically amends away crucial substantive components of the reclamation law." Secretary Andrus supports certain House bills on Reclamation Reform. H.R. 5783 and H.R. 3393 provide acreage limits of 640 acres, which he says encourages owner—operated family farms. The Secretary further states that these two bills and H.R. 5845 provide controls on leasing and show intention to apply a single acreage limit to both owned and leased land. While H.R. 3393 contains a residency requirement, H.R. 5783 and H.R. 5845 discontinue the requirement. All three bills support equivalency provisions for projects having a growing season of 180 days or less. H.R. 3393 is compatible with Interior's proposals on the disposal of«excess lands; H.R. 5783 and H.R. 5845 are not. The House developed its own bill for reclamation reform. H.R. 6520 is similar to S. 14, but in the version introduced to the House on July 15, 1980, contains an important amendment for water conservation. COMPARISON OF INTERIOR PROPOSALS, S. 14 AND H.R. 6520 In April, 1978, Interior Secretary Andrus presented a revised Administration position on the acreage limitation and related issues. These proposals update the August 1977 proposed regulations, provide the basis for the final regulations, and will be included in the EIS. The regulations and IS are expected to be completed in 1980. At House subcommittee hearings in November, 1979, Secretary Andrus reiterated the new proposals and compared them to the Senate passed version of S. 14. After the Senate passed S. 14, the House developed its own position on reclamation reform in H.R. 6520. The provisions are similar to the Senate bill, except the Patterson amendment on water conservation which was adopted. Following is a comparison of the Interior Department proposals, 5. 14 and H.R. 6520, on major points. Asre29e-L;2;:e_;2a§ The acreage limitation was used to restrict the subsidy to 160 acres per owner. Over the years, however, administrative interpretation has allowed water delivery to a single farm operation consisting of seperate pownerships of 160 acres each. Therefore, ownerships which at first consisted of 160 acres for the farmer and 160 acres for the spouse were expanded to include ownerships by children and, ultimately, unrelated persons. Interior's proposals recommend an increase in the acreage per family entitlement from the current base entitlement of 160 acres ggggg to 960 acres gwned and_leg§§g. An individual farmer could own up to 320 acres receiving 1, Federal reclamation water, and could lease an additional 160 acres. Two adults could receive water for up to 640 acres of owned land, and for a maximum of 960 acres of owned and leased land. 3. 14 as passed by the Senate proposes that a recipient of Federal reclamation water may be either an individual or a legal entity of not more than 25 individuals. A "landholding" is defined as owned or leased land held CRS- 8 IB78002 UPDATE-08/19/80 by an individual or an individual participating in a legal entity. A Landholding of up to 1280 acres is eligible for Federal reclamation water. H.R. 6520 proposes that recipients of Federal reclamation water may be individuals or legal entities. Legal entities must be limited to eighteen individuals, or may be an unspecified number of related individuals. "Qualified landholding" for individuals or entities is up to 960 acres. The bill establishes an additional category of "limited landholding," which is a legal entity of more than eighteen individuals. Limited landholdings may not exceed 160 acres. Leasing Private leasing of lands benefitting from Federal reclamation projects was not expressly authorized or prohibited by the 1902 Act. In general, administrative interpretations have been permissive in this area. Secretary Andrus has recognized that leasing can play a significant role in the reclamation program by providing a mechanism for new people to get into the program when they otherwise might not have been able to afford it. The Interior Department has recommended that leased lands be eligible to receive Federal reclamation benefits, but also be included in the overall acreage limitation. S. 14 provides that leased land be eligible for Federal reclamation benefits, but be included in the 1280 acreage limitation applicable to a landholding. Landholders of excess leased land will be provided a grace period of 10 years, during which time the excess leased lands will be eligible for Federal water benefits, to dispose of the excess leased lands. H.R. 6520 provides for leasing but, in contrast to S. 14, views leasing from the standpoint of the lessee and not the lessor. Individuals may lease land as long as the person or persons owning the land are eligible recipients of project water. The bill provides a maximum of 2400 leased acres per recipient in addition to lands owned. The original Senate bill contained unlimited leasing provisions. The Senate adopted Senator Hatfield's amendment which deleted the leasing of lands in excess of 1280 acres. Senators Morgan, Cranston, and Dole introduced leasing amendments which were defeated. The Morgan amendment would have permitted Federal water benefits to handholdings in excess of 1280 acres ghi§h_gg;g_9gngg_g§_lgg§§d, provided the beneficiaries paid the full cost of the water applied to the excess lands. The Cranston amendment would have permitted delivery of water to excess leased land, provided the qualified recipient of these benefits paid the full cost of the water. The Dole amendment would have permitted the delivery of water to excess leased land provided the qualified recipient paid the full cost, but placed a cap of 1280 acres on these excess leased lands. 