large postwar growth in population, was deficient in the production of dairy and meat products, and there is urgent need for their rapid expansion.

In addition to the need for these crops, there is also a continuing need for agricultural units to provide farming opportunities for new families or newcomers in the Central Valley. The conversion of lands in the Sacramento Valley from a nonirrigated to an irrigated operation would provide hundreds of such opportunities. Also, irrigation would greatly expand business opportunities in the urban areas through greatly increased demands for goods and services.

Studies by the Bureau of Reclamation indicate that the benefits from the introduction of irrigation to these areas would exceed the cost of the necessary works. Direct irrigation benefits, measured in terms of the projected increase in net farm income attributable to new water development in the service area, are estimated to have a ratio to cost of over 1 to 1. Indirect irrigation benefits, those which arise from such things as promoting more efficient and beneficial utilization of land resources, increased volume of transportation, processing, or other phases of trade or business activities likely to result from the project development, are estimated to be equal to the direct irrigation benefits. Accordingly, the total irrigation benefits, estimated to accrue from the irrigation development, probably will bear a ratio to cost of over 2 to 1.

Preliminary studies of the Bureau of Reclamation also indicate that the cost of the canals proposed in H. R. 163, together with the annual costs of operation and maintenance, would be well within the ability of the water users to pay, assuming low-cost power for pumping and a substantial measure of financial assistance from commercial sales of power produced by power plants of the existing Central Valley project, together with those contemplated in connection with new water supply developments discussed below.

The proposed canals would use water made available by the Central Valley project and its proposed complementary features. In fixing the capacity of Shasta Reservoir, 300,000 acre-feet of water, over and above past irrigation use, was assigned for irrigation in the Sacramento Valley through existing canals and possible new canals. In addition, large quantities of water were assigned to salinity control, to the Contra Costa canal, and for export from the delta for the San Joaquin Valley. Under the inducement of war and postwar prices for agricultural products, irrigation in the Sacramento Valley has been increased through the use of water made available by the Shasta Reservoir while only partial use is being made of the supplies provided for the Contra Costa canal and for export from the delta. During the period while the service areas of the Friant-Kern, Madera, Delta-Mendota, and Contra Costa canals are being developed, water would be available from the Central Valley project to meet all demands upon it, including those of the Sacramento Valley canals. Prior to full development in all of these service areas, water from the Foisom Reservoir on the American River presumably will become part of the Central Valley project supply. However, this supply will need still further augmentation. The additional water could be provided by other reservoirs included in our comprehensive plan for the Central Valley Basin. A reservoir near Oroville on the Feather River already has been recommended for early construction in my report on this plan. Such a reservoir could be used immediately for power generation, additional irrigation and flood control. A proposed dam and reservoir on the Trinity River, likewise included in our comprehensive plan, also could supply the need for additional water.

The proposed use of Central Valley project power for pumping and for financial assistance through commercial power sales, and the use of Central Valley project water supplies, for the Sacramento Valley canals illustrates well the physical and economic interrelationships of facilities and services that are involved in developing the land and water resources of the Central Valley Basin. As I have already indicated, the authorized Central Valley project comprises the initial features of a basin-wide development. The proposed basin-wide development consists of an integrated system of interrelated dams and reservoirs, interconnecting canals and power plants, transmission lines and appurtenant facilities. The integrated system would be operated in coordination by one agency, under uniform laws relating to the disposal of water and power, and with freedom to establish area-wide pay-out schedules. The addition of Sacramento Valley irrigation canals to the Central Valley project system of water and power facilities would be in accordance with the plan for comprehensive development.

It has always been intended that the Central Valley project should serve the water requirements of both the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys. The

H. Repts., 81-1, vol. 4- -24

features that were authorized initially had, as their major purpose, the transfer of Sacramento River water southward to the San Joaquin Valley because that was the area of pressing want. Since then and particularly during the period of postwar growth, there have arisen a strong demand and need for new irrigation development in the Sacramento Valley. These should be met promptly by construction of the Sacramento Valley canals proposed in H. R. 163 and additional water storage and power generating facilities within the Central Valley system as necessary to support the extension of irrigation.

AMENDING THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AS AMENDED, TO PROVIDE TIME LIMITATIONS WITHIN WHICH ACTIONS MAY BE BROUGHT, IN CERTAIN CASES, FOR RECOVERY OF UNDERCHARGES AND OVERCHARGES

JUNE 8, 1949.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. BECKWORTH, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, submitted the following

REPORT

To accompany S. 257

The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (S. 257), to amend the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, so as to provide limitations on the time within which actions may be brought for the recovery of undercharges and overcharges by or against common carriers by motor vehicles, common carriers by water, and freight forwarders, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

This bill, which passed the Senate on April 11, 1949, is identical with the bill (H. R. 2759) which passed the House in the Eightieth Congress.

In this Congress and in the Eightieth Congress, hearings were held by this committee on bills containing the same provisions as the bill here reported. No one appeared in opposition to these bills. The enactment of the legislation is favored by the following, among others: The Interstate Commerce Commission, the National Industrial Traffic League, the Chicago Association of Commerce and Industry, the Cleveland Chamber of Commerce, the Detroit Board of Commerce, the Freight Forwarders Institute, and the American Trucking Association.

