| OCR Text |
Show I -ttSSS Western Resources Revising reclamation law, CERT--governors' meeting -Our natiwi has recognized for tlnw- quarters of wntury Unit the reclamation program should be jrected to benefit many rather than a seltvt few. Family farms contributing to the general welfare are the ob- jeetive. The law should w ork to provide i homes, jobs and a deeent way of life. It i should protect the opportunities of future generations and not enrich a few J people today." Interior Secretary 1 cecil D. Andrus, House Water and' power Resources Subcommittee, 11-13- 79, cfl revision of 1902 Reclamation i La. 14 Washington A big step toward 3 revision of the 1902 Reclamation Law as taken by the House Water and -! power Resources Subcommittee with 5 the start of hearings on such revision on Nov. 13. As chairman of the parent House s Interior Committee, Rep. Morris K, j l'dall, D-Ariz., made it plain he wants to get on with reclamation law revision, be said at the initial hearing. Interior Secretary' Cecil D. Andrus ' wiced the same desire at the con-lp con-lp elusion of his testimony on Nov. 13. "I ,j cannot express too strongly my desire tor prompt action to 'resolve these issues" on revising the Reclamation j La of 1902, he told the Subcommittee. -I believe it is necessary not only to help those who presently live and farm a reclamation projects but also for iture irrigators. We are ready to work vi you on the Committee and with Congress to achieve a fair resolution of Reissues," Andrus stated. The hearings are expected to con-iue con-iue later this month or in December. Ttey have already generated two anprehensive bills on reclamation las revision, one by L'dall and Rep. All Kim. D-Ore., introduced on Nov. 8, Ed one by Rep. George Miller, D-fclif., D-fclif., introduced on Nov. 1. Both the !Eer bill (HR 5783) and the Udall-rjman Udall-rjman Bill (HR 5845) were introduced isine House after consultation w ith the fcerior Department. So there appears Sbe a coalition in the making between ie Department and key members of ieCommittee on how to revise the law. This is in sharp contrast with the senate, where Andrus has consistently jposed S 14, the Senate bill revising j2 ie reclamation law, which passed the , Senate on Sept. 14. interior officials who have worked on sdamation law revision alerted the jress that Andrus would be more ? Eenable to compromise differences 1 er reclamation law revision at the tov. 13 hearing. He did indicate a r31ingness to work with three bill sponsors, L'dall, Miller and Rep. James -:2 Weaver, D-Ore., all of whom have Crcduced bills which do not differ ereatly from the Administration i Edition. He continued to insist that Klamation projects should be for the JBifly farmer, even in California rtere agriculture is a business the premier business in the state. Whether interior can get congress as a whole to "toy" this populist concept will faermine the outcome to reclamation reform in this 96th Congress. The California delegation is deeply folded over the issue. The California 'estside Farmers, major land holders " Westlands Water District, the stion's largest water district in the Jlamation program, have two lob-Jists lob-Jists working on the legislation, John 'adert in California and Rich Mallory fe, and are also helping to fund the joying efforts of Gordon E. Nelson of Farm-Water Alliance representing 'ater districts throughout the West. The excess land holdings in stlands Water District led to several cases and hearings by Sen. wylord Nelson, D-Wis., in his Senate Business Committee focusing Ration on the failure of the Interior pWment of enforce the acreage itation in the 1902 Reclamation Law. "Provides that only 160 acres held by a or, more commonly, 320 acres 5Dy a farmer and his wife, may be fved by water from a federal Ration project. When the Interior "Wtment announced Aug. 22, 1977, it wn.ned to enlorce the acreage Ration and the residency wement in the 1902 law, California J owners went to court and blocked Nuance of Interior regulations, "ing the preparation of an en-""mental en-""mental impact statement. The ent drive in Congress then began to the ancient law. J?? biU (S i4, whlch pasSed the "ate on Sept. 14 raised the acreage tairn to 1280 acres Per family or ""y corporation. Larger holdings 5, Permitted under certain cir-tances, cir-tances, such as length of growing n. It provides for no residency (rrement. During floor debate an Ptov'1- year-to-year leasing . 'sion was dropped. Five big DisbH1?'3 prjects, Imperial Irrigation River K'ngS River' Kern River' Tule (,e and Kaweah River, were j Pted from the acreage limitation ' e Senate bill. told the House Subcommittee on Nov. 13, the Senate-passed bill would "effectively repeal the reclamation law as we have known it." He charged that the equivalency provision "would apply to the entire West; it would not be limited to districts having a growing season of 180 days or less," He said the exemption of projects in the bill could be read to exempt "all Corps of Engineer projects" with irrigation features. About the only two features that Andrus applauded in the Senate-passed Senate-passed measure are out of it because of the Senate's rejection of year-to-year unlimited leasing and its rejection of an amendment which would have permitted per-mitted a