opportunity to be able to dispose of their holdings in a block and for cash at the times when those holdings are needed for inclusion in the irrigated area.

These wheat ranchers operate dry-farmed units each of from 1,000 to 3,000 or more acres. They have buildings and equipment on the scale required for such operations. It would be unfair to them to require that they sell off all their land except 80 acres, piecemeal, an irrigation farm unit at a time, thus breaking up their wheat farms. To require them to do so would leave them with tens of thousands of dollars of useless machinery, and with buildings wholly inappropriate and hopelessly extravagant in their use of land when the farm was cut down to such a family-size tract of irrigated land as we plan here. At this point I want to express my admiration of the people of Washington for the public-spirited manner in which they always have dealt with regard to this project. These wheat farmers came to me. They said, "We are dry-land farmers. We are not irrigation farmers. We do not think that we want to become irrigation farmers. But we want our land included in the project because the project cannot be a success without it, and because we think that the project will be a good thing for the country. We will sell our land at the price at which the Government appraises it. But we want to sell it all at once. We don't want to have to go into the real-estate business. We want the Government to buy our farms at the appraised price and an entire farm at a time."

I considered their position and I agreed that to be fair with them I must assure them that they would not be forced to sell except the whole farm at once and for cash. Government purchase of this land is the best method of accomplishing this end. Purchase by the Government would serve many additional desirable purposes.

I want to say a word in appreciation, too, of the fine attitude of others. The Northern Pacific Railroad, which owns about 50,000 acres of this land, said right at the start, "We will sell no land except in accordance with the plan of the Bureau of Reclamation for settlement and development of the project." It was an entirely voluntary decision. The company has followed it so scrupulously, however, that it even sought in advance approval of the sale of a section of land for a municipal airport.

There is another feature of the bill which I want to discuss briefly. It is the provision that the Secretary of the Interior, in carrying out the land settlement and development plan shall prepare, in collaboration with the heads of interested Federal agencies and with representatives of the irrigation districts, a program of land acquisition, development, and settlement. This program will call upon other agencies to perform such work as they are qualified to perform, in view of their functions and facilities, and such as we are not already qualified to do. This will prevent the establishment of a number of new branches of the Bureau of Reclamation to do work which would duplicate work which an existing Federal agency is qualified to do by experience and with facilities on hand.

The joint investigations, organized by the Bureau of Reclamation through Harlan H. Barrows, planning consultant, and William E. Warne, Chief, Information Division, in 30 months have drawn into the planning of the settlement and development of the project experts from more than 50 agencies, Federal, State, and local. The study of the 28 problems included in the investigations and the basic engineering surveys which were keyed with them have furnished much

material for this bill, and will furnish much more for the program of land acquisition, settlement, and development and for the repayment

contracts.

I will now go through the bill section by section and explain and discuss it in more detail.

I now submit a section-by-section summary of the pending bill.

SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT ACT (H. R. 6522), AS INTRODUCED

The major characteristics of the bill have been summarized in the Secretary's report of January 30 and have also been touched on in my preceding statement, but I believe that a section-by-section explanation may also aid the committee in its consideration of the bill.

The first paragraph: This paragraph will have the effect of repealing the present antispeculation law, the act of May 27, 1937 (50 Stat. 208), in its entirety and substituting the provisions of the new bill.

The principal reasons for suggesting a complete substitution were these: (1) The existing provisions of law dealing with the landspeculation problems are not regarded as fully effective; (2) the burden of penalties for sales in excess of the appraised value under the existing law would have fallen, in the first instance, almost wholly on the purchaser, and as often as not he would have been without further practical remedy against his vendor, with the result that he whom the law was designed to protect would have had to bear the burden of the penalty; (3) the provisions of the existing law on the size of land holdings are regarded as too inflexible and not in keeping with what have since, as the result of a series of studies on the project, been concluded to be the desirable maximum size of unit for the support of a family at a suitable level of living. These provisions are the heart of the present law. Since drastic changes in each seems desirable and since additional important provisions in aid of development and settlement of the project are considered desirable also, it was concluded best to recommend a complete restatement of all of the present statute.

Section 1: This section will designate the project as to Columbia Basin project, the name by which it has been popularly known for several years. It also will serve to make clear that, in addition to the act of August 30, 1935, the project is within the scope of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939. In this latter respect, the provision is only confirmatory of what is regarded as the correct interpretation of the law.

Section 2: This section, similar to the first paragraph of section 1 of the May 27, 1937, act, will require the accomplishment of certain things as conditions to the expenditure of funds on the irrigation features of the project, exclusive of Grand Coulee Dam and appurtenant works now under construction, and of the pumping plant and equalizing reservoir and dams.

These conditions are: (1) Appraisal of all land in the project area on the basis provided in section 2 (a); (2) the making of repayment contracts with water users, represented by irrigation, reclamation, or conservancy districts, as the case may be, with certain provisions required to be incorporated in these contracts. The principal purposes to be served by the appraisal and the provisions required to be inserted in the repayment contracts are those of controlling the size and make-up of farm units in the project area, and of controlling or preventing speculation in lands to be benefited by the project.

The required contract provisions, through which the principal purposes above stated are to be accomplished, are set out in subdivisions (i) through (v) of section 2 (b).

Subdivision (i) will require that, as a condition to the delivery of water within a given irrigation block, the Secretary shall have established the size and boundaries of farm units in that block. The standard to be followed in establishing the farm units is that of the area that will support an average-sized family at a suitable level of living. It will also require that the Secretary refuse to deliver water from the project works to lands not conforming in area and boundaries to the established farm units, subject to certain exceptions appearing in the provisos of the second paragraph of the subdivision. The subdivision also defines a number of terms used frequently in the act, including a definition of the area of the project.

Subdivision (ii) will establish the maximum (160 acres) and minimum (10 acres) size for farm units, but also provides that the Secretary may establish part-time farming units of less than 10 acres.

Subdivision (iii) will establish the procedure leading to the final fixing of the farm units. Provision is made to give the landowners affected an opportunity to conform their lands to the proposed farm units in the most practicable way, with some latitude in the Secretary for the revision of farm-unit plats from time to time as conditions require.

Subdivision (iv) is the heart of the antispeculation features of the bill. In substance, this will require that, as a condition to receiving water from the project works, every landowner execute, within a limited period of time, a recordable contract covering his lands in the project that will bind himself and his successors in title as follows: (a) To conform his holdings to the established farm units;

(b) By an irrevocable power of attorney authorizing the Secretary to sell lands held in excess of the statutory maxima at the appraised price and by an option running to the United States for the purchase of these excess lands at that price;

(c) From the date of the contract and for a period of 10 years from the time water becomes available to his land, to convey the land whether excess or nonexcess (if a conveyance is made), at not to exceed the appraised prices, and, in connection with any conveyance or contract to convey, to file an affidavit setting out the terms of the conveyance and the consideration therefor;

(d) By subjecting the right of his land to receive water from the project works to cancelation by the Secretary within a limited period of time in the event the lands are conveyed in violation of the contract provisions or in the event the required affidavits in connection with conveyances are not filed;

(e) By making available to the grantee or vendee, in the case of a conveyance or contract to purchase any of such lands in excess of their appraised value, certain civil remedies and certain civil defenses. These are more fully summarized in connection with section 3 (c). The last paragraph of subdivision (iv) is intended to permit the drafting of these recordable contracts in a manner such that all or any of the provisions required to be incorporated in them will operate as covenants running with the land binding subsequent holders of title. Only in this fashion can the antispeculation features of the statute be made fully effective.

In connection with powers of attorney and options discussed above under this subdivision (iv), it is our view that land, once excess, while

being held by one whose total holdings do not exceed the acreage limitations provided in the bill, would continue to be subject to a given power and option but that neither would be exercisable unless and until the total holdings of that owner exceeded the acreage limitations fixed in the bill.

Subdivision (v) permits inclusion in the repayment contract of a requirement of assessments against lands within a district under certain conditions, regardless of whether the owners have executed the recordable contracts provided for in subdivision (iv). The subdivision also permits the withdrawal of lands from a given district, provided the withdrawal is effected before that district's electors vote on the contract between the district and the United States. So that this privilege will be exercised with restraint, it is provided that the lands withdrawn shall not while remaining in private ownership be entitled to receive water. It should be noted, also, that if sizable areas were withdrawn these could be acquired by the United States under section 4 and brought back within the project on the same basis as other lands.

