OCR Text |
Show J Western Resources ' WRAP-UP- N Acreage limitation revision of reclamation law 1 By Helene C. Monberg, Vernal Express Washington Correspondent i, IVashington-For the first time in !7dern history of the reclamation pro-jjm, pro-jjm, the wheels are greased for Con--ss to modernize and completely ramp the 1902 Reclamation Act. "'' rhe House by a rollcall vote of 228-117 May 6 approved a bill (HR 5539) : - dch increased the acreage limited )60 acres under one ownership in new )jects that can receive low-cost ir-) ir-) ation water from federal reclama-J reclama-J a projects. The present limitation is f i acres per farmer or 320 acres per . mer and wife, with no limitation on sing. The House-passed measure Ns any irrigation district or in- ddual irrigator on going projects the ion of remaining under the 1902 act requesting the Secretary of Interior imend their contract to conform with " revision. 'he Senate Energy & Natural sources Committee on April 21 ap-ived ap-ived a similar bill (S 1867). It is likely come up in the Senate next month, mmittee sources told Western sources Wrap-up (WRW) on May 11. ; Senate bill sets the ownership limit 1,280 acres and the leasing limit at acres for a combined total of 2,080 es on which an individual or legal ity of 25 or fewer persons is "eligible eceive irrigation water without pay-full pay-full cost." his limit was written into the bill on il 21 as an amendment by Sen. lry M. Jackson, D-Wash. He said shington state voters had recently ;r i0! a limit on use of state waters at 2,000 .ses "by an overwhelming vote.. .The . jt'gators and the people of the state J 'e expressed their views quite ently on this subject," Jackson said. ! Committee adopted his amend- ble iji ''j last-ditch stand against the bill is nt 'iy to be made in the Senate. Sen. hard G. Lugar, R-Ind., currently deprs a "hold" on the bill, and at least two adeir Senators are considering similar Mo r,on. asesL:uj Reclamation Commissioner tert N. Broadbent had told Capitol P contacts he plans to try to work out accommodation with Lugar to rvesEase the "hold" on the bill so it can recjbjrought up for Senate debate. The wo-mEainistration wants to get the long- reteiding controversy settled by statute, i the joe: the sooner the better, inesiming, of course, will be up to Chair-ome Chair-ome 1st James A. McClure, R-Idaho, of the nt oveate Energy & Natural Resources are ffimittee and Jackson as ranking ecastimittee Democrat and former :h. irman. They are not eager to bring ce)j ibill up in the Senate right away, in rate (jit of a floor amendment tacked on to m federal dam safety bill in the House insV'1 29. demise amendment was offered by Rep. ,rcenttald B. H. Solomon, R-N.Y. It re-increas'ed re-increas'ed those who benefit from federal amation dams to share in the cost i dam safety repairs. With Ad-listration Ad-listration backing the Soloman indment was adopted by the House a vote of 212-140. McClure and kson would like to see the dust settle it over that controversy before br-ng br-ng up the reclamation law revision he Senate floor. WHY REVISE THE BILL? 5"tiree factors have been driving the sent and past Administration and gress into revision of the basic jns tl-ear-old reclamation law. One is pts to "wing concern about the subsidy to into "tarnation project irrigators. As gs U kson put it at the April 21 mark-up of counl!'7, "It is a question of policy, It gets leeW'n to how far do you go in providing ature tidies? Really, that is the basic e." Both the House Interior Com-, Com-, "Rif.ee, which honchoed the House-celltied House-celltied bill (HR 5539), and the Senate trololpmi'iee put "caps" on the amounts iepetit"ubsidized water that are to be to opfc'Vered 10 reclamation irrigators, thistle is the reality of the situation. Knovf" P tne years many reclamation pro-sign pro-sign ,s nave Deen exempt from operation nffice le reclamation law; and the Bureau leclamation, being in the water-execu"''rery water-execu"''rery business, didn't spend much lion ! Plicing the 160-acre limitation, '.h many believe is too low in light of y's farming conditions. ,pnon8 the reclamation projects I e ' Uy exempt from the acreage limita-t's limita-t's ?'re ImPerial Irrigation District den California which makes a net spnd s'ery of 2,709,541 acre-feet of Col-0n"r Col-0n"r '0 R'ver water to irrigators as an ds 0f 'lal average, and the Colorado-Big thepftfPson project in Colorado, which in0lnyf'rts 197,601 acre-feet of Colorado ont V.T water annually to provide a sup-abou' sup-abou' '7entary water supply to irrigators hey productive Northeastern Colorado, : infl rding to the Bureau of Reclama-,r Reclama-,r co"1 Any reclamation law revision had written in light of such exemplify, exemp-lify, the Interior Department was J(fT court order to do something tiK't complying with the acreage c y Illation. The Senate report (S. Rept. Itlp 3) on S1867 explained over the i "the Bureau of Reclamation and the Secretary (of Interior) have interpreted inter-preted reclamation law on a case-by-case basis and through a series of legal opinions and secretarial instructions. "On Aug. 9, 1976, pursuant to a case brought by the National Land for People, Peo-ple, a non-profit organization" attempting attemp-ting to secure irrigated lands in California Califor-nia mainly for minorities, "the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia Colum-bia ruled that the Bureau had not complied com-plied with the Administrative Procedures Pro-cedures Act and enjoined the approval of sales of excess lands in the Westlands Irrigation District (in California) pending pen-ding promulgation of rules and regulations. regula-tions. "On Aug. 22, 1977, the Bureau of Reclamation published proposed regulations covering the administration administra-tion of the reclamation law" at the direction of then Interior Secretary Cecil D. Andrus. "The regulations were believed by many Western irrigation interests to be severe interpretations of the law, and in several respects were in contradiction to current administrative practice. "Opponents of the regulations" went into the U.S. District Court in Fresno, Calif., and "successfully had the procedure pro-cedure enjoined (in 1977) pending preparation of an environmental impact im-pact statement (EIS), and a draft EIS was circulated (in 1980) by the Carter Administration. (Interior) Secretary (James G.) Watt suspended the comment com-ment period pending review by the Reagan Administration. On July 21, 1981, the comment period was resumed and extended through Dec. 31, 1981. A major purpose of S 1867 is to provide pro-vide a modern policy expression regar- ding federal reclamation law in order to resolve the many controversies which would otherwise result from the implementation im-plementation of regulations based upon current law," the report said. "Let's get it done some way," McClure Mc-Clure said at mark up on April 21 Chairman Chair-man Morris K. Udall, D-Ariz., of the House Interior Committee has promised promis-ed a group of water users from California Califor-nia and Arizona where the effect of the new law will be most felt that he would move a revision through the House, and he did so on May 6. Udall and other supporters sup-porters of HR 5539 also made a number of compromises on the House floor that day to forestall a half dozen amendments amend-ments ready for introduction. Conference Con-ference Committee is expected to be a problem, once S 1867 passes the Senate, because each bill was crafted to get through its body. But with the Administration, Ad-ministration, the FarmWater Alliance, the National Water Resources Association, the entire reclamation community, and most of the leadership in Congress in favor of revision, that hurdle is expected to be surmounted, even though the bills are quite different. dif-ferent. INTEREST RATE ON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Several amendments were adopted by the House to HR 5539, but none was as important as the one offered by Rep. Abraham Kazen, D-Tex., as floor manager of the bill. It established the formula for interest rates to repay the cost of constructing reclamation projects. pro-jects. The Kazen amendment was adopted by voice vote. |