2i§22§el-9£_§xces§ Lands If farmers owned land in excess of the limit specified by reclamation law they would agree to sign a recordable contract consenting to sell the excess land to an eligible purchaser within a period of time, usually ten years from CRS- 9 IB78002 UPDATE-08/19/80 the start of water delivery. The sale price, which is approved by the WPRS, is the land value before the irrigation project was constructed. Throughout the grace period the seller retains the right to select the purchaser. ‘hereafter, the Secretary exercises the power of attorney to conduct the ,ale. Secretary Andrus has stated that the Interior Department is aware of the position of some reclamation law critics that control of the sales of excess lands violates property rights, but has pointed out that the subsidy principle of reclamation law must be balanced with this position. He has pointed to the course between the two that Interior proposes: no land has to be transferred if the owner chooses not to partake of the Federal subsidy program and no limits are placed on non-project ownership. In the event that excess lands are sold, the Interior Department recommends "lottery or other impartial means" as the mechanism. Before such a mechanism is used, however, the seller should first be given the opportunity to sell to eligible persons from three groups: immediate family relations, including spouse, brothers, and sisters, and direct lineal relations; tenant farmers and employees on the farm for 10 years or more; and adjoining neighbors within the irrigation district. 5. 14 provides that excess landholders may be exempted from excess land provisions of reclamation law if an agreement is made with the Interior Secretary to pay for the cost of water storage. If excess lands are scheduled for disposition, the schedule is that contained in the recordable contract. Extensions to this disposition deadline will be granted for the time the Secretary of the Interior has not been able to process approvals of dispositions of excess lands. New recordable contracts must provide for the disposal of excess lands within 10 years, and Federal reclamation water will "e delivered during this time. Excess lands "may be acquired by foreclosure Jr by other process of law, by conveyance in satisfaction of mortgage, by inheritance, or by devise", and even if such excess lands are acquired by other than a qualified recipient, they may be supplied water for ten years until transfer to a qualified recipient is accomplished. Certain irrigation projects in California (projects served by the Pine Flat Dam on the Kings River and the Isabella Dam on the Kern River) will be exempt from excess land provisions for three years. Disposal of excess lands shall be accomplished by "lottery or other impartial selection." H.R. 6520 requires that excess lands receiving project water and not under recordable contract be placed under recordable contract which contains the terms and conditions for disposition of the land. Exceptions permitted for continued delivery of project water to excess lands are small tracts of land not economically farmable; excess lands acquired by involuntary foreclosure, bona fide conveyance in satisfaction of mortage, or by inheritance; lands temporarily provided water in wet years; or lands where water conservation is practiced in dry years. Sale of excess lands at the end of the disposition period specified in the recordable contract shall be through lottery or other impartial selection. Extensions to his disposition deadline will be granted for the time the Secretary of the Interior has not been able to process approvals of dispositions of excess lands. Eeeidensz The 1902 Act required that landowners receiving Federally subsidized water live on the land or in the neighborhood of the land. The Interior Department CBS-10 IB78002 UPDATE-08/19/80 interpreted neighborhood as a maximum distance of 50 miles from the farm. Secretary Andrus pointed out, however, that residency has not been enforced for 50 years, and "hardship could be created in some cases if the requirement is reimposed abruptly." The Interior proposals therefore contain transition rules to gradually reimpose the requirement. Secretary Andrus added that an exemption should be provided from residency requirements for reasons of hardship, such as retirement or health. The Interior Department proposals recommend that the administrative interpretation of residency be retained. Both 5. 