expense of those of the states. The time is ripe and 

 this occasion is most fitting for distinguishing be- 

 tween real and fanciful conservation, and for estab- 

 lishing a sound relation of means to ends. 



We should first exclude certain activities that 

 come only indirectly under the term, "conserva- 

 tion." The reclamation service is one. Its work is 

 not preservation, but ultilization. The arid lands 

 of this country have been where they now are, the 

 streams have flowed past them uselessly ever since 

 Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden. Irri- 

 gation was practiced in prehistoric time. What we 

 have to do is to bring modern methods to the aid 

 of one of the oldest agricultural arts. It is men- 

 tioned here because its progress illustrates the 

 dangers that beset conservation projects proper. 



They are dangers inseparable from national con- 

 trol and conduct of affairs. The machine is too big 

 and too distant; its operation is slow, cumbrous and 

 costly. So slow is it that settlers are waiting in 

 distress for water promised long ago. So faulty has 

 been the adjustment of time and money that con- 

 gress has had to authorize the issue of $20,000,000 

 of national obligations to complete projects still 

 hanging in the air. So expensive is it that estimates 

 have been exceeded again and again. The settler 

 has had either to pay more than the cost figure he 

 relied on or seek cheaper land in Canada. It costs 

 the government from 50 per cent more to twice 

 as much as it would private enterprise to put water 

 on the land. Under the Lower Yellowstone project 

 the charge is $42.50 per acre, and one dollar per 

 acre annually for maintenance. The Sunnyside 

 project carries a charge of $52 per acre, and 95 

 cents maintenance. Under the North Platte pro- 

 ject the charge is $45 per acre, plus a maintenance 



