ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Mr. HAYDEN. Just how is the land divided with respect to ownership?

Mr. DAVIS. It is given roughly. There isn't any detailed investigation, but it is roughly given.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you please tell at this juncture what the blue represents there as distinguished from the green?

Mr. DAVIS. The blue is the land inside of the Coachella irrigation. district. That is the present organized district and extends outside of the blue, but that includes the irrigable portion.

The CHAIRMAN. And the brown; what is that?

Mr. DAVIS. The brown on the west is simply other lands that can be covered that are not on the east mesa in the north Coachella district.

Mr. TAYLOR. Can all of those lands in blue and brown be irrigated?

Mr. DAVIS. The main body of them can.

Mr. TAYLOR. And they are not irrigated now?

Mr. DAVIS. They are not irrigated now; no.

Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Is the land in brown withdrawn?

Mr. DAVIS. I doubt if there is much of that withdrawn.

Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Is there public land over there?

Mr. DAVIS. There is some.

Mr. WELLING. Coming back to the blue land in Riverside County, at least half of that land would have to be railroad land, wouldn't it, originally?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. WELLING. And the railroad land now has gone into private ownership?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; and the balance that was public land is largely in private ownershsip now. There are in the northern part of that district especially a large number of wells from which irrigation is had and the land has gone into private ownership.

Mr. WELLING. Is that railroad land in Riverside County owned in large blocks now or is it in small ownership-less than a section? Mr. DAVIS. It is usually in small ownership, I believe, but I am not informed in detail on that. Probably some of the delegation might tell you?

Mr. HAYDEN. In that connection, I understand that under the Umatilla project you had considerable areas of railroad lands that were included within the project?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HAYDEN. What arrangement was made with the railroad companies on the Umatilla project toward turning their lands in at a reasonable figure so that the settlers would not be compelled to pay a high price?

Mr. DAVIS. On the Umatilla project they agreed upon prices of $20 to $25 an acre for the raw lands and sold them at that price, and where the settlers were not able to make good on it the railroad company afterwards, when they found the conditions, made an entirely new agreement in which they canceled all of the accrued interest and one-third of the principal of their claims upon those settlers. The same railroad company, which is the Northern Pacific, made an agreement on the lower Yellowstone by which they sold all of their lands at $2.50 an acre on the average. Some of them

were ruled nonirrigable that were under the ditches, or had to be taken up by ditches or something of that kind, so they got an average price of $2.50 an acre.

Mr. HAYDEN. Just how was that arrangement made, by trust deed to the Interior Department?

Mr. DAVIS. It was merely a contract with the Secretary of the Interior, a contract agreement.

Mr. HAYDEN. And the Secretary then had supervision of the sale of the railroad lands?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. And they sold those lands in tracts to conform with the farm-unit plats established by the United States, and in every way took the regulations and requests of the Secretary of the Interior into consideration.

Mr. HAYDEN. Well, if it should appear that there are considerable areas of railroad land included within the area to be irrigated from the all-American canal would you think it advisable that similar provisions be made?

Mr. DAVIS. It is very advisable.

Mr. TAYLOR. You haven't done so yet?

Mr. DAVIS. No.

Mr. TAYLOR. Why not?

Mr. DAVIS. We haven't been in shape to build it. We haven't been in shape to talk business to anybody on the subject.

Mr. TAYLOR. If Congress starts to build it then they won't be so auxious to do it, will they?

Mr. DAVIS. Possibly not.

Mr. SUMMERS. May I ask the committee to take note of thatoughtn't it?

Mr. HAYDEN. That was the suggestion I was going to make. Would it not be wise to insert a provision in this bill that there must be some understanding of that kind with respect to the railroad lands before this project is approved?

Mr. DAVIS. I think that should be provided. I think it will be provided by executive action, if not required in the legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. It has been exeecutive action all the time. The law authorized you to make such arrangements with regard to private lands interspersed with public lands.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes; and this bill makes provision for that by providing that they shall organize irrigation districts, and it provides that the Secretary shall require them to, and make satisfactory contracts with them that will bind all the lands in the district.