repayment entity to make a lump sum or accelerated payout of contract obligations with the interior Department to get out from under the acreage limit. WHAT INTERIOR WANTS Interior is still officially in favor of a 0-acre limitation of fee and leased land per family, Andrus stated. He included a statement endorsing leasing as "a legitimate way to provide for reasonable expansion" of a farming operation that "can be an important means of entry of new farmers into farming." He said Interior would be pleased to go along with the 640-acre limitation in HR 5783 by Miller and HR 3393 by Weaver. He said the 1120 acreage limitation in HR 5845 by Udall and Ullman was "unnecessarily high." But he endorsed what he called "controls on leasing" in all three bills and "an intention" by the four sponsors "to apply a single acreage limit to both owned and leased land." Interior is still favoring a residency requirement as sound "for the operation and control of the reclamation program." Andrus stated. It would continue to define residency as living not more than 50 miles from the farm, he said, with exemptions "for reasons of hardship, such as retirement or health," Andrus said the 15-mile requirement for residency in HR 3393, the Weaver bill, was too restrictive. He expressed disappointment disap-pointment that neither HR 5783. the Miller bill, or HR 5845. the L'dall-Ullman L'dall-Ullman bill, contains a residency requirement. Earlier an Andrus aide told Western Resources Wrap-up (WRW) that Interior was willing to grandfather or exempt all present landholders from the residency requirement, by limiting it to new owners. This appears to be Interior's fallback position. Andrus did not mention it in his Nov. 13 testimony. Andrus said Interior wants an equivalency provision written into the House bill authorizing the Secretary of Interior "to develop, on request, an equivalency formula for land within each project or district which has "a frost-free growing season of 180 days or less," He said equivalency should be applied only on a case-by-case basis if requested by majority vote of a water district and if approved by the Secretary. Andrus said Interior would "not necessarily oppose" an exception for high altitude lands, as provided for in HR 5783, the Miller bill, or "an overall cap of 960 acres for equivalency" as provided for in HR 3:S!)3, the Weaver bill. But he said Interior In-terior is opposed "to any standard which attempts to apply a uniform basis for equivalency across district lines, such as found in HR 5845," the Udall-UUman bill. Andrus said Interior would seek Congressional ratification of 67 repayment contracts between Interior and water districts to make them legal. This would terminate the acreage limitation in those districts where the irrigation allocation had been repaid. Interior opposes the use of prepayment of a water contract to get around the acreage limitation, either by a water district or by individuals. Andrus did ask for the Secretary to have administrative ad-ministrative discretion to exempt water districts after full-term payout where it has been "demonstrated that a pattern of family farms has been established," He did not continue to insist, as he did in the Senate hearings on S 14, that water users could never be exempt from the acreage limitation by payout, even over time. Andrus endorsed both HR 5783, the Miller bill, and HR 5845, the Udall-Ullman Udall-Ullman bill, regarding use of a lottery or other impartial selection process to select purchasers of excess land. He said Interior wants the first crack at lands in excess of acreage limitations be given to immediate family, direct lineal descendents, tenant farmers and employees on a farm for 10 years or more and adjoining neighbors within a water district before a lottery is used. "Beyond this we would also want to insure price control over resales of excess lands for a period of 15 years," Andrus told the House Subcommittee. CERT WESTERN GOVERNORS MEETING The Western Governors' Policy Office (WESTPO) of Denver and the Council of Energy Resource Tribes (CERT) have announced Western governors and American Indian tribal chairmen w ill meet on Dec. 5 to discuss Western energy projects and potential developments in Phoenix, where the CERT board of directors will hold its monthly meeting on Dec. 6-7. WEST PC's Chairman, Gov. Scott M. Matheson, D-Utah, and Gov. Bruce Babbitt, R-Ariz., the host governor, have underscored the importance of the meeting of the two groups, often at odds with each other, during this period when America must increase domestic output. Matheson stated, "This meeting with tribal leaders is the next logical step in our efforts to coalesce Western interests in response to federal energy initiatives. The tribal perspective per-spective is crucial to rational energy development in the West." Babbitt stated, "We must work together on the solutions of the vital energy problems facing the West today. They demand the cooperative attention of all of the parties involved." CERT is a coalition of 25 American Indian tribes with significant energy resources. It is hoping to get a favorable response at its December board meeting from the Department of Energy (DOE) for a 10-year $600 million Indian energy development plan it presented to DOE in late August. |
