THE COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT ACT

FRIDAY, MARCH 6, 1942

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION,

Washington, D. C.

The committee this day met at 10:30 a. m., Hon. Compton I. White, chairman, presiding, for further consideration of H. R. 6522. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please be in order.

Since the pending bill has to do principally, if not wholly, with the State of Washington, I want to ask Mr. James A. Ford, of the Spokane, Wash., Chamber of Commerce, whether anybody is in charge of a plan for hearing the witnesses from the State of Washington.

Mr. FORD. Mr. Edward Davis, director of the department of conservation and development of the State of Washington and a member of the Governor's cabinet of that State, is here to speak officially for the Governor. His particular department has charge of all agricultural reclamation matters of the State of Washington. He is here and has been present since your hearings opened. He is late this morning, but he will be here soon. He is probably the only witness to be heard from the State of Washington. I myself have no desire to be heard.

Ben H. Kizer, chairman of the Washington State Planning Board, was here yesterday, but he has left for New York, and therefore I do not believe he will appear.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that there has been an agreement concerning the provision of certain amendments to this bill. Do those amendments take care of the situation from the standpoint of the State of Washington?

Mr. FORD. I have no right to speak officially for the State of Washington, since that will be done by Senator Davis. I know the situation, however, and I shall be glad to relate it to you.

The CHAIRMAN. We shall be glad to have you do so.

Mr. FORD. I have been connected with the Spokane Chamber of Commerce for 26 years.

The situation is this: When this bill was prepared a copy was sent out, broadcast among all concerned, and there was some slight difference among the landowners, the people that are in the irrigation districts, and owners of the property affected, as to certain provisions of the bill. I think those differences may properly be called minor ones. Mr. Fred F. Cunningham, who is attorney for all three irrigation districts, unfortunately, could not come here in person, therefore I have tried to help out more or less as a messenger boy and telegraph operator in getting messages between the Bureau of Reclamation here, Mr. Cunningham as the legal representative of these three irrigation

districts, and others concerned, including the district directors. After an exchange of correspondence they have agreed among themselves on certain changes or amendments which I presume Mr. Stinson or Mr. Warne will offer.

Senator Davis will speak for himself, as a representative of the State of Washington, but I know that those amendments are satisfactory to the State of Washington.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Do you tell us that the bill is agreeable and satisfactory to the State of Washington?

Mr. FORD. Yes; it is satisfactory with the amendments. The Bureau of Reclamation here in Washington and the State of Washington are in complete accord and agreement with the bill when it contains the amendments. I am, though, as I have suggested before, speaking without official authority from Senator Davis.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Have you people out there had considerable to do with the drafting of H. R. 6522; have the people in the district affected participated in the drafting of the bill?

Mr. FORD. Yes. The Reclamation Bureau submitted suggested tentative outlines and they went to the directors of the irrigation districts. Meetings were held and attended by the landowners and their representatives in the three districts. The directors, with their attorney, were called into conference and this whole matter was gone over most thoroughly. The directors gave Mr. Page, Chief of the Bureau of Reclamation, their ideas of changes, and thereafter Mr. Page came back with this draft. This draft was sent out to the districts, circulated among the landowners of the three irrigation districts, through their attorney, all having the same attorney, and thereafter certain changes have been agreed upon between the landowners, acting through, as I have said, their attorney, and the Bureau of Reclamation here.

Mr. ROBERTSON. As I understand, those in the area affected have accepted this bill with the proposed amendments.

Mr. FORD. Yes; the bill, with the amendments, is satisfactory to the State of Washington.

Senator Davis will be here, however, and he will make his own statement. I am sure he will verify exactly what I have said.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH H. SMART, FARM SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION

The CHAIRMAN. If it is agreeable, the committee will now hear a representative of the Farm Security Administration, Mr. Joseph H. Smart, Assistant Director of the Resettlement Division of the Farm Security Administration.

Mr. SMART. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Mr. Baldwin, our Administrator, had hoped to be here, but he is unable to do so and will not be able to do so for some days to come. has asked me to come here and help in any way I can.

He

The CHAIRMAN. Can you speak for the Farm Security Administration, answering questions as to the general principles and application of this bill and the policies of your Administration in connection with it?

Mr. SMART. I think so.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will recognize members in turn. The first one to question is Mr. Murdock.

Mr. MURDOCK. I should like to ask the witness about how much of the area in the Columbia Basin project may be made available for colonization of farmers who come there from other regions or have been dispossessed and may be eligible for settlement there.

Mr. SMART. It is my understanding that practically the entire area of the Columbia Basin project is very sparsely settled. The joint committee that investigated the project has worked up detailed information that goes into the question you ask specifically. Our representatives have participated in that investigation. There is no detailed plan as to what area or areas those who may settle upon the land may come from.

Mr. MURDOCK. Is it not true that there will be far more applicants among, say, the better class of migrants who are sound people, or in advance of them ex-service men, than there will be land available for such ex-service men or migratory farmers? In other words, there will not be nearly enough land to go around, as I understand. Mr. SMART. I am sure that is correct.

Mr. MURDOCK. Has your experience been that there has been very many more applicants than there was land available for them? Mr. SMART. I believe that, generally, is true.

Mr. MUREOCK. You have a feeling, of course, that any successful irrigation project, be it large or small, must depend upon reliable farmers who do not look upon such a matter as this as one of charity in any sense, have you? Among so many land-hungry people you can always find plenty of reliable farmers?

Mr. SMART. That is true. Our experience in the Farm Security Administration, which has handled several projects, emphasizes the necessity for a very careful selective policy in connection with those who may settle upon a project. We have always opposed the giving of special advantages to those of the shiftless type.

Mr. MURDOCK. Has it been your policy that you must have a good, accurate, selective system, requiring a showing of background and success, before you recognize an applicant as being eligible to participate in such a benefit?

Mr. SMART. That is true.

Mr. MURDOCK. During our discussions here the last 3 days we have listened to contrasts between the character of the great reclamation work of today compared with such work in our past history. I want to make this statement in order to reveal my thought in this connection: Irrigation and reclamation in our country since 1902 has made available much of otherwise uninhabitable land and it has supplemented in large-scale measure the work of the pioneers who went out there, dammed the streams, put the water upon the land, at great labor and risks, the earliest comers fighting Indians at the same time. Those early pioneers were self-reliant men, and so were those who after 1902 developed the land. That is a sturdy yeomanry which we have had and would like to keep in the West. Now it is called to our attention today that a new element enters into this proposal, in that refugees from dust bowls, men who have been dispossessed of their homes through no fault of their own, and also a great many ex-service men would like to take root in our western

soil and make their homes. I want to say that I favor such a policy, in addition to our regular reclamation work, just to the extent that it can be done in a feasible way so as not to endanger the stability of the policy of the past, which has been so successful. Mr. SMART. We have a conviction that there are many able and worthy competent farmers to occupy all the available land in that particular part of the country. We are equally sure that many of those worthy applicants would need financial assistance. I do not believe we should confuse indigents with stable, worthy men, but many of the desirable type going upon this land will need credit.

The CHAIRMAN. Coming to that phase of the policy of the Farm Security Administration, I believe your organization started as a rural settlement one and you changed it over to farm security.

Mr. SMART. Yes; that is true.

The CHAIRMAN. The primary object in your organization in this activity of the Government was to shift population from the congested industrial areas, where there was not sufficient employment, back to the farms, where they would become self-supporting. Conditions on the farm were such that those there were attracted to the cities, the great industrial centers, and then a period of unemployment came, and the primary purpose of the organization, which was first headed by Mr. Tugwell, was to shift this population that had been attracted to the cities and the industrial centers, then out of employment, back to the farms, where they could be self-supporting. Was that your initial objective?

Mr. SMART. I would hesitate to say what the original objective was. The CHAIRMAN. What is the present objective of your organization? Mr. SMART. The present objective is not to return individuals from industrial centers to the farms.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean to say that you are not in favor of shifting qualified farmers who are now congregated in the congested areas of industrial centers, and dependent upon the Government, to the land, where they could be self-supporting?

Mr. SMART. If they are farmers; if they have that background, I am in favor

The CHAIRMAN. The young men who were on the farms became discouraged and they were attracted to industrial centers by employment, but now they find themselves out of work and a liability upon the Government. Certainly that was the condition, and the chief purpose of Mr. Tugwell in initiating this program, which was one of the largest undertaken by the Government, was to settle the people upon the land, remove them from the congested cities, where they were dependent upon the Government, and have them become self-supporting. Mr. SMART. Yes; I understand that.

Available funds have not permitted as to meet the needs along that line. Our program has mostly affected those already upon farms. Mr. SHORT. Does the Farm Security Administration approve this proposed legislation?

Mr. SMART. As the gentlemen from the Bureau of Reclamation have indicated, various representatives of the Department of Agriculture were consulted in the preparation of the bill now before gentlemen of the committee.

Mr. SHORT. My specific question is whether the Farm Security Administration favors the enactment of H. R. 6522.

Mr. SMART. Yes; we feel that it is a highly desirable piece of proposed legislation.

Mr. SHORT. What percentage of your loans has gone to farmers in recent years?

Mr. SMART. Mr. Baldwin has testified along that line before the Committee on Appropriations for the Department of Agriculture, and I am not prepared to say anything about it.

Mr. SHORT. What basis of security has Uncle Sam when these loans are made in connection with the selection of farmers to populate these specific areas?

Mr. SMART. Do you mean under the regular program or according to this proposal?

Mr. SHORT. This new proposal.

Mr. SMART. The Government would have a mortgage on the physical assets of the farmers in connection with any loans it might make to them.

Mr. SHORT. I have no further questions to ask of the gentleman. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair now recognizes Mr. McIntyre of Wyoming.

Mr. MCINTYRE. We all realize, of course, that our system of government is rather complicated, and that representatives of one department do not like to say anything that differs from the views of another department.

I should like to ask some questions along the line pursued by Mr. Short in his interrogation. As I understand, you feel that H. R. 6522 is desirable legislation.

Mr. SMART. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCINTYRE. Does the Department of Agriculture concur in the bill as it was introduced?

Mr. SMART. I can't speak for the Secretary, of course, but we are, naturally, most interested in sections 4 and 5, which cover matters that are primarily agricultural in type. We feel that those sections cover ground which is primarily agricultural.

Mr. MCINTYRE. That is what I want to know.

Mr. SMART. One part is for the acquisition and subdividing of farms, and then there is the item of loans to agricultural families for operations, presumably as well as for development of homesteads. That type of program has been carried on for quite a number of years, and it entails the cooperative work of a great many kinds of agricultural experts in various bureaus of the Department of Agriculture. When we go into an area such as we are discussing here we can talk with the experts on soil conservation, experts of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, the experts of the Bureaus of Plant and Animal Husbandry, Extension Service, and all those interests contribute to the making of an activity of this sort.

Without criticizing the bill, we feel that such field is within the province of the Department of Agriculture, and, as provided in the bill and as pointed out by Mr. Page, we expect to participate and carry out those phases of the program that are in our field.

The CHAIRMAN. All the things you have enumerated are scientific deductions; there is a large, qualified staff in the Department of Agriculture that handles these questions and problems, of course. Mr. SMART. Yes.