THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



175 



CONGRESS HOLDS DOWN WATER RIGHT COSTS 



WHERE the cost of a Federal irrigation project 

 has been fixed by public notice by the Secre- 

 tary of the Interior, no new work which may in- 

 crease the cost of water to the settlers can be under- 

 taken by the Reclamation Service, unless the set- 

 tlers agree to accept such increased costs. Con- 

 gress incorporated such a provision in the Reclama- 

 tion Service appropriation bill. It reads as follows: 



"'No work shall be undertaken or expenditures 

 made for any lands, for which the construction 

 charge has been fixed by public notice, which work 

 or expenditure shall, in the opinion of the Secre- 

 tary of the Interior, increase the construction cost 

 above the construction charge so fixed, unless and 

 until valid and binding agreement to repay the cost 

 thereof shall have been entered into between the 

 Secretary of the Interior and the water right ap- 

 plicants and entrymen affected by such increased 

 cost, as provided by section four of the act of Au- 

 gust 13, 1914, entitled, 'An Act extending the period 

 of payment under reclamation projects, and for 

 other purposes.' " 



Appropriations for the Reclamation Service for 

 the fiscal year of 1916, beginning July 1, 1915, total 

 $13,530,000. Appropriations for the various projects 

 are as follows : 



Yuma project, Arizona-California, $87,000. 



Grand Valley project, Colorado, $702,000. 



Uncompahgre project, Colorado, $469,000. 



Boise project, Idaho, $1,650,000. 



Minidoka project, Idaho, $410,000. 



Jackson Lake, enlargement work, Idaho-Wy- 



oming. For maintenance, operation, continuation 

 of construction, and incidental operations, condi- 

 tioned upon the deposit of this amount by the Kuhn 

 Irrigation and Canal Company and the Twin Falls 

 Canal Company to the credit of the Reclamation 

 fund, $476,000. 



Garden City project, Kansas, $2,000. 



Huntley project, Montana, $150,000. 



Milk River project, Montana, $1,100,000. 



Sun River project, Montana, $1,100,000. 



Lower Yellowstone project, Montana-North 

 Dakota, $70,000. 



North Platte project, Nebraska-Wyoming (in- 

 cluding $800,000 for the Fort Laramie unit), $1,- 

 140,000. 



Truckee-Carson project, Nevada, $236,000. 



Carlsbad project, New Mexico, $128,000. 



Hondo project, New Mexico, $6,000. 



Rio Grande project, New Mexico-Texas, $1,- 

 265,000. 



North Dakota pumping project, North Da- 

 kota, $25,000. 



Lawton project, Oklahoma, $50,000. 



Umatilla project, Oregon, $366,000. 



Klamath project, Oregon-California, $317,000. 



Belle Fourche project, South Dakota, $144,000. 



Strawberry Valley project, Utah, $393,000. 



Okanogan project, Washington, $51,000. 



Yakima project, Washington, $1,250,000. 



Shoshone project, Wyoming, $478,000. 



Secondary projects: For surveys and investi- 

 gations of secondary projects, $50,000. 



FORCED TO RECALL OPERATION CHARGES 



^~\PERATION and maintenance charges an- 

 \-J nounced recently in the various projects by Sec- 

 retary of the Interior Lane have caused much dis- 

 satisfaction in some of the projects. So serious was 

 the feeling in the Truckee-Carson project in Ne- 

 vada that the Secretary telegraphed the project 

 manager to refrain from putting the order into ef- 

 fect and notifying him that changes in the public 

 notice were being considered. 



The charges vary in the different projects. 

 Those announced in the Truckee-Carson are : 



Minimum charge, 75c per acre, one acre-foot 

 allowed ; second acre-foot 20c, third acre-foot 30c, 

 fourth acre-foot 50c, fifth acre-foot, and each acre- 

 foot additional, 75c. 



In discussing the charges the Churchill County 

 Eagle, of Fallen, Nev., says : 



"The proposed ruling loaded an outrageous 

 charge on all classes of sandy soil where a large 

 quantity of water is essential for the production 

 of crops a charge that is practically prohibitive. 

 As most of our readers are aware, the original 

 maintenance and operation charges were 40 cents 

 per acre per year. This was advanced to 60 cents 

 and last -year it was 75 cents. 



"The contracts with the government call for 



three acre-feet, or as much thereof as may be neces- 

 sary. However, there are many classes of lands 

 that do not need anywhere near that much, while 

 others require even six acre-feet per irrigation sea- 

 son to produce crops successfully. 



"This paper asked one of the most thoughtful 

 and conservative ranchers of the Fernley district 

 what he thought of the new ruling and he replied 

 that he could hardly talk about it. When pressed 

 as to what difference it would probably make in 

 his maintenance charges, he replied that where it 

 cost him $90 for water for his land last year, the 

 charge under the new ruling would be between 

 $300 and $400. Under the proposed schedule he 

 did not believe it possible, considering the condition 

 of his land, to produce crops with a quantity of 

 water that would come under $300. 



"This instance may be one of the extremes, 

 but we believe there is a great deal of land that will 

 come under the same class. In such cases it would 

 be equivalent to the government confiscating the 

 land. 



"Under the administration of Secretary Frank- 

 lin K. Lane the settlers of the Truckee-Carson proj- 

 ect have fared better than under any former sec- 

 (Continued on page 183.) 



