SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS H.R. 13101 consists of three sections explained and discussed below: Section 1 contains the operative and limiting provisions of the bill. It provides that the Secretary of the Interior may extend the "Class I equivalency concept" to all existing and future Federal Reclamation projects where the growing season, as conclusively determined by the Secretary of Commerce, averages less than 180 days per year. The Class I equivalency concept simply provides for the determination, by the Secretary of the Interior, of the amount of land in classes inferior to Class I that represents the productive equivalent of 160 acres of Class I land. Historically, this determination has resulted in equivalency factors of approximately 1.2 and 1.5 for Classes I and II respectively. An equivalency factor for Class IV land (the poorest class of arable land) might approach 2.0. Section 2 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to amend existing repayment and water service contracts, upon request by the contracting entity, to embrace the equivalency factors determined and promulgated pursuant to section 1 above. Acreage limitations are set forth in repayment and water service contracts and are the responsibility of the contracting entity to administer and enforce. Accordingly, the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs emphasizes that the provisions of H.R. 13101 cannot be implemented contrary to the will of the water user organization and that participation in its benefits is fully voluntary. The Committee further notes that there may be instances in which water has been delivered in the past to lands in excess of the acreage permitted to a single ownership by existing law despite the contract obligation of the repayment entity to enforce such limitations. The Committee also understands that compliance with delivery limitations of existing law, or adjusted delivery limitations pursuant to H.R. 13101, may result in changes in land ownership patterns, alteration of farming enterprises, and other disruptive effects on individual water users of such magnitude as to create substantial hardship during the period of implementation of the provisions of this legislation. While the Committee does not condone wilful avoidance of the land limitation provisions of Reclamation law, it does recognize that such avoidance has existed in the past and must be terminated as expeditiously as possible, consistent with careful consideration of the equivalency factors authorized to be established by this legislation and with due regard to the impact of strict compliance on established enterprises and community institutions. The Committee therefore expresses the desire and expectation that the Secretary of the Interior, in administering the acreage limitation provisions of the Reclamation law as they will be modified by this legislation, will give the highest priority to determination of the authorized equivalency factors. It is also hoped that the Secretary will, consistent with his discretionary powers, forego administrative acts that would cause undue hardship on classes of water users and individuals or result in serious disruption of community institutions while the studies leading to determination of equivalency factors are underway. H.R. 1561 Section 3 requires that the Secretary file with the Congress an annual report on equivalency factors established and promulgated during the previous year. The report is required to contain information on the class of land found in each project together with the numerical factor pertaining to each land class. With this information in hand the Committee and the Congress can ascertain whether the Secretary is consistently and carefully determining the equivalency factors by comparing the results of future studies with those which have heretofore been made on individual projects where the precepts of this legislation have been authorized. COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS During consideration of H.R. 13101, the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs adopted four amendments as discussed below: (a) An amendment to Section 1 was adopted to clarify and emphasize that the legislation is intended to guide only administration of the acreage limitation provisions of Reclamation law and that no other meaning to the Act may reasonably be imputed. (b) An amendment was adopted to eliminate reference to economic farm units as a criterion for determining equivalencies. The simple and total thrust of the legislation is to determine the equivalent of 160 acres of Class I land which may or may not constitute an economic farm unit. (c) An amendment was adopted to de-emphasize the role of land classification in implementation of the Act. The purpose of the bill is to determine the economic relationship between land classes rather than the classification of lands as such. (d) The fourth amendment of the bill adds section 3, to require an annual disclosure report to the Congress as discussed above. BUDGET ACT COMPLIANCE The analysis of H.R. 13101 prepared by the Congressional Budget Office is presented below in its entirety. Hon. JAMES A. HALEY, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, D.C., September 13, 1976. Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Pursuant to Section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Congressional Budget Office has prepared the attached cost estimate for H.R. 13101, a bill to provide for consideration of the comparative productive potential of irrigable lands in determining nonexcess acreage under Federal reclamation laws. Should the Committee so desire, we would be pleased to provide further details on the attached cost estimate. Sincerely, ALICE M. RIVLIN, Director. H.R. 1561 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE, SEPTEMBER 13, 1976 1. Bill number: H.R. 13101. 