It was that concern which prompted me to say today that although the Supreme Court acted, it did not make any ruling of that nature. I am sure that the Senator from Wyoming, having read the opinion, will agree with me.

Mr. BARRETT. I certainly agree that that understanding is clearly within the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in the Ivanhoe case. I say to the Senator from New Mexico now, as I have said to him privately, that I am hopeful his subcommittee will report the bill which will authorize a limitation higher than 160 acres for the Seedskadee project in my State. It is one of the units of the upper Colorado River Basin project which will be ready for construction later this year or early next year; but before it can be feasible, the Bureau of Reclamation indicates that it will be necessary to enact legislation authorizing more than 160 acres, so that the farmers can go onto the project and make a living for themselves and their families.

I hope the Senator's subcommittee will report to the full committee the bill which I have introduced, exempting the Seedskadee project from the limitations of the act, at least so far as was recommended by the Bureau of Reclamation.

Mr. ANDERSON. That recommendation has been made. So far as the chairman of the subcommittee is concerned, he is cognizant of that problem and he subscribes to what the Senator from Wyoming has just said, namely, that in the particular project referred to, where the elevations are high and the growing seasons are very short, and therefore where the types of agriculture are somewhat limited, there seems to be a need for the exemption of the project.

A number of bills are before the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation which attempt to deal with the problem in different ways. Hearings have been held on these matters, and sharp differences have developed. It is my hope that it will be possible to report specialized bills dealing individually with these problems, and that any questions relating to the general proposal of a 160-acre limitation may be resolved.

As the Senator from Wyoming knows, I early supported the project in the San Luis Valley of Colorado, where the elevation is about 5,000 feet, and where 160 acres would only permit a man to starve slowly. I tried to help, in that instance, to provide a sufficient-sized farming operation so that an individual could support himself very well.

Mr. BARRETT. I appreciate the position which the distinguished Senator from New Mexico has taken on the proposed legislation. I have not been able to discern any difference of opinion between himself and myself on this question.

The sole purpose of the bills is to make it possible for a veteran or someone else to locate on these irrigated projects and at that time be able to support himself and his family. Certainly there would be no point in settling a farmer on a project where he had no chance whatever to make a living.

Mr. ANDERSON. That is exactly correct. The Riverton project, in the Senator's State, illustrates what happens when a veteran is given a piece of ground and is given an opportunity to starve slowly, rather than to starve rapidly.

The project has very wisely, under the guidance of the senior Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Barrett, and his colleague, Mr. O'Mahoney, been broadened so as to make it possible for the settlers to exist.

thank the Senator from Wyoming, not only for his contribution today, but for his steady contributions in this field.

Mr. BARRETT. I thank the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, there are before the Irrigation and Reclamation Subcommittee, of which I am chairman, a number of bills which attempt to deal with the problem in different ways. Hearings have been held on these measures, and sharp differences of opinion developed.

Justice Clark's opinion will, I believe, be of assistance to the members of the committee and to the Senate in dealing with these pieces of pending legislation. In order that it may be conveniently available, the text of the opinion will be printed as a committee print by the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, with appropriate introductory statements setting it forth in proper fashion.

Mr. President, I say that because we have already received requests asking whether copies of the opinion can be obtained from the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs; and I want the Members of the Senate and also the Members of the House to know that the opinion will be available and will be circulated, in order that it may be studied by all who are interested in irrigation.

Mr. President, in closing, I ask that the remarks I have made and the comments by the Senator from Wyoming be printed in the Record preceding the address by the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Eastland.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jackson in the chair). Without objection, it is so ordered.

OPINION OF SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

The opinion of the Supreme Court is as follows:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Nos. 122, 123, 124 and 125.-October Term, 1957

THE IVANHOE IRRIGATION DISTRICT AND

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPELLANTS,

Mr. JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.

1

These four cases present issues of basic importance to the federal reclamation laws. The Supreme Court of California has refused to confirm certain contracts entered into between two state irrigation districts and a water agency on the one hand and the United States on the other, finding the contracts invalid on several grounds. 47 Cal. 2d 597. Specifically involved are parts of two statutory enactments: Section 5 of the Reclamation Act of 1902,2 providing generally that no right to the use of water shall be sold for lands in excess of 160 acres in single ownership, and § 9 of the Reclamation Project Act

Section 46 of the Omnibus Adjustment Act of 1926 requires that the contracts be confirmed by decree of a court of competent jurisdiction. 44 Stat. 649, as amended, 70 Stat. 524, 43 U. S. C. § 423 (e). For the applicable California statutes authorizing such procedure, see Cal. Water Code, 1956, § 23225 (irrigation districts), and Cal. Stat. 1945, p. 2780, 2798, as amended, Cal. Stat. 1949, p. 18 (water agency).

*Section 5: "**** No right to the use of water for land in private ownership shall be sold for a tract exceeding one hundred and sixty acres to any one landowner, and no such sale shall be made to any landowner unless he be an actual bona fide resident on such land, or occupant thereof residing in the neighborhood of said land, and no such right shall permanently attach until all payments therefor are made." 32 Stat. 389, 43 U. S. C. § 431. This provision was substantially re-enacted in § 46 of the Omnibus Adjustment Act of 1926, 44 Stat. 649, as amended, 70 Stat. 524, 43 U. S. C. § 423e.