14 and H.R. 6520 specifically state that residency is not required for a landholding to receive Federal reclamation water. Egnizalensx Land receiving Federal water is categorized according to class. Class 1 land has the greatest productive potential. Standards and criteria used to determine land class take into account factors that affect the economic feasibility of irrigated agriculture -- for example, soil characteristics, crop adaptability, costs of production, and length of growing season. The acreage limitation applies to class 1 land or its equivalent. Therefore it is possible to receive water on land acreage over 160 acres. For example, 200 acres of class 2 land and 300 acres of class 3 land could have the same productive potential as 160 acres of class 1 land. The Secretary stated his support for amendments to allow. any irrigation district with a growing season of less than 180 days to opt for the use of class 1 equivalency. He added that with increased acreage limits, the need for equivalency diminished. But in areas with shorter growing seasons and at higher altitudes, there may be equity in applying the concept to given projects on a project-by-project basis. S. 14 provides for equivalency to include such factors as soil characteristics, crop adaptability, costs of crop production, and length of growing season, but does not specify that the growing season must be less than 180 days. H.R. 6520 ycontains the same four factors on which to calculate equivalency, but restricts the application of equivalency to those lands above three thousand feet in elevation with growing seasons of less than 180 days. Exceptions to this restriction are possible if a request submitted by an irrigtion district is approved by the Secretary of the Interior. §§§a2:i2n_222n_Ba192:-9£-§_n:;2 t§ A question exists as to whether individuals can be exempted from acreage limitations after payout of their share of the capital costs specified in the repayment contract. An associated question is whether individuals can be exempted before the repayment period expires if payout is accomplished early through such mechanisms such as lump-sum and accelerated payout. Regarding -, the first question, Secretary Andrus stated that the Interior Department would retain administrative discretion to allow exemptions in particula. cases where it is demonstrated that a pattern of family farms has been established. Regarding the second question, the Interior Department would CRS—11 IB78002 UPDATE-08/19/80 "strenuously oppose" allowing prepayment of costs to obtain exemption. There are, however, certain cases where exemption from acreage limitations through prepayment might be supported. An example of such a case is where a past written representatigg specifies such exemption upon prepayment. S. 14 provides for exemption from acreage limitation after payout over the full term of the contract, but prepayment of contracts to obtain exemption is not permitted. Prepayment exceptions will be granted, however, in cases where repayment contracts were in effect upon the date of enactment of the proposed Act, if the outstanding indebtedness is less than 5% of the total repayment obligation, and if a pattern of family farming has been established in the project service area. H.R. 6520 is similiar to S. 14 in the provision of the exemption from acreage limitations after payout over the full term of the contract, but requires that a pattern of family farming has been established. If a pattern of family farming has not been established, acreage limitations will not apply five years after payout over the full term. H.R. 6520 contains no prepayment provisions. E§2er_B9te§_§nd-§e2a1a22t The Interior Department has recommended that new water service contracts include a provision calling for recalculation and renegotiation of water rates every 5 years, and that repyament for any portion of a delivery system shall commence with the first delivery of water. Neither S. 14 nor H.B. 6520 contains either of these provisions. Q9r2§-9f_§29i2eer§_2r0jects some critics of reclamation policy have noted the applicability of excess land provisions of reclamation law to non-western projects constructed by other Federal agencies such as the Corps of Engineers. These critics have cited section 8 of the 1944 Flood Control Act as subjecting all Corps of Engineers projects to the excess land law. Secretary Andrus maintained that the statutory intent of section 8 of the 1944 Act was to prevent substitution of the Corps of Engineers for the WPRS in constructing and operating irrigation projects in the 17 Western States solely to avoid the excess land law. Given this intent, the Corps of Engineers and the Interior Department have never interpreted the statute to extend the excess land law automatically to Corps projects outside the 17 Western States. S. 14 does not contain any provision relating to applicability of excess land provisions of reclamation law to Corps of Engineers