Mr. SUMMERS. Has there been any difficulty on any of the irrigation projects in the country in getting satisfactory contracts with the railroad companies? Have they been obstinate and unreasonable?

Mr. DAVIS. As a rule not. We have had some trouble, but nothing very serious. The railroad companies vary somewhat in their policy on that subject.

Mr. SUMMERS. The Northern Pacific, for instance?

Mr. DAVIS. The Northern Pacific has been the most liberal of any railroad company in the country in its attitude on that question. Mr. WELLING. That provision ought to be made in the bill, view of something that I must bring before you at a later date?

Mr. HAYDEN. To get back to the suggestion made by Mr. Welling, would it not be the part of wisdom to provide right in this bill that that very thing be done; that the Secretary be directed to obtain an agreement satisfactory to him with the owners of all large tracts of land, railroad and otherwise; that there should be a fixed price so that there would be no opportunity for the new settlers to be robbed and thus prevent this unearned increase in value from going to people who now hold such lands for speculation or otherwise?

Mr. DAVIS. I think if it is not already provided in the law it certainly should be. As I say, it already provides for districts, and satisfactory arrangements with the Secretary of the Interior may be drawn up later.

Mr. HAYDEN. Now, there is no provision in this bill, so far as I have been able to find, with respect to a limitation of the area of land for which water may be furnished any one individual. The reclamation law contains a provision that not more than 160 acres shall be irrigated for one individual, and then the Secretary is authorized to fix farm units of a less area than that. Would it not be wise to make the same provision here?

Mr. DAVIS. I think so. We have a letter from the United Spanish War Veterans' organization in the Imperial Valley, at El Centro, requesting two amendments in this bill, one of which is the limitation of ownership to 40 acres until the expiration of such time as the Secretary of the Interior may determine, when it may be increased to not exceeding 160 acres.

Mr. HAYDEN. What do you think about that?
Mr. DAVIS. I think it is wise.

Mr. WELLING. If these lands are in private ownership and a man is willing to take water for his entire holdings, what objection would there be to his having as much land as he can take care of?

Mr. DAVIS. The objection is that this is the use of public credit for very large benefit to all of the lands, and it is not just that that benefit should be largely monopolized by individuals.

Mr. WELLING. But if there is water for all and he owns the land to-day and perhaps has water for an enlarged tract to-day under the old arrangement, would you dispossess him?

Mr. DAVIS. If he already has water for a large tract he will probably not be obliged to pay for it again.

Mr. WELLING. I mean lands under cultivation to-day. There are men holding perhaps a section of land that is all under irrigation. Mr. DAVIS. Well, I referred to the new land entirely.

Mr. LITTLE. To what?

Mr. DAVIS. To the new land, the uncultivated land.

The CHAIRMAN. Those holding a whole section would not be required to come in. They can't avail themselves of the law without complying with the conditions, of course.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Welling, we have had a lot of trouble with that matter and have gone all through it and thrashed it to a frazzle for the last 10 years.

Mr. WELLING. I am very well aware of that, Mr. Taylor, where you are dealing with new lands, but I apprehend that this situation will develop, that there are men in the Imperial Valley to-day who own a section of land, who are irrigating a section of land.

Mr. TAYLOR. They may own five sections, but they can't expect Uncle Sam to make them a million dollars for nothing.

Mr. WELLING. But they have already got their water rights.
Mr. TAYLOR. If they don't want to come in, all right.

Mr. WELLING. They are already in.

Mr. TAYLOR. But I mean if they don't want to get the benefit of the Government's money they won't be compelled to.

Mr. SMITH of Idaho. The building up of the country around them may benefit them.

Mr. TAYLOR. The building up of the country around them will enormously enhance the value of their property, and the policy of the Government is not to enhance the property of these big holdings.

Mr. WELLING. If it is a cotton plantation to-day, or a great fruit orchard or something of that sort, you wouldn't enhance the value of it. If it is desert land and unoccupied, of course, you would enhance the value.

Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. Davis, the reclamation law provides that the United States shall not sell water rights to one individual in excess of 160 acres of land. Now, in practically every reclamation project adopted there were private holdings of land with existing water rights in excess of 160 acres. What have you done under that law in those cases?

Mr. DAVIS. There are a few that had no private lands, but in general your statement is true. We have provided that no one can have the benefit of a publicly developed water supply to an extent greater than enough for 160 acres. The law has required that, and the law has been followed.

Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Mr. Chairman, permit me to read in right here section 12 of the 20-year extension act pertaining to private lands:

That before any contract is let or work begun for the construction of any reclamation project hereafter adopted, the Secretary of the Interior shall require the owners of private lands thereunder to agree to dispose of all lands in excess of the area which he shall deem sufficient for the support of a family upon the land in question, upon such terms and at such price as the Secretary of the Interior may designate, and if any landowner shall refuse to agree to the requirements fixed by the Secretary of the Interior, his land shall not be included within the project if adopted for construction.

Mr. LITTLE. Mr. Director, may I ask you a question right here? Suppose some outfit had 10,000 acres in the Imperial Valley now under cultivation, with water from the present ditch, what is there in this new proposition, if this new proposition is put in force, by which the Government can escape from supplying a man with the same amount of water that he had been getting before?

Mr. DAVIS. I don't believe that he could be deprived of water, but he could be commpelled to do whatever the law required in order to get water.

Mr. LITTLE. Well, now, suppose he just rested on his rights and said, "I am getting water from this ditch; I have got that right and I don't propose to pay any more for it than I have been paying. I will stop right here." Could you shut him off?

Mr. DAVIS. The United States wouldn't meet that problem, because that is a problem to be met by the district. We would make a contract with the district and it would be bound to pay the lump sum

of money and by taxation collect it from the land included in the district.

Mr. LITTLE. That don't answer my question, though. You mean that you would dodge the question so far as you are concerned and check it back to the district?

Mr. DAVIS. NO; we would have a contract with the district, just like we have now.

Mr. LITTLE. You mean we can't make any law that governs it? You don't know of any way that we can make a law which will force that man to pay his pro rata share of the expense?

Mr. DAVIS. No.

Mr. LITTLE. The district has got to provide for that itself?
Mr. DAVIS. I think so, too.

Mr. LITTLE. I didn't say I thought so; I am asking you.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; we would make a contract, as I take it, such as we now make with districts under similar circumstances where we sell them stored water. There are probably nearly 2,000,000 acres of land that are not included in what we call reclamation projects, to which we sell an additional water supply from reservoirs, the Pathfinder Reservoir, is the main one, and a great deal from the Arrowrock, and in each case in the contract with the district it is provided that no individual shall receive water for more than 160 acres from that, and the United States maintains the right-reserves the right in that contract-to inspect and, if necessary, control the distribution of that water.

Mr. LITTLE. Now, if you made that contract with these people and you went down there and found that one man was drawing water for 10,000 acres what would you do about it?

Mr. DAVIS. Shut it off from the entire district until they corrected it.

Mr. LITTLE. In other words, if you punished this man at all you would have to punish the whole district.

Mr. DAVIS. We would have to punish the whole district in order to punish him.

Mr. LITTLE. Could I ask you one more question to finish my thought along that line? Apropos of that now let us suppose that these people are drawing water, as they are, from this ditch down through Mexico, which you are familiar with, of course, as I understand this proposition this ditch that these people propose to build will be really an entirely new ditch; instead of coming out down below Yuma it will come out from Laguna Dam; it won't run into Mexico. It won't run in the same canal at all that that water now runs in.

Mr. DAVIS. No, sir.

Mr. LITTLE. I gather from their view of it that they think that the man's water rights under the new ditch would be the same as under the old. Are they right about that?

Mr. DAVIS. No.

Mr. LITTLE. Isn't this an entirely new proposition and wouldn't it be true that that man would have no rights under the new ditch at all except such as he secured under the new ditch?

Mr. DAVIS. That is right.

185833-20 6

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »