Senator MILLIKIN. Then there would be no hard in making that a provision of law, would there?

Mr. JORDAN. Well, it all depends upon how it is written up. Senator MILLIKIN. Well, I will agree with you, but assuming that it is well written. [Laughter.]

Assuming that it is well written, there would be no harm in it, would there?

Mr. JORDAN. Well, there are so many different versions of the program that have been so controversial in this program, that about threefourths of the flood-control bill has been on other things than flood control, that it's a question to me how you are going to rectify that program.

Senator BURTON. Well, I mean, Mr. Jordan, in your 11 years in the Ohio River Valley, you have not found the necessity or the need of it? Mr. JORDAN. Not at all. I have always found the Army have been fair and square in everything that they have ever done. Our organization has backed the Army 100 percent from the time we started until now, and we hope to go along with the Army engineers. We think that they are the greatest body of engineers in the world. Senator OVERTON. Thank you, Mr. Jordan.

(Mr. Jordan withdrew from the committee table.) Senator OVERTON. Mr. Hoyt Haddock.

STATEMENT OF HOYT HADDOCK, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, MARITIME COMMITTEE, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. HADDOCK. My name is Hoyt Haddock, legislative representative of the C. I. O. Maritime Committee, and I am appearing here, Mr. Chairman, for the National C. I. O.

L

At the outset, Mr. Chairman, and off the record, I would like to state that we have condensed our testimony. Originally we had a written statement on all phases of this bill, but being privileged to listen to most of the testimony that has gone on here I have been able by reference to cut out most of our testimony, and I will do that at the outset.

First, with respect to the so-called O'Mahoney amendments, we are in favor of the principle that all interested parties be given ample opportunity to consider any plans for flood control, navigation, irrigation, or reclamation. We feel, however, that the policy set forth in the amendment is restrictive, and, unless there is ample proof that the administrative procedures of the Reclamation and Army engineers with respect to consultation on these projects are lacking, that the policy should definitely not be adopted.

We are in favor of full and complete utilization and conservation reclamation projects; and tying it down and restricting it to just this policy, principle, so-called "stated policy," we are opposed to it. It needs very definite broadening out, giving the Federal Government or reaffirming the right which the Federal Government has in that regard, so as to make the most adequate use of our water

resources.

With respect to the Central Valley project, Mr. Chairman, we endorse completely the statement given by Mr. Jackson of the Fish and Wildlife Service and by Mr. Bashore of the Reclamation Service. With respect to the Missouri Valley project, Missouri Basin, we endorse completely the prepared statement given by the honorable Governor of South Dakota.

I am making these references in order to proceed with our prepared statement on them.

Senator OVERTON. That is Governor Sharpe?

Mr. HADDOCK. That is correct.

Senator OVERTON. Yes.

Mr. HADDOCK. I shall proceed with the one portion of the statement we feel that we must make.

The National C. I. O. in appearing before this subcommittee with regard to certain features of H. R. 4485 wishes to reaffirm the position taken in its testimony before the subcommittee considering the rivers and harbors bill. In that testimony we protested an amendment for the removal of the 160-acre limitation on lands reclaimed under the Central Valley project, and we are happy that the committee not only struck out that amendment but specifically provided for conformiy with the Federal reclamation laws on irrigation projects authorized by that bill. We wish to commend the committee for this action, which, we believe, will stimulate the cultivation of familysized farms in the Central Valley area and provide returning servicemen and demobilized war workers with an opportunity to secure a livelihood on the land.

We urge this committee to continue that policy with regard to all lands in the Central Valley area and to strike from H. R. 4485 the sections authorizing flood-control projects in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin under the supervision of the Chief of Engineers of the War Department. These are planned as multiple-purpose projects with irrigation and land reclamation playing such an important part in their value to the areas served that we believe they should be under the Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the Interior and subject to the reclamation laws. This would bring into operation the 160-acre limitation clause, which would not be applicable if the projects were under the jurisdiction of the War Department. It is our desire to see the entire Central Valley developed under the principle that Federal reclamation and the expenditure of public funds should result in the establishment of family-sized farms and should not contribute to land monopoly and land speculation.

