problem was before us rather than the Public Lands Committee, which has to do with those problems having to do with supplying water for that.

Mr. NORRELL. Because this is a flood-control project.

You not only have a flood-control project down here, Mr. Chairman, but in taking this water out of White River you lessen the floods south of there and you bring that water in here you bottle it up in reservoirs. Everything about it is flood control, Mr. Chairman; it is not reclamation.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very, very much. We will go back in session at 10 minutes after 2.

(Whereupon, at 1: 15 p. m., the committee recessed.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. DAVIS. The committee will come to order.

Mr. LARCADE. Mr. Chairman, I ask permission to insert following my testimony this morning a statement of Edwin E. Willis, my colleague from Louisiana.

Mr. DAVIS. That will be done. Will the gentleman representing the Department of the Interior come around?

The CHAIRMAN. In this connection, the Department of the Interior submitted a report on this bill and I assume that it will be in order for that to be inserted at this point in the record. Is that correct, Mr. Nelson?

GRAND PRAIRIE-BAYOU METO PROJECT

STATEMENT OF WESLEY R. NELSON, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. NELSON. That will be acceptable to me.

The CHAIRMAN. That will save some of your time because we have it before us. I shall pass this report to the clerk, Mr. Chairman, and that is available to the committee and he will tell the substance of his statement.

(The report referred to is as follows:)

Hon. WILLIAM M. WHITTINGTON,

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington 25, D. C., May 19, 1949.

Chairman, Committee on Public Works,

House of Representatives.

MY DEAR MR. WHITTINGTON: Your committee has asked for my views on H. R. 4294, a bill "amending the act approved May 15, 1928, for flood control and improvement of the lower Mississippi River in its alluvial valley by including the construction of certain works of improvement in the Grand Prairie Bayou Meto area, Arkansas.

I oppose enactment of this bill in its present form. However, if the bill is amended so as to be consistent with established national policy, as hereinafter suggested, I would favor its enactment as a means of securing desirable development in the State of Arkansas.

H. R. 4294 would authorize, in accordance with the report of the Chief of Engineers, the construction of a Federal reclamation project by the Corps of Engineers with provision for the administrative of certain repayment functions to be vested in the Department of Agriculture. The principle part of the project consists of works for provision of water supplies for irrigation to about 190,000 acres of land in the Grand Prairie area in Arkansas. Water supplies for this

irrigation would be made available by diverting and pumping the waters of White River, the flow of which will be regulated by the flood-control reservoirs of the authorized White River flood-control project. From the pumping plant, the waters would be conveyed through a 28-mile main canal to the project area, and delivered through 150 miles of main lateral canals and 160 miles of smaller canals, to the project lands.

My objections stem from two primary considerations. First, the report of the Chief of Engineers makes no provision for applying to the proposed project the standards and requirements of long-established Reclamation law. On the contrary, an entirely new Federal reclamation policy inconsistent with existent practice would be inaugurated. The basis by which the repayment would be computed bears no relation to standards authorized by the Congress in the Federal reclamation laws. The proposed repayment and regulatory provisions are completely different from those applied to Federal Irrigation projects in the Western States. Such differential is indefensible from the standpoint of equity and inexcusable from the standpoint of national policy.

It

This position is defended, however, by questioning whether the features of reclamation law designed for the West should be applied to an improvement in a long-developed area, with lands now in private ownership and devoted largely to a type of agriculture peculiar to humid regions. This agreement ignores the fact that over half of the lands in Federal irrigation projects are long-developed improvements in private ownership that are being supplied with full or supplemental water services. It attempts to differentiate between irrigation in the East and irrigation in the West, when no basis for differentiation exists. Irrigation is irrigation, wherever practiced, and fundamentally is a means of increasing land productvity through the artificial application of water. The proposed project provides for the irrigation of crops now dry-farmed. provides for the irrigation of lands not currently irrigated. Finally, the irrigation of rice, which is one of the principal agricultural pursuits in the Grand Prairie area, is not peculiar to humid areas, as it is practiced extensively in certain western areas, particularly the Central Valley of California where as much as 250,000 acres of rice are irrigated from the Sacramento and San Joaquin River systems in 1 year. I can find no valid reason to support the contention that the Grand Prairie project is a special case which makes it inappropriate for coverage under reclamation law. In its essence it is a normal reclamation project with problems and conditions quite consistent with those throughout the West.

Second, duplication of Federal agency responsibilities and activities would be a direct result of authorization of the Grand Prairie project as provided by H. R. 4294. Instead of Federal irrigation programs being under the jurisdiction of the Federal agency established for this purpose, the responsibility for such programs would be divided among three agencies operating under divergent Federal policies. Further, the opportunity would be created for local interests to bargain among the agencies concerned in an effort to obtain better terms and a completely unworkable situation from an administrative standpoint would result with the agencies competing among themselves for the favor of the local interests.

There is ample legal basis for applying Federal reclamation law to projects such as that proposed for the Grand Prairie region. It was to cover just such situations that the Congress enacted section 8 of the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944, which provides, in effect, that dams and reservoirs operated under the direction of the Secretary of the Army may be used for irrigation purposes only in accordance with the Federal reclamation laws. The amendment hereinafter suggested constitutes in effect merely a restatement of existing law and is desirable only in order to avoid misunderstanding by the locality concerned.

It is my opinion that authorization of this project as proposed could have no other effect than to weaken the entire Federal reclamation program through the undermining of long-established reclamation policies and the dissemination of Federal responsibility for Federal irrigation development to three agencies rather than continuing the present effective administration of Federal reclamation programs by one agency.

I concur that the irrigation features of the Grand Prairie project are desirable and that they might be developed appropriately by the Federal Government. However, should the Congress provide for the construction of this project, I believe strongly that the construction, operation, and administration of the irrigation features should be by and under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of

Reclamation, the agency traditionally assigned this responsibility by the Congress, and that such development should be subject to the provisions of reclamation law, all as provided for in section 8 of the Flood Control Act of 1944. Accordingly, I recommend that H. R. 4294, be amended by inserting a colon after the word "accordingly," in line 3, page 2, of the bill. together with a proviso reading as follows: "Provided, That the irrigation features of said project shall be governed by the Federal reclamation laws and shall be constructed, operated and maintained by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to said laws; and that there are hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. such sums as may be required by the Secretary of the Interior for said purposes."

In view of your urgent request for an immediate report, there has not been time for the usual clearance with the Bureau of the Budget. Accordingly, I cannot advise regarding the relationship of the proposed legislation or of the views herein expressed to the President's program.

Sincerely yours,

J. A. KRUG, Secretary of the Interior.

Mr. NELSON. I have some copies of the statement I am going to make, and the exhibits are attached thereto. If you would like, we can pass them out to the members of the committee so you can follow what I have to say more closely.

The CHAIRMAN. You will file that with the chairman, and he will give us the high points, because it is not necessary to go into all that detail. You understand, we do not have the report of the chief engineers before us. We have just the high points presented to us.

Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir; and my statement will take only 10 minutes with the exception of any questions. I am just highlighting the whole thing.

The CHAIRMAN. You may go right ahead.

Mr. NELSON. The Department of the Interior is in favor of irrigation improvements of the type proposed for the Grand Prairie-Bayou Meto project area. We oppose authorization of the project in the form presented by the Corps of Engineers. However, if the bill is appropriately amended to be consistent with national policy, the Department would favor its enactment as a means of securing desirable development in Arkansas.

The primary purpose of the proposed project is to secure authorization for a Federal irrigation project to irrigate some 190,000 acres of land.

The Corps of Engineers proposes that construction of the physical works be undertaken by that agency instead of by the agency of the Government which for nearly half a century has been responsible for Federal irrigation construction. That this is an invasion of the irrigation field is clearly recognized by the public as evidenced by the newspaper account in the Arkansas-Democrat on December 20, 1948, which headlines an article, as follows: "Engineers Will Set Precedent." The article goes on to state [reading]:

STUTTGART, December 14.-United States engineers will recommend tomorrow, for the first time in their history, that they expand their activities to the field of irrigation.

The Army report provides further that arrangements for repayment of reimbursable costs to the United States would be by the Department of Agriculture instead of through the Bureau of Reclamation which has historically been responsible for such matters for Federal irrigation projects. In his letter of April 26, 1949, to the Honorable Frank Pace, Jr., Director of the Bureau of the Budget, the

Chief of Engineers states that the Secretary of Agriculture has expressed his willingness to undertake the determination of repayment ability of local farmers and the collection of repayment obligations. The Department of Agriculture has no general authority to perform these functions in connection with Federal irrigation projects and has no organization experienced in or already established to handle such matters. I will not discuss this question further, Mr. Chairman, unless you desire, but to save the time of the committee and with your permission, I will insert in the record a brief statement further expanding upon this point.

(The exhibit referred to is as follows:)

EXHIBIT A

The Reclamation Project Act of 1939 specifically assigns to the Secretary of the Interior the determination of the part of the estimated cost of a project which can properly be allocated to irrigation and probably be repaid by the water users, and for the making of necessary recordable contracts in behalf of the United States for the repayment of such costs. That act defines the term "repayment contract" as meaning "any contract providing for payment of construction charges to the United States."

The Water Facilities Act under which the Department of Agriculture does very small, on-farm types of water improvements limits financial assistance for that type of work to $50,000. Consideration is being given to doubling this figure because of increased construction costs. The water-facilities program is administered by the Farmers Home Administration of the Department of Agriculture to give financial assistance to individual farmers and small groups of farmers in the construction and maintenance of farm ponds and small reservoirs, wells, check dams, small pumping installations, and similar farm and ranch facilities primarily for domestic and livestock water and for small irrigation developments, in accordance with the purposes described in the PopeJones Act (50 Stat. 869), and which would not be of a character such as to be undertaken by the Bureau of Reclamation in this Department in connection with its small projects' program. The Department of Agriculture's work in these fields would not conflict with that of the Bureau of Reclamation and would not require duplication in the Farmers Home Administration of the technical and administrative staff of the Bureau of Reclamation.

