Federal projects for the development of new irrigated lands should be scheduled on a program basis in such a way that new agricultural production will not further complicate situations where supply exceeds demand. Admittedly, it is a difficult situation because in many cases it is a need for supplemental water supply. In many cases projects have been authorized many years ago, they are in the process of construction and you just cannot stop construction. About what our recommendation means is that we have no particular projects in mind. It is the concensus of opinion of a lot of our people that we should not move ahead too fast with any expanded all-out program of expansion of irrigated acreage so long as we have this surplus situation before us. The CHAIRMAN. Is it not true that these surpluses occur primarily in those types of farm production which are not on irrigated lands? Mr. TRIGGS. I do not believe this is correct, sir, because all agriculture is flexible in a way. There are many alternative uses of any particular land and it can be readily shifted so that we can shift from cotton to sugar beets in many areas, from one commodity to another. There are many areas producing, as you know, substantial amounts of cotton which is in surplus. There is even considerable acreage of wheat on irrigated lands, although not a great deal. But if you increase the production of one thing this affects all areas. Agriculture is all in one boat and the whole picture is affected irrespective of particular commodities. The CHAIRMAN. That is all. Thank you very much. Dr. MILLER. No questions. Mr. DAWSON. Referring to your statement on page 1 that you do favor reasonable acreage limitations, what do you consider to be a reasonable acreage limitation? Mr. TRIGGS. An economic farming unit. Mr. DAWSON. And what is that? Mr. TRIGGS. Well, we cannot define that. I will try to define it. It is a farming unit which provides substantially full employment to the family located on it. Mr. DAWSON. Would you say the present limitation of 160 acres is a reasonable limitation? Mr. TRIGGS. Generally speaking, I would think this would be correct. I would think that there are areas where 160 acres is not an adequate farming unit, and there are areas in which authority to establish acreage limitations has resulted in the establishment of farms which are much smaller than 160 acres. Some of our people say, and I only report here, that they are creating real economic problems in some of those areas. I have heard this said particularly with respect to the Washington area, the Grand Coulee project. Mr. DAWSON. That is all. Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Christopher? Mr. ASPINALL. Mrs. Farrington? Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you very much. Mr. TRIGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ASPINALL. The next witness is Mr. L. C. Halvorson of the National Grange. We are glad to have you here. STATEMENT OF LLOYD C. HALVORSON, ECONOMIST, Mr. HALVORSON. I am glad to be here, and thank you for the privilege of appearing. Conservation of water and the fuller use of our water resources has long been an objective of the National Grange. Our interest in water conservation and use has been increasing in recent years. We favor broadly conceived river basin plans to bring about the maximum benefit to all interests in the entire basin. In these plans we recognize that private and public Federal, State, and local agencies have vital roles to play. Certainly in case of smaller projects it is well to allow for a maximum amount of local responsibility, participation, and control. Our people feel that the projects can be constructed for less and in closer accord to their needs if they are given the responsibility of constructing and operating small reclamation projects. It is my understanding that under present law the local people in a project area do not get the benefit of a Federal loan, or, more especially the Federal grant for flood control and other public benefits, if a local or State agency constructs the project instead of the Federal Government. These bills do a real service to the country by making available the Federal benefits, even if constructed by a State or local agency. As we see it, these bills will also make possible more reclamation projects than before, while at the same time assuring their economic soundness by putting the financial responsibility for the project squarely upon those who want it. In some areas it has been suggested that big dry dams be constructed for flood control. This often displaces old established communities and means much agony and misery for the people affected. In these instances it is far more desirable to spend Federal money for the necessary flood control on small projects that have many benefits, rather than on these large destructive dams. I do not want to be misunderstood, we favor large multipurpose dams and flood control dams where they meet the need best. At our last annual session the National Grange delegate body adopted the following statement on small reclamation projects: The Grange approves the proposal to supplement the Federal reclamation laws which apply to the 17 Western States by providing