This is a statement of the position of the California Farm Bureau Federation_regarding legislative measures before Congress relating to the San Luis unit of the Central Valley project of California dated March 14, 1958.

Quotations from California Farm Bureau Federation resolutions adopted by the house of delegates, November 1957:

The San Luis Dam and Reservoir is an essential part of any portion of the Feather River project intended to provide service to many parts of the State south of the northern boundary of Fresno County. It should be constructed and remain an integral part of the Feather River project of the California water plan.

Storage of water in and transmission through the San Luis Reservoir and other facilities of the State Feather River project for use in service areas of the proposed Federal San Luis unit should be permitted under contract between the State and the United States.

Future water development with statewide interest must be integrated in the California water plan.

Certain rights to water have been given to the present users. These rights must be guaranteed as this amount of water starts commingling in the California water plan.

Should the Federal Government desire to aid in the purchase of rights-of-way for canals and necessary dam sites to be used as a part of the California water plan, cooperation should be only on the basis of control of the projects and properties by the State of California.

Previous resolutions have endorsed the California water plan as the plan to follow in developing the water resources of California.

S. 1887 and H. R. 6035 as proposed are in conflict with California Farm Bureau Federation in several instances. Some of the more serious conflicts are the provisions that: (1) the State shall convey to the United States title to any lands, easements, and rights-of-way which it owns and which are required for facilities of the San Luis unit; (2) the United States shall have unrestricted use of such capacities in the works of the San Luis unit, and so forth; (3) the Secretary of the Interior would secure all rights to the use of water which are necessary to carry out the purposes of the unit, and so forth; and (4) that the Secretary may proceed to construct and operate the San Luis unit, even though he cannot complete an agreement with the State of California.

Senator ANDERSON. Was this adopted by the California Farm Bureau on March 14?

Mr. BOTTORFF. The resolutions were adopted in the house of delegates in November and the observations

Senator ANDERSON. Well, is this language taken from some resolution adopted?

Mr. BOTTORFF. These are adopted by the house of delegates of the 64,000-member California Farm Bureau.

Frankly these quotations are directly from their resolution of policy. And of course they are specific. I have been furnished this as the exact information. I am not here to say anything further.

Senator ANDERSON. Well, this is not an ordinary resolution. You have some quotations from the resolution. Then you have some language that says, "S. 1887 and H. R. 6035, as proposed, are in conflict with California Farm Bureau Federation policy in several instances." Was that in their resolution or is this something that somebody worked up?

Mr. BOTTORFF. This has been sent on the authority of Mr. Louis Rizzoni, president of the California Farm Bureau Federation.

Senator ANDERSON. What I am trying to get at is by what authority is this done?

Mr. BOTTORFF. By the California Farm Bureau Federation. Senator ANDERSON. I think you ought to supply us with the genealogy of this a little bit. How did it get to you?

Mr. BOTTORFF. It came to me through the medium of it having been sent in the exact form you see it here, to the American Farm Bureau Federation.

Apparently there was some

Senator ANDERSON. To the board in Chicago.

Mr. BOTTORFF. To the Farm Bureau Federation in Washington, D. C. Here.

It was sent to them. I have been in touch with them, as I do generally go by there. And they asked me if I would

Senator ANDERSON. Who gave this to you?

Mr. BOTTORFF. Mr. Charles Butler. And only, acting, I am sure on behalf of instructions from the California Farm Bureau Federation. He is the director of land and water use of the American Farm Bureau Federation.

Senator ANDERSON. Well, I am just

Mr. BOTTORFF. Now I think that the language in this first paragraph on page 2 only refers to the serious conflicts which exist between the proposals and the policy that has been set by the house of delegates. And that is all.

Senator ANDERSON. Let me see if I can straighten out what is bothering me. I am a member of the Farm Bureau in my State. I am not a very good member, but I belong to it.

I don't get there too much. I do know a little bit, I think, about the American Farm Bureau and the way it operates, the way it draws up resolutions.

Now, down here, as I glance through it, I can see where it says amendments to these bills prepared with the Kern County Farm Bureau water problems department, correct these conflicts and provide for adequate State control of the construction, operation, and maintenance of the San Luis unit.

