140 



THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



There can be no question but the fair interpre- 

 tation of this means a new public notice shall be 



hereafter issued, cover- 

 ing all the actual cost of 

 the project and not the 

 estimated cost, as re- 

 quired in the original 

 Act. When this is done 

 they say it can not be 

 changed again without 

 consent. There is no 

 question but what the 

 Water User who is com- 

 pelled to accept this re- 

 lief will be required to 

 consent to have his 

 charges raised. Is this 

 an honest transaction ? 

 Does it not resemble a 

 Fulton H. Sears loan shark deal, when 



extension is asked, to squeeze the very life out of the 

 unfortunate homsteader? Can a loyal citizen respect 

 his Government when such things are done under the 

 guise of relief? If our Government feels that an ex- 

 tension of time of payment is just, why do they not 

 say so in a clean-cut way, and not hoodwink the people 

 into believing they are extending charity, when in fact 

 they are demanding usury and adopting Shylock tac- 

 tics against those who are helpless? 



MUST RESTORE CONFIDENCE 



By Scott Etter 



(Carlsbad, N. M.) 



Member of the Executive Committee of the National Federa- 

 tion of Water Users' Associations. 



The IRRIGATION AGE has asked me to say some- 

 thing about my recent visit to Washington in the in- 

 terest of the Federal Water Users, and, although I am 

 reluctant to speak just at this time concerning many 

 matters of vital interest to so many individuals, I feel 

 that possibly more people can be reached through the 

 AGE just at this time than in any other way. 



First of all, I found that the IRRIGATION AGE, in 

 its recent campaign to establish the rights of the Fed- 

 eral Water Users, is becoming a power in Washington 

 second only to the National Federation of Water 

 Users' Association itself. Many congressmen have it 

 upon their desks, and it will soon be read by all "offi- 

 cial Washington." 



From my observation while there. I am firmly 

 convinced that House bill 11906 will never pass in 

 its original form, and I believe this is the best news 

 that I can convey to the Water Users. Better that 

 we stay under our old contracts than to get this twen- 

 ty-year extension with the drastic regulations and bu- 

 reaucratic authority which went with it. 



I find that both Houses of Congress, through their 

 committees, are willing to give us the twenty-year ex- 

 tension, and they want to give us some of the free- 

 dom also to which we are entitled. I met the commit- 

 tee in both Houses and my criticisms of the bill in 

 its orignal form was not only received wth interest 

 and courtesy, but a new draft was promptly printed 

 to meet our suggestions as far as seemed possible at 

 the time. 



I believe that Secretary Lane is also with us at 



heart, and if he would always remain Secretary, the 

 great authority granted in the original draft of the 

 bill might not be of detriment to any person ; but if 

 Mr. F. H. Newell's picture had been engraved at the 

 top of the bill when it was printed, it would not have 

 thrown any greater scare into all concerned than did 

 the language it contained. 



Right here I desire to say that I think the great- 

 est mistake the National Water Users have ever made 

 was in not demanding the removal of Mr. Newell 

 last summer when they passed unanimous resolutions 

 in the city of Washington, as everybody knows that 

 the only reason this request was not made was for 

 policy only, and the belief that he would go without 

 it. The Secretary will never create the complete con- 

 fidence in his administration which it deserves while 

 Mr. Newell remains as head of the Commission. It 

 makes no difference whether Mr. Ntwell is right or 

 wrong in his policies, he has lost the confidence of the 

 rank and file of the Water Users, and it will take 

 much to recover it. 



You ask me why I am such a strong advocate 

 of the passage of an act to make the Water Users' 

 Association the Fiscal Agent of the government in 

 this matter. 



I can best answer you by giving a concrete ex- 

 ample on the Carlsbad Project. 



On the Carlsbad Project there are 20,256 acres 

 receiving or entitled to water. The maintenance as- 

 sessed and collected for the past two years has been 

 one dollar per acre or a total of $20,256. 



Under the manage- 



ment of the Reclamation 

 Service the salaries paid 

 in the Carlsbad office 

 are: Project Manager, 

 $175 per month ; Assist- 

 ant Manager, $125 per 

 month ; Fiscal Agent, 

 $110 per month; stenog- 

 rapher, $75 per month; 

 janitor, $45 per month. 

 This comprises the office 

 force in Carlsbad alone, 

 and does not account for 

 the Project's proportion 

 of the salaries of the 

 District Engineer, the 

 Sup ervising Engineer, 

 the Commission, the 

 Consulting Engineer to the Secretary and the field 

 offices and men. 



This small item amounts to $530 per month or 

 $6,360 per year. 



In addition to this, the Project pays one ditch 

 rider $100 per month, three ditch riders $90 per 

 month, one ditch rider $85 per month, one watchman 

 $70 per month, one watchman $60 per month and one 

 foreman $115 per month. (Besides this there are 

 several other foremen and bosses not enumerated, be- 

 cause their work is not permanent.) 



This makes an additonal salary list of $700 per 

 month or a total of $8,400 per year. 



It will be reasonable for this statement to allow 

 for one more foreman only at $100 per month, or 

 $1,200 for the year. 



Scott Etter 



