THEY CAN'T BE TRUSTED WITH OUR NATURAL RESOURCES

37

the amount of land authorized and distributed to each family in various Homestead acts. A man and his wife were entitled to enough water to irrigate 320 acres. The act further provided that purchases of water over a forty-year period, plus contributions from other sources, must equal the cost of construction. Since farmers participating in a project were required to pay no interest, the subsidy amounted to at least 50 percent. "In many instances," McDonald noted in his account, "the proportion of subsidy was much greater, since electric power revenues were used to help pay for the projects. In addition, certain costs allocated to flood control and navigation did not have to be repaid. They were taken out of the general tax fund.”

The San Luis bill was drawn to create a new kind of parternship between the Federal Government and the state. The bill authorized a Federal appropriation of $290,430,000, plus the cost of a distribution system and drains. The bill provided that the State of California should pay an "equitable" share. No amount was stated.

The public subsidy for further development and reclamation of the area was to be enormous.

McDonald said:

"The heart of the San Luis controversy lay in how the opportunity inherent in this expansion of arable land would be distributed... I saw the choices as between the family size farm and the corporate farm . . . In the San Luis area, the Farmers Union estimated that such a farm should contain 40 acres in deciduous fruits and nuts or 80 acres in truck, tomato and field crops, and 160 acres in meat production. On this basis, the federal project could support 6,100 family farms of varying sizes."

But in 1959, McDonald noted, large corporate farms dominated the area, with 130 owners holding 363,100 acres and 44 corporations holding 249,000

acres.

It should have been an easy battle.

The Reclamation Law of 1902 was clear on the 160-acre limitation. Not a single large landowner had agreed to dispose of land that was to be the beneficiary of the public subsidy. Testimony was vague on just what the ultimate cost would be but it appeared that it might go to $1-1/4 billion before the distribution system was finished.

And Section 6(a) exempted the "state service area" from the 160-acre limitation. Other language in the bill would permit the Secretary of Interior to hand over the joint facilities to the State of California.

"Since the big landowners and other interests had great political power in the state," McDonald observed, "it seemed to me that the whole plan was

38

THE CORPORATE INVASION OF AMERICAN AGRICULTURE

dreamed up as a way to get around the 160-acre limitation."

The fight began. All of the logic was with opponents of Section 6(a). Large numbers of people were involved. Principle was at stake. The cause was just.

But it was only after days and weeks and months of battle--during which Senators Wayne Morse and Paul Douglas fought with incredible persistence, even filibustering--that the objectionable section was eliminated from the bill.

But there is more to the story. Such powerful interests never give up, it seems. It is not, as Major Powell said, just for the "legislators to decide." After legislation comes administration.

The San Luis Reclamation Project is now in operation, (June, 1968). No large farm has yet signed a recordable contract agreeing to make land available to small owners.

On April 1, 1965, Secretary of the Department of the Interior Stewart Udall issued a press release announcing approval of the contract to build a distribution system to carry the San Luis water to the Westlands Water District.

The release said:

"At present only about one-third of the District's lands are eligible to receive irrigation water from the Reclamation development. 'Eligible' lands are those held in single ownerships of no more than 160 acres each, or 320 acres in the case of a man and wife. Most holders of lands exceeding this limit have expressed their intent to sign recordable contracts for disposal of their excess holdings, but the operating agreement will be effective until such time as this is actually accomplished and 76 percent of the lands in the District are eligible to receive project water."

But on July 29, 1966, Jack Molsbergen of Mendota, a small community in the northeast corner of the Westlands Water District, reported on "progress" to the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. Well, "progress" is not quite the word for it.

Molsbergen said that instead of the estimated 33-1/3 percent of land eligible referred to by Secretary Udall, the figure had been "substantially reduced" at least to 25 percent, and perhaps as low as 15 percent. This had occurred because of the purchases of small ownerships by excess owners. "Excess owners" are those who own more land than the law allows to receive water in the district. Such owners are not only receiving water, they are prospering enough to buy out the small owners around them.

