THE IERIGATION AGE. 



177 



Fairview, Morit., March 20th, 1909. 

 Editor Irrigation Age, Chicago, 111. : 



Dear Sir I am a water user under the Lower Yellow- 

 stone Irrigation Project, and desire some information and 

 advice relative to the construction and interpretation of the 

 "Reclamation Act." I thought you might be able to quote 

 me some authority on the interpretation of certain provisions 

 of the law and give me some advice as to the best way for 

 the water users to proceed to get justice. 



I believe the "Reclamation Act" has been violated in 

 many of its most important provisions. The provisions in 

 section 4 of the act relative to the time when public notice 

 shall be given as to the "area per entry" and "the number 

 of installments in which said charges shall be paid" and the 

 cost of construction we believe have been violated. Under 

 this project it was about four years after the Secretary of the 

 Interior decided that the project was practicable and con- 

 tracts let for construction that public notice Vas given as 

 required by section 4. This association was organized on 

 the basis of $30 per acre, it being understood that that was 

 the estimated cost, and a limit beyond which the government 

 could not go in the cost of construction, yet the public notice 

 issued by the secretary fixes the charges at $42.50 per acre, 

 to be paid in ten annual installments, and a maintenance fee 

 of $1 per acre for the first year. 



We cannot understand how we can be mistaken or wrong 

 in our conclusions on these most important points. The lan- 

 guage of the act is precise as to what the cost shall be. It 

 says estimated cost, and in no place mentions actual cost. 

 The law also provides in section 3 that the maps, plans and 

 estimates of cost shall be complete, and in section 2 that 

 these facts and estimates of cost shall be filed with Congress 

 at the beginning of every regular session. In the Third An- 

 nual Report of the Reclamation Service, page 31, F. H. New- 

 ell, director of the Reclamation Service, refers to this pro- 

 vision as follows : "One of the most important provisions 

 of the law is contained in this section (section 4), namely, 

 that requiring these payments of the estimated cost of con- 

 struction. This is an effective safeguard against undertaking 

 visionary and unprofitable operations, and puts the operation 

 under the law on a sound basis." We believed at the time 

 of the organization of this association that that was the 

 meaning and true interpretation of the law, and with that 

 understanding authorized our president and secretary of the 

 water users' association to sign the contract for the con- 

 struction of the canal with the Secretary of the Interior. 



This association was also organized as a 160-acre farm 

 unit project, and the entrymen after working for four years, 

 on the advice of the Reclamation Service, to prepare their 

 lands for irrigation are notified by the decision of the secre- 

 tary that 80 acres of their land, and, in many cases, much of 

 their labor for four years will be taken away from them. 



Are we right or wrong on these questions? We want 

 to live up to our contract with the government, even though 

 it imposes on us greater obligations than we were at first 

 led to believe by those whom we thought were our bene- 

 factors. If we are right we propose to stand for the prin- 

 ciple that right is right. In our own minds we have reached 

 the firm conclusion that we are right, but we are open for 

 conversion. However, we want more substantial arguments 

 than. "I can't read it that way." 



The following are the questions on which this water 

 users' association and the Reclamation service do not agree, 

 to wit : 



1st. Shall the secretary report to Congress the estimated 

 cost of contemplated, work before contracts for construction 

 work are let? 



2nd. Shall the plans, maps and estimated costs of contem- 

 plated work be complete before he determines whether the 

 project is oracticable? 



3rd. Shall the secretary give public notice as soon as con- 

 tracts are let for construction, and thereby determine the area 

 per entry and charges per acre? 



4th. Is the estimated cost the sum to be returned to the 

 reclamation fund? 



5th. Does the estimated cost include maintenance and op- 

 eration charges for ten years? 



6th. Have other projects had any trouble on these ques- 

 tions ? 



I have given a brief discussion of some of these questions 

 from the viewpoint of the water user, to give you some idea 

 of the grounds on which we take issue with the government, 

 but we would like to know how people who are not financially 

 interested interpret these points of law, and the justice or 

 injustice of straining or violating the law or all concerned. 



Why did the secretary wait for four years before giving 

 public notice? Is there something about the estimated cost 

 and the actual cost that the secretary did not want made 

 public ? 



I have asked you too many question now, but these ques- 

 tions are of so much importance to the water users of this 

 valley that I could not restrain myself from asking them, and 

 trust that you will answer those that you think of enough 

 importance to answer. 



There are other questions that I should like to ask later 

 on, but we want to get straight on these questions first. 



Thanking you in advance for such information as you 

 may give me in these matters, I am 



Yours truly, 



MONTANA. 



[This letter, signed by a prominent citizen of Montana 

 is printed in full, so that others of our readers who have en- 

 countered similar conditions may send a statement of their 

 experience to us, to be forwarded to our Montana corre- 

 spondent. Such conditions may only be corrected by strong 

 protest from the many. EDITOR.] 



The Secretary of the Interior has restored to the pub- 

 lic domain the following described lands, which were with- 

 drawn in connection with the Rio Grande irrigation pro- 

 ject, Texas-New Mexico: New Mexico. New Mexico 

 Principal Meridian. (International Reservoir Site) Town- 

 ship 26 S., R. 2 E., all Sees. 3, 4, 9, 10, 13 to 16 inclusive; 

 21 to 28 inclusive, and 33 to 36 inclusive; township 27 S., R. 

 2 E., all Sees. 1 to 4 inclusive, 9 to 16 inclusive, 21 to 28 inclu- 

 sive, and 33 to 36 inclusive; township 28 S., R. 2 E., all Sees. 

 1 to 4 inclusive, 9 to 16 inclusive, 21 to 28 inclusive, and 33 

 to 36 inclusive; township 29, S., R. 2 and 3 E., all Sees. 1 to 

 4 inclusive, 9 to 16 inclusive, 3 to 11 inclusive, and 13 to 18 

 inclusive. 



USE A- 



PRESS CLIPPING 

 BUREAU 



To get AHEAD of your competitors and be FIRST 

 to find out about and get NEW CUSTOMERS or 

 about CONTRACTS to be let and where MA- 

 TERIAL is wanted. To gather the very LATEST 

 information on any subject of interest to you. 

 TO WIN your Debate, or enrich your Essay, or 

 Club paper. OUR drag net is WORLD WIDE. 

 You get RESULTS quickly, cheaply: 



DO NOT WAIT A MINUTE 



but write for information and free booklet showing 

 how you can MAKE MONEY and SAVE TIME 

 by patronizing America's greatest newspaper read- 

 ing organization. 



THE CONSOLIDATED PRESS 

 CLIPPING CO. 



1107 North American Building 



CHICAGO, U.S. A.- 



