OCR Text |
Show Western Resources I Reclamation law revision Ul ' gjHeleneC.Monberg am ! hinaton-Chairman Morris K. iSn friz of the House Interior 3ti eS smade updating tte 1902 u "n el .law a top priority before it .Pes Wrap-up (WRW) in an in- nW'.e. A . ants U committed to my Arizona Loeople. to Western water people seal iTa bill-1 am committed not to s, lolan to fulfill that commitment, itto ' -I to move the bill reported on June e 1 as possible," Udall told WRW ate; Liv3l just before the House ad-; ad-; efitn J for the Democratic convention a4 Udall will be the keynote k have sent a letter to the (House) getti- s committee asking for a hearing a -L biU and a rule, but we have lunir jved no reply yet," he said. The ingtr-rwent to Rules on July 2. "I have handed the (House) Speaker that if ie j set a rule, I am prepared to go to ckeMiwr with the bill at any time," erakj told WRW.' said Rules is "clogged with therijjSS As of Aug. 5, the Rules 'vidir-: biittee had about 60 requests to JtttK .up legislation, a spokesman told e vj t is in the process of deter-!rve deter-!rve jg which bills it will give a green to for House floor debate. The . jewill have only seven weeks left to all legislation in this Congress, jding the top priority ap-!!g ap-!!g 81 nations bills, from Aug. 18, when it ivenes, until the scheduled ad-jjiment ad-jjiment date of Oct. 4. he kill is taking this position on vtr.iing tne reclamation law and Nuvetrnizing acreage limitation , for .though he is not pleased with the ,xcjti.'HR 6520) reported out of Common Com-mon June 19 by a vote of 28-14. He tor the bill with major reser-s. reser-s. Asked at the time whether he A a press release written on the nittee action, Udall said no. "The Aj aid about it the better" was his U. MIGHT NOT HEAD 4 HOUSE COM'KREES tjHllmade the surprising disclosure '7yjRW that if he feels he cannot Y tithe bill which clears the House- A ! ning one does-he is thinking 'id turning the bill over to Chair-CjJAbraham Chair-CjJAbraham (Chick) Kazen, D-Tex., tt House Water . and Power '"IJjces Subcommittee to head the lh3 conferees when the bill goes to Snce. This would be an almost Iflcedented action. JB cautioned that he had made no ggylecision in this regard, and won't, rse, until and if the bill clears the "'paid is ready to go to conference lhe Senate to iron out differences, jfliate passed S 14 on Sept. 14, 1979, jfclamation revision bill. It is sgilly assumed the bill will be (tlenin conference, and that it will -Otry important conference. Interior Department spokesman has followed the legislation told n f he thought Udall wanted to be tst broker" on the bill. If that size-I size-I correct-and many here agree it-Udall isn't likely to turn over j of fashioning a final version of k-gislation so vital to the West to else, including Kazen. Partly Par-tly at this stage in his , l Sessional career. Now 58, Udall jHi"tly has become painfully crippled r'hntis in his back a nd spine . "Mo " 'wmg for re-election to the 97th fess in what some friends think his last term of service in the Pinal action on this bill could s career. UPTIGHT OVER LEASING PROVISION 7 llns opponents of the bill in-m in-m ! Reps. George Miller, D-Calif., "hp Burton, D-Calif., in being W over the leasing provision in tht " House bill provides water - t a subsidy, to a qualified owning or leasing up to 960 .land served by a federal wn project. But, in addition, f . allWs a qualified land owner to k 10nal 2400 acres of land 7 a reclamation project 1 tI Pays for fte ful1 cost of the Li, s one 'and owner is able to VLT?.Ptoatotal of 3,360 acres v j hi !L, t0 receive water from "Nation projects. ' l mount a majr drive r kin "!e bl8 basing provision when t0 the House noor- He Ki f opPnents plan to offer "a " btito,amIendments,,tocutitback '! af(Pr .vhn Lawrence, Miller's V .5 ZT 18 subjeet told WRW on , i.'hMraim; tokill the bill. bletltomake thebi more 2a, I"1,6 House and to the CsintKlhe told WRW. In his ne bill inn 0USe rePrt (96-1158) v- erfron, ,M eligible to receive Vj exceed Smatin,pr0jeCt " w he hT l'000 acres He told ' atflthecaP on leasing ned anrt , more tnan 1600 acres tfSttPf land held by one g'ble for reclamation project The acreage limitation is 160 acres per farmer and 320 acres per farmer and wife under the 1902 law. "For God's sake, 1600 acres is 10 times. ..over what we have allowed since 1902," he exclaimed ex-claimed during mark-up of the bill in June. A cap of 1600 acres "ought to be big enough for anyone. There are very few crops, very few situations in which that acreage will not cover a reasonable economic unit. If that isn't enough, then I suggest there is enough flexibility in the free enterprise system so they could find non-reclamation land to make up the difference between this and what is desired," Udall stated. The Subcommittee version had no leasing cap. LONG FAVORED RECLAMATION LAW REVISION Udall has long favored reclamation law revision, though he knew he was one of the few Interior Committee chairmen willing to take on the job, and that revision would involve intensive lobbying activity by big land owners in California who oppose any change in the status quo because the Interior Department has not enforced the acreage limitation for years. Time finally caught up with the problem, he said at mark-up. "Every Secretary of Interior and every Administration Ad-ministration in my lifetime has wrestled with the acreage limitation problem. It has been a thorny and