projects. H.R. 16520, however, exempts from reclamation law all Corps projects unless specifically authorized by Federal statute. Water Conservation S. 14 does not address the issue of water conservation. H.R. 6520, however, requires an effective water conservation program which includes , definite goals, appropriate measures, and time schedules. CBS-12 IB78002 UPDATE—08/19/80 E9rei92-Q!9er§hi2 S. 1n does not restrict foreign ownership. H.R. 6520 proposes that 2 years after enactment no Federal water may be provided to reclamation lands owned by foreigners. LEGISLATION H.B. 19 (Ullman) Ratifies contracts between water users and the Secretary of the ‘Interior which acknowledge that upon repayment of allocated construction costs the acreage limitations and cultivation requirements of the Reclamation Act of 1902 shall cease to apply to such water users. Introduced Jan. 15, 1979; referred to Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. H-B. 160 (Stump et al.) Removes the residency requirements and acreage limitations on ilandholders subject to reclamation law. Introduced Jan. 8, 1979; referred to Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. H-R. 431 (Hansen) States that for a specified period neither the Secretary of the Interior nor the Attorney General shall withhold water delivery from any beneficiary of a Federal reclamation project for the purposes of achieving conformity with acreage limitations or residency requirements of reclamation law. Introduced Jan. 15, 1979; referred to Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. H.R. 432 (Hansen) Replaces the existing acreage limitation of 160 acres of reclaimed land per individual with a limitation of 320 acres. Introduced Jan. 15, 1979; referred to Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. H.R. 796 (White) Replaces the existing limitation of 160 acres of reclaimed land per individual with a maximum farm size of 1280 acres owned or leased in any combination by 25 or fewer persons (same as S. 14). Introduced Jan. 15, 1979; referred to Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. H.R. 1689 (Lujan) Increases the amount of privately owned land eligible to receive irrigation water under the Federal reclamation law, removes Federal subsidies from water delivered to excess lands. Introduced Jan. 31, 1979; referred to Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. H.R. 2996 (Burgener) Bxempts lands within the Imperial Irrigation District from Federal CBS-13 IB78002 UPDATE“O8/19/80 reclamation lav. Introduced Mar. 15, 1979, referred to Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. H.B. 3393 (Weaver et al.) Supplements and clarifys Federal reclamation laws to promote the settlement of family farmers in Federal Irrigation projects, to provide for acreage equivalency between Class I lands and lands of lesser productive capability, and for other purposes. Introduced Apr. 2, 1979; referred to Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. H.B. 3498 (Pashayan et al.) Exempts lands in the Kings River and Tulare Lake Basin, California, from certain acreage limitations of Federal Reclamation laws. Introduced Apr. 5, 1979; referred to Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. H.R. 4260 (Bedell) Proposes to prohibit the use of water from certain Federal reclamation projects for the irrigation of surplus crops within ten years of the completion date of such projects. Introduced May 31, 1979; referred to Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. H.R. 5608/H.R. 5684 (Udall) Limits the delivery of water on newly irrigated lands of basic agricultural commodities, where the supply of the crop is excessive. (Amends Agriculture Act of 1938; amends Agriculture Act of 1949.) Introduced Oct. 16 nd Oct. 23, 1979, respectively; referred to Committee on Interior and -nsular Affairs. H.B. 5783 (Miller) Amends the Federal reclamation laws to provide fort more efficient water management, and stipulates no water or other benefits may be provided to lands not owned entirely by U.S. citizens and resident aliens, or their spouses. Introduced Nov. 1, 1979; referred. to Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. 3.3. sens (Udall) Amends Federal reclamation law by changing the acreage limitation to 1120 acres, owned or leased; proposes a compromise on the residency requirement by instituting an Agricultural Participation Test. Introduced Nov. 8, 1979; referred to Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. H.B. 6188 (Patterson) Targets the Federal subsidy to determining water allotments through progressive water pricing, rather than by an acreage limitation. Introduced Feb. 26, 1980. H.R. 6520 (Ullman et al.) Revises requirements under the Federal reclamation laws relating to acreage limitation, leasing, disposal of excess lands, residency, equivalency, and exemptions. Adopted amendment on water conservation. CRS-14 IB78002 UPDATE-08/19/80 ‘Introduced Feb. 13, 1980- Reported to the House from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs with Patterson amendment July 15, 1980 (H.Rept. 95-1168). 