The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1962-01-26

iiie"C1oIl WOIhS CdIlIlOC U0 SOIU u
one oWnership-modified in
for man and wife.
This was to prevent what Theo-
dore Roosevelt called unjust en-
richment"-taxes raised from the
whole nation, going to subsidize
big factory in the field rural
baronies using low-paid migrant
labor. I. r. sought to insure that
federal funds go instead to estab-
lish western family farmsteads,
which in general they have done.
The present scene is California;
great Central Valley project, to which
U. S. taxpayers have already de-
voted nearly three-fourths of bill
lion dollars. The states biggest land
owners have fought for years TO
break down the 160-acre limitation.
They've been stoutly resisted by fam
lily farmers, and by labor.
The California Supreme Court
even held that irrigation districts
couldn't sign contracts for federal
water that contained the 160-acre
limitation. But the U. S. Supreme
Court overruled this, and scores have
now signed.
The background: Governor Ed
mund G. Brown, who as California
encouragement, had supported the
160-acre limitation, in 1860 got Cali
fornia voters to approve his enor-
nous $1.75-million plan to deliver
water down CALIFORNIA; whole length.
The state proposed to use water
from the big federally-built San Luis
to supply irrigation in
Estate service area" beyond the fed
eral project. This area is largely in
huge private acreages.
1911 ACT OF CONGRESS CITED
The question: Should this state
water be subject to the
160-acre provision, and so compel
the big holdings either to be broken
INTO family-sized farms, or continue |
Try? Congress in 1911 had applied |
The limitation to privately stored |
water taken to the land by federal
canals, parallel case.
Congress twice refused to approve
of the San Luis project
With clause that exempted state
distributed water from the 160-acre
In 1860 the House specific
lily knocked out the exemption, with
Stewart Udall, now Secretary of the
Interior, voting to knock it out.
But Governor Brown has had a
errible time putting over his huge
water plan. He said the Metropolitan
Water District of Southern Cali
ornia. it's chief prospective customer,
wouldn't sign up under the 160-acre
He proposed instead that
he state charge an extra So an acre
DOT for excess irrigation water, or
n estimated SIS an acre per year.
MWD opposition is explained by
the fact that the same people who
run Southern California own many
of the enormous acreages in the
Estate service" area. Listings show
"a holdings that together total
748, 900 acres, or $4,000 acres
average to an ownership.
They include 231, 1000 acres held
Y the Kern Land Co.; $4,000 by
tandard Oil; $4,000 by Tidewater t
il: 10000 by Clayton & Co., huge U
,tton dealers; 1850 by Shell Oil; P
OTIS by Richfield Oil; 10000 by v
eneral Petroleum; 1890 by Di- /
eorgio Fruit Co., and so on. Il
RS FREE LAND THROTTLES y
ISTRIBUTION ?
Two are most significant. South
n Pacific RR holds $4,000 acres in S,
e area. which the railroad got free O
ack in the 1905. It's land is d
in square-mile Sec O
,ns on both sides of it's tracks, so m
can prevent water getting to it's il
1aller neighbors. And the railroad et
IS said it will neither sell, nor ac- 81
ut the 16O-acre limitation. IL
Secondly, huge TETON Ranch Co., h
1ich owns nearly $4,000 acres in Of