Ask the Scholar
Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: Issue Papers - Agriculture
Box: P30
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
fill
STATEMENT ON FOREMOST-LUCKY COURT ACTION
The California Department of Agriculture has filed a complaint
against Foremost-McKesson, Inc., San Francisco, and Lucky
Stores, Inc., San Leandro. The complaint was filed Monday,
July 15, in Superior Court, San Francisco.
The complaint calls for an injunction and civil penalties.
The civil penalties sought amount to $1,027,000 against each
defendant. The injunction is for violations of the California
Milk Stabilization Act involving sales of milk below established
minimum prices.
The complaint alleges that Foremost and Lucky entered into an
illegal agreement in October, 1965, under which Foremost gave
rebates to Lucky on sales of milk. The sales were made at
established legal prices but the rebates resulted in reducing
these prices below the established minimums, in violation of
the California Agricultural Code. The rebates amounted to a
total of about $4,400,000 to approximately 175 Lucky stores
in California.
The Agricultural Code provides for civil penalties of $500 for
each violation. The $1,027,000 in penalties sought from each
defendant cover violations alleged to have been committed in
the period from July, 1967, to date. If the courts award
these penalties to the Department, the money will go into the
milk fund, which is used to administer and enforce California's
milk laws.
BACKGROUND
Although this complaint is of much greater magnitude than other
legal actions taken against violators of California milk laws,
it is by no means an isolated case. Rather, it is part of the
Department's continuing program of enforcing California's milk
laws.
For example, the Department closed 33 civil actions against
milk law transgressors in the period July 1, 1967, through
June 30, 1968.
As of July 1, 1968, we have ten actions pending for alleged
violations of milk laws. Four more legal actions are in the
process of being filed.
In addition, the Department is presently in the process of
transmitting 28 legal actions to the Attorney General for
filing. All of these actions have resulted from Department
investigations into practices within the milk industry in
violation of the California Milk Stabilization Act.
agree
file
Excerpts from "A Summary of the Imperial
Valley 160-Acre Limitation Case"
issued by Research 2/67
Imperial growers feel that the Valley's economic future is
threatened by a lawsuit filed against the IID in the United
States District Court in San Diego by U.S. Attorney Edwin L.
Miller, Jr., on Jan. 11, 1966, on behalf of Acting Attorney
General Ramsey Clark.
The suit seeks to enforce the 160-acre limitation (160AL)
written into the 1902 Reclamation Act. The average holding in
the Imperial reportedly runs around 1,000 acres. Accordingly,
many growers would be forced to sell holdings in excess of
160-acres--and (if the letter of the law is followed) at pre-
irrigation land values.
As a result of the suit, Imperial real estate brokers claim
they cannot sell land, values are depressed and the assessor has
difficulty assessing value. Representatives of Valley growers
contend that the 160 AL is utterly uneconomic in this day of
factories-on-the-farm, and that the Imperial could revert back
to wasteland if the 160 AL is enforced. at great loss to the
nation's food producing capacity. (page 2)
Representatives of Imperial farmers claim that the 160 AL
does not apply for the following reasons: (1) Perfected vested
water rights existed before the 1902 Act was passed, (2) The Im-
perial was never designated a Reclamation Project under the 1902
Act, (3) the 1928 Boulder Act did not specifically apply the 160 AL
to any but government-owned lands in the area, (4) the 1932 contract
between IID and the government did not include the 160 AL, and (5)
-2-
a letter from Secretary of the Interior Ray Lyman Wilbur, dated
Feb. 24, 1933, notified the IID of his opinion, that the 160 AL
did not apply to privately owned land in the IID. (page 5)
In summation, it would appear that the IID's legal case is
based upon a 1933 letter from the Secretary of the Interior (not
a formal legal opinion) which they promoted in emergency circum-
stances; that the Secretary relied heavily upon exclusion of the
160 AL from the Boulder Canyon Act (repeal by exclusion, which may
not legally follow); that the IID has consistently opposed the
160 AL, did not want it included in the Act or its contract; and
that the IID and its allies have sought to color the Act, its
contract and Wilbur's letter in accordance with their own wishes
rather than any objective analysis of the facts and the legal
ground.
The moral case is another matter. Imperial growers have
built up an agricultural empire of great value to the state and
to the country; surely, their productive contribution deserves
consideration. If their feeling of insulation from the provisions
of the 160 AL was at least in part wishful thinking (encouraged, at
least on occasion, by the government), some allowance must be
made for the time which passed before the government finally got
around to busting their dream.
