PUB00068 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-6S- .. ~. by a ruclamati-on proj8ct a: 40-acr.e ' almond ,grove may Bupport a baronial estate ,"lhereM a'160-acr(3 hay meadow in one of the mountain states vlould provide only submarginal 'existence . The simple sensible answer is that in some sections 160 acres is'too larf,e an are,a and in others it is entirely too small. Testimony given before a Congressional committee several years ago was tha't on the Conejos Division of ,the San Luis Valley Project the net farm income of a 160-acre farm, without livestock, was t>930.00 and with livestock Vias ;,1,598.00. At the same hearing, there was testimony that on 160 acres 'in the Central Valley of California devoted to fruit speci- alty crops the net .farm income was U7,200.00. Under these condi-tions does it make any sense to apply to the Conejos the same limitation as is applied to the Central Valley? . This problem is not new. Early in the 1930 's the Secretary of ' the Interior ruled that the hinds served -in the Imperial Valley of Cali- fornia by the All-'American Canal were not subject to the 160-acre.lavl because the farmers already owned the water rights and. the reclamation project only acted as a facility for the delivery of ,the water. A com- parable situation prevails on the Conejos in Colorado where. the stream supply, including all but extreme flood flows, is covered by existing appropriations under Colorado law, and the constructed i-latoro Rcser- voir will only regulate the delivery of that water. But while the Se- cretary exempted the Imperial Distri-ct from the 160-acre law, he now says that the Conejos farmers are bound thereby. . .. In 1938) Congress exempted the Colorado-Big Thompson Project from the operation. of laRd limitation provisions. In justifying this ex- emption the Commissioner of Reclamation.told a Committee of.Con~ress that: ," J;- Jf -:;- those are high lands, comparatively high lands - I don't knmi.what the altitude is, but I imagine it is 5,000 or better around Loveland - with a.comparatively.short grovl- ing period. You might be able to drum up' some justification for larger holdings on a shorter growing period." The San Luis Valley lands are a half mile higher in altitude and have a frost-free period only two '-thirds that of the Colorado-Big Thompson lands. . In 1940 tWQ Nevada reclamation projects were freed from the land limitation provisions by action of Congress.' The sponsors of the legis- lation told Congress that the projects were located in an area of high altitude and early frost I'There "a person must have more land than 160 acres in order to farm successfully and carryon .livestock feeding opera~ tions." In most sections of Colorado similar conditions prevai-l. " The land limitation provisions have been construed by the In- terior Department as permitting the. ownership of 320 acres by man and wife in community property states. The Department also has ruled that