Smith, Chairman of the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, to give a special rule for the consideration of S. 4123.

We believe the proposed legislation is very much needed, as farm relief will prove a direct and immediate aid to the large number of farmers who are living on drainage, levee, water and other improvement districts.

We favor the passage of this legislation before the adjournment of Congress.

SAM B. HILL,
JOHN F. MILLER,
JOHN W. SUMMERS,
LINDLEY H. HADLEY,

PETITION OF REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN IN BEHALF OF S. 4123

Hon. BERTRAND H. SNELL,

Chairman Committee on Rules, House of Representatives.

MY DEAR MR. SNELL: The undersigned members of Congress respectfully request a hearing before the Rules Committee on H. Res. 330, introduced by Mr. Smith, Chairman of the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, to give a special rule for the consideration of S. 4123.

We believe the proposed legislation is very much needed, as farm relief will prove a direct and immediate aid to the large number of farmers who are living on drainage, levee, water and other improvement districts.

We favor the passage of this legislation before the adjournment of Congress. Very truly yours,

HUBERT H. PEAVEY,
JAMES A. FREAR,
GEO. J. SCHNEIDER.

(Thereupon, at 12 o'clock noon the committee adjourned until to-morrow, Wednesday, January 28, 1931, at 10.30 a. m.)

FLOOD CONTROL, DRAINAGE, LEVEE DISTRICTS

THURSDAY, JANUARY 29, 1931

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON RULES,
Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Bertrand H. Snell (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. Mr. French desires to be heard briefly at this time because he has another committee hearing.

STATEMENT OF HON. BURTON L. FRENCH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Mr. FRENCH. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I appreciate your courtesy in allowing me to say a word at this time.

My colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Irrigation. Mr. Smith, has presented the reasons quite in detail as to why we hope it may be possible for the Committee on Rules to recommend the adoption of the rule permitting the House to take up the bill, Senate 4123, which will permit the making of loans to drainage districts, and so forth.

This is a subject of tremendous and wide interest. It has merit within itself from the broad standpoint of drainage and, in addition to that, it has particular merit at this time from the standpoint of the economic problem that confronts our country, from the standpoint of employment, and from the standpoint of the welfare of many owners of land whose lands are not serving the economic purpose that they ought to serve.

As I said, my colleague and others are going into the details of the question, but I have wanted to indicate my favorable thought on the rule before going to another hearing which I am conducting. Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I will ask Mr. Montet, of Louisiana, to address the committee.

STATEMENT OF HON. NUMA F. MONTET, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

The CHAIRMAN. We will be very glad to hear you, Mr. Montet. Mr. MONTET. Mr. Chairman, I shall try as best I can not to repeat arguments heretofore advanced but I do want to answer some of the propositions advanced by different members of your committee. For instance, there is the question of benefits to be derived by bondholders under the terms of this legislation. I am a member

37184-31-4

47

of the committee from which this bill emanates, and I want to frankly state that in my opinion every member of that committee had but one thought in mind, and that was to relieve that great mass of farmers who find themselves in distress in irrigation and drainage districts by reason of their excessive drainage and irrigation bond assessments.

The possible benefits to be derived by bondholders are merely incidental; not that I do not think they should be considered, for they are part and parcel of the make-up of this country. Bondholders are entitled to some consideration, but the primary and main consideration has been to keep these hundreds of thousands of farmers on the farms where they belong. The idea is to further help stabilize agriculture.

That is the main thought behind this legislation, and practically the sole thought in the minds of every member of that committee. The hearings, of course, had greater reference to drainage than to irrigation districts because this measure started as a drainage relief program.

The main reason why I took kindly to the thought of including irrigation projects other than Federal projects, was because the problems of the farmers in the irrigation districts are similar in nature to those of the farmers in drainage districts.

In the country where I live we have no irrigation districts, but there is not one single acre of tillable soil in my district that is not within some drainage district. Very few of them are in distress; the great bulk of them can find a way out of their own problems and meet their annual tax payments, and keep up their interest and principal payments on their bonds.

There are some in my district, however, and throughout the whole Mississippi Valley as well, principally along the main stem of the river, where the drainage taxes are so high that the people are absolutely unable to meet them, and the problem of those people differs in my opinion from the problem of the average farmer, in this respect:

The farmer in the drainage district has the same problems to meet as the farmer who does not need drainage relief, or whose lands are not within the drainage district, but the farmer in a district has the additional problem of taking care of his drainage and irrigation.

The CHAIRMAN. Does he not also have added improvements and other things that make his land better than the land outside?

Mr. MONTET. It does not make it more valuable; it makes it less valuable in my opinion, for this reason: All of those lands are burdened with drainage taxes, and farmers are very reluctant to go within drainage districts and buy land which would produce probably no more farm commodities than lands outside of the district can produce.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the first time I have heard the statement that these lands were not better than the lands outside.

Mr. MONTET. They are not necessarily better. The fact is, the the farmers in the drainage districts are no more prosperous than those outside.

Mr. MICHENER. You are speaking of two things, and I think you gentlemen are both right.

In reference to the irrigation projects no one would controvert what you say, but a drainage district is entirely another proposition. In the drainage district you have to keep the water off of your lands, and in irrigation districts you put it on, and have it wherever you want it.

The CHAIRMAN. That is true; but if you have lands where you keep it off, are not those lands more valuable than the ones outside that do not have the improvements?

Mr. MONTET. They do not have the improvements, that is true, but most of the drainage districts have been established in what is called flat country, principally along the main stem of the Mississippi River. From the information I have in hand, fully 85 to 90 per cent of the lands along the main stem of the Mississippi River are within drainage districts, and if you did not have drainage districts to properly drain this land it would not be necessary for the Federal Government and the State government to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build roads; you would not have communities there that could even support schools, because the people along the main stem have the drainage problems ever present on account of the nature of the land.

It is a flat country and the water must be taken off to make the land tillable and to make the country sanitary and habitable.

The problems of the irrigation districts are to place water on the land, but they also have their drainage problems, to remove their surplus water.

For that reason, and for that reason alone, I felt when the problems of the irrigation districts were brought to the attention of our committee, and distress being shown in many of the private irrigation projects in the West, that it was only just that they be also included in this proposed legislation along with the drainage districts.

This bill is primarily for the assistance of drainage and irrigation districts in distress. It is not intended by any means that the Government should come to the rescue of people who need no rescue.

The reason why our committee heard from only 10 or 12 per cent of the drainage districts in this country most probably was because that number represents the districts in distress.

You may say that it would be unfair to help one district, while another adjoining district would receive no help and that the latter district would thereby have a just cause to complain; that this legislation is discriminatory.

I can not see that because the district adjoining the one in distress may be able to take care of its own problems. The people there may be sufficiently prosperous to pay their taxes. It would be a matter for the Secretary of the Interior, through his machinery, to determine, whether there was any real distress in any particular drainage or irrigation district.

The CHAIRMAN. Is this bill confined entirely to the distressed districts?

Mr. MONTET. The whole tenor of the bill is for such relief only. The CHAIRMAN. Is it confined to that class?

Mr. MONTET. When the word "relief" is used it seems to me that that leaves an undeniable designation as to what your kind of districts would be entitled to ask for assistance.