That doesn't sound to me like a Farm Bureau resolution.

I think this is somebody's opinion that is being expressed here and isn't the opinion of the Farm Bureau. I am trying to be very sure this is the work of the California Farm Bureau.

Mr. BOTTORFF. Yes, indeed, I am convinced that this is the expression of the California Farm Bureau in the manner that I have said. I am just acting as the agency through which this is being offered.

I thought perhaps in offering it that it might clear up some of the things that I have said regarding attitudes and feelings in respect to these things which might be of help. Otherwise, I assume that I would have just handed it in. I may have done the wrong thing. But I wanted to do the right thing.

Senator ANDERSON. You have been to Farm Bureau conventions? Mr. BOTTORFF. Yes, indeed I have.

Senator ANDERSON. Have you served on the resolutions committees ? Mr. BOTTORFF. Yes. I was a party to the convention which reviewed all water policy resolutions and which adopted the ones which you see on the front side of the page.

That is, the first page.

And as far as the other material here is concerned, this is an analysis that has been made to submit. I assume that it would be more accurate than one I could make.

Senator ANDERSON. Well, go ahead.

Mr. BOTTORFF. Thank you. These bills as written would cause the State to lose control of the key unit of the Feather River project and thus endanger sound development by the State of the Feather River project, which is the heart of the California water plan.

The amendments to these bills, prepared by the Kern County Farm Bureau water problems department, correct these conflicts and provide for adequate State control of the construction, operation, and maintenance of the San Luis unit. If these amendments are accepted as proposed, the bills would be substantially in line with the Čalifornia Farm Bureau Federation policy and should be supported. On the other hand, if those provisions of the bill conflicting with California Farm Bureau Federation policy are not corrected, the bills should be opposed.

The California water resources department has proposed some amendments to the bills which, if accepted instead of the Kern County amendments, would jeopardize State control of the project and would convey title of lands, easements, and so forth to the Federal Government. The California Farm Bureau Federation could not approve of, and give support to, the bill if amended in this manner.

The State must maintain control of the San Luis unit in order to insure the eventual development of the California water plan as presently proposed and in order to protect the rights of the water users of California.

Senator ANDERSON. As I understand it now, if we should take the recommendations of the California water resource department—and I assume you mean the testimony of Mr. Banks here

Mr. BOTTORFF. The last amendments have had some review, I believe.

Senator ANDERSON. If we accept those, you think that would jeopardize State control of the project and would convey title lands to the Federal Government, which of course it would. And then the California Farm Bureau Federation would not give approval to this bill? Mr. BOTTORFF. Well, under the existing policies set forth on the first page they would find conflicts. And that, I think, is what they refer to. Those policies were completed by the house of delegates after a great deal of debate. And I think they represent the great majority of the opinion that exists in California in the farm industry. Senator ANDERSON. I am trying to get what this paragraph means. Does this mean that if the committee does not take the Kern County amendments but does take the amendments of the California water resource department, that the California Farm Bureau Federation with its 80,000 members or 60,000 members could not approve and support the bill?

Mr. BOTTORFF. I believe it would be what the construction is shown there to be.

But we hold no

Senator ANDERSON. There was some statement about Mr. George Selmeyer of the Grange. I don't see him here as a witness. Is he here?

Mr. LINEWEAVER. He is not here, nor is he listed as a witness. Senator ANDERSON. Do you know anything about the attitude of the Grange? Does the Grange agree with this?

Mr. BOTTORFF. I have no knowledge of the Grange except what I hear them say in the committee occasionally. I think they are in a different camp on this subject perhaps than we are. I know in our particular farm industry we are represented by the Farm Bureau. We have at least 85 percent of the farm industry in Kern County that is in the Farm Bureau. We have 1,688 members, or more.

Senator ANDERSON. How long have you been in the Farm Bureau? Mr. BOTTORFF. Oh, 30 years.

Frankly, anything that I say here today I hope will not add confusion but will help toward conciliation. We will point that out later. Senator ANDERSON. As I said the first time, I thought I knew the Farm Bureau out there pretty well. This doesn't sound to me like a Farm Bureau resolution. I realize the circumstances under which you present it. I am willing to accept that as such.