The Water Conservation and Utilization Act of 1939 and 1941 did provide a basis for relatively small relief-type projects to be developed jointly by the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Reclamation. This act relied primarily upon the subsidy of free or relatively free labor through the Works Project Administration or the Civilian Conservation Corps, or other relief organizations, and subsequently on nonreimbursable expenditures for War Food program purposes. With the passing of such relief organizations, and of the war emergency, the act has become inoperative and no more projects are being constructed under its authorization. Projects already authorized under it, where appropriate, are being reauthorized under the regular reclamation law, and the irrigation operations of the Department of Agriculture on those projects have been returned to the Bureau of Reclamation.

The Commission on Organization of the executive branch of the Government (the Hoover Commission) has given serious consideration to the problem and has recognized that reclamation projects serve many purposes of which irrigation is only one. Such projects provide also municipal and industrial water supplies, power supplies, flood control, and recreation, benefits to navigation, and a host of others. The report of the Natural Resources Task Committee states: "The committee is of the opinion that it would be a mistake to transfer to the Department of Agriculture the responsibility for the final administrative determination of the agricultural feasibility of water projects or for providing the special services necessary to settle the lands and insure the repayments." Since the Commission did not recommend the transfer of those responsibilities to the Department of Agriculture, it is apparent that the Commission followed the wisdom expressed by the advice from its task committee, and recognized the validity of the underlying reasons for its recommendation.

Mr. NELSON. The repayment and regulatory provisions are completely different from those applied to other Federal irrigation projects in the Western States. Such differentiation is indefensible from the standpoint of equity between the respective areas and inexcusable from the standpoint of national policy. What the Secretary of Agriture's policy is to be is apparently left to him rather than to the Congress except that the report would permit the novel arrangement of collecting repayment either in cash or in crops. Again with your permission I will save your time on this point by insertion in the record of a letter dated January 21, 1949, from our regional director who is concerned with this area.

(The exhibit referred to is as follows:)

EXHIBIT B

JANUARY 21, 1949.

To: Commissioner.

From: Regional director.

Subject: Corps of Engineers report on Bayou Meto and Grand Prairie region, Arkansas.

1. Reference is made to the following, copies of which have been or are herewith forwarded to you:

(a) Our recent telephone conversations with your office regarding our concern as to the Corps intent to obtain authority to act in the field of irrigation and drainage through their reports on the St. Francis River Basin and the subject

area.

(b) Letter from Vicksburg district engineer, dated December 29, 1948, transmitting copy of Corps of Engineers report on subject area for use of this office in our Arkansas River Basin investigations, copy of which is attached.

(c) Our letter to you dated December 6, 1948, same subject.

(d) Our letter of November 26, 1948, to Vicksburg district engineer requesting data furnished under (a) above.

(e) Letter of your office to me dated May 21, 1948, subject: "Cooperation with Corps of Engineers on investigation of irrigation and flood-control requirements in the Grand Prairie region and the Bayou Meto Basin, Ark."

(f) Our letter to you dated May 5, 1948, same subject as (e).

(g) Letter Vicksburg district engineer dated April 19, 1948, declining our suggested cooperation on subject investigations (reference h below).

(h) Our letter to Vicksburg district engineer advising him of our desire to cooperate in subject investigations in accordance with intent of 1944 flood-control law because of our responsibility for irrigation and reclamation developments.

2. As indicated by reference (b) above, this office has received from the Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg district, for information only, a copy of the Vicksburg district engineers' report, together with the report of the Mississippi River Commission, on the Grand Prairie region and Bayou Meto Basin, Ark., dated July 1, 1948. Editorial and other press comment in Arkansas newspapers subsequent to release of the report by the Chief of Engineers referred to the proposed project as the initial venture of the Corps of Engineers into the field of irrigation on a reimbursable basis, and pointed out the corps' apparent preemption of a function normally discharged by the Bureau of Reclamation. It appears that the corps intends to process the report through such channels as to exclude the Bureau from making comments thereon at field or regional level. Accordingly, we are transmitting herewith our observations and comments on the report and its significance in the relations between the corps and the Bureau, and between the Bureau and the public.

3. In compliance with a resolution of the Committee on Flood Control of the House of Representatives, adopted December 18, 1945, the report presents results of investigations in the Bayou Meto-Grand Prairie area, Arkansas, and recommends construction of flood-control and drainage improvements and irrigation facilities at a total initial cost of $26,280,000, which is broken down into items as indicated in the following table:

92329-49 ---55