236 



THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



OD pity the water users on the Carlsbad project." 

 These are the closing words of a statement by 

 Prof. T. U. Taylor of Austin, Texas, Secretary of the 

 Interior Lane's member of the Board of Review and 

 Revaluation on the Carlsbad (N. M.) project. The 

 statement was forwarded to Secretary Lane with the 

 decision of the Carlsbad board, the first one of the 

 project revaluation deci- 

 sions to be announced. 



The Carlsbad decision 

 is a remarkable document. 



It is a stinging indict- 

 ment of the Reclamation 

 Service. 



It recommends that the 

 construction charges be 

 cut from $55 per acre to 

 $34 per acre. 



It further recommends 

 that, if as the Reclamation 

 law now provides, title to 

 the dams and main works 

 shall remain in the United 

 States government, then 

 the construction cost shall 

 be $20.71 per acre instead 

 of $55 per acre. 



The tremendous differ- 

 ence in the charges of the 

 Reclamation Service and 

 what the majority of the 

 board finds to be the 

 proper cost is due, ac- 

 cording to the decision, to 

 incompetency, waste, ex- 

 travagance and excessive 

 overhead charges. 



The findings, which are 

 addressed to Secretary 

 Lane, with the history of the project eliminated, 

 follows : 



Caption to Findings 



Your board finds that under the law it is not just 

 to charge as a proper cost the reservoirs 3nd works 

 necessary for their protection. If this is true it is just 

 to add to this the waste and extravagance in the other 

 portion of the project where no benefit was derived to 

 the settlers, as an additional improper charge. 



Should this be determined by the secretary not to 

 be true this board finds that the waste and extravagance 



Elwood Mead, who is en his way from Australia to serve as a 

 member of Secretary of the Interior Lane's supreme court of review 

 of costs and revaluation of the federal irrigation projects. 



in the headworks, reservoirs and works for their pro- 

 tection, together with the waste in construction and 

 maintenance in other features of the project where no 

 benefit was derived, should be added together and 

 charged to profit and loss, or some other account which 

 may be available as an unjust and improper charge and 

 not to be returned by the water users of the Carlsbad 



project. 



Therefore, we have sep- 

 arated our findings under 

 separate headings produc- 

 ing different results as we 

 see them, so that if the 

 first is rejected, it will still 

 leave the other to be the 

 judgment and findings of 

 this board of review. 



Finding No. 1 



The findings of fact 

 based upon the findings 

 and personal investiga- 

 tions of this board, charg- 

 ing of items of cost under 

 the instructions of the sec- 

 retary of the interior to 

 this board, with special 

 reference to waste, mis- 

 management, and exces- 

 sive charges in expendi- 

 tures giving items of cost 

 which this board now 

 finds are not proper 

 charges against the Carls- 

 bad project. 



In reviewing the special 

 items of cost, the mem- 

 bers of this board have 

 been surprised and some- 

 what chagrined and dis- 

 appointed in arriving at a statement of "Quantities" 

 and "Unit Costs.'' This information was necessary to 

 ascertain the proper construction cost to be collected 

 tinder the terms of the Reclamation Act. and in many 

 cases has not been accessible. Your board has been 

 furnished with not less than six estimates of cost fur- 

 nished by the United States Reclamation Service and 

 all appear to give quantities and unit costs and no two 

 of these statements agree. Special attention is called 

 to exhibits 2, 18, 29, 42, 50 and 51, which statements 

 will certify these findings to you. We have examined 

 and considered every item of quantity, unit cost and 