This is the position taken by the California C. I. O. Council and various local councils throughout the State. Joined with them are the A. F. L. and the State and local granges.

In the report on H. R. 4485 made by the House Committee on Flood Control, the following statements appear:

On the Kern River project:

In the hearings of 1943 and 1944 on this bill and also in the hearings of 1941, the committee has given local interests full opportunity to express their views. The committee has also called the Commissioner of Reclamation and his representatives to testify regarding the Bureau's plans for the Kern River. Local interests have convinced the committee that there is urgent need for flood control on the Kern River and that protection can best be provided by the construction of the Isabella Dam for flood control with secondary benefits from

water conservation.

Local interests have been unanimous in their statements that they are willing and able to pay for the irrigation benefits received and that they desire that the project be constructed and operated by the Corps of Engineers, since its dominant purpose is flood control.

On the Kings River project:

The committee has heard extensive testimony from local interests and has questioned the Chief of Engineers and the Commissioner of Reclamation at length in hearings in 1941, 1943, and 1944. Local interests have all impressed the committee with the seriousness of the flood hazard and their desire that the proposed works be constructed as soon as possible. They are practically unanimous in their statements that the dominant interest in the project is flood control with irrigation of secondary consideration. Such irrigation benefits as would result would accrue to land now developed without bringing into production additional arid land. Local interests are so strongly in opposition to a project built under reclamation law that they have stated that rather than have the project built by the Bureau of Reclamation they prefer no Federal project at all.

We would like to point out that the local interests are far from unanimous since, as mentioned previously, the local granges, C. I. O. councils, and the A. F. L. are all in opposition.

In the 1941 hearings on these projects, Mr. Ralph Abel, representing the views of the Kern County Pomona Grange and the Kern County Central Labor Council, entered a strong protest against placing such projects in the hands of the War Department instead of the Department of Interior because of the irrigation features and power possibilities of these projects. In comparing the advocates of one agency against the other, Mr. Abel said:

I

There is a conflict of interests there and it is not a question of injustice one way or the other necessarily. It is a question of where our interests are in conflict with the interests of these other people. It is a question that these canal companies being controlled by-I will say all of them are controlled by— these two corporations, the Kern County Land Co. and the Miller & Lux Co. am not being unfair to anyone by saying there has been very considerable controversy over this last quarter of a century over the water rights and the distribution of the water and the method of distribution and the charges. We feel on the whole it is possible that revenues from the sale of electrical energy could be used to reduce that price.

And in stressing the need for Federal assistance in the area, he went on to say:

I would like to enter into the record some statistics. Our position there is very definitely one of irrigation and cheaper power. We have no reason for wanting otherwise because that is to our interests. And we certainly are in a position where we need that help. We are not a very plentiful or very rich county, but I would like to enter into the record here some statistics about our county. We have had an increase in the cultivated acres between 1935 and 1940 of better than 75 percent in the amount of acreage under cultivation. And the value of products have jumped from $17,000,000 to $32.000,0000 better than 80 percent. And in the United States census we have 423 less farmers than we had in 1935. We had an increase of 48 percent in population during that period, an increase of over 60 percent in the 10 years. We are in a position where we need all the help we can get.

The "local" interests who cry the great need for flood control on the one hand and on the other say they would rather have no project. at all than one under the Reclamation Bureau are typified by the spokesmen of the Kern County Land Co., owning 380,000 acres of which 40 to 50 thousand are under cultivation. The company is owned by 4,500 stockholders scattered all over the country, with the principal interest in the hands of a dozen people, who own about half

the stock, with the ownership largely nonresident. This company also owns a considerable number of the companies operating Kern River irrigation canals.

The large landowners have been trying ever since the reclamation laws went into effect to avoid the acreage limitation. Oregon and California delegates to the National Irrigation Congress of 1905 put forward arguments similar to those recently advanced that acreage limitation did not fit economic conditions in certain areas, that they should not be made to apply to private land, particularly land which would receive a supplemental water supply. They introduced a resolution for the repeal of the acreage limitation in the Reclamation Act. After full discussion, with other Californians leading the fight for the preservation of the acreage limitation clause, the resolution was overwhelmingly defeated.