In conclusion, the question has been raised: Why now? How
are the nation's interests to be served by the current Federal suit
against the IID?
-3-
Assistant Secretary of the Interior Kenneth Holum reportedly
explained the government's action as dedicated entirely to the
proposition of enforcing the letter of the law. No specific
advantage was claimed in earrying out "the intent of the reclama-
tion law" nor any specific gain for "the government's interest"
(quoting the language of the government's complaint).
The suggestion has been raised among California farmers that
the suit is an attempt by Secretary of Interior Udall to divert
Colorado River water from the Imperial to Arizona. While clamping
down on the Imperial, Udall is reportedly entering into 25-year
leases of government land in Arizona and exempting the leaseholders
from the 160 AL.
According to reports, more than 42,000 acres on the Colorado
River Indian Reservation near Parker, Ariz. have been leased, and
the total is expected to be 107,000 acres eventually. The lease-
holders received a guarantee of "irrigation water in the amount of
not less than five (5) acre-feet per acre. 11 Some are allowed eight-
acre-feet per acre.
The case of Bruce Church is cited. He reportedly owns con-
siderable Imperial property which he would be forced to sell under
the 160 AL. However, he has leased 6,400 acres of Arizona land and
received guarantee of water. (page 11)
Page data
- Page
- 1
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- document
- Media ID
- 90353ffe88d244dd
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 118564792
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "118564792",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564792",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Issue Papers - Agriculture",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564792",
"identifierLocal": "840",
"collections": [
"Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
"Issue Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408628/40-840-7408628-P30-003-2017.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408628/40-840-7408628-P30-003-2017.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408628/40-840-7408628-P30-003-2017.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "118564792",
"label": "Issue Papers - Agriculture",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564792"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "118564792",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564792",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Issue Papers - Agriculture",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564792",
"identifierLocal": "840",
"collections": [
"Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
"Issue Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408628/40-840-7408628-P30-003-2017.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408628/40-840-7408628-P30-003-2017.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408628/40-840-7408628-P30-003-2017.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564792",
"naId": 118564792,
"coverageEndDate": {
"logicalDate": "1975-12-31",
"year": 1975
},
"coverageStartDate": {
"logicalDate": "1967-01-01",
"year": 1967
},
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 1,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "document",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408628/40-840-7408628-P30-003-2017.pdf",
"mediaId": "90353ffe88d244dd",
"ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,\n1966-74: Press Unit\nFolder Title: Issue Papers - Agriculture\nBox: P30\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nfill\nSTATEMENT ON FOREMOST-LUCKY COURT ACTION\nThe California Department of Agriculture has filed a complaint\nagainst Foremost-McKesson, Inc., San Francisco, and Lucky\nStores, Inc., San Leandro. The complaint was filed Monday,\nJuly 15, in Superior Court, San Francisco.\nThe complaint calls for an injunction and civil penalties.\nThe civil penalties sought amount to $1,027,000 against each\ndefendant. The injunction is for violations of the California\nMilk Stabilization Act involving sales of milk below established\nminimum prices.\nThe complaint alleges that Foremost and Lucky entered into an\nillegal agreement in October, 1965, under which Foremost gave\nrebates to Lucky on sales of milk. The sales were made at\nestablished legal prices but the rebates resulted in reducing\nthese prices below the established minimums, in violation of\nthe California Agricultural Code. The rebates amounted to a\ntotal of about $4,400,000 to approximately 175 Lucky stores\nin California.\nThe Agricultural Code provides for civil penalties of $500 for\neach violation. The $1,027,000 in penalties sought from each\ndefendant cover violations alleged to have been committed in\nthe period from July, 1967, to date. If the courts award\nthese penalties to the Department, the money will go into the\nmilk fund, which is used to administer and enforce California's\nmilk laws.