Section 3: This section provides in subsections (a) and (b) for the imposition of certain criminal penalties in aid of the enforcement of the antispeculation features of the bill. These are provisions which will be enforceable as to a given tract of land, from the date of the recordable contract in cases under subsection (a), or from the date of the act in cases under subsection (b), and until 10 years from the time water is available therefor; that is, during the period when protection against speculation is most needed.

Subsection (c) of this section is designed to give one who has purchased or agreed to purchase land at a consideration in excess of its appraised value certain civil remedies against the vendor and, in some cases, against the vendor's assigns, if any. These remedies would be available only in the case of transactions occurring between the dates of the recordable contract and a date within 10 years from the time water becomes available to the land in question. In substance the remedies available are these: That the vendee or grantee who has purchased or contracted to purchase land for a consideration in excess of the appraised values may either rescind the transaction, on making the vendor whole, or may proceed with the transaction but with the payment made, or yet to be made, under a contract adjusted to 75 percent of the appraised value. (See discussion of suggested amendment to provide for adjustment on the basis of the full appraised value, rather than 75 percent of this value.) It is through these provisions that the real benefits of the antispeculation features of the bill are made available to those who ought to be protected by the bill-the purchasers who have an honest intention of remaining on the land.

Section 4: This section has two main purposes: (1) The granting of authority for programs in aid of the development and settlement of the project area which, but for this authority, could not be undertaken; (2) the setting up of a procedure whereby the several agencies of the Government qualified to undertake various parts of these programs can participate in them. These grants of authority appear in the provisions of subsections (a) to (c), inclusive.

Subsection (a) provides: (1) Authority to disseminate information. This is regarded as an important authority in the prevention of speculation, and in securing the best type of settlers.

(2) A general authority for the acquisition of lands within or without the project area. This authority is needed, among other purposes.

to provide a means of conforming the large land holdings in the project area to the established farm units, and as an aid to present large landowners in the reduction of their holdings with the minimum of difficulty.

(3) That the Federal Government may undertake the task of clearing, leveling, and preparing land in the project area for the handling of irrigation water. Repayment of these costs might be arranged on an individual basis or through districts or both.

(4) That the Government lands in the project area, public or acquired may be sold or leased. This authority, used in conjunction with that noted in (2) above, will be the principal instrument in project settlement.

(5) That the Federal Government, on an experimental basis in connection with the first three irrigation blocks, may construct buildings, fences, and wells and may make, subject to certain limitations as to average amount per farm unit, loans to finance the operations of settlers during the development period. Repayment of these, unlike those noted in (3) above, would be only on an individual basis.

Subsection (b) provides for the laying out of town sites (with certain incidental authorities), parks and recreational areas both urban and rural, and dry farming or grazing units of lands not suited to irrigation.

Subsection (c) will provide the basis on which lands may be sold or leased for purposes of irrigation farming and for other purposes. In general, sales contracts for irrigation purposes are to require repayment in not to exceed 40 years with interest at not less than 3 percent per annum. Like limitations will govern loans to settlers under section 4 (a), and leases for irrigation purposes are to be on a basis that will give comparable returns. Applicants for the purchase of land for irrigation farming would be selected on the basis of their qualifications in the same manner as provided in subsection C of section 4 of the act of December 5, 1924. Reference to other provisions of the Federal reclamation law dealing with the subject of selection of entrymen on public lands was purposely avoided because some difficult problems of interpretation would result from a legislative requirement that those other provisions be followed in solving the special problems on the project. Some of the other provisions appear in the act of August 7, 1939 (53 Stat. 1238), as extended, and in the Interior Department Appropriation Act of 1941 in the last paragraph under the heading "Bureau of Reclamation" (54 Stat. 406, 439). Certain land settlement policies authorized by the provisions of these two statutes will undoubtedly prove to be useful in reaching the general objectives sought to be achieved in the development of the Columbia Basin project through the proposed bill, but it is not believed that it would be possible to follow the provisions literally without running into considerable conflict. However, it is our view that the omission of reference to these provisions does not mean that the Secretary will be precluded from adopting for the Columbia Basin project some of the policies reflected in those statutes. For example, it is believed that his authority to make regulations under subsection C of section 4 of the act of December 5, 1924, is broad enough to permit the consideration of Federal loans in whole or in part as a satisfaction of the requirement of capital as to a given purchaser's qualifications. Again, it