Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564792",
    "label": "Issue Papers - Agriculture",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564792"
}

{
    "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
}

{
    "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"
}

{
    "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)"
}