5. 14 (Church) Replaces the existing acreage limiation of 160 acres of reclaimed land per individual with a maximum farm size of 1280 acres owned or leased in any combination by 25 or fewer persons. Measure passed Senate, amended, iseptember 1a. 5. 386 (Hayakawa) Amends and supplements the Federal reclamation laws relating to the furnishing of water service to nonexcess and excess lands. 5. 633 (ncclure et al.) Amends and supplements the acreage limitation and residency provisions of the Federal reclamation laws. 5. 65fl (Goldwater) wfiepeals acreage limitation and residency requirements of Federal reclamation laws. 5. 672 (Cranston) Exempts lands in the Imperial Irrigation District from provisions of Federal reclamation law and requires payment of interest on balance of project costs by subsequent district landowners. S. 718 (Nelson et al.) Reduces the cost of future reclamation projects, supplements and clarifies the Federal reclamation laws, promotes the settlement of family farmers in Federal irrigation projects, provides for acreage equivalency between Class I lands and lands of lesser productive capability, and for other purposes. §EA1ll!.T§.5. Hearings on House bills relating to acreage limitations and similar issues will be held on July 17 and 18 by the House Subcommittee on Power and Water Resources (Interior Committee). 0.5. Congress. House. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on Hater and Power Resources. To reduce speculation in excess lands purchased under federal reclamation laws. Hearings, on H.R. 3420 and H.R. 6728. July 15, 1977. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1977. 79 p. (95th Congress, Print. Off., 1977. 1st session) Serial no. 95-2a LRS77-16425 ----- Acreage limitation provisions of reclamation law. Oversight hearings. Sept. 13 and 14, 1976. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1976. (9uth Congress, 2d session) CBS-15 IB78002 UPDATE—08/19/80 Class one equivalency for certain reclamation projects. Hearings, 90th Congress, 2nd session, on H.R. 13101. July 19 and 20, 1976. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1976. ---- San Luis unit, Central Valley project, California. Hearings, 95th Congress, 2nd session, on H.R. 121u3 and H.R. 12272- Mar- 10 and Apr. 28, 1978. Washington 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. (95th Congress, 2d session) serial no. 95-33 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Subcommittee on Public Lands and Resources. Acreage limitations on Bureau of Relcamation projects. Hearing, on S. 242. Part 1. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1977. M1 p. (95th Congress, 1st session) Hearing held Riverton, Wyoming, July 9, 1977. "Publication no. 95-67" LRS77-158u7 --—-- Acreage limitations on WPRS projects. Hearing, on S. 2H2. Part 2. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print- Off., 1978. 111 p. (95th Congress, 1st session) "Publication no. 95-67" Hearing held in Great Falls, Montana, Aug. 11, 1977. LRS78-627 ----- Bills on acreage limitations on WPRS Projects. Hearings, 95th Congress, 2nd session, on S. 242, S. 1812, S. 2310, S. 2606, S. 2818. April 12 and 13, 1978. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. -—--- San Luis unit, Central Valley Project, California. Hearing, on S. 1358 and H.R. H390. May 6, 1977. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1977. 35 p. (95th Congress, 1st session) "Publication no. 95-22" U.S. Congress. Senate. Select Committee on Small Business. Committee on Interior and Insualr Affairs. will the family farm survive in America? Hearings, 94th Congress, 2nd session, Feb. 16 and 17, 1976; July 17 and 22, 1975; and Oct. 21 and 22, 1975. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975, 1976. B.§EQBI§-AE2...C2Q !§;§§§§l.QEAL-QQ§9. !!1.3!iI§ U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Providing for consideration of the comparative productive potential of irrigable lands in determining nonexcess acreage under Federal reclamation laws; report together with concurring views (including Congressional Budget Office cost estimate to accompany H.R. 13101. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1976. 11 p. (9uth Congress, 2d session. House. Report no. 94-1561) LRS 76-13260 D.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resouces. CBS-16 IB78002 UPDATE‘08/19/80 Contract amendment, Vermejo Reclamation Project, New Mexico; report to accompany S. 539. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 9 p. (96th Congress, 1st session. Senate. Report no. 96-483) LRSN79-15068 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Acreage limitation policy. Prepared by the Department of the Interior. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 196a. 103 p. At head of title: 88th Congress, 2d session. Committee print. U.S. Congress. Senate. Select Committee on Small Business. Federal reclamation policy. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. 