controversial issue. We were hit three years ago with a bomb when one of the courts told (Interior) Secreatry (Cecil) Andrus that we had to enforce the 1902 law. So he held a mass meeting in Phoenix. ..I took the position at that meeting that it was time to modernize this law. ..I said. ..the time had come to get standard equivalency provision in the law, ..We have done that here. I said residency... was important. The bill we have now abolishes residency and substitutes the amendment I proposed, a kind of participation test." This test in the reported bill provides that a land owner must derive "a significant percentage of his or her income from direct involvement in agricultural production" during the five-year period after buying the land. If the,landowner lives within 50 miles of the land he need not meet such a test. Udall told WRW he was concerned that-some --of the definitions in the bill -were not tight enough, including the definition on "full cosf'of water, which he helped to fashion himself during mark-up. He would like the provisions of the bill tightened relative to monopoly and would limit or do away with absentee ownership, which "has been a historic problem with the reclamation program," Udall stated in the report. Interior Department experts who have gone over the bill are particularly par-ticularly upset over the big leasing provision in the House bill (there is no equivalent provision in S 14, the Senate bill), also about the exemption of projects built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from the acreage limitation, and about the payout provision in the House bill. Udall told WRW he could not get worked up over the Corps exemption, and he defended the payout provision. "Federal payments should not go on forever. At some point the dead hand of the past should be lifted, after the water users have paid out the cost and a pattern of family farming has been established," Udall told WRW. As the corps exemptions and payout provisions are about the same in the Senate and House bills, few changes are expected in these provisions, although Burton and Miller fought hard against the Corps exemption-and lost-in lost-in mark-up. A letter from Andrus to the Committee Com-mittee on June 9 warned that if Corps projects continued to be exempt from the acreage limitation and projects of the Water and Power Resources Service Ser-vice (old Bureau of Reclamation) are not. "I can foresee the elimination of the reclamation program. ..in the West. New flood control projects would become the new approach to water development." This could mean the phase-out of the Service, Interior spokesmen warn. Interior wants the payout provision much more tightly drawn, so that the water districts actually have paid out their obligation under their contracts with Interior well before they are legally declared paid out-and no longer subject to the acreage limitation. NEW COLORADO RIVER SALINITY BILL INTRODUCED IN SENATE BY ARMSTRONG Washington WRW) -Joined by 11 co-sponsors co-sponsors from the seven Colorado River Basin states, Sen. Willian L. Armstrong. R-Colo.. on Aug. 5 introduced in-troduced a bill (S 3017) authorizing 10 new feasibilitv studies for potential salinitv control projects in the Colorado River Basin. Four of the projects are in Colorado, four in Utah and one each in Wyoming and Arizona-Nevada. The Water and Power Resources Service of the Interior Department has estimated the cost of the studies will come to $26 744.000 and in most cases each study will take four-five years per project. Armstrong is hopeful the bill will be taken up by the Senate Energy Committee Com-mittee in mark-up on Aug. 20 without hearings. "The completion of these studies will enable our states to meet their commitments com-mitments to reduce the salt concentration con-centration in the Colorado River Basin," Armstrong stated. Under his bill the studies would be done at the following sites in or near the Colorado River Basin: COLORADO: Lower Gunnison Basin in Delta, Montrose and Ouray Counties; Coun-ties; Glenwood-Dotsero Springs in Garfield and Eagle Counties; Meeker Dome in Rio Blanco County; McElmo Creek in Montezuma County. UTAH: Dirty Devil River in Sanpete, Sevier, Emery and Wayne Counties; LaVerkin Springs in Washington County; Uintah Basin located in Duchesne and Uintah Counties; Price-San Price-San Rafael Rivers located in Carbon, Emery and Sanpete Counties. WYOMING: Big Sandy River located in Sweetwater County. ARIZONA-NEVADA: Lower Virgin River located in Clark County, Nev., and Mohave County, Ariz. Those who are co-sponsoring the legislation with Armstrong include: Sens. Barry Goldwater (R) and Dennis DeConcini (D) of Arizona; S.I. Hayakawa, R-Calif., Gary Hart, D-Colo., D-Colo., Howard W. Cannon, D-Nev., Paul Lexalt, R-Nev., Harrison H. Schmitt, R-N.M., Jake Garn (R) Utah and Malcolm Wallop (R) and Alan K. Simpson (R) of Wyoming. IMPACT AREA AID BILL GOES THRU SENATE AS RIDER ON 1981 DOE AUTHORIZATION BILL Washington (WRW)-Sens. Wendell H. Ford, D-KY., Gary Hart, D-Colo., and John Glenn, D-Ohio, successfully added a stripped-down version of S 1699, the Senate Energy Committee bill on energy area impact aid, as a rider to S 2332, the Department of Energy (DOE) authorization bill for 1981, on July 31. It provides for $150 million in grants and loans to energy impacted communities for 1981. Congress has not passed a DOE authorization bill in recent years, so the aid is not likely to materialize. |