THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



239 



inal estimate was for 40.000 acres, \ve have not been 

 furnished with data sufficient to make a finding for 

 this acreage, although surveys and estimates have been 

 requested from the Service, which are in their hands, 

 but have been refused by the director, A. P. Davis. 



Finding No. 2 



The following is a report of the finding of this 

 board under the law makiny application of fact in con- 

 nection with the law and as your board sees it in pur- 

 suance to your instructions: 



1. THE LAW. Section 4 of the Reclamation Act 

 of June 17, 1902, states : "The said charges shall be 

 expended with the view of return to the Reclamation 

 Fund of the Estimated Cost of construction of the 

 Project." The estimated cost as shown by exhibit 13 

 and signed by G. Y. Wisner, Consulting Engineer; 

 \V. H. Sanders, Consulting Engineer, and YY. M. 

 Reed, District Manager, was $620,000, based upon an 

 area of 20,000 acres. However, the same report which 

 fixed this estimate of the first unit area stated the final 

 area of this project should be 40,000 acres. Water 

 was first placed upon the 20,000 acres and since that 

 date the area of 4,796 has been added as a second unit 

 as per public notice dated March 2, 1915. We find 

 that the construction charge under the law should be 

 the estimated cost upon the present area of 24,796 

 acres at $31 per acre, or a total construction charge of 

 $768,676 in any event. 



The water users who are expected to repay this 

 fund, reposed good faith in the Board of Reclama- 

 tion Engineers and through them expected to get a 

 square deal from the United States government. 



They accepted their report of estimated cost, and 

 signed their contract upon this project in good faith, 

 .-nortgaged their lands to pay back the estimated cost 

 to the United States government and your board finds 

 that in all fair dealings the United States government 

 should respect its own contract, which was obtained 

 through these representations to the farmer. 



2. Section 6 of the Reclamation Act provided 

 that the title of and the management and operation of 

 the reservoirs and headworks necessary for their pro- 

 tection and operation shall remain in the government 

 until otherwise provided for by Congress. In all com- 

 mon sense the farmer water user cannot be expected in 

 law and equity or square dealing to pay for anything 

 before at least receiving a promise of title or posses- 

 sion and in this Congress has not even promised to 

 deliver title or possession to the reservoirs and head- 

 works and works necessary for their protection and 

 operation. According to the statement of the Recla- 

 mation Service through its Carlsbad office the cost of 

 the Avalon and McMillan Dams, together with works 

 necessary for their protection and operation, is $401,- 

 990. Your board finds under the law and the repre- 

 sentations made to the farmers, in view of the fact 

 that the government retains title and possession under 

 the law, that the sum of $401.990 is an improper charge 

 against the Carlsbad project, being the total cost of 

 these headworks and that this sum should not be col- 

 lected from the water users. 



The United States government should not exact 

 more than is nominated in the bond and it certainly 

 should not demand more than its pound of flesh, to 

 which it is justly and legally entitled. 



Recapitulation of Finding No. 2 



Total cost of project as shown by project 



books, exhibit 50 $933,840.% 



Improper costs eliminated on account of 



title not being delivered to water users 401,990.00 



Main Canal 32,000.00 



Main Canal 4,563.93 



Dark Canyon Syphon 7,467.76 



Engineering and overhead 68,000.00 



Total amount eliminated because of title 

 and amounts charged off to profit and 

 and loss outside of the headworks and 

 works necessary for their protection. .$514,041.69 



We find the total proper building cost under 



this method to be $419,799.27 



We find the proper building cost per acre 



under this finding to be $ 20.71 



This finding is based upon the area of 20,273 acres 

 excluding the new unit and the balance of our remarks 

 in finding Xo. 1 applies to this. 



(Signed) T. U. TAYLOR, 

 (Signed) SCOTT ETTER. 

 I dissent. 



(Signed) D. W. MURPHY. 

 Minority report will be submitted. 



Comments by T. U. Taylor, member Board of 

 Ret'iezv, Carlsbad Project: 



Let the record of findings show : That T. U. Tay- 

 lor, third member of the Board of Cost Review on the 

 Carlsbad Project, asserts his right under Section 8 of 

 the instructions from Secretary of the Interior to make 

 individual comment relative to the character and 

 amount of the charges on this project in his additional 

 statement, which is in addition to the itemized findings 

 of the board. 



1. It is true that the Reclamation Act limited the 

 hours of labor to be performed upon the construction 

 of the projects to eight hours per day, but the facili- 

 ties of the Reclamation Service for obtaining much 

 cheaper supplies, such as cement and other materials, 

 and its low freight rates would largely tend to balance 

 this handicap of eight hour labor. 



2. It is believed, and it is my best judgment, that 

 had the Reclamation Service adopted the usual classi- 

 fication of material, such as obtained generally in the 

 west, it could have let contracts that would have saved 

 at least 33V 3 per cent of the Carlsbad project as a 

 whole. The definition of class 3 material was stipu- 

 lated as such material as could be plowed by a six 

 mule or horse team, each mule or horse weighing 1,400 

 pounds. This within itself was sufficient to announce 

 to this section of the country : "No hope of a con- 

 tract ye who enter here." 



Recently I collected from several Texas cities 

 statements on this question, and I here submit the re- 

 sults, and in order to head off demands for "exhibits," 

 I shoulder the responsibility for the correctness of the 

 same: 



(Continued on page 249) 



