THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



119 



CORRESPONDENCE 



THE BURKETT RANGE CONTROL BILL. 



The following letter is in reply to one sent out by the 

 editor and is written by a gentleman who fully understands 

 the situation: 



January 15, 1908. 

 Editor IRRIGATION AGE: 



Dear Sir : I have yours with request for an expression of 

 views on the Burkett range control bill. I notice the bill is 

 being generally condemned by those who have heretofore 

 opposed such legislation, and also that even those who have 

 heretofore been inclined to a favorable leaning towards the 

 idea of federal range control largely, in my opinion, because 

 the administration is supposed to favor it find much to criti- 

 cise in this measure. I am not surprised at this development 

 of the situation, for the proposed legislation is so funda- 

 mentally wrong in its purposes that it is not possible that the 

 details of the same can be satisfactory to any one actuated 

 with an honest desire for the healthy, unimpaired development 

 of the West and alive to the importance of maintaining that 

 local control over local affairs which is the corner stone of our 

 institutions. 



It should be remembered that the idea of federal range 

 control is not the natural growth or development of our land 

 system or of the needs and demands of western people, but 

 that it is purely an exotic, sprouted and incubated in the 

 bureaucratic hothouses of the forest service, sedulously culti- 

 vated by the officials of various government bureaus through 

 the lavish use of the fertilizing influences of vast patronage 

 and transplanted into the field of legislative experiment by a 

 gentleman who is conscious of the fact that it cannot be reared 

 in his own particular political vineyard, and who has therefore 

 probably taken little pains to learn of its character. 



The federal range control idea is founded on the theory 

 that there are vast unbroken stretches of land in the West 

 wholly unfit for any other purpose than that of grazing the 

 natural grasses which grow thereon ; that over extensive areas 

 we have practically reached the limit of development ; and that 

 these lands should be permanently retained in the hands of the 

 national government, their use administered by its officials and 

 the returns therefrom passed into the national treasury. This 

 policy would overturn the theory of public lands heretofore 

 held by our people and recognized by the highest courts 

 to-wit : that the public lands are held as a trust by the gov- 

 ernment for the people, to be gradually passed into private 

 ownership and control in such manner and in such areas as 

 shall guarantee their highest and best use and establish a 

 home-owning, land-owning citizenship. 



Until our people shall have definitely determined that we 

 shall depart from the system of private ownership of lands and 

 local control of local affairs, it is impossible that any federal 

 range control system can be satisfactory in its details to any 

 one except powerful individuals and corporations who are will- 

 ing to trust to official recognition for large and special favors, 

 for no system which vests in the hands of an official not 

 directly responsible to the people the right to say how many, 

 what kind, when, where and how live stock may be ranged 

 upon the public domain, and how much shall be paid for _the 

 privilege, can in the nature of things be otherwise than galling, 

 oppressive and harmful to the average citizen to a degree 

 beyond the power of words to express. That such a system 

 would breed discontent, develop favoritism and be as fruitful 

 of injustice as a porcupine of quills is, it seems to me, too 

 patent to require extended proof. 



If, disregarding the fundamental error embodied in the 

 Burkett bill, one peruses its pages with a view of examining 

 it in detail, the objections to it multiply indefinitely. In the 

 first place, it is open to the general criticism that its language 

 is neither clear nor explicit; that it is so drafted as to conceal 

 quite as much as it purports to make plain, and a careful 

 perusal of the measure arouses the suspicion that its ambiguity 

 and indirection is studied and for a purpose ; that the framers 

 of the bill had not the courage to write in plain language what 

 they really expected to accomplish under the legislation. 



Section 2 of the bill purports to provide for local partici- 

 pation in range control, and yet the final decision in every 

 case is left with the Secretary of Agriculture, if the local com- 

 mittee does not agree with the federal official in charge. 



