"(2) If in any year the percent change determined under either paragraph (1)(A) or (1)(B) indicates a rise in the price index, then "(A) effective March 1 of such year, in the case of an increase under paragraph (1)(A), each annuity payable from the Fund having a commencing date not later than such March 1 shall be increased by the percent change computed under such paragraph, adjusted to the nearest 10 of 1 percent, or "(B) effective September 1 of such year, in the case of an increase under paragraph (1)(B), each annuity payable from the Fund having a commencing date not later than such September 1 shall be increased by the percent change computed under such paragraph adjusted to the nearest 10 of 1 percent.". (2) The amendment made by subsection (1) shall apply to any increase in annuities after the date of enactment of this Act, except that with respect to the first date after the date of enactment of this Act on which the Secretary is to determine a percent change, such percent change shall be determined by computing the change in the price index published for the month immediately preceding such first date over the price index for the last month prior to the date of enactment of this Act for which the price index showed a percent rise forming the basis for a cost-of-living increase under section 882 (b) of the Foreign Service Act of 1946 (22 U.S.C. 1121(b)), as in effect immediately prior to the date of enactment of this Act. The managers on the part of the Senate will move to recede and concur in the amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate. Conversion. The language as agreed to by the conferees puts the new system of calculating cost-of-living increases into effect immediately. This is necessary to keep a further accumulation of benefits in excess of actual price changes to be built into the base for future payments. The conference agreement provides that any cost-of-living change since the last increase calculated under the old system will be included in the first payment under the new system. Thus, if the 3 percent minimum were triggered in August under the former system, then after a three-month waiting period increases would have been made effective January 1, 1977. Increased checks would have been mailed by February 1. Under the conversion provision, the full Consumer Price Index change since the last base month (December, 1975) and the level as of December 1976 will be used to calculate the first adjustment under the new system. The conferees thus anticipate the next cost-of-living adjustment to be made effective March 1, 1977, with increased checks in the mail by April 1, 1977. Thus, while there will be a delay of two months in the initial adjustment, there will be a full compensation since the cost-of-living calculation will be extended from October to December. Regular semi-annual adjustments will commence effective Septemher 1.1977. CONFERENCE TOTAL-WITH COMPARISONS The total new budget (obligational) authority for the fiscal year 1977 recommended by the Committee of Conference, with comparisons to the fiscal year 1976 amount, the 1977 budget estimates (as amended), and the House and Senate bills for 1977 follows: New budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 1976----- fiscal year 1977-- House bill, fiscal year 1977 Senate bill, fiscal year 1977. Conference agreement.. $933, 048, 403 (obligational) authority (as -48, 890, 280 +163, 089, 535 Conference agreement compared with: New budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 1976------ -27, 740, 800 1 Includes $147,993,375 for Senate items not considered by the House. Conforming to long practice, funds exclusively for operations and activities of the Senate-including two items jurisdictionally under the Architect of the Capitol-are left for decision and insertion by that body. GEORGE E. SHIPLEY, ROBERT N. GIAIMO, JOSEPH P. ADDABBO (except amendment No. 91), JOHN J. MCFALL, SIDNEY R. YATES, FRANK E. EVANS, LAWRENCE COUGHLIN, ELFORD A. CEDERBERG, RALPH S. REGULA, Managers on the Part of the House. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, WALTER D. HUDDLESTON, JOHN O. PASTORE (except amendment No. 91), DICK SCHWEIKER, CHARLES MCC. MATHIAS, Jr. (except amendment No. 91), MILTON R. YOUNG, TED STEVENS (except amendment No. 91), Managers on the Part of the Senate. О PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMPARATIVE PRODUCTIVE POTENTIAL OF IRRIGABLE LANDS IN DETERMINING NONEXCESS ACREAGE UNDER FEDERAL RECLAMATION LAWS SEPTEMBER 15, 1976.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. HALEY, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, submitted the following REPORT together with CONCURRING VIEWS [Including Congressional Budget Office cost estimate] [To accompany H.R. 13101] The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 13101) to provide for consideration of the comparative productive potential of irrigable lands in determining nonexcess acreage under Federal reclamation laws, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. The amendments are as follows: Page 1, line 5, following "administering" insert "the acreage limitation provisions of the". Page 2, strike all of line 5 and insert in lieu thereof "Interior." Page 2, line 6, strike out "land classes" and insert in lieu thereof "one hundred sixty acre equivalents". Page 2, following line 21, insert the following new section: SEC. 3. By March 31st of the year, following the calendar year of the date of this Act, and on each March 31st thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the Congress on administrative actions taken to carry out the purposes of this Act. The report shall present on a case-by-case basis the name of the project, division or unit of the project, the repayment entity involved, and summary information on land classification and equivalency relationships established and promulgated by the Secretary during the full calendar year immediately preceding the date of the report. 