The sole motivation behind present arguments that the Kern and Kings River projects are predominantly flood control in character is to prevent the application of the 160-acre limitation. As reported in Business Week of May 13, 1944, when hearings on the amendment to the Rivers and Harbors bill to remove the 160-acre limitation from the Central Valley projects were being held:

If the big landowners in the valley lose out in this particular fight, they have several other proposals to accomplish their end. One of them is a House bill which would authorize the Army to add irrigation and power development to its present navigation and flood-control powers. The legislation also would call for construction of a series of irrigation and power projects throughout the cuntry, especially in Central Valley. This would circumvent the 160-acre rule, since the Army is not bound by that restriction.

The local interests represented by such men as Mr. Abel, however, are perfectly straightforward in their continuing support of the provisions of the reclamation laws. They are the small farmers, members of local granges, and the townspeople who rarely get to the halls of Congress but who should certainly be taken into account when weighing the desires of the local interests involved.

The operation of the reclamation law does not impose undue hardships upon the large landowners. It is not confiscatory or punitive in character. As the Appropriations Committee stated in reporting the 1945 appropriation for the Interior Department to the Senate:

It (the reclamation law) does not require sudden or precipitate breaking up of real-estate holdings but, in an orderly and gradual way, it prevents land monopoly and speculation in benefits created by the expenditure of Federal funds. Most of all, it assures that there will be opportunities for men to secure farms and make homes and livelihood for themselves and their families without incurring a ruinous debt because of the wild gambling of land speculators.

The Appropriations Committee also found with regard to the Kings River project a difference of $5,040,000 between what the landowners would pay under operation by the Corps of Engineers and under the Reclamation Bureau. The increased revenue to the Government and the operation of the reclamation law caused the committee to state:

Under these circumstances, the committee is of the opinion that the Kings River project should be constructed as now authorized under the reclamation law.

A similar increase in revenue is forecasted in the Reclamation Bureau's interim report on the Kern River project.

Organized labor in California has seen the consequences of monopolistic land practices in the antilabor activities of such an organization as the Associated Farmers. This organization was shown by a Senate investigating committee to consist largely of a paper membership and to be financed by the large corporate interests in California, both industrial and agricultural. Local officials were drawn from the managers of such outfits as the Kern County Land Co., and strongarm squads were drawn from the employees of such companies. The C. I. Ô. does not want to see these groups reentrenched in any part of California, and it fears that allowing reclamation projects to operate outside the provisions of the Reclamation Act will tend to allow that to happen.

We do not feel that much can be gained from arguing percentagewise as to the division of the value of these projects between flood control and irrigation. It is obvious that the irrigation value will be substantial. What is important is the principle under which the Central Valley is to be developed through the expenditure of public funds. We believe that an orderly development under the terms of the reclamation laws and under the jurisdiction of one bureau offers tremendous possibilities for the prosperity and well-being of a great many individuals and the community as a whole. We believe Congress owes it to the servicemen and war workers of this country, many of whom look forward to settling down on a small farm capable of sustaining a family in comfort, to insure as far as possible the conditions under which their desires can be realized. We do not want to see them the victims of speculation on the part of large landowners. The breaking up of monopolistic land practices and the formation of family-sized farms could be an important factor in helping California solve the post-war problem inherent in the great influx of workers to her war plants.

We therefore urge this committee seriously to consider removing the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin projects from H. R. 4485.

We would like to make one other brief point before concluding testimony on the bill. Our organization, locally and nationally, stands for the public distribution of publicly generated power. We would like to see this bill amended to provide that any power generated from the projects authorized by the bill shall be turned over to the Secretary of the Interior who shall dispose of such power in a manner to encourage its most widespread use at the lowest possible rates to consumers consistent with sound business principles, with preference in the sale of such power given to public bodies and cooperatives. We greatly regret that the committee considering the rivers and harbors bill did not follow this principle but instead in the amendment to section 6 prohibited the Secretary of the Interior from constructing or acquiring any transmission lines which would be in direct or indirect competition with any existing company operating transmission lines for the sale of electric power.

Senator OVERTON. I thank you very much.

Mr. HADDOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator OVERTON. Any questions by members of the committee? Senator Millikin, any questions?

Senator MILLIKIN. No.

60479-44-41