While Section 3 of the bill purports to leave lands open to 

 settlement, yet under its provisions any large stock outfit, by 

 the expenditure of a hundred dollars in "corrals, reservoirs, 

 wells or other improvements" at intervals over their range, 

 could permanently control the same and prevent settlement 

 indefinitely. 



Section 5 evidently contemplates that there will be very 

 little settlement or development after this system is esablished, 

 for it proposes certain government reserves for school houses, 

 churches, etc., as though assuming, that with this Russianizing 

 of the western country it will be necessary for a kindly, pater- 

 nal government to make special arrangements for the location 

 of our churches and school houses, and the climax of all of 

 this scheme of permanent federal landlordism is contained in 

 the provision giving us a measly ten per cent of the moneys 

 paid by our people for the privilege of continuing to live in 

 the States which they have builded and whose industries they 

 have developed. 



I have referred but briefly to the details of the bill because, 

 as I stated in the earlier part of my letter, the theory of the 

 measure is so fundamentally wrong that in the very nature of 

 things the details must be obnoxious. But if one is disposed 

 to examine the bill carefully many other objectionable features 

 of detail will be found. For instance, although the brief of 

 the bill sent out by its sponsors contained in display type the 

 statement that "no change in water laws" was contemplated, 

 the fact remains that Section 5 contains a provision intended 

 to give the national government at least concurrent jurisdic- 

 tion with the States over all waters on the public lands. The 

 legislation, therefore, is not only intended to centralize land 

 control, but to further the long-cherished ambition of the 

 bureaus for control over our water resources. 



I do not believe that the measure or any one like it can 

 possibly become a law. I think our people will insist that we 

 shall continue the policy of gradually passing the lands into 

 the hands of individuals and under which, in the meantime, 

 the public domain shall be left free to exploration, settlement 

 and development. That the conditions under this system are 

 not in all cases ideal or entirely satisfactory no one familiar 

 with them will pretend to claim, but infinitely worse than any 

 conditions that have ever existed or are likely to exist on the 

 public range would be the conditions which would be estab- 

 lished by federal range control. 



Very truly yours, 



EDITOR THE IRRIGATION AGE: 



OAKLAND, CAL., January 23, 1908. 



I was greatly interested in the article that appeared in 

 your January issue, entitled "A Practical Solution of the Cal- 

 ifornia Reclamation Problems." The plan you advised for 

 financing the reclamation of the Sacramento Valley was ad- 

 mirably worked out, and I believe it is practicable. The arti- 

 cle is worthy the attention of everyone interested in the d?- 

 velopment of the Pacific Coast, and the Coast newspaper* 

 should take up the plan and agitate its adoption as soon as 

 possible, for the reclamation of the million or more acres of 

 land now subject to inundation in the Sacramento Valley 

 would alone add untold millions of wealth to the State of 

 California. 



I am familiar with most of the types of dredges in com- 

 mon use to-day, but the dredge mentioned in the article 

 the Bed Rock Pneumatic Pipe Dredge is entirely new to me, 

 and since you think it can be successfully used in dredging 

 the California rivers and building levees it must differ 

 greatly from any of the ordinary dredges, as each has its 

 limitations in the class of work that must be done in reclaim- 

 ing the Sacramento Valley. 



Would you kindly tell me if any of these Bed Rock 

 Pneumatic Pipe Dredges are in operation, and if so, where 

 can they be seen? Where are they built and in what par- 

 ticular, if any, do they differ from the suction dredge? 



E. C. McEndree. 



The article you refer to is already creating considerable 

 comment and we believe the plan outlined is worthy of the 

 most serious consideration on the part of those interested in 

 the development of the State of California. 



Many plans have been devised at different times for the 

 reclamation of a few thousand acres in the Sacramento Val- 

 ley, but any plan heretofore advanced that was comprehensive 

 enough to take in the whole Sacramento Valley for reclama- 

 tion was founded on the promise that the Federal Govern- 

 ment would supply most of the funds for carrying on the 