34 p. U.S. Department of Commerce. Report for the National Water Commission. Acreage limitation in the federal reclamation program, 1972. U.S. Department of the Interior- WPRS. Report. Congress should re-evaluate the 160-acre limitation on land eligible to receive water from federal water resources projects. Nov. 30, 1972. A 0.5. Department of the Interior. Report. Appraisal procedures and solutions to problems involving the 160-acre limitation provision of reclamation law. June 3, 1976. U.S. Department of Agriculture. The U.S. Department of the Interior's proposed rules for enforcement of the Reclamation Act of 1902: an economic impact analysis. A staff report by the Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service. January 1978. (Available from CBS) U.S. Department of the Interior. WPRS. Report of the San Luis Task Force. January 1978. OTHER CONGRESSIONAL ACTION §P.1.EQE.QLQ§l-QE-§.i.VE!E§ 04/10/80 -- The Water and Power Resources Service (Interior) submitted an interim report which will provide background information for the environmental impact statement. 03/02/80 - Oral arguments were presented in the U.S. Supreme Court, concerning exemption of the Imperial Irrigation District. 02/00/80-03/00/80 -- The House Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs held hearings on legislation to reform the Reclamation Act of 1902. 11/13/79 - 09/14/79 -- 01/15/79 -- CRS-17 IB78002 UPDATE-O8/19/80 Interior secretary Andrus reiterated Administration before the House Committee an Interior and Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources. Senate passed amended version of 5. 1n. 5. 14 introduced. 07/17/78-07/18/78 -— Hearings on acreage limitations and similar 12/02/77 11/22/77 - 10/25/77 03/25/77 03/13/77 07/27/77 05/15/77 08/09/76 -- issues held by the House Subcommittee on Power and water Resources (Interior Committee). U.S. district court in Fresno issued a preliminary injunction to prevent implementation of proposed regulations until a comprehensive environmental impact statement is prepared. 1 Department of Interior held hearing on proposed regulations in Phoenix, Arizona, the last of 10 field hearings that began Nov. 7, 1977. other hearings were held in Billings, Montana; Sacramento, Fresno, and El Central, California; Washington, D.C.; Denver, Colorado; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Takoma, Washington. Interior announced that Imperial Irrigation District landowners would have one year to sign recordable contracts and five years thereafter to dispose of excess lands. Interior proposed new rules and regulations implementing acreage limitation and residency requirement of reclamation law. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled acreage limitation applies to the Imperial Irrigation District of California (Qni’2e<1.§te1.:e§ v- Im2eI;;el-.I.1:.r;qe2;2I;-2;§.t.r;<_=1:.) - Secretary Andrus issued an administrative order that put a moratorium on sales of excess land and entry of recordable constructs on all lands subject to Federal reclamation law. P.L. 95-#6 (H.R. H390) enacted. The Act authorizes appropriations for continuation of construction of distribution systems and drains on the San Luis Unit, Central Valley Project, California. Mandates the extension and review of the project, and provides that the Task Force shall submit to the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, by Jan. 1, 1978, the record of enforcement of the requirements concerning disposition of excess lands and residency requirements. U.S. district court for the District of Columbia issued preliminary injunction against acceptance or approval of recordable contracts by Bureau of Reclamation in westlands Water District of California (gatiggal .1-r.=1.2<1.£9r...13§92le v- $;1.e-§2ree2-9f_B.esleae1_:i9.) - CRS-18 IB78002 UPDATE-08/19/80 04/O5/76 -- U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that owners of excess lands under recordable contract in Pine Flat Dam Project of California are not relieved of obligation to dispose of excess land under the terms stated in the contract even though their share of project costs have been repaid. A22lIlQEAL-§§E§R_EflQ§-§.QHB§§§ Sax, Joseph L. “Federal reclamation law," in §§§e;_§gg_gg§§; gights. Robert E. Clark, ed. v. 2. The Allen Smith Company. Indianapolis, Indiana. 1967. U.S. General Accounting Office. Office of the Comptroller General of the United States. Appraisal procedures and solution to problems involving the 160-acre limitation provision of reclamation lav. Washington, U.S. General Accounting Office, 1976. 24 p. (RED-76-119) --—-- Congress should reevaluate the 160-acre limitation on land eligible to receive water from federal water resources projects. Washington, U.S. Genera1.Accounting Office, 1972. 27 p.‘ (B-1250u5) U.S. National Water Commission. Water policies for the future. . Final report. Chapter 5, section D: Acreage limitations and subsidies in reclamation programs. Washington, U.S. Govt._ Print. Off., 1973: 142-1u9. 1J%fifi§$K t.‘"‘« ‘'1 2. ,1 i %M@%%N@YwN Unnvamsrrv £31“.t_(>;;m3 —suwc).