Mr. BOTTORFF. Now, if I may, I will continue with my brief state

ment.

We are classed among those who have been in opposition to S. 1887 in its present form, although we are in favor of another bill to authorize the proposed San Luis unit, namely, H. R. 9969, introduced on the House side by Congressman Harlon Hagen.

Recognizing that H. R. 9969 is not before your committee, we are obliged to say that S. 1887 is inadequate, in our opinion. To make amendments to S. 1887 which would be satisfactory to us would require that it shall employ principles and procedures which are included in that certain basic concept which our organization has adopted and which is expressed in the paper entitled "Statement and Purpose and Concept for Timely Development of the State Authorized Feather River Project and the Proposed San Luis Unit of the Central Valley Project." This paper is attached hereto as our exhibit B. With it we also offer the resolution of the Kern County Farm Bureau, dated September 5, 1957, which refers to this instrument. This is our exhibit A, attached.

(The exhibits referred to appear later in Mr. Bottorff's testimony.) Mr. BOTTORFF. You will note that our resolution is approved by the Kern County Farm Bureau as offering a basically sound, fair, and workable plan to cooperatively meet present critical water needs and anticipated increasing future needs of the areas concerned with earliest protection to human life, greatest benefits to the general welfare, and assurance for maintaining and extending the agriculture and general economy of the State.

This has been our continuous attitude in presenting this concept to others for their consideration. It has been offered only on its own merits in the field of ideas respecting our State's water problems.

If the bill, S. 1887, now being considered by this committee is amended to include language which fully expresses the concept's basic ideas and principles, and is favored by your committee after favorable report by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of the Interior, it will receive our support.

Before discussing, however, further details concerning our position, the bill before this committee, or the concept, I would like to

state our position, in general, with respect to the State Feather River project, on which you have already received much testimony and which is repeatedly referred to in our own remarks.

Primarily, we fully support the earliest possible construction, by the State, of the Feather River project, including the dam and reservoir at San Luis Creek, which is authorized by the State as the initial unit of the California water plan.

Senator KUCHEL. Do you disagree with the statement which Mr. Banks made earlier that his approval of S. 1887 in his judgment is completely in accord with the approval by the legislature of the San Luis project?

He made that statement earlier. Did you hear him earlier today? Mr. BOTTORFF. Which branch of the legislature?

I do not really know that I could answer that question. I wouldn't know what the nature of that approval was.

Senator KUCHEL. Well, it was his testimony that the legislature had approved the San Luis unit as a part of the Feather River project.

And then I asked him

Mr. BOTTORFF. Oh, I think I know what you mean.

In 1957, I believe it was, there was authorization of the Feather River project as described in the bulletin on that project dated February 1955; or maybe that was done in 1956; but the authorization does include, as I understand it from the language of that measure, authorization of the San Luis unit. Oh I should say reservoir, and the facilities that are involved in water delivery of the Feather River project, which are involved to some extent in our discussion here. Senator KUCHEL. What I mean is: Mr. Banks has urged the committee here to approve S. 1887 with some amendments which he offered this morning. And I asked him whether that recommendation which he had made was in his judgment in accordance with the State legislative approval of the San Luis Reservoir.

He answered “Yes.”

Would you disagree with him on that?

Mr. BOTTORFF. Well, I think I cannot speak for him. He is right here; is he not?

I would say from what I understand of the power of the department of water resources, that they are in a position to contract in the manner that they have suggested. I do not know-well, he brought something up about the power to transfer title.

I know nothing about either of those points to the degree that I could be an expert in answering your question.

Senator ANDERSON. But you would say that if the amendments recommended by Mr. Banks were adopted the California Bureau would go completely against the project.

Mr. BOTTORFF. As I understand it, they have indicated specific points.

Senator ANDERSON. Yes.

You say up here that you support the construction-and I am skipping a few words-by the State of the Federal project, including the dam and reservoir.

Then, do I understand that you favor State construction of the dam and reservoir?