EXPLANATION OF THE BILL

The bill amends parts II, III, and IV of the Interstate Commerce Act.

The principal effect of the amendments made by the bill is to provide for uniformity, under parts I, II, III, and IV of the Interstate

Commerce Act, in the period of limitation within which actions at law may be brought for the recovery of undercharges or overcharges, by or against all common carriers and freight forwarders subject to the Interstate Commerce Act. In accomplishing this, the bill proposes to bring the provisions of parts II, II, and IV, relating to common carriers by motor vehicle, common carriers by water, and freight forwarders, into conformity with the existing provisions of section 16 (3) of part I, relating to rail carriers, express companies, sleeping-car companies, and pipe lines. The bill makes no change in part I of the Interstate Commerce Act.

Ordinarily the charges made by a carrier are prepaid by the shipper or collected by the carrier from the consignee upon delivery of the shipment. It happens not infrequently, however, that errors are made in the assessment of these charges. If the carrier fails to collect the full amount to which it is entitled, there arises what is commonly known as an undercharge, which carriers subject to the Interstate Commerce Act are under a legal duty to collect, by suit if necessary. On the other hand, when such a carrier collects a charge in excess of that applicable to the transportation under a tariff lawfully filed with the Commission, there arises what is commonly known as an overcharge, and the shipper is entitled to bring an action against the carrier to recover the amount of the overcharge.

In section 16 (3) of part I, a period of limitation is prescribed within which such actions at law may be brought by or against rail carriers. and other carriers subject to part I.

However, in the case of actions at law of this character brought by or against common carriers by motor vehicle, common carriers by water, or freight forwarders, the Interstate Commerce Act prescribes no period of limitation, and the periods of limitation provided under State law are applicable. Because of the great variety in the periods. provided under the laws of the several States, this results in a confusing lack of uniformity. The bill, by prescribing the same period of limitation applicable to part I carriers. will remove the confusion resulting from the present lack of uniformity.

In the course of the hearings on this bill, some question has been raised as to whether the limitations imposed upon proceedings against carriers would have application to efforts by the Government to recover unlawful charges. The committee, in approving the bill, has done so with the sole object in mind of placing the carriers covered by parts II, III, and IV of the act on the same footing with the carriers covered by part I insofar as the matter of limitations upon proceedings is concerned. In so doing it has not attempted to determine that the existing limitations in part I do or do not apply to proceedings instituted by the United States but has left that question for determination judicially as appropriate cases may arise.

The following is a detailed explanation of the provisions of the bill:

Amendment to part II.-The amendment to part II proposes to add a new section 204a, (1) providing that actions at law by common carriers by motor vehicle subject to part II, for the recovery of their charges, must be begun within 2 years from the time the cause of action accrues; and (2) providing that actions at law against common carriers by motor vehicle subject to part II, for recovery of overcharges, must be begun within 2 years from the time the cause of action accrues, except that provision is made for further extension of

this period under certain specified circumstances. Provisions are also included (1) with respect to time when causes of action shall be deemed to accrue; (2) defining the term "overcharges"; and (3) making it clear that the amendments made by the bill are to apply only to cases in which the cause of action accrues after the date of its enactment into law.

Amendments to part III.-Section 308 of the present law applies to a limited class of common carriers by water, and relates to reparation awards and limitation of actions.

The bill makes two changes in subsection (f) of this section. With regard to the period of limitation on actions at law by or against common carriers by water based on overcharges or undercharges, the bill adds the same provisions that it does in the case of common carriers by motor vehicle. Such subsection (f) now contains provisions with respect to filing with the Interstate Commerce Commission complaints against such water carriers for recovery of damages, whether or not based on overcharges, and the time within which such complaints shall be filea. These provisions are similar to those applicable to carriers subject to part I except for the period within which complaints must be filed. The bill makes these provisions of subsection (f) conform to part I by reducing the period from 3 to 2 years, subject to extension in certain cases. No such provisions now apply to common carriers by motor vehicle or freight forwarders, and the bill does not propose such provisions.

A further change in section 308 relates to the water carriers to whom the section would apply. At present that section applies only to

water carriers

engaged in transportation * * 串 (1) by way of the Panama Canal, or (2) as a common carrier by water on the high seas or the Great Lakes on regular routes from port to port

As amended by the bill, the section would be made applicable to all common carriers by water subject to part III of the Interstate Commerce Act. The committee regards this change as desirable.

Amendment to part IV.-The amendment to part IV proposes to add a new section 406a containing the same provisions, with respect to freight forwarders, as those with respect to common carriers by motor vehicle contained in the new section 204a explained above.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 2a of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, as referred to the committee, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT

PART II

GENERAL DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE COMMISSION

SEC. 204. (a) It shall be the duty of the Commission

(1) To regulate common carriers by motor vehicle as provided in this part, and to that end the Commission may establish reasonable requirements with