THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



141 



You now have upon this little project an annual 

 salary account of $15,960. 



This immense sum, $15,960, expended for sala- 

 ries and bosses out of a total collection of $20,256 

 for maintenance leaves the magnificent sum of $4,296 

 for ACTUAL MAINTENANCE of the canals, lat- 

 erals, ditches, etc., on this Project. 



I do not believe this proportion would be suc- 

 cessfully maintained in any private business, and if 

 the Reclamation Service is to show the people that 

 the government can successfully conduct this business 

 it will have to change its methods. 



An investigation of the records of the govern- 

 ment for the same Project will disclose the fact that 

 at the close of business in the year 1913 this same 

 Project had a deficit of $45,180 charged up against 

 it for operation and maintenance. Do you wonder 

 why? What will the innocent settlers on this Project 

 think of the Reclamation Service some of these fine 

 days, when they are called upon to meet this deficit? 

 Do they think now that they are paying their mainte- 

 nance in full? They do. Were they advised all of 

 the time that their maintenance was actually about 

 $2.25 per acre, instead of $1.00 per acre? They were 

 not. 



If the Water Users' Association was made Fiscal 

 Agent, the people would then know the facts from 

 year to year, and expenses might be cut. 



This same Project was operated by private capi- 

 tal (the Pecos Irrigation Company) in the year 1903, 

 prior to the time of the Reclamation Service, and 

 under that management the total operation and main- 

 tenance expense was $14,546.61, including salaries of 

 all employes. Still, they say that the Water Users 

 are not competent to operate a project. From this 

 comparison, could they do worse than the Reclama- 

 tion Service has done? The new bill must provide 

 for the Water Users as Fiscal Agents and for the 

 turning over of all the operation and maintenance pos- 

 sible, and thus do away with this bureaucratic control 

 and mismanagement. 



NEWELL IS TREMBLING 



By Earl B. Smith 



(Somerton, Ariz.) 



President of the National Federation of Water Users' 

 Associations. 



I want to convey to the readers of the IRRIGATION 

 AGE my analysis of the real situation. I state them as 

 my final conclusions. I want your closest attention, 

 and if you approve I want your help to disseminate 

 the doctrine as widely as possible, for I know of no 

 other argument that is likely to prevail, and I am com- 

 pelled to admit that we have so far completely failed in 

 our efforts with the secretary. 



In the second annual report of the Reclamation 

 Service Mr. Newell comments on the estimated cost 

 provisions of the law. He says that the "estimated 

 cost" provision is a wise one for the reason that it 

 puts everything on a business basis, and leaves the 

 impression that he interpreted it just as we interpret 

 it today. That was along in 1903 or 1904. Then, in 

 1909, when he issued his booklet of questions and an- 

 swers, he savs : 



90. Q. How are the water charges of the water 



rights determined? 



A. These are fixed as required by the law, 

 according to the estimated cost of 

 construction of the works. 



91. Q. When will the cost of the water rights 



be announced? 



A. The public notice required by section 

 4 of the act will be issued before 

 water is ready for delivery and when 

 the work is sufficiently advanced to 

 make an accurate estimate of the cost, 

 etc. 



This view of the matter, of course, changes the 

 estimated cost into actual cost, but this doctrine 

 was not announced until about five years after what 

 he stated in his second annual report. 



He was forced to 

 resort to this doctrine 

 after he had found out 

 that his estimates were 

 worthless. In no other 

 way could he make hi.s 

 books balance, for he 

 must show assets equal 

 to expenditures, and he 

 assessed the difference 

 betweeen the estimated 

 and actual costs to the 

 farmer. 



He is now trembling 

 in fear that his doctrine 

 will not be accepted by 

 the public or by con- 

 gress, so he is resorting Earl B. Smith 

 to a legislative construction measure in his so-called 

 extension bill. He has worked this same scheme once 

 before successfully and he expects to work it again. 

 The first time he worked it was when he prepared 

 and laid the foundation for annulling section 6 relat- 

 ing to the use of the fund for operation and mainte- 

 nance until the works are turned over to the land 

 owners. In the various acts for watering Yakima and 

 other Indian lands he had incorporated in those acts 

 the following clause: "Such payments shall be in 

 addition to the charges for construction and mainte- 

 nance of the irrigation system made payable into the 

 reclamation fund by the provisions of the Reclamation 

 act." There were no such provisions in that act. Con- 

 gress paid no close attention to the matter, suppos- 

 ing the department knew what it was about in the 

 watering of those Indian lands and never knew, 

 and don't know today, that they were imposed on 

 in enacting a clause which was as false as could 

 be. This same clause was inserted time and time 

 again in the various Indian bills and no one questioned 

 but what the Reclamation act did so provide. When 

 the Baker vs. Swigart case came up the government 

 pleaded that clause in those various Indian acts as 

 being a congressional legislative construction of 

 what congress meant, or, in other words, the inten- 

 tion of congress on the subject. The Supreme court 

 heeded that plea in one of the most expert argu- 

 ments I ever read. By this construction the meat of 

 section six was annulled, but was not declared void 

 for any reason, but simply made to read exactly the 



