240 



THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



MINIDOKA PROJECT SAYS STICK TO CONTRACTS 



WATER 

 Users 

 on the Mini- 

 doka project 

 kicked off 

 the lid of 

 R eclamation 

 S e r vice af- 

 fairs when 

 the revalua- 

 t i o n board 

 met in Ru- 

 pert, Idaho. 

 The settlers 

 held a meet- 

 ing at which 

 the follow- 

 ing resolu- 

 t i o n was 

 adopted : 



"That we protest against the payment of one 

 cent more than we agreed to pay when we filed on 

 this land, and that we take the matter up with the 

 Commission of Review." 



A committee, consisting of F. R. Randolph, 

 W. J. Smith and P. O'Rourke, was named to make 

 a presentation of the settlers' case before the Board 

 of Review. This committee formulated the follow- 

 ing statement, which was presented to the Com- 

 mission: 



Gentlemen: We, the committee selected by 

 a number of our fellow settlers, present to you for 

 your consideration the following facts: After the 

 opening of the Project for settlement, we filed on 

 the land in accordance with the provisions of the 

 Reclamation Act, an act passed by Congress June 

 17, 1902. According to the said Reclamation Act, 

 the charge to the settlers was to be based on the 

 estimated cost, including the building of the dam, 

 all canals, laterals and sub-laterals, said canals and 

 laterals to be maintained by the government for 

 ten years or until such time as the payments re- 

 quired by the act were made for the major portion 

 of the land irrigated. Then the management and 

 operation of said irrigation works were to pass to 

 the settlers, to be maintained at their expense. 



In 1904 Mr. Hitchcock, who was then Secre- 

 tary of the Interior, published a notice in the local 

 papers, and also in pamphlet form, in which he 

 stated that the cost to the settlers for the con- 

 struction and maintenance of all canals and laterals 

 would be $26.00 per acre, to be paid in ten annual 

 installments. 



After the contractors were supposed to have 

 finished the canals, the Reclamation Service com- 

 menced work on the laterals and sub-laterals in the 

 Autumn of 1906, and continued for a short time, 

 when we were informed that the bottom had fallen 

 out of the receptacle which contained the Reclama- 

 tion fund, and that the work of building laterals 

 should cease ; that the Secretary of the Interior had 

 made a ruling to that effect : and we have had 



Watermelons raised with irrigation on the Tagtmeyer farm at Goodiand, Knns. 



rulings from Ballinger and Fisher with every 

 change of the moon during their respective term 

 in office. Some of their rulings have completely 

 usurped the power of the law-making body of the 

 nation. 



A ruling by one of these precious worthies 

 charging all those settlers $30.00 per acre who filed 

 between 1909 and 1911 is illegal, because Congress 

 did not give him authority to either increase < >r 

 decrease the price of any water right on this or 

 any other project, until the passing of the act of 

 February, 1911. 



Such illegal acts on the part of a Secretary of 

 the Interior should be treated with contempt by 

 all men who believe in a democratic form of gov- 

 ernment and are opposed to despotism. It is cer- 

 tainly a nice state of affairs when a subordinate 

 official can issue a royal edict which completely 

 supersedes the law passed in the interest of the 

 people by their elected representatives. In one of 

 these rulings we were told that we would have to 

 build the laterals to our farms if we want to get 

 water, although the Reclamation Service should 

 build and maintain all canals and laterals, accord- 

 ing to their contract with us. 



One of the reasons they have given for the 

 breaking of their contract with us was that labor 

 and material cost more than they estimated. Sup- 

 pose that labor and material did cost more than 

 they estimated, what did we have to do with that? 

 Must we pay for the mistakes of the gentleman of 

 the Reclamation Service? 



Some of the contractors became bankrupt be- 

 cause their estimates were too low. Did the Recla- 

 mation Service make good the loss sustained by 

 the contractors because of too low an estimate? 

 No, they told them they were very unfortunate. 



But the gentlemen of the Reclamation Service 

 were not quite so unfortunate. They were able to 

 make good the loss caused by their own stupidity 

 by making us pay an ever-increasing maintenance 

 charge, although the Reclamation law does not pro- 