1 PURPOSE H.R. 13101 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to determine the relative productive potential of irrigable lands comprising certain Federal Reclamation projects and to deliver water in accordance with such potential. BACKGROUND Since the inception of the Reclamation program with the enactment of the Federal Reclamation Act of 1902 (32 Stat. 388) there has been contained within the body of Reclamation Law a statutory limitation on the delivery of water from, through, or by means of project facilities to more than 160 acres of land in an individual ownership. In addition to section 5 of the 1902 Act, other enactments of the Congress having general applicability to the subject of acreage limitations are the Warren Act of 1911; the Act of August 9, 1912; the Reclamation Extension Act of 1914; and section 46 of the Omnibus Adjustment Act of 1926. The idea of limiting the amount of land to which water might be delivered from a Reclamation project is consistent with the basic philosophy of public land administration prevailing during the latter part of the nineteenth century and in the early years of the present century. The policy objective implicit in this limitation were to: (1) Distribute as widely as possible the benefits from public investment in resource development; (2) promote the family farm as a desirable mode of rural society; and (3) prevention of speculative gains as a consequence of the public programs contemplated by the basic program. There is little doubt that the Congress, in its consideration of the legislation leading to enactment of the Federal Reclamation Act of 1902 and subsequent statutes, hereinabove enumerated, acknowledged and recognized the public interest inherent in the family-sized farm and further deemed 160 acres to be sufficient land to produce income to adequately support an American farm family at acceptable levels. By the same token, there is no evidence that consideration was given to the wide disparity in productive potential that existed among the lands of the Reclamation States from the standpoint of productivity of soils, adaptability of crops, length of growing season, and other parameters that influence the net income that can be expected from the operation of an irrigated farm. The variations that exist between the amount of income that can be realized from irrigation of crops in the virtually frost-free valleys of the southwestern United States and that which ean be achieved in the high valleys of the Mountain States suggests that the original limitation contained elements of unfairness from the outset. Also, given the variations in quality of soils within a given project, it can readily be seen that a single ownership limitation applicable to an area as diverse, climatically and agronomically, as the 17 1 H.R. 13101 was introduced by Mr. Johnson of California (for himself, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Melcher, Mr. Roncalio, Mr. Symms, Mr. Runnels, Mr. Hansen. Mr. McKay, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Howe. Mr. Andrews of North Dakota, Mr. Abdnor, Mr. Santini. Mr. Sebelius. Mr. Johnson of Colorado, Mr. Weaver, Mr. Ullman, Mr. Don H. Clausen, Mr. Evans of Colorado, and Mr. McCormack). H.R. 1561 Western States, either discriminates against the less favorably endowed areas or provides opportunity for excessive profit in the more favored zones. This was probably true to some extent in 1902 but its effect was obscured by the fact that 160 acres fairly well represented the maximum acreage that could be farmed by the average family utilizing animal-drawn equipment. The advent of widespread mechanization of farming and the simultaneous demand for improved living standards with amenities formerly enjoyed only by urban dwellers, plus a general increase in the level of sophistication and tastes of rural residents, all combined to create pressure for larger and larger farms-whether dryland or irrigated. This process of social and economic evolution has brought into fairly sharp focus the inherent inequity in the statutory limitation which equates ownership that may eligibly receive water from a Reclamation project without regard to the equality and character of the land base being irrigated. LIMITATIONS OF THE LEGISLATION H.R. 13101 seeks to take a first step toward redressing the lack of equity that exists among Reclamation projects and within individual projects having varying quality of lands receiving water service. The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs does not regard the legislation as being the solution to all concerns that have been expressed with respect to the 160-acre limitation and its implementation. First of all, the legislation is specifically limited to projects, units of projects, and separable repayment entities where the growing season, by reasons of latitude or altitude, does not exceed an average of 180 days per year. The 180-day rule thus eliminates from the provisions of this legislation any project that is adapted, climatically, to the production of winter vegetables, citrus, cotton, and other high value crops from which relatively high net farm incomes are the norm. In consideration of this limitation on the scope of the legislation, the Committee feels that any entity to which the bill applies should be entitled to its benefits if any portion of the area has a growing season of less than 180 days. H.R. 13101 does not change the basic limitation of 160 acres set forth in existing law. If, for example, a water user on a project having a growing season of 120 days owns 160 acres of Class I land, as determined by the land classificaton of record, the legislation offers him no increase in eligible acreage. Additionally, enactment of H.R. 13101 does not signify the need to carry out vast new land classification activities. Most projects have classifications of record and all such projects initiated since the early 1950's have land classifications certified to the Congress by the Secretary of the Interior. Any new land classification studies, motivated by passage of this bill, would be carried out under the authority and provisions of section 8 of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (53 Stat. 1187) which provides, generally, that such studies be made only at the request of the water user organization and that one-half of the expense be advanced by the water user organization and that the remainder be defrayed through operation and maintenance charges. H.R. 1561 |