7

of 1939, providing, inter alia, for the repayment to the United States of funds expended on the construction of reclamation works, and authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to make contracts to furnish reclamation water at appropriate rates for irrigation. The opinion of the Supreme Court of California turned on an interpretation of a third provision, § 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902. That section provides that the Act is not to be construed as interfering with state laws "relating to the control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water used in irrigation." It further provides that in administering the Act the Secretary of the Interior "shall proceed in conformity with such laws. ***" The California court held that this provision required the application of California law, and finding the provisions of the contracts contrary thereto, it refused confirmation. The water districts and agency involved, joined by the State of California, appealed, and we postponed the question of jurisdiction to the merits. 355 U. S. 803 (1957). We have concluded, for reasons hereinafter set forth, that we have no jurisdiction over the appeals. Treating the papers as petitions for certiorari, 28 U. S. C. § 2103, we grant certiorari. On the merits, we deem the contracts controlled by federal law and valid as against the objections made.

I. THE BACKGROUND OF THE LITIGATION

This litigation involves a dispute between landowners on the one hand and the combined State and Federal Governments on the other. As the Attorney General of California points out, there is no clash here between the United States and the State of California. Quite to the contrary, the United States and the various State agencies, with commendable faith and steadfastness to one another, have embarked upon and nearly completed a most complicated joint venture known as the Central Valley Project. There have at times been differences, but these are inevitable in the everyday implementation of such a giant undertaking. On the whole the parties have kept the ultimate goal firmly centered in their joint vision.

Central Valley is the largest single undertaking yet embarked upon under the federal reclamation program. It was born in the minds of far-seeing Californians in their endeavor to bring to that State's parched acres a water supply sufficiently permanent to transform them into veritable gardens for the benefit of mankind. Failing in its efforts to finance such a giant undertaking, California almost a quarter of a centry ago petitioned the United States to join in the

353 Stat. 1193, as amended, 59 Stat. 75, 43 U. S. C. § 485h. Section 9 (c), the pertinent section in No. 125, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter contracts to furnish water for municipal water supply, Section 9 (d) involves contracts with irrigation districts, and requires repayment within a 40-year period of construction costs allocated to irrigation. Section 9 (e) authorizes the use of an alternative method of repay. ment, whereby the Secretary may agree to furnish water for irrigation for a period of 40 years at rates suificient to cover an appropriate share of the annual operation and maintenance cost and an appropriate share of such fixed charges as the Secretary deems proper, due consideration being given to that part of the cost of construction of works connected with water supply and allocated to irrigation. *** [T]he costs of any irrigation water distribution works constructed by the United States in connection with the new project, new division of a project, or supplemental works on a project, shall be covered by a repayment contract entered into pursuant to said subsection (d)."

Section 8: "That nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting or intended to affect or to in any way interfere with the laws of any State or Territory relating to the control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water used in irrigation, or any vested right acquired thereunder, and the Secretary of the Interior, in carrying out the provisions of this Act, shall proceed in conformity with such laws, and nothing herein shall in any way affect any right of any State or of the Federal Government or of any landowner, appropriator, or user of water in, to, or from any interstate stream or the waters thereof: Provided, That the right to the use of water acquired under the provisions of this Act shall be appurtenant to the land irrigated, and beneficia! use shall be the basis, the measure, and the limit of the right." 32 Stat. 390, 43 U. Š. C. §§ 372, 383.

enterprise. The Congress approved and adopted the project, pursuant to repeated requests of the State, and thus far has expended nearly half a billion dollars. The total cost is estimated to be as high as a billion dollars.

The saga of this project is fascinating, California has two somewhat parallel ranges of mountains running south from its northern border for two-thirds the length of the State. Known as the Sierra Nevada on the east and the Coast Range on the west, they converge on the north at Mount Shasta and are joined by the Tehachapi Mountains on the south, thereby forming the Central Valley Basin. The basin extends almost 500 miles between these ranges, from Shasta to Bakersfield, and has an average width of 120 miles, including more than a third of the area of California. The main valley floor, comprising about a third of the basin area, is an alluvial plain some 400 miles long and averaging 45 miles in width. The Sacramento River, with headwaters near Mount Shasta, flows south into San Francisco Bay, draining the northern portion of the basin. The San Joaquin River, which rises at Friant in the south, runs first west then north to join the Sacramento River in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, both finding a common outlet to the ocean through the San Francisco Bay. See United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., 339 U. S. 725 (1950).

Rainfall on the valley floor comes during the winter months-85 percent from November to April-and summers are quite dry. At Red Bluff, just south of Mount Shasta, the average is 23 inches, while south at Bakersfield a scant 6 inches falls. The climate is ideal with a frost-free period of over seven months and a mild winter permitting production of citrus as well as some deciduous fruits and other specialized crops. The absence of rain, however, makes irrigation essential, particularly in the southern region.

In the mountain ranges precipitation is greater, and the winters more severe. The Northern Sierras average 80 inches of rainfall and the Southern 35 inches. The Coast Range experiences much less. In the higher recesses of the mountains precipitation is largely snow which, when it melts, joins the other runoff of the mountain areas to make up an annual average of 33,000,000 acre-feet of water coming from the mountain regions. Nature has not regulated the timing of the runoff water, however, and it is estimated that half of the Sierra runoff occurs during the three months of April, May, and June. Resulting floods cause great damage, and waste this phenomenal accumulation of water so vital to the valley's rich alluvial soil. The object of the plan is to arrest this flow and regulate its seasonal and year-toyear variations, thereby creating salinity control to avoid the gradual encroachment of ocean water, providing an adequate supply of water for municipal and irrigation purposes, facilitating navigation, and generating power. The plan is now nearing completion and is actually in partial operation in some areas.

The completed project is built around these two great rivers, and includes a series of dams, three of which-Shasta, Folsom, and Trinity River-will furnish electric power. The state water plan contemplates that eventually 38 major reservoirs scattered at various points in this part of the State will store an estimated 30,000,000 acre-feet of water. The Shasta Dam and Reservoir sits at the head of the table on the north. With a capacity of 4,500,000 acre-feet of water, it, along with tributary dams and reservoirs, will control the floods from that area.