California Institute
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
j I " I CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION'S EXCESS LAND LAW: Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences ORIGINS OF THE MODERN CONTROVERSY, 1933-1961 Pasadena , California 91125 In 1976 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Franc is co sent a series of shock waves along clearly defined fault lin es of California agriculture. The court ruled tha t the federal reclamation laws dating to 1902 mean what they say: that heavily subsidized THE BUREAU OF RECLAMAT ION'S EXCESS LAND LAW: irrigation water can be distributed only to 160 acres per in dividual ORIGINS OF THE MODERN CONTROVERSY, 1933-1961 landowner , and that anyone ho lding more than a qua rt er section must 1 dispose of the excess land if he wis hes to receive reclamation water. Clayton R. Koppes The ruling occasioned surp rise and consternation in some quar ters , for it seemed to presage a maj or alteration in the land-tenure pattern * of the Central Va lley of Ca lifornia, and potentially on other reclama- tion projects thro ug ho ut the West. But up on more re flection the only real occasion for surpris e and const ernation was that the is sue should Not for quotation or citation in any form have requir ed recours e to the court s at all. Why should a policy that was clearly established legally , has been praised rhetorically by both political parties , and seems an eminently equitab le princ iple for Social Science Working Paper distributing the benefits of public sp ending be only erratically Numb er 200 enforced for three quarters of a century? Why did the issue arise in March 1978 particular in the Central Valley, where the lan d-t enure pyramid presented the very problem the re clama tio � la ws were designed to correct? Why, � �\:: in' deed , did. a liberal adminis, ' tra •; on in power during the crucial early yea rs of the Central Va lley Proj ec t's operation not only fail to enforce '�·°'(· : '� j 2 " I. PRO LEGOMENA: LAW AND LAND TENURE, 1902-1946 the exc es s land law , but raise the most serious threat to the redis- Federal rec lamat ion policy sinc e its inception in the Newlands tributive princip le of rec lamation? Rec lamation Act of 1902 has es poused twin obj ectives : to ma ke barren This paper attemp ts to answer these questions , whic h lie at land productive and to distribute the benefits of public spending the root of the mo dern controversy over the 16 0-acre law. The es say widely. Because reclamation proj ects contained a large subsidy for analyzes legis la tion, and particularly adminis trative practices , in water recipients, the distribution of benefits assumed critic al impor the context of the changing polit ic al env ir onment from 1933 through tanc e. Farmers who rec eived water ha d to repay the costs of construction 1961. Two administrative decisions bracket the time span : first, of the ir rigation works ov er a period of forty to fifty years. They did the in it ia l serious administrative lo ophole opened in reclamat ion not have to pay in teres t, however . At an in terest rate of 3 percent, the practice by Secretary of the Interior Ray Lyman Wilbur in ea r ly 1933 ; subsidy would amount to 57 percen t of the co st over forty years; at 5 perc ent second , the key rulin g by Solic it or of the Interior Department Frank it would eq ual 74 percent. Because the generat ion of el ectricity since J. Barry in la te 1961 that reaffirmed the redistributive princ iple. the la te 19 30s has assumed pa rt of the cost norm ally chargeab le The heart of the paper deals with the period 1943-1953, when congres- strictly to ir rigation, water users have rec eived an additional annual sional pressure, but espec ia lly changing liberal attitudes during the subsidy of from $35 to $135 per acre. Fo r ho ld ers of 160 acres the Ha rry S. Truman administration, seriously weakened the law . While potential yearly subsidy could amo unt to as muc h as $20,000. For taking cognizance of rec lama tion policy as a whole, the study focuses la rge land own ers , suc h as the Southe rn Pacific Corporation, the subsidy on the Central Va lley , whic h, as the Nint h Circuit noted, has been 1 could mount to millions ea ch year. the fulcrum of the mod ern controversy over the acreage lim itation. The redis tr ibutive principle became kno wn as the 160-acre This paper is an in it ia l attempt to bring a historian 's perspective la w or ex cess la nd la w. The 1902 Act provided that on rec lamation to a subj ec t that has been the almo st ex clusive domain of ec onomists , 2 proj ec ts on pub lic lands in dividuals could buy tracts not exceed in g notably Paul S. Taylor , and lawy ers . But a historian 's study 160 acres and that for private lands an in dividual could rec eiv e wa ter is also more than prologue. The central is sue -- the type of for not more than 160 acres. The father of the act, Representative society that rec lamation techno logy should encourage -- was raised Francis G. Newlands of Nevada, placed the social policy in wo rld explic it ly and overshadows the current controversy. The excess la nd perspective: law has far-reaching significance in its elf , but it is also a case We have not felt in this country the ev ils of land study of ho w public subsidies are distributed in the contemporary monopoly. ..• That will be th e test of the future, corporate liberal state. and the very purpose of this bill. is to guard against ;:.:;.'... 4 5 land monopoly and to hold this land in small rise against the 'haves'; it is because 1 wish tracts fo r the people of the entire country, to secure for our ch ildre n and our grandch:!.ldren to give to each man only the amount of land and fo r their children's childre n the same free that will be necessary fo r the support of a dom of opportunity, the same peace and order and family•... Con vey this land to private justice that we have ha d in the pa st. corporations and doubtless this wo rk would be The firs t commissioners of rec lamation, Frederick Newe ll and done , but we would have fa stened upon this Elwood Mead , re peatedly championed the acrea ge limitations , at times country all the evils of land monopoly wh ich produced the great French revo lution, wh ich arguing that the home-buil ding provisions constit ute d th e fundamental 2 caused the revolt against ch urch monopoly in purpose of reclamation policy. South America, and which in recent times has Unfo rtunately fo r men like Newlands and Roosevelt, the caused the outbreak of the Filipinos against Spanish authority. acreage limitation in neither the 1902 Act nor a restatement in th e Although historians would doubtless find the ro ots of these revolutions 19 12 Act proved effective . Many land owners who received reclamation to be mo re complex than did Newlands, he plumb ed a widespread belief of wa ter fo r 160 ac res held on to their excess lands and then sold them at the progressive era that a mo re equal distribution of property and high prices to new settlers ; the Rec lama tion Service was powerless to strong small communities enhanced the cohesiveness of Ame rican society . deal with these speculators. A new ac t in 1914 the re fo re required land- President Theodore Ro osevelt, a strong supporter of the distributive owners to agree to dispose of their excess lands "upon such terms and principle, interpreted the excess land provision as a classic measure at not to exceed such price as the Secretary of the Interior may of conservative reform. designate" if they wished to rec eive project wa ter. (The 1914 Act also I wish to save the very wealthy men of this includ ed the proviso -- never used -- that the secretary could determine country . • from the ruin that they would administratively the size of fa rm adequate to support a family and hence bring upon themselves if they were permitted could re duce it below 160 acres .) The difficulty of enforcing the provi to have their way . It is because I am against revolution ; it is because I am against the sions of the 1914 Act after a proj ect had been initiated rendered it doctrines of the Ext remists, of the Socialists ; nearly as fruitless as its predecessors. Accordingly, a distinguished it is because I wish to see this country of ours panel known as the "Fact Finders"who investigated reclamation problems continued as a genuine democracy ; it is because I distrust violence and disbelieve in it ; it is in 1924 re commend ed fu rther tightening, wh ich materialized in the becaus e I wish to secure this count ry against Omnibus Adjus tment Act of 1926. The new le gislat ion re quired holders ever seeing a time when the ' have-nots' shall of excess lands to sign "recordable contracts", before receiving 6 7 proj ect water ; under these contracts the landholders agreed to have projects reached 4 ,460,979 in 1946 and 9,036,563 in 1964 .