Molsbergen, a real estate salesman who is thoroughly familiar with land

THEY CAN'T BE TRUSTED WITH OUR NATURAL RESOURCES

39

transactions in the area, said that the Westlands Water District (not “irrigation" district) gives one vote for each dollar of assessed valuation. "Three or four or the largest owners can vote together and control any issue, even if it were possible to organize all other voters in opposition," he said.

He said this was affecting the design of the distribution system in order "to make the small owner get disgusted and sell out." Many have already done so, he reported.

Molsbergen said:

"I have attached to this statement a voting record of Westlands Water District since it was formed, and also certain records of land purchases by large owners. What I cannot attach is a picture of the complete control the large farmer has in this area, through his position on the Board of Directors of Westlands, the County A.S.C. Committee administering the farm programs, in the management of the two cotton companies which do most of the production financing in the area, and because of the bulk of the business he now controls, over the political opinions of people he does business with. As one of the oldest landowners in the area told me recently, 'Those boys have been in the saddle so long they think they own the race track.'

Molsbergen reported that Giffin, Inc. (a corporation owned by Russell Giffen, chairman of the board of directors of the Westlands Water District, and his wife) purchased about 3,700 acres of land in Westlands in fairly small ownerships. In May, 1963, Molsbergen said, Giffin acquired all the stock in A. M. O'Neill and Sons, a farming company operating about 4,000 acres of land. In June, 1966, a newspaper article reported on the purchase by Giffin, Inc. and Jack Harris, Inc. of the 11,000-acre operation of Sandell Ranch in Westlands, Molsbergen said.

And many other such transactions were reported to the Senate committee, whose chairman was Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin.

Among decisions of the Westlands Water District that could freeze out a small operator was the requirement that more than one outlet in parcels smaller than 160 acres would have to be paid for over a five-year period, even though the District would build the outlets with appropriations which would be repaid over forty years.

Molsbergen reported on continuing non-compliance and of irregularities noted by inspectors.

It was obvious that the Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of Interior had little intention of enforcing the law. It was another case of corporate influence being more powerful than the government agency charged with regulating it.

40

THE CORPORATE INVASION OF AMERICAN AGRICULTURE

The testimony before the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee was given in a hearing to consider whether the Department of Interior should be required to obey the law, and require recordable contracts from large landowners stating that family-size farmers would have a chance to purchase the land. Needless to say, the law did not pass.

Paul Taylor said:

"Westlands is to water what Teapot Dome was to oil."

CHAPTER IV

THEY'RE DESTROYING OUR SMALL TOWNS

Odebolt is in Western Iowa, in an area that has been blessed with rich soil and good weather. A drouth comes only about every 20 years--in 1936 and 1956, folks recall--and then only for a year at a time.

The town is centrally located in the triangle of Omaha, Sioux Falls and Des Moines. Temperatures in January average about 19 degrees, immobilizing the organic matter that makes the soil dark and rich, and it rises to an average of a warm molecule-activating 74 degrees in July. The last killing frost ordinarily comes about May 4 and the first killing frost in the fall comes about October 2. Extremes can go above a hundred degrees in the summer and well below zero in the winter. The average growing season is an ideal 151 days; average rainfall is 30 inches a year.

The land rolls gently, lending itself to full cultivation; the topography is kinder than the river bluffs area to the west. Houses sit squarely, conservatively tending to face straight east, south, west or north. The architectural angles are modest squares, rectangles, and safely peaked roofs. Many of the houses are two-story, with one-story lean-to additions to accommodate growing families. Barns are rugged, painted against the extremes of weather, many with hay fork-supporting hip roofs.

A sign at the outskirts says that Odebolt is the "Star in the Crown of Iowa." Nearby is an extraordinarily neat cemetery, noticeably well cared for in this state which seems to care for its dead with unusual reverence.

There is a comfortable, intimate triteness about the business district. A story of one Iowa town tells of the theater owner who built a new movie palace, with a red carpet out to the sidewalk. But when it was finished, attendance declined. In desperation, he hired a consultant to find out why. It was the red carpet. Folks didn't feel comfortable coming in off the street, with their dusty shoes, stepping on the fine red carpet. Attendance was restored when the carpet was removed.

It is easy to believe that it could have happened in Odebolt. The people of Odebolt are too considerate to track dirt into a neighbor's home or business, or to complain at the absence of a foot scraper at the door, or about