Special Message to the Congress Recommending Changes in Act Relating to Construction of Irrigation Systems on Federal Projects by Local Agencies.

To the Congress of the United States:

Because of the great importance of Western irrigation to the Nation as a whole, on July 4, 1955 I approved H.R. 103 "To provide for the construction of distribution systems on authorized Federal reclamation projects by irrigation districts and other public agencies." That approval, however, was given with reluctance because of serious defects in the act.

Although it contains desirable features for cooperation between the Federal Government and local agencies, the Act falls short of according to the United States the protection which it requires. Important in that connection is the proviso that title shall at all times reside in the contracting water users. With that proviso in the law the United States lacks the means of assuring that the loans will be repaid, that the systems will be constructed in accordance with the plans, specifications and other engineering requirements of the Secretary of the Interior, and that they will be operated in conformity with the reclamation laws. Accordingly, I recommend that the Act be amended so as to require, prior to the consummation of any loan, the transfer to the United States of the titles to the systems and rights of way held or acquired by the borrowers. Titles to those properties should remain in the United States until the loan is repaid.

In keeping with such recommendation, it is desirable that only revokable permits be granted across any of the lands of the United States. That limitation necessarily follows in view of the fact that the United States will probably advance virtually all of the funds which will be expended in the development of the distribution systems. Moreover, those funds are to be advanced for the specific purpose of effectuating the objectives of the reclamation laws. Thus, as stated, retention of title in the United States will assure to it adequate means of enforcing those laws. For that reason, easements for the rights of way should not be granted by the United States.

As a consequence, the Act should be revised to eliminate those provisions which authorize the Secretary of the Interior or the head of any other executive department to sell and convey necessary rights of way. In lieu of that clause, it is suggested that all fights of way which are granted to borrowers pursuant to the act be brought within the provisions of those Congressional enactments relating to the granting of permits for rights of way across the lands of the United States. The safeguards contained in those Acts are necessary for the protection of the United States.

Because of the fact that large sums of money will be advanced pursuant to the Act, it should contain measures precluding "windfalls" to the borrowers. An amendment explicitly requiring them to account in full to the Secretary of the Interior in regard to all disbursements of borrowed funds and to return at once for application towards amortization of the loans all funds which are not expended in the construction of the distribution systems would suffice as a safeguard against possible "windfalls."

Because of the need for having the corrective measures, that I have outlined applicable to all loans made under the Act, I hope that such measures will be adopted as promptly as possible after the convening of the next session of the Congress.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER