THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



21 



CORRESPONDENCE 



Washington, D. C, October 11, 1913. 

 Editor, IRRIGATION AGE, Chicago, 111. 



Dear Sir: I note in your last issue an article criti- 

 cizing the operations of the Government on the North 

 Platte project for constructing and using the Pathfinder 

 reservoir. The statement is made that this is "apparently 

 another illustration of the carelessness of the reclamation 

 officials for the welfare of the old-time settler." 



The water rights of the North Platte river have been 

 adjudicated by the courts of the State of Nebraska. The 

 reclamation service has rigidly respected all rights defined 

 by the court, and these decrees have been accepted by 

 the canals on the North Platte river which have recog- 

 nized the insufficiency of the natural flow of the river in 

 the months of July, August and September, and have to a 

 considerable number made contracts with the United States 

 to furnish from the Pathfinder reservoir water which is 

 stored in the winter and spring and is to be turned down 

 in the summer and fall to supply those rights when the 

 river would be dry were it not for this reservoir. When 

 numerous irrigation districts have entered into contacts, 

 paying hundeds of thousands of dollars for such supple- 

 mental water rights, it can hardly be questioned that the 

 need existed. 



The North Platte river had been known to be dry at 

 the Wyoming-Nebraska state line before the Pathfinder 

 reservoir was constructed or any water diverted by the 

 United States, and every normal year in that vicinity the 

 river was very low during the months of August and Sep- 

 tember. The courts of Nebraska have adjudicated rights 

 to the Tri-State canal amounting to 1,142 cubic feet per 

 second and this is the second priority on the river. Other 

 priorities antedating the advent of the government in the 

 field bring this amount up to more than 3,000 cubic feet 

 per second. Every one of these priorities, except No. 1, 

 which is very small, is short of water every normal year 

 during July, August and September. The Tri-State canal, 

 heading just below the state line, has a prior right to far 

 more water than the river normally carries during the 

 months of July, August and September, so that if the 

 reservoir had never been built the river would be dry 

 during those months below the head of this canal. Obvi- 

 ously, the government could not make this condition any 

 worse. 



On the contrary, the government stores the water in 

 the winter, spring and early summer, when the river is 

 in flood, and during the later summer and fall allows as 

 much water to flow through the reservoir, without storage, 

 as flows in at the upper end, and in addition thereto re- 

 leases stored water to an amount sufficient to supply the 

 needs of its own canals, and of those canals with which 

 it has contracts to furnish storage water. In addition to 

 this, pains have always been taken to release an additional 

 quantity of storage water beyond all legal requirements 

 so as to utterly prevent any shadow of truthful claim that 

 the United States has interfered with prior rights. There 

 is considerable return seepage from the water used by the 

 United States through the Interstate canal and from the 

 storage water which it delivers to eight canals holding 

 contracts for storage water. Such return waters, of 

 course, increase the volume of the river above what it 

 would be in the absence of the reservoir and are quickly 

 diverted by the private canals needing the water. The 

 distribution of the water in the State of Nebraska is super- 

 vised by the State Engineer, who doubtless makes this 

 distribution in accordance with the court decree. If any 

 criticism is in order it is upon the court and not upon the 

 United States. 



It is not believed that any responsible person ac- 

 quainted with the facts will dispute any of the statements 

 above. The complaint really is from people who claim 

 riparian rights along the river and have no canals and no 

 adjudicated water rights. The riparian doctrine requires 

 that any one using water from the river must return it to 

 the channel undiminished in quantity. This, of course, is 

 directly antagonistic to irrigation uses, and has been set 

 aside in all irrigation states. Will THE IRRIGATION AGE 

 claim that the riparian doctrine should prevail and all 



diversion of river water for irrigation should cease? Even 

 if this claim is made, it cannot be said that the United 

 States is a party guilty of overthrowing the riparian doc- 

 trine; this was done by the State Legislature, Board of 

 Control, and the courts when the right to divert water for 

 irrigation was granted and adjudicated. The United States 

 is simply respecting the laws and decrees of the state gov- 

 ernment. If these are wrong, the campaign should be 

 carried on against the legislature and the state courts and 

 not against the reclamation service, which, as shown 

 above, has positively benefited the late summer and fall 

 condition in the North Platte valley. 



Very respectfully, 



A .P. DAVIS, 

 Chief Engineer. 



Letter From the Editor of Financial World 

 to Mr. Edward Bohm. 



New York City, October 16, 1913. 

 Dear Mr. Bohm: 



I am in receipt of recent copies of THE IRRIGATION AGE 

 containing your correspondence and articles relating your 

 reasons for the disasters which have overtaken so many 

 irrigation enterprises. I thank you for forwarding these 

 articles, as no doubt I shall find in them some valuable 

 sug5estion and ideas on which to comment in early issues 

 of the Financial World. 



It is, indeed, regrettable that the majority of these 

 enterprises have found their way to failure rather than to 

 success. Fundamentally, in my opinion, there is no class 

 of enterprises having a sounder basis upon which to estab- 

 lish themselves solidly than irrigation projects, for where 

 they arc reduced to a simple conclusion the only require- 

 ments they needed to prosper were 'land, water and in- 

 telligent and conservative financing to develop them, and 

 yet, through the operations of greedy finance and inex- 

 perienced engineering work, the majority of them have 

 been forced to the wall involving in their disaster losses 

 upon the small investor and the homeseeker persons who 

 least of all could afford to jeopardize their savings. 



As the different states through their Carey acts are 

 more or less morally responsible for the prevailing de- 

 moralization of the irrigation development in their state, 

 they should for the general good of their reputation, do 

 something for the settlers and the bondholders, in re- 

 pairing the damage. 



The fight that you are putting up to awaken the con- 

 science of the officials of these different states should, and 

 I know will, bring to you the approval of all honest think- 

 ing people. 



With kindest regards, I am 



Very truly yours, 



LOUIS GUENTHER. 



Cleveland, Ohio. Oct. 17, 1913. 

 Editor IRRIGATION AGE, 

 Chicago. 



Dear Sir: I am very much interested in the timely article appear- 

 ing in the October AGE from the pen of Mr. C. J. Blanchard under 

 caption "Cost of Water Per Acre." 



The figures given are authentic, but the statement does not go 

 far enough, nor does it do sufficient justice to the cause of govern- 

 ment reclamation. 



The important point omitted in Mr. Blanchard's discussion is as 

 to the character of the "Water Rights" listed. I have always con- 

 tended that the disputants in these matters failed to take cognizance, 

 not only of the added element of 6 per cent interest charge upon 

 "private," District and Carey Act Projects (which feature is empha 

 sized in the article referred to), but of the tremendous chasm sepa 

 rating many of these from government projects when the element ot 

 safety is considered. 



It would be interesting to have the history of some of these ven- 

 tures set forth how much has been lost by purchasers of lands, 

 "ephemeral water rights" and still more visionary "securities.'* How 

 about the Denver Reservoir & Irrigation Company and others in the 

 list of Colorado projects, the failure of the "Conrad" project in Mon- 

 tana, the "French" project in New Mexico, of the Carey Act projects, 

 the Colorado Land & Water Supply Company, the Toltes canal, thr 

 Big Lost river, the King Hill? I am mentioning only the most con 

 spicuous failures. Many of the projects listed have never been built and 

 some never will be. 



It would be interesting to have the history of these ninety odl* 

 projects disclosed by some competent authority so that some fair basis 

 for comparison could be arrived at. Such a discussion should include, 

 also, the many "districts," defunct and otherwise. 

 Sincerely yours, 



EDWARD BOHM. 



