IRRIGATION. 



FOUR IRRIGATION QUESTIONS 

 ANSWERED. 



s. s. CRISSEY'S VIEWS. 



1. Why doesn't the United States gov- 

 ernment lea re irrigation with each state 

 most directly interested? 



2. Is the settlement and building up of 

 any part of the west a benefit or injury to 

 eastern manufactures? 



3. Is it a benefit or injury to eastern ag- 

 riculture? 



4. Why did not the republican party in 

 1900 put an anti-irrigation plank in their 

 platform? 



1. To a certain extent national rather 

 than state control is desirable, for the rea- 

 son that, left entirely with the states, there 

 might arise a diversity and possibly a clash 

 of interests. 



To illustrate, take California and Nev- 

 ada. The eastern part of California is 

 mountainous and not available for irriga- 

 tion. The springs and streams could, how- 

 ever, be dammed up to irrigate Nevada. 

 Or in other word?, Nevada is to be bene- 

 fitted by a water supply from California. 

 Conditions of like nature exist between 

 other states. 



2. To ask this question is to answer it. 

 Cotton cloth, boots and shoes, a hundred 

 and one necessities of the farmer out west 

 are the product of eastern looms and fac- 

 tories. The larger the market the larger 

 the demand, and the more prosperous the 

 manufacturing interests. 



3. This alleged injury to farm interests 

 of the East growing out of increased farm 

 production in the West, is the strong point 

 of anti-irrigation people. They say, "look 

 at the prosperity of the west, look at the 

 stupendous yield of wheat, corn, oats, etc. 

 from their rich and almost boundless 

 prairie lands, and then look at the falling 

 off in price of our farm lands." 



Our reply is that it is a case of wrong 



conclusions from wrong premises. A Mas- 

 sachusetts, Vermont or New Hampshire 

 side-hill farm (and they nearly all stand 

 more or less on edge), is comparatively val- 

 ueless because of soil exhaustion. Put 

 the fault where it belongs. Stripped of the 

 original protecting forest, the rigors of a 

 New England climate, combined with that 

 kind of farming which forever takes away 

 more than it puts back, has wrought the 

 logical result of soil poverty. 



But while, as a whole, New England and 

 New York farms have gone back, eastern 

 markets have gone forward. These en- 

 larged markets call for more milk, more 

 eggs, more fruit. If here in the past it 

 don't pay as well as formerly to grow grain 

 it pays far better to grow these specialties. 

 Connecticut is fast becoming a noted peach- 

 growing section, the near markets giving 

 their peach orchards a great advantage over 

 Georgia and California competition. 



4. The Republican party in 1900 well 

 knew that an anti-irrigation plank would 

 lose them every state west of the Missis- 

 sippi. The democratic party had a like 

 streak of every day common sense, not to 

 mention patriotism and a just regard for 

 the rights of all. Statesmen of all parties 

 recognize that the irrigation problem in- 

 volves land for an empire, or, better stated, 

 land for a republic, within and a part of 

 the Great Republic. 



FREDONIA, N. Y., Feb., 1902. 



A MOVEMENT IN THE NORTHWEST. 



A recent letter from North Yakima, 

 Washington, gives the following: 



"The. Northern Pacific Railway company 

 has engaged in the business of construct- 

 ing irrigation canals and will rebuild the 

 old Kennewick ditch in eastern Yakima 

 county. The canal is taken from the Yak- 

 ima river and extends along the Columbia 

 for forty miles, including an area of 30,000 



