Reclamation Law

| Home | The District | Drainage | Links | Reference Library | Water Conservation | Water Supply |

RECLAMATION LAW

Revised March 1999
Westlands' Position Statement

Westlands farmers are in compliance with both the letter and intent of the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982. The Department of the Interior recently released a proposed rule as part of the RRA rule-making process that could have far-reaching consequences for trust-owners, farmers and farm managers in Westlands. The District questions the Interior Department's authority to promulgate a rule that steps outside the intent of Congress, and urges Interior to withdraw and terminate the rules and rule-making process.

Issue Summary

Congress enacted the Reclamation Act of 1902 (Reclamation law) to stimulate agricultural development in the 17 arid and semiarid western states. Public funds were used to develop water distribution facilities for irrigation, flood control, urban water use and fish and wildlife protection. In repaying the government for the water facilities, farmers who limited their acreage to 160 acres were not required to pay interest charges on the federal investment in the water system.

Numerous changes have been made to Reclamation law in this century. In 1982, the Reclamation Reform Act passed, increasing the acreage limitation to a more realistic 960 acres of owned or leased land. Farmers could receive Reclamation project water on additional acreage, but only if they paid the full cost of the water, including both a capital and interest component.

Water users in Westlands have been operating under Reclamation law since 1968, when the first federal water was delivered. Over time, the application of the acreage limitation and excess land provisions of the law resulted in the breakup of large landholdings and farming operations throughout Westlands. Since 1968, the total number of landowners has nearly tripled. The principal objective of Reclamation law -- to spread the benefit of the water -- has worked in Westlands.

Westlands' experience and compliance with Reclamation law demonstrates that the current rules are effective, workable and enforceable. The RRA recognizes that Westlands landowners are in compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the law.

In 1996, the Bureau of Reclamation released a Preferred Alternative, addressing farm leases and voluntary water conservation plans under existing regulations. Excluded from the Preferred Alternative was the issue of trusts that would be covered under a separate rule-making process.

Current Status

The current issues with Reclamation law focus on the release of a new rule on trusts and the need for legislation to address refunds for RRA forms Aviolations.

Rule on Trusts:

The Department of the Interior released a proposed rule last November that addresses more than the issues of trusts. The draft rule proposes to require certain farm operators to submit RRA forms that describe the services they perform and the land they service. The draft rule also would address the eligibility of certain formerly-excess land held in trusts or by legal entities to receive non-full cost CVP water. The Bureau has stated it is trying to stop former landholders from coming back as trusts.

The proposed rule would apply west-wide and will become effective Jan. 1, 2000. A 90-day comment period closed on Feb. 19.

Westlands is concerned with efforts to expand the scope of the rule-making that clearly has stepped outside of the intent of Congress. The law is very clear on this issue of trusts. Each year, the Bureau conducts extensive Reclamation law audits of the District. Without exception, all existing landholdings in Westlands are in total compliance with Reclamation law.

Legislation to Address Refunds:

In the last Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate passed legislation to make Atechnical and clarifying amendments to improve the management of water-related facilities in the western United States. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, legislation was not enacted. Pursuant to this legislation, the Interior Secretary would be required to refund overpayments received by the U.S. as a result of form Aviolations.

Many water districts paid bills for full-cost charges that were assessed for failure to file certain certification forms under the RRA. These water districts paid these bills in protest, and the Bureau of Reclamation lost a case, Orange Cove Irrigation District v. U.S., in which the judge ruled that Ait is clear from the legislation history... that Congress did not intend for the Bureau to assess monetary penalties or fines for failure to submit the required forms.
In a September 16, 1997 letter to Chairman John Doolittle of the House Water and Power Subcommittee, the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science stated that, AReclamation supports the intent (of the provision) to enable Reclamation to refund monies to those entities who were billed and paid the full-cost rate for RRA forms violations.

Talking Points for Westlands' Position

Reclamation law is working in Westlands. Since 1968, the number of landowners has nearly tripled in Westlands. Bureau of Reclamation annual audits show that all of the water users in Westlands are in compliance with Reclamation law.

Water users in Westlands have repaid the federal government over $37 million in capital costs of facilities and $86 million in capital costs of the distribution and drainage systems.

Water users are required to repay capital costs of the main project facilities of the CVP, forgiving the payment of the interest component of the loans on the main project facilities which some consider a "water subsidy." This is not "welfare" as some critics claim.

This program is an investment by the federal government that has generated big returns to the taxpayers in the form of an affordable and dependable food supply, jobs, tax revenue, balance of trade through farm exports, and economic stability for the San Joaquin Valley.

Westlands questions the Interior Department's authority to promulgate a rule that steps outside the intent of Congress, and urges Interior to withdraw and terminate the rules and rule-making process.

Westlands continues to support the technical corrections legislation that was introduced in 1998, and urges Congress to approve it during this session. The Interior Secretary must equitably refund these erroneous "violation" collections to those water districts who were inappropriately charged and had to pay.