2. Bill title: To provide for consideration of the comparative productive potential of irrigable lands in determining nonexcess acreage under Federal reclamation laws. 3. Bill purpose: The proposed legislation allows the Secretary of the Interior to use standards of productive potential to determine the amount of land of any individual owner eligible to receive water from Federal irrigation projects. The basic standard is to be 160 acres of Class I land, or the equivalent in less productive land. This bill applies only to areas where the growing season averages less than 180 days per year. In addition, the Secretary is authorized to amend existing repayment and water service contracts in order to reflect the modified eligibility requirements. Finally, the Secretary must file an annual report with Congress indicating the class of land found in each project and the equivalency factors applied to each class during the previous year. 4. Cost estimate: Fiscal year: It is assumed that this legislation will be enacted for fiscal year 1977. This bill will create additional personnel requirements for reclassification of lands requested by organizations representing water users, and for the development and application of equivalency factors to these lands. Estimated personnel costs include salaries and expenses of employees of the Bureau of Reclamation, at the GS-9, 11, and 12 levels, who would be involved in the reclassification. These costs have been adjusted to reflect projected increases in the salaries and expenses of government employees. It is expected that most of the requests will occur in fiscal year 1977 and fiscal year 1978, with the number of requests declining in fiscal year 1979 and fiscal year 1980. The number of requests will stabilize in fiscal year 1981 and following years. Therefore, the Bureau of Reclamation estimates the personnel requirements to be approximately 10 man-years in fiscal year 1977 and fiscal year 1978, declining to 7 man-years in fiscal year 1979, and to 3 man-years in fiscal year 1980 and fiscal year 1981. The estimated average cost per man-year in salaries and expenses is projected to be approximately $24.400 in fiscal year 1977, increasing to $31,200 by fiscal year 1981. Section 8(g) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (53 Stat. 1187) requires the water user organization to advance one-half of the expense of undertaking new land classification studies. The remaining half is paid by the Federal Govern H.R. 1561 ment. The costs shown in the estimate reflect only the Govern- No additional costs are associated with amending the re- 6. Estimate comparison: The Committee estimates a total cost of implementing the legislation to be $1.2 million over 10 years, including the costs to be borne by water user organizations. 7. Previous CBO estimate: None. 8. Estimate prepared by Arleen Fain Gilliam (225-9676). OVERSIGHT No recommendations with respect to the subject matter of this legislation have been submitted to the Committee pursuant to rule X, clause 2(b) (2). The Subcommitee on Water and Power Resources conducted, on the related subject of general administration of land limitation provisions of Reclamation law, Oversight Hearings on September 13 and 14, 1976, and will maintain continuing oversight over the implementation of H.R. 13101 as well as the broader subject of acreage limitations generally. COSTS The Committee estimates the total cost of implementing H.R. 13101 to be $1,200,000 over a ten year time span with one-half being incurred during the first two years after enactment. The funds for implementing the legislation will be appropriated pursuant to existing authorities and no appropriations are specifically authorized by this bill. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, on the basis of a voice vote recommends that H.R. 13101 be enacted. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT The report of the Department of the Interior is set forth below in their entirely. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Hon. JAMES A. HALEY, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the views of this Department with respect to a bill, H.R. 13101, to provide for the consideration of the comparative productive potential of irrigable lands in determining nonexcess acreage under Federal reclamation laws. H.R. 1561 We recommend that the bill not be enacted without further study. We emphasize that we support the concept of class 1 equivalency. We believe that there are strong equitable considerations which may favor applying it in particular cases. The Administration is opposed, however, to enactment of this bill at this time. The Administration does not believe that sufficient consideration has been given to the overall impacts of this bill or to the broader question of what exactly should be changed or applied with respect to acreage limitations. The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish acreage entitlements for land holdings eligible to receive project water from Federal reclamation projects at a level equivalent to 160 acres of class 1 lands for lands of less productive potential than class 1 lands. This would enable landholders having lands classified at less than class 1 by the Secretary to apply project water to lands in excess of 160 acres to enable them to obtain the same productivity and profitability as a landholder with 160 acres of class 1 land. The bill would apply the equivalency concept only to projects in acres where the average frost-free growing season would not exceed 180 days. This would mean that the higher acreage entitlements would be allowed only in areas where growing seasons are inherently limited by climate or altitude. The Secretary would be authorized to determine if the equivalency concept is to be utilized for a particular project, and, if so, he would establish the productivity standards to be applied in determining the equivalency ratio to be used. In making this determination, he would take into consideration factors which significantly affect the economic feasibility of irrigated agriculture, including, but not limited to, soil characteristics, crop adaptability, cost of crop production, and economic returns of production under class 1 conditions. From its inception, the reclamation program has been directed to widely distribute the benefits from public-supported reclamation projects. This has been accomplished principally by limiting the acreage for which an individual can eligibly receive a project water supply, thus assuring that the direct benefits of the Federal investment in irrigation features are enjoyed by the greatest possible number of project landowners. The Reclamation Act and acts supplementing and amending it have, over the years, generally adhered to 160 acres as a maximum permissible individual holding which can receive a reclamation project water supply. The basic limitation in the law today is still 160 irrigable acres. However, some exceptions to the 160-acre limitation have been provided in specific cases by law through the application of the equivalency concept. A list of projects for which exceptions have been authorized is attached. For two projects for which the class 1 equivalency concept has been authorized the acreage base has been established at less than 160 acres of class 1 land. It is generally recognized that the productivity of irrigated lands varies directly with two major factors, climate and the inherent capability of the soil itself to produce under irrigation. The concept of equivalency is based on the fact that within any given project there is usually an appreciable range in the quality of the given lands that compose the irrigable area. Consequently, two 160acre parcels of land selected at random in a given project may exhibit a marked difference in the productive potential of the lands they in H.R. 1561 |