for Federal cooperation in non-Federal projects and for participation in non-Federal agencies in Federal projects. These Western States and their agencies would be permitted to undertake the construction, operation and maintenance of projects, to supply water for irrigation and municipal purposes, to drain lands in connection with irrigation and to generate or furnish pumping power, all in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior in connection with the financing of such projects. The proposed plan would encourage local groups to develop water conservation projects somewhat smaller than those usually undertaken by the Bureau of Reclamation, and would undoubtedly result in the construction of small storage reservoirs for the purpose of saving spring flood water for later use and would thus supplement existing water rights. In planning projects, conflict with the Water Facilities Act and Small Watershed Act should be avoided. We note that these bills also provide for participation by nonFederal agencies in Federal projects. We are very pleased by efforts to increase cooperation between private, State, and Federal agencies in this big job of conserving water and developing its use. Only by such cooperation can the task be done to the maximum advantage of all at the least possible cost. For a number of years the National Grange has favored the 160acre limitation on individual water rights in public irrigation projects. We believe in this policy very firmly today, and we see no reason why the 160-acre limitation should not apply to these small, federally financed irrigation projects. We interpret section 5 of H. R. 104 as applying the 160-acre limitation to these small projects, and for this reason, we favor H. R. 104 over H. R. 384. If our interpretation is wrong, or if there is any room for doubt in whether or not the 160acre limitation applies, we would like to see specific language to make it apply. We note another difference between H. R. 104 and H. R. 384. The former would have the $5 million limitation apply to an entire project, while the latter would have the limit apply to only one feature of a project. It is apparent that larger projects could be undertaken under the provisions of H. R. 384, than under H. R. 104. We do not have a policy indicating where we believe a project becomes so large it should be federally constructed, but we favor this principle of Federal cooperation in non-Federal projects on the basis of the $5 million per feature rather than per project, provided the Secretary of Interior can turn down projects involving more than $5 million if he feels that the project is of such interstate or broad nature that it should be a Federal project. The National Grange is a supporter of the preference clause for the purchase of power from Federal projects by cooperative organizations, public utility districts, and cities. The projects that would be constructed under these bills are somewhat hybrid Federal projects, but it seems to us that if the local or State agency asks for Federal funds to finance generating facilities, then the preference clause should apply if power is generated for sale. It has been suggested that this proposed legislation be made applicable to all 48 States rather than limited to the 17 Western States. We believe that, to start with, the legislation should apply to only the 17 Western States as now provided in both bills. Our members are concerned that unless we are careful, we shall have competition and duplication between Federal agencies in this field of water use and conservation. We agree that the type of project here provided for is needed in other States to some degree. Irrigation in the more humid areas is supplemental irrigation and the nature of water use would be different. Some of the water laws of Eastern States are as yet not suitable to irrigation projects. Last year the Congress passed the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 566). This provides for Federal participation in small projects (up to 5,000 acre-feet) for impounding water. The program is under the Soil Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture, and it applies to all 48 States. It does not go as far as the reclamation bills. Also, no loan funds were provided for financing irrigation works on the local share of the cost of the dam structure itself. However, it might be wiser to broaden the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act than to bring the Reclamation Service into all of the 48 States. The Water Facilities Act of 1954 also provides Federal assistance for development of water use in all the States. This act is administered by the Farmers' Home Administration of the United States Department of Agriculture. The upper limit on a single loan is $250,000. The interest rate is 5 percent. Irrigation is certainly closely related to agriculture and it can hardly be separated from the soil and water conservation in most places as promoted by United States Department of Agriculture agencies, such as the Soil Conservation Service and the FHÅ. If small loans are to be made for water purposes, the FHA already has offices all over rural America, and it would be costly and unwise to duplicate such facilities for making and servicing loans. If we make the reclamation law apply to all 48 States, it may not only duplicate the work of United States Department of Agriculture agencies, but it may eliminate them from a field of endeavor that is largely agricultural. The loans under reclamation law are interest free and the Department of Agriculture has nothing to compete with that as yet, I might add. It was logical to have reclamation in the Western States under the Department of the Interior, because it was largely public lands that were reclaimed. We believe that before we go too far in extending reclamation law to all the States, we should wait for the report of the Cabinet Committee on Water Resources Policy. Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you, Doctor, for another clear and rationally prepared statement. I assure you that we are glad to have the opinion of the Grange. Congressman Engle, do you have any questions? The CHAIRMAN. No questions. Mr. ASPINALL. Congressman Miller? Dr. MILLER. No questions. Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Westland? Mr. WESTLAND. Mr. Chairman, we are just having some conversation here between ourselves about this watershed bill that provided 5,000 acre-feet and I was trying to recall some of the discussions we had about cost of storage per acre-foot in dams and trying to recall what those figures were. I have just been talking to Mr. McFarland and he mentioned the Shasta, which figured probably around $20 per acre-foot, but when you get down to 5,000 acre-feet then your cost per acre-foot mounts tremendously and whether or not in your opinion this 5-million limitation might not be a more economical proposition for the storage of water rather than limiting it to the acre-feet. I would like to get your views. Mr. HALVORSON. It depends on what part of the country you are talking about, I believe. Now, in the East if you build a big dam you probably flood out an old-established agricultural community and there is a lot of property that has to be bought out. Out West that is probably not true. We also feel that there is a lot of value in preserving the old-established communities and in order to do that you some times have to have a series of smaller dams farther up into the open farming area itself or even up, say, in the Appalachian Mountains. I do not know if everybody would agree with the statement you made. I am not an expert in this field of water conservation, but I have asked a person that I know has had considerable experience in the field and it is his experience that some of these small dams can be constructed very cheaply because they are earthen dams with a small spillway. Most of them can be built with grading of the ground. Farm ponds are small structures but I do not think the cost is prohibitive in their case. Mr. WESTLAND. I would like to have you correct me if I am wrong, but I sort of gathered the general tenor of your report here is that the Grange favors the Department of Agriculture running this thing rather than the Interior; is that right? Mr. HALVORSON. As far as the other 31 States; that is right. Mr. HALVORSON. Our people took very definite action on that and they are for it. They do say they do not want duplication. I feel that our people out West have had so much experience with the Reclamation Service that it is well established in their minds as the agency to do the job. Mr. WESTLAND. Do you see any great distinction between this $5 million limitation and the 5,000 acre-feet of storage limitation? Mr. HALVORSON. Certainly a much larger structure can be built under this $5 million amount. I do not think the total appropriation for the small watershed bill, this Flood Prevention Act, is going to come out to more than about $11 million this year. But we feel that if there needs to be broader authority for the other 31 States that possibly it should be given to the Department of Agriculture. Mr. ASPINALL. Will the gentleman yield? As I understand it, the 5,000-acre-foot limitation is applicable to the flood-control bill that was authorized last year and passed, not an irrigation bill. Mr. HALVORSON. That is right. That is not an irrigation bill. But that water could be used for irrigation. Mr. ASPINALL. It might be used for irrigation, but primarily it was for flood control? Mr. HALVORSON. That is right. Mr. ASPINALL. And should be released in accordance with floodcontrol procedures rather than be stored for irrigation possibilities; is that not right? Mr. HALVORSON. Yes, but I think that those structures could be. built to serve both as a reservoir and also for flood control. Mr. ASPINALL. Well, we will admit that, but which would have priority? Which use would have priority under that bill? Mr. HALVORSON. It seems to me that if the structure is made with a big enough reservoir that it could serve, you could impound, all the water you might need for irrigation, and still have enough capacity in the case of an unusual amount of rainfall. Mr. ASPINALL. But that was not the purpose of the bill? Mr. HALVORSON. It certainly was the thinking of the farm groups that some of the water that would be impounded under this small watershed bill would be used for irrigation. |