ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR HATFIELD

 In response to recent court cases and proposed regulations on Fed-
 eral Reclamation Law, Congress has considered several measures to
 amend and supplement this body of law. The law has not been sig-
 nificantly modified since the original 1902 Reclamation Act and the
 1926 Omnibus Adjustment Act.
 The proposals before Congress run the entire gamut of interests,
 from strict imposition of existing law to an entire repeal of some
 reclamation statutes. S. 14, introduced by Senator Church, is the
 Committee's vehicle for reclamation reform. It is a noble attempt to
 address the differing opinions and to mediate between their under-
 lying philosophies. I have strongly supported Senator Church's com-
 prehensive approach and the original intent of S. 14. However, I
 believe certain provisions accepted by the Committee have skewed
 the basic objectives of reclamation reform.
 I must object, in particular, to provisions allowing lease holdings
 beyond the 1,280-acre limit, and expanding the payout concept
 exempting water users from acreage limitations. I have recommended,
 in addition, that provisions be adopted to provide a fair and equitable
 mechanism for the disposal of excess land.
 I fail to be convinced there is a need to lift acreage limitations for
 short-term leases. The acreage limitation was expanded to an absolute
 1,280-acres specifically to accommodate farming conditions and leas-
 ing agreements which are necessary to any farm operation. Lifting
 acreage limitations for short-term leases can only be viewed as a loop-
 hole for large landholders to maintain their excessive claim to rec-
 lamation water.
 Like the short-term lease exemption, the accelerated and lump-sum
 payout provisions will allow wealthy farmers to exempt themselves
 from the acreage limitation and continue to take undue advantage
 of the continued Federal subsidy. It should be pointed out that the
 fulfillment of a farmer's obligation actually recovers to the U.S.
 Treasury only an average of 25 percent of the actual costs of serving
 that farmer with a Reclamation water supply.
 Without an administrative mechanism for the disposal of excess
 land, Congress will have avoided one of the basic purposes of Recla-
 mation Law-that is, to assure the Federal subsidy is distributed
broadly and equitably. It should be recalled that one of the prinicpal
tenets of the rationale for spending large sums of Federal money to
develop water in the West was-and if we are to extend the program,
still must be-the creation of opportunities for the family farm.
 As a cosponsor of S. 14, I1 have su ported the bill's intent to (1) update
Reclamation Law to conform with the needs of today's farmers and
(2) preserve the public's interest in seeing that the Federal subsidy
encourages the establishment of viable family owned farms. I believe