\nBACKGROUND\nAlthough this complaint is of much greater magnitude than other\nlegal actions taken against violators of California milk laws,\nit is by no means an isolated case. Rather, it is part of the\nDepartment's continuing program of enforcing California's milk\nlaws.\nFor example, the Department closed 33 civil actions against\nmilk law transgressors in the period July 1, 1967, through\nJune 30, 1968.\nAs of July 1, 1968, we have ten actions pending for alleged\nviolations of milk laws. Four more legal actions are in the\nprocess of being filed.\nIn addition, the Department is presently in the process of\ntransmitting 28 legal actions to the Attorney General for\nfiling. All of these actions have resulted from Department\ninvestigations into practices within the milk industry in\nviolation of the California Milk Stabilization Act.\nagree\nfile\nExcerpts from \"A Summary of the Imperial\nValley 160-Acre Limitation Case\"\nissued by Research 2/67\nImperial growers feel that the Valley's economic future is\nthreatened by a lawsuit filed against the IID in the United\nStates District Court in San Diego by U.S. Attorney Edwin L.\nMiller, Jr., on Jan. 11, 1966, on behalf of Acting Attorney\nGeneral Ramsey Clark.\nThe suit seeks to enforce the 160-acre limitation (160AL)\nwritten into the 1902 Reclamation Act. The average holding in\nthe Imperial reportedly runs around 1,000 acres. Accordingly,\nmany growers would be forced to sell holdings in excess of\n160-acres--and (if the letter of the law is followed) at pre-\nirrigation land values.\nAs a result of the suit, Imperial real estate brokers claim\nthey cannot sell land, values are depressed and the assessor has\ndifficulty assessing value. Representatives of Valley growers\ncontend that the 160 AL is utterly uneconomic in this day of\nfactories-on-the-farm, and that the Imperial could revert back\nto wasteland if the 160 AL is enforced. at great loss to the\nnation's food producing capacity. (page 2)\nRepresentatives of Imperial farmers claim that the 160 AL\ndoes not apply for the following reasons: (1) Perfected vested\nwater rights existed before the 1902 Act was passed, (2) The Im-\nperial was never designated a Reclamation Project under the 1902\nAct, (3) the 1928 Boulder Act did not specifically apply the 160 AL\nto any but government-owned lands in the area, (4) the 1932 contract\nbetween IID and the government did not include the 160 AL, and (5)\n-2-\na letter from Secretary of the Interior Ray Lyman Wilbur, dated\nFeb. 24, 1933, notified the IID of his opinion, that the 160 AL\ndid not apply to privately owned land in the IID. (page 5)\nIn summation, it would appear that the IID's legal case is\nbased upon a 1933 letter from the Secretary of the Interior (not\na formal legal opinion) which they promoted in emergency circum-\nstances; that the Secretary relied heavily upon exclusion of the\n160 AL from the Boulder Canyon Act (repeal by exclusion, which may\nnot legally follow); that the IID has consistently opposed the\n160 AL, did not want it included in the Act or its contract; and\nthat the IID and its allies have sought to color the Act, its\ncontract and Wilbur's letter in accordance with their own wishes\nrather than any objective analysis of the facts and the legal\nground.\nThe moral case is another matter. Imperial growers have\nbuilt up an agricultural empire of great value to the state and\nto the country; surely, their productive contribution deserves\nconsideration. If their feeling of insulation from the provisions\nof the 160 AL was at least in part wishful thinking (encouraged, at\nleast on occasion, by the government), some allowance must be\nmade for the time which passed before the government finally got\naround to busting their dream.\nIn conclusion, the question has been raised: Why now? How\nare the nation's interests to be served by the current Federal suit\nagainst the IID?\n-3-\nAssistant Secretary of the Interior Kenneth Holum reportedly\nexplained the government's action as dedicated entirely to the\nproposition of enforcing the letter of the law. No specific\nadvantage was claimed in earrying out \"the intent of the reclama-\ntion law\" nor any specific gain for \"the government's interest\"\n(quoting the language of the government's complaint).\nThe suggestion has been raised among California farmers that\nthe suit is an attempt by Secretary of Interior Udall to divert\nColorado River water from the Imperial to Arizona. While clamping\ndown on the Imperial, Udall is reportedly entering into 25-year\nleases of government land in Arizona and exempting the leaseholders\nfrom the 160 AL.\nAccording to reports, more than 42,000 acres on the Colorado\nRiver Indian Reservation near Parker, Ariz. have been leased, and\nthe total is expected to be 107,000 acres eventually. The lease-\nholders received a guarantee of \"irrigation water in the amount of\nnot less than five (5) acre-feet per acre. 11 Some are allowed eight-\nacre-feet per acre.\nThe case of Bruce Church is cited. He reportedly owns con-\nsiderable Imperial property which he would be forced to sell under\nthe 160 AL. However, he has leased 6,400 acres of Arizona land and\nreceived guarantee of water. (page 11)"
}