\| Home \| The District \| Drainage \| Links \| Reference Library \| Water Conservation \| Water Supply \|
	RECLAMATION LAW
	Revised March 1999 Westlands' Position Statement Westlands farmers are in compliance with both the letter and intent of the Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) of 1982. The Department of the Interior recently released a proposed rule as part of the RRA rule-making process that could have far-reaching consequences for trust-owners, farmers and farm managers in Westlands. The District questions the Interior Department's authority to promulgate a rule that steps outside the intent of Congress, and urges Interior to withdraw and terminate the rules and rule-making process. Issue Summary Congress enacted the Reclamation Act of 1902 (Reclamation law) to stimulate agricultural development in the 17 arid and semiarid western states. Public funds were used to develop water distribution facilities for irrigation, flood control, urban water use and fish and wildlife protection. In repaying the government for the water facilities, farmers who limited their acreage to 160 acres were not required to pay interest charges on the federal investment in the water system. Numerous changes have been made to Reclamation law in this century. In 1982, the Reclamation Reform Act passed, increasing the acreage limitation to a more realistic 960 acres of owned or leased land. Farmers could receive Reclamation project water on additional acreage, but only if they paid the full cost of the water, including both a capital and interest component. Water users in Westlands have been operating under Reclamation law since 1968, when the first federal water was delivered. Over time, the application of the acreage limitation and excess land provisions of the law resulted in the breakup of large landholdings and farming operations throughout Westlands. Since 1968, the total number of landowners has nearly tripled. The principal objective of Reclamation law -- to spread the benefit of the water -- has worked in Westlands. Westlands' experience and compliance with Reclamation law demonstrates that the current rules are effective, workable and enforceable. The RRA recognizes that Westlands landowners are in compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the law. In 1996, the Bureau of Reclamation released a Preferred Alternative, addressing farm leases and voluntary water conservation plans under existing regulations. Excluded from the Preferred Alternative was the issue of trusts that would be covered under a separate rule-making process. Current Status The current issues with Reclamation law focus on the release of a new rule on trusts and the need for legislation to address refunds for RRA forms Aviolations. Rule on Trusts: The Department of the Interior released a proposed rule last November that addresses more than the issues of trusts. The draft rule proposes to require certain farm operators to submit RRA forms that describe the services they perform and the land they service. The draft rule also would address the eligibility of certain formerly-excess land held in trusts or by legal entities to receive non-full cost CVP water. The Bureau has stated it is trying to stop former landholders from coming back as trusts. The proposed rule would apply west-wide and will become effective Jan. 1, 2000. A 90-day comment period closed on Feb. 19. Westlands is concerned with efforts to expand the scope of the rule-making that clearly has stepped outside of the intent of Congress. The law is very clear on this issue of trusts. Each year, the Bureau conducts extensive Reclamation law audits of the District. Without exception, all existing landholdings in Westlands are in total compliance with Reclamation law. Legislation to Address Refunds: In the last Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate passed legislation to make Atechnical and clarifying amendments to improve the management of water-related facilities in the western United States. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, legislation was not enacted. Pursuant to this legislation, the Interior Secretary would be required to refund overpayments received by the U.S. as a result of form Aviolations. Many water districts paid bills for full-cost charges that were assessed for failure to file certain certification forms under the RRA. These water districts paid these bills in protest, and the Bureau of Reclamation lost a case, Orange Cove Irrigation District v. U.S., in which the judge ruled that Ait is clear from the legislation history... that Congress did not intend for the Bureau to assess monetary penalties or fines for failure to submit the required forms. In a September 16, 1997 letter to Chairman John Doolittle of the House Water and Power Subcommittee, the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science stated that, AReclamation supports the intent (of the provision) to enable Reclamation to refund monies to those entities who were billed and paid the full-cost rate for RRA forms violations. Talking Points for Westlands' Position Reclamation law is working in Westlands. Since 1968, the number of landowners has nearly tripled in Westlands. Bureau of Reclamation annual audits show that all of the water users in Westlands are in compliance with Reclamation law. Water users in Westlands have repaid the federal government over $37 million in capital costs of facilities and $86 million in capital costs of the distribution and drainage systems. Water users are required to repay capital costs of the main project facilities of the CVP, forgiving the payment of the interest component of the loans on the main project facilities which some consider a "water subsidy." This is not "welfare" as some critics claim. This program is an investment by the federal government that has generated big returns to the taxpayers in the form of an affordable and dependable food supply, jobs, tax revenue, balance of trade through farm exports, and economic stability for the San Joaquin Valley. Westlands questions the Interior Department's authority to promulgate a rule that steps outside the intent of Congress, and urges Interior to withdraw and terminate the rules and rule-making process. Westlands continues to support the technical corrections legislation that was introduced in 1998, and urges Congress to approve it during this session. The Interior Secretary must equitably refund these erroneous "violation" collections to those water districts who were inappropriately charged and had to pay.